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
LamontT
January 13, 2013 10:15 pm

Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Now up to 28 houses burned down in the latest fire

========================
And this has what to do with the climate?
We have been having major fires as long as the earth has been here. There is nothing special or unique about this one. It is just another fire.

george e. smith
January 13, 2013 10:39 pm

So Willis, were you ever a member of the Kandahar Ski Club.
When I was first learning to ski, and studying old ski history books, while trying to learn the Emile Allais French method, I read something about the Kandahar Ski Club, and always wanted to become a member.
I assume that Lord Roberts of Kandahar was at one time the Commodore of the Club.

ggm
January 14, 2013 12:01 am

Willis – you have a tallent for crafting words….. you should be writing books, scripts etc.

Merovign
January 14, 2013 12:06 am

But Willis, they don’t want the poor to be like us, they want us to be like the poor.
That’s their solution and they’re sticking to it.
Mind you, they think they’ll have slightly higher carbon restrictions as apparatchiks, but there you go.

Karl W. Braun
January 14, 2013 12:11 am

Joe,
You make the assertion that the Earth would be better with just five hundred million inhabitants. Why this particular figure rather than, say, four or six hundred million? Indeed, what would really be the optimum number, and the reason why, based on scientific considerations? Just wondering.
Ace,
On a site such as this, I think you have to be more persuasive on the importance of AGW in order for your comments to be better received.
Willis,
As one who has also done some travelling for extended periods of time, I can fully appreciate, to say the least, your contributions to this site, and I look most eagerly toward your subsequent ones.

Steve Vandorne
January 14, 2013 12:11 am

Grappa
What you are advocating is a weakened economy not a better one
From 1 AD to 1650 population was at a near stand still and many years declined drastically as a result of the Black Death and small pox. There was very little trade and advancements during these times. Once the populations started to recover the economy also started to recover and we had boom times.

Climate Ace
January 14, 2013 12:16 am

LamontT says:
January 13, 2013 at 10:15 pm
Climate Ace says:
January 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Now up to 28 houses burned down in the latest fire
========================
And this has what to do with the climate?
We have been having major fires as long as the earth has been here. There is nothing special or unique about this one. It is just another fire.

Who said there has never been major fires? There is something unique about this one, btw. Not that you would be interested.

Eric Fithian
January 14, 2013 12:25 am

Two items come to mind:
A quote I saw recently, “The love of theory is the root of all evil!” Not money…
The other is a book to recommend: “The Lunatic Express,” by Carl Hoffman. He went around the world a few years ago, deliberately riding the most decrepit, dangerous transport he could find. The people he met, though poor indeed, were almost universally hospitable to him…

Steve Vandorne
January 14, 2013 12:25 am

@Willis Eschenbach
said, “How on earth is that going to suddenly make everyone wealthy?”
A person that believes in the zero sum game or Keynesian economics would have such a belief. Where there is a fixed amount of capital/money in the world which this is the bases of the leftist concepts. They believe capital can only be taken it can not be created. This myth has created a lot of problems.
My argument against this Keynesian economics /Zero Sum game myth is simple. All the cavemen clubs are equal to everything we have today if the zero sum game myth was real.

Climate Ace
January 14, 2013 12:25 am

johanna says:
January 13, 2013 at 9:09 pm
Climate deuce, your thread-bombing is becoming tedious. 28 houses burned down in a bushfire is indeed sad, but speaking as someone who lived within a few km of where we lost 500 houses in a couple of hours, almost exactly ten years ago, it is hardly unprecedented. Your citing of people’s personal disasters to try to ‘prove’ something or other is (a) irrelevant, and (b) lower than a snake’s belly.

Who said houses burning was unprecedented? Not me. So stop making stuff up. Who said I was proving anything at all by citing what is happening in the Warrumbungles? Not me. So stop making stuff up.
People who post posts about how cold it is in their backyards get a free kick around here. Try saying it is hot, that heat records are being broken, and that wildfires are burning houses, farms, stock and infrastructure and the BAU boosters crawl out from under their rocks. Usually with some of the personal abuse that you dish out in your post.
As for using the 500 houses destroyed ten years ago to make your point, that is lower than a snake’s belly, using your special personal test, of course.

