We have met the 1%, and he is us

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

In explanation of my title, I fear I’ll have to go on a bit of a digression. Let me tell three stories, about people in three different parts of our amazing planet.

STORY THE FIRST: In my early thirties, about forty years ago now, through a series of misunderstandings and coincidences I spent some time as the first mate on a sailboat in the Philippines. At one point we spent a couple months anchored up offshore from the Manila Yacht Club while we were getting some boat repairs done. As befits a young man with more testosterone than sagacity, I spent the evenings in the dives and nightclubs in the local red-light district. Not paying for the favors of the ladies of the evening, you understand, that always seemed creepy to me. Just drinking and having a good time. One of the bars had a piano. It also had what they euphemistically called “hostesses”, who I was told could be very welcoming and most hospitable in one of the upstairs rooms for a small donation to a good cause …

It became my habit that each evening after work, I would go ashore. I’d walk the six blocks or so over to the bar and play the piano for a few hours, and talk to the “hostesses” and the bartender, and watch the evening go by. After a while, I was just another fixture in the bar, I was the piano man. People coming in thought I was just part of the floor show, and I was. The management liked having me play, so they paid me … in free drinks and bar food, which was more than welcome.

And being the piano man in a “hospitality house”, isn’t that every musician’s dream of heaven?

In any case, I got to be friends with the bartenders, and with the “hostesses”, and they would tell me their stories. One of the women working there was a “hostess” named Helena. She and I got to be good friends. We were never lovers, although I wouldn’t have minded one bit. We just hung out together and had a good time in the bar, singing songs, telling stories. Sometimes on the weekends we would meet and wander around the city and she would explain to me the local customs, tell me what was going on. She taught me just enough Tagalog to get in trouble. It was great.

Figure 1. Slums in Manila

During this time, Helena kept telling me that I was rich. I always laughed and said no, no, in America I was a very poor man. And that was true—I was an itinerant sailor and fisherman and a boat bum. She just laughed back at me. But she never asked me for anything, not for one penny, not for one gift. Well, that’s not quite true. She asked me for cigarettes for her father. So I kept her old man in smokes. I figured it was the least I could do. She had her pride.

One other thing she wouldn’t do. I kept asking her to invite me over to the place where she lived. But she always refused. I wouldn’t like it, she said with her impish crooked smile. So one afternoon I decided I’d just go over there on my own. I got her address from one of the bartenders. He advised me against visiting there, saying it was in a bad section of town. I said okay. I was young. I was foolish. What did I know?

When I told the taxi driver where I was going, he turned around in his seat and looked at me. “Are you sure you want to go there”, he asked? “Yeah I’m sure”, I said with more certainty than I felt. “OK”, he said, “but you gotta pay me the money now, I’m not waiting around once we get there” … I gave him the money and off we went.

Helena’s place turned out to be located in a shantytown covering an entire city block. The buildings had been demolished at some point in the past and then abandoned. An entire community had sprung up there over the years. As soon as I got out of the taxi, the driver sped away. I turned around and was confronted by the most astounding warren of structures that I had ever seen.

Every possible building material was on display. Concrete blocks, short sticks of wood, old highway signs, flattened out tin cans, cardboard of every color and description, car doors and windows, random bits of glass, hunks of corrugated iron, shipping pallets, foam from appliance boxes. And this potpourri of materials was all strapped and held and cajoled into staying together by a motley assortment of rusty nails, bits of wire, rubber straps, pieces of leather, sections of vine, lengths of duct tape, strips of cloth, the variety of fasteners was endless. There were buildings on top of buildings added onto buildings built underneath buildings.

I asked the first person I came to where Helena lived. He gave me a series of instructions that, as near as I could understand, included obscure directives like “go over that direction except stay this side” and “don’t go under the third walkway, go where the man is selling balut” and “be careful to avoid the other opening”. All of these directions were delivered in what to a casual passerby would have passed for English, but on closer examination appeared to have been assembled from random phrases culled from instruction manuals.

I thanked the man and wandered off in the general direction he had indicated. I stopped at intervals to get new sets of partially intelligible instructions from random strangers. These led me through and over and into more of the 3-D maze. The way to her house went by means of a bizarre collection of passageways that were neither streets nor alleys. I could not tell public from private areas. Eyes looked out of every opening. I knew that I could not find my way back out without a guide. The passageway wandered over and around structures, at points seemingly going through people’s back yards with life in full swing. At other points, the way passed along a ditch running foul sewage, complete with a strange assortment of floating objects that did not bear close inspection. After accidentally looking at one particular piece of flotsam, I repented and quickly switched to carefully looking at the other side of the path, and I eschewed further reckless eyeballing until I left that ditch far behind.

Now, people mistake the Philippines for a nation. In reality, it is much more like a really big family with a bunch of kinda strange relatives. Not bad, just strange. And of course, on this city block of houses-in-wonderland, everybody knew everybody. The nature of communications in the area was such that by the time that the kindness of strangers had brought me to where Helena lived, she had heard the news already and had gotten spruced up and was prepared to meet me at the door. She invited me into what she explained was her aunt’s house. She had a room in the back. She offered to show it to me.

