I’ll just quote this one brilliant line:
The notion that production and economic activity are harmful to the environment rests on the abandonment of man and his life as the source of value in the world.
Tag Archives: Science / Environment
Federal Regulation in Every Room of your house
These regulations are sure to raise the price of appliances — often by more than consumers are ever likely to earn back in the form of energy savings. And some will make the product perform well.
The administration is meddling with every room in the house:
The Basement
New standards are in the works for water heaters and furnaces. For water heaters, the Energy Department estimates price hikes from $67 to $974, depending on size and type.
The Bathroom
The same 1992 law that gave us those awful low-flush toilets also restricted the amount of water showerheads could use to 2.5 gallons per minute. Some consumers who disliked the resulting weak trickle opted for models with two or more showerheads, each using the maximum 2.5 gallons. But Team Obama has now eliminated this “loophole” by requiring that the total flow must comply with the limit.
The Kitchen
Think remodeling a kitchen is expensive now? Pending regulations target refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves, ovens and ranges.
For refrigerators (at least), this is a clear case of overkill. The American fridge has already been hit by several rounds of tighter standards, with each new rule saving less energy than the last — but boosting the price and compromising performance and reliability. Even the Energy Department admits that most consumers will lose money on its latest refrigerator regulation.
The Laundry Room
New standards are on the way for washers and dryers. When the last clothes-washer regulation hit in 2007, Consumer Reports lamented that several ultra-efficient models “left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing” and that “for best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more.” The Obama rules will probably mean even worse news.
Any Air-Conditioned Room
Both central air conditioners and window units are scheduled for new regulations. When the Energy Department rolled out its last round of central-AC rules back in January 2001 (one of those last-minute Clinton administration “midnight” regulations), it admitted that many homeowners would never recoup the added up-front costs. The new standards will follow the same “logic” — and thus should make for another lousy deal.
The Obama regulations come on top of all the past ones, including the worst one of all — the Bush-era requirement that will effectively ban incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012. (Read more from mises.org)
Commentary on Libertarian Environmentalism
A corresondence with a friend about to begin studying libertarianism:
You’re asking all the right questions about government’s role and environmentalism. I’m happy to share my perspective.
W.r.t. Global Warming, I’m personally skeptical. I think it’s going to go the way of many other government endorsed “scientific consensuses” of the previous century, like eugenics (50,000 American citizens were FORCIBLY sterilized), the consensus that black people’s brains were anatomically inferior, the coming ice age of the 1970s, the imminent over-population problem of the 1980s, and of course the fact that peak oil has been predicted since Standard Oil struck black gold in Texas.
Whenever there is a “scientific consensus” about a threat to humanity whose solution calls for the use of massive government power, be skeptical.
So, I’ll limit this discussion to pollution, conservation and water.
Pollution and conservation are best handled by private property. If you own woods and want to chop them down, no problem. If you, however pollute the ground water which contaminates your neighbor’s property, then there is a role for the justice system.
This is a philosophically different approach from the arbitrary regulations set by government.
* In this lecture, Stephen Kinsella mentions how California’s environmental law requires all gas companies to purchase a specific gadget, which, by the way, is patented by a politically connected California company. This means more expensive gas for everyone. Government controls are rife with corruption. Contrast this with the private-property approach — So long as you’re not polluting your neighbor, who cares what technology you use?
* Government controls also take an all-or-nothing approach. Either entrepreneurs are completely forbidden for turning vast stretches of resources into goods that you and I want, or the government leases the resources with far too few restrictions to a mining/logging/drilling company whose only goal is to extract as much as possible, as fast as possible.
Imagine if you and I owned a stretch of woods. Imagine all the innovations which we’d create negotiating with loggers, meeting their needs, but also maintaining the land for future use. Politicians don’t have this foresight. Perhaps we would make money from hikers, campers, hunters.
Another characteristic of government controls is that no matter how much lobbying happens, the government remains just a few pen strokes away from swinging from one extreme to the other.
The vast resources spent lobbying government about control of government-owned resources would be better spend, buying, owning and managing natural resources. Sadly, it’s illegal for people to buy / own very much land. Realize, also, that the environmental lobbies are extremely well-funded and powerful, and could realistically buy vast amounts of land for the purpose of conservation.
The method of privatization, of course, is an important and difficult issue, but in general, I think private property is a much better scheme for environmentalism than government regulation.
Have confidence that every human desire is a business opportunity, including the desire to preserve/enjoy nature. Maybe our privately owned woods can out-compete other privately owned woods for the business of hikers by preserving endangered species. What a great blurb this might be on our billboards. Private ownership creates a market-incentive to protect endangered species. This is in stark contrast with the government approach of punishment. If you do happen to own a little bit of woods and the government finds some endangered animal on it, you’re fucked, and the way people deal with this is to shoot, shovel and shut-up.
