The Ultimate Inconvinent Truth

Yet another one of those global warming hypocrisies, this time from the patron saint himself.

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. (read more)

What's the call-back procedure for the Nobel Peace Prize?

[link via India Uncut]

Priorities for global development

I wrote this post on prioritizing funding for global development issues on the Beyond Borders blog. The post is based on the Bjorn Lomborg's work at the Copenhagen consensus and this highly recommendable TED Talk. The key insight from Lomborg is basically this,

• There are lot of problems in the world - commutable diseases, AIDS, malaria, climate change - it would be great if we can solve all those problems. But we don’t.
  
  
• Contrary to the focus of many development forums, there should be a focus on solutions to problems, rather than problems themselves. Because at the end of the day it's solutions that matter no matter how grave the problem is.

Read the whole thing at BB.

WTF headline of the day

Comes from the Daily Mirror :

West responsible for cyclone in Burma.

How fitting it was a direct quote by Champika Ranwaka. Do check out the comments section, this is confirming my increasing cynicism of democracy, I mean forget an informed electorate, doesn't democracy at least require a not-retarded one?

Meanwhile in other news, BBC reports that, Great tits respond well to warming. Hallelujah

[links sent by NM and via IU respectively]

HilBama's Broken Window Fallacy

James Pethokoukis of Capital Commerce points out a serious flaw in all those new "green collar" jobs Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton hope to create in their plans to battle climate change. He writes,

As Clinton said in one presidential debate, "This issue of energy and global warming has the promise of creating millions of new jobs in America. It can be a win-win, if we do it right."

Heck, if climate change was a sham, it almost seems that it would be worthwhile to fabricate it, given all the apparent economic benefits. Then again, maybe not. Here is what William Pizer, an economist at Resources for the Future and a lead author on the most recent report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said at a symposium earlier this week here in Washington: "As an economist, I am skeptical that [dealing with climate change] is going to make money. You'll have new industries, but they'll be doing what old industries did but a higher net cost.... You'll be depleting other industries." [link]

So here's an idea for Obama and Clinton, next time try throwing stones at random windows, that way the people who fix windows will make a profit, and so many window-fixing jobs will be created and that would help the economy.

None of the democrats apparently have never heard of the broken window fallacy. In one of his most famous works, Fedric Bastiat, the 19th century French economist, wrote about the broken window fallacy about people who talk about the "economic benefits of war" adhere to. In an essay tittled What is seen and the unseen, Bastiat argued that while breaking windows will certainly benefit the window-fixers(glaziers), at the expense of other actors. He wrote,

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented. [link]

Broken window fallacy, and Bastiat's essay could help in explaining the futility of how the Sri Lankan government is supposedly "creating jobs" for thousands of "unemployed graduates" by offering them jobs in an already over-bloated government.

Incidentally, the annual Bastiat prize for journalism is open for entries. Tragically, I can't name a single print or electronic media journalist from Sri Lanka, whom I can recommend for the prize.

What's Up With Food?

As you probably know, the world's food prices are soaring. So far I've come across two basic explanations which I find reasonable for the hike in food and commodity prices.

• Increased demand, constrained supply.
  
  This one is straight from your basic Econ 101 textbook. The increase in demand is attributed to the high growth rates in China and India, the newly richer Indians and Chinese demand more food. The supply hasn't kept up with demand hence the rice in food prices.
  
  The reasons for the supply constraints are attributed to the use of agricultural land for bio fuels (ethanol in the U.S. for example). This is yet another example of how climate change hysteria and resulting policy is actually doing more harm than the climatic effects of the supposed phenomena (I call it Al-flation).
  
  Second reason (See Tyler Cowen's excellent piece in the New York Times) there isn't enough international trade in foodstuff and the everywhere in the world there's a plethora of government interventions in the agriculture markets distorting price signals which stops produces from effectively responding to the increased demand.
  
  Also the resulting panicky situation from high food prices creates even more government intervention like putting in place price controls like in Sri Lanka and banning export of rice in India all of which destroys incentives for increased production.
  
  
• It's created by loose monetary policy.
  
  This time the culprit is the U.S. Federal Reserve. The explanation is the monetary expansion in the U.S. via lower interest rates is causing higher inflation and a weaker dollar. Most commodities (including agricultural commodities) are priced in dollars, and when the dollar weakens the prices of commodities in terms of dollars go up. This also invites speculation of future declines driving up the prices further. See this chart from WSJ for example,
  
  The chart shows rapid increase in the price of oil in terms of dollars relative to euros since September 2007, about the time the US Fed started it's loose monetary policy practices. The hike in oil prices in terms of euros is fairly moderate, like the WSJ says, "had the dollar merely retained the same purchasing power as the euro, today's price of oil would be below $70 a barrel"
  
  Add to this picture that some developing countries (like Sri Lanka and India) partially pegs it's currency to the U.S. dollar basically importing U.S. inflation in addition to creating it's own inflation by printing money to finance government expenditure at home, we have a hike in almost all prices including that of agricultural commodities.

