Gaia Isn't Happy

In many schools, Earth Day means students will be inundated with the importance of environment. It can often take on a religious-like devotion to the cause.

But you never hear on Earth Day the full reality of humanity's relationship with nature, such as the devastating tornadoes that recently killed hundreds in the South, the earthquake and tsunami that killed over 14,000 people in Japan, and the hurricane that killed over 300,000 people in Haiti. Or why the 2004 tsunami in less industrialized Indonesia killed over 200,000 people, while in heavily industrialized Japan, the death toll was over 90% lower.

We need an Industrialization Day to celebrate the achievements of the industrial revolution, which so dramatically improved the material terms of the human condition. Your life may depend on it.

Machine Madness

This column by Sam Kazman in the Wall Street Journal discusses the impact of government regulations that mandate energy and water efficiency standards for washing machines. Due to these regulations, top loading washing machines clean clothes much less effectively than previously. Front loading washing machines generally provide superior cleaning, at a significant cost increase.

This raises the question: if energy and water efficiency were such desirable attributes of washing machines even if cleaning quality is reduced, than consumers could choose such models. And other consumers, who don't want to trade off efficiency for cleaning quality, could choose other models. Such is how matters operate in a free society.

The very fact that the government decided to promulgate such standards, rather than leave the choice to each of us individually, is because it feared many would prefer cleaning quality to energy/water efficiency. And because many people wouldn't make the "correct"choice, the government had to make the decision for us.

Just one more example of our nanny state at work, limiting our freedom.

He Told You So

I have long believed that the environmental movement reflects the anti-capitalist, anti-industrial agenda of the left.

Don't take my word for it. Patrick Moore, one of the founding members of Greenpeace, confirms this. Quoting from a recent column he wrote:

"To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and rebel berets in support of the Sandinistas."

So the next time the environmental movement expounds its views, recognize that it often reflects an agenda far different from "clean water and air".

Never Mind

Erin Brokovich found her fame and fortune by suing PG&E for dumping hexavalent chromium in the water supply for Hinkley, California. The chemical is considered a probable carcinogen, so if it were a health hazard for the town's residents, cancer death rates should be greater than normal.

Fortunately for Hinkley's residents, although not for Brokovich's reputation, a study published in the Los Angeles Times indicates that the town had less cancer than would be expected for its demographic characteristics.

Incentives Matter

I thought it would be useful to make explicit one of the central themes that runs through many of my columns, namely that incentives matter.

This means that the incentives people, institutions, governments, and countries face heavily influence what they will do.

For example, if a person has a health insurance plan in which all or almost all costs are paid by the insurer, and no costs or almost none are paid by the consumer, then the consumer has an incentive to seek additional health care and no incentive to minimize spending. The result: health care spending explodes.

Likewise, if that person has an Health Spending Account, they do have incentives to keep costs down, and the result is lower health care spending.

If the government raises taxes, people have an incentive to work less and shift income to lower taxed areas. If taxes are lowered, the incentive to work increases. The empirical evidence shows this is true.

If consumers reduce their purchases of paper products, such as paper towels, then forestry owners have an incentive to sell their land, currently devoted to growing trees to be harvested and re-seeded for new growth, for other uses such as housing developments, golf courses, or industrial facilities.

So buying less paper products means there will be fewer trees in the world. That is not what the advocates of reducing paper consumption hope for, but since incentives matter, that is what will happen.

All collectivists run into this problem. Try as they might to direct people to act or live as the collectivist desires, people will be influenced by the incentives they face.

So tax-free health insurance leads to exploding health care costs; higher taxes leads to less work and economic growth; and reduced demand for paper leads to fewer trees. None of these outcomes are what the collectivist seeks. But it is what they create.

Junk Science

The vaccine scaremongers have suffered another defeat. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the the British medical journal Lancet finally issued a full retraction of research it published in 1998 that claimed to find a link between vaccinations and autism.

