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.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Quite so Willis. Any policy designed to increase the price of food or energy is immoral.
Biofuels policy is a double evil.
Great message form Willis, beautifully delivered… thank you for the read…
and..
papiertigre says:
January 13, 2013 at 5:19 am
“….here’s something that’s worth noting with regard to President Obama….”
Interesting stuff, papiertigre.
Indeed that may be the way to play the game, and if that is what Obama is doing, more power to him …. truly these days with the rabid CAGW masses baying for blood if you just come out with common sense you know you’ve lost those votes and that lot will be against you forever……
Amazing article that needs to be posted on as Green sites as possible. I think this is the only way to get them to see the inadvertent harm their policies are causing.
Willis,
IMHO, this is your best post to date and the things that the “think about the children” enviros will never get
>blockquote>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.
No they wouldn’t Joe, there would still be a huge difference between the 1% and the rest
Quite profound. h/t Willis
Sing us a song you’re the piano man
Sing us a song tonight
Well we’re all in the mood for a melody
And you got us feeling alright… Billy Joel
This came to mind amidst your three stories, must be your prose reads like a song. You set and sank the nail with one blow Willis.
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.
Spreading the wealth with the government as administrator keeps the wealth in the privileged few doing the spreading.
There is a very large elephant in the room that you — we — are ignoring. The Left (the Progressives, the inellectual elite, the !% of the !%, however you want to name them) neither know nor care about the 99% and — listen carefully — want them dead. Gone. They fantasize about their disappearance (see, for example, the eco-porn television series, “After Man”). No, they do not wish to set up camps, since that would involve actual icky shooting/gassing/vaporizing, but they do very much want the “excess mouths” to. simply. go. away. Reference the choice of weapons of Our DearLeader (PBUH), Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, Peace Medal recipient, Leader of the Free World: the Annointed One. He chooses to use a very technologically advanced and hands-off weapon: the drone. Every morning (by his own admission), he peruses a list and chooses which ones he wants dead. Push-button war, hands-off murder. If Our Dear Leader (PBUH) could, in the secret heart, push a button and make those 3 or 4 or 5 billion (what’s another number?) messy, dirty, yearning, annoying, stinking farmers just simply *go away* don’t you think he would do it? And that’s just for starters.
We live in a society that has obesity as a common problem for its poorest citizens, only our richest people can afford to be thin. They pay extra for reduced fat, or sugar or salt. They pay other people to force them to exercise, and failing that, they pay Doctors to mold them to their dream shape. Most other societies, current or past would laugh at such a situation. We truly are alien to the 99%.
Brilliant article Willis, absolutely brilliant. I hope it goes viral.
oldfossil says: “Am I being a conspiracy-nut neurotic when I suspect that carbon taxes are just an excuse for the developed nations to avoid giving aid to the dark-skinned nations of the world?”
The cap-and-trade scam is not a move to avoid giving aid to the less-developed, darker-skinned parts of the world. We liberals love giving them stuff. Their countries have received hydroelectric dams, huge infrastructure loans, and so on. We are providing all of those dark nations with birth control pills and abortion technology.
We will give plenty. There is plenty to give, and it is not coming out of the pocket of us liberals – out of the pockets of those of us with PhDs in various social sciences, those of us at the helms of the various aid societies and agencies. No, this is how we make a living. It lines our pockets to do the needs assessment, deliver the cure, and to have a sustained problem where it looks like we are doing something. The actual dollars come from wealth producers, utilizing land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.
As long as it lines our pockets, and works to keep them dependent on us.
The news stories are beginning to come out of the Asian countries where we tied economic development assistance to national birth control agandae: birth rates have dropped since we began meddling in the 1950s and 1960s. Now, the population has aged, and there is an insufficient populace to generate wealth to provide for these elderly. D’oh! Sorry about that!
My aging mother’s best girlfriend’s husband did not walk the March, but hid in the mountains with friends’ families. After their husbands were gone, the ladies visited each year that they were able, they were not Ugly Americans, but they are all gone.
Joe – you need to get out more, and you need to read some history. At any point in written history, when there were fewer people on the planet, how, exactly, did everyone live like a king?
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.
Again well done Willis !!!!!
Two men were walkin in a meadow,the birds were singing,the younger man
man said,the world is so beautiful. A crow flies over,caw-caw-caw. The older
man says “there is always a critic”. I see a few have already shown up.
Willis,
You’ve written some amazing things over the years, but this could indeed be your Magnum Opus.
Well done!
Good read on a Sunday morning. It’s a vicious policy circle we have seen before. Bad energy policy leads to scarcity leads to calls for government controls and around it goes. The EU is the test case and we can see the results.
