Prince Charles

He's finally gone off the edge.

According to Reuters, he's publishing a book called "Harmony", about how man's recent pursuit of wealth and prosperity (read: the pursuit of happiness) is, in his words, "dangerously disconnected" from the natural world.

What an utterly ridiculous statement from a man in line to become the next King of the nation that led the world in Industrial growth in the 19th Century- thus paving the way to the prosperity enjoyed today, and the nation that first implemented, on a national scale, the ideas of the rule of law, individual rights, and common law, that founded Western politics. A nation without the ideas of which America, and no other Western nation, could exist, let alone develop originally.

So, after the death of Queen Elizabeth, I propose:

-New Zealand immediately declares a Republic;
-The Prime Minister of the time becomes the President of the new Republic; and
-A constitution is drafted similar to the US Constitution, to keep the British ideas of Rule of Law and Individual Rights alive and well.

Luckily, given the recent results of a poll by the Republican Movement, it looks like that may -may- just happen.

Edison Hour

In a few minutes Earth Hour will kick off in New Zealand -and, predictably, there's been heaps of hype over it on the TV, radio, and internet. So in retaliation, I will be celebrating Edison Hour -a celebration of industry, progress, and human happiness.

The Best Thing About a National Government...

...is that, in Government, the Greens are ignored. From the article:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said New Zealand should be showing leadership and focus on targets not on the rules around farming and forests.

"Our actions to exclude our largest pollution sources, can only lead to other countries seeking to do the same," Dr Norman said.

"If this happens we will undermine the talks and we will be targeted as a global climate criminal. Tourism Minister John Key will oversee a great leap backwards in our tourism industry."

So, according to Russel Norman, it's perfectly alright to try and cripple New Zealand's greatest money-making industry in the name of a completely arbitrary environmental goal, which is out of our control anyway, and whose only purpose anyway is to destroy human industry and capitalism?

And it's all kind of ironic: New Zealand's emission's are 26% above 1990 levels, compared to the great satan's (US) emissions of 14%. NZ has been, over the nine years of the Clark government, emitting more than the US above 1990 levels. The Clark Government has been one of the greatest proponents of the climate change regime, yet we've done less to get our emissions down than that all-evil US.

Which tells you how much of a farce Kyoto really is.

Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme

Earlier today, I listened to a debate on the Fox News Channel over a proposed Bill in the US Senate over a potential Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme in the US.

Here's why I'm not supporting it: According to this debate, the trading scheme is expected to cost the US taxpayer US$45,000,000,000,000 (45 trillion USD) over its lifetime.

Scary enough, huh?

The Right to Protest?

Recently in Social Studies, my class has been assigned a book called "How Many Lightbulbs does It Take to Change a Planet: 95 Ways to Save Planet Earth". The Idea is that we would chose one of the 95 different topics on all manners of leftist ideas about climate change, take notes and do a PowerPoint presentation about it.

One of the ideas in the book is "Protect the Right to Protest". Alright, but this is what the left, through its self-anointed moral supremacy over climate change, has been stifling. If you speak up against the IPCC, the climate change "consensus" or Al Gore, you are thrown out of the climate change debate in days, if not hours. Suddenly, you have all these environmental "scientists" pouncing on you, saying that you're wrong and giving no particular reason, only data that has been spewed up a million times. For proof, look at what happened to the Great Global Warming Swindle -and that's one of the nicer examples.

The right to protest hasn't been stifled directly in the political arena -indeed, it's the politcal arena that the left wants to avoid over opposition to climate change. The left, in all its talk of "tolerance" and "cultural/political/economic diversity", has to maintain a clean, public image of what it is, and what it stands for. To its credit, it has been pretty successful. You're unlikely to see quotes like this on the front cover of a newspaper:

"We have wished... for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us back into the stone age..."

or that:

"You think Hiroshima was bad, let me tell you mister, Hiroshima wasn't bad enough!"*

Admittedly, those two quotes were said a while ago. But if you were to tell any random earth-hugger on the street about those quotes, they'd just shake their head and call you a nutter. There are many more quotes like the two above, but you'd be lucky to find anyone who knows about them.

