Letter to the editor, by Viv Forbes
Dear Editor,
Nothing better illustrates the stupidity and evil intent of Green philosophy than their promotion of a mythical guestimate called the “social cost of carbon” (SCC).
They use this bureaucratic weapon to demonise the fabulous fossil fuels that deliver food, heat, light and power to the modern world.
Let’s consider life before coal, oil and gas were harnessed.
There was no steel and no cars, tractors, trucks, trains, planes or electric power. It was a world of sulkies, sailing boats and sun-dried food. Hunters used bows and spears, farmers used oxen and wooden ploughs and threshed grain with wooden flails. Half of all crops grown went to feed draft animals. Forests surrounding towns were felled for firewood, charcoal, shingles, houses, ships, wagons and bridges. Whalers scoured the oceans to produce whale oil for lamps, and dung was collected for fuel. For most people, life was one of hunger and toil.
Fossil fuels changed all this and also brought many other social benefits.
Greens seem unaware that “carbon” coming from man-made CO2 is beneficial plant food supporting all life on Earth including polar bears, cane toads, prickly pear, rain forests and wheat.
Moreover, in those countries which use the most hydro-carbons (such as USA, UK and Australia) we see prosperous people, trees protected, whales revered, arts thriving, cleaner air and water, and agriculture producing more food and oxygen from less land.
The SCC is a fraud – carbon fuels have produced immense social benefits and will continue to do so.
Rosevale Qld Australia
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You mean the social cost of of carbon is not a negative number?
I got that too. If the social cost is “positive”, there’s a real cost to additiona CO2. A “negative” cost on the other hand, implies a net benefit from increased CO2.
I suppose when Anthony Watts wrote “positive” he was thinking of the positive benefits from added CO2 rather than thinking mathematically.
Depends on how you look at the concept, whether you are a buyer or a seller, ask any hooker, they’ll tell you the social cost of carbon(based man) is definitely positive.
CO 2 levels in various circumstances:
40,000 ppm – exhaled breath of normal healthy people
8,000 ppm – standard concentration in US submarines
2,500 ppm – level in small hot crowded bar
1,000 – 2,000 ppm – historical norms for earth’s atmosphere over past 550 million years
1,000 ppm – average level in lecture hall or auditorium
1,000 – 2,000 ppm preferred level plant growers like for their greenhouses
150 ppm – level below which plants die
Winery workers have died from asphyxiation in fermentation vats unflushed of 100 pct .CO2
No idea at what level it becomes dangerous. At 50,000 ppm it would be 5 pct of the atmosphere. It is not toxic like carbon monoxide
“A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness (NIOSH 1996; Tox. Review 2005). Additionally, acute toxicity data show the lethal concentration low (LCLo) for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes (NIOSH 1996).”
https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf
@Tom Andersen
200PPM Plant growth Stasis the point at which the biosphere can’t expand.
40,000 PPM is the CO2 we breathe out AND therefore apply in CPR
I Think the toxic level of CO2 may well have a lot to do with the oxygen level,, if 9% CO2 is removed only from the Oxygen concentration then I’d imagine it would be quite toxic, however in the case where the CO2 replaces Nitrogen I am not so sure.
40,000PPM are used to save lives in need of CPR.
the main thing is that you accept, uncritically, the notion of a ‘social cost’.
once you do you’ll be ripe for all kinds of pluckin’
CO2 at high concentration lowers to ph of blood and can cause rapid loss of consciousness and death. The gas is heavy and can pool in fermenters, mine shafts and caves. When a person descends into this invisible layer it takes as little as three breaths to lose consciousness.
[??? This is because the CO2 in closed spaces at such high levels as you describe displaces oxygen, NOT because the CO2 is inherently or intrinsically poisonous. (CO IS poisonous at low levels!) But that is at CO2 “levels” of 10+% (to lower oxygen levels from 20% to below the 8-10% needed for consciousness.) This is equivalent to raising CO2 from its current 400 ppm to 100,000 ppm. Which cannot be done for this planet’s atmosphere. .mod]
Welcome to the Canberra Royal Association of Pedants (CRAP). Or do I mean the Canberra Association of Royal Pedants (CARP) ?