We stepped inside her room. Of course, we could not close the door, that was not proper … nor all that practical given the miniature size of the room. But it wouldn’t have made much difference, there was no privacy. You could hear everything everywhere, the walls were paper-thin. And I suppose that shouldn’t have been surprising, because one wall was actually made of paper, but I was surprised by that detail nonetheless. I noted in passing that the paper wall was made up of pasted together advertising posters for Hindi Bollywood movies, lending a pleasant, almost carnival atmosphere to the place.

Her room was tiny. A small sleeping pallet took up almost all of the available floor space. Inside the room were all of Helena’s worldly belongings. They consisted of a small wooden box which contained a few dresses and blouses and undergarments, and another smaller wooden box which contained a few items of makeup, a mirror, and some little trinkets and costume jewelry that obviously were precious to her. Other than that, there was one pair of shoes, and a cross and a picture of Jesus on the wall. Oh, there was the cloth pallet on which she slept, but that scrap of sewn-together rags likely belonged to her auntie. And that was the sum total of her possessions, all contained in a minuscule room with one wall made of paper …

That was it … that was all that she owned. A few dresses and a picture of Jesus. Now I understood why she thought I was rich. Because by her terms, I most assuredly was rich. I was incredibly wealthy in her world.

I talked with her a while there in the house, and with her aunt. Her uncle was out working. Her aunt had a small sewing business in her house. Life was not bad, life was not good, life was just life. Helena didn’t like her work, but that was the only job she could find, she had no education and no skills. And it paid the bills. Helena translated, her aunt spoke only Tagalog. We laughed some. They had a roof over their heads, albeit one of flattened tin cans laid as shingles. They had each other. We watched the almost-liquid warmth of the Manila gloaming slowly pouring over the city, and we soaked in the last rays of the day.

After while, Helena showed me how to get back to the street, and found me a taxi. I wouldn’t have been able to find the street without her, and no taxi would have stopped for me there at dusk, but they knew Helena. She left me there, she had to go back and get changed and get to work. I said I was going back to the ship, I’d see her later that evening, play some piano.

In the taxi, on my way back to the ship, I reflected on how incredibly wealthy I actually was. I finally realized, with some embarrassment, why she had laughed so heartily when I was so foolish and naive as to claim that I was poor. The only remaining mystery to me was how her laughter at my blindness had been so free of even the slightest hint of reproach for my colossal bumbling ignorance.

STORY THE SECOND: Fast forward five years. I’m working in sub-Saharan Africa, in Senegal. My workmate and I are in some godforsaken village out near the Kaolack salt flats. A 3-D relief map of the turf would look like a flat sheet of paper—it’s the land god stepped on. We get invited to dinner by some farmer, and by custom, we cannot refuse. He lives in the proverbial mud hut, with his wife, a scad of kids, a wooden planting stick, a wooden mortar and pestle for grinding grain, a three-rock firepit out back for cooking, a leaky roof, and not much else.

Having grown up on a ranch, I automatically note when we get there that he has two scrawny chickens wandering the yard. When we go into the house, he confers for a moment with his wife. She disappears. I hear squawking. I realize the man now has one scrawny chicken wandering the yard. The farmer and my associate and I drink sickly sweet tea and talk about the doings in the area. After a while, his wife brings in the chicken cooked up all nice, and offers it to us, the honored guests. The kids watch from the corners of the room.

But I can’t eat that damned bird. I can’t do it. I can’t bear the eyes of the kids. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s not like they are watching me with reproach in their eyes or anything, that wasn’t the problem at all. The thing I can’t bear is that the kids can’t take their eyes off of the chicken. Their eyes caress it. As the poet said, they watch that bird “as one who hath been stunned and is of sense forlorn”. They are blind to everything else. I can’t take it.

Plus I am shamed by the easy generosity of the man and his wife. They have nothing, and yet he offers us half of what they have without missing a beat. I am reminded of Rabelais’ will: “I have nothing, I owe a great deal, and the rest I leave to the poor”. The farmer’s wife has cooked and served the chicken, both of them temporarily appropriating the easy air of people who have hundreds of chickens, people who have chicken for dinner every night. My heart hangs, suspended. I hear the lone remaining chicken complaining outside.

So I trot out my old threadbare excuse from Mexico, and I blame my much-maligned liver. In Mexico, they blame their liver for everything. I have found it’s quite a useful excuse—over the years my liver has cheerfully soaked up the blame for a host of my idiosyncrasies. So I take one small bite for form’s sake, and then (in French, it being Senegal) I compliment the woman and the man on the chicken. I tell them the doctor has said that chicken is bad for my liver,  le médecin has said that le poulet is downright mauvais for my greatly-abused old foie, so as much as I liked the delicious flavor, and as much as I was deeply grateful for the honor they were offering me, I say I’m terribly sorry but I can’t possibly eat any more, they’ll just have to finish it off for me. And I tuck into the rest of the meal, the part that my liver doesn’t mind, to prove my bonafides.

