Might appreciate some real support - not corruption and stupidity

The heroic boy scouts collected money, went to a village in deepest Africa and helped develop a well. A few month later, excessive use had dried it up and the final result was an extension of the desert.

Examples of unintended consequences (and sometimes plain stupidity) in development aid are numerous, some probably myths by now. Distributing loads of pork to Muslim countries. Rushing factory building until the installation collapse on top of people. The literature is also quite extensive. A useful introduction, or summary may be this.

Important to remember is that humanitarian catastrophes are seldom, if ever, caused by real villains in these cases, hence the words unintended and aid. Wars, planned famine and genocides are indeed orchestrated by evil, but they are never intended by the do-gooders.

The problems occur both with voluntary help and government programs, though the latter, for natural reason, tend to be more dangerous. As a matter of fact, lot’s of people working with government aid are smart, caring people, but often trapped in the system. One such hazard is the idea, launched some decades ago, and implemented in some countries, to legislate allocation of a minimum level of GDP to the foreign aid budget. Both the government, and the associated authorities are then forced to spend the annual funds.

Some countries try to make the best of the situation, for example by allocating funds to emergency help rather than budget support. Pouring money into a corrupt countries state budget most often leads to, in the less evil scenario, the money going straight into a Swiss bank account, or, which is worse, into buying weaponry used against neighbours or the country’s own population. On the other hand, budget support can also be the only way to boost investments in infrastructure. An alternative to building governmental roads and airports is of course to let private companies both develop, build and own. Such investments tend, if they are even allowed, however to be quite risky for the entrepreneur, facing the constant threat of both war and plain nationalization. The only simple solution, if not sufficient, seems to be to, to the extent possible, minimize governmental aid and let the not so small private, international networks do the job.

CFACT did have some other activities in Copenhagen as well

At the COP 15 in Copenhagen, remember, when the whole world was in hysteria over global warming and the last chance to halt it, one of the things that came out of the – otherwise generally considered catastrophic – meeting, was a pledge by developed countries to help third world countries, that somehow would be hurt the worst by weather changes. And not aloud to burn fossil fuels to develop, you might add. The discussion then moved to a hassle over if this, quite substantial sum, could be included in the budgets for foreign aid, or if it should be earmarked on top of these.

I spent most of the time in on of the cafeterias in the middle f it all. A great place both to write, go through collected material and listen in on the neighbours. Working was out of the question when a quite substantial African delegation nicked most of our chairs (luckily not the one I was sitting in) and started a loud meeting. It was in French, but I can tell you that it was not about global warming, or about the environment at all. It was about how to get as much money as possible from the naive tax payers up North.

All the players are gearing up for the Durban festivities in a month. Though only accounting for about 11 percent of the worlds carbon emissions, the European Union, not surprisingly wants to play a major role.

Euractiv gives an update:

The Daily Telegraph Reports

We’re not making this up.

This is part of an astonishing £523 million in subsidy payments British ratepayers sent to foreign wind corporations.

Foreign oil was not enough?  Foreign wind?

_____

UPDATE:

Telegraph Editorial:  Wind power: a policy spinning out of control

A screwdriver often comes in handy. But not as a soup ingredient. Black pepper is essential in any cooking. But don’t try repairing your bike with it.

Calculation of GDP is, not only among laymen like myself, but also among skilled economists, regarded as a tricky tool indeed. Still, it’ very useful, also for the general public, in trying to grasp all sorts of economic facts and development.

Since the mid 90′s, scientists, but predominantly politicians, have been playing with the concept of a Green GDP, expanding the data to include environmental costs. This process is now gaining speed, e.g., in the World Bank.

This is a questionable path. Even as, naturally, growth and hardship can be linked to environmental factors, it’s not the same thing as to say that environmental factors should be regarded as exclusive data in their own right. Further, changing the calculation methods is difficult for several reasons. You need an international consensus, otherwise comparisons will be meaningless. GDP figures are used to calculate changes over time. If you mess with it, you will have to – somehow – compensate against historical figures.

And including “climate change”, as is being more and more talked about? Careful here. This is an ongoing debate and predictions are all but clear. And how do you intend to translate the virtual lack of global warming over the past decade into economic figures?

