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.]
A very good presentation of the truth. The problem is, driving up the price of energy – thus also food – is part of the plan to rid the world of all those, as Henry Kissinger put it, “useless eaters.” I believe Ted Turner said the ideal population for the planet was 250 to 300 million people, so, although every word you say is true, the plan is to crush those at the bottom into the dirt, not to help them or protect their world. My guess would be that if you aren’t worth at least a half million right now, you are probably one of those “useless eaters” that need to be culled.
RockyRoad says:
“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.
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.”
I am relying on common sense. Common sense tells me that if we have
more people we will need a greater industrial infrastructure to
feed, house and clothe them; the people and the industry will
produce more pollution, which will require greater controls on the
lives of the people to allow them to survive.
With umpteen billion people, what we now cherish as wild and
uninhabited places will become, if we are lucky, industrial parks
and housing estates; if we are unlucky, enormous slums.
One would think, using common sense, that any sane person would
prefer to have a world population of 500 million rather than 9 (or 15 or 20)
billion; but not one person besides myself, who has weighed in,
has said that.
I find that incredible. Truly, it makes me wonder about the sanity of my fellow
posters; I mean their sanity on this topic. I imagine it is possible to become so
brainwashed about a particular subject that your thinking slithers into some
kind of twilight zone devoid of the simplest common sense.
The only replies I have seen to my comments have been vague remarks
about ‘history teaches….’, ‘you do not understand…’, etc., along with ad hominems.
The replies are truly pathetic and unworthy of the supposedly
educated people who frequent this list.
Climate Ace says:
“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”
THROW THE BUM OUT!!!. fool….
Climate Ace.
The problem is that the “solution” of taxing carbon does nothing to solve the real problem.
in 2050 there will be 9Billion people on the planet. 6Billion of them will have no energy.
taxing carbon will not magically create energy solutions for them. It will make energy more expensive for those who can already afford it. So, you need to solve the energy problem first.
And as far as energy solutions go, you cant solve the energy problem for the masses of poor people by applying solutions that work for rich countries. You need a different approach.
Care about energy and AGW?
educate poor females
D Böehm Stealey says:
January 13, 2013 at 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.
Given our previous discussions I will assume that (unlike some of the screwball logicians on the loose around here) you are not deliberately verballing me and that it could well be that I have not been clear enough. I will admit to being a bit muzzy headed from lack of sleep due to our record breaking warm spell. Australia has had another 12 houses burn to the ground overnight. With at three houses, one and a half properties and more than a thousand animals belonging to members of our extended family having been destroyed by bushfires over the course of half a century, I do tend to get jittery at peak fire times. Oh, and the lip balm melted out of its container. Just when I needed it for chapped lips due to the extreme heat. AGW is sure going to bring along some non-linear stuff and some threshold events.
I will have a go at clarifying my points:
Mass global poverty and hunger is part of BAU. (I am glad that Willis refrained from paying for sex in the Philippines and Willis does write a good story. But the issue is not what an individual does or does not do with another individual. In the context of the Philippines, it is BAU poverty that forces around 400,000 Filipinas into the sex trade (some are probably Filipinos but I am not sure of the breakdown). Not nearly as romantic or poetic as Willis’ Piano Man story is it?)
Poverty is part of BAU. Poverty will be part of AGW as it hits. AGW will most likely hit the poor the hardest becaue the wealthy will pay their way through any climate-related difficulties. The wealthy are good at that sort of stuff. When the kaka hits the BAU fan in some part of the world, the wealthy skedaddle with their wealth.
The appropriate response to Willis’ story is to insist that those in poverty do not pay harder for any AGW response.
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:30 pm
if I were writing a new constitution for the US, I would get rid of the states.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Another Marx-billy explaining how "There's no room for any government but National Government."
Steven Mosher says:
January 13, 2013 at 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.
Since when is a slogan a “fact”? Miss the point much?
Thank you, a wonderful essay. A compelling condemnation of all those peddling the co2 danger rubbish argument. What are they thinking?