Climate Ace
January 14, 2013 12:50 am

David Ross says:
January 13, 2013 at 9:29 pm
Climate Ace wrote:
In the 21st century Malthusians are more likely to be found amongst the ranks of lefties than amongst conservatives/reactionaries.
Why did support for ‘Malthus’ change ‘sides’ over the space of a century and a half?
I usually don’t rise to your bait, Ace. But, for once, you’ve said something accurate and relevant. I have been reading up on the same topic and was asking the same question. It’s too long a story for a comments thread. But I hope to write something on that soon. (P.S. Only “lefties” use the term “reactionaries”)

Well, it is refreshing to get a compliment, so thank you. That makes one nice thing for around every hundred rude things said about me around here.
The really interesting thing about Malthus and the changing attitudes to Malthus (or what people perceive to be the views of Malthus which tends to be a whole nuther thing) is that Malthus had no idea that AGW was only a couple of centuries away.
While not a conservative myself, I appreciate a good conservative. I appreciate their values and I appreciate where they are coming from. I appreciate their fundamental decency. I disagree with them but for these reasons, I appreciate them.
OTOH, reactionaries are just so much human dross.
In terms of Malthus, you sound like you might be a bit more erudite than I am but I would be looking at two elements were I to be thinking about writing about it: (1) changing views about the nature of humanity, in particular whether the view of humanity is positive or negative and (2) changing views about the what governments ought to be doing (or can be doing) and what individuals ought to do be doing.
IMHO, these topics encapsulate what I would regard as a major crisis amongst the Ideological Left (or some such set of words). For me, an analysis of Malthus helps explicate the ideological barreness of the Left, its loss of direction and energy, and its general confusion about issues such as AGW.
I would appreciate it were you to alert WUWTERs when you publish on the topic.

Climate Ace
January 14, 2013 12:55 am

Mario Lento says:
January 13, 2013 at 9:03 pm
@Climate Ace: You ramble on conflating bad things that you think have to do with a warming planet, and then since these things you conflate are so bad, you must find blame… and that blame must be AGW. I find you quite boring, because you cannot understand how to find truth. You’re one of those people who can go on an on forever without understanding the core of what you are talking about.

Lento by name and lento by nature? I don’t ‘blame’ AGW for anything, in the same way as I don’t ‘blame’ lightning for starting bushfires.

January 14, 2013 12:56 am

“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. ”
Yes,I couldn’t agree more.In our country ,we value our family and relatives ;and yes,we are a family not just a group of people under one state or flag.I love my country .
Mabuhay Philippines!
We may not have much, but we have enough love to be happy.:-) Great post!

Editor
January 14, 2013 1:13 am

Simmons:
GE is a master “rent seeker” and sucks at the public trough. They buy the laws they want via “lobby operations”. The incandescent lightbulb ban was molded by GE to increase their profit margins. Right down to the exemption of “colored” light bulbs… which just happens to include their blueish colored more ‘natural’ lighting bulbs that are way less efficient in lumens / watt. Can you say “monopoly on incandescent lightbulbs”? I knew you could… /sarc>;
So instead of 19 CENTS each and more efficient lumens per watt, you can pay about $2 and get less. But it is a strange bluish cast, so that makes it all better… The “Reveal” name…
I now actively avoid buying GE products. Can’t always avoid them, but I’ll be damned if I will voluntarily feed the monster attacking me.
Since the “bulb ban” in California, GE has now basically taken over the lightbulb section of Target, OSH, heck, even Walmart. The “Philips and Sylvania” sections have shrunk everywhere (almost going extinct at the grocery store… one of the last Sylvania hold outs). Philips is still at Home Depot, but wounded. Lowe’s has a decent non-GE selection still, but not like it was.
Oh, and ACE Hardware has also had a plague of GE show up. They used to have 3 or 4 very unique choices ( SATCO or some such). GE are basically walking in and taking over lighting sections everywhere. At high prices.
Think paying $4 or $5 for a bulb instead of 19 cents doesn’t matter to a poor person?
@Rud Istvan:
Oh please. Not that peak crap again. Didn’t you get the memo? Fracking. Nat Gas now at 90+ year supply in the USA (more coming on line globally, we were just first). It also makes oil shale work. That’s about a Trillion barrels of oil in THE USA. Trillion. With a “T”. Nobody knows for sure because nobody was looking for more, but what we do know is about 3 Trillion Bbl world wide. Did I mention that’s Trillion, with a “T”?
The USA has been the poster child for “Peak Oil” since the ’70s prediction of a production peak was hit. (Ignore that every coast by PART of the Gulf of Mexico were put off limits along with about 2/3 to 3/4 of the known oil in Alaska.
Now, despite all that, ONE technology is putting the USA back into the oil exporting business. Peak oil just died.
BTW, in a ‘depleted’ oil field of the past, about 1/2 of the oil was still in the ground. Just waiting for a little higher price or newer tech. We’re there now…
I won’t even start on the mega-fields being found in deep water NOR on the point that they have found oil at “impossible” depths, so there is an entire “shell of depth” around the whole planet to explore that was never looked at since it was “impossible”… except it isn’t…
So get back to me in about 100 to 200 years and we can see how supply is doing.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
(There is a big shortage of competence and compassion to use it…)
Dickens:
We HAVE already invented ourselves “out of the problem”. There is NO technical problem None. Not at all. There are only political problems. Please, hit the “no shortage” link above.
ONE small example. The “pebble bed reactor” is old technology. 1960s kind of stuff. China is presently building some new ones and Germany had one before they went crazy anti-nuke and shut it down. They make high temperature heat cheaply. You can take ANY carbon source and, with that heat, make methanol. Methanol runs nicely in engines and lamps and stoves. It costs about $2.50 / “Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent” (varies a few dimes either way with some assumptions). That is “done technology”. Rentech has the carbon to fertilizer and carbon to alcohols / diesel / gasoline / whatever in production. It is running on natural gas right now as that is cheap and making fertilizer as that sells for high prices.
But, if desired, we could dump that methanol through a zeolite catalyst and it becomes gasoline. A factory to do this was built in New Zealand (as they had natural gas fields) during the Arab Oil Embargo aftermath. Again, a known technology.
Sasol in South Africa make gasoline and diesel and chemicals from coal using similar technologies.
The only reason for gasoline or equivalent fuels to cost more than $2.50 or so per GGE is a bastard mix of political will and greed. NOT technology.
For direct electricity generation, a nickel/ kWhr ought to be the hard upper bound given known production technologies today; but for political / green stupidity. (Any of several technical options, BTW, from coal and nuclear to natural gas turbines thanks to fracking.)
West:
On losing traits in poor planning of extinction of individuals and varieties:
They only recently in sequencing the genome of grapes found that two of THE most important grapes in the globe had a common ancestor. An undistinguished grape that the elite of grape snobbery had been arguing ought to be “allowed” to become extinct… Chardonnay and Gamay Noir. There are now active preservation efforts for it as a breeding stock and source of genetics…
http://www.wine-searcher.com/grape-746-gouais-blanc