That claim has been debunked by many scientific studies since, and it is long overdue for Lancet to face up to the lies perpetrated by researchers including Andrew Wakefield.

But if there is a link to something of interest, note the one between the vaccine-autism scandal and the global warming charade, where emails and subsequent revelations have shown that researchers manipulated date and the scientific process to get to a desire political outcome.

Scientific Consensus

Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal illustrates that politicization of science is a broader problem than just "climate gate".

The Journal ran articles on the benefits of exercise in reducing the incidence of illness and health problems. One of the articles discussed the work of a researcher, Paul Smith,who believes that the guidelines for how much exercise people should have is insufficient, since his data shows that higher amounts of exercise lead to better health outcomes.

But Paul William's work is shunned by others in the field and he is denied involvement in panels who review these guidelines because of the fear that if the public knew that more exercise was even better, many people would conclude they shouldn't bother exercising at all since it is too daunting an effort.

It is reminiscent of the government-led nutritional guidelines published in the 1950s which said fat should be reduced from your diet - but didn't differentiate between good fat like monosaturated fat vs. bad fat like saturated fat. Researchers at the time knew all fats weren't bad for people, but preferred a simpler message ("all fats are bad") to the correct message ("trans and saturated fats need to be reduced").

These dietary guidelines missed important nutritional information due to a desire to create a simple message. Simple, and wrong.

These examples illustrate why I'm skeptical when people speak of a "scientific consensus" as it relates to matters relating to public policy - it is very tempting to either impose your own values on the issue, like global warming, or to insist that a simpler, dumbed down explanation is better.

We deserve, and can handle, the truth - in all its complexity.

Global Warming Scaremongering

This article from 2005 predicted that in 2010 there would 50 million "environmental refugees" arising from global warming because of rising sea levels, the encroachment of deserts, dried up aquifers, flooding, and other weather-related problems.

This prediction didn't quite turn out as hoped.

If the global warming scaremongers can't get a forecast five years out correct, how can we take seriously their 100 year forecasts? Never mind that the forecasts are based on models which are based on faked data and that don't "backward predict" historical weather patterns.

The author Michael Crichton wrote about the "state of fear" that many seek to induce in the public about environmental issues. This article, and its false prophesies, is such an example.

Thank you, Australia

The Australian Senate handed a defeat to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd by rejecting Rudd's cap-and-trade plan to limit carbon emissions.

Since countries are reluctant to adopt carbon limits if other nations don't also adopt them, so as not to put domestic industries at a disadvantage to international competitors, Australia's rejection of cap-and-trade makes it less likely other nations will adopt it.

Thank you, Australia.

Global Warming Fraud

A number of years ago, I read a column by a scientist who said that many scientists often found it difficult to know whether they should disclose all they could about various issues or focus on the message they want to deliver to the public. He gave as an example the issue of smoking, where many researchers don't publicize the chances that a person would die from smoking out of fear if the real probability was known, some people would be less motivated to quit.

He finally disclosed in the article that the chances of dying from smoking are about 33%, and while in reality that is a shockingly high number since so many things can kill you, it is possible some smokers implicitly assume the probability is even higher. So for such smokers, scientists fear that disclosure of the details would deter some from quitting smoking.

This was a specific example of the broader problem he wrote about it, and it has made me very concerned since then about the nature of scientific claims. Adding to that concern is the intellectual trend among leftists in academia, which of course is where scientists spend so many years studying and teaching, to deny that there is objective truth, and therefore one should simply express one's political preferences so there is no truth anyway. Journalism schools have taught this (which is the intellectual underpinning of why the media is so biased), and the "softer" intellectual disciplines, such as history, sociology, and literature, are filled with this approach.

The "hard" sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, have been less immune to this assault on reality, since it is harder to ignore the data.

