BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Energy and the Environment Archive

Tuesday

17

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

Market Beats Government, Again

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets

A mandate passed in 1994, in which Al Gore provided a celebrated tie-breaking vote, and over a decade’s worth of subsidies has not succeeded in replacing oil with ethanol. But where government has failed, the market appears to be succeeding:

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”.

Mr Pal is a senior director of LS9, one of several companies in or near Silicon Valley that have spurned traditional high-tech activities such as software and networking and embarked instead on an extraordinary race to make $140-a-barrel oil (£70) from Saudi Arabia obsolete. “All of us here – everyone in this company and in this industry, are aware of the urgency,” Mr Pal says.

What is most remarkable about what they are doing is that instead of trying to reengineer the global economy – as is required, for example, for the use of hydrogen fuel – they are trying to make a product that is interchangeable with oil. The company claims that this “Oil 2.0” will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.

Actually what’s really most remarkable about what they are doing is the fact that they are doing it without government.  At least, statists must find that remarkable.

Who knows whether this can be applied on a large enough scale to be useful, and the article goes on to describe the difficulties. But what strikes me is the fact that no government official could have ever directed this. You cannot centrally plan this kind of innovation. Indeed, government efforts to direct resources distort the normal market behavior by giving incentives to focus on areas that may or may not be productive. Conversely, that leaves less resources for other areas.

Contrast: When markets are left alone they produce bugs that crap oil. When government directs action we get a worldwide food crisis.

Monday

16

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

Plant Morality

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

Don’t let anyone tell you different: blogging is hard.  Even an opinionated and outspoken individual such as myself has difficulty finding material every day.  That task, however, is made a lot easier when one endeavors to cover the absurdities of the political left.

Be careful next time you’re pulling weeds in your garden, you may just be committing a war crime.  The Swiss government has issued a report on the moral rights claimed by plant life.  Here are some of their findings:

1. Arbitrariness:
The Committee members unanimously consider an arbitrary harm caused to plants to be morally impermissible. This kind of treatment would include, e.g. decapitation of wild flowers at the roadside without rational reason.

2. Instrumentalisation:
For the majority the complete instrumentalisation of plants – as a collective, as a species, or as individuals – requires moral justification.

3. Ownership of plants:
For the majority here too, plants – as a collective, as a species, or as individuals – are excluded for moral reasons from absolute ownership. By this interpretation no one may handle plants entirely according to his/her  own desires. A minority concludes that no limits apply to handling plants insofar as they are property.

Plants are people too!

Wednesday

11

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

We're All Gonna Die! Pt. 4

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

Part 4 of the “We’re All Gonna Die!” series focuses on Africa, the victim continent.

Africa most vulnerable to global warming effects, U.N. says

Africa produces a tiny fraction of the world’s greenhouse gases but is particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, U.N. environmental experts said Tuesday at a conference of African environment ministers here.

Some of those present had harsh words for the developed world, in particular the United States, the largest producer of greenhouse gases. They said industrialized nations are pressing Africans to reduce gas emissions while not doing enough themselves.

“Computer models project major changes in precipitation patterns on the continent, which could lead to food shortages and increased desertification,” says a United Nations Environment Program report released at the conference. “Yet on the whole, African nations lack the resources and technology to address such changes.”

…Lake Chad, which was once the second-largest wetland in Africa and supports 20 million people, is down to 5% of its size in 1973.

The report says forests, which cover 20% of Africa, are disappearing faster in Africa than on any other continent. Deforestation is a major concern in 35 African nations. The continent accounts for 15,500 square miles of the 50,000 square miles of forest lost globally each year.

“If we let things go on as they are, it is going to have a catastrophic effect on humanity,” said Andre Okombi Salissa, environmental minister of the Republic of Congo and president of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment.

He called on the U.S. to cut its greenhouse emissions.

“Many times people think that Africans don’t know how to look after the environment because they’re not literate,” said Salissa. “But often they do know how to look after the environment and the developed countries do not. We need to look at this hypocrisy.”

The picture caption declares that Lake Chad “has shrunk in the last 35 years because of climate change.” Does that statement make sense? It’s essentially saying that the climate has changed because of climate change. Except there’s actually hidden meaning in the phrase beyond just the plain language.

What we have here is a real life example of newspeak, a case of language being used to manipulate thought. The phrase “climate change” has replaced “global warming” in many instances because it allows the speaker to dodge criticism. After all, that climate changes is without question. Unfortunately for honest debate, users of the phrase “climate change” mean more than just variation in climate, they mean man-made climate change (i.e. anthropogenic global warming). Less discerning listeners, who know that climate does indeed change, are susceptible to this bombardment of hidden implications that, not only is climate changing, but we’re responsible (was climate static before man?).