Consider this fact: the environmental movement has successfully manufactured their ideology around a natural, scientific phenomenon: human-induced climate change. To most people within and supportive of the environmental movement, it's not about the control or the end of industry, it isn't about human quality of life -it's about global warming, or climate change. These people see scientific climate change as a primary -they don't consider anything else in the ideology as a possible primary. For them, it's alright to sacrifice human industry, technology, wealth, comfort, etc to Gaia -because climate change is a primary. Even if that did nothing to the climate, it's still the primary.

It's that idea that has left possible unbiased environmentalists completely open to bombardment by the environmental movement and its theories on climate change.

Also, as it is supposedly based on scientific fact, the supposed primary of climate change is seen as an absolute -for instance, man's mind is an absolute (although his using it is not), reality is an absolute. This is how the environmental movement has made the scientists who are skeptical of climate change seem absolutely crazy. Climate change is neither a primary nor an absolute, but the marketability of it as such has been used to devastating effect.

So, the right to protest against envirofascists? Surely, it exists in the political realm. But the rather simple idea of climate change has been manipulated so much in the philosophical realm that it's crazy to challenge the idea of anthropogenic global warming. To outsiders, you're protesting against an absolute (no matter how many studies say otherwise). The environmental movement keeps its credibility by making climate change its primary -not the end of industry and commerce, and relegating productive man back into the slums.

And as I've said many times before, isn't the idea of us all pitching in to make a collective effort for the good of the planet and future generations just lovely? Perhaps not for us selfish Objectivists, or anyone else who can look behind all the environmental rhetoric, but for the common Joe New Zealander, who has already been brought up with such principles during NZ's socialist era, they sound great. After all, we will all die if we don't -climate change, according to what Joe's heard so many times before, is an absolute.

The only thing getting in the way -productive, selfish man. The man who produces instead of sacrifices himself for the "common good". Sounds like a certain book!

But this is even worse. If you think sacrifice on the altar of the "need" of other people was bad, this is sacrifice on the altar of the environment -the truly unthinking.

Luckily, as Libertarians, we have the chance to hit at (or to protest at) where it hurts. The left for decades, long before the environmental movement arrived, has been going on about the need "tolerance" and "diversity" -which developed into the ideal of "protecting the right to protest". These principles developed as a way to get leftist rhetoric into the classrooms and onto the TV screens, but they have tripped up over themselves. After all, at school, you're not going to get a flogging anymore for expressing an opinion -the teachers have to grin and bear it, at worst. After all, it is in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" -and when opinions can be put to people so bluntly, no leftist will try to stop you.

So it's on this different set of ideals -originally enlightened ideals from the enlightenment, before having a post-modern spin put on them- that we need to protest to combat leftist ideals. Ironically, what were, and still are some of the most attractive ideals of the left can be used against them. Not just in environmentalism, but everywhere.

*Both quotes from The Free Radical no. 73, page 27.

Food Crisis: Some Suggestions

There has been much hoo-haa recently around the world, especially in poorer countries, over the large rises in food prices recently.

But New Zealand, as a country, stands to gain A LOT. We have excellent farming land, advanced technology, and animals by the truckload. New Zealand could potentially make a huge deal of money out of this.

To ensure New Zealand's eventually triumph in the upcoming years in food production, here are some suggestions:

1) Remove "green" regulations to the production of food. Remove GM hysteria over food production. Invest in new technologies and capital for the most efficient food production in the world. Allow for more intensive farming. Issues such as water pollution caused by animal excrement and chemicals on the farm can be sorted out by privatizing basic bodies of water, such as rivers and sections of lakes. (This has worked very well in Scotland.)

2) Deregulate the market on a world scale. New Zealand has done very well by promoting its food products around the world, facilitated by free trade. This doesn't concern NZ, at least as much as the EU, which prevents the crucial development of African farmers from getting them to produce their food in the long term, independently. The same applies to the United States (and Canada?).

3) Slash other regulations to production. Slash limits on how much food can be produced at what price, what amount, etc. Important issues such as quality can be sorted out primarily by the market and organizations such as consumer watchdogs, with government interference only after an act of force or fraud has been committed.

There you go, some suggestions for the upcoming food crisis. Let's see whether basic principles of market economics are followed, and if not, how well the situation turns out otherwise.

Earth Hour: Environmentalist Fantasy

Earth Hour passed two days ago, to much delight of the environmentalists.