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:30 pm
So I shall address what you claim to have said, because that’s the easy part, “Ace”:
You call it “CO2 pollution” but the biosphere would differ with you there, for it is food to them, and by extension, food for humans and other animals. Anthropogenic production of CO2 is actually good for the earth–a slight contribution to warming and a more significant contribution to foodstuff production. Calling CO2 a pollutant is a bit of a stretch.
Climate Ace you don’t have a clue do you. Tom S. Is correct.
ref. Pat Ravasio, January 13, 2013 at 6:59 am
You seem to have missed the whole point. So-called Green, or alternate energy sources, are generally more expensive, less portable, less versatile, and less reliable than the old standby energy sources. Only advanced countries can develop, implement, and pay for sources of energy like solar and wind that must be supported by the taxpayers, mandated green energy supplies, and forced feed-in rates, and have hot standby alternate sources such as natural gas fired power plants. Where do you get the idea that wind and solar are less expensive? I wish it were true. You also claim that we are slaves to “buy our paltry share of oil and gas”. First, no one is forcing you to buy anything. You can live like a caveman if you wish. The low cost availability of fossil fuels makes it possible for us make energy our slave, so for example we don’t spend all day foraging for fuel to cook and heat with. Sure, you could install a solar power system on your roof if you live in a sunny climate and have the necessary capital, but it is far cheaper to pay the power company. In fact, power costs have stabilized or even decreased lately due to the glut of natural gas available in the US.
As for pollution, the US, where a large portion of the worlds energy and chemicals is produced and consumed, is also one of the cleanest places to live. Real pollution, like open sewers (remember typhus, cholera, and dysentery), and smoke from the burning of trash as fuel, etc., is a feature of the poorest nations, where inexpensive and plentiful energy is not available.
Ironically, it is thinking like yours that aggravates the abject poverty and disease, and creates the conditions that result in short life spans, of the poorest of the world.
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 1:49 pm
[BAU is “business as usual …}
The huge point that you don’t seem to have noticed is that the poor of the planet are currently better fed, clothed, educated, and housed than at any time in the last few thousand years. We have lots left to do, but we are moving in the right direction.
We have pulled millions and millions out of the abject poverty that was the common fate of our ancestors, and we have done it through BAU and nothing but BAU. We did it with cheap energy, which used to be the cornerstone of business as usual, and hopefully will be again.
Now I’m the first one to admit that there is miles to go, and that we need to do it better. But poverty has indeed been “fixed under BAU” for millions and millions of people. Claiming otherwise merely marks you as an ideologue.
w.
It brought back memories. The first time I was in Manila was 1966 and the last time was 1971.
In Manila, the ship would dock to the north east of the Manila Hotel. I suspect that all of the old bars are closed now. The ship also went to Subic Bay and Olongapo City was something else; we were there before and after Marcos declared martial law. Dirt streets, board sidewalks, Jitneys racing at madcap speeds, and armed guards at the doors of the bars. It was the Wild West. We once went down to a pineapple plantation on Mindanao, a place called Bugo, just to the east of Cagayan de Oro. I checked on Google Maps and I wouldn’t recognize it if I want ashore there now! Baack then it was a pineapple processing plant and thatched roof huts on the beach.
We didn’t stay in port for as long as you did, but I was still able to get to know the people a little. Your description is spot-on. I didn’t get drunk, I didn’t beat the girls, and I was respectful. The people I met appreciated that and I enjoyed their friendship (even though it was commercial.) Because I was nice, I was invited to spend the night at someone’s home. We washed up in a rain barrel in the back. There were no screens on the windows, and when I woke up, I noticed spots of blood on the sheets. They were squished mosquitos where I had rolled over on them. I appreciated the friendship and trust, but an air conditioned hotel would have been preferable.
