Debunking the "building roads causes congestion" myth

For some time now transport policy has been influenced (and in some countries dominated) by an ideological branch of the sector which could best be called "planning environmentalists".  This group has the following set of views, which are based more on philosophy and politics, and rather less on evidence:

- The problem with transport is people driving;

- Helping cars move is a negative because cars kill, cars pollute and cars take up a lot of space;

- Building new roads magically induces more car trips, so roads shouldn't be built, in fact in some cases they should be closed (the busiest ones);

- People are "dependent" on their cars, rather like drugs, but they would rather not be, they would rather use public transport if only the choice was there;

- Travel by public transport is good, the more the better;

- Travel by rail is almost nirvana, it is the safest, least pollution, can carry the most number of people, can be easily powered by electricity.  The more of this, the better we will be;

- Where railways can't even start to remotely seem sensible, light rail (trams) are the next best thing.  Cheap trains at street level.  People love them, the more the better;

- When even light rail is insanely expensive, buses are ok, but they are only ever a stopgap (after all they have diesel motors, use rubber tyres and um roads);

- Cyclists are important too, except when they disagree with light rail;

- Walking is important, but please don't talk about people who walk or bike who might be attracted to highly subsidised public transport - because that can't ever be a bad thing;

- Freight movement in cities is largely ignored because despite the best will in the world, it can't be moved by rail in any great volume.  Freight benefits from public transport though;

- Public transport relieves congestion, except it doesn't, but actually what we mean is it doesn't actually matter.  Congestion is a good thing, it is a tool to encourage people to use public transport (A Green Party policy advisor told me this himself);

- Road pricing is fabulous, but only to penalise cars.  All the money collected should go to subsidise public transport;

- Road users should pay the full costs of their infrastructure and externalities and pay for public transport subsidies, public transport users should pay a small fraction of the operating costs of their services, or even nothing at all, for they do us good by riding around on those trains;

- Public transport would be more viable if cities were higher density, like Prague, Moscow, Zurich, Barcelona, London.  People should live in high density housing more, less in suburbs.  Planning rules should enforce this, then people could live in tighter communities, travelling by rail, which of course, is what they really want, if only they knew better.

A key part of the dogma behind this, which is wholly embraced by the Green Party, is the notion that if a new road is built, it will become congested within a few years, making the whole construction futile.  It is the only sector where a claim is made that when something is popular, it is a bad thing.  It always ignores whether the road has been priced properly of course.

The Washington Examiner has an excellent article summarising the history behind the claim that building road causes congestion, and the countervailing evidence.  A good example is Phoenix, Arizona:

in the real world, adding highway capacity can prove quite helpful. The Texas Transportation Institute’s annual Mobility Report, for instance, demonstrates an uncanny correlation between capacity and traffic congestion: Areas that add capacity tend to have lower levels of congestion. And induced demand doesn’t always -materialize. Take, for example, the city of Phoenix, a town built with almost no freeway system.

As a result, the Phoenix metro area historically had some of the worst congestion in the nation. Between 1982 and 2007, Phoenix decided to build the highways it should have had in the first place.

They added so much asphalt that, according to the research firm Demographia, the city’s highway-lane-miles per capita grew by 205 percent. During that period, highway-vehicle-miles-traveled per capita increased by only 12 percent. And, like magic, traffic congestion plummeted.

Now what is true for Phoenix may not be true for Philadelphia. And building highways almost certainly induces some demand.

In New Zealand you can see the same, with plenty of examples to prove that building roads need not lead to congestion.  In Auckland, Te Irirangi Drive was built some years ago and has yet to be even close to capacity.  The south eastern highway from the Southern Motorway to the Pakuranga Motorway likewise (despite being built on the cheap).  In Tauranga, toll road Route K is now locally infamous for losing money because of lack of demand, and the related route J north isn't remotely congested.   Wellington's motorway bypassed Tawa  in the 1950s, and neither the motorway nor Tawa are congested.  Upper Hutt has also been bypassed with a sustained reduction in congestion through that city (and on the highway).  Lambton Quay used to be gridlocked at peak times with cars in the 1970s, until the motorway provided a bypass to south of the city.  Nelson's Stoke Bypass has not resulted in congestion in Stoke or on the highway.  

Now when a new road opens up a previously inaccessible, but desirable location, then it will have rapidly increased demand.  New crossings can do this, like the Auckland Harbour Bridge which needed a duplication of capacity within a couple of years of opening.  Tauranga Harbour Bridge was similar, but only when the toll was removed (which moderated demand).   In addition, piecemeal upgrades to a road that eliminates one bottleneck, but doesn't deal with one further along the route can exacerbate congestion at the further bottlenecks (but doesn't destroy the case for relieving congestion for those who do not go that far).

Modern cities throughout the world have used road building as part of their strategy to meet transport demand.  Where they have failed is in unfettered construction that means a subsidy from those who don't use the road for those who do.  In short, without using the market tool of pricing, building new roads can simply be just another subsidy.  

In New Zealand at the moment there isn't any appreciable use of pricing to manage demand to meet supply, but there is a major road building programme - one that does involve a considerable subsidy to road users in particular parts of the country (Auckland and Wellington mainly).    A more commercial approach may not build so much, and certainly not so fast.   Sadly, the main choices in policy offered to voters are to embark on grand Think Big road projects (e.g. Transmission Gully and the Puhoi-Wellsford motorway), or to embark on grand Think Big rail projects (e.g. Auckland underground rail loop and Auckland airport railway).   Actually letting users decide with their dollars seems something neither the Nats or the Greens can get to grips with.

Daily Telegraph's offence to New Zealand

I'm livid, beyond livid.

The Daily Telegraph being one of the serious UK newspapers, and one of the only two remaining true broadsheet format newspapers (the FT being the other) is one of the great newspapers of the world.  Yes, it tends to side with the Conservative Party,  but this political slant is well known and understood.  In the UK you know the politics of your papers, but they write for a broader church than that.  The Daily Telegraph exposed the ridiculous expenses claims of MPs from all parties before the last election, and did not hesitate to expose Conservative MPs as well.

One of its writers is Geoffrey Lean.  He is considered an "environmental correspondent" having previously been environmental editor for the more left leaning  Independent.  His Telegraph blog is here, but his insult is not located here.

It is this headline:

"New Zealand earthquake : the vengeance of Mother Nature".

Yes, the implication being that some anthropomorphised entity has inflicted vengeance on New Zealand.  For what? Why?

He goes on:

"as the people of Australia and New Zealand have been the latest to find out, she also has a nasty and highly destructive temper."

The female is "mother nature", so again he implies this is a cognitive being who is angry.  I am sure he doesn't really believe this but he goes on...

"And she's getting more irritable as the years go by. The devastating earthquake in Christchurch, and Queensland's cyclone and floods, which have so tumultuously ushered in 2011, follow the second worst year for disasters on record."

The end is nigh.  So what?  What have people done to reap this?