All of this led me to be very skeptical of the claims of environmental activists in general and global warming activists in particular. Although it would seem that environment science falls more into the hard science category, global warming concerns are driven by what models project the weather will be like tens and hundreds of years from now so it is open to enormous interpretation. And given the intellectual climate, with a desire to focus on one's political goals and to be "effective" as scientists, the inherent uncertainties in projecting the future left much room for political goals to get in the way of science.

The recent disclosure of emails by environmental scientists has exposed the shocking disregard for the truth that must animate scientists and instead has made clear the scientific thuggery of many: seeking to prevent different views from being publicized, corrupting the peer-review process, and "losing" data provide compelling evidence of corruption and politicization of these global warming crusaders.

The "lost" data is, of course, a joke: it has never been easier in the history of mankind to store data than in recent years, and such data is the essence of the scientific method (i.e., what is actually going on in the world), so the proper inference is that these scientists must have discarded data because it didn't help their cause.

In addition, look at the nature of the debate. The proper discussion of any issue is to gather the evidence, integrated in a logical manner, to make the case. Instead, we see global warming advocates seek to denounce those who disagree, even implying that disagreeing with the global warming hypothesis (an estimate of the future based on inherently uncertain computer models) is analogous to the anti-Semites who deny the Holocaust occurred (a historical event).

The proper attitude of anyone toward those who argue by denunciation is to assume their claims are false since, if they were true, they would argue with facts and logic. And to demand the thuggery to stop.

So it is time that global warming advocates present the world, with data that is verifiable, with a rational argument that addresses: is the world warming and to what degree? what are the possible causes of the warming? how likely and important is the warming due to emissions from human-activity? is it bad, good, or indifferent to humanity if the Earth warms? is the cost to stop the warming worth the benefit?

The last two questions are critical and often lost in the shuffle, as if any change must be bad and any cost must be appropriate to pay to stop such change. It is important to realize that warm weather is generally more supportive of life than cold (note the death rate is lower in the summer than winter) and that there has been a massive migration of people in America from the cold north and Midwest to the warm south and west.

People's real choices belie the concern that global warming is necessarily a bad thing, assuming it is true and is caused by human activity. And Bjorn Lomborg has dramatically highlighted that the cost to effect changes in the climate are staggeringly expensive for trivial change, while many other problems are so pressing.

The New Meaning of Going Green

The prospect of legislation to address "global warming" gives new meaning to "going green", as various businesses hope to cash in on cap-and-trade. Among the biggest beneficiaries would be operators of nuclear power plants, since their facilities don't produce carbon dioxide and would receive carbon credits that would be sold to others who produce carbon dioxide - providing a huge windfall for some businesses at the expense of others and the economy as a whole.

Clean Water

Bjorn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, has done yeoman's work to explain to anyone willing to listen that, of all the problems in the world, global warming is low on the list of priorities to address (and he assumes global warming is a problem).

Lomborg convenes policy makers and economists to develop the Copenhagen Consensus, which represents this group's assessment of what are the truly urgent problems facing the world. Top on the list is access to clean water for the three billion people in the world who lack it.

Lomborg's recent column in the Wall Street Journal discusses the awful conditions that the lack of clean water creates, and why a focus on global warming pales in comparison for the world's poor.

You Can't Make This Up

In its attempt to get people to buy electric cars, the Obama administration provides a federal tax credit of up to $5,000 to subsidize their purchase.

Golf carts, which are electric-powered, are covered by this program. And when combined with subsidies provided by state government, up to 100% of the golf cart's price can be free.

While there may be no free lunch, with the advent of the Obama administration, there are free golf carts.

How About That

The CDC reports that U.S. life expectancy has reached a new all-time high of 78 years.

So despite the claims about our health care system providing lower quality care at higher costs, or the dangers of global warming and other supposed environmental problems, one of the most fundamental measures of humanity's success - life expectancy - continues to improve.

We can thank our (semi) capitalist economy, our industrial and scientific capacity, and the most innovative and advanced health care system in the world. And to the extent environmental factors matter in this regard, it is because they have improved so much.