This makes me very very VERY angry. The earth has enough resources to feed and care for billions more people. Give everybody cheap energy and good farming and we all would live like kings. Do people really think for a second that reducing the population will somehow get rid of the problems that cause poverty? There have been poor people since records have been kept. There weren’t 7 billion people in 1000 BC, but there were plenty of poor people. Population reduction is never the answer. Human life is special. How can anyone sleep at night advocating forced population reduction?
Where’s Anna (last thread)? Working on a cracking riposte no doubt but struggling perhaps. Wonderful stuff WE, thank you.
I just sent this to some greenie friends and a couple of oceanographic scientists:
“I believe I sent you all the piece by Willis Eschenbach “It’s Not About Me” which was the story of his life, the justification for his thinking about global warming theories (and his late-in-life venture to Burning Man, with pictures).
(“Professional” “trained” and “scientifically educated” folk were complaining that Willis had no qualifications that justified having authoritative, qualified theories about warming and “It’s Not About Me” — but about my ideas and thinking — was the response to the sniping.)
Willis writes often on “the world most viewed site on global warming and climate change,” WattsUpWithThat, a site that smarmy professionals call a “denier blog,” but one I’d characterize as a site advocating honest science. (Interestingly, mostly the honest science and data bend away from the AGW hysteria, but Anthony Watts tells it like it is, regardless. I find the site highly credible.)
Willis is a pretty fascinating man. He reminds me of Bob’s mentor Hank Stommel. When I first met Bob, I didn’t realize how astonishingly brilliant he was, but I certainly sniffed smart. It was the same for Hank (and Hank’s wife, Chickie, who weren’t no slouch). I don’t know if Bob took me to meet them for “approval,” or if they ever discussed me at all, but Hank, especially, enjoyed me tremendously. I made him laugh. Hank so wanted us to visit Cape Cod often and have dinner with them…
Carl Wunsch, a friend who’s still at MIT (although he no longer discusses global warming with me and refuses to follow the blogs and disdains Judith Curry, who I believe is the most broadly educated in the field and extremely fast and facile) wrote this, after Hank died:
“HENRY MELSON STOMMEL, probably the most original and important physical oceanographer of all time, was in large measure the creator of the modern field of dynamical oceanography. He contributed and inspired many of its most important ideas over a forty-five-year period. Hank, as many called him, was known throughout the world oceanographic community not only as a superb scientist but also as a raconteur, explosives amateur, printer, painter, gentleman farmer, fiction writer, and host with a puckish sense of humor and booming laugh.”
Bob and I were the last friends to see Hank alive. Chickie has left and gone to her room for the night and visiting hours were almost over, in the hospital. Hank was so glad to see Bob! They talked and talked and talked and Hank tried to laugh, but he knew he was dying — and fast. At the end, he grabbed Bob’s hand, looked him in the eye, and said, “We had a grand time, didn’t we, Bob!” Then, we left.
I thought to call the NY Times the next morning. They didn’t have a prepared obituary. I talked with them for a bit, but, I get emotionally overwhelmed sometimes, and I was. Anyway, they got it right. Hank was quite a guy. I think that Willis rattles around in Hank’s league. Hank complained over and over to Bob that young oceanographers refused to go to sea, sat at their computers and modeled the world without ever thinking about it, understanding it on any internal, visceral level.
(BTW, Carl and Mel: I’ve put Bob Heinmiller’s “famous” Woods Hole teen club video, “Bag War” up on YouTube. I’d put the *very* famous “The Turbulent Ocean” up on YouTube as well, although I have to break it into ten minute segments, and I don’t know how to do that. It’s a classic about doing real science — at sea — and stars all the greats from around the globe. Poor Francis Bretherton got badly sea sick. Maybe one of you could put it up, in honor of science…?)
This piece, below, by Willis is not about his theories on global warming — and he’s quite good: science that can be explained and understood by ordinary smart folk, never pedantic, arrogant, condescending. This piece is about the economics of global warming, the imposition of the energy tax (and the commissions for Goldman Sachs et al…?) that the greenies cherish so, the “protection” of their planet for…. who knows? It’s the “idea” of the polar bears and the ice caps. …the principle of the thing. This is Willis’ response to that.
Hell, I just like Willis’ writing. He is very good. If he were not still hanging out with his ex-fiancee of thirty-five years, I’d consider catching a boat to someplace….
….Lady in Red
One of American liberals favorite demagogue tools is “THE POOR”.
Compare and contrast American “poor” with the real poor of the world.
I grew up in India in the 60’s, living in New Delhi. In the US we were middle class citizens, not rich, not poor. In India we were the moral equivalent of multimillionaires. The Indian government more or less required foreign workers (my father worked for the Ford Foundation) to employ a full house staff, so we had a cook, a sweeper, a dhobi (washerman), a driver, a waiter/butler, and a chowkidar (house guard, whose job it was to sit at the front of our driveway and drink tea and smoke bidi’s, cheap brown paper cigarettes, all night), complete with families, all of whom lived in servants quarters out back. We were basically supporting some 20 people including children.
