« My Mom | Main | Nothing Unbalanced About So-called "Trade Deficits"» Don Boudreaux
March 29, 2008
"Earth Hour" and the Dark Ages
Don Boudreaux
The World Wildlife Fund arranged today's "Earth Hour" -- a pledge by many people from around the world to turn off lights for an hour. The following is from a page on the WWF website:
Earth Hour is a global event created to symbolize that each one of us, working together, can make a positive impact on climate change - no matter who we are or where we live.
Created by WWF in Sydney, Australia in 2007, Earth Hour has grown from a single event into a global movement. In 2008, millions of people, businesses, governments and civic organizations in nearly 200 cities around the globe will turn out for Earth Hour. More than 35 US cities will participate, including the US flagships--Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix and San Francisco.
Earth Hour brings together communities, local governments, corporate and nongovernmental organizations to heighten awareness about climate change and to inspire our nation to take practical actions to reduce their own carbon footprints.
Reading about the WWF's "Earth Hour" -- and hearing on the radio and t.v. too many mindless endorsements of this stunt, and seeing Google's special black "Earth Hour" design for its opening page today -- I sent the following letter to Carter Roberts, President of the WWF:
Dear Mr. Roberts:
You and members of your organization worry that industrialization and economic growth are harming the earth's environment. I worry that the intensifying hysteria about the state of the environment - and that the resulting hostility to economic growth - might harm humankind's prospects for comfortable, healthy, enjoyable, and long lives.
So I commend you on your "Earth Hour" effort. Persuading people across the globe to turn off lights for one hour supplies the perfect symbol for modern environmentalism: a collective effort to return humankind to the dark ages.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
By the way, of course, the WWF should award some special prize to the North Korean government, for that government keeps North Koreans not in any meager "Earth Hour," or even "Earth Day," but in what WWFers might call "Earth Decades" -- very little light ever. This picture of the Korean peninsula speaks volumes -- the Dark Ages today; a society keeping its carbon footprint tiny. Of course, in doing so it keeps itself also desperately poor, often even to the point of starvation.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Energy, Environment, Myths and Fallacies, Reality Is Not Optional, Religion | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/27571052
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Earth Hour" and the Dark Ages:
Comments
I actually agree with D. Boudreaux on this one. I remember reading how a wag pointed out that there are still plenty of people who live the way our people did centuries ago - they're generally referred as 'developing countries'. I personally prefer to hear about new technological developments which could have the capacity for having all the modern advantages without the polluting disadvantages than hearing about 'going back to a simpler, gentler way of living'.
After all, the last time everyone lived in the quaint time of organic farms was the Medeval period and the world population was around 500 million . . .
Posted by: Gil | Mar 29, 2008 10:46:36 AM
I love the last paragraph of your letter. It briefy encapsulates what environmentalism is all about, plus it's pretty clever.
Posted by: Ryan | Mar 29, 2008 11:35:55 AM
Too bad this entire movement is based on fake science.
PS, I am unaware that we in Phoenix will participate. If I do become aware, I will load the family into my suv, and go for an extra long drive, lowering the windows and cranking both music and ac.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 11:39:57 AM
Furthermore, I remember a suggestion by a local politician (I can't remember for which city) who proposed turning off street lights for a while during the night(s?) when Halley's Comet was at its peak visibility (April 1986). But it was rejected for fear it would allow criminals to roam free under the cover of virtual darkness.
Posted by: Gil | Mar 29, 2008 12:09:36 PM
And to compensate for this stupidity, I am performing monthly maintenance on all of our computers on the network, and have them fired up. This will cause this room to heat up fairly significantly, so I will crank the house ac.
And I will be comfortable.
Screw Google.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:14:28 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of earth hour. It represents one of the most crude methods of achieving environmental goals: by compelling people (either through guilt or delusions of grandeur) to engage in irrational acts of self-denial that will probably not produce any meaningful reduction in pollution anyway. Furthermore, it represents a very narrow-minded perception of the conflict between environmental and economic goals; namely, that they are a zero-sum game, and one set can only be achieved by dominating the other in public action and discourse.
While, unfortunately, I cannot express surprise at the WWF adopting such an attitude, I was somewhat surprised to find the same sediments expressed here: talking about how earth hour was the perfect metaphor for modern environmentalism returning us to the dark ages. As someone who has studied both environmental biology and (to a lesser degree) economics, I find it disheartening how often environmentalists and economists feel they have to take antagonistic attitudes towards each other. Just as there are some real dangers in pretending that we are destabilizing the ecosystems that support us, there are also many ways we can go about compensating; some of which incur much less economic collateral damage than others. Additionally, not all environmental goals connect back to human welfare, and are probably not worth making significant economic sacrifices for. How well will these distinctions be made in a polarized discourse?
Posted by: William Werner | Mar 29, 2008 12:34:14 PM
Edit: in pretending that we are *not* destablizing ecosystems
My apologies for the mistake the first time
Posted by: William Werner | Mar 29, 2008 12:37:28 PM
Mesa,
My plan for earth hour is to turn on every light, TV and any other electronic piece of equipment to full capacity at home and as well as on the trading floor (we have some unresolved tech issues scheduled for this weekend anyway). I plan to produce such glow that my @#&% house will be visible from space. Aliens will think it's a supernova.
Incentives are bitch.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 29, 2008 12:58:51 PM
I do not agree or disagree with either WWF or Don Boudreaux as to the fruitful outcome of earth hour, but I do observe something critical which doesn't seem to garner attention in this blog. It is very obvious to myself and any individual that has analyzed anything that when an observer is detached from the reality of which some call "facts on the ground" they do not make prudent decisions regarding the issue. I am not referring to Boudreaux being detached, I am referring to the mass of people who may or may not be willing participants in this earth hour. Having something like this earth hour (my only familiarity is what I read here) may have a very positive effect on the minds of those participating. Imagine the modern world dipping into the dark ages for an hour, it could be a very strong moment of clarity for the minds which understand the implications of earth hour. This clarity would be a wonderful stimulus for the development of new methods to maintain our modern style of living. There is very bad science out there, but unfortunately there is very bad philosophy out there to jade good science. All motion needs a cause, and medium between what is and what could become, earth hour could have an impact that is static, like returning us to the dark ages, or it can have a dynamic response, like the realization that energy is not a constant ad infinitum.