"Munich Re says that 90 per cent of last year's disasters were due to the weather, providing "further indications of advancing climate change". Sceptics disagree, and certainly no particular disaster can be attributed to global warming. But the increase is what most scientists have long predicted would happen as the world warms up."

So a reinsurance firm is making a link, but he naturally say no disaster can be attributed to global warming, but the increase is what would happen as the world warms up.

Sound like he is blaming the earthquake on global warming.  He goes on talking about droughts, floods, storms and hurricanes and then says:

"And, of course, earthquakes, like the disaster that has hit Christchurch, have nothing to do with it."

Whew, thank goodness for that, except hold on. What the hell is that headline about?  Why write about it now?  Why the fuck say "New Zealand earthquake: The Vengeance of Mother Nature" unless you are making some link?

"But whatever the cause of the increase in disasters, humanity has made their impact far worse."

He then says buildings make things worse, which of course implies we should live in caves or tents, a rather inane comment really.

He backs out of linking the earthquake to anything:

"Christchurch aside, maybe Mother Nature sometimes has reason to be annoyed."

Who?  Aren't you the annoyed one?

Not as annoyed as me.  You see he didn't mean anything, but he did try to get attention because of the earthquake.  He had a headline that is vile, as if Christchurch was the result of nature's "anger" at humanity, he did it while corpses are still being pulled out of the rubble.  Even ignoring his hatred of humanity in treating nature as if it is a living being that emotes, it was in appalling bad taste.

Even worse bad taste was that this article was one of the "Editor's choice" on the website.

For shame Daily Telegraph.  For shame!

Monbiot says share your house or else! (UPDATED for Monbiotbots)

I visited the Green Party website for the first time in age today, nothing quite as funny as seeing Catherine Delahunty on the front page claiming 1 in 5 New Zealanders experience disability (it being pretty obvious that she is one of them), but one of the pin ups of the Green Party is British radical environmental moonbat - George Monbiot.  Monbiot is an advocate of all sorts of compulsion, including banning patio heaters, replacing gas pipelines with hydrogen, abolish superstores, cut airport capacity, as well as calling for an end to economic growth.

His latest missive is his brilliant solution to the high cost of housing in the UK - make people rent out their spare rooms.  Not rooms they define as spare, but ones that the Great Leader George Monbiot has deemed as excessive.  He thinks that people shouldn't have spare bedrooms, that there should be a housing footprint.  That means a couple in a four bedroom house should rent out two rooms.  Spare rooms should be occupied by people seeking housing.

Monbiot is such the little central planner control freak, that he believes pensioners should rent out spare rooms so people can live with them and provide home help and assistance.

He seems to have completely ignored the simple point that most people like to choose who they live with and to decide what to do with their own property.   He has decided there are enough homes around if only people used less rooms.  Are there limits to this bullying wannabe thugs willingness to stomp over the rights of others?

Nothing says more about his complete contempt for property rights, lack of any understanding about personal achievement and reward for effort and value than this statement:

While most houses are privately owned, the total housing stock is a common resource. Either we ensure that it is used wisely and fairly, or we allow its distribution to become the starkest expression of inequality.

A common resource?  How much of a communist is this man?  Its "distribution"?  Who "distributed" it?  If you buy land and build on it, who "distributed" it?  It is as if he thinks some holy economic father dishes out money and resources, and all that is needed is someone to reverse it.  He either doesn't know or willfully blinds himself to how the diffuse ownership of property is due to millions upon millions of decisions by billions of people who buy, sell, earn, consume, destroy and build, in spite of petty thugs like Monbiot who prefer the Khmer Rouge approach to government - do whatever it takes to reach a final solution.

He wants to tax empty rooms.  He is just a thieving little religious evangelist who deserves no more attention than the hate filled Westboro Baptist Church.

Monbiot has no respect for property rights or individual rights at all.  He is chief priest of the high church of environmental armageddonism.

Of course, the Green Party gleefully links to him approvingly on regular occasions.  Will it soon be promoting housing footprints?  Is not the Green belief in planning laws to promote high density housing based around railway stations a form of embracing this agenda?

Ed West in the Daily Telegraph calls him a fascist and carefully explains why.  It is about time that Monbiot was ignored for the raving lunatic crank he is.

Meanwhile, Tim Blair points out that Al Gore achieves five rooms per inhabitant in his home.

UPDATE:  Some have said Monbiot doesn't actually say force people to share their homes, but what does this tell you:

He says of housing footprints: " Like ecological footprints, it reminds us that the resource is finite, and that if some people take more than they need, others are left with less than they need".  Zero sum economics.  Sheer utter nonsense.  As if you cannot increase housing capacity without destroying something valuable.  Even ignoring land, he's forgotten airspace or is that precious too??

However, he carefully shrouds his iron fist in his glove by saying this:  "none of the major parties wants to pick a fight with wealthy householders. So it’s up to us to give them no choice, by turning under-occupation into an issue they can’t avoid. It cannot be left to the market, as the market works for the rich."  He doesn't intend to persuade anyone, he wants to give "no choice" he doesn't want the market, he wants to use force (the only alternative).   It is semantics to claim otherwise.

Monbiot's suggestions about council tax discounts are besides the point.  Council tax is a charge for individuals using council services with a relationship to property prices to have some reflection of income.  As a libertarian I'd scrap council tax altogether, because all council services can be funded by direct or indirect users.  The council tax discount is virtually irrelevant in any case, as it would be a small fraction of the annual cost of housing.

Monbiot does have a four bedroom house and this great hero lives in it with his daughter and two lodgers.  His own choice is a shining example to us all of course.

What the Green Movement Got Wrong

A documentary with this very title is to be broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK this Thursday.  This article in the Daily Telegraph summarises the key point of the broadcast - that environmentalists were wrong to oppose nuclear power and genetically modified crops.

American activist Stewart Brand said "Environmentalists did harm by being ignorant and ideological and unwilling to change their mind based on actual evidence. As a result we have done harm and I regret it."

None of this is news to me, since identifying the ideological rather than the evidential behind environmentalist claims is rather easy.  Jeanette Fitzsimons, the former Green MP, was a master at this, claiming 1999 was the last Christmas to enjoy potatoes "you could trust".   One of the reasons minds have been changed on GM foods for example, is because people have been eating them for over a decade, without a shred of evidence of any ill health effects.

However, beyond that documentary one of the latest scientific breakthroughs will help put paid to the myth that new roads shouldn't be built, because the "inevitable" end of cheap oil will mean private motoring will be too expensive for most people.

