iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-22--Financiers of poverty, malnutrition and death – Part 1

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization , anti-development banks , the Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , NGO ( non-government organization ) pressure groups and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money , power , and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African , Asian and Latin American families from having access to reliable , affordable energy , pesticides and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease , and modern agricultural technologies .
Those outfits perpetuate poverty , disease , malnutrition and death .
Yet the eco-manslaughter continues .
Too many US , EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks , and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs .
The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige , because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media , human rights or other “ watchdogs.
” But the fact is , few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them .
Indeed , “ philanthropic ” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best kept secrets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spotlight some of them and call them to account .
Wealthy foundations – often created with profits and fortunes made in industry and technology – directly and indirectly support some of the most radical anti-energy , anti-technology and agro-ecology activism in America , Europe and the world .
Their wealth , direct and indirect aid mechanisms , and inter-locking global network of funders , managers and advisors make them a powerful , callous , oppressive force .
They use direct donations and a growing number of clever non-transparent pass-through operations ( funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to consolidate money from multiple donors and direct “ charitable giving ” to organizations and projects that support their ideologies and causes .
The system also helps insulate the foundations – and their patrons and managers – from direct association with the most questionable , controversial , and often thuggish and lethal organizations and activists .
The funding , in turn , enables the organizations and activists to paint themselves as legitimate , benevolent and popular voices worthy of attention in global and domestic debates over laws , policies and regulations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use of modern , innovative farm technologies like improved pesticides , GM crops ( genetically modified , engineered through biotechnology ) – and even fertilizers , tractors and hybrid seeds – under the auspices of what they cleverly call “ agro-ecology.
” A big part of the problem is that the World Bank , EU agencies and Euro foundations demand and support primitive subsistence farming , and block food imports from countries that permit biotech farming .
The World Bank ’ s Global Environment Facility and various European donors support groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organic Agriculture Network , Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya , and Resources Oriented Development Initiatives of Kenya .
In fact , virtually every African country is beset by their “ benevolence , ” as are India and other countries in Asia and Latin America .
All of them promote the supposed benefits of organic farming that bans the use of “ dangerous , poisonous ” manmade pesticides – but permits the use in “ organic ” farming of “ natural ” pesticides and other chemicals that are also toxic and dangerous to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insects .
They stridently oppose all biotech crops – including life-saving Golden Rice – and have been pressuring Kenyan and other African governments to ban more than 200 pesticides that have been approved as safe in many other countries .
Many of the groups even oppose mechanized equipment like tractors .
Among the EU funders are BioVision , the Danish Agency for International Development Cooperation , the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency , the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation , and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation .
They even support newspapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often little more than another NGO that runs and supports anti-technology campaigns and seeks donations from readers and major funding from foundations in exchange for stories .
Self-proclaimed “ philanthropic , charitable ” US foundations are just as guilty .
They probably provide far more significant than EU funding , but their secretive networks make that hard to ascertain .
Foundation support for the agro-ecology Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa helps illustrate how all this works .
AFSA is a pan-African alliance of organizations committed to “ resisting ” the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It claims the use of modern agricultural technologies like pesticides for crop protection , chemical fertilizers , and genetically modified crops for drought and insect resistance and higher yields will result in “ massive land grabs , destruction of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems , displacement of indigenous peoples … and the destruction of their livelihoods and cultures.
” AFSA ’ s core members include activist pressure groups that espouse an even broader variety of anti-capitalist , anti-technology , radical environmentalist goals and philosophies .
Among the more notable and notorious ones are The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biodiversity , GroundSwell International , Friends of the Earth ( FOE ) , and La Via Campensina Africa .
These organizations work together to plan and support pro-organic , anti-biotech campaigns , and provide financial management and expertise in furthering AFSA principles .
Letting them retain tax-exempt status is a travesty .
Core member La Via Campensina Africa ( The Peasant Way – Africa ) , for example , is a radical , proponent of anti-technology agro-ecology .
It rejects modern farming technologies : crop protection pesticides and herbicides , fertilizers for nutrient-depleted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bananas , cassava and other crops that have been all but destroyed by viruses and diseases .