You know what she meant. Stop it with the pedantry & get on with constructive comments.
Can’t have negative benefits
Someone clearly didn’t study accounting. 🙂
That’s right, thanks God. My brother and father are both accountants.
I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about the headline.
In double-entry accounting, if a cost is positive, that means the total cost increases. link
The Social PROFIT of Carbon
Viv Forbes is a gifted writer – I’m positive about that!!!
brian356,
You missed the ” ” around the word cost.
The social “cost” of carbon is positive. “Cost” (with quotes) meaning benefit.
The social benefit of carbon is positive.
Picture the monkeys in the trees taking turns picking the lice/nits off each other. brian356 scrambles up the tree and ambles across the branch; and the monkeys turn to him “No thanks Bri, we don’t want your help, you are not very good at it.”
Well the social costs are positive; the economic costs are something else.
Most sane people believe CO2 is a net benefit; in that it enables us to continue living on planet earth.
The financial or economic cost is perhaps debatable.
G
He means it should be called the social benefit of carbon.
You can calculate the social cost of carbon using the EPA method:
1. Pick a number, not so small as to be irrelevant and large enough to justify collecting the money to subsidise boondoggles that have a net negative return on energy: $35.00 per ton of CO2 (the SCC)
2. Estimate the number of tons of CO2 emitted from all sources (not just fossil fuels, everything).
3. Multiply the $ amount by the number of tons to see if it is a large number. Round it to the nearest $250 billion.
4. Ignore all beneficial results of the application of the energy produced by releasing that CO2.
5. Check with aspirant recipients to see if ‘this will be enough’ to run the world of development and wealth transfer to bring the entire global population to a reasonable Gini Coefficient. Adjust Step 1 as necessary.
6. Publish the SCC attended by reams of commentary.
7. Suppress all discussion of the social benefits of carbon (SBC).
8. Declare the debate is over.
Crispin,,, I believe you are entirely correct. The Progressives first determined what the SCC of carbon needed to be to achieve the objective they desired. Then they proceeded to fiddle with the numbers and parameters until their calculation gave them the number they wanted. There really was nothing more to it than that. Just like it appears for any rational assessment of mainstream climate scientists. They have already decided what the minimum number for the CO2 feedback parameter is. Now the goal is to find plausible mechanisms and institute a multitude of adjustments to the data so they can at least get to the minimum desired CO2 feedback (which is >3C per doubling) and preferably even higher.
This sounds like the methods used to produce several of the temperature charts
Ahhhh ha! I see now… I always missed step 3. Now it makes sense.
Well Crispin, think you’re right.
But you won’t await the politicians we vote for working through the 9 points list you introduce, will you.
It all depends on the state’s secretaries we already have; and their willingness ‘to switch’ to the ‘new agenda’.
Consider one fat target of Scott Pruitt, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This mandates an increasing percentage of renewable fuel (ethanol) in gasoline, impossibly high (according to the GSA) targets in fact by 2022. It’s why EPA are ramming E15 and E85 down our throats. But RFS will be almost impossible to repeal since it was actually created by Congress as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That’s right, under George W. Bush! (Here, let me help you stand back up again.) And then consider how many Republican senators from Big Corn states would have to vote against their constituencies in order to kill it. And Trump promised not to scuttle RFS when he campaigned in the Midwest, but we weren’t paying attention.
Former Indiana farm boy here, and relative to several current Indiana farmers.
What makes you thing we weren’t paying attention to what Trump promised? Or did you forget that the ‘Rust Belt’ and the ‘Corn Belt’ overlap?
^_^
I’m sure you were paying attention. Now tell your relatives to get their hands out of my pockets.
Until humans are made of something OTHER than hydrocarbons, I shall consider the “social cost” of carbon to be completely positive!