Gouais Blanc is a very rare white wine variety which is nowadays grown in parts of Switzerland, Croatia, Serbia and the Stajerska sub-region of Slovenia.
Historically, it was more widespread throughout central and north-eastern France, and throughout middle Europe but today is found in minute quantities; only 550 liters of wine produced from the grape are registered annually in Slovenia. Some Swiss growers are still planting the variety for commercial production and to help preserve the species.
Advertising
DNA research at UC Davis has revealed that Gouais Blanc is, in fact, an ancestor of many varieties, due to it being planted alongside Pinot Noir and Pinot Gris in medieval times – albeit in poorer, less favored sites. Notable descendants include Chardonnay, Aligoté and Gamay Noir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouais_blanc

Gouais Blanc or Weißer Heunisch is a white grape variety that is seldom grown today but is important as the ancestor of many traditional French and German grape varieties. The name Gouais derives from the old French adjective ‘gou’, a term of derision befitting its traditional status as the grape of the peasants. Likewise, the German name Weißer Henuisch labels it as one the lesser, Hunnic grapes.

A look at the mess of health problems in “show dogs” and how “professional breeding” has resulted in all sorts of sickness and problems (or just a look at the Royals…) and compare that to the health and stamina of the average American Mutt. I’m damn glad nobody has been put in charge of human genetic selection(!).
BTW, there is some evidence that folks in starvation prone parts of India have some genes to make some ‘missing nutrients’. Things that the rest of us must get from food… There is also evidence of better immune systems from folks who had the plague in their past. Malaria has shaped no less than 3 genetic responses we think of as ‘diseases’ and would undoubtedly removed from the population. Sickle Cell in Blacks. One copy gives some malaria resistance. Two makes you sick. Evolution found ‘in the process of becoming’. Favism in the Middle East. (Higher sensitivity to intracellular oxidation by products of the Fava Bean. Those folks are already using higher levels of oxidative stress to kill off the parasites and the beans put them over the top. And finally Allergies (prominent in folks of western / European extraction) is an adaptation to higher parasite loads in general (and malaria IS a parasite).
So which of those “diseases” ought we remove from the gene pool? Or maybe it’s better not to give malaria a helping hand…
We simply do not know enough to “fix” our genes. Not yet. There are a lot of very good special genetics out there in some of the least advantaged on the planet.
Richards:
My Mum was from a way north east of London. Some small dirt poor place. She told me stories about then, there. Her Dad was a sailor in HHMerchant Marine, gone a lot, and not much money. During the war (W.W.II) things were worse. Dad grew up in Great Depression era Iowa. “potting rabbits” for the family to eat.
They both shared their stories with the kids. I have, by proxy, what it is like to have a single lump of coal, saving and cherishing it for the moment when everyone was at home to warm the place, for just a little while. My mother took me to the back yard once (where Dad had the perpetual 50 foot x 20 foot or so garden full of food) and we had a bowl of 1 can tuna, a bit of mayonnaise and about 3 crackers each. She said, roughly: “Now imagine this is all the food you have for today, and there is none for tomorrow. What do you do? How will you feel?” Dad told stories of being given ONE .22 rifle shell and told “Come back with a rabbit, and we eat. Then you will get another shell. No rabbit, no dinner, no shell.” Dad ended up an excellent shot. Nearly 100% he could ‘pot a rabbit’. He made sure I was just as good. (It also served him very well as he crossed France and Germany in W.W.II)
By proxy, I’ve walked in German snow, been surrounded in Bastogne (Wife’s Dad) sat cold and hungry for a day waiting to light the lump of coal. In the real world, I’ve had poor folks take a very small bit of meat and split it even more ways so as a guest I’d have first take. ( I, too, took a smaller than usual portion … I think my excuse was a ‘love of potatoes… being of Irish on my Dad’s side 😉 Speaking of which, Dad had stories of HIS ancestors and what they said about leaving Ireland due to the potato famine.