Global Cooling?

A news report today indicated that this was the first year in 140 years that New York City didn't have a 90 degree day in June or July.

The 140 year time span is an interesting one, given the enormous increase in industrial activity and oil consumption over that period (as example, oil was discovered in Pennsylvania 150 years ago).

If one were into scare tactics, I'd guess you'd say we were in a period of global cooling.

Reign of Fear

The House recently passed a cap-and-trade bill to attempt to limit climate change, and it may actually represent the beginning of the end of the environmentalist's efforts to restructure society using climate change as the purported rationale.

The bill, if it became law, would be an unmitigated disaster. Not only would it impose massive tax increases by raising the price of energy, it would reduce industrial activity and use of products Americans clearly want to use, such as cars and air conditioning.

Even worse, the bill as written could lead to a economic depression, since it includes a provision to impose trade sanctions against nations who don't impose similar restrictions on their own economies. When China and India and other nations don't follow our example and instead impose counter sanctions against our exports, because they seek economic growth rather than indulging their left-wing elites' preoccupation with purported rising temperatures, the global economy would suffer.

But the good news is the bill will have a tough time becoming law. The House vote was by a slim 219-211 margin, and required eight Republicans to go along with the bill to ensure passage. More tellingly, 44 Democrats voted against it; Obama came out against the bill's trade sanctions (and if that is stripped out, then union support will go away); and passage in the Senate is considered less likely.

Most importantly, passage comes at a time when the supposed consensus on global warming is unraveling at a rapid pace. This Wall Street Journal column illustrates that other nations, such as Australia, are unlikely to pass climate change laws of their own. Many scientists are speaking out against the alleged consensus on global warming.

Joanne Simpson, the first women to receive a PhD in meteorology said now that she has retired, she can speak freely about her non-belief. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese scientist who contributed to the UN report on global warming, calls global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history". Ivar Giaever, a Nobel prize winner in physics, calls global warming a "new religion".

All of these comments are deeply disturbing, and in the case of Joanne Simpson's comment, represents the latest in a line of scientists who have spoken about the fear they or their colleagues have about speaking their mind about global warming because they don't want to hurt their academic careers.

Think about that: we like to think that colleges, universities, and scientific journals operate in an atmosphere of free inquiry, where the ability to follow the facts and speak one's mind are the paramount virtues. But instead, global warming has taken on the aura of received wisdom, and if one disagrees with it, there is something wrong with you.

Opponents of the global warming consensus are sometimes referred to as "global warming-deniers", using the same phrase with similar contempt as being a "Holocaust-denier".

It further illustrates why environmental activists in general, and global warming advocates in general, are proclaiming a new religion. Faith, obedience, and sacrifice are key virtues in most religions, and the environmental / global warming religion is no different. If the science is unclear, don't speak your mind - just believe. If you do speak your mind, ostracize and shun the unbeliever. And of course, sacrifice is the ruling principle - in this case, the extraordinary gift to humanity of the industrial revolution is to be discarded or constrained, for the cause of attempting to reduce temperatures by a tiny bit.

So here's to hoping that his reign of fear will come to an end, hopefully soon.

Let's Party Like its 1499

Farmers are exempt from plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through Obama's cap-and-trade plan.

By all means, let's dispense with the Industrial Revolution and the staggering rise in the quality of life that it has brought. Instead, let's embrace a focus on agriculture and services.

Unless, of course, you make cars employing members of the UAW.

Auto Czar, Truly

In the early part of this year, there had been much talk of Barack Obama appointing an "auto czar" to lead the restructuring of the auto industry given its financial plight.

The administration didn't appoint one person for that role, instead having a team of people lead the administration's restructuring efforts.

Now we know why: Barack Obama reserved that title for himself.