I favor anything that is voluntary which can produce this dynamic possibility. I would not favor the mandate of earth hour by a government unto its citizens, I think the natural world mandates these exercises intuitively, humans need not mess with natural order.
Posted by: Brian-NJ | Mar 29, 2008 1:05:59 PM
I participated in Earth Hour today. All the lights in my apartment were off for many hours. It's called sleeping.
Posted by: John Payne | Mar 29, 2008 1:09:33 PM
Perhaps we can encourage people to look at Earth Hour as a reminder of all the blessings we enjoy as a result of our industry and technological development.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 29, 2008 1:41:28 PM
William, as long as the environmentalism movement is hijacked by socialists, expect that kind of categorical antagonism towards quote-environmentalists-unquote.
Posted by: Jacob Oost | Mar 29, 2008 2:26:16 PM
And I can see why people might be categorically antagonistic. But it has the unfortunate consequence of leading to an us-and-them mentality between two groups with very different bodies of knowledge that should be collaborating and cooperating. I would contend that claiming that environmentalism has been hijacked by socialists is an overstatement, but if we go with it anyway for now, why do you think the socialists were able to hijack it in the first place?
Posted by: William Werner | Mar 29, 2008 2:43:38 PM
William,
Because once the socialists were unable to claim that socialism is superior due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, they needed to find another excuse to inflict socialism. Since the environmentalists wish to impose their agenda on the unwilling, the match between socialists and environmentalists comes naturally. They were made for each other.
I'm naturally antagonistic toward anyone wishing to impose their will on me. However, I have solar powered outdoor lights, all my flashlights are hand-crank, my lights are on dimmers, I'm a stickler for turning off lights, I keep my thermostat high in summer and low in winter, I prefer to walk instead of drive whenever I can and I don't run my washing machine unless I have a full load. I plan to incorporate skylights to the house I'm building to reduce my use of electricity and collect rain water to water my plants. I do this not to save mother earth but because I like natural light and I'm cheap.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 29, 2008 3:03:54 PM
It is in fact true that the "new left" and former/current socialists were a dominant force in creating, and are still a dominant force in funding and driving, the (more radical parts of) environmental movement. They are also (still) among the more radical union leaders, anti-globalization, feminists, (what remains of) black power, and various other one-issue groups.
There is a natural synergy for anti-globalization, union/labor power, and environmentalism because they can push their economic agenda, and don't need to say that it amounts to socialism, since that has more narrow appeal since the fall. The other movements allow them to push their social agenda and social control by government.
Posted by: liberty | Mar 29, 2008 3:20:59 PM
Methinks is awesome.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 3:25:19 PM
Comments from the founder of Greenpeace.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 29, 2008 5:02:06 PM
Well said, Dr. Boudreaux. Slam dunk!! ;-)
Posted by: Speedmaster | Mar 29, 2008 6:57:08 PM
First Earth Day and now an Earth Hour is added. Inflation?
Posted by: Dano | Mar 29, 2008 6:58:12 PM
liberty:
what all those disparate groups have in common is one thing: hate for America. To them it must be brought down at any cost. That's why they never engage in debate. A real, open and honest debate would reveal all the facts of socialism and many undecideds would turn away from the anti-American crowd forever. They can't afford that, so they engage in vitriol and demonization non-stop.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 29, 2008 6:59:16 PM
FreedomLover,
I wouldn't take it so personally. Its not just America they hate, its all capitalists.
Posted by: liberty | Mar 29, 2008 7:41:02 PM
I will not be participating in the latest bit of ecoterrorism tonite!
Posted by: Tim G | Mar 29, 2008 8:01:42 PM
Methinks is awesome.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy
I concur.
Posted by: mnm | Mar 29, 2008 8:16:55 PM
Persuading people across the globe to turn off lights for one hour supplies the perfect symbol for modern environmentalism: a collective effort to return humankind to the dark ages.
ZZZZZING!! HE SHOOTS, HE SCORES!!
What a beautifully simple analysis. Things have long ago passed the point of ridiculous absurdity. Thanks for helping to point it out in such a pithy manner.
Posted by: Scott | Mar 29, 2008 8:50:10 PM
Brilliant comments Dr. Bordreaux. Brilliant.
Posted by: Jacob | Mar 29, 2008 9:22:59 PM
Yes, let us all emulate the monstrous regime of North Korea.
Posted by: Michael Mace | Mar 29, 2008 10:14:51 PM
I turned extra lights on, to celebrate the increase in prosperity available to us through the use of non-animal energy.
Posted by: Russell Nelson | Mar 30, 2008 2:09:10 AM
I have a feeling that before this thread is exhausted, Vidyohs will have another entry for his list.
Posted by: brotio | Mar 30, 2008 4:40:40 AM
I have often wondered why the Left worships Cuba in spite of its extreme poverty, then it hit me: they worship Cuba BECAUSE of its poverty. As Dr. Boudreaux points out, the N Koreans aren't damaging the environment, in the minds of environmentalists anyway, because they are poor. In the same way, Cubans are too poor to afford cars, large houses, and lots of lighting, so they have a very, very tiny environmental "foot print". Socialists used to want just equality through government ownership. Since their adoption of enviromentalism they want equality and poverty (a return to the Dark Ages) in order to protect the planet. That also explains their infatuation with pre-modern Europe: poverty is good.
Posted by: fundamentalist | Mar 30, 2008 9:29:26 AM
I have often wondered why the Left worships Cuba in spite of its extreme poverty, then it hit me: they worship Cuba BECAUSE of its poverty. As Dr. Boudreaux points out, the N Koreans aren't damaging the environment, in the minds of environmentalists anyway, because they are poor. In the same way, Cubans are too poor to afford cars, large houses, and lots of lighting, so they have a very, very tiny environmental "foot print". Socialists used to want just equality through government ownership. Since their adoption of enviromentalism they want equality and poverty (a return to the Dark Ages) in order to protect the planet. That also explains their infatuation with pre-modern Europe: poverty is good.