They make the appropriate noises of disappointment that I’m not eating, and they have the grace not to look overjoyed. The children’s eyes are full of expectation. They look at that poor scrawny little representative of the great avian nation with unconcealed longing. The wife takes the plate into the back. In contrast to their earlier raucous play, the children vanish soundlessly on bare feet along with her. It seems that none of them dare to make a sound in case the mirage all disappears, like Cinderella after midnight. Not the time to get mom mad …

I avert my eyes from the disappearing chicken and the children. I look at the man and my workmate. We lapse into small-talk with no reference at all to poultry, or to children, chatting light-heartedly as though nothing meaningful had just occurred.

Thinking on it now, I consider how many times I’ve bought some random chicken in the supermarket on a whim, and how little it represents to me. I could buy fifty chickens if I chose, five hundred if need be. And I think about what that one scrawny chicken meant to that family.

STORY THE THIRD: Fast forward another five years, to when I lived on an atoll in the Solomon Islands, a remote bunch of tropical islands in the South Pacific north of Australia. Because I ran a shipyard, I met lots of yachties who were on boats sailing through the Solomons. Often they would complain to me about the high prices being asked by the islanders for their beautiful wood carvings. After the first few complaints, I developed the following analogy which I used over and over.

I told the yachties, imagine that one day an alien spaceship lands in your front yard. It is made out of solid gold, and it is encrusted with rubies, diamonds, sapphires, and emeralds. The alien steps out of the spaceship. He is dressed in cloth picked out in gold and silver threads, and his shoes have platinum buckles and diamonds everywhere, including on the soles … he comes up to you, and through his universal vocoder he says, “I say, old fellow, I rather fancy that old pickup truck of yours. How much money would it take to convince you to part with it?”. 

Now, you know the old truck is worth maybe a hundred dollars, and that’s on a good day with a following wind. And no one can predict the future, but you are kinda sure that this opportunity will never come again … which means the real question is, would you tell the diamond-studded alien “Oh, I could be persuaded to let it go for a million dollars, it’s kinda precious to me”, or would you only say “a hundred thousand dollars”?

Seriously, I’d tell the yachties, you get a one-time chance like that, you have to take your shot. You have to ask for the moon. Might not get it, but why not ask?

Next, consider the average Solomon Islander, I would tell the yachties. The average guy in some outer island village might only see a hundred Solomon dollars in cash all year, that’s thirty bucks US. I said to the yachtie, your watch is worth thirty dollars US. Your yachting shorts set you back forty-five, the cool sunglasses were seventy-five dollars, the Izod polo shirt was fifty-five, the belt was thirty bucks. Your stylish yachting cap was sixty bucks. The nice Sperry Topsider boat shoes were seventy-five dollars. Not counting your socks or your skivvies or your jewelry,  just what you are wearing alone is worth about what cash the average outer islander might make in ten or twelve years. It’s worth a decade of his labor, and that’s merely what you are wearing as you pass through his world.  That doesn’t count the cash in your pocket, or the credit cards in your pocket. It doesn’t count the value of the rest of your wardrobe. And we haven’t even gotten to the money you might have in the bank or your other assets …

So yes, when you sail up to the village in a yacht and ask how much something costs, they will ask a hundred dollars Solomon, or three hundred dollars, who knows? Because to them, you’re an alien wearing gold cloth, with diamonds on the soles of your shoes. They’d be mad not to ask top dollar for their carvings.

And I told the yachties, you know what? Given both that huge disparity in net worth between you and the woodcarver, and the world-class quality of the woodcarving in the Solomons, you’d be mad not to pay top dollar for whatever carvings catch your fancy.

============ END OF THE THREE STORIES =============

Now, I have told these three tales in order to provide a context for a couple of quotes. The context that I am providing is that there is an almost inconceivable distance from the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap. The top of the heap is the 1%, not of the US, but of the global population. That 1% is made up of the people like you and me and the folks who read this, folks who live in the western world, the top few percent of the global population who enjoy the full benefits of development, the winners on the planet. It’s a long, long way from where we stand down to the bottom of the heap, that dark and somewhat mysterious place we don’t like to think about where far too many of the planet’s people eke out a living on a dollar or three a day, and we wonder how on earth they can do so. To them, we are as unknown and distant as aliens in golden jeweled spaceships with diamonds on the soles of our shoes. I offer the stories to give you some idea of the constraints on those people’s lives, and the contrasts between their lives and ours.

Those people have no slack. They have no extra room in their budgets. They have no ability to absorb increases in their cost of living, particularly their energy spending. They have no credit cards, no credit, and almost no assets. They have no health insurance. They are not prepared for emergencies. They have no money in the bank. They have no reserve, no cushion, no extra clothing, no stored food in the basement, no basement for that matter, no fat around their waist, no backups, no extras of any description. They are not ready for a hike in the price of energy or anything else. They have damn well nothing—a wooden digging stick, a spare dress, a picture of Jesus, a paper wall, a scrawny chicken, a bowl of millet.

It is in that context, the context that acknowledges that about half the world, three billion people, live on less than three dollars a day (2005 PPP),  that I bring up the following two quotes:

 “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the [US] price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”

and

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Here’s my problem with these brilliant plans. Regardless of whatever hypothetical possible future benefit they might or might not bring in fifty years, right here and now in the present they are absolutely devastating to the poor.

