Guest essay by Eric Worrall
If climate change is predicted to hit “poor people” worse than “rich people”, then why aren’t green efforts focussed on helping poor people overcome their poverty?
It has long been expected that poor people would bear the brunt of climate change, largely because so many more of the world’s poorest live in tropical latitudes whereas, wealthier people tend to live in more temperate regions.
This is inverse to the generally accepted responsibility for climate change, which falls mainly on rich countries that benefited early on from industry, and thus have historically high emissions, compared with poorer countries that have only begun catching up in the past few decades.
It was only in 2014 that China’s per capita emissions caught up with those of people in the EU, even after years of above-average economic growth in China.
Those living in the poorest countries also have the most to lose, as so many depend on agriculture, which is likely to be badly affected by temperature rises and an increase in droughts, heatwaves and potential changes to rainfall that may lead to recurrent patterns of floods, droughts and higher intensity storms.
The suggestion that poor people will be hit by climate change, the implicit assumption they will be unable to adapt, in my opinion intrinsically embraces the old colonialist justifications for interfering in the affairs of others – an unspoken assumption that poor mostly non-white people are somehow less capable than the majority white inhabitants of rich countries, and need to be saved from their own unassailable mediocrity.
China rose from abject poverty to world economic superpower in just a few decades, without outside help. I remember when people spoke of Chinese imports with barely concealed contempt, a byword for shoddy quality and poor workmanship. Nowadays businesses turn to China for their manufacturing expertise. There is nothing lacking in the ability of Chinese people to improve their personal circumstances – all they needed was for their government to get out of the way.
There is no reason why other poor people can’t do the same.
If you truly believe poor people will be hit hardest by climate change, stop treating poor people as victims. Find low cost ways to help poor people help themselves, such as eliminating trade barriers. See if there are ways of eliminating other unnecessary impediments to development, such as economically damaging roadblocks to building affordable energy infrastructure.
Stop treating poor people as an intractable group of stupids, who are incapable of improving their own lives, incapable of aspiring to wealth on a par with the privileged columnists who seek to assuage their consumerist angst, by wallowing in the perceived misery of others.
Guardian : “the generally accepted responsibility for climate change, which falls mainly on rich countries”
Nope.
Source: Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2015). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2011, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2015
This pie chart is a list of the regions and countries who can claim credit for the increase in agricultural production in all poor tropical countries, is that correct?
The real basis for claiming ‘damage’ is limited to the slow, steady rise in sea level? That’s it? That’s the ‘damage’? Perhaps that explains the fuss lately about ‘climate change’ sinking islands (or sand bars as one contributor noted).
If so then obviously China is taking the correct steps which is to build large islands in the South China Sea where there were none, replacing those acres lost in the Solomons. Thank you, China for your climate change ‘offsets’. These are large enough apparently to build airports upon them. Thus at the expense of one of the ‘developing nations’ (which seems to be the plan) islands are popping up everywhere people want them. Take a lesson, Solomons.
Other examples include the airports at Narita and Hong Kong where huge islands, well defended from the impositions of the sea, have been created at the behest of those who want them.
As the period covered in the observations includes the development of New York City, the substantial development of Lower Manhattan should also be included in the increase in the area of Terra Firma. Thank you New Yorkers.
Lands that were useless frozen wastes now rendered vaguely inhabitable by man and beast should also be considered. The steady northward march of the farmlands in North America adds at least something to the obvious benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization boosting farm incomes throughout the marginal areas.
Each sinking island (if there really are any) creates new habitat for sea life. Add that to the area of artificial reefs created each decade and the increase in habitat area may indeed be accelerating. Sinking land, whether from subsidence or “climate change” is still a contribution to the conservation of reef-dwelling species.
Hi Crispin. You are uniquely qualified to comment on this given all the different places you have been.
It is my contention that one can’t use China as an example of what can be expected from third world countries. Agree? Disagree?
Don’t forget the island building by Dubai, ……
http://www.dredgebrokers.com/HTML/images/Palm-Islands-Dubai/palm-jumeirah.jpg
Hi commiebob
There are many countries that use island building as a way to increase (especially) the area of farmable land. How about fish farms? Is that aquaculture considered a form of farming if it impounds a body water, but no if it is done in open water?
China recovers all sorts of land here and there. So does the US and several European countries like Belgium and the Netherlands.
The implication of the ‘sea level rise canard’ is that there is less and less land available for us poor human to eke out an existence, and specifically, that ‘warming’ will cause a net loss of farmland. Obviously this is hogwash as there are vast areas of the planet that are presently unfarmable.
Crispin-
Usually you are a wealth of knowledge. However…..I have to take issue with your characterization of Narita as being built on a “huge island”. I think you are thinking of the airport at Osaka. Narita is built on solid land, including a number of farms.
Ian M
Thanks for that Ian. I understood that it was greatly extended. It looks like it was from the air. Not so? Is there a different airport in Japan that I am confusing it with?
The pie chart shows emissions in 2011, not cumulative emissions to 2011.
Climate Change will definitely affect the poor countries more than rich, the 2 biggest factors for raising the level of wealth in any country are freedom and access to cheap energy. these are the 2 things that are being destroyed by the Climate Change accords being signed by our most enlightened western democracies. Not only will the poor countries that exist now suffer from these actions but many of the “rich” countries will be slowly turned in to poor ones increasing the suffer even more, all for what? Those who scream the most about Climate Change know and want this, they clearly want de-industrialition and massive population decreases to save the world.
Does ‘Generally Accepted” mean the science is settled?
Antarctica is the place most responsible for climate change, and there’s basically just penguins living there.
If there is one Country on earth that can be blamed for not doing its fair share to cool planet earth in the face of rising CO2 levels, that Country is Antarctica.
Its contribution to global cooling is simply pitiful. Some places in North Africa, and Arabia and more efficient than Antarctica, in cooling the planet by a factor of almost 12 times.
So it is not our fault. Blame the penguins.
G
I thought India had already passed the US to become the second largest producer.
Eric, spot on.
Very good rule – govement can get out of the way.
It is a good sentiment except for all the declared declarations like IPS’ Marcus Raskin in his book Common Good where he admits these social science theories, which is what CAGW really is, are simply a means to “reorganize the government for the common good. The first task of government reorganization which asserts social reconstruction and citizen participation is to rip aside the mask of concern for efficiency to determine which group or class is being served by a particular way of organizing the governmental process.”
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/rip-aside-the-mask-society-becomes-an-existential-and-experiential-lab-for-students-to-become-citizens/ This is all a grand excuse to update Marx for the 21st century and to use governments, especially the local, as the levers to reorganize. It actually goes all the way to the neural and biological as governments now seek to use ‘learning’ to usefully control perception snd then biologically lock it in through visualization and stipulated, repeated learning tasks.
Tip of the iceberg and quite global.
I thought this was conspiracy theory cookoo stuff originally but now I believe that it is exactly true. An axis of evil between socialists and radical environmentalists. Those of us opposed to this axis need to yell it from the roof tops. CO2 reduction makes everybody poorer.
The socialists and environmentalists are simply tools of elite globalists who have been planning for a century or more to bring about a one world government. As you say, “the tip of the iceberg.” Any form of collectivism that subordinates the goals and freedoms of the individual to the collective and fosters their dependency will do for these psychopaths. As improbable as that seemed to me just 5 years ago, the pieces of the puzzle fit together rather neatly.
A large subset or overlap of the same crowd has been doing the so-called antipoverty cause for some time. Turns out that in part their prescriptions haven’t worked but don’t change except to call for more of the same and in other part it’s bad for business to solve the problem that gathers donations and grants while remaining unsolved. Mischief-making mostly. Columnists can preach to us about AGW climate change and fossil fuel “addiction” after moving to the tropics and making their home heating bills zero. AC during hot season ok.
The hot season in the tropics is all year round, so energy bills are high all year round.
I don’t think you can back up objective aspects of either claim there, especially in contrast with NYC or Boston energy consumption-wise.
I live on the edge of the tropics. Running a few ceiling fans costs a lot less than central heating in a cold climate.
What? Energy use in winter is much higher than summer use the further north you go. When it is -10F and the wind in blowing uses much much more energy to stay alive than to sit around with air conditioning when it is 85 degrees F.