What is the true story? I think a bit (or a lot) of both. Sri Lanka being a net food importer is directly seeing the impact of these increases. The poor in particular who spend most of their earnings on foodstuff are really feeling the pinch. This is on top of more than 20% inflation even without food prices factored in (food inflation stands at about 34%) due to loose monetary policy by the central bank as a result of financing unsustainable government spending.

A pertinent question to ask is whether the high price of rice in particular, which didn't have much interaction with the global markets until recently be explained by generally high inflation alone. General inflation is probably the driving factor, but somehow I don't think captures the complete picture. It's possible there is an increased demand locally for rice due to people abandoning close substitutes like bread given the high price of wheat.

Now I'd love to see some numbers supporting that, something which is unfortunately sorely lacking in Sri Lankan media.

Related articles on food prices:

• Fed's blender (interest rate explanation)
• Freer trade could fill the world's rice bowl (Cowen - recommended)
• Food Fight (trade-based explanation)
• On rice and corn laws
• How low interest rates are driving up prices
  

Sri Lanka Celebrates Earth Hour

In typical Sri Lankan fashion - about a month late and for a few more than one hour. Ok so it was an island-wide power failure. Given the frequency of these failures, (multiple times a month where I live) the folks at Greenpeace or WWF should nominate the Ceylon Electricity Board for the Nobel Prize this year.

To me the whole Earth Hour idea is symbolically a catastrophe, and today this reminded me of a post in Cafe Hayek on the subject. Here's a key excerpt from a letter written to WWF:

You and members of your organization worry that industrialization and economic growth are harming the earth's environment. I worry that the intensifying hysteria about the state of the environment - and that the resulting hostility to economic growth - might harm humankind's prospects for comfortable, healthy, enjoyable, and long lives.

So I commend you on your "Earth Hour" effort. Persuading people across the globe to turn off lights for one hour supplies the perfect symbol for modern environmentalism: a collective effort to return humankind to the dark ages.

Do read the whole thing.

Al-flation

From Bloomberg.com:

U.S. plans to replace 15 percent of gasoline consumption with crop-based fuels including ethanol are already leading to some unintended consequences as food prices and fertilizer costs increase.

About 33 percent of U.S. corn will be used for fuel during the next decade, up from 11 percent in 2002, the Agriculture Department estimates. Corn rose 20 percent to a record on the Chicago Board of Trade since Dec. 19, the day President George W. Bush signed a law requiring a fivefold jump in renewable fuels by 2022.

[..]The energy bill requires the U.S. to use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, of which about 15 billion gallons may come from corn-based ethanol. The nation's current production capacity is about 8.06 billion gallons.

[..]Researchers led by Timothy Searchinger at Princeton University said their study showed greenhouse-gas emissions will rise with ethanol demand. U.S. farmers will use more land for fuel, forcing poorer countries to cut down rainforests and use other undeveloped land for farms, the study said. [link]

Ok ok, so it's called Agflation - the increase in price of food due as a result of agricultural products used for alternative energy resource. No, I'm not trying to blame all this on Al Gore, but as I've said before on this blog, I think the most adverse and immediate effects of climate change will be from bad policy rather than actual climate effects.

This is what happens when you meddle in the market (subsidies, mandates, etc.), you end up with something that nobody really wants at the tax payer's expense. Ethanol is bad for the planet, bad for the U.S. economy and bad for the rest of us. (Hell, even Krugman agrees)

I'd hold Gore somewhat responsible - after all he won a Nobel Price for talking about climate change - it's him and his alarmist faithfuls who demanded that something is done about climate change immediately, pushing the political climate in that direction. Unfortunately, what's to be done about climate change is not so clear, so you end up meddling in the market and do stuff like this.

Let's get this clear - the market is more likely to create an efficient, viable alternative energy source than any government bureaucrat. What's required is some trust in human ingenuity and markets, without jumping the gun and doing something stupid with unintended consequences.

Climate Change Sense

Maybe everyone will come to their senses this year, if even the NY Times can report on stuff like this. Below is a quote from the article, the full article is well worth the read.

Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm — by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades — the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all). [link]

If it rains, it's global warming

and if it doesn't, it's still Global Warming.

See, Global Warming causes everything. Including disasters like brothel-struggles, banana destruction, unfashionable cloths, sex changes, Whale-weight loss, Crocodile sex, moose-eating wolves, smaller brains and perhaps more disturbingly, lawyer incomes increase.

Well, at least the beer gets better. Check out the 600+ list of everything caused by global warming. Funny, cant find John Howard anywhere on the list.