The US Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, the author of the first quote, wouldn’t have his commute to work imperiled if US gasoline prices were to rise to $8/gallon and thus reach the levels in Europe. He can buy all the gasoline he wants for any purpose. But if you are a poor single mom with a couple of kids and a clapped-out car that gets you to work and back and drinks gasoline faster than your good-for-nothing ex-husband drank whiskey before he left, for you a doubling of the gas prices means the kids eat less or something else goes by the board, because you have to get to work. It’s not optional.

And if the cost of electricity for the US and the White House “skyrockets”, Obama won’t be sleeping cold in the winter. Nor will I, for that matter. That would be the poor renter in upstate New York who can’t afford to turn on the electric heater.

The difference between rich and poor, between developed and developing, is the availability of inexpensive energy. A kilowatt-hour of electricity is the same amount of energy as a hard day’s labor by an adult. We can buy that for fifteen cents. We’re rich because we have (or at least had) access to the hardworking servants of inexpensive energy. We have inexpensive electrical and mechanical slaves to do our work for us.

This is particularly important for the poor. The poorer you are, the larger a percentage of your budget goes to energy-intensive things like transportation and heat and electricity. If you double the price of energy, everyone is poorer, but the poor take it the hardest. Causing an increase in energy prices for any reason is the most regressive tax imaginable. At the bottom of the pile people make a buck a day and pay fifty cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity … there’s no give down there at the bottom of the heap, no room for doubling the price of gasoline to European levels, no space for electric prices to skyrocket.

So I find it both reprehensible and incomprehensible when those of us who actually are in the 1% of the global 1%, like President Obama and Secretary Chu, blithely talk of doubling the price of gasoline and sending the cost of electricity skyrocketing as though there were no negative results from that; as though it wouldn’t cause widespread suffering; as though cheap energy weren’t the best friend of the poor.

What Chu and Obama propose are crazy plans. They are ivory-tower fantasies of people who are totally out of touch with the realities faced by the poor of the world, whether inside the US or out. Now please, I’m not making this political. There are people on both sides of the aisle who have signed on to the crazy idea that we should raise energy prices.

When I was a kid, everyone was quite clear that inexpensive energy was the key to a fairly boundless future. Our schoolbooks told of the Tennessee Valley project, and how it lit up the whole region, to everyone’s benefit. In particular, electricity was seen, and rightly so, as the savior of the rural poor. How did we lose that? Just how and when did deliberately making energy more and more expensive become a good thing?

I don’t buy that line of talk, not for one minute. Expensive energy is not a good thing for anyone, wealthy or poor. And in particular, more expensive energy condemns the poor to lives of increased misery and privation.

As far as I know, other than the completely overblown “peak oil” fears, about the only argument raised against the manifold benefits of inexpensive energy is the claim that increasing CO2 will lead to some fancied future Thermageddon™ fifty years from now. I have seen no actual evidence that such might be the case, just shonky computer model results. And even if CO2 were to lead to a temperature rise, we have no evidence that it will be harmful overall. According to the Berkeley Earth data, we’ve seen a 2°C land temperature rise in the last two centuries with absolutely no major temperature-related ill effects that I am aware of, and in fact, generally beneficial outcomes. Longer growing seasons. More ice-free days in the northern ports. I don’t see any catastrophes in that historical warming. Despite the historical warming, there is no sign of any historical increase in weather extremes of any kind. Given two degrees C of historical warming with no increase in extreme events or catastrophes, why should I expect such an increase in some hypothetical future warming?

So I’m sorry, but I am totally unwilling to trade inexpensive energy today, which is the real actual salvation of the poor today, for some imagined possible slight reduction in the temperature fifty years from now. That is one of the worst trades that I can imagine, exchanging current suffering for a promise of a slight reduction in temperatures in the year 2050.

Finally, for those who think that these quotes and ideas of Chu and Obama only affect the US, nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, the policies are being exported and imposed, both by force and by persuasion, on the poorer countries of the world. To take just one example, pressure on the World Bank from the western countries and NGOs is denying financing to coal-fired plants in countries like India with coal resources. So the poor of India are denied inexpensive coal-fired electricity, they end up paying the price for the western one-percenters’ guilt and fear ridden fantasies about what might happen fifty years in the misty future.

Heck, even if the dreaded carbon menace were real, raising the price on fossil fuels would be the last way on earth I’d choose to fight it. Like I said … big current pain for small future maybes, that’s a lousy trade. Now, I don’t think CO2 is worth fighting. But if you do, I implore you, first do no harm—any rise in energy prices harms the poor. If you want to fight CO2, there are other ways.

w.

[UPDATE: a reader has pointed out that I am not describing the poorest of the poor, and he is quite correct. Helena had her job. The African farmer had a house and land, and not to mention originally two, but lately only one, chicken. The people in the Solomons had their bush gardens and the bountiful ocean.

The poorest of the poor have none of these things. They are a whole level below the people I talk about. You don’t want to consider where they sleep or what they eat. And yes, they are hit by rising energy prices like everyone else. -w.]