The difference is one is slightly uncomfortable, tropics, and the other other is deadly, cold.
The hot season in the tropics is all year round
============================
I lived in the tropics for 20 years. When I was sweating my ass off in shorts and a T-shirt, the locals were wearing ski jackets and gloves. Sit naked by the ocean under a palm tree anywhere in the tropics any time of day. You will not be hot.
Most people do not realize that the naked human cannot survive temperatures below 27C / 82F for long. We die of exposure, as heat loss through our skin exceeds our ability to generate heat internally.
And where are temperatures 27C day and night? The tropical jungles of the world. Just about the only place on earth that humans can survive without technology.
A tad off-subject, but, …..
So sayeth: ferdberple – May 17, 2016 at 5:07 am
Ferdberple, I really hate to tell you this, ….. but, … your above stated “scientific-fact-of-life” claim about human survival is directly contrary to and negates the claims of the “experts” that early humans evolved their hairless bodies and bipedal gate after they descended down out of the tropical jungle trees and migrated out onto and across the hot, dry, treeless African savannahs. (Cited reference @ http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=22130 )
Me thinks that early humans were hairless, bipedal, avid swimmers and possessed “tool making” technology for fashioning animal-skin containers and clothing, ….. all of which was prerequisite before they began migrating out onto the African savannahs in search of prey animals, etc.
I live in the tropics and have for 20 years. Look at hourly energy demand in Singapore: https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Statistics/half-hourly-system-demand/2016/20160509.pdf
The nighttime demand, which is almost all residential, is only about 20% lower than the daytime load. That’s air conditioning, not fans.
“The difference is one is slightly uncomfortable, tropics, and the other other is deadly, cold.”
Slightly uncomfortable? No, it’s a lot more than that when heat waves hit: http://time.com/4291803/india-heatwave-dozens-dead/
Chris,
On Planet Earth, cold kills many more people than warmth.
Maybe it’s different on your planet.
Chris, go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
Cold kills; warmth is good. Full stop.
Would a country that is directly on the equator have two summers per year, as the sun would be directly overhead twice a year. Once on June 21th, and again on December 21th. (Plus or minus a day or two.)
Mark, technically yes, I suppose, but it’s basically summer all year round. Highs of 32-34C, humidity 80-95%.
db, why are you making a point that is irrelevant to this thread? The topic is the cost of heating in cold climates versus cooling in warm climates.
And in any case, your standard “cold kills, heat is good!” is demonstrably false. http://time.com/3904590/india-heatwave-monsoon-delayed-weather-climate-change/
db, why are you making a point that is irrelevant to this thread?
It’s only irrelevant to you because you can’t understand anything.
That’s proven when you make the preposterous claim implying that cold is preferable to warmth.
“That’s proven when you make the preposterous claim implying that cold is preferable to warmth.”
That is not what this thread is about, try to keep up.
As usual, db reverts to personal attacks when painted into a corner.
The trouble is that the argument does not start from what most of us would think is the only sensible position – that we want the poor to get rich.
Instead, we must reduce emissions because poor people rely on agriculture. We struggle with the point because it is bonkers – why are we keeping the poor poor? Why not make them rich so that they are not reliant on agriculture and thus are much less vulnerable to the claimed effects of climate change?
Broadly speaking, the Left simply does not see that point, on just about any issue. If some are better off than others, you take from them instead of enabling those without to gain.
Easy: print money and then claim there is no inflation.
The easiest way to improve the income of poor farmers is to introduce new varieties. The most comprehensive is to increase the CO2 concentration which brings dual benefits: faster growth and water conservation. In other what are classed as arid regions where farming is still possible such as the Sahel, the soil moisture rises 0.62% per 1% rise in CO2, as measured from a 1960 baseline.
One of the greatest contributors to the health and well-being of poor farmers is the development of high lycene maize with a long storage life (translucent kernels without a white spot). Domestic animals such as pigs do far better on high lycene maize than the usual fare. We have a lot to be thankful for as centuries of catastrophic forecasts of starvation and population crashes have all been proven wrong.
…the soil moisture rises 0.62% per 1% rise in CO2, as measured from a 1960 baseline.
Interesting hypothesis, presumably based on correlation. Is there a proposed mechanism to support causality?
“…the soil moisture rises 0.62% per 1% rise in CO2, as measured from a 1960 baseline.
Interesting hypothesis, presumably based on correlation. Is there a proposed mechanism to support causality?”
In answer to your question, Juan there are a couple of mechanisms going on whereby CO2 levels interconnect with soil moisture .
Firstly, plants need less water when CO2 in the atmosphere is higher. With higher CO2, plants can photosynthesise with fewer stomata (openings) in the leaves and thus lower transpiration (water loss to the atmosphere. The second aspect is the impact of higher vegetation coverage on loss of soil moisture by direct evaporation – call it the oasis effect – where the increased vegetation creates a micro-climate with somewhat lower temperatures and higher humidity.
Not sure if the measured correlation is a direct result of either or both of these, but the mechanisms are pretty well established. Stomatal number in fossilized leaves is considered to be a proxy for CO2 concentration (not that I am advocating proxies) as there is a measured developmental response. The micro-climate effect has been taken advantage of with a program of artificial trees in arid environments. These are poles with absorbent “branches” which are watered at the base and which create an better environment for lower plants (in some case vegetables, others fruit bushes). You still need to supply the water, but it doesn’t evaporate as quickly and you get more efficient use.
To the extent that CO2 correlates to higher temperatures (weak at best), then higher temperatures usually correlate to increased rainfall. (More evaporation at nearby bodies of water.)
why are we keeping the poor poor?
=====================
check out Obama’s speech in South Africa. He was pretty specific. The world will boil over if African’s are allowed to have the same things that American’s take for granted. The implications are that African’s must remain poor for the good of the planet. No coal for Africa.
Had a white person given the same speech, they would have been called racists. For my part, if the color of ones skin determines what you can say, that is racism.
Obama: ‘Planet Will Boil Over’ If Young Africans Are Allowed Cars, Air-Conditioning, Big Houses
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-planet-will-boil-over-if-young-africans-are-allowed-cars-air-conditioning-big
This reminds me of a speech Bill Clinton once gave to a bunch of bankers.
In it he declared that he really wanted to give the country a tax break. But he was afraid that if he let the people keep more of their own money, that the people wouldn’t spend that money wisely, and they would thus hurt the economy.
Therefore he reluctantly concluded that the government must keep the people’s money so that the “smart” people in government could spend that money wisely and thus protect us from ourselves.
As a character in one of Heinlein’s books once said, “When your government decides it wants to protect a man from himself, it’s time to get a new government.”
“””””….. Had a white person given the same speech, they would have been called racists. …..”””””
So what is preventing anyone from calling this particular person a racist; simply because he is only partly white ??
g
The whole point of Climate Change propaganda is to control energy and transfer wealth from those who make it to those who don’t. There is no other agenda.
The whole point of left wing propaganda is to transfer wealth from those who make it, to those who want it.
Which is why leftists as a whole have eagerly accepted the Climate Change propaganda.
“The suggestion that poor people will be hit by climate change, the implicit assumption they will be unable to adapt, in my opinion intrinsically embraces the old colonialist justifications for interfering in the affairs of others.”
Adaptation costs money, it is not about intelligence, creativity or hard work. Thailand is currently experiencing the hottest weather in the last 65 years, and severe droughts. How exactly will creativity help farmers in northern Thailand get water so they can grow rice? Drilling wells (which is already being done by the army) is only a short term solution, as the water table is being rapidly depleted.
Sorry – point of order. The water table is a boundary. An aquifer so bounded gets depleted if not recharged. Not clear what you are asserting, but Thailand plainly has a monsoonal wet-dry climate. Before 65 years ago is when people in that and nearby countries started to manage the issue, not without setbacks where there are variations from expectations.
Birth control. Indonesia doesn’t really have any of this for religious reasons so the population continues to grow too fast and marginal lands are cultivated and so forth. The reason China is rising rapidly is due to the strict rules about family size.
Chris: Fortunately rice needs less water than it did 65 years ago because of CO2 fertilization. Check the rice yields per litre and how it has changed since 1950. Notice anything? High temperatures in Thailand are nothing new. I find the place unbearably hot. The old method of coping with droughts by dying is so yesteryear.