I think the idea is like Vitamin A. A little is good, too much will kill you, however nobody knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere is ‘too much’ before it starts to become a net negative, 350ppm? 1,000ppm? 25,000ppm?.
There isn’t enough verifiable evidence to make a conclusion, however life on earth has apparently thrived at around 1000-2000ppm CO2.
It’s also a very typical case of lack of proportion within academic research; those whose job is too monitor the health of markets and people sometimes inflate their field out of all proportion to its’ relevance. This is a common problem within academic research. Research is both a competitive and sometimes political game, and balance is not one of its strong points.
The idea that carbon has a significant social cost is basically a theory, until more evidence comes in on exactly if and when it becomes dangerous.
Oh it is way less than a theory. It is a quasi-religious pseudo-scientific tenet. It isn’t even based on science, though it pretends to be.
The SCC is an enforcement method a way to edict that certain companies be given an advantage over others, sort of like affirmative action for energy. Take a look at what Affirmative action does for majorities and you see what SCC will do for energy. Both achieve getting “less for more” as the PC options get chosen over the best option. Look at the total failure of Ivanpah 16 square km of environmental destruction and 2.2Bn for under 1/3rd the power generation capacity of just one Boeing 777.
bobl, a GE90 produces 75 MW of power, so the two engines on the 777 will produce 150 MW. Ivanpah is rated at 392 MW. So in fact you would need two and a half 777’s to equal the power of Ivanpah. You are incorrect to say Ivanpah generates 1/3rd the power of a 777
Richard,
What does Ivanpah ACTUALLY generate, as opposed to what it is “rated” at? Let us know when you have that data.
Nope. A 777 produces rated power for the duration of,its fuel capacity. Ivanpah produces rated power for a few hours at cloudless mid-day. Hence it is consuming 4x the originallynpermitted natural gas boiler heat in the morning, and with that producing only~2/3 of contracted output.
If Ivanpah were a jet airplane with you on it, you would be dead already.
I fly from Brisbane, Australia, to LAX every year in a Virgin 777. 14 hours in the dark of night and the 777 never looked stopping.
Looked like stopping
ristvan, you seem to misunderstand the difference between “power” as measured in watts, and “energy” which is measured in watts multiplied by time. When you say: “produces rated power for the duration of,its fuel capacity” you are incorrect. The GE90 is operated with throttle, and is not running at full power at all times.
.
Paul, July 2016: 98,849 MWh which works out to 132 MW per hour for 744 hours (31×24).
http://helioscsp.com/ivanpah-concentrated-solar-thermal-power-sets-record/
ristvan, do the math. July 2016 98,849 MWh. The plant is rated at 320 MW. So, the plant produced 3188 MWh per day in July which has 31 days. If you divide 3188 by 320, it looks like every day in July was cloudless, and the plant was running at full power output for just under 10 hours.
Does that allow for the electricity produced during the gas “preheating” in the mornings, RB?
@ur momisugly Richard B
If Ivanpah were a conventional gas plant with a name plate of 320MW, in that same month it could have been expected to generate 238,080 MWh. Who in their right mind invests in capital equipment that’s productive only 50% of the time, or less? Not to mention that based on the natural gas it burns, if it were a more conventional power plant it would be required to participate in California’s cap and trade scam; I mean, scheme.
Both of these aircraft use the latest, greatest high tech fiber composites and avionics.
One uses the best available solar power tech.
The other uses the best available hydrocarbon power tech.
Which one of these is a commercial economic success?
Which one is just a novelty toy?
Solar Impulse 2
http://i63.tinypic.com/ea4l61.jpg
Boeing 787
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/787/assets/images/marquee-787.jpg
once you accept, uncritically, the notion of a ‘social cost
then your social scientists will show how from that derives ‘social sin’
and then meet your new god
omniscient, omnipotent and merciful provider of all authorized needs.
for you are but a mere cell in the organism – and not one of the braincells.
be grateful Society suffered you to live, eater.