5 19 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

454 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Legatus
January 13, 2013 1:27 pm

Joe Grappa says:
Too many people. Get the population down to 500 million or a billion or so and everyone would live like a king.

Question:
Who lives?
Who dies?
Who decides?
What if they don’t want to go?

Have you decided that you and yours are one of the ones who should live?
Why?
Are you especially deserving in some way?
If they decide you and yours will have to go, will you just let them come and kill your children, kill you?
Will anyone else?
So, you want to kill more than 90% of the worlds people so that you can be a little more comfortable?
You apparently have not thought this thing out. First, for everyone to live like a king, you have to assume that we have the total worldly wealth we now have but spread only among 500 million people. However, with 500 million people, we now have vastly less producers of wealth. With less than a tenth the producers of wealth, we would have less than a tenth the wealth. Result, we would not live like kings.
What you are therefore really saying is that you wish to kill 90% or more of the people on this planet and take their stuff.
With less than a tenth the people, we would also have less than a tenth the people to dream up new ways to produce that wealth. Result, we would have a far lower level of technology, about the level we had when we did indeed have only 500 million people. People then definitely did not live like kings. We would end up right back where we were before and go through all this yet again.
How do we reduce population growth?
There is only one way known to actually work, modern, high tech society.
That takes lots of cheap and abundant energy.

john robertson
January 13, 2013 1:30 pm

Willis, re the free market, yes some regulation, using agreed upon rules, is necessary.
But our current situation is akin to lawlessness, too many rules, contradicting each other and defying reality
Multi-layers of Regulators fighting over who has the power to regulate the minutia of our lives.
There are so many senseless laws that we effectively have none.
Our economy and society is being deliberately destroyed by this regulatory abuse.
I’m late to the party, I had blamed stupidity for our current malaise.

J Broadbent
January 13, 2013 1:31 pm

Willis
The Helena story would be incomplete without adding that the shanty was the family’s world headquarters for a labour hire network. Helena in the brothel, Roberto on a ship in the Mediterranean, Miguel on an oil rig of Borneo. The money would be coming back to put selected children through education and to get Aunty a flat screen TV.
The interesting link is the reason the father of one of poor single mother’s children is sitting around drinking instead of home being abused by the bitch milking the welfare state’s effort to buy her vote, is that Miguel and nine others sleep in the cabin his union feels he would be entitled to as part of his employment package. At least Helena has family and hope, the drunk has nothing but a bottle.
The funny thing is many of your western civilization audience will be sitting around wondering
“How can I send some of my chickens to Senegal?” God bless America of it’s generosity to those outside family.

Climate Ace
January 13, 2013 1:49 pm

Oh dear. Good stories but they stopped just where it got interesting…
I wonder whether Helen’s shanty town is one of the ones that gets flooded regularly? A lot of them are only just above sea level so we know that flooding will occur more regularly.
Or was it one the shanties blown away when 350,000 were rendered homeless by a single cat 4 typhoon that sort of hit a bit south of the normal typhoon tracks last year? (It was not quite as well-publicised in the US as Sandy was but, hey, we can’t trust the MSM to get any sense of proportion about anything, can we?) I wonder whether Willis’ farming families is one of the ones who has been driven away by desertification or who are increasingly suffering from what is by now regional and chronic famine along much of sub-Saharan Africa?
The point that Willis left out of his stories is that while economic and political systems foster huge disparities of wealth, poverty will not be fixed. Poverty will not be fixed under BAU, because it is BAU. But wait, there is more. Under the same maldistribution of wealth, under the same political and economic systems, AGW will affect the poor and the least resilient far more than it will affect the wealthy. They will be able sail their yachts to the least-affected places plus they will, in any case, have more ocean around which to sail as sea-levels continue to rise.
So, we have yet another attempt by Willis to conflate poverty with AGW-response. Poverty is a global issue under BAU at a time when the globe is more burning more fossil fuel than ever before. If Willis wants to address poverty under BAU he should come up with something a bit more sensible than burning more fossil fuel.
Poverty inherited from, and inherent in BAU, is a global issue under AGW-response. It is also an issue for each nation. It is why the Australian Government provided financial support to those least able to afford rising electricity prices consequent to AGW-prevention policies.
The correct policy response is to address poverty as part of the AGW-response. Disproportionate impacts on the poor should be offset by differential payments for AGW-prevention by those of us who have benefited most – the very, very wealthy.

January 13, 2013 1:50 pm

Bruce Cobb.
Of course you dont know if child survival is the new green. Stating one’s ignorance of the facts doesnt change them.

January 13, 2013 1:51 pm

Thank you for that, Willis. Three wonderful stories in a great article. The rich have no idea of the lives of the poorest of the poor. The affluent ‘concerned’ people are concerned about possible future problems or benefits that might emerge from a vague computer programme’s guess. It may or may not occur and probably will not. However the problems of the poor in their energy poverty are real and current. These ‘Green’ polices are absolutely and totally devastating to the poor of the World.