So, FWIW, there were some folks on ‘this side of the pond’ that, even if by proxy, know what it was like on that side for those not in the keep of the Royals…
I have an interesting “test” I do with pan-handlers. Those that say they need money for food: I offer to take them to a nearby fast food place and buy them a meal. I say “I will not give you money, but I will buy you the meal”. In all the time I’ve made that offer, only one person took me up on it. A modestly dirty woman about 30? We went 2 blocks in the cold to a warm Kentucky Fried Chicken. I bought here a meal. About 1/2 way through it, she was ‘slowing down’. I asked “Are you saving that for tomorrow?” Embarrassed, she said yes. I said no. “Finish it. I’ll buy you another one for tomorrow and all it takes to fill you up tonight.” At the end, she left with a ‘big’ meal in a box to go.
I’m still hoping some day to have that same feeling, but glad somehow that it has not been repeated… Most pan-handlers just want some cash without working. Real poor folks take a meal.
@Hank Henry:
Every time I get in my car, thanks to having seen real poor folks living in theirs, I think how lucky I am that every single one of my family members has their own little mobile housing unit with built in heater, A/C, and stereo entertainment center. Comfy seats too. It is a luxury beyond compare. Yet we are so rich, we just use it to drive around…
@Willis:
Odd. Another parallel. I was “into alternative energy” long before it was ‘cool’. About the mid-70s? Maybe earlier. I’ve bought several ‘demonstrator size solar things. The are all either recycled now or ‘in storage’. A half dozen ‘solar battery chargers’ and ni-cd ni-mh batteries. It all ends the same. Just not really practical. I’ve got a good 3 feet of ‘alternative energy books’ on the shelf.
There comes a time when you have bashed that nose into the wall one too many times and say “Gee, how about some coal heat while we work on that whole bio-gas yard waste thing…”
Still, I’m “all for it”, once it works right. (The bird and bat slaughtering sleep disrupting Giant Windmills are an issue too.)
I lived on my sail boat for a year. Not as exciting as yours. Just in the S.F. Bay. But it was self contained for electricity and stove and on board shower. Loved it. (Until the cold and damp had mold eat a favorite book…) After a lot of “ideas”, Diesel in the aux engine and shore power to charge the batteries still worked out best.
But moving under sail, no fuel burn at all, is gliding on God’s own breath…
Hugoson:
NOOO!!!! DO NOT subduct them! That is valuable fuel! Feed them to gen-4 or better reactors… or reprocess… or anything but tossing them away.
:
Japan had poor natural resources before their boom. Ditto Germany. The World Wars were in many ways about Germany wanting to get to those resources.
Economies stagnate when a “Power Elite” becomes entrenched and more concerned about maintenance of their special position than about advancing the economy. The “Creative Destruction” that Marx hated. It requires property rights and freedom to upset the apple cart for a company like GE. For GE, it takes a strong government well lubricated with bribe money campaign contributions to keep competitors hobbled. THAT is the real “Third Way” economics. (That goes by many names, including “Market Socialism” and “Italian Fascism” and “German Socialists Workers Party” and “Industry Regulation” and “To Big To Fail” and… )
Grappa:
Well, you do seem to be living up to your name sake. Even resorting to name calling. “Pro-crowders”. That’s a new one on me.
Did you miss the part about how people LIKE to live in big cities? I grew up in a farm town. Couldn’t wait to leave. That was from IN town. Folks on farms often had the family wanting to move into town and just drive out to the farm to work it. Given 1/2 a chance, folks dump the lawn maintenance and move to a beach condo in Florida. (Talk about density).
Please Joe, do the math. The globe is not crowded at all. Not even China. The cities are crowded because people keep moving into them. (My son just moved to Chicago by choice).
Termateries was a new word for me. Seems like you use it wrongly though. Online dictionary:

Termatary is always a great word to know.
So is interrobang. Does it mean: a printed punctuation mark (‽), available only in some typefaces, designed to combine the question mark (?) and the exclamation point (!), indicating a mixture of query and interjection, as after a rhetorical question.
a calculus or concretion found in the stomach or intestines of certain animals, esp. ruminants, formerly reputed to be an effective remedy for poison.