Pumping out an aquifer is quite reasonable during a drought. It can be refilled rapidly by deliberate intervention just as it can be drained. A great deal of Thailand is saturated and must be drained constantly. Similarly northern Cambodia. Adapting to climate cycles and the rigours they impose is vastly more important and beneficial than weeping and worrying in the mental cave of climate despair.
I realise that many people are technically illiterate and functionally incompetent and couldn’t survive a single year in a real environment. Coddled in their heated apartments they cringe while eating food produced by the knowledgeable and skilled. There is no reason to pay these passengers much mind when it comes to planning the handling of he inevitable challenges of weather and want.
And thusly you have also written China’s epitath.
Crispin in Waterloo said: ” High temperatures in Thailand are nothing new.” Exceeding 40C every day during the month of April IS something new. These are all time records, not business as usual: https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/04/thailand-faces-longest-heatwave-in-65-years/
You really are hung up on birth control. Despite the fact that increases in the availability of birth control have never resulted in a decrease in birth rates.
If you look around the world and over time, there is absolutely no correlation between population and economic growth rates.
Many countries with fast growing populations have no trouble increasing average wealth. For example, the US through the 1800’s and most of the 1900’s.
The reason why China is advancing is because their government has given up trying to force communism on it’s population.
“Adaptation [to CAGW] costs money, it is not about intelligence,”
As far as I can see, there is no need for poor people to adapt to CAGW, because CAGW does not exist.
The only adaption that might be required is to sea level rise and sea level rise is not caused by CAGW. At least, that has never been demonstrated.
And the sea level adaption would be minimal since it would only apply to those living near the oceans. Land-locked poor people would have nothing to worry about. They could enjoy their increased crop yields courtesy of more CO2 in the atmosphere.
All these studies assume CAGW is real and either here or imminent, but there is no evidence that this is the case. The study authors are assuming too much and then extrapolating from there.
🙂
Chris says: “Adaptation costs money, it is not about intelligence, creativity or hard work”
And you’re right TA, there is not often a need to adapt to something that is primarily imaginary. But in such a case that there is a need, like overcoming a fear of the boogieman in the closet or under the bed, it is ALL about intelligence & creativity (and letting logic control).
When my fear of the closet boogieman is too overwhelming I just wear the same shirt that I wore the day before .
It’s just as likely that the CO2 in the atmosphere is causing “extremely” high temps in a small part of Asia as it is likely that CO2 is causing the boogieman to spend more time in my closet; so I can therefore blame CO2/climate change for my wrinkled stinky shirt.
Chris & Crispin,
Some of the northern provinces in Thailand have a problem with a layer of salt a few hundred feet below the surface. Udon Thani is an example. The salt migrates to the surface through a natural process. That is why the soils in many places are not as good as the south. Pumping salty water to the surface only makes the problem worse.Thailand wants to take more water from the Mekong River but neighboring countries have a problem with that idea. Rice crops are failing big time in the north. They are not getting the needed rain and yes, the water table is falling.
The drought and much of the heat in and near Thailand were caused by the second greatest El Nino of the past 65 years.
Or an El Nino layered on top of a higher baseline. Also, the fuel for El Ninos comes from the oceans, which is where 90% of solar load goes. Warmer oceans under AGW means more heat content to fuel El Ninos.
‘Adaptation costs money’
You assume a money economy.
How do rice farmers that don’t have crops due to drought or excessive heat survive?
A high civilisation without money is one of my favourite fantasies. I’d live to hear of a nice place to live in this world that isn’t a money economy. I’m aware of alternative currencies, such as “hours”. Adaptation also costs hours.
1) A few tenths of a degree won’t kill the rice crops.
2) Rice is to a large degree grown in the tropics, and the tropics are the areas that are least effected by global warming, according to the sacred models.
“1) A few tenths of a degree won’t kill the rice crops.
2) Rice is to a large degree grown in the tropics, and the tropics are the areas that are least effected by global warming, according to the sacred models.”
A few tenths of a degree? That’s not remotely accurate. Every day during the month of April was above 40C in Thailand, that has never happened in the 65 years of recorded temperatures. That plus no water has decimated rice crops.
And it’s not true that the models predict minimal impact on the tropics: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/12/17/multi-model-assessments-predict-effects-of-climate-change-on-agriculture/
Chris you’ve made this every-day-over-40-degrees-in-April-in-Thailand claim a few times. It is false. You should stop. http://www.accuweather.com/en/th/bangkok/318849/april-weather/318849. Those results – with two 40 degree highs – are for Bangkok which has much UHI effect. Chiang Rai with five 40 and two 41 degree days: http://www.accuweather.com/en/th/chiang-rai/317549/april-weather/317549 also has some UHIE. Not sure where the thermometers are located.
Are you referring to a failing rice crop that is the always hoped for but often missed third harvest? Overly dramatic in that it is largely due to very aggressive growing efforts during the dry season, and a later than usual wet season. Thailand’s farmers grow too much rice due to government schemes. Much rots in warehouses after gathering too high prices on the backs of taxpayers and consumers. They could stand to branch out to other things anyway especially in the face of serial failures of the third harvests. Thailand could also use some reforestation too after earlier groups cut down most of the trees in the mid to late twentieth and did not engage in much decent silviculture.
James said: “Chris you’ve made this every-day-over-40-degrees-in-April-in-Thailand claim a few times. It is false. You should stop.”
The last time I checked, Thailand is a country, not a city. So why are you posting city data for Bangkok and CM? I know BKK has UHI, I have been there at least 50 times.If you have an article that refutes this, please post it: http://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/04/141952/heat-wave-average-temperatures-thailand-exceeds-40-degrees-celsius The article is saying that the peak temp in Thailand exceeded 40C on every day in April. That means some days it occurred in CM, some days in Chiang Rai, some days in Udon Thani, etc.
As far as the rice harvest, I am referring to articles such as this: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/coffee-crops-die-in-vietnam-thai-rice-yield-shrinks
A researcher in Vietnam states: “This is the worst drought in a century, Mr Buu tells The Straits Times.” And in Thailand: “The second crop yield has never been this low, he says.”
Lots of fodder for considering whether it’s cherry-picking and/or how average high temps over vast real estate with marine, higher elevation, UHIE, and denuded plains features might figure in and how air masses are weighted for averaging, but if it’s the AP, NASA brightly-colored satellite imagery over an undisclosed time period, and the crack staff at the local Meteorological Department using undisclosed methods to support quotes to the AP, how could contrary information be found today? Give, for now. They did get their El Nino heat wave, didn’t they? But 65 or sometimes fewer years of records seems kinda weak given the vast age and transitions of the planet we’re stuck on. Nice headlines though.
James, I fully agree with your comments about adjusting crop mixes, and the payment scheme (which is what cost Yinluck a lot of her support when she didn’t come through with the money). Likewise about reforestation.
Agreed that the record keeping will not be as good as in Western countries. But from talking to friends who travel through northern Thailand regularly, the drought and impact are far worse this year than in years past. As far as the 65 year period, yes, it is limited, but it’s all that exists. I still have yet to hear a plausible reason from skeptics as to why the earth is naturally warming. All I ever see is “it’s a recovery to the norm from the LIA” without any explanation of what forcing or change is driving that change.
Being doubtful about validity of state-sponsored explanations of, and predictions about, and recommendations for economic controls and impairments purportedly to prevent, a phenomenon, does not require a counter explanation. The burden is on those pushing the claims, and through state coercion, us. Threatening and working to demean people if they don’t shut up does not satisfy the burden. Observing just one failed prediction should be considered sufficient to invalidate a mode of prediction. Many such failures should not be ignored or explained away using tricks. Yet, as with the serial blunders of state-sponsored central banks, that is what we are getting. If searching for answers, why don’t you challenge “skeptics” to explain what caused the warming from the last ice age? Or the one before that?
Chris: All I ever see is “it’s a recovery to the norm from the LIA” without any explanation of what forcing or change is driving that change.
As I’m sure you are aware, there is no “norm” because climate on this planet is subject to fluctuations on a variety of timescales for a variety of reasons. If you are unfamiliar with any of the proposed forcing mechanisms, it can only be because you haven’t been paying attention. Moreover, the scale of the changes observed during the past century have been very modest in comparison to what proxy records indicate occurs when the planet moves between glacials and interglacials.