According to Geek.com, DBM Energy, a manufacturer of batteries for forklifts, decided to trial its rechargeable battery in a car.  An Audi A2.  The result?  A battery cheaper than existing Lithium Ion technology in cars, with a range of 375 miles (603 kms), averaging at 55 mph (89 km/h) on a charge of 6 minutes.  Now obviously there are a few steps to take before this becomes mass production, but a future of rechargeable cars might just have moved a little closer. (more on UPI)

Religion of armageddon

Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s may recall when the next ice age was being forecast, which over time became concern about the greenhouse effect/global warming/climate change. Now there are two key dimensions to the issue of global warming:

1. What does the science say?
2. What should be the public policy response to this?

A rational debate around the science is all very well, and should continue, although many would argue it is more likely that there is anthropomorphic global warming than not, the issue may be more a matter of scale. We already know that the issue of scale and speed of any global warming has been contentious. Any rational person would welcome ongoing inquiry into this area, because it informs what comes next.

The public policy response has been my main area of contention, because it has provoked in many a desire for intervention based on regulation, taxation and subsidy, rather than considering how existing regulations, taxes and subsidies are negative in relation to emissions that may contribute to global warming. As most of those concerned about global warming also happen to be on the political left (and as such show little regard for property rights or concern about the growth of the state) it has caused greatest consternation among liberals who see it almost as a convenient excuse for the left to pursue much of its agenda.

After all, hatred of commercial provision of energy, the private car, aviation, industrialisation, consumerism and capitalism predated global warming, as did the worship of inanimate objects, plants and animals OVER humans.

Because whilst some in the environmental movement truly do have good intentions, have genuine concerns and want the world to be a "better place" in ways that many would agree with (less pollution, improved living standards), others have less concern for humans. The ends justify the means for them.

These are the ones who claim to talk the talk of "non violence" but believe in anything but that.

You see they start by fully supporting the violence of the state in enforcing laws to restrict or compel you as they see fit, including to take money off you to give to whoever they want. The idea that non-violence applies at all levels is absolute nonsense.

It is followed by a willingness to undertake the euphemistically called "direct action", which is essentially trespass, vandalism and obstruction to destroy the product of other people's minds and labour or take it over.

Underlying all of this is to deliberately engage in grotesque hyperbole about what will happen with global warming. The underlying message being that we are all doomed unless something is done about it. This scaremongering has little basis in science, every basis in science fiction and is intended to frighten people into following a line of thinking that there should be NO HIGHER PRIORITY than to cut CO2 emissions (only in Western liberal democratic developed countries mind you, not Russia, China, let alone the Gulf states which are by far the world's highest emitters). Emissions become the measure of success, NOT the net impact, not living standards, not life expectancy, but the composition of the atmosphere. Think atmosphere before people.

It matches the economic nihilism of the same people who think economic growth cannot be sustained (based on the false premise that wealth is solely generated from raw commodity discovery and consumption, rather than the application of reason to all available resources) and must be redistributed. The same who have the socialist notion that it is "unfair" that the countries and cultures that embraced capitalism, science and reason above all others first are wealthier than those that did not, and that means wealth should be stolen from the developed countries and given to the developing. The idea that human development and industrialisation should be curtailed and restricted, because it is "killing the planet" (let's depict the planet as something living of course).

Now spreading this Armageddon concept and the urgency of action has proven to be insufficient. Truth be told the environmentalists are terribly unhappy that they have had poor electoral success in most countries, and that the "urgency of action" has largely been seen in governments dabbling in energy, transport and a few other sectors to encourage less emissions. Governments wont wage war on the car, plane, power stations or industry because most people like their car, like to travel, like electrical appliances, like their jobs in such industries or those related to them, and want better living standards.

So scaring people that they will die if they don't act on global warming has failed, because neither voters nor governments are that interested anymore. The next stage is obvious - scare them that their children will hate them and turn on them.

That is where this video came in:



Showing Greenpeace in its true form, as driven by people who show anger and a desire to threaten violence underneath the shroud of panda bears and humpback whales.   Greenpeace is a multi-million dollar business peddling the propaganda of a new global religion that doesn't take kindly to those who point out when it is wrong.

However, it is most clearly seen in the now infamous Richard Curtis video depicting how school-children who want join their fellow drones in the religion can "hilariously" been blown up - Taliban style - like what happened in London, Paris, Madrid, Baghdad, Kabul, Istanbul, Moscow etc. It is part of a campaign called 10:10.



Neither the Green Party of England and Wales, nor Greenpeace have uttered a word about this. All I can say is bravo for scoring a spectacular own goal, and showing that the term eco-fascism is not an exaggeration. Name a situation when it is funny to show a teacher blowing school students up like a bomb for not agreeing with the teacher or the rest of the class.

Of the businesses that deserve to be pilloried for supporting this, the list of O2, Kyocera and Sony, can also include the Royal Mail and Adidas.

I don't expect the British Con-Dem government to respond, led as it is by a man who made a point of joining the Conservatives to the global warming religion, and with a coalition partner that is one of the most fervent adherents to it.

Mines, railway or jobs

I just had to comment on this.

Green MP Catherine Delahunty is waging war against Nightcaps, a small town in Southland I have long been aware of, as it is the locality of a collection of lignite mines. Well it isn't the town, but the mines she hates.

There is some local concern about the pollution arising from the mines, which have existed in one form or another for over a century. The mining is carried out by two companies. One is Australian (boo hiss bad) which she mentions as "Eastern Corporation of Australia", the other she doesn't mention is state-owned Solid Energy.

Now let's be fair here, if the mines closed, then the town would be a shadow of its current self. Jobs would be lost, and people would have to relocate (although Catherine would probably want a generous welfare state to keep people living there off the taxpayers' back).

What she neglects to mention is that the government COULD actually cut back the mining there rather easily. Solid Energy is the obvious first target. Presumably the Greens would close the company down.

However a less visible target is Kiwirail. You see most of the mined lignite leaves Nightcaps on a railway branch line, which has a daily coal train. The line is the last railway branch line in Southland (other than that there is the Main South Line running from Dunedin to Invercargill and onto Bluff), and if it was being run commercially it would probably face closure. Unless, of course, the mining companies would pay commercial rates for freighting the coal (they did under privatisation, but the line needs bridge and track replacement as it has not had serious renewals since it was built).

Yet with Kiwirail now state owned and subsidised, a policy endorsed and cheered on by the Greens, it effectively subsidises the mining operations they despise.

On top of that the mine she talks about is apparently on local authority land. Presumably she believes in empowered local government, yet Southland District Council doesn't do what she likes

So one state intervention - propping up a railway, is having results (keeping open some mines) that those who PROMOTE state intervention, despise.

So what will it be Catherine?

Keep subsidising the railway?
Keep local people employed in mining and supporting those employed?
Let local authorities continue to own land used for purposes you don't like?
Close the mine and the town?

What a choice for those addicted to planning the world around them.

What would I do?

1. Run the railway commercially or offer it to the mining companies to buy if it is that important to them.
2. Enable the property owners of Nightcaps (and across New Zealand) to enforce property rights against noxious levels of trespass of gases (smoke) and dust.
3. Tell the local authority to sell the land (as it should with any surplus land).
4. Leave the mining companies to do as they wish.