Posted by: fundamentalist | Mar 30, 2008 9:30:02 AM
The hostility towards environmentalists I sense here is probably warranted. But let's not forget that environmentalists have championed important causes over the past four decades.
The quality of air and water in the U.S. is markedly better than 37 years ago. Certainly the environmentally-conscious deserve much credit for this. Not all who are environmentally-counscious are also socialists and hostile to economic growth.
The Nature Conservancy represents the other side of the environmental movement. They have:
"protected more than 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of rivers worldwide"
How did they accomplish this?
"We pursue non-confrontational, pragmatic solutions to conservation challenges."
In the U.S., The Nature Conservancy's chief conservation method is land acquisition.
Personally, I'm a skeptic about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. But I'm not skeptical about the harm humans have done to the planet, such as depositing millions of tons of plastic waste into the oceans, or the continued destruction of tropical rain forests. I do worry about such human-caused harm, while at the same time rejecting the call for halting economic growth.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 9:38:48 AM
Congratulations!
Instead of bringing forward some better and more rational proposals that will help to avoid that hysteria that indeed clouds the environmental issues and could cause the remedies to be worse than the sickness, and help the world to be able to use scarce resources wisely and effective… you live up to your role as an educator, as a beacon of light… and just make fun of it all.
“Return humankind to the dark ages” “Gee what a splendidly witty phrase!” “Got to post it!”
Has it not briefly passed through your head that you are just mirroring the hysteria on the other side? And, if you do not think that we indeed have a very serious environmental problem on our hands and that we need to solve it with lots and lots of rationality and even that might not prove to be enough, well then might I recommend perhaps summer school, Dear Mr. PhD?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 9:43:59 AM
methinks: "Since the environmentalists wish to impose their agenda on the unwilling"
That is a broad generalization. Many environmentalists prefer to use persuasion.
Don't think for a moment that environmentalists are the only group who seek the power of government in the "green" versus profits confrontation. Corporations and business owners have bribed politicians in their efforts to continue fouling the earth.
I'm not sure how libertarians feel about air and water pollution. But how can the collective voice of the people - acting through government - not be involved in preventing uncaring polluters from destroying our air and water?
Methinks, if plastic bags are cheaper than biodegradable paper ones, would you prefer the former?
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 9:50:43 AM
Insane.
If anything, we'll be using far more electricity in the future than we do now. With oil prices where they are, plug-in cars will become increasingly more practical, and that will require a lot of new power production.
The environmentalists would be better off pushing for French-style nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants than this bizarre head-in-the-sand attitude.
Posted by: Chris | Mar 30, 2008 10:05:08 AM
Shucks, mnm & Mes...you make me blush...right back atcha.
That is a broad generalization. Many environmentalists prefer to use persuasion. - John Dewey
Yes, it is a broad generalization, John. But I spout off enough on this blog and sometimes I just have to pick a stopping point. I know a few environmentalists personally and their goal is to make "environmentally friendly" alternatives more economic so that people will choose them rather than be forced to buy in. The groups they associate themselves with are of a similar mindset. But they aren't aggressive and don't seek to pass legislation or pull idiotic stunts and the enviro-terrorists and Algore are and do. They are after all, the ones who came up with the "bright" idea of forcing people to recycle paper which creates a bigger environmental hazard than making paper from scratch. It seems that half of what they do - including pushing organic farming (which requires more land and more deforestation than "conventional" methods) - is actually detrimental to the environment.
Socialism is not the only reason to want a clean environment. I don't want to wade through trash and breathe crud every day.
Methinks, if plastic bags are cheaper than biodegradable paper ones, would you prefer the former?
PLASTIC BAGS? Who the hell uses plastic bags anymore? I've been using the same canvas bags for 10 years. Plus, you don't have to wonder what to do with that giant growing ball of plastic grocery bags which in Manhattan turn into nasty, filthy kites on windy days. Canvas. Really, people, it'll change your life!
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 10:28:43 AM
How exactly does conservation conflict with free market economic goals? All of these ad hominem attacks by Don and the comments reveal a dogmatic view and lack of a real argument. I wouldn't have even thought that conservation and dealing with our resources wisely would be counter to economic goals.
Posted by: Josh Nankivel | Mar 30, 2008 10:43:16 AM
“Return humankind to the dark ages” “Gee what a splendidly witty phrase!” “Got to post it!”
Per Kurowski
That's right Per, environmentalism is exactly the opposite of a Dark Ages mentality. It's about enlightenment.
We are the first species to recognize we have to plan our future rather then head for the cliffs like some mindless lemmings.
Poor planning is why we've spent trillions of dollars and grown a dependency on middle eastern oil. These guys sit and drink clean water and clean air completely oblivious that it was a result of good planning countering an externality the market would not correct for.
They hate the idea of a need to plan because in their simple minded BLACK an White world that goes against everything they stand for incapable of seeing shades of grey. And it's to the point were they are capable of completely denying scientific data and evidence to preserve and protect an ideology based on weak simple-minded and rigid thinking.
I didn't specifically respect the Earth hour but any one who thinks the idea of doing this one a year is pointless must also believe that church goers who do the same once a week praying to some god they believe is watching them from the clouds is even more ridiculous.
I love church. For like this morning while they are all doing their weekly equivalent of Earth hour... I'll be out hiking in nature looking at the incredible flower display with my wife being enlightened and communing with nature our true creator.
Going to church... now that is Dark Ages! But please do keep attending as it keeps my church empty the way I like it.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 30, 2008 10:46:03 AM
Zeitgeist on religion. This is great stuff. Can start right at the 3 minute mark to get to the best part. But the whole portion of Zeitgeist on religion is great. It's fun to help people of religion realize that their religion is simply something some one made up using an adaptation of Paganism simply to control them.