January 13, 2013 1:53 pm

“The new witch, that will prevent poor from rising, is your people Mosher.”
my people? you mean libertarians?
my people? you mean people who think taxing carbon is a bad idea?
As Feynman said the easiest person to fool is yourself. un fool yourself about who I am and who my people are.

January 13, 2013 1:55 pm

rgbatduke says:
January 13, 2013 at 6:51 am
I grew up in India in the 60′s, living in New Delhi. In the US we were middle class citizens, not rich, not poor. In India we were the moral equivalent of multimillionaires.
============================================================
I remember reading somewhere that the US was one of the few countries where someone living “in poverty” might still have AC and cell phones.
People talk of “wealth” as if it was a finite amount. It’s not. What is of genuine value can change and grow. It can also be artificial. A loaf of bread has genuine value to the people Willis recounted (and to the rest of us).
To produce that loaf of bread takes energy, even if that energy is via a person pulling a plow. How many more loaves of bread can be produced if that person is driving a tractor instead?
I know what I just said is an over-simplification but, how would restricting energy help? Subsidize an alternative? Those paying the subsidy will go broke themselves. Then what?
It only needs to be subsidized if it has no genuine value in itself.

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 13, 2013 3:20 pm

At 6:51 AM on 13 January, rgbatduke had written: “I grew up in India in the 60′s, living in New Delhi. In the US we were middle class citizens, not rich, not poor. In India we were the moral equivalent of multimillionaires.”
At 1:55 PM on 13 January, Gunga Din had responded: “People talk of ‘wealth’ as if it was a finite amount. It’s not. What is of genuine value can change and grow. It can also be artificial. A loaf of bread has genuine value to the people Willis recounted (and to the rest of us).
To produce that loaf of bread takes energy, even if that energy is via a person pulling a plow. How many more loaves of bread can be produced if that person is driving a tractor instead?”

In Tramp Royale (published in 1992), SF writer Robert A. Heinlein observed that:

“True prices depend on wages and salaries — how many minutes a journeyman carpenter has to work to earn a kilo loaf of standard bread.”

I’ve heard this referred to as the “Heinlein Index,” and when corrected for government controls established to disguise this and other reflections of currency debauchment and market derangement, the principle behind it is robust.

richardscourtney
January 13, 2013 1:56 pm

Climate Ace:
Your many posts on several WUWT posts demonstrate your ignorance of AGW. So, there was no need to do it again on this thread (at January 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm).
This thread is about poverty and not your delusions.
Richard

January 13, 2013 1:57 pm

Yes willis, Rosling is a great resource. So many people have a knee jerk reaction when they hear a guy say one thing they dont like that they reject everything the person has to say. I would recommend that folks listen with an open mind and take away the good and leave their disagreements aside.

Logan in AZ
January 13, 2013 2:15 pm

The green-agenda website is up at the moment, and it shows that a Malthusian worldview is not unusual at a high social and political level — Mr. Grappa is in ‘good company’, so to speak.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
It is a puzzle to me that the exotic energy claims are not even mentioned in this thread. After years of dismissal, it now seems that radical concepts are developing some support. For example, LENR based technology is not limited to the controversial claims by Andrea Rossi. There are several other R&D groups and confirmations that LENR has some reality. There are probably still some fools and knaves, of course, but it appears that undeniable advances will appear this year.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Top_5_Exotic_Free_Energy_Technologies

January 13, 2013 2:19 pm

Climate Ace says:
“So, we have yet another attempt by Willis to conflate poverty with AGW-response.”
Ah, but it is ‘Climate Ace’ who is conflating poverty and AGW, not Willis.
To the extent that AGW exists, it is a non-issue. Any putative effect of AGW is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. AGW is not the same thing as rising energy costs. They are completely different animals.
AGW is so small that it cannot be measured. There is no measurable, quantifiable ‘human signal’ in the temperature record. AGW is a tiny, 3rd order forcing that is swamped by second-order forcings — which in turn are swamped by first-order forcings. In short, AGW just does not matter. Its primary use is as a scare tactic to frighten money out of the populace. That is the one thing it is good at.
Climate Ace continues:
“AGW will affect the poor and the least resilient far more than it will affect the wealthy. They will be able sail their yachts to the least-affected places plus they will, in any case, have more ocean around which to sail as sea-levels continue to rise.”
Climate Ace is once again conflating ‘AGW’ with skyrocketing energy costs. Expensive energy — not AGW — whacks the poor. No one has been able to measure AGW. Why not? Because AGW is too minuscule to measure.
Because AGW is too small to measure, it’s very existence stops at the ‘conjecture’ step of the Scientific Method [Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law]. A conjecture is an opinion. It is not testable or falsifiable. Yet $Billions are wasted on the AGW conjecture every year.
However, we can measure the impact of fast-rising energy costs. More expensive energy is a deliberate tactic employed by the government as part of it’s plan to make the poor totally dependent on government. The government will dole out energy assistance funds, putting the poor on the dole — with the implied threat that their energy welfare can always be cut off. Thus, government controls those most affected by rising energy costs. That is the plan, and it is proceeding apace.

TerryMN
January 13, 2013 2:25 pm

Fantastic essay, Willis. Thank you!