At any rate, yes, you need more factories. And more bus lines and L-Trains and suburbs and hotels and cars and shopping malls and movie theatres and restaurants and bars and TV sets and nice Japanese Massage Parlors (love it when they walk on your back 😉 and football stadiums and all sorts of things.
It’s called “The Good Life”, Joe. Embrace it. Billions do, every day. (Beats the heck out of a cold mud hut and a stick…)
Ah, your true colors show: “in the name of Malthus”… OK, you drank the poison cool-aid. Got it. I’m trained as an economist. We had to study Malthus at some length. He’s one of our ‘bright lights’. Founded demographics, even. Then again, we also had to learn where he was wrong. And he was very Very VERY wrong. By his clock, we have already all died.
He missed: Resource substitution, the S shaped population growth curve, that educating women and bringing prosperity DROPS birth rates (he had it as ‘inevitable’ that more food meant more births. Exactly backwards.) and so much more.
So please, put Malthus in that nice little closet we use for the Old Crazy Uncle who did something nice once but we don’t like to talk about how he scared the kids in the neighborhood…

I think a combination of economic incentives, and forced
sterilization via engineered viruses would do the job.

Well, that makes you certifiable. Just ONE little problem: LIFE does not take direction well.
Viruses mutate as they multiply. That means every time you get an infection, by the time it’s nearing an end, it is a different bug in you. Now do that in a Billion people. All it takes is one of those folks to develop a little mutation that lets the virus keep on living (which it very much wants to do). That, then, means extinction for the planet.
Depending on the mutation, it could be all of humanity. Or it could be all primates. Or it might make the leap to birds ( we swap several disease with them already, including the flu…)
Please, take just a minute, and ask how many of the folks living in London do so by choice. I think you will find it is most of them. People LOVE New York City (though I sure don’t know why). If all the people on the planet were in places like London or NYC, we would fit on just 6 Islands of about that size. And folks would just love it and be fighting to move in.
For those of us who don’t like it, who like the “8 to an acre” suburban lot. The entire world population at an average 4 to the household on standard American sized lots fits in Texas and Oaklahoma combined. The rest of the world empty of people. Hint: The area devoted to industry and such is smaller… It would take about 4 x that all told just to fill up America. (Leaving lots of room for parks).
The world isn’t full. The world isn’t even crowded. Cities are crowded by choice because we like it that way. Otherwise we’d move to the suburbs…
Now, about that nutty idea that we must be crowded into cities as there is just not enough land to live in small towns. BS. Pure and unfiltered.
Take those “8 to an acre” houses in Texas an Oklahoma and spread them out, just over North America. You now have a few acres each. There are a bit over 6 Billion acres in North America. At 4 people per house, that’s 24 Billion people. Each home on their “Own Little Acre”. At our present about 8 Billion (going on or at 9 yet?) that’s 3 acres per home.
Of course, we Might want to use some of South America, Asia, Africa, The Pacific Nations, or even a bit of Europe … just so we can ‘spread out’ a little bit…
(Why is it the loony ones never seem to do any math? Did they fail ‘word problems’ or just get so wound up in the sound of their own voice as to not ‘fact check’ themselves?…)

richardscourtney
January 14, 2013 2:07 am

Climate Ace:
In response to your first post in this thread, at January 13, 2013 at 1:56 pm I wrote saying to you

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.

But you could not resist the opportunity to again display your ignorance and to disrupt a WUWT thread.
This thread is about the important subject of poverty.
This thread is NOT about the trivial matters of your arrogance and ignorance.
Hence, it would benefit rational discussion if your nonsensical ravings were ignored because refusal to answer them may encourage you to go away.
Richard

Climate Ace
January 14, 2013 3:25 am

[snip . . trolling . . read the site rules . . mod]

Chris
January 14, 2013 3:33 am

While the poorest of the poor need energy, they also need food and water – in fact, those 2 come first. If the forecasts of CAGW-believers come to pass, the impact on the poor are as follows: 1) more expensive food due to reduced crop yields (primarily drought, but also flooding, such as the 2011 floods which wiped out 14% of Thailand’s rice crop and led to a spike in rice prices). 2) lack of water due to drought, such as that in 2011 which led to 100s of thousands of East Africans to move to refugee camps 3) lack of livelihood as subsistence farmers can no longer grow their own food, and thus lose both the source of their own food as well income from what they sell. And of course no one will buy their land if it cannot grow crops. 4) More expensive energy IF carbon taxes are enacted, or energy sources changed from coal and oil to renewable energy sources.
For CAGW believers, the push for renewable energy is not about increasing energy costs for the poor, but trying to mitigate the impact of CAGW. I understand that the skeptic community does not believe these outcomes will happen, or that if they occur it will be due to natural variation, not CAGW. But to portray the CAGW camp’s efforts to reduce CO2 output as just a money grab or an effort to hurt the world’s poor rather than efforts at mitigation is a bit disingenuous.