Have fun at Church today all especially those of you who think your belief is some how superior to what people do when they honor Earth Hour.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 30, 2008 10:55:54 AM
I didn't specifically respect the Earth hour.... - Muirpid
What! You didn't turn off life support machines and the incubators in the NICU for an hour? Was that planned hypocrisy?
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 11:27:30 AM
So it turns out Phoenix did observe this ridiculous exercise, mostly downtown (where nobody lives).
The rotating restaurant at the top of the Hyatt flipped their lights off and had diners enjoy a candlelit dinner….so they could enjoy the city lights.
That’s how stupid this exercise was.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 30, 2008 11:36:45 AM
[closing italics tag]
Environmentalism is the new religion.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 30, 2008 11:37:47 AM
Sorry for the open tag. how embarrassing.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 11:44:50 AM
No worries, Methinks.
And as a religion, AGW has its own Torquemada: Al Gore. James Hansen and Michael Mann are equally insidious.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 30, 2008 11:58:11 AM
Muirgeo quoting Kurowski, "We are the first species to recognize we have to plan our future rather then head for the cliffs like some mindless lemmings.
If only he grokked what he writes.
Innovation, being a product of the human mind, is more bountiful the more human minds you have in a position to innovate.
Central planning limits innovation to only a few human minds which means much less innovation.
Central planners cannot know all the information they need to know in order to make the decisions that would be required of them. Nor do they have the processing power to process all the information if they had access to it, which they don't.
So no, it isn't free-marketers that are simple minded.
There are real market solutions to environmental issues yet left-wing environmentalists would rather focus on mindless symbolism such as 'Earth-hour'.
Posted by: Marcus | Mar 30, 2008 11:58:52 AM
Per Kurowskiduck,
It is a fact that the Moon's garvitational pull visibly affects the oceans and therefore must be assumed to be also exerting influences on our atmosphere as well, both of which, oceans and atmosphere, are important compenents in determining our climate. Do you suppose that by landing on the moon those years ago man (evil USA) affected the pull and influence of the Moon on the Earth? Consider, it happened at just eh right moment to begin reversing the predicted Global Ice Age and they did leave footprints and tire tracks that could be acting on the Moon like dimples on a golf ball.
I bet that is what it is. Hey, it's as good a theory as what you can offer. Just should have never gone to the Moon. Maybe if we went back, hovered and erased the footprints and tire tracks we could smooth things out and keep going into our ice age.
"Has it not briefly passed through your head that you are just mirroring the hysteria on the other side? And, if you do not think that we indeed have a very serious environmental problem on our hands and that we need to solve it with lots and lots of rationality and even that might not prove to be enough, well then might I recommend perhaps summer school, Dear Mr. PhD?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 9:43:59 AM"
Has it not briefly passed through your head that Prof Boudreax is perfectly within context to mirror the loony left envriowhackos with his own hyperbole?
Has it briefly passed through your head that you display a massive huge humongus grand stupendous collossal ego to believe that man, measley ass piss ant man, can solve and fix the climate on any scale? Especially considering that we have only just begun to understand the relation of tides and ocean currents to natural climate changes, much less been able to command the tides and redirect the ocean currents.
Has it briefly passed through your head that the pissly measly amount of CO2 man produces pales alongside of what mother Earth produces herself, and again that ego I mentioned above moves you to tell us that we can fix it?
That's muirpidity on a level that is mind boggling.
Summer school? To paraphrase, "Per Kurowskeduck, heal thyself."
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 1:15:53 PM
The trouble with a government plan for the future is that such plans are difficult to change when it is discovered that the plan did not take into account future events which render the plan obsolete.
The USSR had lots of plans. Lots and lots of plans.
The one thing they could not plan for is change.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 30, 2008 1:39:05 PM
Going to church... now that is Dark Ages! But please do keep attending as it keeps my church empty the way I like it.
Posted by: muirgeo
Now I understand why Methinks and Mesa get so fraustrated with you muirgeo. Your an elitist. How quaint.
Posted by: mnm | Mar 30, 2008 1:41:52 PM
As for the environmental movement, please read this article by the founder of Greenpeace.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 30, 2008 1:42:30 PM
The one thing they could not plan for is change - Sam
Once that book arrives, you'll be in possession of a hysterical illustration of the fact that not only could the soviets not plan for change, but they couldn't even plan for the plan.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 2:00:14 PM
Progressives are elitist.
The use of the label "Progessive" is meant to imply that they are forward looking while others are not, hence their fondness for 'plans' which they wish to impose on the rest of us.
As they are possessed of beneficent intention, they excuse themselves, or more likely, blame others, if their plans cause problems for 'the people' they desire to rule over, as it is obvious to them that good intentions are sufficient to produce desired results.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 30, 2008 2:13:09 PM
Here are some sobering facts about air pollution and the vehicles we love. Krazy, but true!
Posted by: Tom | Mar 30, 2008 2:14:57 PM
Here are some sobering facts about air pollution and the vehicles we love. Krazy, but true!
http://www.krazyfacts.com/2008/03/check-out-earthhourorg.html
Posted by: Tom | Mar 30, 2008 2:16:09 PM
Sam Grove writes, "As they are possessed of beneficent intention, they excuse themselves, or more likely, blame others, if their plans cause problems for 'the people' they desire to rule over, as it is obvious to them that good intentions are sufficient to produce desired results."
For a modern example one need look no further than Venezuela and the shortages inflicted upon the people by central planners.
And what does Chavez do? Blame everyone else.
Posted by: Marcus | Mar 30, 2008 2:29:39 PM
What does "pollutants" include?
I would assume right off the bat that CO2 is included, even though plants love CO2.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 30, 2008 3:03:08 PM
“There are real market solutions to environmental issues yet left-wing environmentalists would rather focus on mindless symbolism such as 'Earth-hour'.”
Posted by: Marcus | Mar 30, 2008 11:58:52 AM
I agree, full heartedely, 'Earth-hour' symbolism sounds quite lame given the threaths, and might actually prove to be dangerous distracting; and so please let us hear your suggestions of “real market solutions to environmental issues”
“For a modern example one need look no further than Venezuela and the shortages inflicted upon the people by central planners.”