When I hear people arguing about the significance calculated average global temperature differences of a few tenths of a degree from one year to the next, I’m reminded of nothing so much as the theological debates over the existence of the Holy Trinity or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Weasels. If they wrote about what is actually known, there wouldn’t be anything to write about.
From about 1800 years before Christ to about 1800 AD, there was no progress or any change in the average man’s life at all. A guy could be sent forward in time from 1800 BC to about 1800 AD and he would understand the technology of the day. Then BOOM, something happened.
The economic historian Gregory Clark:
” . . . there is no sign of any improvement in material conditions for settled agrarian societies as we approach 1800. There was no gain between 1800 BC and AD 1800 – a period of 3,600 years. Indeed the wages for east and south Asia and southern Europe for 1800 stand out by their low level compared to those for ancient Babylonia, ancient Greece, or Roman Egypt.”
The great change, called the industrial revolution, began in Great Britain and North America and if we want this process to continue then we need to honor whatever condition made it happen in the first place. While you will hear other ideas, the fact is that it was Classical Liberalism that gave us the great advances of the industrial revolution.
Unfortunately, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party have honored (other than a little lip service) classical liberalism in generations if not centuries. So what is classical liberalism?
https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism
The left and the right in the USA want to control man and his economic endeavors. The “catastrophic mann-made global warming” delusion is just the latest way to prevent the very potent laissez faire market from enriching the common man. (yes, and the poor get richer too)
We are in an economic war with those who would enslave us —- and we are losing badly.
~ Mark
https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/economic-history/
Excellent point made there, Mark. Had never thought of it in those terms.
However, I would suggest your final statement is a bit extreme, and your link doesn’t really explain who you are classifying as “them”.
From a different perspective, I would suggest that our collective problem is that, as a modern society, we are all taught economics the same way, based on Post Keynesian monetary theory. However, modern economics fails to deal financial crises at all well, as was evidenced by the fact that only 12 economists in the entire world accurately predicted the Global Financial Crisis.
http://www.uclm.es/actividades/2009/workshopESHET-UCLM/Bezemer_-_No_one_show_this_comming.pdf
The similarities to the current climate science debate are instructive. We have a consensus view in well over 97% of all economists in a theory that fails to provide accurate predictions. By contrast to climate scientists, economists have a predilection for only predicting good times ahead. This flawed economic theory is embraced by almost all western governments, and despite wide differences in political ideology, tends to drive very similar economic behaviours – in terms of setting levels of taxation, fiscal policies for managing lending rates, issuing of government securities to raise capital, policies around how much money to produce, etc.
The consequence, as identified by Reinhart and Rogoff in their book “This Time Is Different” is 800 years of financial folly resulting in countries and the world falling into repeated cycles of financial crises. To summarise their findings, Reinhart and Rogoff identified only three causal factors that inevitably led to a financial crisis:
a. Excessive levels of central government debt – anything over 90% debt to GDP ratio;
b. Deregulation of the financial sector; leading to
c. Excessive levels of speculation in a market.
The financial crisis is triggered when such markets spectacularly collapse. The magnitude of the problem is such that only 5 countries in the entire world are identified as never having created their own financial crisis.
The comparison to the climate science debate also appeared when these authors published an early draft of a follow-up paper (ie before peer review had been completed) in 2010 called “Growth in a Time of Debt”.
http://www.reinhartandrogoff.com/user_uploads/RR%20Debt%20and%20Growth-01-18%20NBER.pdf
A small number of Excel errors were identified in the accompanying data pack that they also released, which resulted in a storm of contraversy over their findings. However, I worked through the errors myself, as did many others, and the authors themselves issued an errata a few years later, all showing that, apart from slight movement of some of the averages that they used Excel to calculate, the overall conclusions remained sound.
http://www.carmenreinhart.com/user_uploads/data/36_data.pdf
So what were the astonishing conclusions? That countries with high levels of debt to GDP ratios – in excess of 90% – would always suffer from very low levels of growth.
Except that modern economic theory doesn’t agree, and most governments certainly don’t agree. And the IMF certainly doesn’t agree: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/02/14/imf-paper-refutes-rogoff-reinhart-debt-study/
So I don’t agree that we are at war, or that some mythical “them” are trying to enslave us. My view is that the so-called experts, who are advising our governments, may as well be using crystal balls, runes or entrails for their predictions. Because there clearly is no science being applied, no lessons have been learnt, and their predictions have little match to reality. But, like a case of the Emporer’s new clothes, no one in the establishment is prepared to say that they are all walking around naked.
Good post, Pauly.
According to this website, the U.S. national debt is 106.38 percent of U.S. GDP.
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates
That would be one reason why the U.S. is barely growing economically. Let’s hope interest rates don’t go up.
The U.S. is currently paying $478 Billion per year!!! in interest payments on our enormous debt. Half the money spent by the U.S. government every day is borrowed money. Who thinks that is sustainable?
The U.S. is going to have to get the debt under control, or we are all going to be in big trouble. We can’t have national security if we don’t first have economic security.
Mods
My post just went into space. I have no clue what “bad word” did that. It is not “awaiting moderation”; rather, it is just gone. (topic was economic history so that should not be the problem)
I lost an innocuous one there myself. Yours was probably because you’re too smart. But that still doesn’t mean I would have agreed!
At first I thought this was about SJW (lack of) thinking. I still believe that to be the case.
Tangential: I am just now noticing that protests blocking coal plants in several countries have recently occurred. I’m wondering how long it will be before more people than just the police show up in opposition to those protests, and how much longer after that it will be until the protestors start going to the hospital in large numbers (before going to jail).
ClimateOtter wrote: “Tangential: I am just now noticing that protests blocking coal plants in several countries have recently occurred. I’m wondering how long it will be before more people than just the police show up in opposition to those protests, and how much longer after that it will be until the protestors start going to the hospital in large numbers (before going to jail).”
There will probably be a lot more demonstrators at the coal mines after Trump gets elected and puts coal back in the mainstream of American energy production.
The Greens will come out to protest this move, and the coal miners and their familes will counterprotest. And I’m with you: I think the coal miners will come out on top.
Trump is going to give the coal miners their jobs back, and keep electricity prices down as a consequence.
Obama is sure going to be an unhappy camper after he leaves Office. Trump is going to undo all the damage Obama did, and Obama is not going to like that one bit.
The good news: Obama won’t be able to do a thing to stop it, other than bluster, and I’m sorry Barack, but once you leave Office, noone is going to be listening to you. That might be harder for him to take than any of his other setbacks.
TA,
That would not be an easy task. Once a power plant changes over to NG, they will not return.
‘I’m sorry Barack, but once you leave Office, noone is going to be listening to you.’
Unfortunately, I think you’re wrong. In case you haven’t noticed, he’s been setting up his own fundraising organization, and I believe – no longer CONSTRAINED by the trappings of his office – he will become a walking lawsuit against any movement against his agenda, and take a more direct role in stirring agitation and discord on the street.
It’s what he does. It’s ALL he does.
Ric Haldane May 17, 2016 at 6:11 am wrote: “TA, That would not be an easy task. Once a power plant changes over to NG, they will not return.”
I’m sure you are correct, Ric, but the miners would still have a place to sell their coal, be it at remaining domestic coal-fired powerplants or overseas. I’m sure the miners would love to get a chance to compete. And Trump, if elected, is going to give them that chance.
In the end, the economics of the situation should decide, not government interference.
Joel Snider May 17, 2016 at 9:31 am wrote: “[TA]:‘I’m sorry Barack, but once you leave Office, noone is going to be listening to you.’
Joel Snider: “Unfortunately, I think you’re wrong. In case you haven’t noticed, he’s been setting up his own fundraising organization, and I believe – no longer CONSTRAINED by the trappings of his office – he will become a walking lawsuit against any movement against his agenda, and take a more direct role in stirring agitation and discord on the street.
It’s what he does. It’s ALL he does.”
You make Barack sound like the Terminator! 🙂
Well, I don’t agree. I don’t think his influence will go far once he leaves Office. The power of the presidency is all he has. I think he will try real hard to be relevant as a civilian, but I don’t think he will be effective.