It also provides an infinite number of excuses for ever more government and regulation, which is no coincidence.

Monday

9

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

We're All Gonna Die! Pt. 3

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

For the third installment of our never-ending series on how global warming will supposedly kill us all, I bring to you the story of a pacific island nation named Kiribati.

Rising sea levels caused by climate change will force the inhabitants of a group of Pacific coral islands to abandon their homes by the end of the century, their president has declared.

Anote Tong, president of the threatened islands in the Republic of Kiribati, has appealed to the international community to take responsibility for rehousing his compatriots.

The Republic of Kiribati is a collection of 32 atolls and one coral reef island, sitting just west of the International Date Line and astride the Equator. The highest land in the island chain is less than 2 metres above water — most of the land is much lower, and flat. As sea levels rise, Kiribati’s 97,000 inhabitants are going to have to find somewhere else to live before 2100, Tong says.

If they aren’t relocated they’re all gonna die!!!

Monday

2

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

We’re All Gonna Die! Pt. 2

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

Continuing the series on the numerous dangers global warming allegedly poses to us all, it’s time for another entry of “We’re All Gonna Die!”

What’s going to get us this time? Dengue!

MANILA, Philippines — Global warming and rapid urbanization are believed to be two of the major causes of dengue, Health Secretary Francisco Duque III said Monday.

Appearing at the weekly Kapihan sa Manila Hotel, Duque said the warm temperatures make the virus-carrying mosquitoes more active. He said countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico, and Brazil have reported increases of dengue cases in their country and that even those that did not have dengue before have had reported of cases.

There has been a shift of trend beginning 2005, Duque added.

Before, the dengue cases would peak every three years. However, starting 2005 and 2006, there has been a continuous increase in the number of cases of dengue in the country annually. Based on the current trend, the Department of Health (DoH) suspects the total number of dengue cases for 2008 would exceed the statistics for 2007.

Thankfully, I can turn to the Idiot’s Guide to Surviving Global Warming issued for the Florida coast.

Environmental groups have issued a coastal, marine system global warming survival guide for Florida in an effort to prod state officials into taking action now while disaster is still manageable.

Florida has heated up by about two degrees Fahrenheit since the 1960s and scientists project that average temperatures will keep rising in the coming decades, with lows in winter increasing three to 10 degrees, and highs in summer increasing three to seven degrees.

These warmer temperatures will bring more extreme weather events, higher ocean temperatures and sea level rise, and while these prospects seem daunting, a group of nationally and internationally recognized environmental organizations has drafted a series of key steps that governments and individuals can take to minimize the dangers.

“By assembling the nation’s first comprehensive set of guidelines for dealing with the demonstrated effects of climate change on a coastal state, the Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition has accomplished a first, said Environmental Defense Fund Climate Director Gerald Karnas.

“This is a real prescription for surviving the onrushing years of global warming. The whole world is going to be watching what is done here. This is the front line in the war on global warming,” said Karnas.

I might normally smack my head at the idea of someone uttering something as moronic as “the war on global warming,” but this might actually be a good development. If this is indeed a war on global warming, we won’t have to wait long before leftists are demanding defeat.

Sunday

1

June 2008

0

COMMENTS

NOPEC Hypocrisy

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

H.R. 2264: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007 (NOPEC):

The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 7 the following:

`Sec. 7A. (a) It shall be illegal and a violation of this Act for any foreign state, or any instrumentality or agent of any foreign state, to act collectively or in combination with any other foreign state, any instrumentality or agent of any other foreign state, or any other person, whether by cartel or any other association or form of cooperation or joint action–

    `(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product;

    `(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product; or

    `(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

when such action, combination, or collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other petroleum product in the United States.

The bill passed the House 345-72.

Unsurprisingly it would only apply to foreign states, exempting the organization most responsible for restricting supply: the U.S. Congress.

Saturday

17

May 2008

0

COMMENTS

We’re All Gonna Die! Pt. 1

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

I always get a good chuckle monitoring the daily global warming hysteria. It’s gotten to the point where it’s impossible to turn around without running into another report on how global warming is going to make life miserable. In honor of the media’s obsession of stoking fear over global warming I’m beginning this series, which will run for as long as I have material (which doesn’t look to be running out anytime soon), highlighting all the myriad ways in which global warming is supposed to ruin our lives.