Posted by: Marcus | Mar 30, 2008 2:29:39 PM
Please, I am much against central planning; even when it is outsourced to private credit rating agencies and having them measuring risk, whatever that is, instead of some bureaucrats … but I would never go as far as blaming the profession of central planners for what is happening in Venezuela… that is far more crazy than central planning running amok.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 3:52:43 PM
sdam Grove: "What does "pollutants" include? I would assume right off the bat that CO2 is included"
In December, 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency began operations. The agency immediately began estimating the levels of 6 pollutants deemed most dangerous to humans:
1. carbon monoxide
2. ozone
3. nitrogen oxides
4. particulate matter
5. sulfur dioxide
6. lead
From 1970 to 2006:
- U.S. population increased 32%;
- vehicle miles traveled increased 101%;
- U.S. energy consumption has increased 29%
- total emissions of those six defined pollutants decreased 49%.
IMO, the U.S., acting both voluntarily and by regulation, has been enormously successful in reducing "true" air pollution.
One year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the definition of "polutant" covered by the Clean Air Act was sweeping, and could include greenhouse gases - gases that are not necessarily harmful to humans by themselves.
I'm not exactly sure that the EPA has determined yet, following the interpretation by the Court, that it must regulate CO2.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 4:12:28 PM
“Do you suppose that by landing on the moon those years ago man (evil USA) affected the pull and influence of the Moon on the Earth?”
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 1:15:53 PM
Would not have the faintest clue, I am just an MBA, not even a PhD… but, while your on it, could you please indicate me whether the landing of a man on the moon was a public or a private effort… and who did the planning?
“Has it briefly passed through your head that you display a massive huge humongus grand stupendous collossal ego to believe that man, measley ass piss ant man, can solve and fix the climate on any scale?”
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 1:15:53 PM
Could be… but at least that is, using your exquisite and refined language that tells us so much of your parents´ private educational effort, much less measlyasspissantly than not even trying.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 4:15:41 PM
Correction:
The above trends were based on 1980 to 2006 data. The trends for 1970 to 2006:
- U.S. population increased 46%;
- vehicle miles traveled increased 177%;
- U.S. energy consumption has increased 49%
- total emissions of six defined pollutants decreased 54%.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 4:18:06 PM
Please, I am much against central planning; even when it is outsourced to private credit rating agencies and having them measuring risk, whatever that is, instead of some bureaucrats - Per Kurkowski
What do you mean by that? What does central planning have to do with private credit rating agencies and risk measurement? Please explain what you mean as it is rather confusing..
Also, could you please clear up what you meant by:
but I would never go as far as blaming the profession of central planners for what is happening in Venezuela
What exactly is the profession of central planning?
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 4:46:46 PM
“What does central planning have to do with private credit rating agencies and risk measurement? Please explain what you mean as it is rather confusing..”
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 4:46:46 PM
Central planning is believing that you could do it better than the markets by well thought out decisions and concerted actions, taken, commanded and frequently executed by the government or an agent for the government.
The financial regulators in Basel (group to which the USA belongs) came up with the idea (indeed a silly dream) that you could drive risk out of banks and so they set up a system of minimal capital requirements for the banks that is based solely on the risk of default, as defined and as measured by the private contractors that we know as credit rating agencies.
Now if you tell me that is not a typical action of central planning (quite ingeniously disguised as private) then please tell me what is? For instance what would you say if the credit rating agents had instead been working from some offices in the Federal Reserve banks?
We hear a lot lately about market failure… but the hard truth is that all those lousily awarded subprime mortgages would have gone nowhere, had it no been for the prime wings given to them by the credit rating agencies.
“Also, could you please clear up what you meant by:… but I would never go as far as blaming the profession of central planners for what is happening in Venezuela”
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 4:46:46 PM
Ordinary central planning include the use of professionals with reasonable qualifications and background; and who know that if you impose strict price controls you will sooner or later face scarcities; and who know that if you sell the gas for only 3 cents a gallon while anywhere else it is worth 60 cents you are simply nuts.
Who we currently have in Venezuela doing the planning and what they are coming up with, has nothing whatever remotely to do with the frequently failed but still often respectful profession of central planners.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 5:28:00 PM
Would not have the faintest clue, I am just an MBA, not even a PhD… but, while your on it, could you please indicate me whether the landing of a man on the moon was a public or a private effort… and who did the planning?
Yes, it was a lovely show.
A lot of work just to prove that we could do it.
Where has government space exploration taken us in the last 38 years? Besides lots of lucrative NASA contracts and pretty pictures?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 30, 2008 5:28:57 PM
Genuine environmentalism isn't about politics at all, at its heart is about economics, about controlling externalities. Look no further than Milton Friedman himself, who wrote about using taxation to combat pollution back in the late fifties/early sixties when the left was still in quasi-Marxist mode.
Posted by: Jacob Oost | Mar 30, 2008 5:36:05 PM
Where has government space exploration taken us in the last 38 years? Besides lots of lucrative NASA contracts and pretty pictures?
Posted by: Sam Grove
I couldn't have said better, Sam.
Posted by: mnm | Mar 30, 2008 6:06:12 PM
Per Kurkowski,
Thanks for the explanation. I'm not that intimately familiar with the details of the Basel Accord and what the requirements for the tiers of capital are.
"but the hard truth is that all those lousily awarded subprime mortgages would have gone nowhere, had it no been for the prime wings given to them by the credit rating agencies."
I don't think this is a credit rating problem. Overly tight credit spreads became a feature across all credit products and rating. When tightening credit spreads are combined with loosening lending standards, it becomes a recipe for disaster. As teaser rates expired and rates adjusted upward, the first mortgages to default - predictably - were subprime and so it was dubbed a "subprime crisis". But the "crisis" (such as it is) extends to all credit products. It's not just subprime borrowers are at risk of default, it's all marginal borrowers in both the subprime and prime market.
Who we currently have in Venezuela doing the planning and what they are coming up with, has nothing whatever remotely to do with the frequently failed but still often respectful profession of central planners.