It also advocates an anti-free market program of peasant-centric subsistence agriculture that largely limits farmers to backbreaking organic agricultural farming methods , and selling to local markets .
Agro-ecology farmers are largely limited to those local markets , in part because they can not raise enough crops for export to wider markets like Europe – while other produce is blocked because many EU nations ban the import of crops that are so much as tainted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The US-based AgroEcology Fund ( AEF ) helped to launch and continues to support the AFSA .
It acts as a pass-through fund of funds to hide sources , and helps to coordinate , direct and manage giving to outfits like AFSA .
The AEF also partners with AFSA and other organizations such as the Center for Food Safety ( CFS ) , to battle “ the industrial model ” and promote organic farming .
The AgroEcology Fund directly gave the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa in 2015 $ 200,000 and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and possibly more via clandestine means ) .
That may not sound like much , but such funds pay for 10-100 times more hourly wages and activism in Africa than they would in USA .
In 2017 , the AEF and AFSA worked together on a campaign to prevent biotech seed patent protections laws from being enforced in Africa .
The AEF was created by three wealthy American foundations , the Christensen Fund , the New Fields Foundation , the Swift Foundation and a donor who remains unknown .
AEF programs and funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was created to help “ philanthropists ” better direct funds to projects and programs in line with their neo-colonialist goals ; the NVF is managed by Arabella Advisors .
Ironically and perversely , the foundations that funded AEF ’ s creation are rooted in money generated in innovation , industry and technology .
Now AEF and its foundation backers battle agricultural innovation and keep African farmers mired in farming practices that can feed few people , and can successfully battle few crop-devouring insect pests , much less protect crops against recurrent locust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have abundant food – traditional , modern and organic .
Meanwhile , poor countries are saddled with barely enough food , no safety net for all those times when droughts or insects destroy crops , and diktats from ultra-wealthy foundations and pressure groups that tell farmers they should be happy to engage in dawn-to-dusk subsistence farming , ox-drawn plowing , stoop labor , banging on metal pans to drive the locust hordes away , and living on the verge of starvation .
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of books and articles on energy , environment , climate and human rights issues .
Part 2 of this article will address how these funds operate , and how they lock Africa in poverty and malnutrition .

Private ‘philanthropic’ foundations join government agencies in funding anti-technology NGOs
Paul Driessen
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, anti-development banks, the Agency for International Development (USAID), NGO (non-government organization) pressure groups and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money, power, and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African, Asian and Latin American families from having access to reliable, affordable energy, pesticides and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease, and modern agricultural technologies.
Those outfits perpetuate poverty, disease, malnutrition and death. Yet the eco-manslaughter continues.
Too many US, EU and UN government agencies have been captured by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks, and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs. The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige, because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media, human rights or other “watchdogs.”
But the fact is, few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them. Indeed, “philanthropic” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best kept secrets of modern society. It’s time to spotlight some of them and call them to account.
Wealthy foundations – often created with profits and fortunes made in industry and technology – directly and indirectly support some of the most radical anti-energy, anti-technology and agro-ecology activism in America, Europe and the world. Their wealth, direct and indirect aid mechanisms, and inter-locking global network of funders, managers and advisors make them a powerful, callous, oppressive force.
They use direct donations and a growing number of clever non-transparent pass-through operations (funds of funds, or foundations of foundations) to consolidate money from multiple donors and direct “charitable giving” to organizations and projects that support their ideologies and causes. The system also helps insulate the foundations – and their patrons and managers – from direct association with the most questionable, controversial, and often thuggish and lethal organizations and activists.
The funding, in turn, enables the organizations and activists to paint themselves as legitimate, benevolent and popular voices worthy of attention in global and domestic debates over laws, policies and regulations.
They have become especially effective in blocking the use of modern, innovative farm technologies like improved pesticides, GM crops (genetically modified, engineered through biotechnology) – and even fertilizers, tractors and hybrid seeds – under the auspices of what they cleverly call “agro-ecology.”