Did these environmentalists get what they wanted? Yes, they did. For one hour, they could pretend that Western Civilization had been burnt out, that humanity had re-entered the dark ages, and the chapter of history on productive man had finally finished. All sacrificed, on the altar of the Earth -and that man is, by his nature and productive capacity, an evil, malevolent being, for his mind and his tecchnology.

In Christchurch, the pin-up city for the event, 13% less power was consumed during the hour than usual. More than their official goal, less than what they really want.

Waste of Time Wastes Pittsburgh's Carbon

The Bali talks on climate change, which have failed to achieve anything for anyone whatsoever are finally over. And the best part about it was that they managed to emit as much carbon as the entire US city of Pittsburgh for a month, with over 300,000 people and a metropolitan area ten times the size, on the first day!

But with all these climate change conferences which go nowhere, it's simply an exercise in trying to look big and powerful. Even though many climate scientists, presidents and even the Pope are questioning the whole global warming consensus, motives and science, they're conveniently being ignored in the MSM to make it as if the talks are worth anything.

The only country that showed some sense at these talks was the US, because they're the only country with major influence in this issue that can't be conveniently ignored. They made the point against the climate change farce that industrial development, critical especially in the developing world which seems to be running around with Europe and the UN like a headless chicken on climate change.

And, of course, there was inconvenient Al Gore, being embarrassed at his country's sensibility. This is the same Al Gore who consistently refuses to debate climate change with anyone who disagrees with him. The funny thing about Al Gore on this issue is that it's very obvious that all his talk is merely just a political stunt, to be brought to the political forefront again after his defeat to Bush in the 2000 US election.

Finally now, after several days of having to endure blatant lies thrown at them, the people of Bali can go back to living normally without all this inconvenient hype over nothing.

Government Brainwashing in New Curriculum

Free, rational, critical thinking is a fleeting concept in today's world. And it looks like it's about to get a whole lot rarer, thanks to the NZ government's new curriculum.

The newly released curriculum has called for more focus on global warming and climate change (and, of course, the human impact); an emphasis on how much more important Maori people are than us; and of course, that notorious "tweaty" of Waitangi.

This new curriculum isn't about a dedication to true, politically neutral education in our schools. Instead, it is a PC cover-up for the government's true aspirations in our schools-the shaping of young and impressionable minds for the sole purpose of keeping the government in power, and furthering Leftist ideals in New Zealand. It's not about shaping Kiwi minds into the doctors and engineers, writers and artists, businessmen and intelligensia, "movers and shakers", of tomorrow. For instance, lets take the classic example of climate change. Instead of leaving it to the proper realm of politically neutral science, it is brought to the forefront-with all the more emphasis on human causes such as business, industry and technological development, which inevitably leads to, in their later years, these children falsely laying the blame on capitalism-and the want to slit industry by the throat, and lead us back into the Middle Ages.

No, this is not an exaggeration. This is the governments real want-control, control control over people's lives.

Another example is the emphasis on the "tweaty". The Treaty of Waitangi is the primary reason, among many, that keeps race relations so far behind in NZ. Rather than having one single Kiwi culture, where everyone makes their own contribution, the Treaty and the whole concept of race relations sorts NZ into two categories: them and us. It's the same basic problem that surrounds any ideology based on human traits, as opposed to humanity as a whole. The Treaty is used to make people today apologize for what happened 200 years ago. We have to apoloize for events that were completely out of our control-because of someone that is also out of our control-our skin colour!

Here's an idea for the curriculum: go back to tried and true methods. Abolish all the PC crap. Focus on knowledge, and its application-not just whizzing us through school in the hope that drunken teenagers will educate themselves. Bring back proper discipline-and then children will really learn!

An Inconvenient Truth

The Nobel Peace Prize has made clear its political intentions in giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Inconvenient Al Gore recently. The driving forces behind the Peace Prize have stopped genuinely giving the prize to people who advocate and fight for actual peace, but instead have given in to feel-good environmentalism.