You lost me there. What is so respectable about a profession that always produces sub-optimal results? If central planning always produces results that are less optimal than the free market, then the difference between a good central planner and a bad one is only degrees of sub-optimal. What's so good and respectable about that?
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 6:41:41 PM
Per Kurowski, "I agree, full heartedely, 'Earth-hour' symbolism sounds quite lame given the threaths, and might actually prove to be dangerous distracting; and so please let us hear your suggestions of “real market solutions to environmental issues”"
Perhaps against the grain of some who post on this forum I am one who thinks it is a legitimate role of government to develop policies that address externalities in the market. Those policies should, imo, as light-handidly as possible, address internalizing the costs of such externalities.
Never the less, here's an entirely voluntary idea I've been contemplating upon to give market value to rainforests:
Pull together the capital necessary to buy up vast tracks of rainforest and hold the land in a trust and sell shares to the trust on the market. Presumably, the total market value of the shares should equal the raw land value of the forest which will give the original investors much of their investment back to reinvest in turning a profit which I'll get to shortly. I'm not certain a land trust is the right holding because we need to be able to pay dividends to share our profits with investors but that's a technicality that can readily be worked out.
Next, how to make money. Hire an independent group of scientists to calculate and certify the yearly CO2 sink capacity of our forest and then sell the certified rainforest CO2 sink vouchers on the market for people and companies who want to offset their carbon emissions.
These vouchers, unlike the worthless fiat vouchers of Kyoto and the like, actually represent sunk carbon which, in theory, give them value above said fiat vouchers. Also, being vouchers supplied by rainforest should give them additional value as purchasing such vouchers help save the rainforests.
There are, of course, other productive uses of a rainforest that could bring in cash flow such as tourism, scientific research and nature programming. A bright, young entrepreneur might even come up with an Internet application or two.
I'm still thinking on how to go about marketizing other natural rainforest products. But that's one idea.
Posted by: Marcus | Mar 30, 2008 6:45:01 PM
Some folks seem to conflate issues and problems. Further, many dummies get suckered by rhetoric.
The biggest false belief is "Global Climate Change".
There's no such thing as "Global Climate".
All climates are local. A climate is the seasonal pattern owing to the blend of prevailing winds and prevailing temperatures in relation to topographical forms.
Prevailing winds and temperatures relate solely to the where in time the earth is within its revolution around the sun.
Further, the only source of heat for the surface of earth is the sun.
In truth, the sun is the only source of heat for the Solar System (hence the name, dummies).
All pollution is local, whether from a gushing chemical drain pipe or bellowing smokestack.
Pollution does not cause climate. Since pollution cannot change prevailing winds, prevailing temperatures and since pollution cannot change the earth's solar orbit, pollution cannot drive any of the many climates you can experience upon the earth.
"Global Climate Change" is a phrase of political rhetoric designed to get dummies to surrender control of energy and matter resources to an elite cabal run by a Technocracy.
The former Soviet Union gives plenty of evidence as to what happens when a Technocracy controls resources. Incessant meddlesome planners by technocrats lead to shortages and unrest by the rabble.
When unrest becomes threatening to power, the Technocracy moves into action and murders tens of thousands.
Likewise, when a Power Plutocracy hijack a Free Money System of Specie and institute a Paper Money Scheme, almost the same problems and outcomes follow.
When money is specie, you own it. You can melt into bars or ingots. When times look better, you can mint it into coins.
When money is paper, those in Power own it. What you have in your wallets, your purses is not your money. It's theirs. What you have in checking accounts is not your money. It's their promises.
When money has private trade value, no problems exist. Under free specie money, you can hoard when bank credit-based expansion turns into mania.
When money becomes fiat-valued and owned by the state, insiders in Power know ahead of time the changes to rules in laws that affect investment. They place their bets, change the rules.
Once done, they entice the Everday Man through intermediaries to "get rich quick". When Insiders of Power see the scheme nearing running out of new players, they cash out.
When their paper money that you hold falls in relative value to other money (Euros, Yen), prices of all stuff goes up, as foreigners can outbid locals for resources.
When the dumb rabble become too threatening over a loss of good living owing to now too expensive resources, the Power Plutocracy move toward rhetorical schemes of conservation.
When that effort begins to fail, the Power Plutocracy mobilize the dumb rabble into totalitarian war against bogeymen -- "those guys over there are causing the high prices of oil, food electricity!"
Specie money lets you control your futures. Paper money lets those in Power control your futures.
You, your parents and their parents gave up Freedom for this scheme back in 1913. You, your parents and their parents have begged to leech off fellow citizens for crumbs of welfare. You, your parents and their parents fell for the sweet lies of Utopian Socialist Statist schemes.
Until you change your ways and give up your surrogate daddies who tell you what to do and how to live, you will suffer.
Now, you are getting your just desserts.
Posted by: Smack MacDoogal | Mar 30, 2008 7:11:01 PM
Marcus,
"Next, how to make money. Hire an independent group of scientists to calculate and certify the yearly CO2 sink capacity of our forest and then sell the certified rainforest CO2 sink vouchers on the market for people and companies who want to offset their carbon emissions."
During El Nino years the Amazon basin emits CO2, it does not consume it. In other words it isn't a CO2 sink, it is a CO2 source. The
Woodshole Geo Institue discovered this in the early 1990s.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 7:20:27 PM
Smack, I take it you haven't bothered to seriously study Milton Friedman's work? And I mean his actual policies and principles, not the hash that others have made of them.
Posted by: Jacob Oost | Mar 30, 2008 7:34:17 PM
"I'm still thinking on how to go about marketizing other natural rainforest products. But that's one idea."
Posted by: Marcus | Mar 30, 2008 6:45:01 PM
And as I read it you’re off to a good start, much better than those investing in our current sources for biofuels by means of subsidies or even worsening the environment situation and to top it up thinking they are following genuine market forces.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 8:04:12 PM
Per Kurowski: "while your on it, could you please indicate me whether the landing of a man on the moon was a public or a private effort… and who did the planning?"