Water. I just read a great little book called “water for sale” which studies privatization of water distribution. (I’d be more interested in the more radically libertarian idea of private ownership of water, but this doesn’t really exist anywhere.) In any case, the short little books addresses all the common objections — how can we force the poor to pay for water???
It makes an exhaustive and brilliant case for privatization of water distribution. There are many places in the world where, after privatization, poor neighborhoods received potable water for the first time ever. It’s a great success story, which it’s critics have a hard time denying.
Expect a whole lot of socialist propaganda in your courses.
These issues are similar to food freedom issues, in that the socialists and I usually agree on the problem, but have exact opposite solutions.
For example, you can try to reduce the amount of Ecoli in beef by having the government do more — stricter laws, stricter enforcement, stricter regulation — that is the socialists’ solution.
Or you can reduce the amount of Ecoli in beef by having the government do less — end the MASSIVE subsidies of corn. Corn-fed cows have 3x the amount of ecoli as grass-fed. The latter is only done because government subsidy makes it economical.
Here‘s a review I wrote of a documentary about Monsanto.
Dropping the Mask of Ecofascism
Great Mises daily article. Here’s my excerpt:
Modern authoritarian movements tend to adopt the strategy of avoiding talking about or even hinting at the coercion they will adopt to deal with those opposed to the supreme rule of the all-powerful state apparatus. They deny that they are fascist movements and instead adopt a slew of fanciful euphemisms for the coercive policies they propose to inflict on their brutalized subjects. You silly fool! They are not robbing people — they are just “asking them to pay their fair share.” They are not micromanaging people’s lives — they are just “looking after their health and welfare.” They are not silencing dissent — they are just “ensuring tolerance” and fighting “hate.” They are not trespassing against private property — they are just “managing the economy.” They are not enslaving people — they are just “encouraging volunteerism.” Didn’t you realize?
Of course, every so often, a modern fascist movement develops such a degree of hubris that it decides to dispense with all the euphemisms and denials and openly display the coercive means underlying its ambitions. . . .
Exhibit A: The “No Pressure” Short Film
. . . .
Exhibit B: The Greenpeace Skinhead-Thug-in-Training Video
. . . .
Exhibit C: The “Planet Slayer” Game
Some more ecofascist propaganda, this time designed directly for young children. The Planet Slayer game features, among other things, a cartoon pig game used to calculate carbon-dioxide emissions. It helpfully informs children when they should die in order to ensure they do not use more than their “fair share” of the planet. Other helpful information for children includes some harsh words against “cultural imperialism” (i.e., the free choice of people in other countries to adopt certain products and practices from Western countries) and this helpful instruction: “Organise and socialise comrades. Together we can save the world!”
. . . .
Last U.S. incandescent light bulb factory closed last month
The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s.
The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.
“Now what’re we going to do?” said Toby Savolainen, 49, who like many others worked for decades at the factory, making bulbs now deemed wasteful. (Read more from washingtonpost.com)
German “heatball” wheeze outwits EU light bulb ban
BERLIN (Reuters) – A German entrepreneur is bypassing a European Union ban on light bulbs of more than 60 watts by marketing his own brand as mini heaters.
Siegfried Rotthaeuser and his brother-in-law have come up with a legal way of importing and distributing 75 and 100 watt light bulbs — by producing them in China, importing them as “small heating devices” and selling them as “heatballs.”
To improve energy efficiency, the EU has banned the sale of bulbs of over 60 watts (Read more from news.yahoo.com)
Martin Aircraft’s commercial jetpack looks to take flight
The Martin jetpack, a commercially developed jetpack, may soon be heading to a sky near you.
It is about time man flew among the birds – alone. We may not have the homes on the moon, or the flying cars that our totally reasonable childhood imaginations ensured us would be waiting for us when we grew up, but with a little luck and a lot of money, we might soon be able to scratch “jetpack” off of our bucket lists. . . . .
In a world that values safety, sometimes you have to approach things with a “what the hell” mentality. Sure, a functional jetpack might not be the most practical way to spend $100,000, but if the choice is between a $100,000 Bentley with a custom made sound system and chrome rims, or a device that can make a human being fly, jetpack > Bentley. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. (Read more from shopping.yahoo.com)
Wow! God bless capitalism.
Virgin Launches First Space Tourism Program
Wealthy individuals looking for the ultimate vacation experience can now turn to multi-billionaire business mogul Richard Branson, head of Virgin Galactic, for a unique tour to get away from it all.
Branson has launched the world’s first commercial space tourism program.
Virgin Galactic’s tour rocket SpaceShipTwo made its first solo flight on Sunday. The company says it is one step closer to providing space travel to everyone.
“It’s a very big deal,” Branson told The Associated Press. “There are a number of big deals on the way to getting commercial space travel becoming a reality. This was a very big step.”
“We now know that the spaceship glides,” he continued. “We know it can be dropped safely from the mothership, and we know it can land safely. That’s three big ticks.”
Virgin Galactic says roughly 370 people have signed up for the program so far. A ticket to ride on the SpaceShipTwo costs $200,000. (Read more from cbn.com)
. . . and God bless the free market!