It’s what modern civilization is based upon. If it we’re up to environmentalists, we’d be living to twenty-five and would have never discovered fire. Or evolved thumbs.
Not true about the thumbs. You need opposable thumbs to effectively attack a Mastodon with a spear, or scrawl on cave walls. We will be allowed to keep ’em.
Oh no you don’t. You won’t be allowed to make tools in the new Green Utopia. If you want to eat mastodon, you will have to wait for it to die of old age.
Are mastodons coming back from extinction? Also, you don’t need to wait for one to die of old age…just herd it off a cliff. 🙂
The social costs of CO2 are all the money that has been spend on harebrained schemes like windmills and solar thermal. The money spent on these things could actually have been spent on something useful to people, instead of restricting the action and options and opportunities of people.
And what are the costs of treating the poor people who have been driven insane with fear by these false claims of human-caused global warming/climate change. That’s got to be a huge amount of money.
Of course the social cost of ‘carbon’ is positive. It is hugely positive.
Everything we have (and take for granted) in the developed world has been built on the back of ‘carbon’. It is why we are not toiling in the fields 17 hours a day 6.5 days a week, why we do not die in our late 30s/early 40s, why women rarely die in childbirth, and why there is no longer high rates of infant mortality etc..
One only has to carry out the most cursory comparison of life in a developed world country and compare it to the poor undeveloped world countries to see what a huge positive is brought about by ‘carbon’
You describe a positive benefit, sir, i.e. a negative cost.
Hence the desire to avoid the difficult cost vs benefit analysis. The benefits are real, measureable, and critically important to the vast majority of voters. The costs are buried in theoretical possibilities, and require ad hominem attacks on any, that question the faith.
Not the analysis you want to have, if you have already determined the solution, and you are trying to create a problem that the “Intergovernmental community” can address.
A negative cost is a contradiction in terms
The CO2 level on nuclear submarines is between 2,500-5,000 ppm with no medical detriment. Relax, people.
I would double that. 1,500ppm (0.15%) was the average for the late Phanerozoic. It fed lots of dinosaurs.
http://i.imgur.com/jv8lKUp.jpg
Viv Forbes mixes up the private benefit with the social cost.
Maybe in part – but fossil CO2 delivers tremendous social gains as well…
Or does the production of enough food or the greening of Earth not count as a social gain?
Not to speek of the fact that every carbon atom our body was in a CO2 molecule before it went into the biochemical cycle of life. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better…
Sorry – the last sentence should be:
Not to speek of the fact that every carbon atom IN our body was in a CO2 molecule before it went into the biochemical cycle of life. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better…
send me the bill. i want mr social’s address so i can send him a bigger one.
i suspect it’s the same address where you get 60 virgins.
private benefit
===========
what about public (social) benefit? or does society only have costs without benefits? surely if the health and wealth of society in aggregate is improved, then this is a social benefit.
there is a saying, you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. everything in life is like this. It has positive and negative aspects. antibiotics for example. they have saved many lives, but every now and then they kill someone. should we only look at the people killed by antibiotics and ignore the very large number saved?
Viv Forbes mixes up the private benefit with the social cost.
There is no specific mention in the article of the doubling of life expectancy. That is a social benefit.
Well, I’m positive that the “social cost” of carbon is a figment of their fevered imagination.
Through the benefit of Co2 I just notice this on yahoo.news: Mann — known for the famous “hockey stick” graph showing that modern climate change is unprecedented in human history — by making false claims about his work, and comparing him to a notorious child molester. ” A prominent climate scientist just won a major court battle” https://www.yahoo.com/tech/m/405b8d2f-e952-3c6e-a08f-f160a70aaed6/a-prominent-climate-scientist.html
I just bought a nice Hockey Stick mug from Mark Steyn.
Sooner this gets to trial, the better. Mann is toast, and knows it. And the YAHOO report got the gist of the thing wrong, as well.
I think this ruling concerned whether or not Mann is a public figure and thus libel would require a higher standard of malice. Or something like that.