GDP, with all it’s shortcomings, is at least useful for showing the development of the GDP/Tax pressure ratio, over time, and in comparison with other countries. Adding new, rather shaky variables seems like little more than inventing another tool for the politicians to polish their statistics.

Just think again, before you pour those extra spices in the soup, try to fix the brakes on your bike. Or try to fix international, economic statistics.

The Guardian reports that “world-class research into future sources of green energy is under threat in Britain from an environmental tax designed to boost energy efficiency and drive down carbon emissions.”  Researchers at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy complained to The Guardian that, “considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill…  We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that.”

We sympathize.  The power of taxation and control to thwart human  progress is no surprise to CFACT.  However, unlike The Guardian we do not restrict our sympathy to those on the receiving end of carbon funding.  We’re sure that there are still some hardy UK folks making useful products (their jobs as yet, not outsourced to China) who also need “electricity to run the machine” and can find “no way of getting around that.”

The carbon reduction commitment scheme is a prosperity destroying mistake and should be abandoned.  Only those seeking a direct handout or competitive advantage over British industry have reason to love the perverse CRC.

ROGER HELMER, MEP

Senator Harry Reid has repeatedly denounced opposition to carbon trading as “dangerous.” Senator Reid is wrong. It is the House and Senate climate and renewable energy bills that are dangerous. Fortunately, the recent elections and the ongoing dissension at the Cancun climate summit could bode ill for carbon trading, any successor to Kyoto – and renewable energy standards.

Carbon trading is wrong on so many levels. First, there is a growing realization that the small changes we are seeing in Earth’s climate are entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles, and that CO₂ (a minor trace gas in the atmosphere) has a trivial effect on climate.

Second, many studies have shown that plans to slash fossil fuel use, even if fully implemented, would have a trivial impact on the trajectory of climate – perhaps a tenth of a degree by 2100. And that assumes carbon dioxide really is the driving force in climate change. If it’s not, we get zero benefits, at a huge, economically devastating, wealth-redistributing price tag.

Third, most of the authoritative economic studies on carbon trading demonstrate clearly that its costs always greatly exceed any conceivable benefits. As far as I know, the UK’s Stern Review is the only major study that concludes “the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of mitigation” – and Stern has been comprehensively and authoritatively refuted. The recent collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange further underscores the corruption, futility and would-be profiteering inherent in all carbon trading schemes.

A number of commentators, including notably former UK Finance Minister Lord Nigel Lawson, have argued that if any action is called for in the face of climate changes, adaptation is the best and most proper precautionary approach – as and when the need emerges. It is also far cheaper than mitigation, avoids massive up-front costs to deal with a highly speculative problem, and improves our ability to respond to the natural climate changes and extreme weather events that have always battered human civilization.

If we want to reduce emissions (and the case for doing so is increasingly doubtful), then trading in carbon dioxide molecules is simply a bad way to do it. Those who are still tempted by the Siren call of carbon trading should look at the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS).

The ETS has clearly failed to reduce emissions. Indeed, the ongoing recession has done a much better job. However, as studies by the London think-tank Open Europe (www.openeurope.org.uk) and other respected analysts have documented, the ETS has created massive unintended consequences and perverse incentives that have imposed great costs on European economies, consumers, taxpayers and employers.

ETS/ carbon trading also depends enormously on initial conditions, which are set by bureaucrats, and it creates a huge lobbying industry, as businesses seek to influence the conditions to enhance their competitive advantage. Consider these fundamental questions.

Who measures the emissions? What is the cut-off point for the minimum emissions that trigger mandatory trading for emission credits? What grandfather rights do we offer to existing emitters?

Oxford Union Chooses Economic Growth Over Climate Change

Debate Win for CFACT Advisor Lord Christopher Monckton

Last week the Oxford Union, one of the world’s premier debate societies, chose economic growth over climate change by a vote of 133-110.  The vote by students at an elite U.K. university illustrates the continued shift of  public support away from the global warming scare.

The proponents of global warming policy always seem to lose whenever they encounter a fair forum where both sides receive equal time.  Key warmists such as Nobel Laureate Al Gore and the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri avoid debate at all costs.   Lord Monckton has repeatedly offered to debate Mr. Gore.  Mr. Gore if you truly want us all to agree to massive restrictions to our freedom and a lower standard of living it’s time you step up and debate.