As a child, I was not of course surprised or shocked by India. It was basically “normal” to me as I grew up. The contrast between our extreme wealth (and the even greater wealth of many of the Indian inhabitants of New Delhi who e.g. worked for or in the government or for the major corporations such as Tata), the “middle class” of Delhi who lived decently and had houses or apartments and jobs or small businesses (who included our servants) and the poor — who were enormously poor, living in mud huts or tin-walled shanties or just plain living on the street, carrying their worldly possessions in a small bundle and begging for a living — was unremarkable, just the way of the world in India (and has been for time immemorial). In India, the poorest of the poor are taken care of by the second poorest — it is a virtue to give alms, usually by literally sharing your food with a beggar poorer and hungrier than yourself. It is bailing the ocean with a spoon, for all of that.
There are always those who support this enormous disparity of wealth as the status quo. In particular, those who are on the wealthy side of the equation, all the way down to the bottom of the middle class. These are the people who have “made it” — they have some measure of security, some prospects, some hope for advancement for themselves or their children. At the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are many people who only recently clawed their way out of the extremes of poverty and will do almost anything to avoid slipping back. But the most “entitled” of the group are the wealthiest, who view themselves as the founders of the feast enjoyed by all the rest. It is a macabre, Dickensian world we inhabit.
In India the social construct was embedded in the religion in the form of the caste system and a complex social order of serial rebirth with promotion, but only if you did your duty as a caste member throughout your life, accepting your lot as the destiny you earned in a previous life. It was smoothly adopted by the British Raj, who effectively moved in on top of all castes, and persisted well after independence and partition through the 60s and early 70s. By the 80s and 90s, government policy abolishing the caste system and discrimination was having some effect (as was decades of as near universal education as they could manage) and the Internet and gradual growth and increasing affluence of the middle class created an ongoing social revolution and economic boom. That isn’t to say that the poorest class doesn’t remain just as poor, or even that it is shrinking. There are no easy exists from shantytowns, and the urban streets of India are lined with millions of entire families whose “home” and place of business is 100 square feet of sidewalk, many of them the great-great-grandchildren of people displaced from the Pakistans during the partition, promised resettlement and land, and then abandoned back in the 50’s and 60s. I’ve seen spaces 80 yards wide and a few hundred yards long in between two warehouse-sized buildings filled in with three to four stories of shanties, layers supported by a latticework of bamboo, with a single public tap providing water for the whole thing and a single public field providing its entire system of “sanitation” (and this in the late 90s, well on the way towards greater economic freedom and prosperity).
Without trying to open a can of worms, many other world religions, including Christianity, have played an almost identical role in the socioeconomic culture in feudal, strongly stratified societies throughout history. Christianity was originally largely a slave religion, a religion of the lower class, in the Roman empire, in part because it promised posthumous rewards to the poor and punishments to the wealthy, neither of which was going to happen in this life for either one. It would never have been adopted by Constantine and that same Roman empire otherwise — the addition of the “divine right to rule” meme was all it took to make it the perfect religion for a feudal empire supported by a vast network of slaves and “free” tenants of land owned by the wealthy/entitled who were slaves in everything but name.
Even Buddhism was little better — it never adopted a feudal meme but nevertheless accepted a serial reincarnation meme that included acceptance of station and rejection of attachment and wealth, both necessary to any wealthy ruler seeking to perpetuate their wealth and power without exciting a revolution. Islam has the same sort of fatalism and acceptance of the will of Allah built into it — if one is wealthy and powerful it is the will of Allah, if one is poor it is also the will of Allah, and Allah is portrayed (in the many cultural stories such as the ones we know of as A Thousand Nights and a Night, which are only a sampling of an entire verbal and written storytelling tradition) as being whimsical, as likely to raise you up as to cast you down quite independent of your own efforts. Again the dominant meme is one of posthumous reward or punishment, making it easier to accept any sort of injustice in this life.
In all cases the dominant individuals, the ones with the wealth and power overwhelmingly embrace this view, independent of its religious support. This has persisted even in the West, even after the reformation and invention of Protestantism and the introduction of new memes of religious freedom and the key idea that God helps those that help themselves! The notions of upward mobility, democracy, religious, economic, and personal freedom, freedom of opportunity, racial and social justice and equality — these are all new ideas as far as global culture is concerned, only a few hundred years old and still far from universal. However, one effect of the memetic revolution brought about by Locke, Jefferson, Franklin, and many others is that religions that once supported a divinely sanctioned right to wealth have been — in many cultures but not all — tamed. The American Civil War can be partly viewed as a religious spasm that initiated the rejection of endorsed slavery and poverty as a Christian meme, although the persistence of e.g. the KKK with its crosses and religious trappings shows that it has been a slow, simmering process and not one that is completed even to this day.