A big part of the problem is that the World Bank, EU agencies and Euro foundations demand and support primitive subsistence farming, and block food imports from countries that permit biotech farming. The World Bank’s Global Environment Facility and various European donors support groups like the Route to Food Initiative, Kenya Organic Agriculture Network, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, and Resources Oriented Development Initiatives of Kenya. In fact, virtually every African country is beset by their “benevolence,” as are India and other countries in Asia and Latin America.
All of them promote the supposed benefits of organic farming that bans the use of “dangerous, poisonous” manmade pesticides – but permits the use in “organic” farming of “natural” pesticides and other chemicals that are also toxic and dangerous to humans, wildlife, fish and beneficial insects. They stridently oppose all biotech crops – including life-saving Golden Rice – and have been pressuring Kenyan and other African governments to ban more than 200 pesticides that have been approved as safe in many other countries. Many of the groups even oppose mechanized equipment like tractors.
Among the EU funders are BioVision, the Danish Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. They even support newspapers like Britain’s Guardian, which is often little more than another NGO that runs and supports anti-technology campaigns and seeks donations from readers and major funding from foundations in exchange for stories.
Self-proclaimed “philanthropic, charitable” US foundations are just as guilty. They probably provide far more significant than EU funding, but their secretive networks make that hard to ascertain. Foundation support for the agro-ecology Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa helps illustrate how all this works.
AFSA is a pan-African alliance of organizations committed to “resisting” the “corporate industrialization” of African agriculture. It claims the use of modern agricultural technologies like pesticides for crop protection, chemical fertilizers, and genetically modified crops for drought and insect resistance and higher yields will result in “massive land grabs, destruction of indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems, displacement of indigenous peoples … and the destruction of their livelihoods and cultures.”
AFSA’s core members include activist pressure groups that espouse an even broader variety of anti-capitalist, anti-technology, radical environmentalist goals and philosophies. Among the more notable and notorious ones are The African Biodiversity Network, African Center for Biodiversity, GroundSwell International, Friends of the Earth (FOE), and La Via Campensina Africa. These organizations work together to plan and support pro-organic, anti-biotech campaigns, and provide financial management and expertise in furthering AFSA principles. Letting them retain tax-exempt status is a travesty.
Core member La Via Campensina Africa (The Peasant Way – Africa), for example, is a radical, proponent of anti-technology agro-ecology. It rejects modern farming technologies: crop protection pesticides and herbicides, fertilizers for nutrient-depleted soils, and even biotech replacements for bananas, cassava and other crops that have been all but destroyed by viruses and diseases. It also advocates an anti-free market program of peasant-centric subsistence agriculture that largely limits farmers to backbreaking organic agricultural farming methods, and selling to local markets.
Agro-ecology farmers are largely limited to those local markets, in part because they cannot raise enough crops for export to wider markets like Europe – while other produce is blocked because many EU nations ban the import of crops that are so much as tainted by glyphosate, neonicotinoids or biotech pollen.
The US-based AgroEcology Fund (AEF) helped to launch and continues to support the AFSA. It acts as a pass-through fund of funds to hide sources, and helps to coordinate, direct and manage giving to outfits like AFSA. The AEF also partners with AFSA and other organizations such as the Center for Food Safety (CFS), to battle “the industrial model” and promote organic farming.
The AgroEcology Fund directly gave the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa in 2015 $200,000 and has given it some $500,000 overall (and possibly more via clandestine means). That may not sound like much, but such funds pay for 10-100 times more hourly wages and activism in Africa than they would in USA. In 2017, the AEF and AFSA worked together on a campaign to prevent biotech seed patent protections laws from being enforced in Africa.
The AEF was created by three wealthy American foundations, the Christensen Fund, the New Fields Foundation, the Swift Foundation and a donor who remains unknown. AEF programs and funding are overseen by New Venture Fund, which was created to help “philanthropists” better direct funds to projects and programs in line with their neo-colonialist goals; the NVF is managed by Arabella Advisors.
Ironically and perversely, the foundations that funded AEF’s creation are rooted in money generated in innovation, industry and technology. Now AEF and its foundation backers battle agricultural innovation and keep African farmers mired in farming practices that can feed few people, and can successfully battle few crop-devouring insect pests, much less protect crops against recurrent locust plagues.