More recently, 1996 through 1999, we were running into the Dominican Republic, to the port just west of Santo Domingo. The crew used to hang out at one of the bars just outside the gate. And, yes, it is true what they say about sailor bars. I was not availing myself of the ahhh…. “services”. The ladies had a penchant for groping unoccupied sailors. So, in self-defense, I hired one particular lady. She had just gotten out of prison for eviscerating her pimp. He used to beat her and the consensus was that he had it coming. Nobody seemed to hold it against her. The evening would cost me $20 plus drinks; i.e. El Presidente beer. I explained to the long-suffering Mrs. Steamboat Jack that I was paying the young lady “standby time”. She was available for “service” but “standing by” and getting paid for that. (The Love of My Life was in the Teamster’s Union for 23 years and understands being paid for just standing by.) That made the evening much more pleasant. I was hers and she wouldn’t let anything happen to me or anyone bother me.
It is a different world out there and most Americans don’t have a clue. Not even the beginnings of one. Some 250,000 children are supposed to have died of starvation last year around the world, yet the Liberals feel smug about converting corn to fuel. They don’t understand the reality of what they are doing. At the end of Roosevelt’s War, WW II, Eisenhower ordered that German civilians be taken on tours of the death camps, so they could see what the National Socialists had done. My father was the executive officer at the air base outside of Munich and it was part of his job to arrange the tours to Dachau. It is a shame that Liberals will never have to face what they have done, at least not on this earth.
Thanks Willis.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
(Jon Jewett’s evil twin.)
PS, Joe Grappa: you first.
RockyRoad says:
January 13, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Calling CO2 a pollutant is a bit of a stretch.
I have no problems with certain levels of CO2.
But you can have too much of a good thing. You could always put it to the test. Buy yourself a canister of 100% CO2, attach a tube to it with a gas mask and breathe deeply.*
When you get too much of CO2 you get AGW. That makes CO2 above certain concentrations a pollutant.
*Warning to children: do not try this at home.
Bruce.
Since when is a slogan a “fact”?
well,,,
Since, god was a kid. The new green is child survival. At some point more people will get it.
Willis, your personality shines in your writing. Your story is humbling
This fellow Grappa appears to be either an agent provocateur, i.e. a troll, throwing bombs into the thread in order to highjack it; or a fanatic several cards short of a full deck; or both.
Others have already pointed out the evident fallacies in the extreme Malthusian argument, namely that there is and will be no shortage of resources,* and no problem bringing even larger world populations to comfortable living standards—not to mention recent experience showing that modern, industrialized societies quickly reduce their birth rates.
It has also been noted that it would take an extreme form of tyranny to wipe out most of humanity. Of course this is no obstacle to the wild-eyed misanthropes who like to imagine that the human race is nothing but a viral infection upon a pristine Mother Earth.
But rational argument holds no sway with such ideologues or fantasists. It is sobering, if nothing else, to realize that there are people who hold views of this sort.
/Mr Lynn
* Viz. E.M. Smith’s seminal posts on resources:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
Joe Grappa says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Joe, people have responded strongly to your ideas. From my perspective this is for a couple of reasons.
The first one is that you talk about some unspecified action or occurrence that will “get the population down to 500 million or a billion”. This immediately raises suspicions. Actions to get rid of most of the people on the planet? Really? If it’s such a great plan, how come you haven’t offed yourself? Are you waiting for the comet to do the extinction for you?
All of that means that whatever else may be true, your plan is wholly, completely, and totally impractical. People aren’t going to sign up for the one-kid policy. In any case, for many places the issue already is not enough kids, rather than too many.
Is it possible that after the population peak, it gradually declines? Sure … but I don’t think that’s what you are talking about.
Secondly, your claim is that if there were half a billion people that “everyone would live like a king”. This is just the Malthusian fallacy in reverse. We have the food we have and the resources we have in part because we have the number of people we have. You propose some mystery action that will get rid of six of seven people … which means that it will get rid of six of seven farmers, and six of seven miners, and six of seven factory workers, and six of seven bus drivers …
How on earth is that going to suddenly make everyone wealthy?
All the best,
w.
Willis, go to any government project in cold climate states. The clueless tenants open the windows wide and very expensive heat goes out the windows. That is why everyone should pay something.
Another excellent post Willis. Thanks.
Willis
The huge point that you don’t seem to have noticed is that the poor of the planet are currently better etc, etc, etc…
There is no time frame to your POV.