Is Mann Article has lots of spin in it, but,one thing is for sure… Whether the claims are false will now be subject to evidentiary examination in the lower court trial. The ‘major victory’ is the court saying… ‘Maybe there is, maybe there is not a case. We do not know. So, go litigate it’.
And, as to the defamation claim… How is comparing Mann to Sandusky any different than comparing Trump to Hitler?
I was under the impression that Mann was trying to delay things to prevent discovery. Why would he do something that would essentially obligate him to proceed with a trial? I guess I’m confused.
Has anyone ever noted an inverse correlation between the increasing use of fossil fuel and the declining practice of slavery?
No steel? Well, we have a great many uses for coal and steel making is one, but we made steel long before there was any systematic use of coke in steel production.
Um no, you are wrong, Steel is an alloy of Iron and carbon, so the carbon bit is somewhat essential, what you are thinking is iron production is still possible without coke, but iron is far less useful than steel.
Bobl, all steel is a lower carbon form of iron. High carbon steels are still less than or equal to 6% C. The carbon content was not inherent in the iron ore. It entered via the smelting oxide reduction process of iron ore (mainly Fe2O3) to iron (mainly Fe).
Modern steels are usually less than 1% carbon. Coke is still used in the steel making process but it’s purpose is to increase the temperature of the melt, usually in a BOF (Basic Oxygen Furnace).
As SMC states, the carbon content of steel is usually 0.1 % to 1%. The more carbon, the more brittle the steel.
Yes. We made little bits of steel from iron in Europe, Arabia, and Japan using charcoal and much hammering since the middle ages. Enough for swords and armor. Not enough for anything else until Henry Bessemer came along with his Bessemer converter invention (precursor to modern blast furnaces), and then Andrew Carnegie put the new steel industry based on Bessemer’s invention on a sound industrial basis.
Then you add 10.5% + chromium and voila, stainless steel.
Didn’t early blacksmiths use coke? Either made from coal, or else made from the partial burning of wood.
Charcoal.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are so dramatically beneficial that Scientific American once, long ago, called anthropogenic carbon dioxide the “precious air fertilizer.” From this photograph in their article, it’s easy to see why:
http://www.sealevel.info/ScientificAmerican_1920-11-27_CO2_fertilization1.png
CO2Science.org has compiled a massive database of scientific studies, showing the extent to which extra CO2 benefits various plants:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
America’s most illustrious living scientist, Freeman Dyson, has said that “About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil.” In private email, he agreed with me that that’s a conservative estimate.
daveburton-
“About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere.”
That is a useful starting point to calculate one component of the social benefit of carbon. Assuming that corresponds to 15% of the food that feeds about 7.4 Billion people, anthro carbon emissions are keeping 1.11 billion people alive. Using EPA’s estimate of the value of a human life at $9.7 Million, that comes to $1.067 x 10^16, or $10,670 Trillion!
Spread over an 80 year life expectancy, that gives $133 Trillion per year.
In other words, the Social Benefit of Carbon (SBC) is at least $133 Trillion per year.
In 2015, the global CO2 emissions were about 36.3 GTonnes.
That gives an SBC of $3664 per tonne CO2, roughly 100 times larger than the estimated SCC of $36/tonne.
You’re right, there are upper limits to this, it can’t simply go up and up to bring more plant growth. Limits on soil moisture, other nutrients, stomate size, all slow CO2 uptake. I used to study this in my agriculture degree, we had sealed glasshouses, we calibrated CO2, to O2, temperature, species, stomate number, size, water uptake.
Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. But even is climate change could be stopped by reducing our adding of CO2 to the atmosphere, such would have no effect upon extreme weather events because extreme weather events are part of our current climate. There is no know human survivable climate under which extreme weather events will not happen. Sea level rise is part of our current climate as it has been over most of the Holocene for the past 10k years. The beginning of the next ice age will cause sea levels to lower as new ice sheets form on land. In the past ice ages have happened when CO2 levels were much higher than today.