Equally perverse, rich countries have abundant food – traditional, modern and organic. Meanwhile, poor countries are saddled with barely enough food, no safety net for all those times when droughts or insects destroy crops, and diktats from ultra-wealthy foundations and pressure groups that tell farmers they should be happy to engage in dawn-to-dusk subsistence farming, ox-drawn plowing, stoop labor, banging on metal pans to drive the locust hordes away, and living on the verge of starvation.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. Part 2 of this article will address how these funds operate, and how they lock Africa in poverty and malnutrition.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-22--THE OUTSTANDING CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE (5)

THE OUTSTANDING CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE ( 5 ) belgotopia climate , media 04/20/2020 6 Minutes belgotopia 36 – a @ @ @ @ @ French original , with permission of the author : … Continue reading

THE OUTSTANDING CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE (5)
belgotopia climate , media 04/20/2020 6 Minutes
belgotopia 36 – a Goggle translated version of the French original, with permission of the author: … Continue reading
via Friends of Science Calgary
https://ift.tt/2XYZI1Y
April 22, 2020 at 11:59AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-23--Earth Day At 50: A Reassessment

Earth Day At 50: A Reassessment

Half a century later , a look back at the forecasters who got the future wrong—and one who got it right About 20 million Americans turned out for the first Earth Day on April 22 , 1970 .
Lectures and rallies took place at more than 2,000 college campuses , 10,000 elementary and high schools , and thousands of other places across the country .
Forty-two states adopted resolutions endorsing Earth Day , and Congress recessed so that legislators could participate in the activities in their districts .
It is sometimes described as , up to that time , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lectures and literature surrounding the event featured lots of dismal predictions about the future .
One such compendium of doom was The Environmental Handbook , whose cover noted that it had been “ prepared for the first national environmental teach-in.
” Commissioned by the group Friends of the Earth , the book preached the perils of rising population and imminent depletion of nonrenewable resources .
Many of its contributors—let ’ s call them the Catastrophists—warned that even such drastic actions as halving the number of human beings and stopping economic growth completely might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecological cataclysm .
A different group of researchers believed that while economic growth and technological progress had created some ecological problems , these things also would be a source of solutions .
Let ’ s call these folks the Prometheans .
The economist Theodore Schultz argued in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1972 that the expansion of modern agriculture would free up more land for nature .
Other proponents of this more sanguine outlook included the oceanographer Cy Adler , the economist Christopher Freeman , and Nature editor emeritus John Maddox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doomsday Syndrome .
Today , the Earth Day Network hopes a billion people across the world will participate in Earth Day 2020 , where the 50th anniversary focus will be on man-made climate change .
Living as we do in the future that the Catastrophists and the Prometheans were forecasting , now is a great time to look back at the claims made five decades ago .
Which side had the abler prophets ?
In his contribution to The Environmental Handbook , an essay called “ The Limits of Adaptability , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangers posed by overpopulation are more grave and more immediate in the U.S. than in less industrialized countries .
This is due in part to the fact that each U.S. citizen uses more of the world ’ s natural resources than any other human being and destroys them more rapidly , thereby contributing massively to the pollution of his own surroundings and of the earth as a whole.
” Handbook editor Garrett De Bell ’ s essay claimed that overpopulation was the biggest reason for mankind ’ s increasing use of pollution-causing energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take time , ” De Bell argued , we could get a start on a solution “ by ceasing to use power for trivial purposes.
” Specifically , the prices for energy supplies should be so scaled as to discourage people from using such “ abundant luxuries ” as blenders , can openers , power saws , mowers , clothes dryers , air conditioners , hair dryers—and cars , of course : “ If you wanted to design a transportation system to waste the earth ’ s energy reserves and pollute the air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do much better than our present system dominated by the automobile.
” De Bell also noted that burning fossil fuels was increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere .
“ Scientists are becoming worried about increasing CO2 levels because of the greenhouse effect , with its possible repercussions on the world climate , ” he wrote .
Reducing energy use in the U.S. by 25 percent during the following decade could be a start toward “ preventing disastrous climatic changes.