Sigh.. Ultimately, the climate-change hysteria will cost us more than the actual climate risks.

[via Cafe Hayek]

Convenient untruths: Al Gore’s 9 Lies on climate change

Al Gore, the self-made poster boy for the OMG global warming! Movement has to face some ‘inconvenient truths’ himself, when a British high court judge ruled that some ‘truths’ in Gore’s Oscar winning documentary are actually convenient lies.

From the BBC:

The judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.
[..]

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws. [..]

Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." [Link]

Global Warming enthusiasts like to ride on this apparent ‘scientific consensus’ on global warming, but According to the last UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) the ‘scientific consensus’ is that it is ‘very likely' that climate change is caused by human activity’ that’s it. All the fantastic CG effects of flooded Manhattan and Greenland melting like ice cream in Al Gore’s documentary are not based on any scientific consensus, at best it’s just science fiction bordering on Al Gore fantasies.

But hey, that’s all you need for a Nobel prize nowadays..

..these Norwegians!

The Planet is Warming – We are all dead! Do something!

Yes, it’s no use, we are officially dead. Greenland is melting, Polar bears are dying, and soon we will be under more than 20 feet of water, the planet is warming and it’s all due to inconsiderate humans activities!

So, um.. What else is new? Well, Al Gore won an Oscar, and apparently this time around the Oscars were all ‘green’. Yet another achievement for the hysterical global climate change movement, led by its poster boy, President-not-to-be- Al Gore.

Al Gore’s inconvenient truth won an Oscar for the best documentary; perhaps they should have judged it under whatever category they judged ‘Star Wars’ because that’s what it was, an elaborated piece of science fiction. The inconvenient truth is nothing but a load of convenient lies, and half-truths exaggerated to push an agenda.

There is an excellent article in CATO exposing the sorry-science in the Movie.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland's 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.
Where's the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker's Summary from the United Nations' much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore's film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

What’s more, the summary for policy makers the IPCC report (full report is expected in May) actually decreased the earlier estimate of sea-level rise by 30%. The summary, for all counts and purposes was actually reassuring, rather than alarming.

But that’s not how the New York Times, or even the local Sunday Times played it. The popular media continues to project a doom and gloom scenario, when nothing can be further from the ‘truth’.

This over-hyping of global warming is entirely intentional, in fact Gore himself is quoted as saying that he believes “it’s appropriate to over-represent how dangerous global warming is” to open up people to the dangers of global warming. The movie is therefore part of his personal project to ‘over-represent’ facts, and perhaps this is why Gore doesn’t seem to believe his own messages, quite evident from the recent unraveling of Al Gore’s own energy consumption which stands at 10,000 kWhs per year!, obviously Gore, like most politicians is a hypocrite.

Ok, enough Gore-bashing.

Now I’m not suggesting the ‘planet is not warming’, or that climate change isn’t real. It is warming, and has been for the last few decades, but the rate in which the planet is warming doesn’t warrant for the sort of radical OMG!-solutions that the climate-change freaks are advocating, nor as far as I know are scientists in complete agreement on the degree of human involvement of climate change among other things.

Ultimately a possible ‘solution’ for climate change is technological, and not political. Policymakers won’t solve the climate change puzzle; they can make only symbolic gestures to that end, at the expense of possible growth. The irony of the fact is that the only way the technological solution can come about is through accumulation of wealth through free-markets and free-flow of ideas.

The state of the world is not bad as the lefties would tell you, in fact by the turn of the century the average life expectancy of the world population stood at just about 30 years, which by now has more than doubled, the infant morality rate has increased and people are richer, better off and in better health across the board.

Science and technology has, in the past, found solutions to problems at were termed impossible to ‘solve’. Nowadays no one hears about the fragile ozone layer, acid rains etc. ultimately it will be down to cost factors which would lead to more focus on finding an affordable forms of renewable energy, there are already few promising technologies which aim to harness the power of wind, ocean waves and solar power. This is definitely where the future lies.

The solutions won’t be found in Koyoto, or any other international agreement or in some green tax on transport, which restricts trade and at breeds poverty. one thing that could work however is ‘voluntary submission’ to green ethics by consumers which in turn would make companies more ‘green’, this is one thing the al-gore types have been successful in doing and they deserve some credit for it (I have to admit an Inconvenient truth is a powerful piece of video advocacy) if the ‘green culture’ takes off, which it has to a degree in the west, then that wont be the most terrible thing in the world.

What cant work is imposing agendas on developing countries citing ‘climate change’ by trying to beat us into agreements that are clearly not in our favor. If you really look at its completely hypocritical, here are a few developed nations saying that, “look here India and china, we grew at the expense of the whole planet, and that’s so not cool, so now that you guys are growing and developing why don’t you develop more ‘sustainably’, and slowly? “

I’d say, go to fucking hell.

Somewhat Related Link:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/