What they fail to realize is, after the hundreds of thousands of millions of contradictions and lies in his works are gone through, that it is very clearly a political stunt on his behalf-for political reasons-for instance I've seen a link on PC's blog that says that over half of all scientists disagree with the AGW "consensus". A lot more people than are portrayed are actually above the nonsense that is environmentalism. The fact that not a lot, lot more debate is portrayed amongst climate scientists and meteorologists is the fact that now, millions of jobs and billions of dollars depend on AGW being true and happening.

The two reasons why environmentalism is still with us, frankly, are: money and power. It's just a damn shame that most-perhaps 95% of environmentalists, except for the ones in high positions, fail to realize so.

Power-Rationing

The Labour Government has recently rolled out its rather extreme plans for curbing carbon emissions (in effect, industrial production) which, as the MSM has said, "will touch the lives of every New Zealander". Perhaps by far the most significant way the Labour Government will be about the rationalization of production is its long-term plan to ban fossil-fueled power plants.

The pure and simple fact is, "renewable" energy is expensive-perhaps with the exception, surprisingly, of forms the Environmentalists don't like (hydroelectric, nuclear and even wind jump into mind here). Trying to convert NZ's power stations to renewable sources will have serous consequences on thousands of poorer New Zealanders, who simply can't afford to buy anything else. Fossil-fueled power stations are, at the current moment, the best option for New Zealand economic growth-the outcome of which will be, as technology advances, a lot more cleaner industry. Labour's current plans throw all that into jeopardy.

It will also result in power-rationing, as, thanks to the current RMA, any new power plant whatsoever will cost about $5,000,000 more than it should. Black-outs would become a usual occurrence in NZ's sparse and poorer areas-small towns folk can't pay millions of dollars more for "clean" power, let alone NZ's largest cities!

The consequences of the ban on fossil-fuel plants? As always, blackouts, rationing, price hikes and the strangling of industial production.

Feel-Good Environmentalism

The majority of the Environmentalists, despite the real underlying motives of the movement (specifically, the end of industrial civilization and in some cases man itself), are not actually anti-man and anti-industrialism per se. One of the main reasons why Environmentalism is so popular, but is rarely discussed in political circles, is that it is a feel-good system.

The reason for the whole feel-goodism of Environmentalism is that people are falsely made to believe that the movement is actually something good. For many young university ideologues, for instance, what could be better than going out and saving the whales?

But the feel-good Environmentalists fail to see beyond that. They think that, because it feels good, it must be good, even though basic knowledge teaches us otherwise. Drugs, for instance, feel good, but the effects are not necessarily so. To a serial killer, murder can also feel good-but murder is hardly a good thing. This is what many Leftists fail to realize-and, as thus, set the scene for tyranny and hardship. The best example of Leftist feel-goodism leading to such an outcome would be Cuba. Even today, Leftists ignore Cuba's problems, instead just blaming them on-and what else would you expect-the US embargo (despite the fact that Cuba trades with every other nation).

The feel-good aspect of Environmentalism comes from the fact that Environmentalism, like the whole of the Left in general, is about appealing to emotion rather than reason. This is why so many Leftist revolutionaries are young and extremely idealistic. They are immune to the ugly reality that lies beyond all the "I'm saving the environment!" nonsense. Once again, these young Environmentalists think that because it feels good, it must be good. And I suppose that's why so many young people take drugs.

This indoctrination, combined with the utter failure to look at Environmentalism rationally before joining up (most people do so because it's "the thing" or an act of rebellion) is similar to the tactics used in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. What could be cooler than joining in a revolution against the evil Capitalists?

Objectivism and Libertarianism use the opposite appeal. Instead, they appeal to reason. Instead of getting idiotic teenagers to rebel against the evil Capitalists, they get those teenagers-me, for example (despite the fact that I'm not an idiot)-to look at the improvements by the West in living standards during the past two centuries, and to look at the underlying philosophy behind those increases. It's obvious which system caused those increases.

Finally, after 110 million dead under Communism, far more under Socialism, and the other collectivist and statist terrors throughout history, the lesson is getting through. From the Forbes Magazine article Atlas Shrugs Again:

"Today's left doesn't have anything positive to offer to young people. When they were socialists, there was at least something they were fighting for, and they believed in a right and a wrong. Today's leftist agenda is negative and nihilistic--focused on stopping industrialization, capitalism and even Western civilization. But young people want positive values. That's why religion is so strong today, because many view it as the only thing that promises a brighter future."