” In their contribution to the Handbook , political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author Leona Train Rienow , declared that “ a New Yorker on the street took into his lungs the equivalent in toxic materials of 38 cigarettes a day.
” Although factories and residential heating contributed to urban smog , automobiles were the biggest culprits : “ While cars get faster and longer , lives get slower and shorter .
While Chrysler competes with Buick for the getaway , cancer competes with emphysema for the layaway .
This generation is indeed going to have to choose between humans and the automobile .
Perhaps most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The book ’ s most urgent vision of imminent global environmental disaster was courtesy of the Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich .
He sketched a scenario in which devastating famines would kill tens of millions of people in Asia , Africa , and Latin America by the end of the 1970s , and smog disasters in Los Angeles and New York would kill 200,000 Americans in 1973 .
Warning that “ America ’ s resource situation was bad and bound to get worse , ” he dismissed “ cornucopian economists ” by imagining future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geologist from the University of California ” would urge that “ economists be legally required to learn at least the most elementary facts of geology.
” Ehrlich ’ s essay was not a prediction for how the 1970s would literally unfold .
But it was obviously designed to scare people about the impending ecological apocalypse , and it did conclude with an actual prediction : “ Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born.
” He added that by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions .
Other experts , more optimistic , think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
” “ Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make , ” Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle .
“ The death rate will increase until at least 100–200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sciences published a chart in the September 1970 issue of Scientific American projecting that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000 ; lead , zinc , tin , gold , and silver would be gone before 1990 .
Brown claimed that his estimates took into account the possibilities that “ new reserves will be discovered by exploration or created by innovation.
” The February 2 , 1970 , issue of Time quoted the ecologist Kenneth Watt : “ By the year 2000 , if present trends continue , we will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate…that there won ’ t be any more crude oil.
” And in January 1970 , Life magazine warned : “ In a decade , urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution.
” People in developed countries “ have been assailed by prophecies of calamity , ” Maddox wrote in The Doomsday Syndrome .
“ To some , population growth is the most immediate threat .
Others make more of pollution of various kinds , the risk that the world will run out food or natural resources or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosperity it brings spell danger for the human race.
” The trajectories Maddox foresaw for population and food production differed dramatically from those predicted by the Catastrophists .
Technologically advanced rich countries , he noted , had undergone a demographic transition from the Malthusian past of high fertility/high mortality societies to a high fertility/low mortality combination .
But this , he argued , was a temporary stage ; we were already entering a population-stabilizing low fertility/low mortality state .
“ Although the demographic transition has only just begun in large parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to expect that it will produce demographic stability entirely comparable with that which now exists in Western Europe and elsewhere in the industrialized world , ” he concluded .
“ The population explosion has all the signs of being a damp squib.
” Food production , meanwhile , was “ now increasing much faster than population.
” During the 1960s , Maddox observed , it grew at 2.7 percent annually , handily outstripping the global population growth rate of 2 percent a year .
In India and Southeast Asia , food production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about double their population growth rates .
And further improvements were possible .
With regard to energy , Maddox cited estimates from 1970 that “ there are more , but not much more , than 300,000 million tons of petroleum [ about 2.1 trillion barrels ] still to be extracted from the ground.
” At the then-current rate of extraction of 15 billion barrels annually , he calculated that supplies would last for 135 years .
And other natural resources ?
“ Techniques for exploration and extraction of metals seem to have kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Consequently , supplies of metals “ are becoming economically more plentiful , not more scarce.
” Maddox fully acknowledged that pollution was harming people and the natural world .
Cutting air pollution in the U.S. by 50 percent , he said , would increase life expectancy by three to five years .
But he did not think pollution threatened the very existence of the human race .
It was , he argued , an open-access commons problem that could be solved through technology and sensible public policy .
In 60 American cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of smokiness had already declined by 20 percent from 1957 to 1970 ; sulfur dioxide had fallen by a third from 1962 to 1969 .
Noting that burning fossil fuels was increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere , Maddox calculated that CO2 would increase by 15 percent by 2000 .
That is , in fact , what happened .