Barack might try becoming a new Al Sharpton-like race baiter. Barack would be REAL good at that. He’s doing a pretty good job of it right now.
The global warmists work with the international rulers (think: Bilderberg meetings) to make people think that pre-industrial times and above all, the Little Ice Age is ‘normal’ and ‘good’ and today is evil and terrible because it is somewhat warmer than when Washington crossed the Delaware at Christmas and it was clogged with ice.
International rulers???
What is it about leftists and their eagerness to accept the thinking that there is an evil power that runs the world?
MarkW May 17, 2016 at 10:30 am wrote: “International rulers???
What is it about leftists and their eagerness to accept the thinking that there is an evil power that runs the world?”
Leftists always have to have a demon to focus their fear, anger and hate on. This is what energizes them.
I think the Left deals with the world through emotion rather than rational thought. Creating demons to hate, allows them to vent their emotions. It’s “Group-Think”. They all get together to hate something or someone.
Rich & poor are perspectives based on subjectivity.
The goal of the leftist is clearly to impoverish the middle-class and punish those on the rise.
All one has to do is look at the argument over Charter school funding in the US.
They cannot brainwash that which they cannot control!
Greenies have fits over India’s rising middle-class and their airbags bursted into a compost heap when an automaker from India offered an affordable car priced at a modest $2500.
No … we want humans to suffer for what they have done! (sarcasm)
As far as class, there can be only two … them and the poor.
Craig W wrote: “Rich & poor are perspectives based on subjectivity.”
I don’t know how many times I have heard someone say they were poor when they were young, but did not realize they were poor, and were happy as larks.
Of course, we have to assume that these folks had enough to eat, otherwise they *would* have felt poor. But as you say, rich and poor are subjective. One can be happy either way. It’s all in the mind, after all.
I dont think poor people in tropical countries will suffer the most, I live in Philippines, and the people here are very resilient, plus it is known fact that tropical countries will warm much less than temperate countries.
Plus I dont believe in this extreme weather that is supposed to go with climate change, more precipitation perhaps, and slightly more flooding but then we are used to that.
The Philippines has it all: quakes, tsumanis, volcanoes, typhoons, floods, islamic “insurgents,” kidnapping, politicians following US and Spanish practices, and therefore dodgy electrical power delivery and economic conditions. Upwards of a million killed in Manila alone during 1944-45. Resilient, yes.
God how I love that Philippine attitude! Reminds me of the early settlers out here in Western Canada. Living in sod huts in -40 weather! Nothing to look forward to except an opportunity to make a home for themselves through hard, hard work. We’re so soft and pathetic. Then again, that could be the future with the direction we’re heading.
The Homesman gives a pretty graphic and disturbing portrayal of life in Nebraska endured by ancestors of some of us.
I hate to state it so plainly and sincerely wish it was more clever and subtle — hell, even evil — but it is actually so simple as to be embarrassing.
These ‘Westernized’ modern folk grew up watching nature and travel documentaries where the less-developed areas of the world were portrayed as if they were pristine wilderness or nature preserves. As of late it has become even more shrill and focused, where ‘Animal Planet’ devotes a full third of its content to describing the encroachment of Man (never Woman) and vague blah blah Global Warming.
Seldom do the cameras turn to the women washing clothes in tubs, the men making charcoal, or describe subtle social phenomena such as rural ‘brain drain’ where but a few manage to escape to modern cities to become educated, and mostly discouraged — because for whatever reasons, most beyond their control, they cannot find a way to bring the electrical grid to that quiet village they still call ‘home’.
In North America the electrical grid finally reached pretty much every little corner, and with it, the Magic Washing Machine and water treatment and distribution, freedom from Cholera and lower child mortality.
The greenies consider less-developed areas of the world as ‘parks’. With their own personal access to modern infrastructure assured, they find it comfortable to draw the line and stop development and such progress as would bring others to their (coal powered) levels.
It is time to strip this moral and ethical mental disorder bare-ass naked and mock it.
HocusLocus
Well said. A friend and I considered how successful setting up a Disney Kraal would be, taking over a whole province of an African country and running it as a full employment, policed, educated full service commercial enterprise. Following the same management system as Disney uses, and requiring complete service delivery as one of the conditions, the concept of a corporate village as promoted by the late Charlie Grindlay could be implemented. Profit sharing, co-investment and environmental stewardship are best achieved with an educated population. Advocating that people should freeze in the dark is a crime against humanity.
It is treating these people as zoo animals to actively block them from modernity – without having asked their choice – so tourists can go see them using their primitive tools living in squalor. Shameful.
treating these people as zoo animals
================
sort of like American actors jetting up here to Canada and telling us how to live.
Americans produce 10 times as much CO2 as Canada, more CO2 than anyone but China, yet it is American’s that lead the way, preaching to the rest of the world about how everyone else needs to clean up their act.
Sanctimonious hypocrites comes to mind.
I believe it’s been called the soft racism of low expectations. “These poor folks will never amount to much, let’s take care of them and protect them from modern technology and ideas that are beyond their capabilities.” Yeah, right! That always works!
/snark
“It is treating these people as zoo animals to actively block them from modernity – without having asked their choice – so tourists can go see them using their primitive tools living in squalor.”
Exactly where is that happening?
ferd, to be fair, we have something like 10 times as many people as well.
“Americans produce 10 times as much CO2 as Canada, more CO2 than anyone but China, yet it is American’s that lead the way, preaching to the rest of the world about how everyone else needs to clean up their act.”
The US has 10X the population of Canada. On a per capita basis, the US and Canada are nearly the same (see p. 33): http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2015-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2015-report-98184.pdf
…How many POOR people would no longer be poor if we had spent billions of dollars helping them instead of wasting it on “Green” bird choppers !
HA, since 1964 we have spent trillions on LBJ’s Great Society Program which was intended to eliminate the poverty of the poor people ……. but, as a percentage of the US population, ….. there are more poor people in poverty now than there ever was in 1964 ……. and the spending still increases each year.
I am afraid that the “help” of the social programs was the wrong sort of help. Banning flea markets, food trucks, street vendors, closing small restaurants as “not clean enough”, closing low income tenements so it becomes more expensive to live in the city, raising min wage so more unemployed, disincentives to stay married. I could go on.
Much of our help to the third world went to big projects that the dictators could skim $ from. What Africa needs is 1) medical care like vaccines (they’ve gotten some of that). 2) agricultural modernization 3) roads & railroads and 4) electricity. Greens don’t care about ag and try to prevent roads and electricity.
The biggest single problem with “poverty”, is that the government definition of poverty is based on a percentage of (median or mean, I can never remember which) income.
Therefore, no matter how rich the country gets, the same percentage of people will remain in poverty.
Compared to the rest of the world, there are no poor people in America.
MarkW commented: “….Therefore, no matter how rich the country gets, the same percentage of people will remain in poverty. Compared to the rest of the world, there are no poor people in America.”’
+1 The ignorance of this fact in America is astounding. The “wealth chasm” is a political construct to divide the people.
That’s asking a lot, they can’t stop treating Middle-Class Americans like an intractable group of stupids either.
Have you seen the short list of presidential candidates?
Marcus, re helping the poor with funds spent on windmills. Those funds were stolen from someone else. State handouts help noone. Ahem, “we” didn’t do it. Let the original owners of that wealth decide themselves how to exchange with the poor and the poor to decide themselves to benefit both sides, if only the governments ruling and purporting to protect the poor would allow it. Notably, the minimum wage was hatched by progressives to lock “undesirables” out of labor markets. It worked, but now they claim to be working on behalf the poor. Imagine that con.
Poor people are going to be the ones to get hit the hardest because of climate policies pushed through by these nut-bag climate people and greens when their energy costs go up through the roof and they are sent back to the dark ages heating their homes with a wood stove or fire place burning junk mail because they can’t afford electricity or gas.And if the climate nut-bags outlaw burning, at least the poor will have a warm place to sleep in jail.