What Yaron Brook at the ARI doesn't say is that the reason the Left paints such a nihilistic portrait of the future is why Environmentalism is so strong. To any random man on the street, it's about doing your part for the Environment. So what he says, albeit true for a lot of the Left, doesn't apply to feel-good Environmentalism. To most young people, especially considering the Leftism that is feed into you almost daily at school, it's about saving the environment-not about ending Western Civilization. Feel-good Environmentalism is responsible for the irrational Environmentalist witchhunts, and for the "live Earth" concerts and protests every other day, but that's a completely different story.

If we are to succeed in bringing down Environmentalism and the reality of it-not what most people think it is, we need to target the feel-goodism that has made it so successful.

White House Surrenders

US President George W Bush has been pleading to Lefties around the world, putting an image out that "we're with you!", for the obvious reasons (GWB isn't the most liked man in the world) instead of putting a rational thought in about the issue.

George Bush hosted a big international conference with delegates from most parts of the world turning up to hear his call of surrender, and even said that industrial society is the cause of AGW. Still, it's not enough for the controlling UN and Europe, despite setting aims to cut carbon emissons to half the present day levels by 2050, which was suggested by the Japanese. How that is meant to work in sync with development in the Third World, I don't know. Maybe they can just keep on starving for another century?

Once again, no rational thought has come out from this tide of feel-good environmentalism.

Simply Beyond Words

I might have to change my view on the Libertarian non-aggression principle after 600 Swiss leftist idiots (and that really is a polite way to put them) stripped themselves down to nothing in front of the Aletsch glacier in Switzerland in a campaign against climate change, somehow trying, as PC puts it, "attempting to move mountains full of ice by means of just their genitalia and their convictions".

Put simply, the whole thing is an appeal to emotion as opposed to reason. If looked into properly, anyone who participated in this event would rightfully be a laughing stock for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, the all-too-large majority of humanity today and throughout history are completely ignorant of the hell on Earth environmentalism wishes to bring down on us, and many teenage and young adult idiots have no sense of reason at all (reason generally kicks in late, at about thirty). The only exceptions I can think of in NZ are all in the Libertarianz party, or are supporters.

Perhaps one thing that libertarians and objectivists have yet to touch on about the environmental movement is the fact that most environmentalists, especially the high-up ones, do absolutely nothing to protect the actual environment. It is instead about making the general public feel guilty about their actions, and from that point "giving in" to the movement.

All to reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. But, of course, "real communism hasn't been tried" (This is a very common argument amongst members of the left. Yet strangely no one mentions the environmental catastrophe the USSR went through before break-up).

News story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/18/2008810.htm

Minneapolis Bridge Collapse: Why?

If there's any one event that tells a country that's its infrastructure is shoddy and in major need of repair, surely it is a bridge collapse in a city of three million people. Yet why wasn't the American Government prepared for this collapse, and why wasn't action taken beforehand to prevent this tragedy?

To be frank, I'm not exactly learned about Minneapolis bridge construction, so I can't really point to environmentalists and the like for not building new bridges to accommodate new traffic (although there are quite a lot of bridges in the city). However, it should be noted that the bridge, according to a federal report, was and has been in a poor condition for quite a time. So, once again, why wasn't action taken to repair the bridge?

Like many governments, the American Government is always somehow strapped for cash (except for when giving pay rises ad funding wars). This was a small bridge surrounded by several others, which would only need a relatively small increase in the amount of traffic to accommodate what would normally go over the collapsed bridge. Not a great deal of money would've been needed to properly repair the bridge. In short, it was a failure of the American Government to repair the bridge-not a hard task.

A better, free market alternative would be to toll bridges in the city that can be used for upgrading already existing structures and building new ones when needed. Because no one likes paying tolls, people would be more willing closer to work in the inner city instead of the sprawling suburbs forever in the distance. Only a minimal amount of taxpayers' money would be needed to keep bridges in good condition.

So why let bridges collapse when a market-based solution would be so much more effective?

Common Fallacies about Capitalism II

There hasn't been a great deal to write about over the past few days, with life going on as usual. Because of that, I've decided to write a new "Common Fallacies about Capitalism". This one will consist of only 5 fallacies, but they'll be just as good as before. The original article can be viewed here. Also, it should be noted that this is the 100th post on my blog.

