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.
...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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last night on three news, Richard Branson (Libertarian or so the Advocates for Self Government believe) said this about New Zealand:
"I believe it would be great if New Zealand were to become the first 'carbon neutral' nation in the world..."
Well, Richard, let me tell you what government-forced "carbon neutrality" really means:
1) The complete overhaul of industry and commerce;
2) The dismantling of important infrastructure like roads, railways, powerlines, oil pipes, airports and seaports;
3) The ban of any new development and construction; and
4) A complete return to the stone age.
There is no realistic way, unlike what the greens want you to believe, to become carbon neutral without sacrificing your prosperity. Your wealth. Your happiness. Yours, and everybody elses, as well.
Animals aren't intelligent creatures. Wild animals wouldn't know if humans suddenly decided to "rejoin nature" and their quality of life certainly wouldn't improve. They don't have the concept of contrasting values, or any value for that matter. Humans do.
As said by "Chips Whitesugar" on Whinging in New Zealand:
"If everyone in New Zealand dropped dead tomorrow, the change in the rate of greenhouse gas production would be negligible, hardly worth all the hand wringing going on within the 'environmental' concerns within NZ ... NZ shouldn't cripple itself economically to gain a moral high ground on this issue. That would be stoopid."
So Richard, do you believe NZers should sacrifice their prosperity, their wealth and their happiness for creatures that would gain nothing if we did so? Being a multinational company CEO and multibillionaire, would you sacrifice your prosperity, your wealth and your happiness for creatures that would gain nothing if you did so?
Throughout the past few decades, we have seen an environmental movement build up such a hatred of mankind that can easily be coupled with Al-Qaeda (just look at the environmentalist quotes I posted on my previous post on the subject). Although on the surface this movement actually looks rather sane and no major threat to man. But, even the "sane" environmentalists propose something which will be disatrous to mankind: sustainability.
For starters, lets look at the RMA. The RMA, as has been put by the Libertarianz, has "nationalized all land but in name". Apart from the effects on property rights the RMA has had which are disatrous in themselves, today I am looking at the technological and business side of the RMA and similar "sustainable" legislation.
The RMA, as described on Wikipedia, is this:
"The RMA requires the application for a resource consent for any activities that relate to resource use. As part of a resource consent an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), a report on the Environmental Impact Assessment is required".
Basically, if you want you do so much as build a doghouse on your property, you need to waste time-and money-waiting for the government to decide if it's alright.
However, a dog house is only a simple building, and will have no environmental impact whatsoever. Lets make the project larger. Lets make it a new hotel, like the Hilton planned for Wellington.
A hotel will be a boost to Wellington's tourism industry as it will provide more accommodation for more tourists. As it is a boost for Wellington's tourist industry, it will be a boost for the government, and local attractions, as more visitors can flock here. All around, it will be beneficial for Wellington, even if some people don't like the look of it (which could be changed otherwise).
However, the Hilton hotel took 14 years to get resource consent. 14 years. The leading advocate of the project died before those 14 years were up.
Waiting 14 years to get resorce censent for a new, low-rise hotel is a disgrace. After that, there are the years needed to build it, which could be at least two or three.
As many will agree, New Zealand's infrastructure is ageing. We are behind many other OECD nations in upgrading our infrastructure, and the resource management act is only going to magnify the problem.
25 or so years from now, we can presume from current trends that New Zealand is going to continue passing new "sustainable" legislation. When we actually have to upgrade important infrastructure, like dams, and have the money, it may be too late. The RMA would have already caused many blackouts, like the ones witnessed in the South Island. We are experiencing those blackouts today.
Why? Because the RMA is preventing us from building new dams, or at least upgrading current ones, to make NZ's infrastructure better. Although there are other factors, the RMA is the biggest culprit. Taking less than half 14 years to wait for a dam to be built is a disgrace, and a big problem.
The solution is, not just in New Zealand but increasingly around the world, to roll-back "sustainable" legislation and start building new infrastructure to last at least two generations.
It is natural for human populations to grow. If we don't provide the infrastructure and develop the technology necessary for the needs of the 21st Century, especially as nations in Asia and, recently, South America continue to develop, and the human population increases, we will indeed be facing economic and political crisis, just as the Stern Report said.
That's not very "sustainable" is it?
Sources: Wikipedia-Resource Management Act
We have all heard of the Environmental Movement. It means different things to everyone; to someone it may mean the simple protection of the environment; to others, it may mean the burning of SUVs and condos.
So, here and now, I'm discussing about what the Environmental Movement means to me.
Environmentalism has been in full-flight for at least three decades now. What have we seen? Rather than a better environment, we have seen the polar opposite from the "Environmentalists"; we have seen man's environment deteriorate.
Indeed, before the environmental movement started, Russians were seeing the terrible effects of "collective ownership" in the USSR. Many Russians had to regularly endure terrible pollution from factories built well below the standards of the average American factory.
The pollution in the USSR was a result of two things, the lack of property rights (thus no incentive to make the land clean and tidy) and the lack of the incentive to produce cleaner factories (competition didn't exist, so nobody cared about environmentally friendly products like we do in the West).
So, I suppose we have to thank the USSR for showing us that Communism is the solution. The removal of competition and property rights only has a negative effect on the environment.
However, many so-called "Environmentalists" pay very little attention to this. Instead, they pay attention to the far cleaner products of the Capitalist world.
Another strange thing about the "Environmentalists" is that, in the 1970s, many of them were saying that the world was cooling down, and that the Earth could be facing an Ice-Age. It seems that they have changed their story, probably because they were proven wrong in their attempt to end Capitalism.
Although, on a more worrying basis, they seem to want us extinct:
"I would wish to return as a killer virus to lower human population levels" (Prince Philip of England, World Wildlife Fund leader, speaking before the United Nations on March 30, 1990, Ibid.).
"Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along" (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service, The Christian News, June 15, 1992).
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." --Univ. of Calif. professor Kenneth Watt (Cited by Gary Benoit, "The Greatest Sham on Earth," The New American, Mar. 26, 1990).
"The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human being." --Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; quoted by Charles Oliver, "Liberation Zoology," Reason, June 1990).
"There really is no rational reason for saying a human being has special rights. ... A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder, Reader's Digest, June 1990).
"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."
—David Foreman, Earth First!
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
A bit worrying, isn't it? Those weren't made up; they're completely real.
So, by now you should've realised that the environmental movement, to me and hopefully to you, is more than a move to protect the environment, it is a move to rid man of the world. It is a man-hating move, one that sees men as the same as lice.
To that end, I propose a solution for the environment: the restoration of property rights coupled with free-market competition. As of now, we see many regulations on businesses, which restrict their limits to provide clean technology. It is self evident that there is a market for environmentally friendly products, so deregulating the market so that that market and the businesses competing within it will flourish, and therefore the enviornment will as well.
Property rights will help protect valuable land because it is exactly that. Valuable, pristine land is worth far more than non-valuable land, so therefore it would be in the interests of the propietor to keep it that way, so he/she can make big profits come selling time. The same works for water as well.
Animals would flourish as well. To, once again, make big profits come selling time, the propietor would breed the animal so there's more of it, meaning animals could come out of near extinction.
Anyway, that's my rant on the Environmental movement, I hope you've got a few more ideas about it now.