He also predicted that that rise would result in “ an increase of the temperature on the surface of the earth by something like one-half degree centigrade.
” That was also just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it turns out that the scale of industrial activity is so great that the accumulation of carbon dioxide threatens climate change , ” Maddox wrote , the same ingenuity that was reducing other forms of pollution “ could be applied to regulate the concentration of the gas .
To be sure , such an intervention would require expensive and historically important changes in industrial practices , but calamity is avoidable.
” The bottom line for Maddox was that “ technology and prosperity are not the inherent nuisances of which environmentalists continually complain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better environment could be created.
” Who Was More Right ?
World population has increased since 1970 , though at a lower rate than predicted by the Catastrophists .
At the time of the first Earth Day , there were 3.7 billion people on Earth ; that has now risen to 7.6 billion .
On the other hand , the global total fertility rate back then was 4.8 children per woman ; it has now plummeted to 2.4 .
In 83 countries—including the United States—fertility is below the replacement rate of 2.1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent half the world ’ s population .
Wolfgang Lutz , a demographer at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis , projects that world population will peak in this century and then begin to fall .
The post Earth Day At 50 : A Reassessment appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Half a century later, a look back at the forecasters who got the future wrong—and one who got it right
About 20 million Americans turned out for the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. Lectures and rallies took place at more than 2,000 college campuses, 10,000 elementary and high schools, and thousands of other places across the country. Forty-two states adopted resolutions endorsing Earth Day, and Congress recessed so that legislators could participate in the activities in their districts. It is sometimes described as, up to that time, the largest public demonstration in history.
The lectures and literature surrounding the event featured lots of dismal predictions about the future. One such compendium of doom was The Environmental Handbook, whose cover noted that it had been “prepared for the first national environmental teach-in.” Commissioned by the group Friends of the Earth, the book preached the perils of rising population and imminent depletion of nonrenewable resources. Many of its contributors—let’s call them the Catastrophists—warned that even such drastic actions as halving the number of human beings and stopping economic growth completely might not be enough to prevent the imminent ecological cataclysm.
A different group of researchers believed that while economic growth and technological progress had created some ecological problems, these things also would be a source of solutions. Let’s call these folks the Prometheans. The economist Theodore Schultz argued in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1972 that the expansion of modern agriculture would free up more land for nature. Other proponents of this more sanguine outlook included the oceanographer Cy Adler, the economist Christopher Freeman, and Nature editor emeritus John Maddox, author of the 1972 book The Doomsday Syndrome.
Today, the Earth Day Network hopes a billion people across the world will participate in Earth Day 2020, where the 50th anniversary focus will be on man-made climate change. Living as we do in the future that the Catastrophists and the Prometheans were forecasting, now is a great time to look back at the claims made five decades ago. Which side had the abler prophets?
The Catastrophists
In his contribution to The Environmental Handbook, an essay called “The Limits of Adaptability,” the biologist René Dubos claimed that “the dangers posed by overpopulation are more grave and more immediate in the U.S. than in less industrialized countries. This is due in part to the fact that each U.S. citizen uses more of the world’s natural resources than any other human being and destroys them more rapidly, thereby contributing massively to the pollution of his own surroundings and of the earth as a whole.”
Handbook editor Garrett De Bell’s essay claimed that overpopulation was the biggest reason for mankind’s increasing use of pollution-causing energy sources. While “population control will take time,” De Bell argued, we could get a start on a solution “by ceasing to use power for trivial purposes.” Specifically, the prices for energy supplies should be so scaled as to discourage people from using such “abundant luxuries” as blenders, can openers, power saws, mowers, clothes dryers, air conditioners, hair dryers—and cars, of course: “If you wanted to design a transportation system to waste the earth’s energy reserves and pollute the air as much as possible, you couldn’t do much better than our present system dominated by the automobile.”
De Bell also noted that burning fossil fuels was increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Scientists are becoming worried about increasing CO2 levels because of the greenhouse effect, with its possible repercussions on the world climate,” he wrote. Reducing energy use in the U.S. by 25 percent during the following decade could be a start toward “preventing disastrous climatic changes.”