5) Capitalism is the Reason why the Third World is Starving, and why the Rest of Us are so Rich. 20% of the World's Population Consumes 80% of its Resources.
Two of the three arguments presented here are indeed correct: first, that Capitalism is the reason why the rest of us are so rich; and secondly, that 20% of the world consumes 80% of it's production, But there's a catch-22 here: 20% of the world (the people who have a free-market economy) PRODUCE 80% of its resources. Capitalism has been able to make use of resources-both natural and artifical-better, more efficiently and greater than any other system. The 20% of the world's population who consume 80% of the worlds (useable) resources do so because they have the means to do so, and are doing so more efficiently than at any other time in history.

The reason why the Third World is starving is because they have no freedom-and thus no incentive-to go out and produce for themselves. They have no property rights to protect what's rightfully theirs, and produce. However, it is correct when we say that the First World is a burden on the Third World, we have tarriffs and protection a plenty in the first world, wherever you go. Aid also has a negative effect on the Third World, by simply providing an incentive to rely on the First World. Observe that in the countries that have received the most aid, the economies have been shrinking.

4) Capitalism causes Excesses in Some Places and Depletion in Others.
Capitalism doe not cause excesses and depletion. Instead, there is a simple market mechanism to prevent this: if one man had a whole lot of computers he needed to sell to buy a helicopter he wanted, he would try and sell all his computers to people who want/need them at a low enough price that they'll be bought, but high enough to buy a helicopter (in which case it would be a boon to people who want computers for him to have more, so the market price would go down). If he sold enough computers to buy his helicopter, he would buy what he wanted, all the while diminishing his excess to people who want/need computers. The very fact that having one thing by itself is worth more than having two, three, 10,000 etc to any one person is how the market prevents excesses. If our man who wanted a helicopter made neither a profit nor a loss from selling computers and buying a helicopter, he would still have the same net worth after his enterprise, but there would be no more excess.

3) Capitalism is Responsible for Immoral Behaviour.
Capitalism is the system of non coercion, aka voluntary interaction between people. Because of this, Capitalism-in its proper meaning-can NOT be held responsible for people's decisions. Capitalism is an economic system that requires the seperation of economy and state. It does not force morality or a particular lifestyle upon people.

2) Capitalism Leads to the Depletion of sometimes Precious Natural Resources.
Many years ago, the developed nations were very much dependent on coal as their main source of energy. Oil was just some black liquid with no value that came up from the ground from time to time. But as time went on-as more and more coal was used-the devolped nations, and the developing nations also switched to oil, once useless, as their main source of energy. Coal didn't run out, as more and more competition meant that sources were hard to get hold of. Suddenly, uses were invented for oil, and low competition for the resource meant more companies extracting oil.

Nowadays, the same situation has happened for oil. High-tehc companies are developing more and more ways to use "alternative" fuels. Even the oil companies are looking into ways to develop these fuels. As with coal, oil will eventually take a back seat to new fuels and extraction methods.

1) Capitalism=Profits Before People.
There is a simple reason why, under Capitalism, this is a big lie: under Capitalism, all interaction is voluntary. To make a deal with someone else, you first must agree to their terms. Force is illegal, and any force is inherently anti-capitalist. The employee must agree, through a process of discrimination, to work for the employer. The employer must offer reasonable conditions if the employee agrees to work for him/her. Therefore, a business must consider the interests of their employees, as the employees can, as always, choose to leave if they want to.

Because of the fact that forced work-slavery-is inherently anti-capitalist, all work under capitalism is voluntary. Therefore, a company-or any organization-must offer whoever decides to work for them a good deal, or else fail and go under.

Businessman Stands Up for his Rational Self-Interest

From the New York Sun:

"The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy."

Bob Murray, a former miner who during his mining years was involved in two accidents, said that Al Gore is "far more dangerous than his Global Warming". By fighting the irrational environmental movement, he says that he's "standing up for the little guy that no one cares about".