Con-Dem anti-reason anti-business coalition

Well it's out, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has shown its true colours, and they are colours of a red and green coloured wolf in the sheep's clothing of Cameron and Clegg. The new government is no more friendly to capitalism and to reason than the last one.

The coalition agreement now published gives the impression of being pro-business, and the impression of dealing with the budget deficit, but it commits to a vast range of new spending measures, and to interfere with private businesses on a grand scale in multiple sectors.

The envy-touting, dependency supporting left should be relieved, and the Greens thrilled.

Take the following:

- "The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments. The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place." Yes, the NHS, subject already to record spending increases in the past, can continue to extract ever greater inefficiencies, and not be accountable for it. Meanwhile, the British taxpayer will have to mortgage to continue increasing state aid to developing kleptocracies.

- "We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats" So the retired wont have to face any austerity, just their children and grandchildren. Why? Well given they voted for profligate governments in the past you might well ask.

- "We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities" No income tax wont be coming down, it is about increasing capital gains tax. Yes, if you get capital gains for your OWN profit, not for "business" then screw you, Clammyegg wants your money.

- "We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.. We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector" Why? Well let's tax one of the country's most successful service sectors, never mind which banks never needed a bailout and those that did. Oh and let's deter the most successful people in the sector being tax resident in the UK, to please the envy ridden proletariat. So it's off to Switzerland for that lot then?

- "We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work" Don't worry, you'll not be attracting the best and brightest anyway, they'll be leaving. Nice sop to the BNP though.

- Finally, taxpayers will prop up a massive programme of Green fetishes and an effective end to growth in the British aviation sector including "The creation of a green investment bank" (quite where the money comes from is irrelevant), "Measures to encourage marine energy" (again, whose money?), "The establishment of a high-speed rail network" (ah the grand show off project that has next to no positive environmental impact), " The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow. The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted" (privately owned airports and the airline industry can go to hell, less competition for European airports and airlines), "Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles" (with whose money?).

So that's it. More spending, more taxes, more regulation of the current crop of hated businesses (banking and aviation), and worshipping at the totem of environmental fetishes regardless of cost and benefit.

No reason behind most of it, and a distinctly anti-business agenda particularly if you are in finance or aviation.

Anything for freedom? Well, besides scrapping ID cards, ending the storage of internet and email records without "good reason", and something called a "Freedom Bill", there isn't much. Free schools, paid for by taxpayers maybe, and talk of some tax cuts (which don't offset tax increases of course).

Anyone who voted Conservative expecting less government, less interference in business and a more reason based view of policy should be sorely disappointed. When the Treasury briefs the new government on the fiscal debacle, it will become clear how little of this can be afforded, and so it will be a lie, taxes will go up dramatically, other spending will be slashed substantially or a conbination of it all. Furthermore, with a new agenda of faith based Green initiatives, reason appears to be distinctly absent from this administration. The government wont be shrinking.

Fortunately I didn't vote Conservative.

Conservatives only green on the outside?

You'd have thought with the Conservatives believing in anthropomorphic climate change, wanting to strangle aviation, wanting to subsidise windfarms, embracing nuclear power, subsidising railways and keen on recycling, that the statist collectivist environmentalist movement would at least say there is nothing offensive here. It may not be enough for many, but you'd think that it would be a matter of degree.

No. Enemies of the Humans Friends of the Earth apparently approached Conservative candidates, and only FOUR of the 635 contacted would sign up to the pledges of that lobby group. This compares with 95 Labour candidates, 179 Liberal Democrats and unsurprisingly 267 Green candidates.

Maybe the Tories aren't so beholden to the environmentalist agenda after all? Maybe the candidates have simply decided the public are not interested in being told what to do at a time of severe economic recession.

What FOE wants is as follows:

Policy 1: A local carbon budget for every local authority that caps CO2 in the local area in line with the scientific demands for emissions cuts and local circumstances; and enough money and technical support to enable councils to do their bit to tackle climate change.

Quite how this is to be paid for is ignored - blank out.

Policy 2: Sufficient investment in switching to a low carbon economy to achieve a reduction in UK greenhouse gas emission of 42 per cent by 2020; create jobs and boost the recovery; and eliminate fuel poverty.

Again, uncosted, no way to pay for it.

Policy 3: An international deal on cutting emissions where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a low carbon way.

The old chestnut that somehow the developing countries need do nothing, but developed countries must sacrifice. Those developing countries with high GDPs per capita and high emissions are ignored.

Policy 4: A new law which will tackle the major greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK’s dependence on imported feeds for livestock - and which will support better UK farming and domestic feed production.

Trade protectionism in other words. Quite how this fits into EU membership would be beyond FOE.

So only a fool would sign up to these pledges.

Fortunately, FOE publishes a list of the fools. In the Conservatives, millionaire pretty boy who is looking for a meaning to life, Zac Goldsmith (Richmond). Maria Caulfield (Caerphilly), Robert Walter (MP for North Dorset) and Jessica Lee (Erewash). No excuse to vote Conservative in any of THOSE seats now.

I wont believe the end to the Greenwash until the Conservatives backtrack on blindly opposing the expansion of Heathrow. Wrecking the growth of an entire sector of the economy just to win a few votes from NIMBYs in West London is the alternative, but then they are politicians who want power.

Will the UK contribute to South Africa's energy crisis?

For the past two years South Africa has faced a serious electricity crisis. Demand has been exceeding supply, with the reasons for this being multi-faceted:

- Electricity generation remains dominated by a state owned company (Eskom), which has been severely undercapitalised (so not investing in new capacity) as the Government refused to inject capital into a company it was seeking to privatise. State ownership without the state seeking to invest;

- Electricity tariffs have been generously subsidised (described by the Chairman here), so that the price of electricity is around a third of the cost of generating it. The reason being the political desire to supply cheap electricity to the population Eskom makes a substantial loss, so cannot finance expansion from its own revenue. Socialism is crippling electricity generation (although tariffs are increasing by 30% to start to address this);

- Privatisation of Eskom has been stalled for political reasons and because no new owner would want to buy a company that loses money without the power to increase tariffs to address this;

- The government deregulated the electricity market, but there is no foreign interest in building new capacity whilst the state continues to bear Eskom's huge losses as it continues to price electricity well below cost.

So South Africa has been stuck, with ample coal reserves, but without the capital investment to translate this into electricity generation, and pricing a scarce resource so cheap, it gets rationed through blackouts.

Now the appropriate answer to all this is to split Eskom into three or more companies, privatise them one by one, letting each privatised one set its own tariffs. This would effectively allow new entrants to decide how to invest in new capacity and match price and demand.

In the meantime, South Africa has sought a World Bank loan to help pay for a new power plant for Eskom. Setting aside whether this should happen at all (it should not), the UK government is apparently considering vetoing it at the World Bank. Why?

Not for economic or financial reasons, but because Greenwar, Foes of the Humans and Christian Aid oppose it as the new power station would be coal fired.

