Paying to Starve the Poor, part II

I've used this post title before, and I urge you to go read it. Salute to Mark Shea (see his commentary), who brought the following to my attention:

Ethanol Policy Not Producing Desired Results

Some takeaways: Ethanol policy benefit? $24/yr for a family using about 1100 gallons (4164 liters) a year, about 2.2 cents per gallon. Expenses?

[T]he United Nations’ FAO Food Price Index which shows that between Jan. 2007 and Sept. 2011, after adjusting for inflation, corn prices increased by 68 percent, cereals by 69 percent and dairy products by 46 percent.

One study (Hayes et al, 2009) the researchers cite quantifies how a $1 per bushel increase in corn prices impacts a wide variety of food products. The study shows, for example, that between 2005 and 2011 corn prices rose by $5 per bushel, beef rose 18.5 percent, pork 16 percent, poultry 17.5 percent, eggs 27.5 percent, milk 10.5 percent, cheese 9 percent, sugar and sweets 3.5 percent.

The researchers claim that not all these price increases are due to U.S. ethanol policies. However, even “if only one-fourth of this additional expenditure is attributable to ethanol, this would imply a loss to American consumers of $40 billion over the last 4 years.”

In case you're wondering, "cereals" means all grain crops, which make up the primary source of protein for most of the world's poor, who in many cases spend 50% of income (or more) on food. When food prices rise 69%, that means they must now spend 84.5% of income on food to maintain the same food intake. This is usually not a tenable position for them; perforce, they starve.

Is the 0.08% reduction in world greenhouse gas emissions worth it?

Straight talk about tough times

The world's population is booming! Like Thomas Malthus promised, we're all doomed!

But wait. Population is booming because people are living longer, not because people are being born. In fact, in many places, there are not enough young people to care for the growing population of the elderly.

Wait, you don't think contraception has anything to do with this, do you?

Nuclear Insanity

The real insanity when it comes to nuclear power is the delusional and deceptive demagoguery and discourse which surround it. Here is some antidote, provided by the most admirable David Warren.

In Which I Remain Too Lazy to Create Content of My Own

I refer you to this column by David Warren. Tolle, legge. It is a delight.

Greens jump the shark!

Salute to the Western Confucian.

Here's the video. Greens did this themselves, without any prompting, with the idea that this is funny, and you'll agree. Be advised, it's nearly as violent as photos of aborted children.



There's commentary on Lew Rockwell and James Delingpole's Guardian blog.

EDIT: Some thoughts of my own....
the murders are portrayed as essentially inconsequential to those who do them. And they do them immediately after lying about the consequences. These things point out first, the value that the AGW types put on human life; second, their respect for the rule of law; and third, their commitment to honesty.

Further update: 10:10Global took down this video of theirs the same day they posted it (and yes, it really is the creation of 10:10Global, an advocacy group going on about the need to cut global carbon emissions by 10% every year, intending to start in 2010). They can no doubt ask Google to remove this posting of it, but it's likely that the detailed write-up currently on Wikipedia will remain, and that it will get re-posted each and every time it gets blocked or taken down.

The Death of Peak Oil

Good News On Two Fronts. Salute to the Western Confucian.

The story relates two things: first, how a Russian scientist, Vladimir Kutcherov, was able to manufacture methane and other hydrocarbons -- some much like petroleum -- by mimicing conditions of the Earth's mantle. He combined iron, water, and calcium carbonate (limestone) at about 30,000 atmospheres, and got hydrocarbons. He hypothesizes that oil and natural gas are the products of geological processes having nothing to do with dinosaurs or other fossils. This is supported by rumors that some North Sea and Gulf of Mexico fields once thought dry are producing again (see the comments on that post). The second part of the hypothesis is that fluid hydrocarbons make their way to the surface through deep cracks in the crust. Map those cracks, and you'll find petroleum and natural gas.

If he is right, what does this mean?

First, it means that we will not run out of oil and natural gas until the Earth's core freezes solid. The argument for deadlier, lightweight cars is at least partly a fraud, as are those for mass transit.

Second, it means that oil exploration will become vastly more efficient and widespread. Instead of 20% of exploratory wells striking oil, it will be more like 70%. And many areas once thought to have no promise could have lots of oil. We may well find oil on every continent except Antarctica ... and maybe there as well.

Third, it means the number one ally of violent jihadism is going to be the NIMBY syndrome. Make no mistake, the primary exporter of violent jihadism is Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi Muslims, and they are financed by petroleum. If energy independence is going to get much more widespread, their share of the petroleum market will precipitously decline.

Global Warming and the Culture of Death

I've said before that anthropogenic global warming is touted primarily to increase the power of the government, by and for the culture of death. Chuck Colson seems to agree:

As I have said before on BreakPoint, for this kind of environmentalism, the problem is people. “Nature” can only thrive if human beings are diminished. It’s why a new study by the London School of Economics, revealingly entitled “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost,” concludes that contraception is the most cost-effective way to reduce global warming.

Cap and Trade

From Catholic Exchange, a remarkably simple and useful explanation of Cap and Trade. The real kicker line, in my opinion, is this:

Indeed, from an economic standpoint, the C&T bill should be titled the “Raise the Cost of Living and Ship Jobs Overseas Act of 2009.”