Len
January 13, 2013 2:42 pm

Willis:
Thank you, as said above, I am richer for having read it. In fact many are richer, your writing is a service in helping us consider the poor and to pray for them

RockyRoad
January 13, 2013 2:42 pm

Joe Grappa says:
January 13, 2013 at 5:02 am

Too many people. Get the population down to 500 million or a billion or so and everyone would live like a king. And so back when the earth’s population WAS “down to 500 million or a billion or so”, how many lived like kings then?

Your logic is appaling and wrong, Joe. Some have even described it as sick, and I suggest you rely on common sense to understand why.

Dale McIntyre
January 13, 2013 2:42 pm

When people in the US or Europe plead poverty to me, I won’t allow it. “You ain’t seen poor until you’ve seen the poor in Asia.” I tell them.
And that was before I spent any time in Africa.
These stories bring back to me many incidents from my own youthful walk-about days. Kudos to Mr. Eschenbach for making what should be a very obvious point; high taxes on energy are THE most regressive kinds of taxes on the planet because they hit the poor much more painfully than they do the rest of us.

Allen B. Eltor
January 13, 2013 2:43 pm

Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm
“Poor people are going to catch on fire and then be drowned by the sky burning, and melting all the ice. Being able to get away from it is proof you’re a sinner.’
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hey Marx-for-brains,
it stopped warming almost 20 years ago.
So, there goes your chance for apocalypse, and not having to keep on getting up in the morning, being you.

January 13, 2013 2:54 pm

papiertigre says:
January 13, 2013 at 10:33 am
Re: MamaLiberty says:
How did you know that my clock is stopped? Does it show?
I was talking about Oboma… He may well have (probably accidentally) managed to do a few things that don’t totally screw up the world, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. It’s was HIS clock I was speaking of, not yours. 🙂
And Willis… I have to suppose that you’ve never heard of or read anything from the Von Mises Institute. Your concerns have been well addressed there. The truth is that this non-voluntary government you seem to trust to plan and control everything is EXACTLY the same one that works so hard to to destroy our ability to produce and effectively use energy… and many of them wish to kill 90% of us so they will have Joe’s utopia. You really can’t have it both ways.

Legatus
January 13, 2013 3:03 pm

About this idea that the green solution would hurt mostly the poor in third world countries, it would also do another thing.
Currently, here in the USA, and elsewhere in the developed world, there are a few wee problems with debt. We are financing our consumption by debt, often because we have decided we want to ‘go green’, and thus our regulations forced companies that actually produce something to countries that have no regulation. Result, the only way we can buy their products is on credit since we don’t produce much of anything (a recent comment on the USA representative to a developed world conference was ‘a poor man in borrowed clothes”). Go to the store, it used to have something like 94% USA produced goods, it now has at most 24%, a whopping 25% reduction in just the last 10 years alone (and this was several years ago, thus 24% is now less).
Now throw in a crushing new weight of environmental regulations and especially green taxes, and add a power shortage and resulting outages. I expect that the cracks we see even now (‘fiscal cliff’, ‘debt ceiling crisis’, trillion dollar plus budgets, cities and towns going bankrupt, other things you will read in the paper in coming months) will grow and eventually the entire economy will simply shatter. Imagine the USA with a sudden 100 million unemployed. Imagine the government in default. Imagine what that government will do, tax the rich (they will evade it as they always do, and they simply don’t have enough money anyway), print money, which will make it so worthless that no foreigners will buy our stuff or give us credit, 76% of what you see today in stores will simply be gone. It will be as it was written long ago:
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
“If you don’t work you die.”
(Historical note, robbing Peter to pay collective Paul is what turned the Roman republic into the empire of slavery and war that followed.)
The government may even go the traditional route, ‘find someone to blame’ (blame the Jews!), result, secret police, pogroms, war.
In short, I see that, if the green agenda is fully realized, the developed world will become as the third world is now. And that will result in a problem, we do not know how to live on $100 a year. I expect there would be mass riots and the like quickly, they would demand that the government ‘do something’, and this has all happened before. It will not end well, the last time resulted in WWII.
We have spent centuries, millenia, of effort to finally see a better life for our children. We have finally succeeded, and the result, spoiled children who are now trying to throw it all away in only one generation. The result of fully realizing the green agenda will make the stories of ‘the horrors of global warming’ look like a sunday picnic by comparison to what we would actually be living in (those of us still living).
You might want to carefully read the above tales, you might need those survival skills.
Oh, and the reason that in ‘the gold old days’ in Europe they drank a lot of beer (and soup) was because in their poverty they dumped a lot of sewage into the river. Result, drink the water and die. Beer (and a soup that is cooked all day) is safe, however, so they drank beer. See the above tales, when you are that poor, that is the only way you have to dispose of sewage. Bring in the green agenda, and you had better learn to brew beer and like soup.