Climate propaganda like this can be devilishly difficult to deconstruct as it is layered, onion-like, with the biggest, most-important lies hidden underneath in the form of assumptions. The Big Lie, of course, is that the climate has somehow gotten worse, and that it is due to manmade CO2. Neither of these claims have the slightest bit of truth to them, but they keep getting repeated, which is one way of indroctinating people. The one kernel of truth that they base their lies on is the fact that we’ve warmed somewhat since the LIA. The fact that this warmup began well before man’s CO2 emissions began cranking up in earnest doesn’t stop them – they simply gloss over any inconvenient facts as if they don’t exist, hoping people won’t notice.
Layered on top of that is the idea that the climate will get much worse unless we, meaning those in richer countries dismantle our efficient, reliable, and affordable energy systems for energy systems which are the exact opposite, making us poorer, and prone to economic collapse.
Next comes the pretense (lie) that they care more about poor people, when in fact it is their ignorant energy policies which hurt all, especially poor people. They merely use poor people as an emotional sledgehammer to push an ideology which is anti-human.
Meanwhile, our Canadian minister of the environment has asserted that it is the women who will bear the brunt of climate change. If you disagree with her, she has this fancy label for you: “gender climate denier.” If that doesn’t set off people’s BS detectors, what will?
Memo to Hillary
The anniversary of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, a politically directed leap from the cliff, is appropriate for comparison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/world/asia/china-cultural-revolution.html?ribbon-ad-idx=12&rref=world&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=World&pgtype=article
Next comes the pretense (lie) that they care more about poor people
================
Al Gore’s movie was intended to sell cap and trade so that Goldman Sachs and Democratic insiders could clean up big time with the Chicago Carbon Exchange. It is no accident that Obama and the CCX are from Chicago. Step 1, get insiders elected to the board of charities like the Joyce Foundation and Woods Fund. Step 2, use the charities for political action.
Helping yourself in the guise of helping others is one of the greatest self-deceptions on the planet. It is also the source of great harm, automatically justified in the name of the greater good.
…Stop treating poor people as an intractable group of stupids, who are incapable of improving their own lives…
Mr Worrall,
You really don’t understand humanity, do you?
If your JOB is helping poor people, what is the absolute requirement for you to keep that job? Yes, that’s right. A continuing supply of poor people. So you are very interested in policies which keep people poor, and not at all interested in policies which lift them out of poverty, and do yourself out of a job.
Equally, only the people who DON’T make a living out of poor people have any interest in banishing poverty. And they, of course, are never going to be asked to solve the problem….
“Stop treating poor people as an intractable group of stupids, who are incapable of improving their own lives, incapable of aspiring to wealth on a par with the privileged columnists who seek to assuage their consumerist angst, by wallowing in the perceived misery of others.”
Hmmmm. The “soft bigotry of low expectations?” Time horizons – – The Unheavenly City, circa 1968, by Edward C. Banfield? Just about anything by Charles Murray.
Double “Hmmmm? – – maybe “why the poor are poor” is MUCH too large to chase on a climate blog?
The greens go to bed with the gnawing fear of healthy, happy, prosperous,
dark skinned people.. (tip of the hat to Mencken.)
“Trust the EPA-ask a Navajo.”
ferdberple wrote: “Americans produce 10 times as much CO2 as Canada, more CO2 than anyone but China,
Well, the U.S. produces about 25 percent of world GDP, and that requires a lot of energy. The U.S. has also dramatically reduced its CO2 emmissions over the years.
” yet it is American’s that lead the way, preaching to the rest of the world about how everyone else needs to clean up their act.”
Not every American. Unfortunately, a few Americans in the wrong place can make a lot of noise.
“Sanctimonious hypocrites comes to mind.”
Every American is a sanctimonious hypocrite? Aren’t you painting with a rather broad brush? Just like the CAGW Alarmists do with their theory, you are assuming too much about Americans.
If you had called the American Radical Loony Left sanctimonious hypocrites,, the very ones who are doing the demanding, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it, but when you include all 300 million+ Americans, then I have to say I think you have overstepped.
“ The U.S. has also dramatically reduced its CO2 emmissions over the years.”
HA, that was akin to claiming that ….. “the U.S. has also dramatically reduced its total food consumption over the years”.
One shouldn’t be mimicking silly claims.
How is it possible that the US population has dramatically increased over the years …. but their CO2 emissions have been dramatically reduced over the years?
Well “DUH”, it is only possible when one uses “fuzzy math” calculations for guesstimating total CO2 emissions.
US has reduced its energy related CO2 emissions since they peaked in 2007. In 2014, they were 10% less than the 2007 peak. http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
The cause of the decrease was primarily a shift from coal to natural gas, and secondarily improvements of energy efficiency and increase of energy production from renewables.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/12/07/surprise-side-effect-of-shale-gas-boom-a-plunge-in-u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#10a65f2467c3
It’s easy to figure out, unless you are too wedded to a philosophy to actually think for yourself.
When efficiency improvements exceed population growth, then you total energy requirements will drop. Not just per capita, but total.
Then you add in replacing coal with natural gas, thanks to the fraking revolution.
The only silly claims here, have come from you.
No, it’s a combination of energy efficiency improvements (CA is a big leader there), and a switch to natural gas as a power generation source from coal. Something like 10-20% of total US generating capacity that used to be coal-fired is now natural gas-fired.
Donald L. Klipstein posted this statement, to wit:
Donald L. do you not comprehend the difference between the comment you posted and this comment that I was addressing, to wit:
“ The U.S. has also dramatically reduced its CO2 emissions over the years.”
Donald L., please assign a “CO2 quantity” figure that corresponds with or defines “dramatically or dramatic”.
Read my writing, cause I’m telling you right now that government Agencies or their employees “don’t have a clue” as to the total yearly quantities of CO2 being emitted or generated by the populace and released into the atmosphere.
But I guess that iffen y’all believe the US government stated Unemployment “numbers” …… and their Global Warming increasing temperature “numbers”….. then y’all probably should be believing their stated CO2 emission “numbers”.
What ever turns yer crank.
I believe he was specifically referring to Hollywood types
As another Canadian, I have a pretty short list. Obama, DeCaprio, Clooney and a handful of other 10 cent IQ’s from Hollywood. We have more than enough wingnuts up here to be talking much trash! More profitably, we should be trying to make common cause.
The really hard-core Greens want most people to be poor, in the interest of “sustainability” and “conservation”. They do seem like advocates for an aristocratic form of government who assume that their precious selves will be aristocrats, not peasants. Al Gore, anyone?
I kind of thought the idea, of some, was to hoist expensive energy (renewables) on the well-to-do countries, while still allowing the 3rd world countries to use the cheap fossil fuels, such as coal. That may not be what some of the greenies want, but it’s what probably will happen.
No, because 3rd world (poor) countries as a rule don’t yet have much (if any) of an electrical grid, nor do they yet use a great deal of fossil fuels. The Greenie idea is to use money from the West, at first via use of guilt and shaming, and then a gradual codifying of it (stealing) to subsidize “green” energy which, in addition to being expensive is unreliable, making economic development even harder for them. Keeping the poor poor, and creating even more poor people is the ultimate goal.
This is pretty funny since in reality tropical regions would have the smallest temperature change as a result of a global increase in temperatures…
we’ve seen better times:
http://rlv.zcache.be/de_cent_van_fugio_let_op_uw_stuiver_bedrijfs_van_h_zandsteen_onderzetter-r04c77ba49b6e4415bff4ebfbf860181b_x7ke3_1024.jpg
I’m surprised nobody has noticed this part of the study…
“This study is the first to use climate models to simulate the end-to-end link between cumulative CO2 emissions and people experiencing more frequent hot days.”
The team used state-of-the-art climate models to estimate cumulative CO2 emissions and subsequent changes to extreme local daily temperatures over the 20th and 21st century.
From:
Poor countries to bear brunt of climate change
https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/-/poor-countries-to-bear-brunt-of-climate-change-despite-emitting-least-co2
Cam S. Good catch, it is model projections. If you actually analyze the data using the Koppen climate zones, you see there is very little climate change going on, and not especially where poor people live.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/data-vs-models-4-climates-changing/
“For the [Chinese] government to get out of their way”? Um… no, not exactly. True, after Mao and his buddies stopped pulling such stunts as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution — once when they were safely dead or drooling in their opulent palaces after retiring from government “service” — the next generation of ChiCom managers organized a government-organized and -run economy. True, it was organized in such a way in which some individuals would be able to become very, very rich but, for the most part, the economy was organized around state-secured mega-corporations. The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) is the largest shareholder in the economy, followed by various internal government organizations. Even the “privately” owned corporations have to kick back major profits to the government (“Nice growth industry you’ve got there. Shame if your CEO were to suddenly get shot or something. Hur-hur-hur….”) And, then, there is the whole issue of rampant, venal, viral, institutional theft of Western technology by the PLA and other state-run bureaus. Once acquired, that stolen information — even complete plans and technology — is “shared” (for a fee, of course) with Chinese corporations. Sorry, but the Chinese economy is based on totalitarianism, oppression and theft. Rot in hell, Mao.