The Global Warming Hoax

from Catholic Exchange:

And how do you propose to regulate the earth’s temperature when as much as 3/4 of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining 1/4 due to changes in the earth’s orbit, axis, and albedo (reflectivity)? This truly is “mission impossible.” Mankind can no more regulate earth’s temperature than the tides.

Even if the “greenhouse effect” were greater than it actually is, the EPA and Congress would be powerless to alter it for several reasons:

1. Human activity (according to NASA data) accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. (This discloses the capricious nature of EPA’s decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, for if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all—water vapor, which accounts for almost 3/4 of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect—should be regulated, too. The EPA isn’t going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.)

3. Even if Americans were to eliminate their CO2 emissions completely, total human emissions of CO2 would still increase as billions of people around the world continue to develop economically.

The actual motivation behind the global warming scare is power, pure and simple. If one can demand that energy production be reduced, one can, in essence, demand that those of us who are not poor become so, and that the poor die earlier and more frequently.

In other words, it is the culture of death, all over again.

Paying to Starve the Poor

I've regarded biofuel subsidies as malignant and evil for months, perhaps even a year. Biofuel producers aren't really capable of making a profit, unless they're given half or more of the money they use to buy their corn, and that money is taken from the public treasury. Because it's not their money, they're willing to bid the prices for these things way up. Not only was this driving up the price of tortillas, cornbread, and dog food, but also eggs and dairy products, and to a lesser extent beef and chicken, because those farmers depend on corn to feed their livestock.

But I had no idea, until I read this column by David Warren (whose commentary I highly recommend), just how much misery and evil we were creating. We can look at the food riots in Egypt, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mexico, and food rationing in Pakistan and China, and proudly proclaim, "This is our tax dollars at work."

Global Warming

The Scientific Method does not suggest that we take up a new scientific theory unless the old one has been contradicted by the evidence. In fact, when the new theory is more complicated than the old one, this is nearly required; Occam's Razor, which tells us that of all competing theories, the simplest one that explains all the data is the most likely to be true, is a widely-used rule of thumb in developing hypotheses.

We have had a fairly simple and reasonable explanation for changes in global temperature already. The Sun warms the Earth; clouds cool it. Clouds form around space dust that the Earth sweeps up as it moves. The more Solar radiation there is (indicated primarily by sunspots), the more space dust is blown out of the Earth's path, resulting in fewer clouds and a warmer Earth. When there is less Solar radiation, the Earth moves through a higher density of space dust, resulting in more clouds and a cooler earth. Because the oceans are a huge heat sink, there is a delay of 200 to 800 years between cause and effect. As far as I know, there is no evidence that contradicts this theory. If there is, I would really like for somebody to tell me about it.

The new hypothesis is at times contradicted by the evidence. It claims that global temperatures are controlled the level of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane. The hypothesis goes on to claim that changes in these concentrations brought about by human activity are the most significant. The problem with that is the scale of human activity, compared to that of geological activity. It's like claiming you can do more to make your car faster by emptying your pockets than by removing 200kg of concrete that you've put into the trunk and back seat.

The most reasonable explanation I've yet heard for the adoption of the new hypothesis is that Margaret Thatcher thought it would help convince the British to use more nuclear power and less coal. Then the developing world realized what a powerful inducement this would be for the US and the rest of the Western world to cripple itself, economically. And it serves to indict combustion as mala in se, since you can hardly burn ANYTHING without releasing carbon dioxide, and it's MUCH harder to produce anything when you are forbidden to burn nearly everything.

It comes down to another attack on human life. We humans cope with our environment by making stuff. Those who tout the anthrogenic theory of global warming want to severely restrict our ability to do so.

The Truth Is Inconvenient for Al

Credit where it's due: Rush Limbaugh tipped me to this story yesterday.

I am universally suspicious of any looming crisis cited as irrefutably demonstrating the need for vast new interventions in the lives of ordinary people by gun-toting enforcers at the behest of self-anointed Gurus of Everything. Nor is it mere coincidence that most such gurus arise from the Left. It is on the Left that you find the belief that while you and I might possibly not need guidance, assistance, and control at all times, surely we can see that nearly everyone else does -- and that it is the Gurus who must provide it. Of course, even we who might be able to handle some limited aspects of our own affairs must also submit to the Gurus, in the name of "fairness."

Al Gore is such a self-anointed Guru. The cause for which he wants to put us all under the lash is, of course, man-made global warming. It's so important to him that he's willing to lie in order to put us there. In no way has he been balanced in his presentation of his case, and nowhere do any of his allies and backers tolerate any dissenting or challenging his views. That's not science, that's propaganda.

There is no such thing as established scientific theory. EVERY theory is subject to being overturned by new evidence. But when it comes to man-made global warming, contradictory evidence is always suppressed. That is never good. Suppression of information has been the hallmark of every repressive and murderous regime this poor world has ever seen. And the global warming movement hates humanity, and wants to see us culled and thinned. It chills me.

(This film gives a glimpse into the global warming movement, and it's well worth watching.)

Man-Thing

I have nowhere near as much depth in my observations on Marvel's worst movie ever, Man-Thing, as the B-Movie Catechist, but there's still something I have to say that he didn't ... especially since it was just on SciFi.

The Man-Thing of the movie is a perfect realization of the god of Environmentalism: inhuman, equally eager to see all humans dead, be they allies or enemies, and struggling, even when the offenses against it are repented, to continue murdering.