Oh, it had to be funded and controlled by the U.S. government, of course.
There's no way a private firm would have engaged in so profitless and purposeless activity.
There's no way the U.S. military would have allowed control of space to be in the hands of private firms.
There's no way anyone other than a government freed of the burden of legal liability could have undertaken such a dangerous endeavor.
Who actually planned and performed the task of getting man on the moon? I think it was scientists and engineers from:
- North American Aviation Corporation who planned, designed, and built the Command/Service Module;
- Grumman Corporation, who planned, designed, and built the Lunar Module;
- Boeing Corporation and the Douglas Corporation, together with IBM Corporation, who designed and built the Saturn V Booster Rocket;
-Raytheon Corporation who designed and fabricated the Apollo Guidance Computer;
- the 20,000 other industrial firms and private consulting partnerships who handled various tasks under management of the lead contractors.
Surely the overall program was "managed" by NASA and the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. But it was the private industry contractors who put it together. The Apollo moon mission was most certainly accomplished by the U.S. private sector.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 8:11:31 PM
Per Kurowski: "to top it up thinking they are following genuine market forces."
Who believes that biofuels - I assume you mean ethanol - are being developed through "genuine market forces"? Where have you heard that?
"Genuine market forces" are busy at work right now ensuring the survival of forests in the U.S. My own father-in-law planted many thousands of pine seedlings on his pine forest plantation over the past decade to replace the trees he sold for a profit. I'm certain his intent is to realize a huge profit by selling his forest over time to International Paper for a profit.
Private landowners such as my father-in-law do not need government incentives to provide forests with CO2 sink capacity. All they need is for the government and the environmentalists to get out of the way.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 8:20:46 PM
John Dewey, there's another bio-fuel on the market that one of my environmentalist friends swears by and swears is cheaper than gas (she thinks ethanol is a fraud, as do most environmentalists I happen to know). She converted both her cars to it. I think it's made of cooking oil and assorted other oils/garbage. Do you happen to know anything about that?
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 8:37:49 PM
Jacob Oost:
Milton Friedman, the post-Keynesian Statist Shill who conjured stories to support a Paper Money Scheme, that Friedman?
In essence, Friedman claimed (so he could earn his paycheck from his Elite Masters):
[1] Paper Money Schemes can work
[2] As long as you accrete credit at a constant low rate (gear evermore open transactions to an almost constant amount of cash -- notes and coins -- while total output rises), Paper Money Schemes will work
Either Friedman lied or he was dumb. For if you increase credit without channeling by law where investment must happen, you cannot curtail speculation. Yet, if you channel by law where investment must happen, you cannot be sure this is what future buyers want.
Friedman is one of many of a long line of phonies paraded before the rabble as an "expert". With conferred expert status, the Power Plutocracy can use the words of an Oracle Friedman to justify their acts of political control.
The Decorated Oracle Trick is a time-honored, often used method by those in Power to convince the Rabble.
Posted by: Smack MacDoogal | Mar 30, 2008 8:39:26 PM
Com'on guys,
The Moon landing affecting Earth's climate was just tongue in cheek BS to ridicule Per Kurowskiduck's certainty that man can "solve" global warming and fix it.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 8:40:56 PM
Sam,
Thanks for posting that article about Dr. Moore.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 8:45:24 PM
Methinks,
Your friend is talking about diesel made from used cooking oil. You add glycerine and stir, when the solids fall out to the bottom what is left is diesel fuel.
Anyone can do it in a barrel if you have the cooking oil and find the quantities of glycerine necessary.
If your vehicle uses gasoline, you're not going to be able to switch.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 8:52:51 PM
That's the one, Vidyohs. I know nothing about it. However, my friend claims it's economic to produce.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 8:57:04 PM
“Private landowners such as my father-in-law do not need government incentives to provide forests with CO2 sink capacity. All they need is for the government and the environmentalists to get out of the way.”
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 8:20:46 PM
What can I say? that we have both been blessed with good environmentally conscious father-in-laws then, though some statisticians would hold that of course to be a black-swan event
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 9:17:43 PM
Com'on guys,
The Moon landing affecting Earth's climate was just tongue in cheek BS to ridicule Per Kurowskiduck's certainty that man can "solve" global warming and fix it.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 8:40:56 PM
This guy really respects you guys!
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 9:22:34 PM
Methink's et. al,
I disremembered exactly.
You mix alcohol or/lye with the cooking oil and glycerine is the byproduct that falls out.
I had the recipe for awhile when i was driving a diesel pickup, but lost it after my truck was totaled.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 9:24:22 PM
methinks,
Biodiesel is made from soybean oils, though it could also be made in lower quantities from waste vegetable oils. I know biodiesel is used across Europe, and in some parts of North America. I don't think 100% biodiesel is common. Rather most biodiesel is blended with petroleum-based diesel. I don't know if biodiesel is cheaper than gasoline or petroleum diesel, though I'm pretty sure that some governments subsidize biodiesel.
Ethanol can be produced from other material than grain, but I don't think that's happening in the U.S. right now.
Propane is not a biofuel, but it is cleaner than gasoline. Any vehicle can be converted to run on propane, at a cost of about $3000. According to the Department of Energy, propane is about 45 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the U.S.
That's what I know about.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 9:25:05 PM
"This guy really respects you guys!
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 9:22:34 PM"
Per kurowskiduck,
By my evaluation of your response above, I got the person I wanted. That's what counts to me.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 9:27:13 PM
“What is so respectable about a profession that always produces sub-optimal results? If central planning always produces results that are less optimal than the free market, then the difference between a good central planner and a bad one is only degrees of sub-optimal. What's so good and respectable about that?”
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 30, 2008 6:41:41 PM
Well given that they are so frequently chosen to do planning, whether we like it or not, I prefer them to be not that bad. Leverage the difference in degrees of sub-optimal and you are talking big differences. If not… would you accept to trade my current Venezuelan central planners for yours?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 9:27:41 PM
Per Kurowski: "that we have both been blessed with good environmentally conscious father-in-laws then, though some statisticians would hold that of course to be a black-swan event"
I have no idea what you mean. You're not living in the U.S., correct? You may not be aware of the makeup of the U.S. forest industry.