First up: Kidney Stones!

Latest research indicates that global warming could have another unwanted spin-off – it may spur the formation of kidney stones.

Dehydration, particularly in warmer climes and higher temperatures, will only exacerbate this effect. Consequently, the prevalence of stone disease may increase, along with the costs of treatment.

This is going to be fun.

Sunday

11

May 2008

0

COMMENTS

Heading On Down The Road To Serfdom

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment

I’m a few days late on noting F.A. Hayek’s May 8th birthday, but the occasion provides a great opportunity to highlight the continuing relevance of his work. At a time when many in the West believed in the idea of a “democratic socialism,” Friedrich Hayek warned in The Road To Serfdom that economic planning of the type advocated by many on the left would inevitably lead to totalitarian dictatorship, on top of being poor economics.

Unfortunately, many today are just as intent on traveling down the road to serfdom as they have ever been. Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) is at the front lines of the war on oil companies. His proposed legislation, the Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008, not only imposes an economically damaging windfall profits tax, but creates a Reasonable Profits Board to sit in judgment of private activity and determine how much profit is reasonable for a company to make.

Since Representative Kanjorski thinks this is a good idea, maybe he’ll like my own proposal: a Qualified Candidates Board. Rather than trusting those pesky voters to determine which public office candidates are qualified, just as he doesn’t trust consumers, the board would be tasked with determining which candidates are allowed to run for office. As its first order of business, I submit the name of Paul Kanjorski as one to be barred from office for his gross economic and political ignorances.

Monday

7

April 2008

0

COMMENTS

Polar Bear Politics

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

There is a fuss over the refusal of the administration to bow to their political games and place polar bears on the endangered species list, despite observed growth in some polar bear populations.

The call by special interests to place the polar bear on the endangered species list is not based on any evidence of declining polar bear populations. It is based on projections of future polar bear populations. That would be fine, if those projections were made through a rigorous scientific process. Sadly, they are based on sloppy methodologies and spurious assumptions:

Calls to list polar bears as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are based on forecasts of substantial long-term declines in their population. Nine government reports were prepared to support the listing decision. We assessed these reports in light of evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles. None referred to works on scientific forecasting methodology. Of the nine, Amstrup, Marcot and Douglas (2007) and Hunter et al. (2007) were the most relevant to the listing decision. Their forecasts were products of complex sets of assumptions. The first in both cases was the erroneous assumption that General Circulation Models provide valid forecasts of summer sea ice in the regions inhabited by polar bears. We nevertheless audited their conditional forecasts of what would happen to the polar bear population assuming, as the authors did, that the extent of summer sea ice would decrease substantially over the coming decades. We found that Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and Hunter et al. only 10%. We believe that their forecasts are unscientific and should therefore be of no consequence to decision makers. We recommend that all relevant principles be properly applied when important public policy decisions depend on accurate forecasts.

The report goes on to list the numerous scientific principles these reports violated. Contrary to the claims of the global warming fanatics, this process is not being driven by science. The call to put polar bears on the endangered species list is nothing more than an attempt to validate belief in global warming. Since they can’t prove the phenomenon is real to the extreme degrees that they claim, they just react to it as if it is real and then use their own reactions as proof of its existence. “Of course there’s global warming,” they’ll say in the near future, “its effects have put polar bears on the endangered species list!” Enough is enough of the polar bear politics.

Tuesday

25

March 2008

0

COMMENTS

Warning: Heretics Herein

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Energy and the Environment

The following two articles demonstrate acts of modern heresy on the part of the authors.

The first article, by Christopher Hitchens, dares challenge the Church of Obama and the recent Greatest Speech Ever Given™. He offered his usual attacks on religion (as a whole) that I didn’t care for, but the rest of the article is superb.

…Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he’d one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago “base” in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on an 85-year-old lady named Madelyn Dunham, who spent a good deal of her youth helping to raise him and who now lives alone and unwell in a condo in Honolulu. It would be interesting to know whether her charismatic grandson made her aware that he was about to touch her with his grace and make her famous in this way. By sheer good fortune, she, too, could be a part of it all and serve her turn in the great enhancement.

This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been?and were?applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it “inflammatory” to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it “controversial.” It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

…To have accepted Obama’s smooth apologetics is to have lowered one’s own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

The other heretical article I wish to highlight involves a direct attack on the foundational pillars of the Goracle and his cult of Global Warming Alarmism.

…These 3,000 yellow sentinels –about the size and shape of a large fence post — free-float the world’s oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

…When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Let the inquisitions begin!