The case in favor of the proposition, “This House would put economic growth before combating climate change” was argued by Lord Christopher Monckton, Lord Leach of Fairford, Lord Lawson of Blaby former Chancellor of the Exchequer and James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph.  The opposition was argued by Rajesh Makwana of Share the World’s Resources, Lord Larry Whitty, former Under-Secretary of State of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mike Mason of Climate Care and Zara McGlone, Union Secretary.

The Science and Public Policy Institute gave the following account:

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.

When the Union’s president, Laura Winwood, announced the result in the Victorian-Gothich Gladstone Room, three peers cheered with the undergraduates, and one peer drowned his sorrows in beer.

Lord Lawson of Blaby, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister, opened the case for the proposition by saying that the economic proposals put forward by the UN’s climate panel and its supporters did not add up. It would be better to wait and see whether the scientists had gotten it right. It was not sensible to make expensive spending commitments, particularly at a time of great economic hardship, when the effectiveness of the spending was gravely in doubt and when it might do more harm than good.

At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institute’s sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute.

Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence].

Mr. James Delingpole, a blogger for the leading British conservative national newspaper The Daily Telegraph, seconded the proposition, saying that – politically speaking – the climate extremists had long since lost the argument. The general public simply did not buy the scare stories any more. The endless tales of Biblical disasters peddled by the alarmist faction were an unwelcome and now fortunately failed recrudescence of dull, gray Puritanism. Instead of hand-wringing and bed-wetting, we should celebrate the considerable achievements of the human race and start having fun.

Lord Whitty, a Labor peer from the trades union movement and, until recently, Labor’s Environment Minister in the Upper House, said that the world’s oil supplies were rapidly running out [in fact, record new finds have been made in the past five years]; that we needed to change our definition of economic growth to take into account the value lost when we damaged the environment [it is artificial accounting of this kind that has left Britain as bankrupt as Greece after 13 years of Labor government]; that green jobs created by governments would help to end unemployment [but Milton Friedman won his Nobel Prize for economics by demonstrating that every artificial job created at taxpayers’ expense destroys two real jobs in the wealth-producing private sector]; that humans were the cause of most of the past century’s warming [there is no evidence for that: the case is built on speculation by programmers of computer models]; that temperature today was at its highest in at least 40 million years [in fact, it was higher than today by at least 12.5 F° for most of the past 550 million years]; and that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic [no one has asked them].

Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.

Lord Leach of Fairford, whom Margaret Thatcher appointed a Life Peer for his educational work, spoke third for the proposition. He said that we no longer knew whether or not there had been much “global warming” over the 20^th century, because the Climategate emails had exposed the terrestrial temperature records as defective. In any event, he said, throwing good money after bad on various alternative-energy boondoggles was unlikely to prove profitable in the long term and would ultimately do harm.

Mr. Rajesh Makwana, executive director of “Share The World’s Resources”, speaking third for the opposition, said that climate change was manmade [but he did not produce any evidence for that assertion]; that CO2 emissions were growing at 3% a year [but it is concentrations, not emissions, that may in theory affect climate, and concentrations are rising at a harmless 0.5% a year]; that the UN’s climate panel had forecast a 7 F° “global warming” for the 21^st century [it’s gotten off to a bad start, with a cooling of 0.2 F° so far]; and that the consequences of “global warming” would be dire [yet, in the audience, sat Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, whose landmark paper of 2008 had established that not one of 539 scientific papers on “global climate change” provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” would be catastrophic].

Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].

Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.

Mr. Mike Mason, founder and managing director of “Climate Care”, concluded for the opposition. He said that the proposition were peculiar people, and that Lord Monckton was more peculiar than most, in that he was not a real Lord. Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers] Mr. Mason then said that we had to prepare for climate risks [yes, in both directions, towards cooler as well as warmer]; and that there was a “scientific consensus” [but he offered no evidence for the existence of any such consensus, still less for the notion that science is done by consensus].

