One of the less endearing features of government supporters is their general disdain for democracy when eventually popular vote goes against their designs. The legitimacy of consent suddenly becomes irrelevant and a downright nuisance. In Europe, we experienced this in the constitutional negotiations: first with the Maastricht Treaty, and more recently with the Lisbon Treaty: referenda were held twice in Denmark (1992) and not so long ago in Ireland. Voters finally got it “right”.

The same logic applies to Kyoto and in particular to the upcoming Copenhagen summit and the expected new treaty, i.e. a “deal”. It is then not surprising that advocates seem appalled that the US Constitution requires a vote by Congress to ratify it.

Considering that parts of the environmental lobby aim at gaining control of the energy supply in developed countries (with little or no concern for the developing world), it should not be surprising that people in Africa and Asia expect to have their say. If you are not at the table, you are likely to end up on the menu.

Back to the fact-sheet: China is a far greater emitter of CO2 than most developed countries, yet no substantial demands have been presented in terms of Kyoto. Perhaps because of the logic of the treaty (extremely complex, with very uncertain mechanisms for implementation and enforcement). Supporters are likely to tinker, perhaps by finally granting exceptions to countries like China and India, thus exposing the double standard involved. It is likely that Copenhagen ends, like other jamborees, with a carefully worded communiqué, on progress and goodwill all around.

Maybe germane to Al Gore’s discrepancy in words and deeds: if he’s so concerned about rising sea levels, how come he owns a condo on the San Francisco waterfront? And maybe he’ll agree to the invite by our friends at the CEI to debate the issue: do subscribe today to pay for whatever private jet takes him there.

(Photos: freedigitalphotos)

In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt asked his administration to undertake a vast exploratory study of future technologies. A group of researchers eventually produced a voluminous report with fascinating insights. There was only one little glitch: the document did not foresee television, plastics, jet planes, organ transplants, laser technology, or even ballpoint pens.

As Ludwig von Mises stated, petrol is good for many things, but not for slaking your thirst. Similarly, government may be useful in some instances but not in others. The precautionary principle is good, provided it is used appropriately. We should first apply it to politics: our elected leaders should be required to produce impact studies, showing, ex ante, that their planned interventions will have a positive effect. Thus the scope of government would spontaneously be reduced to its congruent portion.

Here is a formidable source of data on climate change, courtesy of prof. Lindzen (MIT) from a CEI presentation a couple of weeks ago. Once more, he reminds us that many statements bandied about and accepted as gospel truths are in fact serious distortions and sometimes outright contrary even to authorities such as the IPCC.

Try this one for size:

“The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer (…) Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions. (…) Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”

Sounds familiar? Sure, must have read it in the paper last week. Fact: the Arctic variations are notorious and the report above was issued by the US Weather Bureau in … 1922.

“Warming is accelerating and sea levels will rise more than expected.” The IPCC mid-range 10 year projection is 1.26 inches and may not clearly be distinguished from the change registered since the ice age ended, ie for some 10,000 years.

Yes, but what about the “consensus”? The IPCC states that it is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions. How did it come about? Large models which could not simulate human behaviour supposedly described natural climate variations. According to the author, “the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid-seventies through the mid-nineties (was used) to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.”

This makes “arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison”.

How unfortunate that this is not required reading in the schoolroom. Meanwhile, please do have a look.

Photos: freedigitalphotos

Join CFACT for an International Conference on Climate Change

Friday December 4, 2009, Hotel Melia Berlin

On the Eve of COP15, the UN Conference in Copenhagen, scientists and policy experts will gather at Berlin’s Melia Hotel to discuss the science, politics, economics and impacts of climate change.

Almost daily new evidence arises that challenges the IPCC’s position on man-made climate change.   People around the world are paying closer attention and questioning the merits of the UN’s policy forcing the UN and many governments into a scramble to cement their climate policies before the momentum shifts further against them.

This is an important time to join the debate and discuss climate change policy with such noted experts as, Prof. Fred Singer, Lord Christopher Monckton, Dr. Horst-Joachim Luedecke, Prof. Gernot Patzelt, Prof. Lubos Motl, Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others.

This conference is presented in cooperation with the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Institute für Unternehmerische Freiheit (IUF), Haus der Zukunft (HdZ), the Liberale Institute of the Stiftung für die Freiheit and Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft.

Click here for further details.

Further details auf Deutsch.

In recent years, a number of pro-free-market think tanks and taxpayer associations have been formed in France, and their effectiveness and impact clearly are increasing. These groups include Institut Economique Molinari, the Institute for Economic Studies-Europe, Institut de Formation Politique, Contribuables Associes (French Taxpayers Association), etc.

Reposted with the kind permission of Simon Espersen, Copenhagen Institute from source material by Richard Rahn.

Simon Espersen, Copenhagen Institute

What better to celebrate than individual freedom? For the third year in a row CFACT Europe joined conservative and libertarian leaders to raise a glass to liberty at CNE’s Capitalist Ball on 12th October at the usual venue, the Concert Noble, in Brussels.


CFACT first participated in the “International Leaders Summit” at the European Parliament and the Rennaisance Brussels Hotel.

After the Leadership Summit, CFACT hosted its own reception featuring Edgar Gaertner at the Renaissance Brussels Hotel. Edgar signed copies of CFACT’s new book Eco-Nihilism. A Critique of Political Ecology (Öko-Nihilismus. Eine Kritik der Politischen Ökologie). Click to purchase (German)

Guests received a surprise welcome from anti-capitalist protestors outside the Concert Noble. They were a fairly polite group as protestors go. Many of our fellow guests grew up in an Eastern Europe without capitalist freedom and prosperity. They are always willing to rebut this kind of foolishness with memories that are all too fresh.

At the Capitalist Ball the food, drink, music and dance were reliably good. Better still was the chance to discuss CFACT’s latest efforts with old friends and new. This year’s ball was held in honor of the late Dr. Milton Friedman.

CFACT’s guests were very pleased when Dr. Cécille Philippe was presented with an award. Dr. Philppe serves on CFACT EU’s board of advisors and her work with the Molinari Economic Institute is an inspiration to many.

Over the last few years the Capitalist Ball has given CFACT a chance to bring together people and organizations who usually connect by email, the internet and phone. We thank everyone at the Centre for the New Europe for making this possible.