In their contribution to the Handbook, political scientist Robert Rienow and his wife, author Leona Train Rienow, declared that “a New Yorker on the street took into his lungs the equivalent in toxic materials of 38 cigarettes a day.” Although factories and residential heating contributed to urban smog, automobiles were the biggest culprits: “While cars get faster and longer, lives get slower and shorter. While Chrysler competes with Buick for the getaway, cancer competes with emphysema for the layaway. This generation is indeed going to have to choose between humans and the automobile. Perhaps most families have too many of both.”
The book’s most urgent vision of imminent global environmental disaster was courtesy of the Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich. He sketched a scenario in which devastating famines would kill tens of millions of people in Asia, Africa, and Latin America by the end of the 1970s, and smog disasters in Los Angeles and New York would kill 200,000 Americans in 1973. Warning that “America’s resource situation was bad and bound to get worse,” he dismissed “cornucopian economists” by imagining future congressional hearings in which a “distinguished geologist from the University of California” would urge that “economists be legally required to learn at least the most elementary facts of geology.”
Ehrlich’s essay was not a prediction for how the 1970s would literally unfold. But it was obviously designed to scare people about the impending ecological apocalypse, and it did conclude with an actual prediction: “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born.” He added that by 1975, “some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100–200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Harrison Brown of the National Academy of Sciences published a chart in the September 1970 issue of Scientific American projecting that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000; lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. Brown claimed that his estimates took into account the possibilities that “new reserves will be discovered by exploration or created by innovation.” The February 2, 1970, issue of Time quoted the ecologist Kenneth Watt: “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.”
And in January 1970, Life magazine warned: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution.”
The Prometheans
People in developed countries “have been assailed by prophecies of calamity,” Maddox wrote in The Doomsday Syndrome. “To some, population growth is the most immediate threat. Others make more of pollution of various kinds, the risk that the world will run out food or natural resources or even the possibility that economic growth and the prosperity it brings spell danger for the human race.”
The trajectories Maddox foresaw for population and food production differed dramatically from those predicted by the Catastrophists. Technologically advanced rich countries, he noted, had undergone a demographic transition from the Malthusian past of high fertility/high mortality societies to a high fertility/low mortality combination. But this, he argued, was a temporary stage; we were already entering a population-stabilizing low fertility/low mortality state. “Although the demographic transition has only just begun in large parts of the developing world, there is every reason to expect that it will produce demographic stability entirely comparable with that which now exists in Western Europe and elsewhere in the industrialized world,” he concluded. “The population explosion has all the signs of being a damp squib.”
Food production, meanwhile, was “now increasing much faster than population.” During the 1960s, Maddox observed, it grew at 2.7 percent annually, handily outstripping the global population growth rate of 2 percent a year. In India and Southeast Asia, food production was increasing at 4 percent annually, about double their population growth rates. And further improvements were possible.
With regard to energy, Maddox cited estimates from 1970 that “there are more, but not much more, than 300,000 million tons of petroleum [about 2.1 trillion barrels] still to be extracted from the ground.” At the then-current rate of extraction of 15 billion barrels annually, he calculated that supplies would last for 135 years.
And other natural resources? “Techniques for exploration and extraction of metals seem to have kept ahead of scarcity,” he observed. Consequently, supplies of metals “are becoming economically more plentiful, not more scarce.”
Maddox fully acknowledged that pollution was harming people and the natural world. Cutting air pollution in the U.S. by 50 percent, he said, would increase life expectancy by three to five years. But he did not think pollution threatened the very existence of the human race. It was, he argued, an open-access commons problem that could be solved through technology and sensible public policy. In 60 American cities, he pointed out, average levels of smokiness had already declined by 20 percent from 1957 to 1970; sulfur dioxide had fallen by a third from 1962 to 1969.
Noting that burning fossil fuels was increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Maddox calculated that CO2 would increase by 15 percent by 2000. That is, in fact, what happened. He also predicted that that rise would result in “an increase of the temperature on the surface of the earth by something like one-half degree centigrade.” That was also just about right.