They want money into so-called renewable energy, even though the cost would be twice as much per unit. Not that these organisations are planning to build and fund power stations themselves. No, they would rather South Africans endure blackouts and keep their economy crippled than to let some coal be burnt.

Why is the UK interested? According to the Times, Gordon Brown is looking for a way to capture the "Green" vote, though it is interesting to see how this clashes with the interests of some of the poorest on the planet.

So if the UK vetoes the World Bank loan, it will be about pandering to a Green agenda - it wont be about incentivising South Africa to engage in serious reform of its electricity policy.

After all, even if South Africa did privatise and reform electricity, the anti-human environmentalists would no doubt continue to oppose new coal fired power plants, also oppose more nuclear power, and want to force taxpayers in wealthier countries to subsidise "renewable" energy.

Greenwar, what happens when environmentalists get angry

Greenpeace likes to portray itself as embracing non-violence. However, as people around the world have become increasing sceptical about the agenda being peddled by the left dominated environmentalist movement, the continued use of dialogue and discussion has gotten under their skin. Gene Hashimi is from Greenpeace India, and he clearly has forgotten the "peace" part of the organisation's name (not that it has ever used force, no never) with his two part blog post on the Greenpeace blog.

Why would I post a link to it? Because of the threat contained at the end:

he proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few."

and you'll be up against the wall when the revolution comes. After all, why should you say such a thing unless you were threatening people at their homes or workplaces? Why should it matter that you tell people where they live and work, unless you want to scare them?

Greenpeace has noticed this has caused some alarm. It has engaged in enormous spin to DENY that he is any kind of violent guy. It says "Gene's blog entry is about encouraging PEACEFUL civil disobedience - the kind of peaceful methods that liberated Gene's country (India) from imperialism. I know Gene, and he's a genuinely peaceful guy who believes in the power of peaceful protest to change the world. Some people are trying to portray him as otherwise. Just read what he had to say in context. He is very specific about what he thinks people should do."

Really? In context?

OK. So what does his blog entry say otherwise. Besides the classic anti-US propaganda "Why did the US, despite being responsible for the largest per capita share of global CO2 emissions" - it's not Gene, Qatar is, but too scary to confront Arab monarchies is it?" and then getting upset that the oil industry does what his side has done for many years "The smoke and mirrors created by the fossil fuel lobby are impenetrable. Their own tracks well covered, they operate through front groups, shell companies and think tanks.", it's all just a lot of anger. He is basically upset that some people have a lot of money to put forward their point of view, not that Greenpeace is lacking cash of course.

He talks about how the Micronesian government wrote to the Czech government to tell it to stop the expansion of a coal fired power plant (funny how it didn't write to the Chinese government, except of course China is a generous provider of aid and is unlikely to be responsive). Then lies about it, because the Czech government ignored Micronesia saying "this has revealed that a watertight legal case, a high moral ground and a credible support base are no match for infinitely-resourced and well-muscled think-tanks." Now the coal sector is in cahoots with the oil sector, this "watertight legal case" simply doesn't exist, and what he doesn't say is that the expansion includes modernisation to reduce the rate of emissions. Ahh, Gramsci is alive and well.

So what does he propose to do? "We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain". Direct action is code for breaking the law and ignoring private property rights. He endorsed the view of this peaceful person:

"The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws"

Seems to me a little like another movement that existed in China around 40 years ago.

So the lesson is, if you don't get your way, you break the law and you threaten those who disagree with you.

It's always been nonsense that Greenpeace is about non-violence, as it has heartily embraced state violence to ban, tax, subsidise or compel whatever it wants - now it's more open, Greenpeace supports threatening directly.

NZ home insulation foolishness tells a lot about attitudes

Following on from the Australian catastrophe in subsidising home owners who can't be bothered paying for their own energy bill savings, there is now the consequences of the New Zealand scheme. However, what it says about the general public speaks volumes about the trust they have in the state, trust that anyone who has spent time working with the bureaucracy knows is misplaced.

The New Zealand Herald reports that many insulation installers are upset that:

"the government subsidies are allowing competitors to hike their prices and still undercut them using taxpayers' money.

They say customers are avoiding them because they see government approval to offer subsidies of up to $1300 for insulation and $500 for energy-efficient heating as a "badge of quality".

Of 249 companies wanting to join the $347 million scheme for the next four years, 60 were chosen based on factors including geographical coverage, financial stability and their ability to carry out self-audits."

So in other words, 60 firms are suckling off the state tit, whereas the rest are out in the cold, helping to PAY for their competition to undercut them.

It speaks volumes that the EECA subsidy is seen to be a guarantee of quality, the same stupid mistake Australians made thinking government approved installers were somehow a higher standard. Seriously, do people think bureaucrats exist that check the quality and standards of insulation installers? Do people think that if a state approved installer does work for them that they have a greater degree of sanction if it turns out to be poor quality?

The notion of this is ridiculous. I've known literally hundreds of bureaucrats, most of whom know the limits of their competence. There simply are NOT people out there able to check this sort of thing. Yet people believe the state is somehow benevolent and offers some sort of reassurance.

Now I oppose the fundamentals of the scheme. Yes it might save energy bills, but that is a private good. Those with insulation shouldn't pay for those without to save money. Yes it might improve health of some, but when are people meant to take responsibility for the cold and damp in their homes?

The political reaction to this is predictable. Energy Minister Gerry Brownlie effectively endorsed the idea that the scheme ensures a "tight control" on quality of work, although it isn't clear quite how that quality is being ensured. This contradicts EECA claims that just because some aren't part of the subsidy scheme does not mean their work is poor quality. So is Brownlee just knifing those who don't get taxpayers money to run their business?

Labour spokesman Chris Hipkins thinks the subsidy should be offered to everyone, doing a Peter Garrett.

You see a better response is this:

- Stop the subsidy scheme;
- Tell homeowners that if they want to make energy savings, they should buy their own insulation and use recommendations, word of mouth and other means to explore the market to find good installers and suppliers;
- Tell homeowners who already have insulation that it is unfair to tax those who already have insulated their homes to subsidise those who haven't;
- Used the savings to cut the budget deficit, working towards tax cuts WITHOUT countervailing new taxes. Hiking GST wont help people pay for insulation.

After all, if people paid less taxes they would have more money to spend on discretionary expenditure, and if would rather pay higher heating bills than insulation, why should nanny state save them?

UPDATE: Not PC also has a recommendation of a GOOD installer. A recommendation I'd trust over any government "endorsement" that apparently isn't one.

How can he sleep when the roofs are burning

Who couldn't see this coming?

Peter Garrett, former singer for band Midnight Oil, former member of the far-left Nuclear Disarmament Party, now committed Christian, family man and Australian Labor Party MP for Kingsford Smith, New South Wales and Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in Australia, has presided over one of the most monumental disasters in recent Australian Federal Government history.