His decision to impose his will on American consumers and the auto makers, with his recently announced fuel efficiency standards, is worthy of a czar. Dictating to people that they buy cars they don't want to own, and forcing financially devastated auto companies to make unprofitable cars, can only happen in the hands of a government drunk on its desire to use its power to reorder how people live.

If consumers want to drive cars that get 39 mpg, which is the new standard for the average car by 2016, they would choose to buy them. More fuel efficient cars than that have existed in the past - they are small and underpowered, so don't appeal to most Americans, but it isn't a technological challenge to make them.

And since people don't want to buy such cars, they become unprofitable for the auto makers to produce. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Big Three are desperate to make money, not lose more of it on money losing dreams of the social engineers.

The only way to prevent such loses is to impose dramatic taxes on gasoline, or provide enormous tax subsidies, so consumers are induced to buy highly fuel efficient cars. $6.00 per gallon gas, here we come.

Since Americans "vote" every day with their pocketbook, in terms of the purchases they make, and clearly prefer less fuel efficient cars, it will be interesting to see if they realize that Obama's actions are a direct affront to their own choices and preferences. My guess is many will think they can continue to buy the car they want, while it is "the other guy" who gets stuck with a car he doesn't want.

They will be in for a rude awakening.

The UAW Cashes In

The extraordinary lengths to which Barack Obama has gone to preserve Chrysler's corporate existence shows the degree to which he is willing to help a key political ally, the UAW, with a massive bailout.

The auto industry was losing money during the economic boom, a sure sign of profound problems. The fundamental problem with the industry has been the restrictions the government has imposed on it, including forcing it to build unprofitable cars that Americans don't want to buy: smaller, more fuel efficient cars made in UAW-manned factories.

The fuel efficiency standards were bad enough, since it meant consumers had to be induced with low prices to buy cars they didn't prefer. But the government also mandated that such cars had to be made in domestic factories, since cars made overseas and imported into the U.S. didn't count to meeting the fuel efficiency standards - a clear payoff to the UAW.

Other damaging government restrictions include labor relations law, which gives the UAW disproportionate leverage vs the auto makers, and the new quest to force the Big Three to make unprofitable, environmentally "friendly" cars.

So now the industry has massive excess capacity: too many factories, dealers, brands, and employees. Normally, excess capacity leads to aggressive plant closures, moving production overseas, M&A deals, and if those aren't sufficient, bankruptcy.

But the UAW preferential negotiating position has prevented the Big Three from taking normal business steps to eliminate this excess capacity.

So now we are left with Chrysler being forced into bankruptcy.

In a bankruptcy untainted by government pressure or money, Fiat would be allowed to bid for those assets that it wants, which would allow many of Chrysler's plants and brands to survive. So many of Chrysler's assets would survive and some jobs - but the above-market UAW retiree health benefits and above-market UAW wage levels would suffer.

Instead, Obama is throwing another $8 billion down the sinkhole of Chrysler to preserve UAW benefits and jobs. The UAW is a reliable Democratic ally, providing money and manpower to help elect Democrats.

So your money is being spent by a Democratic president to help his allies elect Democrats. This is the result of government intervention in the market.

None of this would have happened if the government had allowed the free market to operate in the auto industry.

Climate Change Consensus?

The Cato Institute has run a full-page ad that challenges Barack Obama's assertion that climate change represents one of our greatest threats and that the science is beyond dispute.

In point of fact, Obama and the climate change activists know very well that many people disagree with them - there are many columns, editorials, and articles that oppose in various ways their views on climate change.

The ad's quotation from Barack Obama, along with many other comments by climate change activists, illustrates the increased use of appeals to an alleged consensus and personal denunciations of those who disagree with the activists as a rhetorical technique to make their case.

The proper way to make one's argument on any topic is to cite facts, integrated in a logical manner. Asserting that something is common knowledge when it isn't, or making personal attacks against those who disagree with you, is evidence that the speaker can't use facts and logic to make his case or is an intellectual thug - or both.