Reply to  Chris
January 14, 2013 9:03 am

At 3:33 AM on 14 January, Chris had written:

For CAGW believers, the push for renewable energy is not about increasing energy costs for the poor, but trying to mitigate the impact of CAGW. I understand that the skeptic community does not believe these outcomes will happen, or that if they occur it will be due to natural variation, not CAGW. But to portray the CAGW camp’s efforts to reduce CO2 output as just a money grab or an effort to hurt the world’s poor rather than efforts at mitigation is a bit disingenuous.

At 4:40 AM on the same date, richardscourtney had provided a reply to Chris‘ comment which effectively refuted everything in that post, but I think its not redundant to put the boot in good and proper. True, Mr. courtney had made the case effectively that:

…at present – there is no reason to fearful of ‘the forecasts of CAGW-believers’. In the event of discernible AGW then there would be reason to assess if those ‘forecasts’ are likely to be correct. But AGW will continue to be an irrelevant distraction unless and until AGW is discernible and shown to be a problem.”

…but having followed the prima facie preposterous AGW contention since it was brought to my attention in 1981 – at which time I horsebacked the estimation that “These clowns are overstating the terrestrial greenhouse gas effect of CO2 by at least three orders of magnitude” – I’m probably a bit more sustainedly (if not thoroughly) conversant with the “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” hokum than are most of the folks frequenting this forum, and I can’t accept any contention that “the CAGW camp’s efforts to reduce CO2 output” is anything except “a money grab” to satisfy the personal greed of people like the Algore and his cohorts as well as a far more perfidious lunge for political economic power (particularly invidious regulation and taxation) over the productive sector of our society.
That this will inescapably “hurt the world’s poor” (while not in any way advancing “efforts at mitigation” regarding whatever might occur as the Earth’s climate changes due to influences entirely beyond human causation) is nothing that your “CAGW believers” give the least little damn about, if they’ve so much as transiently bothered to think about it.
The “consensus” majority of them have proven reliably throughout the past thirty-plus years that they’re as full of hate for “the world’s poor” as they are for honest men and women scrupulously skeptical of their Cargo Cult Science conjectures.
So why should us honest folk not hate the “CAGW believers” as those lying, vicious sons of dogs have worked so persistently to deserve?
Heavens, considering how many of us on the “denier” side are also advocates of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms and, indeed, participants in the “gun culture,” I think it speaks well of the spirit of respect for human life that addressing the “CAGW believers” with musketry hasn’t – yet – been undertaken.
Once it starts, however, for my own part I’m minded to maintain the premise that “After the first one, the rest are free.”

TimC
January 14, 2013 3:50 am

Johanna – thanks. Re: “[I] couldn’t find the bit where [Willis] said that the world [is] under an obligation to extract as much as possible as fast as possible” I didn’t actually suggest that Willis used any such words: I said “so this article is actually a plea to the energy exporters to turn on all the spigots and mine away furiously, to maximise supply – so minimise world prices”.
Isn’t this basic economics: that if demand is constant and supply increases, prices will drop to clear the market. Surely this is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the case that Willis makes in this article – for energy prices to be reduced?
Yes, you are right about the despots – I’m no expert in this field and you are of course correct that I was referring here mainly to oil exports. But just OPEC country exports are enough to rock the markets – remember the “oil shock” price increases of the 1970’s (you might be too young of course …!). And I think my central point – that this article really amounts to a plea for more democratic systems of government – still holds. The US, Australia, Canada and Europe (the main coal suppliers you mention) are democracies where the case can be made for policy change and (if citizens are persuaded and vote accordingly) change will happen, whereas the despots are simply a law unto themselves.

January 14, 2013 3:53 am

Point taken Richard. Compliments (even backhanded ones) or censure only encourage him.

