Only weeks after the peculiar, entirely symbolical and possibly dangerous Earth Hour gimmick, it’s now the 42′nd Earth Day. Hard to be against the Earth, but I’ve never understood the tendency to use these events to suggest an ongoing conflict between the earth and humanity.  

CFACT International President David Rothbard comments:

“Celebrate them all, we should. But as faithful followers of CFACT know, today’s environmentalism (at least the kind that gets all the attention) isn’t so much about reveling in the beauty of nature and its amazements as it is in using this lofty matter to hammer away at human productivity, prosperity, and plenty. Saddest and ironic of all, of course, is that people prospering is the very thing that helps us steward the environment the best.”

 You might add that without humans, there wouldn’t be an Earth Day, or that without human action, in the form of development and exploitation, there would be no humans. Ecological nostalgia is sometimes tempting to some, but I believe we all realize that if time travel was possible, none of us would survive even minutes in a prehistoric era.

 So, let’s take the opportunity to celebrate the innovations that increasingly is making it possible to lead a life even in areas still ridden by hardship. Not of prehistoric proportions, but at least with meagre possibilities to adjust housing and clothing to the weather, choose what we eat, or even have access to fresh drinking water.

Today’s sunny news is that Brittish scientists now have shown that hidden groundwater resources wating to be exploited in Africa, may amount to a hundred times the more shallow wells being used today.

  ”We estimate total groundwater storage in Africa to be 0.66 million km³ (0.36–1.75 million km³). Not all of this groundwater storage is available for abstraction, but the estimated volume is more than 100 times estimates of annual renewable freshwater resources on Africa. Groundwater resources are unevenly distributed: the largest groundwater volumes are found in the large sedimentary aquifers in the North African countries Libya, Algeria, Egypt and Sudan. Nevertheless, for many African countries appropriately sited and constructed boreholes can support handpump abstraction (yields of 0.1–0.3 l s⁻¹), and contain sufficient storage to sustain abstraction through inter-annual variations in recharge.” (Environmental Research Letters)

Getting access to this life saving resource will require skill and technology. Luckily, both have been let to flourish in parts of the world, less hurt by dictatorships, wars, socialism and misguided green activism and legislation.

A bit confused. As every year. Rather used to working and traveling across time zones, but the daylight saving time switch somehow doesn’t really get along with my head. At least no heart attack, though they are reported to be more frequent in connection to the switch. And all the farmers, and their cattle, sigh once again.

Sincerely hope too, that niehter I, nor anyone else, will be injured during the upcoming, annual Earth Day, but that might be too much to hope for. The stupidity is on again. I write about it every year, apparently to no avail, as it’s still on.

No one, at least no one serious about it, even among the enthusiasts claim that cutting all lights for one hour, would do anything to save energy, or the climate. At best it could disrupt the electricity flow and cause more severe power failures. If that is the goal.

It’s symbolic, it’s claimed. I certainly agree. If anything, it serves as a reminder of how important electricity and energy is. Not just to the hospitals, that hopefully wont participate this year either, or the traffic lights, also, hopefully not out, but for most of our daily lives. Returning to candles, or to the era before the tamed fire, is not really a desirable option.

We’ll see how many accidents there will be this year. Luckily the counter movement Life Hour, (available on Facebook), seems to be gaining some momentum. Lighten up!

The most famous bet in the environmental debate is probably the one between the Late Julian Simon and alarmist Paul Erlich in 1980, over predicted shortage in natural resources. As much as the story still amuses me, it also serves as a constant reminder of the optimism we all deserve more of.

In this proud tradition, the no less proud Dr David Whitehouse, found himself in a global warming bet,staged by the BBC. Reports Whitehouse:

 ”…eventually the BBC’s radio programme “More or Less” got in touch. The programme is about numbers and statistics and they set up a series of interviews. You can hear the programme here.

Almost at the last minute the programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new record set by 2011. It was made between climatologist James Annan and myself. His work involves analysing climatic data and validating climate models. He accepted enthusiastically as he has a perchant for taking on ‘sceptics.’ The presenter said that if the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there would be some explaining to do.”

Later today, January 13^th, “More or Less” returns to the bet,which I am pleased to say I won, though I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.”

Congratualtions! Considering the hilarious amounts of money circling around in the alarmist hemisphere, maybe serious gambling could be a solid way for realists to make a decent living.

Yesterday, I watched that widely acclaimed movie by Nora Ephron about Julia Childs and her later follower. Marvelous. And somehow, all about butter.

I seldom use butter, as I prefere olive oil, but for certain dishes it’s the best option. All sorts of fish, for example.

How interesting then that there is a current butter crisis in the stores. The cows to blame? Some people have actually suggested that.

But then there is this peculiar thing called the Butter Mountain in the EU. Simply put, a surplus (according to the politicians), calling for regulations within the CAP system, and – surprise – you suddenly have a shortage.

Let’s see what comes next. In Venezuela, one of the largest coffee been producers in the world, there is currently a coffee shortage.

In all cases of shortages, my Professor once told me, look for the price mechanism. And if a politician has meddled with it.

Sure, I can live without butter (after all there are substitutes), maybe even coffee, but there are worse situations out there, where regulations, or simply playing around with the market, cause real starvation.

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

1,000 land-based wind turbines stand to be scrapped if government follows through and slashes millions of pounds in subsidies.  A report commissioned by ScottishPower concludes that reducing subsidies 25 percent will render the turbines a loss maker for investors instead of just rate and taxpayers.

CFACT continues to conclude that alternative energy sources such as wind and solar should only be deployed when they can compete effectively with other sources of energy.  Locking in inefficient power generation and the subsidies and guarantees that goes with it will have a terrible long term impact on industry as well as family finances.  Sadly, under current policy, wind turbines are more efficient at generating handouts from working people than electricity.