When I saw the headline I thought this was going to be about Piers Corbyn
I believe the arms-length romaticism of greens, that “local” produce is best, cities bad, development bad, primitive people more in touch with nature, gives them a clear conscience when they try to stop development (eg by preventing power plants from being built), because after all, the undeveloped world is really more “pure” and the people happier than us corrupted westerners. So this “sustainable” meme is a big deal for Greens who imagine, without asking the locals what the prefer, that a remote village in Africa is more “sustainable”. Witness how sad they are that development will “ruin” Cuba!!! How in a hurry they are to visit Cuba (like Chicago mayor) before it is “ruined”. Of course they have not had to live without clean water and with no electricity…
The Greens and the UN are symbiotic but have different agendas. Without the Greens the UN would have no soldiers. Without the UN the Greens would have no global support. What I find alarming is how the rest of the world lets this combined small minority effectively control their lives. For now anyway.
“why aren’t green efforts focussed on helping poor people overcome their poverty?”
Oh, they are. The UNFCCC keeps asking for countries to describe their climate suffering, and they keep including poverty alleviation as a priority. Certainly, they’ll do [laundry list of climate and leftist projects] but reducing poverty is a priority.
What a strange article. A large part of why a majority of people in the world support going for renewables is that the fossil fuel industry has had an incredibly negative effect on the countries in which it fossil fuels are found (the well known ‘dutch disease’, but also just the general insane levels of corruption associated with fossil fuels). Getting rid of fossil fuels is one of the best things you can do for third and second world countries. To have mr. Worral twist the argument in such a way is.. very interesting to read!
Cheers
Ben
Only on your planet, ben. Your view of reality is a twisted one. Very interesting indeed.
Ben’s point is very valid, I don’t understand how you can dismiss it out of hand. Normally governments can only “make” money from taxes on individuals and corporations, or bribes paid to secure government approvals and contracts. There is still clearly room for corruption, but the scale is somewhat limited. When a country has major oil and natural gas resources, the potential for skimming & bribes goes up substantially. This is the case in the Middle East, South America, Africa and Asia in the oil rich countries. The presence of oil does not necessarily create a corrupt environment (it may well have existed before) but the scale of $$ that is taken out by those in charge goes up exponentially.
Bruce Cobb,
benben and Chris appear to be from the same planet. I think Algore helped them get here.
(benben = Kal-El)
Another content-free post from DB.
ah, so only on my planet are the governments of venezuela, russia, nigeria, the assorted arab countries etc. a kleptocratic mess? Please do elaborate Bruce!
Just a fact free ‘your view of reality is twisted’ doesn’t cut it when you want to pretend that the fossil fuel industry has, as a whole, been a positive development for poor countries!
bobo, in everyone of your examples, the corrupt organizations have been the governments of those countries.
I don’t have to “pretend” anything. Your grasp on reality is indeed tenuous.
How do you manage to dress yourself?
MarkW ‘the corrupt organizations have been the governments of those countries.’
THANK YOU! You beat me to it.
You forgot Zimbabwe.Once called Rhodesia, it was the food-basket of southern Africa.
It’s like the old Soviet joke:
“Where were you born?”
“St. Petersburg.”
“Where did you educated?”
“Petrograd.”
“Where did you work?”
“Leningrad.”
“Where do you want to retire?”
“St. Petersburg.”
Yes, your point being…? Ah, I see, you think that somehow in these countries governments and oil are magically separated from each other. Well. Easily falsifiable beliefs.
Cheers,
Ben
It’s known as ‘the resource curse’, see below:
“Russia is often thought to be a classic case of the resource curse—the idea that natural resource wealth tends to impair democratic development. Some see the country as doomed to authoritarian politics by its enormous endowments of oil and gas. “Russia’s future will be defined as much by the geology of its subsoil as by the ideology of its leaders,” writes Moisés Naím, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine and former trade and industry minister of petroleum-rich Venezuela. “A lot of oil combined with weak public institutions produces poverty, inequality, and corruption. It also undermines democracy.” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman sees a close relationship between world commodity prices and the extent of liberty in resource-rich states: a higher oil price means less freedom. Friedman suggests that Russia, from Gorbachev to Putin, fits this relationship perfectly.”
http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/russia-cursed-oil/
Under common law of the classical liberal variety, resources underground were property of the fee owners of the surface. Hence, Texas, Pennsylvania, Olahoma, and California, among others, prospered under rule of law and decent dispute resolution mechanisms because of and not despite resource riches. In the progressive and social democracy era, states claim such ownership “for the people” or some such and/or prohibit extraction with what is called regulation but for heavy tolls. States being states always increase the skim and state actors take their cut. Tolls and skims invite corruption. They are also corrupt alone. By what right does the State claim authority over this property, after all? If the resources were privately owned and administered such mischief would be much less possible or worthwhile. If it’s for the people, let them put it into a trust administered by a proper trustee and distribute beneficial interests to each person, without regard to wealth or vote buying opportunities. Fat chance, but it’s not the fault of resourcess. They are just Nature’s bounty there for those clever enough to figure out how to use them.
To promote products which are costly and which no one would willingly use on the backs of people with tricky tax finance schemes and skims and which knowingly would not solve the problem claimed for such promotion, such as renewables, is corrupt on its face.
I love the way liberals actually believe that governments are pure, unless they are corrupted by evil businesses.
I see that benben admits that the problem is not the oil companies, but corrupt local governments.
It truly is fascinating how leftists blame the flaws of govt on corporations.
It’s almost as if they really do believe that government can do no wrong.
What I have the hardest time with is the idea that the way to combat corruption is to place all power in the hands of government – where total power corrupts totally.
Corruption is a constant – wherever there is power, there are those who will abuse it. But moving from private enterprise to government control is going from the frying pan into the fire – a position endorsed mostly by those who have had no experience with how bad things get (and how fast) under authoritarian leadership – and since so much moral credibility these days is associated with victimhood, they posture and complain over perceived imperfections of a lifestyle that has allowed them more comfort and freedom than almost the totality of humanity has ever experienced. It’s the complaint of a spoiled child trying to feel sorry for himself.
The solution to corruption is to make power more diffuse.
Corrupt businesses will be out competed by non-corrupt businesses.
Corrupt governments just become more corrupt.
MarkW, you hit the nail on the head, as the saying goes. Fossil fuels are incredibly concentrated forms of wealth, hence they breed corruption and abuse of power. Renewables are diffuse, and thus the power structure that goes with a renewable energy system is much less susceptible to abuse of governmental power.
Glad we agree 😉
Fossil fuels are incredibly concentrated forms of wealth, hence they breed corruption and abuse of power.
Total non-sequitur. A typical ‘Say Anything’ fallacy.
In fact, there is more official corruption in windmills and solar than in all fossil fuel production.
Wow DB, just wow. We’ve been sparring for a while and and comments like these leave me curious as to who you actually are. Not like name address etc. but, are you a retired old angry white guy? Are you a 15 year old? Do you get your news exclusively through facebook?
How would you describe yourself DB?
Cheers,
Ben
db- benito is taking a leaf from the bible ‘money is the root of all evil’
which, being as how money is the token representation of human values, is purely anti-human.
like so many young persons with no experience, benito craves meaning and purpose.
unfortunately, he’s suffering from emophilia, which is a common way for the impotent to persuade themselves that they are relevant. any sort of drama attracts this kind of person. therefore his unspoken credo is ‘I troll, therefore I am’
he’ll probably outgrow it, as adulthood looms and taking responsibility for his subsistence forces its way into his metaphysics. reality tends to push out stupidity- the reverse of gresham’s law – unless there is a protective bubble to shield oneself from it and victims to pay the expenses that such insulation requires.
he’s just a lost child fearful that his mind is inadequate for his own survival – and proving it daily until it finally hurts enough to quit.
benben,
Read gnomish’s comment. He’s describing you.