Mr Murray mortgaged his home to start up his Mining Company, which currently has about 3,000 employees. If the new envirofascist legislation currently before the American Senate passes, a good deal of those employees could lose their jobs. Mr Murray also spoke about the devastating effects of the 1990 ammendment to the "Clean Air" Act. He talked of the terrible damage wrought on Ohio towns because of that legislation, because of the loss of much of the coal industry. During the years from 1990-2005, no less than 118 mines shut down in Ohio thanks to the legislation, and 36,000 miners lost their jobs.

Bob Murray also believes that the Global Warming debate is one sided and exaggerated. Currently, 52% of America is powered by Coal, and that's because most of the towns and cities powered by Coal can afford little else, and most of them are in America's interior, which makes getting access to other, cleaner resources all the harder.

A final word from me: most people do believe that coal does degrade te environment. However, many poor Americans can't afford any other alternative. Instead, why doesn't America up the production of it's poorer citizens and poorer regions by providing a freer economy, and thus more incentives to produce wealth?

And why doesn't America strengthen Property Rights to use a protection against pollution of every kind?

Global Warming, Martian style

Luckily for us global-warming critics, new evidence of melting polar ice caps on Mars is suggesting that the phenomenom known as Global Warming (or more the hype of it) may actually be caused by solar activities, as opposed to human activities.

Two probes sent to Mars, Global Surveyor and Odyssey reported in 2005 that ice had been melting at the Martian polar ice caps for three consectutive years. At the Pulkovo Astronomical Society in St Petersburg, Russia, scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov says that the data collected from the probes is proof that the sun, not human activities, is responsible for the majority of warming on earth. By studying the data, Mr Abdussamatov says that he can see an emerging pattern in the climate data for both planets.

Mr Abdussamatov said "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr Abdussamatov's theory of solar-related global warming hasn't impressed other scientists though. Colin Wilson, at Oxford University, said "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion. And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

The conventional theory on global warming on Mars is that planetary wobbles, instead of solar activities, is reponsible for any climate change there. Earth and Mars tilt different ways, and most climate scientists and astronomers think it is merely a coincidence that both planets are between ice ages at the moment.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Mr Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

So, his theory has a long way to go before being seriously considered by the world's top climate scientists and the IPCC, but hopefully it will do well. After all, there could be potentially thousands of factors to do with global warming-humans being just one of them.

The original article can be viewed here.

User-pays fees for roads a good idea

Liberty Scott has an interesting article about sprawl, roads and how roads should be funded. I fully agree that user-pay fees for roads are an excellent idea, as people would pay for how many kilometres they drive and adjust their car usage and where they live to reduce the cost. This would attract more people to the inner cities making those city centers lively. Because of this, the house price of homes in the 'burbs would go down, making homes in the suburbs more affordable for the lower and middle-classes, without continually adding rings of sprawl around the city.

He also notes that, with a user-pays road system, public transport would become more competitive, which would be excellent for the several thousand commuters who use public transport in New Zealand's cities daily. Petrol taxes could become very low or be abolished entirely.

So while it is the lefties who run our cities who engage in a "war against sprawl" and by doing so make our cities horrendously unaffordable, it is also those same lefties who subsidise living in the sprawl. And in our horrendously unaffordable cities, that is, unsurprisingly, the most attractive option for the middle and lower classes.

Once again, this is another problem-at least to the majority who actually care about it, that the free market can easily solve.

George Bush's State of the Union Address

Last night, President of the United States George W Bush made his annual State of the Union address. Of his 50 minute speech, half was devoted to the Iraq war, the war on terror, and the situation in the Middle East, including backing his choice to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to help fight off the insurgents.

However, a poll conducted by Bloomberg News and the Los Angeles Times newspaper between January 13th and January 16th has found that sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq isn't a popular idea with the American public. 60% disagreed with the idea.

The idea was also unpopular with the Democrats. A Democrat Vietnam War veteran whose son is a marine deployed in Iraq, Senator Jim Webb had his to say about Bush's decision:

"[America] has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Bush took the nation into war recklessly and the country is now held hostage to the predictable, and predicted, disarray that has followed.''

He also said that Bush "must bring U.S. combat forces home from Iraq without leaving behind chaos and act to improve economic prospects for middle-class Americans".

The other half of Bush's speech was focused on more domestic issues, primarily environmental concerns, such as increasing dependence on renewable energy and decreasing dependence on foreign oil. He also spoke on issues such as making health care affordable and balancing out the budget.