The blame, of course, is not just his. There is a line of bureaurats who should be rendered unemployable as well, but the story is one of how much government can screw up with other people's money.

It started with a package that may sound familiar. A plan to use taxpayers' money to subsidise the insulation of homes of those who couldn't be arsed paying for it themselves. Garrett proudly launched the plan in June 2009 with this press release saying "From today, householders can start shopping around and working out which registered installer and type of insulation is right for them"

In essence, the taxpayer would be forced to pay the value of insulating a home up to A$1,600, and a whole series of government approved installers were appointed to undertake the scheme.

In addition:

"As well as the ceiling insulation offer for homeowners, there is also insulation assistance of up to $1,000 available for renters and landlords. It is expected around 2.9 million households Australia-wide will benefit from these insulation offers.

The Energy Efficient Homes Package also provides a rebate of $1,600 to help eligible home-owners, landlords or tenants replace their electric storage hot water systems with solar or heat pump hot water systems."

The motivation was to "create jobs" (by taking money out of the hands of some and handing it to the insulation industry) and to contribute to Australia's climate change objectives.

The cost was estimated at A$4 billion, so we are talking A$200 per Australian!

The result?

The Australian reports around a million homes have been insulated, of which 160,000 have apparently "shoddy ceiling batts", 80,000 homes have "potentially dangerous insulation", 1,000 roofs have been "electrified", 93 houses have caught fire and 4 deaths have resulted.

Despite extensive questioning, the Australian Federal Government doesn't know which homes are at risk, how it is going to undertake a risk assessment or how it will fix it.

The scheme has been terminated as of last Friday.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports Aussie PM Kevin Rudd has taken ultimate responsibility, indicating Garrett wont be a sacrificial lamb. Interesting given it is election year in Australia.

Why should all this happen?

Well the incentives were all wrong.

For starters, those who take other people's money don't take the same care with it as those whose it was the first place. Those who set up this scheme knew none of them would ever have any financial responsibility for the failure.

Secondly, those who installed the insulation and the hot water systems also knew it was a case of install, then claim. They knew their work wouldn't be inspected, the customer wasn't THAT careful since it was being installed for free and if there was a need to take a short-cut, they would still be paid.

Thirdly, the home owners whose homes are affected, having no financial relationship with the installer, had little leverage after the fact.

The bottom line is that if home owners get a financial advantage from insulation and improving heating/air conditioning systems, they can make the judgment themselves about spending money on it. Why all taxpayers, including those who already spent their money on such improvements, and those who don't own homes, should subsidise those who don't, is astonishing.

It is the sort of collective groupspeak that claims "we will save" a fortune if everyone does it that blinds public policy to what is simply a matter of private benefit. I save nothing if my neighbour saves money on heating or air conditioning, it is of no benefit to me. If I asked my neighbour to help me pay for insulation because it would save my power bills, and might even save costs of health care, the neighbour would rightfully tell me to leave, politely.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports the result is that the insulation industry is in crisis. This, of course, serves them right for trusting government and wanting to benefit off the back of taxpayers rather than customers.

"Several companies have been running their factories 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months, creating a huge glut of batts that are now largely unwanted in the wake of the rebate scheme being axed"

Tough, when you deal with politicians then sometimes you pay the price. Taxpayers had no choice to pay for you being a party to this filthy little arrangement, now you pay. You no longer have nanny state to pay your bills, and you've screwed things up so badly that domestic private consumers don't want to touch it. How sad, but now an opportunity for NZ installers to source some cheap stock?

"Fletcher Insulation makes about 40 per cent of Australia's insulation, and managing director David Isaacs said he expected 8000 jobs to be lost from the industry."

Nice own goal there for both the industry and the government. Nice job creator Labor. Sad for those losing their jobs, but how many of them thought the Labor Party would look after them?

How many will still, like sheeple, tick Labor this year?

Gordon Brown steals for climate change

Part of the whole Copenhagen charade is that the European Union has promised £6.5 billion of other people's money to give to developing countries because of their own ineptness in industrialising over the past few decades.

What's particularly galling is that Gordon Brown increased the UK contribution of £1.2 billion of as yet unborn childrens' taxes to £1.5 billion to be thieved from the unwilling. More than any other European country. Even though Germany and France have greater GDPs, this wasteful, thieving, now increasingly socialist Labour government is out committing more borrowing to steal from kids to pay for the corrupt, protectionist and ungrateful developing world.

Gordon Brown acts as if he has money to spend, but he has none. He borrows it to leave to future governments to take from taxpayers, and he can hold his head up high, having nearly bankrupted the UK. It's repulsive.

Developing countries are spreading lies such as how they will be "destroyed" by climate change, so they have the begging bowl out, when so many of them are led by governments of kleptocracy and excess. They ignore that the biggest per capita emitters are the likes of Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait. They essentially want Western companies and holders of intellectual property to hand over technology to the likes of China, India and others who are not creators of technology, who will then copy it and out compete the West.

It is an argument of envy, envy of the developed, envy of those that have been locations of technology, of education, of capitalism. It has become an argument for, what is quite simply, socialism.

From each according to his ability (i.e. to the extent the West can pay) to each according to his needs (i.e. the extent to which the developing world asks). It isn't really about the environment so much, because if it was, then maybe the arguments would be different?

Tory disgrace over Heathrow

BA CEO Willie Walsh has come out a blazing against the Conservative Party's opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

"I want to know, if the Conservatives don't want to build a third runway, how are they going to position the UK economy to compete on a global scale in the future?..."We will look back years from now and say, what a disgrace. We expect governments to have policies that are coherent. I don't see this as coherent."

Dead right Willie. The policy is a mindless kowtowing to the anti-growth luddites of the environmental movement, as well as residents of West London who want their property values enhanced by the removal of Heathrow.

Curiously, Steve Ridgway, Virgin Atlantic's CEO agrees of course. Since it hinders both BA and Virgin Atlantic from growing. Although we shouldn't forget how eager Sir Richard Branson is at pushing environmentalism. This is what happens when you realise those you try to appease are uninterested in you.

Conservative spokesperson Theresa Villiers has said "We are absolutely convinced that the environmental costs of runway three, in terms of air pollution, noise and carbon emissions, significantly outweigh the alleged economic benefits"

Because you're idiots. Who gives a damn whether or not you think there are economic benefits. You are politicians, interfering with the private sector, trying to make money by providing services and therefore providing employment.

You don't create money, you seek to spend other peoples.

Get the hell out of the way of a foreign owned private company investing in new infrastructure in the UK that the taxpayer need do nothing about.

Throw off this pandering to both NIMBYism to win electorates in west London, and neo-Marxist environmentalism. Otherwise some of us will find enough reason to throw our votes away on an alternative.