The reason I have worked through all of this is to return to the “CAGW is a form of global religion” meme. The caste system in Hinduism has broken down, and no longer is particularly effective in preserving the wealth and political prerogatives of the upper castes in India. Buddhism has failed in China and Japan to accomplish the same thing, although it persists in Nepal, Thailand, and other countries in Southeast Asia. Christianity no longer can punish apostasy with death and hence has little sway or reason to opposed social mobility any longer — it is no longer a good slave religion in most of the world, although you will still see the meme that God rewards piety in material ways put out there on the PTL channel and elsewhere. Islam alone has a death penalty for apostasy and barriers to socioeconomic mobility in many countries, and cracks have emerged that are starting to break down the feudal stratification of wealth and power even there.
What is a wealthy upper class to do, to preserve its wealth and prerogatives and political power? Willis has put his hand right on it. Manipulating energy prices to save the Earth is a made to order religious issue that serves exactly the same purpose as the divine right of kings or the caste system. Raising energy prices is effectively an enormously regressive tax. The wealthy don’t care — no price increase will affect their quality of life. The middle class can cope — it hurts, a bit, but the increase is quickly absorbed in inflation or a deflection of surplus wealth from entertainment (which is cheap and easy as it is, nowadays). It is, as always, the poor who bear the disproportionate burden.
This has enormous global consequences! It removes or stricly limits any hope of upward social or economic mobility from roughly 1/2 of the world’s population. It directly enriches still further the wealthiest of the wealthy, including all of those “energy companies” that are portrayed as being the modern equivalent of Satan, in existence to destroy the Earth itself. Who benefits from Carbon trading? Surely not the poor, or even the middle class. Only the wealthy make money from it, and that wealth is held by the same people who own the oil companies and coal companies and power companies. The rich always get richer, and are always eager to erect a smoke screen (so to speak) to make their acquisition of even more wealth into a virtue.
The end of the Cold War left something of a global vacuum in its place. Without the distraction of a “cause”, ideally one with a religious focus, some offer of salvation from an imagined apocalypse, people might be tempted to simply act in their own self-interest and do the sort of good and compassionate things that people of all faiths or no faith at all are inclined towards when they aren’t being diverted by a holy war. Lacking a common enemy to distract the masses, how can the powerful justify their power? Blink and the next thing you know, there is a large middle class and shrinking lower class, whose wealth comes at the expense of the disparity of the wealth of the wealthiest if nothing else, which reduces their power.
If we didn’t have religions like CAGW (and yes, the real religions too) we’d be forced to invent them, or invent space aliens, or invent some other world-spanning catastrophe to justify the maintenance of inherited power and wealth in the hands of the elite. It is the hidden cost that the cost-benefit analyses of CAGW never manage to include. They project immense costs, but safely in the future where we have to live for generations to realize them, while ignoring the even greater costs in the present, costs borne disproportionately by the world’s poorest people, and the perpetuation of poverty and social inequity.
rgb
Thought provoking comment. Tnx
Nice story about how the poor pinoy showed you that you as a poor american were not really poor at all. Rather undermines your plaintive wails later on about the poor american poor.
Europe has less poverty than the US anyway. The social security systems there provide a far more effective safety net for the poor than anything available in the US. I should think that’s partly funded by fuel taxation.
Brilliant as ever !
Now lets through the cost burden of biofuels into the mix and really see how the poor people of the world sufffer.
Thank you Willis, thank you so much for your elegant writing, and clear analysis. I wish my prose even remotely came close to yours.
Having lived ex-pat, I’ve seen the other 99%. Some in India, some in Malaysia, and unless you’ve seen people washing cloths in open sewers because they have no other water available, it’s hard to understand beyond “dirt poor.”
Liking P.J. O’Rourke, I bought “Eat The Rich.” I had a hard time finishing it the first time because there is really so little to laugh at in the larger picture. Later after several years had passed and the memories were a little dimmer, I finished it, and I must agree with him, in the poorer societies, the one thing the poor don’t lack is government. I think about the thousands of deaths in Nigeria from people desperate to have fuel, drilling holes in pipelines of gasoline to steal a little, then explosions and fires that ravage the shanty towns.
You’re making an excellent argument for the free market in energy. It is the only thing which can save those people, or for that matter, our poor, rich as they really are.
On population density; I recall and have not verified, the statement that all of Earth’s population could be housed in the Grand Canyon without exceeding the density of a common tenement. I live in 900 sq. ft. on 6 acres of woodland on the rocks of the Niagara Escarpment, Earth’s boney spine exposed.