The acreage of productive, renewable timberland in the U.S. is .... well, gigantic! U.S. productive timberlands are currently valued at about $500 billion U.S. dollars. Over half of that timber is owned by individuals - not corporations, not governments - but individuals such as my father-in-law and my sister (I had forgotten about the land she inherited through her late husband.)
The individual timberland owners do not renew their forests because they are environmentally conscious - though every one I have met is. They renew their forests because they will profit from doing so. Every one is motivated by - as you put it - "genuine market forces".
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 30, 2008 9:39:23 PM
"By my evaluation of your response above, I got the person I wanted. That's what counts to me."
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 30, 2008 9:27:13 PM
Question though of course is if it counts to them.
Now how are you going to celebrate your self assessed heroic triumph?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 30, 2008 9:58:56 PM
Ah, so you *haven't* seriously studied him.
Posted by: Jacob Oost | Mar 30, 2008 11:48:21 PM
I'm surprised someone hasn't come out with the 'moon landing was faked and the Guvmint playas simple pocketed the funding'. Still 'private operators can't compete'? I'm waiting to hear how some private operator has an next-gen ion rocket stuck in a shed unabled to used because of the Guvmint. I wonder where in the legal realm are Richard Branson & co. what with their space tourism vehicle experiments?
Posted by: Gil | Mar 31, 2008 6:56:19 AM
would you accept to trade my current Venezuelan central planners for yours?
Posted by: Per Kurowski
No. But I'd trade quite a lot to get rid of both mine and yours. A system that depends on getting the right people in power is a pretty crappy system.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 8:26:15 AM
Thanks, John. That's very interesting.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 8:29:10 AM
"No. But I'd trade quite a lot to get rid of both mine and yours. A system that depends on getting the right people in power is a pretty crappy system."
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 8:26:15 AM
Agree but since perfection is the enemy of the good, in a critical situation like the one in Venezuela, we have all the incentives to be in favor of trading our central planners with almost any country, except of course absolute frontier lunacies such as Zimbabwe and North Korea.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Mar 31, 2008 9:18:03 AM
Gil: "Still 'private operators can't compete'? I'm waiting to hear how some private operator has an next-gen ion rocket stuck in a shed unabled to used because of the Guvmint."
Why would an entrepreneur risk billions on something as purposeless and profitless as spave travel? As I pointed out earlier, the potential liabilities are enormous. Only billionaire kooks would consider such an endeavor with private funds.
If the government manages and funds a project, the private sector will build whatever is requested, just as the private sector did 40 years ago for the Apollo program.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 31, 2008 9:39:34 AM
Agree but since perfection is the enemy of the good... - Per Kurkowski
Perfection is getting rid of all of them. Something in between perfection and the BS that is central planning is a reduction in the number of central planners and a reduction in the scope of their power, not trading one for another, I think.
You in Venezuela have my sympathies, though.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 31, 2008 9:55:17 AM
Gil
Have you any idea what these private entrepreneurs have had to go through just to clear the legal field for private launches?
It's akin to launching a competitive third party against the Dems and Reps.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 10:02:48 AM
"Have you any idea what these private entrepreneurs have had to go through just to clear the legal field for private launches?"
Nope not a clue S. Grove. But talk of competing with a third party? Why not? I sure I good find the necessary documentation to write another O.S. in competition with the latest Windows and Linux but I doubt I could actually get anywhere. Well I do actually have a dated book on assembly language for the 80386 32-bit instruction set and information on putting the computer in protected mode and stuff but I can't really understand it. Likewise I have a book on creating complex computer 3-D graphics where I could write 3D generation software to compete with others but I'm not that mathematically-inclined.
"Why would an entrepreneur risk billions on something as purposeless and profitless as spave travel? As I pointed out earlier, the potential liabilities are enormous. Only billionaire kooks would consider such an endeavor with private funds."
Are you (*@$#ing kidding me J. Dewey?! You almost contradict yourself with the nature of this particular blog! Technically, burning hydrogen and oxygen in space is very inefficient but even the ability to create interplanetary travel that would allow for mining of planets and asteriods would worth shiploads! Unless you're presuming a law of diminishing returns where all the new metals simply devalue existing metal stock and make all metals (even gold and silver) near worthless defeating the purpose of mining. However, the capacity for interstellar travel and being able to find other worlds with life on it would bring unfathomable returns as humans colonise the galaxy! After all, whose bright idea was it to fund the money to make it to the New World?
Posted by: Gil | Mar 31, 2008 11:00:18 AM
Gil: "the capacity for interstellar travel and being able to find other worlds with life on it would bring unfathomable returns as humans colonise the galaxy!"
Right. Good luck finding any financing.
Posted by: John Dewey | Mar 31, 2008 11:23:30 AM
But talk of competing with a third party? Why not? I sure I good find the necessary documentation to write another O.S. in competition with the latest Windows and Linux but I doubt I could actually get anywhere.
You may be unaware of the legal obstacles that have been erected by the two old parties to inhibit third party competition. Likewise, there are many legal obstacles to private space endeavors. Legal obstacles in addition to market challenges.
As far as I am aware, there are no legal obstacles to creating yet another OS.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 31, 2008 12:15:59 PM
The most ironic component of Earth Hour is that it may not have saved any energy whatever.
The electrical grid does not have the capability of storing unused electricity. Unused electricity is simply wasted.
Since it would be impossible to predict Earth Hour might effect capacity, it is unlikely that electrical output would have been reduced. Chances are pretty good that the electricity just went unused.
The entire purpose of Earth Hour was to stigmatize those who "did not care" about the planet.
Posted by: Cassandra | Apr 1, 2008 10:27:48 AM
Actually, when the load on the generators is reduced, they will consume less fuel.
The energy is stored in the fuel, so any unused fuel is available for later consumption.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Apr 1, 2008 10:41:30 AM