The President thanked the speakers and expressed the Society’s gratitude to the Science and Public Policy Institute for sponsoring the debate. Hon. Members filed out of the Debating Chamber, built to resemble the interior of the House of Commons, and passed either side of the brass division-pole at the main door – Ayes to the right 135, Noes to the left 110. Motion carried.

Investing your money and savings for your pension in funds that advertise themselves as more “ethical” than others? Maybe it’s time to think again.

Environmental watchdogs are increasingly pointing out funds as dubious, because of investments in different energy companies. In a recent – undercover – study (Swedish) non of the four checked banks proved to offer the clean investments they advertise.

Fraud? Not really, but certainly hypocrisy.

The criteria change and the transparency should not be taken for granted. Funds that exclude energy companies naturally do not exclude wind and solar energy, and oil companies can be accepted as long as they claim to be investing in new technology. No one looks at what companies expropriate land with the help of government, only – sometimes – if they can be suspected of taking part in a downright military conflict. Well, even the latter can be discussed. What if the company are on the side of the god guys? Yes, who are the good guys…? Should the hotel chain to which the “Hotel Rwanda” belongs be excluded for involvement in a conflict? Or, for that matter, any company doing business in communist China?

In churches and help organisations, most often run like big corporations, the – typically professional – financial analysts are often furious over stricter criteria, simply because they may mean less revenue, and consequently less money for charitable work.

More and more funds are even putting global warming into their names. They should be free to do that, but to expect to fall in the the category of ethical funds because of an asserted ambivalence towards CO2, in a debate where it’s not at all certain that any global warming is going on, and especially not if it then would be caused by human activity, is more than pretentious.

Anyone should be free to select investments based on convictions, and anyone should have the right to proper information. As this dubious market looks today, my recommendation would be to simply go for the most prosperous investments, in the more solid belief that prosperity and growth is and will be the best antidote against humanitarian and environmental problems.

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez is a most innovative man. With his peculiar combination of home made socialism, populist nationalism and impulsive despotism, you never can tell what the next brilliant idea will be.

He decided to change his country’s time zone with half an hour, presumably just for fun. He managed to create a shortage of coffee, in one of the major coffee producing countries in the world, by introducing price controls. And he has managed to stay in power.

He now has noticed that there is a risk of electricity shortage, and that the consumption is far too high compared to other countries in the region. Wonder why. Counter measures now include cutting of power entirely for, presumably randomly selected, institutions, like restaurants, office buildings and others, for 24 hours at a time. A bit like taking the Earth Hour a couple of steps further, and skip that voluntary part.

Moreover, the Easter holidays will be extended by three days, to halt energy consumption in production. Again, most likely creating new deficits in new areas.

As exciting as always. Watch out, maybe in half a year he will decide to cancel Christmas.

Sometimes, just having fun is the best option

The Copenhagen process, or what has become the official name, is strolling along. Most countries (read: politicians) have signed the no-one-knows-really-what-to-call- it document, though some after deadline. Reviving Kyoto is still on the table, recently half heartedly suggested by the European Union (read: a bunch of politicians from countries with different agendas).

At the same time, the UN (read: even more people with different agendas) has decided to let new people have another look at the IPCC report that was the official document before the above mentioned became desperate to at least take some action. Before it became apparent that the report in many aspects was flawed. No one suggests it was altogether wrong.

The scientific work is starting – hopefully – all over again. The political game continues as if nothing, really, has happened.

In real life, people are constantly, sometimes more seriously confronted with choices. Make a huge investment? Buy  a house? Get married? Buy a dog?

Most often, these choices deserve some consideration. If on top, you discover that your bank man might not really be your best friend, or that maybe there’s something fishy about the kennel, you might want to reconsider. Or at least check out the facts. It might, after all turn out that your suspicions were wrong and you can get that dog you dreamed of.

These issues don’t affect millions of people unknown to you. There is a slight difference between forcing the rest of the world to adjust their life styles, pay billions for your projects and risk famine And risk having to apologize for a barking dog.

Hey my environmentalist big wig friends and whomever, let’s just sit down and take a deep breath. While waiting for the cleaning up to be finished, we could have a coffee, chat about other matters or, why not really continue the discussion! It’s not a game, so please don’t start throwing in your bets.