Whenever I see the word evil used like this I know the person using it is a kook. Either a religious, ideological or philosophical but a kook all the same. This one is a particular breed of mining industry kook.
“Whenever I see the word evil used like this I know the person using it is a kook.”
Because . ? . . No one ever fakes good intent? How old are you?
Tony Mcleod
So you are anti-mining. Think about that. It’s very high school, or high school teacher. Did you know that mankind’s use of minerals, rocks and metals is so strongly associated with our evolution and development that we name these periods after them: paleolithic (lithic means rock/mineral material ), neolithic, copper-bronze age, iron age. The only way we can identify early man’s activities is by artifacts of such materials. If a beaver building a dam is instinctive, then mankind working earth materials is arguably instinctive too and essential for survival.
I always tell anti mining types to look out the window at a city street and also consider the window glass too. Wooden products are also cut, sanded, painted, nailed… Everything we eat wear or use has required minerals and metals in its making and usage. Only kooks are anti mining.
Not against mining Gary and not all miners are kooks, just ones who think those who disagree are “evil”.
What kind of evil is he talking about? Demonic, biblical evil, spawn of satan evil? Only nutters talk like that.
tony calling someone a kook. Lol. Irony is *really* funny.
Only thing ironic is your grammar.
Struth! CO2 supports cane toads! Stone the flamin crows, get rid of the stuff.
CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
Let me first state I am serious about this Limerick. It is not even tongue in cheek. I am an engineer with a degree in technical physics and look at the earth as a “living” organism that responds to changes in its environment.
First, the increase in CO2 concentration itself and how nature responds to it.
Second, the effect it has on the earth’s temperature and all its consequences, and finally
Third, the acidification of the oceans.
CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 400 ppm today, and is increasing at a rate of 2 ppm per year. We are way past the point of no return, 350 ppm which would lead to a temperature catastrophe. (1) But instead, something rather interesting is occurring. The earth is getting greener! (2) This 40 % increase in CO2 the last 250 years has led to a more than 30 % increase in agricultural production all by itself without adding fertilizer or using higher yielding seeds. (3) Thanks to this we can now feed an additional two billion people on earth without starvation. The news are so good, that the per capita food production is increasing, even as the population is increasing. (4)
more https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
The biggest malfeasance the EPA engaged in WRT their SCC fraud with the use of too low a Discount rate in their assessment of future cost of CO2 emitted today. Standard Accounting practices in by the OMB in their Circular A-94 guidelines dictate a 7% discount rate.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2nlsh01.jpg
The best example I tell regular folks comes from the Austin Powers movie where he assumes $1million ransom for the world from destruction is a lot of money. It was (kinda) in 1960’s when he was frozen, but by 1999, it was not much due to high inflation in the 70’s – 80’s. And EPA wants us to believe their 3.5% discount rate in the SCC is realistic.
https://youtu.be/7edeOEuXdMU
I can imagine Gina McCarthy freezing herself and then coming back, finding herself in 2100 CE, telling the then world that a $Trillion carbon damage is a massive amount of “carbon pollution” damage. By then it won’t be. By 2100 CE, $1Trillion will be worth about $120 Billion in today’s dollars at a 7% discount rate.
Wrong YouTube link.
This one:
https://youtu.be/cKKHSAE1gIs
Also made a stupid mental math error.
In 2100 CE (~80years) $1Trillion (then) at a 7% annual discount rate reduces to 1/(2^8) in present value or about $4Billion in today’s value.
Bravo Viv, Bravo!
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
“Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050.”
http://oi65.tinypic.com/erets1.jpg
It is hard to deny the benefits of adding CO2 to our current atmosphere.
But the “social cost” of carbon is a work of the “math is hard” crew, where predetermined conclusions will be reinforced by whatever means possible.
We in the “West” live as Gods compared to our great grandparents.
The social gains from modern energy forms are pretty hard to describe as “socially negative” unless you have a very depraved model of society.
And so far the only measured consequence of liberating more CO2 into the air… better plant growth in the marginal regions..what a calamity?