What Copenhagen wont discuss

One of the leading climate change sceptics, Christopher Booker writes in the Daily Telegraph about what wont be said at Copenhagen:
- The phenomenal cost of taking the sort of measures proposed to reduce CO2 emissions. In the UK it is estimated at £18 billion a year or £725 per household. Of course what will the benefits be of this? Nobody will say;
- The targets (UK promises an 80% cut in 40 years) would mean nearly shutting down most energy and transport systems in the UK, no politicians have any idea how to achieve this;
- How will the differences between crippling developed countries and letting developing countries do what they like be bridged? Quite simply crippling the rich world wont be enough if you believe the rhetoric, China, India and Brazil all have to act too, but none of them are the slightest bit interested;
- The science is still questionable, as "in the run-up to Copenhagen we have been subjected to an unremitting bombardment of scare stories: how the ice caps and glaciers are melting much faster than predicted, how sea levels will rise much higher than anyone imagined, how we face ever more hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves. Yet every time one of these scares is subjected to proper objective scientific examination it can be found either that these disasters are not happening as claimed or that they have been exaggerated far in advance of anything the evidence can justify. "

He concludes "Far from Copenhagen being the end of the debate, the real debate is only just beginning."

As it should be.

Third Heathrow Runway "ok" on CO2

Why should that matter you might ask of me? After all, it is a privately owned airport, not seeking a pound of taxpayers' funds to expand, the business case is overwhelming and it is purchasing land for the purpose of the runway. So let it be. Especially since competing airports in Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt are all expanding or have recently significantly expanded runway capacity (but don't let that get in the way of reason).

However, the Brown government has a quasi-religious view on climate change, believing, brothers and sisters that the UK must lead the world in crippling economic growth and self sacrifice cutting emissions, even though the UK doing so wont make a jot of difference. So it decided to investigate whether a third runway at Heathrow, and the extra flights it could accommodate (besides reducing the very wasteful queuing at present) would have a negative environmental impact.

The Times reports a UK government committee has said that 60% MORE people can fly by 2050 and still meet the government's CO2 emission targets. In other words, rather than the luddite like "stop flying" nonsense trotted out by the environmental movement, someone has actually looked at the figures and determined how much expansion is "ok". Now it's not all good, it is based on taxpayers' being forced to pay for a high speed railway network to take some people from air to rail on domestic trips, and draconian taxes on flying, as well as assumptions of ongoing improvements in fuel efficiency. Because, you see, without any such kleptomania, apparently demand would double by 2050.

So even if you don't take a fully pro-capitalist view on this, it can still be argued that aviation expansion is not incompatible with ongoing reductions in emissions, in part because technology and commercial pressures will encourage this.

Of course the usual religious zealots have come out bemoaning this. Friends of the Earth enemies of humans wants an end to airport expansion (in the UK). Expect more of the typical rabid "planes bad, trains good" nonsense from environmentalists. Then of course you'll understand why more and more people are more and more sceptical about the true motives behind such activists. It's a form of ascetic nationalist environmental extremism, which happily will let the UK economy be stagnate, whilst letting China, India and even France, Germany and the Netherlands expand.

Copenhagen climate change hypocrites

Oh woe is us, death be upon the world, we must meet to figure out what to do - let us fly on private planes, be limousine escorted from the airport to town (despite there being a frequent fast train service) and dine like royalty.

Is it any wonder that half of all Britons do not believe in anthropogenic climate change?

The Sunday Telegraph reports:

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen.

Yet the sanctimonious finger pointers at this summit will demand YOU drive less, demand YOU pay more for a car that can accommodate your family.

Never mind you should fly less too, of course, stop going on overseas holidays, or planes should carry more people less often, pack them in tight unless you are going to the summit:

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

and if you want people to get angry at then:

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles.

Of course the delegates may have a new reason to go, if they feel a bit sex starved and think Danish women (or men) might be worth a try:

Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass.

So the conference need not just be an exercise in mutual onanism at the expense of global taxpayers and (if you believe what they claim to believe) the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, the man who ran Britain into the ground financially, with near constant financial deficits during the good times and who claims fiscal child abuse is "investment", thinks if you don't believe in climate change you're a "flat earther". Nice to see open debate is allowed by Gordon "Stalin" Brown, but then who cares what he thinks, economic genius as he is.

UPDATE: Why refer to Gordon Brown as Stalinist? Well no less than his former permanent secretary to the Treasury referred to his management style as such.

Daniel Hannan on Climate Change

The Conservative Party's best MEP, the somewhat libertarian Daniel Hannan expresses his view on climate change in the Daily Telegraph, and it is probably closest to my own:

I think the world is warming (I especially dislike the phase “climate change denial”: no one, as far as I’m aware, is positing climate stasis). And it may well be that human activity is playing some part in the process, although probably not to the degree claimed by some climate change professionals.

I also tend to agree with Nigel Lawson that adaptation would be more effective and cheaper than a programme of greenhouse gas reductions which, even according to its proponents, would slow global warming by only around 0.2 degrees.

So in other words, yes it might be warming, yes it might have some human contribution, but does it justify the draconian interventions being proposed? No. Is it the end of the world as some predict? No.

He characterises the core of the debate as follows:

Just as those who already believed in more regulation, more government, supra-nationalism and higher taxes honestly think that carbon emissions are overheating the planet, so libertarians and small government types honestly think that the whole thing is a crock. Each faction, convinced of its own sincerity, distrusts the motives of the other.

Which of course I do, it is seen most clearly in how the left hijacks this issue to wage war on international trade (because it likes protectionism and localism), the private car (because it is a symbol of individualism) and aviation, whilst being lukewarm on nuclear energy, eliminating trade barriers that could increase efficiency and reduce waste and cutting government barriers to low carbon industries. The holes appear when the Green Party ignores that increasing public transport is more likely to reduce people walking and cycling than switch people from driving, or when it seeks to ban foreign ships carrying domestic cargo between coastal ports as part of an international trip, because it supports the maritime unions and their Marxist closed shop agenda.

In other words, the policies promoted by the likes of the Green Party on climate change are in some cases fundamentally flawed, but in most cases are parallel with an agenda of more state control, more taxation, more regulation and less individual responsibility and freedom. The Green Party wouldn't promote people on welfare not breeding, even though that would reduce CO2 emissions.

Funny that.

What has happened is that a possible issue has been hijacked by one part of the political spectrum which has run off with grand solutions that come from the past, solutions that include enormous transfers of wealth to vested interests and in letting much of the world do nothing other than gain relatively from the kneecapping of developed economies.

It's about time that a new approach was taken to those who do this.

It's time for anyone promoting "climate change" policies to be honest about the costs of doing so, and what benefits will accrue. Real substantive benefits, and who will gain them. The true answer in most cases is "costs lots, gains nothing".

It's time for those arguing for any money to be spent on "climate change" to argue why it isn't better spent elsewhere.

It's time for those who seek to implement policies to address climate change to first, and foremost, advance policies that are consistent with less government, more freedom and more individual responsibility.