Looking back, when exactly have we had around a billion people going to bed hungry each night and around 15 million children dying of hunger or hunger-related conditions each year? (I can find the stats somewhere but they are rubbery, subject to change etc, etc). The real question might actually be something like, when exactly have we had 500 million going to bed hungry each night and 5 million children a year dying of starvation? Whatever set of stats you alight upon, they belong fair and square to BAU and not to some alternative universe. As a BAU Benefiteer from way back, I own this, just as you very obviously do – and both of us at a personal and visceral level.* But, try telling them that they have never had it so good and that there are fewer of them before now, and that, really, they are wealthier than they used to be. Unless you can demonstrate that there are fewer hungry people on the planet than there used to be your position does not hold water.
To continue the meme of your Helena story, I am pleased to hear that there must be, for example, fewer and wealthier sex workers in the Philippines than there used to be. According to the latest Lonely Planet or Rough Guide or something like that, the figures are now are around 400,000. Once again, difficult to statistically delineate the real numbers, I suppose.
Looking forward, you might be able to persuade me that BAU poverty will improve with the onset of AGW.
*Before any fool on this string tells me I don’t know poverty, I have for years lived amongst, and worked for, communities that had no power, no running water, no toilets, no sewerage and ‘dwellings’ made from scrap. I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no romance or poetry in real poverty. It stinks from woe to go. It blights lives and kills people young.
This is not a black and white issue. And much can be done to increase and cheapen green energy. Native American Reservations are going off the grid with wind and solar energy. The goal is to sell energy off the rez. Green energy can be the best thing that ever happened to the poor.
Allen B. Eltor says:
January 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:30 pm
if I were writing a new constitution for the US, I would get rid of the states.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Another Marx-billy explaining how "There's no room for any government but National Government."
Oh? I don’t mind either way. Get rid of the states or get rid of the national government. You don’t need both, and you would save trillions either way. I imagine that a collection of around 50 states, most of them broke, would pose less of a war threat to the rest of the world so your preference for an assortment of states over a single national government has some sort of appeal. But that would kill US world leadership and that, IMHO, would not be such a good thing, on balance.
My point was that I preferred smaller governments over larger governments. Getting rid of a useless layer of government helps get you there. We have the same problem in Australia where we are burdened with hundreds upon hundreds of politicians (in either the states or the fed government) who spend a fair bit of their time blaming the other level of government for some failure or other.
BTW, you seem to have some sort of Marx fetish. My reading of Marx is that he wanted the whole state and economy to be government-run. Not my cup of tea, actually. BTW, you might want to read Marx before you go around accusing people of being Marxists. I would advise against it. IMHO, Marx is a waste of space.
Climate Joker says:
“I did not say that poor people are going to catch on fire. Stop pretending I did.”
Well, these comments sure sound like you are blaming everything on AGW:
“I will admit to being a bit muzzy headed from lack of sleep due to our record breaking warm spell.”
“Oh, and the lip balm melted out of its container… due to the extreme heat. ”
“Australia has had another 12 houses burn to the ground overnight.” &etc.
Stop pretending you aren’t implying that AGW is the cause. You are.
If you can provide any testable evidence for AGW per the Scientific Method, you will have an argument. But as of now, you have no argument. All you are doing is cherry-picking isolated events.
AGW is a conjecture, nothing more. So please stop your wild-eyed arm waving over natural occurrences, which happen every year. You sound like an emotional spinster in love with Algore.
Joe Grappa says:
January 13, 2013 at 3:42 pm
I’ll repeat what I said above, Joe: No, because when the population was at 500 million or a billion, very few lived like a king. Thinking all we have to do is reduce the Earth’s popultion to that level and everybody would live like a king is as unlikely as it was when the earth’s population was at 500 million or a billion. There were very few kings then; there would be very few kings in your (highly unlikely) scenario—unless, of course, you killed everybody else and let those remaining steal their stuff. But even then, those remaining would likely never be satisfied with what they got from their dead brethren and would continue the genocide unrestricted, like an avalanche with unknown and unintended consequences.
And you wonder why nobody here has agreed with you.