Brian R
January 13, 2013 3:12 pm

I had a similar experience about 20 years ago in Venezuela. I was staying in the little town of Punto Fijo while doing some work at a local oil refinery. Well the last day in country we, my work mates and I, decide to get a bottle of rum from across the street and sit around the pool and drink rum and cokes. Well I head into the hotel bar to get a glass of coke. In usual fashion the bartender punches the price out in a calculator and show it to me. 75 Bolivares or about 40 cents American was the damage. I look in my wallet and the smallest bill I had was a 5,000 Bolivar note. At the time this was equal to a little over $27. I hand the bill over and the bartender looks at me with a “What the hell” expression on his face. I do my best “I’m sorry, it’s all I got” look, then the bartender turns around and disappears into the back with my money. A short time later the bartender returns and hands me my change. I tip him 50 or 100 Bolivares, I really don’t remember, and head out the pool with my friends. In the following days, after the rum had worn off, I started to think about this transaction again. Given what I knew about the town, I was pretty certain that the 5,000 Bolivar note was more money than that bartender was going to make in 3-5 days. I think it’s also pretty telling that the bartender couldn’t make change with what he had behind the bar. He had to go somewhere else to break it. At the time I had 5 or 6 of those notes along with a couple of 10,000 Bolivar to boot as walking around money.
It was quite humbling to think that I was walking around with more money in my wallet than that bartender was going to see in 2-3 weeks. Even in the refinery I was making more every hour than most of the workers were going to make that day.

January 13, 2013 3:19 pm

Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm
… It is why the Australian Government provided financial support to those least able to afford rising electricity prices consequent to AGW-prevention policies.
=====================================================
Me: If it’s not worth it, Subsidize It!
======================================================
The correct policy response is to address poverty as part of the AGW-response. Disproportionate impacts on the poor should be offset by differential payments for AGW-prevention by those of us who have benefited most – the very, very wealthy.
=======================================================
Well, I’m not one of the “very, very weathy” but they want my money too.
It is self-destructive for any society to create a situation where a baby who is born into the world today automatically has pre-existing grievances against another baby born at the same time, because of what their ancestors did centuries ago. It is hard enough to solve our own problems, without trying to solve our ancestors’ problems.– Thomas Sowell
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.– Thomas Sowell
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.– Thomas Sowell
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.– Thomas Sowell
Wal-Mart has done more for poor people than any ten liberals, at least nine of whom are almost guaranteed to hate Wal-Mart.– Thomas Sowell

Alex the skeptic
January 13, 2013 3:22 pm

Joe Grappa wants to save humanity by destroying 93% of humanity.
It may interest him to know that the total living human population, standing side by side, row after row, would fit on two islands the size of Ibiza. I do not see any problem with this. Furthermore, the best (proven) method for stabilising our birthrate is by becoming richer and richer, something that the left/humanists/greens cannot understand or refuse to understand or understand it but they have an evil agenda. Culling 93% of humanity so that the rest would be able to live comfortably smacks of evil eugenics/Malthusianism.
Since Malthus gave us his (most erroneous) theory, humanity not only survived the population growth but produced more food and material resources in abundance to our need. This is due to our intelligence. In fact, the greater the population the greater the chance of a genius being born who would invent/develop new systems/inventions that would reult in cheaper energy, more abundant food, better medicine etc etc. Drastically reducing the number of human beings reduces the statistical chance of having these occasional geniuses being born, depriving humanity of those quantum leaps that we have seen these last two or three centuries.

tom s
January 13, 2013 3:27 pm

Wow, that was powerful WIllis. I am sharing on FB so all my liberal friends can put it in perspective. Plus the title of the story will draw them in 😉

Climate Ace
January 13, 2013 3:30 pm

Allen B. Eltor says:
January 13, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm
“Poor people are going to catch on fire and then be drowned by the sky burning, and melting all the ice. Being able to get away from it is proof you’re a sinner.’
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hey Marx-for-brains,
it stopped warming almost 20 years ago.
So, there goes your chance for apocalypse, and not having to keep on getting up in the morning, being you.

It never ceases to surprise me that BAU boosters feel such a stong need to make up stuff about me and then have a bit of fun belting some straw men around. Maybe it is all that infrared radiation frying your brains?
I did not say that poor people are going to catch on fire. Stop pretending I did.
Stop pretending I am a Marxist. I am not. I support capitalism and a free market with government regulation to pick up stuff that falls between the cracks and to deal with market failure. I have a preference for smaller government rather than bigger government. For example, if I were writing a new constitution for the US, I would get rid of the states, thereby getting rid of a completely unnecessary and wasteful level of government. It would save trillions per decade.
I did not say that there will be an apocalypse. Stop pretending I did.
What I did say, and what you completely failed to address, is that mass poverty and hunger is part and parcel of BAU and that addressing AGW is going to require addressing poverty as well as CO2 pollution, and not by ignoring poverty, as Willis seems to think is inevitable.

Climate Ace
January 13, 2013 3:34 pm

richardscourtney says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Climate Ace:
Your many posts on several WUWT posts demonstrate your ignorance of AGW. So, there was no need to do it again on this thread (at January 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm).
This thread is about poverty and not your delusions.
Richard

Richard Courtney Seagull continues to arrive, squawk, crap on everything from a great height and then fly on. I suggest you go to a garbage tip for some lunch. It appears to be your natural habitat.

1 8 9 10 11 12 18