And:
How would you describe yourself DB?
Mature, and a clear thinker. Pretty much an anti-benben.
Thanx for asking.
“In fact, there is more official corruption in windmills and solar than in all fossil fuel production.”
Evidence to back up that assertion?
Evidence: multi-$BILLIONS in subsidies for those energy scams.
Any other questions, Mr Naive N. Credulous?
Poor bobo, he actually believes that we are agreeing.
It’s not concentrated wealth that is the problem, it’s concentrated power.
As always, his solution to every problem is to give even more power to an already corrupt government.
gnomish, that’s a common liberal lie. The Bible says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. It says nothing whatsoever about money itself being evil.
“Evidence: multi-$BILLIONS in subsidies for those energy scams.”
Subsidies are not corruption. You might disagree with them, but they are not corruption.
Subsidies are corruption when companies contribute money to legislators in a quid-pro-quo for laws giving them enormous windmill subsidies. That’s clear to all but the most naive and credulous.
“Subsidies are corruption when companies contribute money to legislators in a quid-pro-quo for laws giving them enormous windmill subsidies.”
Another in a long line of DB assertions without any supporting evidence.
Total lobbying for Vestas (America), one of the top 3 wind turbine mfrs globally? $100K: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000058229 Lobbying and political contributions for Exxon? Just under $15M. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000129
yeah, right… exports of saudi arabian products took a nosedive when oil was discovered there… wait…
um…
oh! got it – when the soviet union started pumping oil, suddenly corruption ensued… wait…
ah- when american minining and coal sought to ‘corner the market’ on energy and unintentionally gave birth to the oil industry – the only thing that saved america was the Sherman Anti-trust Act… or…
um – oh, yeah- the venezuelan landscape has been destroyed by petroleum prospectors who ate all the trees… hmm…
ok- the dutch! yeah- they got dutch disease from oil. wait…. that was gas… but anyway- having something valuable to sell made their currency stronger so exports became expensive (the tulip trade suffered a death blow) and imports became cheap as everybody got rich. wealth is a disease – but economists were able to hold the country together by treating it with leeches, the preferred treatment.
so it’s not just oil- it’s wealth per se.
thanks benito!
the more i know of people, the more i love my dog, Benno. (goebbels)
‘Renewables are diffuse, and thus the power structure that goes with a renewable energy system is much less susceptible to abuse of governmental power.’
That is a totally ridiculous statement.
Okay, you’ve got your attention, go back under your bridge little troll.
I see the skeptics here don’t like it when someone appears in their little safe space with a different opinion :p
“Safe space”?? That’s projection.
I’ve been banned from hotwhopper and skepticalscience — the latter for simply posting a data-based graph, with no comment.
Those are ‘safe spaces’ for the small alarmist clique. I note that you post here quite a lot. No one censors your juvenile opinions. You just don’t like the fact that you’re about the only one who believes your nonsense.
[Deleted. Impostor/ID thief. -mod]
Ha-Ha! The ^site pest^ lasted a few minutes before the mods snipped him. Another wasted effort. ☺
[His last comment lasted less than that. More wasted effort. -mod]
[Another sockpuppet. Into the bit bucket with you, fraudster. -mod]
Having an opinion isn’t bad. Not being able to back up your opinion with anything approaching a logical argument and real world facts is.
benben says:
Getting rid of fossil fuels is one of the best things you can do for third and second world countries.
Why don’t we ask them, benben?
And if anyone needed confirmation that you’re nuts, that statement would provide conclusive evidence.
Like most liberals, bobo believes that having money is a bad thing.
Like most liberals, bobo believes that having money is a bad thing.
He believes that other folks having money is wrong.
But like all liberals, benben will never turn down money himself.
“Stop treating poor people as an intractable group of stupids”
That’s pretty much the left wing opinion on anyone who doesn’t work for government.
Eric,
You must not be familiar with the famous saying about lefty. Lefty loves the poor so much he wants to make sure they are always around. I think history and experience proves the validity of that saying.
I do not subscribe to the view that poorer nations will be worse off due to climate change.
Some of the luckier of the world’s poor live in shanty towns in houses made from any kind of scrap materials they could find. Come the apocalypse, they will set off into the countryside with their single bag of belongings and re-build their shanty towns on higher ground.
The richer nations, on the other hand will be in deep whatnot. Moving London or New York, for instance, will be a disaster. How could you re-house that number of people in anywhere near the manner in which they had become accustomed? How could you move that number of people at all?
The other point is that most activist enviros do not really care about the poor. They expect others to, though. That way the poor can be cynically used as bargaining counters. For instance, who could refuse to pay a carbon tax when the proceeds go to the poor? Strangely, they always omit the number of grasping hands that will cream off a cut on the way. That would be themselves, of course.
So-called Social Justice is just one way in which they have tried to blackmail the rich into parting with their money. If all the money would go to the poor that would be one thing but I can’t help but think that many of the well-off will need to extract some in passing. That is why carbon taxes need to be so huge. A few hundred $million might then go missing en route and no-one would care.
graphicconception wrote: “So-called Social Justice is just one way in which they have tried to blackmail the rich into parting with their money.” Think much, much larger. It’s trillions, multiplied. If Our Dear Leader Obama is to believed, the goal of the United States government — and the EU — is to transfer the wealth of the Western world to the poor nations because justice, or something.
There is, at its basis, the idea that wealth is a zero-sum game: If X country has a certain amount of wealth, it much make Y country poorer. (I must admit that, on a daily basis, I send emails to West Africa and scam villagers to send me their cornmeal in return for promises that I’ll transfer secret, hidden assets to their bank accounts. Just for full disclosure.)
To paraphrase J. Goebbels, every time I hear “it’s for the poor” or “think of the children” I hide my wallet and grab my sidearm. Not because I hate either group — my wife and I routinely donate more money per year than Our Dear Leader does to Christian charities (the only ones that actually make a difference) — but I would rather pile up a raft of cash and set it on fire rather than send it to UNICEF.
Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, (Act 17:26 KJV)
We all were born into the same boat, of the same blood, of the same life.
“Racism” is just an excuse for one group to think that their blood is superior to another’s or to seek revenge on some past group that thought so of their group.
The truth is that we all share the same life.
(I just quoted the Bible. In the Bible, that blood is incredibly corrupt. But He provided the cleanse.)
No one is intrinsically superior or inferior to another.
“Racism” is an artificial division between people that are in the same boat.
“China rose from abject poverty to world economic superpower in just a few decades, without outside help.” In a recent speech by the Chinese Trade Minister he noted that China has been the global number one recipient of foreign investment for the past 21 consecutive years!
I am a collector of vintage political & economic texts. In many, US oligarchs, a few still living today, are frank in their plans to make China a major part of “global governance”. Today’s speeches by Chinese officials, in which they enthuse about the emerging system, are never carried by the MSM, but are available online.
China has been massively aided by the West via investment, technology transfer– even the transfer of enormous R & D facilities. Not to mention much of US mfg jobs.
Penelope commented: “..China has been massively aided by the West via investment, technology transfer– even the transfer of enormous R & D facilities. Not to mention much of US mfg jobs…”
+1 The West handed them the ability to compete. It started with “outsourcing” in the 80’s and went as far as providing all the technology and management for an entire semiconductor industry from start to finish. At the sake of sounding conspiratorial…..why did we do that? We were conned into it is the simple answer.
The west was looking for cheaper manufacturing. Taiwan used to make a lot of things and ‘made in Taiwan’ was a label for something crap. Then costs rose and the manufacturing shifted to China while Taiwan raised its quality, went into semi-conductors big time and is now a quality label. China is still about a lot of cheap crap and copies of western goods but their costs are rising so manufacturing is coming back or looking for the next cheap country.
One word, patents. Those “approved” sustainable methods are all patented in the rich nations already, get the I-phone picture?
If sustainability along with the needed economic incentives were the goal, patent and copyright laws should be reduced to no more than 2 years across the boards.
Only China right now is currently allowed to violate certain laws, and how they were “helped”
It’s an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.