Editor
January 14, 2013 4:17 am

@MamaLiberty:
I call that the Evil Bastard problem. Unfortunately, both you, and Willis, are correct.
The “root of it all” is the “Marginal propensity to invest”. Poor people don’t have the spare money to invest in “development” of industry. So at the extreme poor end of things, there’s no money to improve the economy. Every dime goes to food and clothing and such.
As folks ‘get richer’ they have some they can set aside to invest. That might be in a stock, bond, or even a shoe store in the USA. In a rural village it can be a package of needles and some thread. Or even just a second chicken and “borrowing” a rooster for a day. (There is a program where you can buy a goat or even just a rabbit for a poor family. The “condition” being that they will use it to make more, not eat it. It has brought relative wealth to many poor folks in the world. http://www.heifer.org/ )
So, one way or the other, we need folks “richer than the rest” to make marginal investment happen and economic growth leading to wealth and prosperity for all.
Nice, neat, win-win, free market stuff….
Does not matter if the “investor” is the “micro capitalist” buying needle and thread, a rich Western Corporation. The Church. Or even The Chairman Of The People’s Committee. SOMEONE has to say “today, we do not consume this money. With this money, we invest in more tooling and facilities and stock.”
And that starts the Evil Bastard problem. Since any good investment brings more wealth, over time “the rich get richer”. Even if it is just Der Fuhrer, or Dear Leader, or Chairman of GE. Then they start wanting more and more power.
So, on the one hand, we need the Evil Bastard so that investment happens and economies grow and we all benefit from added wealth. Yet on the other side, we end up with The Evil Bastard willing to do things like dump Dioxin in the well or starve 20 Million for his dream of collective agriculture, or kill off a Billion in service to his (or her) fantasy about Gaia being too crowded.
We need very little regulation (and most of that keeping other evil people from stealing the individual investments or dumping crap on them) so that freedom lets folks invest and produce and gain wealth. Yet we also are subject to the Evil Bastards corrupting regulation and using it for self aggrandizement (as is rampant in America and the EU today). So which Evil Bastard do you choose? The one “from the government here to help you” or the one “From MegaCorp Inc. offering you a job dumping dioxin in the town well”? We’ve had both ends…
For a short time, between about 1950 and 1970 we had a fair balance. Maybe a bit too much “central planning” and “big corporation power”, but maybe also a bit too little “environmental regulations”. Now we are way around the bend with way too much ‘central planning’ and too much ‘environmental regulations’ as they are all under the control of the Evil Bastard Cartel in D.C. working in cahoots with Dear Leaders…
Sadly, I don’t have a good solution. Perhaps a limit on absolute wealth and size of any given person and corporation? Perhaps a ban on all corporate campaign contributions? Perhaps just forcing The Federal Government back into the original Constitutional role?
We have the Evil Bastards who grasp after power in any case. They will gravitate to where that power can be taken. Perhaps what is best is just limiting the size of those places and pitting them against each other… which is what a competitive market is supposed to do. ( I don’t really care if it is ‘free’, as long as it is ‘competitive’ and the Evil Bastards of all colors, corporate and government and just filthy rich mega-Billionaires are shackled enough for the rest of us to live and breath… and buy some needles and thread, or maybe TWO goats…)
But unless we have a high enough “Marginal propensity to invest”, we live in poverty from consuming all our wealth. So someone must be wealthy enough to do that investing…
@GungaDIn:
Love those Thomas Sowell quotes.
i think he’s at Stanford now. One of the best modern conservative economists around. That he’s a black guy just has to rub salt in liberals scratches…
@About Climate Ace:
Ah, at last. He’s shown up putting up buckets of the same old tripe. After his other rounds of dreck, I now know not to bother reading any of it. I may finish comments in reasonable time now, with so much that is empty of content, so skipped without loss…
. Lynn:
Thanks for the cite! Might also want to see the one on there being plenty of food, if we would just use it a bit differently and dump the political hacks from the process:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/grains-and-why-food-will-stay-plentiful/
Ross
Ack! Reading your comment I accidentally read a C.A… bit on Malthus…
But to answer it:
In the beginning Malthus was creating a new field, Demographics, it had (and has) merit and worth. Then his conclusions were shown horridly wrong and his gross errors (such as “inevitably” population grows with ‘means” when it does exactly the opposite). Having been shown spectacularly wrong and in a pernicious evil way, the left of course supports him.
Easy as can be. In business, things have to be correct to have utility. To the Loony Side Of Left, they need propaganda value and being wrong but emotional is a feature as it distracts folks from thinking. Rather like being a mindless troll…
:
Loved the pictures and stories in that gobar gas link. First made a ‘table top’ demonstration scale unit in about 1979?
There’s a wonderful success story from India where I’ve lost the name of the guy who did it. Short form: Hillside denuded and eroding, village in poverty. Women going blind from dung smoke and kids ‘growing up’ collecting dung from eroding hillsides where goats ate anything and everything.
20 years later, picture of the same place, same guy. It’s nearly a tropical rain forest look behind him instead of red eroding hills. Women with spare time. Families well fed. Men with new gadgets and tools for work. Children in school.
How? Simple. A ‘bean tree’ Leucianna (something) planted and ‘coppiced’. The leaves fed to penned goats. Now the land is not denuded by goats. Trees fix nitrogen and shade prevents soil drying, retaining moisture. Goat dung to Gobar Gas fermenter. Little gas stove in each hut. No more wood collection for cooking, so the women and children have time and health. Slurry from gobar fermenter to the garden, lots of food and extra vegetables to sell. (Along with some cheese and such from the growing goat herd due to more forage from the coppice farm and soil building). They even had enough from selling soaps and vegetables and cheeses to buy things like needles and were talking of a sewing machine and (GASP) maybe electricity for a light bulb.
All from penning goats, gobar gas, and using a ‘bean tree’….
Sadly, it’s a bit cold here for me to run a gobar gas operation and the spouse will not let me have a goat. Now THAT is wealth. When you are told that having more of it is ‘unpleasant’…
(I know, we don’t measure wealth in goats, but they do, and that’s kind of the point…)

richardscourtney
January 14, 2013 4:40 am

Chris:
Your post at January 14, 2013 at 3:33 am begins by saying

While the poorest of the poor need energy, they also need food and water – in fact, those 2 come first. If the forecasts of CAGW-believers come to pass, the impact on the poor are as follows: 1) more expensive food due to reduced crop yields (primarily drought, but also flooding, such as the 2011 floods which wiped out 14% of Thailand’s rice crop and led to a spike in rice prices). 2) lack of water due to drought, such as that in 2011 which led to 100s of thousands of East Africans to move to refugee camps 3) lack of livelihood as subsistence farmers can no longer grow their own food, and thus lose both the source of their own food as well income from what they sell. And of course no one will buy their land if it cannot grow crops. 4) More expensive energy IF carbon taxes are enacted, or energy sources changed from coal and oil to renewable energy sources.