NASA Is Running Out of Money to Monitor Earth-Destroying Asteroids
OMFG! Gives them moar of my monies NNOOOWWWWW!!!!1
Gulf oil spill commission (appointed by the White House) criticises White House
A commission investigating the response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has strongly criticised the White House in a number of areas.
The Obama administration blocked government scientists’ efforts to inform the public of worst case scenarios, a draft report said.
Officials were said to have been too optimistic about handling the disaster, one of the worst in US history.
The White House disputes this, saying officials “were clear with the public”.
But the BBC’s Steve Kingstone, in Washington, says the accusations will embarrass the White House, coming as they do from a commission appointed by President Barack Obama.
‘Controlling information’
The report by the National Oil Spill Commission says the White House was directly involved in controlling information from the spill that began after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on 20 April. (Read more from bbc.co.uk)
Tom Woods — Why hate the Robber Barrons? The “Environmental” Indians. & more
Jeffrey Tucker: Government is Unraveling Civilization by Force
Recommend starting @ 10:30
Lenin’s slogan “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.”
The left used to believe in material progress.
By 1958 the claim that Capitalism was impoverishing the world was so ridiculous that the left abandoned it. A writer named Galbraith, in “The Affluent Society” led the way in the new “post-materialist” socialist critique of capitalism. The new criticism was of moral and materialistic degradation, and also claiming that the private secor impoverished the public sector (huh?).
Lew Rockwell quote: “It’s as if the socialists discovered that their plan creates poverty, so they decided to change their name to environmentalists to make poverty the goal.” HA!
@ 17:00 he reads a list of titles from Amazon.com about “sustainability.” Very funny.
@ 18:05 he picks apart a youtube interview with an Australian environmentalist. (very funny)
@ 24:20 He offers a list of examples:
* the last factory which made incandescent bulbs shut down.
* U.S.A. bedbug infestation (because D.D.T. is banned based on a propaganda book). Another chemical, propoxyl (?) that would get rid of them are also banned. Ohio Dept. of Health has pleaded in vain with the EPA to allow it.
* EPA recommends hot water, but also restricts temperature of water heaters.
* Mandatory recycling. Limited garbage pickup.
* Plumbing. Shower heads, toilets.
* Pseudoephedrin. People have gone to join for buying too much.
* Cars.
* Subsidies of electric car.
* Attack on energy, oil.
* Accusing BP of being like a terrorist organization.
* Attack on internet in the name of intellectual property. (Some libertarians disagree with this criticism.)
US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’
His letter of resignation from the American Physical Society:
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists.
Eco-fascism jumps the shark
I predicted this morning that No Pressure – Richard Curtis’s spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign – would prove a disastrous own goal for the green movement.
But what I could never have imagined was how quickly public disgust – even among greenies – would reach such a pitch that the campaigners would be compelled to withdraw it from the internet.
That, at any rate, is what they keep trying to do – cancelling it whenever it appears on You Tube, pulling it from their campaign website and so on.
Unfortunately their efforts are being frustrated by people on the sceptical side of the climate debate, who keep peskily insisting on reposting the video where everyone can view it. And rightly so. With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness. (Read more from blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
A 132-Year Payback on the All-Electric Car
My former Austrian Economics teacher Patrick Barron had another Mises Daily essay.
Excerpt:
A Revolving-Door Lobbyist for the All-Electric Car
Such is the case, as recently reported by the Associated Press, of a lobbyist for an all-electric car.
“Leading the Charge” glorifies Mr. David Sandalow, a US Department of Energy assistant secretary and an avid advocate for the all-electric car. Hybrid cars usually recharge their batteries only while operating on their gasoline-powered engines, but Mr. Sandalow has converted his Toyota Prius hybrid into a plug-in hybrid at the cost of $9,000. Now he can recharge his car’s battery from his home electrical outlet.
Mr. Sandalow is very proud that his daily five-mile commute (a ten-mile round trip) can be accomplished with a gasoline-refueling stop only “about once every month or two.” Nevertheless his car needs to recharge after only 30 miles of travel, so he advocates that the government pursue developing a battery that will allow 100 miles between rechargings.
The government itself estimates the cost of such a battery at around $33,000 per battery. How the government knows this when no such battery yet exists was left unclear.
. . . .
So, by converting his car to a plug-in hybrid for $9,000, buying a yet-to-be produced 100-mile range battery for $33,000, and buying electricity for the equivalence of 75¢ per gallon of gasoline, Mr. Sandalow could have purchased enough $3 per gallon gasoline to enable him to drive to work for 132 years!
. . . .
We must disabuse ourselves of the propensity to believe that anything can be accomplished as long as government throws enough money at it. We have been down this road before with the fast breeder nuclear reactor that was supposed to produce more fuel than it consumed. Billions were wasted. We seem to be doing the same thing today with wind and solar power, too. There may be an economically rational niche for these energy technologies, but only the free market will give us the answer.