Scotland is plagued with unemployment numbers that keep rising to the north side of eight percent.  Industry continues to bypass regions like Scotland seeking out places to produce where costs and regulatory burdens are less.  Unfortunately, scrapping these land-based turbines could lead to relocating them offshore, where the subsidy pot is still full, at great cost to rate and taxpayers.  Scotland should instead lead the way, drop the subsidies and schemes and enable all forms of power generation to compete in the marketplace.  Efficiency and low cost is how to keep Scotland working.  The prosperity that results will green the environment more than top down mandates ever will.

The Telegraph reports that British nobles, including Dukes and a cousin of the Queen are cashing in on tax and ratepayer subsidies to erect wind farms on their country estates.  Each turbine can net a noble £20,000 a year or more.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s father-in-law is a baronet who is pulling in “as much as £350,000 a year from eight turbines on his estate at Bagmoor in Lincolnshire.”  This may give Cameron’s un-torylike policy surrender to radical green interests some perspective.

For generations the UK could count on its aristocrats’ selfless noblesse oblige.  Country estates have traditionally been havens of bucolic green space and conservation.  Today’s gentle folk appear ready to abandon the needs of the land and bring industrial turbines to glen, wood, hillside and moor.  We’ve entered a brave new millennium of selfish noblesse spolio.

Sadly, many of these turbines end up situated in inland areas where there isn’t even much wind.  They generate not electricity, but subsidies.

The Telegraph quoted “Sir Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust but speaking in a personal capacity [who] said: “The level of subsidy available to landowners to put up these turbines is out of all proportion to the public benefit derived from them and the temptation to ruin what is usually outstanding landscapes is overwhelming. It is a crime against the landscape.”

This may well be the worst example of regressive redistribution of wealth in Britain since the Sheriff of Nottingham shook down the peasants for Prince John.

In one of the – I admit funny – Naked Gun movies, the plot (if you could call it that) is the conflict between the good alternative energy guys and a peculiar conspiracy consisting of the guys in oil, coal and nuclear energy. Regardless of the stupidity in the entire plot, I remember being quite intrigued by finding nuclear on that side of the fence. Normally, nuclear power has been considered “alternative”, for those who despise fossil fuels, or don’t have access to rivers to exploit.

There has, however, been quite a lot of water under the bridges since the technology was taken into use. The following debate, first enthusiastic, the increasingly sceptical, has also changed. First into a leveling out, then into plain hysteria following the tragic accident in Japan, prompting the German government to take the hasty decision to discontinue all nuclear power generation.

One thing to remember is that as the debate, and the technology, is grovoing so old we have difficulties calling it alternative, so are most of the plants.

Meanwhile, new technology is being developed.

Smaller, local units have been an option for a long time. Now, we can look forwards to the next generation of reactors, the Gen IV. This is predicted to increase the effect per plutonium unit around 100 times, thus limiting the need to dig for uranium, and drastically facilitate the storage. As for the latter, new technology has also been developed over the years.

Need I mention that safety will be increased.

However, my conviction, explained in earlier postings, remains. Don’t destroy this by governmental ownership, and pay your insurance. And don’t expect government handouts if it should fail, in other words, don’t do what the governments and the bank sector did. I don’t want another chaos. I want electricity.

Reuters reports that with half of major energy suppliers in the UK announcing double digit price increases for electricity and gas the British public has had enough.  75 percent now favor abandoning Britain’s green agenda if it means higher prices.

The problem of course is after you thwart efficient nuclear, coal and gas generation and lock in guarantees, subsidies and high prices for alternative energy profiteers it is almost impossible to go back.

Developed nations like the UK already price their labor out of the marketplace with the high costs of their social welfare states.   Affordable energy is one area in which developed nations should have the edge, yet they toss that advantage away in the name of useless carbon initiatives.   A government study predicts energy costs for British business will rise 58 percent by 2030.  Who will be able to afford to work or produce in such a wasteful environment?

CFACT has consistently pointed out that this combination of high energy prices, inefficient generation and massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers to corporations cashing in on alternative energy is unsustainable.

Will nations which have not yet locked themselves into the same energy cage as Britain wake up in time to avoid a similar trap?  Will China, India and Brazil generously grant work visas to workers from (one-time) developed nations who need a job?

German Chancellor Merkel’s announcement that all nuclear plants will be shut down within ten years has, rightly caused both joy, confusion and fear. Not just in Germany, but all over Europe.

That the announcement was triggered by the resurrected anti nuclear campaign, smelling fresh blood after the – no doubt – catastrophic accident in Japan is self evident. Another word for this is populism. Or, maybe, panic.

Once that public and apparently governmental panic has settled, it’s a fair guess that this hasty decision will be revoked in a few years time. Until then, the problems remain.

Germany is not Japan and also not a dangerous area for earthquakes. Chernobyl was a Soviet plant, with all what that contains of old technology and bad security measures.

The problem with nuclear power is that it carries – or should carry – high insurance costs. The solution is to let the industry, not the half or full governmental companies, run the plants. And, naturally, pay the insurance premium. The technological development for both the reactors and the post handling has developed enormously, but is hindered by regulations, and in this case hasty decisions. Virtually safe, smaller installations have been developed, but what’s the incentive to continue working when your project can be stopped any second by populist politicians?

A fair estimate is that due to this, electricity prices will double, having an impact on both industry and households, not only in Germany, but in most of Europe. That is no walk in the park.

One question remains. Will the Merkel government now follow in the footsteps of the previous Social Democrat/Green government and start ruining villages to make way for coal mines, as for example in Horno, the last Sorbian village? If that would cost less in popularity, something is definitely wrong.