OK. You have provided a seeming justification for discussing AGW in the context of addressing poverty.
However, your arguments all depend on your statement

If the forecasts of CAGW-believers come to pass, …

It is very important to note that there is no evidence that AGW exists at a discernible level and there is much evidence that it does not; e.g.
lack of tropospheric ‘hot spot’
lack of Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’
lack of ‘committed warming’
lack of any global warming for 16+ years despite increasing atmospheric CO2
etc.
This indicates that – at present – there is no reason to fearful of “the forecasts of CAGW-believers”. In the event of discernible AGW then there would be reason to assess if those “forecasts” are likely to be correct. But AGW will continue to be an irrelevant distraction unless and until AGW is discernible and shown to be a problem.
There are real issues of poverty and a variety of ways to address them And the optimum way to address poverty may differ between countries because of cultural differences. So, philosophical, ethical, economic, political and religious issues are all important to combating poverty. These matters can be debated with a view to determining how best to address poverty overall and in any specific locality. But AGW is a distraction from each and every one of these matters.
Climate changes. It always has and it always will, everywhere.
Effects of real climate changes can also be addressed. AGW is a distraction from that, too.
Richard

markx
January 14, 2013 5:43 am

E.M.Smith says: January 14, 2013 at 4:17 am
Leucaena leucocephala
Marvellous plant – nitrogen fixing, so high protein foliage … “tree lucerne”…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucaena
http://www.leucaena.net/

Gail Combs
January 14, 2013 5:44 am

This reminds me of this story from India. Please understand that Every 12 hours, one farmer commits suicide in India ” That is, two farmers a day for the past 15 years…. beyond a quarter million people.”
Monsanto is blamed for this and a Monsanto official made the mistake of visiting and denying responsibility.

…When news of a Monsanto senior official’s arrival from Mumbai reached the nearby village of Munjala, cotton farmers of the village Karanji, about 140 K.m. from Nagpur located the Monsanto official and took him to their field where a complete failure of ‘Paras Sudarshan’ Bt cotton seed was shown to him.
When the Monsanto representative failed to admit the lapse, he was severely beaten up by the farmers.
It was reported that even a local agriculture officer did not come to his rescue….
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july122011/india-monsanto-beaten-tk.php

How these monsters can sleep at night while they are callously screwing the poor out of what little they have completely baffles me. That my government is instrumental in this shames me. The more I learn the deeper is my hatred for those who inhabit the government buildings in the District of Criminals and I am only effected in a minor way.
An appropriate song for those in Washington to pay heed to: We are the worms of the earth Against the lions of might.

January 14, 2013 6:29 am

Sorry mods – a re-post if I may (formatting muff in just-previous post!) TIA _Jim

Gail Combs says January 14, 2013 at 5:44 am
This reminds me of this story from India.

Monsanto is blamed for this and a Monsanto official made the mistake of visiting and denying responsibility. …

I like an un-verified, non-cross-checked story as much as the next guy – when it’s pure fiction and takes place in a movie … so let’s re-read the referenced story for comprehension, shall we?
For expediency in addressing this, I extract below from the comments section following the ‘story’ a pair of comments addressing the errs (editorial or perhaps translational ‘slant’) existing:

Call me Leery July 13, 2011 5:06 pm (Pacific time)
So, the problem is that Monsanto didn’t ship enough seeds to India to fill the demand?
The demand was high enough to sell out the supply (I guess the seeds work that much better?), so a local guy starts packing local seeds in Monsanto bags, and selling them as BT seeds.
When those seeds failed, it was Monsanto’s fault?

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Scott S. July 13, 2011 2:54 pm (Pacific time)
So some idiot goes and counterfiets Monsanto seeds and Monsanto gets the blame? I think next year Monsanto should boycott India. Make them try to feed their nation with expensive low yeild non-Monsanto seeds and see how they do.
(Did anyone who comment even read the entire article? The author sure did put the facts far down from the start so folks wouldn’t see them. Cancer and Agent Orange? What does that have to do with the story?)

You know, it is my observation that ‘trvth’ should not be so easy nor early a target in the ‘war-effort’ of Gail’s mission to spread truth and ‘enlightenment’ across both the fruited and un-fruited plains and varying landscape …
.

1 12 13 14 15 16 18