In other words, if we assume there is climate change and that there may be good reason to be cautious regarding it, what can governments do to get out of the way of individuals making better choices to reduce CO2 emissions, and let's not stop those wanting to voluntarily take their own steps to promote reducing emissions from doing so.

Finally, it may seem petty, but it is time to fisk the scum who continue to call those who question the climate change orthodoxy as deniers. They know they are seeking parallels with the Holocaust denial lowlives. Such language demeans and denigrates those who went through the Holocaust, by aligning the deliberate cruelty and sadism of that piece of history to theories of environmental changes that have largely occurred inadvertently. It also seeks to close any debate regarding the scale and extent of climate change, and the possible solutions.

Anyone using such language is beneath contempt.

So on climate change, first do no harm, and beware that all too many who want to do something, have a monomaniacal interest in reducing emissions at all costs, except, of course, the obvious option - which would be to do away with themselves.

How Copenhagen discriminates against the West

Now let's make a series of jumps, and say the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is about a problem, attributable to human emissions of CO2 and that the best way to solve it is through agreeing by international convention, for nation states to restrict emissions.

Bear with me on this, just assume this is all true.

Let's look at what countries would be bound by this. So called "industrialised economies and economies in transition" are the ones expected to shoulder most of the burden, on the basis that they have already "benefited" from using fossil fuels, emitting CO2 and clearing forests for habitation. So called "developing countries" are expected to should a far smaller burden. They were expected to do nothing under the Kyoto Agreement. This time they are expected to contribute to emission reduction targets, but should not have "their development" hindered.

The philosophy being that it is "unfair" for developing countries to not undertake the sort of economic development that industrialised countries have.

Bear with me further, and just assume this principle is fair.

What should define industrialised vs developing countries? A reasonable measure is GDP per capita, or rather what is produced in a country in goods and services divided by the population, converted into a standard currency such as the US$. There are variants using Purchasing Power Parity, but for the sake of simplicity, let's talk about GDP per Capita. A country with double the GDP per capita than New Zealand must surely be classified industrialised, right?

The countries listed as industrialised and in transition are (geographically broadly from west to east):
Canada, USA, all European Union member states (except Malta and Cyprus), Iceland, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, that's it. Almost all of Europe, the two wealthy North American states, rich Australasia and Japan.

The GDP per capita range of these countries (using the IMF listings in Wikipedia for 2008) would be from US$133,044 per person in Luxembourg to US$3,910 per person in Ukraine. A very wide range indeed. Now it would be fair to argue Ukraine, Belarus, both having GDP per capita well under US$10,000 should not be in this category, but probably are due to Russia not wanting to be disadvantaged, but that is besides the point.

New Zealand, by the way, is at US$30,030 per person, above 14 others, but beneath 21

What's a developing country?

That is far more interesting. You see the developing country with the highest GDP per capita is Qatar. A country that has benefited hugely from exporting fossil fuels. It has a GDP per capita of US$93,204. More than THREE times that of New Zealand, yet will be expected to have a fraction of the obligations New Zealand will be signing up to. Some might say Qatar is still developing. Maybe, but then who gets the US$93,204 per annum per person if many Qataris aren't wealthy already?

It isn't the only one. Here's a list of other "developing countries" that will not have their economies hindered by the forthcoming Copenhagen agreement, all of which are wealthier per person per annum than New Zealand:

United Arab Emirates US$55,028 (oil in Abu Dhabi and a couple of fast growing airlines)
Kuwait US$45,290 (oil)
Singapore US$38,972 (just quietly keeps "developing country" status)
Brunei US$37,053 (oil)

All of these countries, all of which either make a lot of money from others emitting CO2, or running businesses that do so, a lot (like airlines).

However, that's not all. There are umpteen others that also are "developing" but are still within the ballpark of industrialised countries' wealth per head that are EU member states:

Israel US$28,409
Bahrain US27,248
Bahamas US$22,359
Oman US$21,646
Trinidad and Tobago US$19,870
South Korea US$19,136
Saudi Arabia US$18,855
Taiwan US$16,988
Equatorial Guinea US$14,941 (one guess that per capita isn't helpful in this place)
Antigua and Barbuda US$14,556
Libya US$14,479
Barbados US$13,314
Venezuela US$11,388

So why is this so? Why do a bunch of oil rich Arab states and what were once the "tiger" economies of East Asia get left out?

Why do environmentalists not call for those states to be treated as "industrialised" given they have per capita wealth similar to those that are classified as such, and indeed are often profligate users of oil, with subsidised domestic fuel and the like?

Could it just simply be that this whole agenda carries with it the old fashioned anti-colonial view that "the West must pay", and so even those who are much wealthier than many in the West can do nothing in return?

If so, why is New Zealand signing up to something that does not demand the reclassification of all countries that are within the GDP per capita range of "industrialised countries" as no longer being "developing"? Mexico, for example, has a higher per capita GDP than Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania. So why are the former communist bloc countries being expected to change far more radically than Mexico?

Will any industrialised countries blast open this blatantly anti-Western (and Japanese and Turkish) nonsense?

Lord Stern loses the plot - some more

Lord Stern is known for his report on climate change for the British Government. He claimed the benefits of intervening to prevent climate change exceeded the costs, a cost of 1% of GDP to save "up to 20% of GDP". The report was warmly embraced by the usual suspects and widely condemned by others. Bjorn Lomborg said the numbers were dodgy, there have been other critiques of the analysis. However, let's set this all aside for a moment.

Now he has come about with claims that would frighten some, make many environmentalists smile, but overall look rather ridiculous.

He claims "southern Europe is likely to be a desert; hundreds of millions of people will have to move. There will be severe global conflict". Scaremongering is it not?

Furthermore, he wants people to stop eating meat: "Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet"

Mind you he isn't a vegetarian himself.

Nile Gardiner in the Daily Telegraph welcomes it though:

"Still, Lord Stern has done us all a favour. His monumentally silly remarks about turning the planet vegetarian will only drive another nail into the credibility of the climate hysteria movement. I look forward to his next interview on why we should all stop driving cars and return to using horse and cart. With the exception of course of gilded grandees who need a limo to the next UN conference on global warming."

For me, until those who are concerned about climate change advocate, first, getting rid of the vast panoply of state interventions that INCREASE CO2 emissions, I'm going to be sceptical about whether they really do want to balance human beings with the environment. What sort of things do I mean?

- Price controls on energy including limits to the profits energy companies can make, and subsidies to consumers;
- Subsidies for any modes of motorised transport, including governments not demanding a real profit from their own transport assets;
- Subsidies for agriculture and trade restrictions on agricultural products that keep efficient producers (like New Zealand for dairy products and Thailand for rice) from supplying countries with inefficient producers (like the EU and Japan);
- Subsidies and protectionism for the motor vehicle industry, aircraft manufacturing sector, steel industry, indeed any industry at all that uses high amounts of electricity or fossil fuels;
- Welfare that rewards breeding;
- Subsidised waste disposal and landfills.