Finally, “if it turns out that the scale of industrial activity is so great that the accumulation of carbon dioxide threatens climate change,” Maddox wrote, the same ingenuity that was reducing other forms of pollution “could be applied to regulate the concentration of the gas. To be sure, such an intervention would require expensive and historically important changes in industrial practices, but calamity is avoidable.”
The bottom line for Maddox was that “technology and prosperity are not the inherent nuisances of which environmentalists continually complain, but rather, the means by which a better environment could be created.”
Who Was More Right?
World population has increased since 1970, though at a lower rate than predicted by the Catastrophists. At the time of the first Earth Day, there were 3.7 billion people on Earth; that has now risen to 7.6 billion. On the other hand, the global total fertility rate back then was 4.8 children per woman; it has now plummeted to 2.4. In 83 countries—including the United States—fertility is below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. Those 83 countries represent half the world’s population. Wolfgang Lutz, a demographer at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, projects that world population will peak in this century and then begin to fall.
Full
The post Earth Day At 50: A Reassessment appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3bxdCfQ
April 23, 2020 at 04:38AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-23--China’s Missing Solar & Wind Finance For Overseas Energy Projects Revealed

New paper sheds light on reasons behind the lack of renewable energy lending from China ’ s policy banks From 2000-2018 China ’ s two policy banks , the China Development Bank ( CDB ) and China Export Import Bank ( CHEXIM ) , loaned over USD 251.3 billion to overseas energy sector projects .
Of that finance , traditional energy sources such as coal and hydro dominated , occupying 45.2 % and 33.7 % of the total finacinging respectively .
Just 2.3 % went to wind and solar projects .
Given that China is the world ’ s leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment , given that the domestic renewables sector is experiencing overcapacity , given that Belt and Road actors have been tasked from the highest levels with expanding a “ green BRI ” , and given the enormous energy needs and renewable potential in BRI countries , why has so little of China ’ s two policy banks ’ overseas finance go toward wind and solar projects ?
A recent paper by Boston University Global Development Policy Center ’ s Kevin Gallagher and Bo Kong labeled this reality a “ counterfactual puzzle ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why China ’ s Belt and Road Initiative has not led to large scale deployment of renewables as has been seen domestically in China is a question on the lips of many on the climate community , from NGOs to government staffers .
Panda Paw Dragon Claw seeks to provide some insights on that critical question by digesting a few recently published papers and reports on that topic for our readers .
Is there potential for a renewable-powered Belt and Road ?
In theory , both the supply and demand side for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects along the Belt and Road are well aligned .
On the supply side , China has been a global leader in wind and solar power investment , manufacturing and deployment for most of a decade .
Moreover , with the domestic market plagued with overcapacity , there is also a push factor from the supply side propelling Chinese companies to explore new markets .
By as early as 2012 China ’ s solar PV production capacity exceeded total global demand by 33 % .
In fact , the overcapacity problem was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ huge amounts of financing for the sector .
By 2017 , CBD and CHEXIM financing was behind about 40 % of total installed wind and solar power in China , the paper points out .
In addition , both CDB and CHEXIM have an explicit mandate to promote the international expansion of China ’ s renewable energy sector .
As early as 2015 , a “ guiding opinion ” document from the State Council urged companies to “ actively participate in investment and construction ” of wind and solar PV projects overseas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director General of the New Energy Department of China ’ s National Energy Administration ( NEA ) , Liang Zhipeng , publicly urged CDB and CHEXIM to assist China ’ s renewable energy companies ’ exports , investments and expansion overseas .
This is backed up by a political vision for a “ green Belt and Road ” endorsed multiple times by President Xi Jinping himself .
It also more broadly dovetails with China ’ s ambition to be seen as a key partner or even leader in global climate governance .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries are projected to see large growth in power demand over the coming decades and an enormous market for solar and wind investment awaits , estimated at almost USD 800 billion globally .
A report from Tsinghua University , Vivid Economics and Climateworks Foundation last year projected that keeping economic growth pathways across Belt and Road countries in line with the Paris Agreement ’ s 2 degree target could require investment to the tune of nearly USD 12 trillion up to 2030 .
The post China ’ s Missing Solar & Wind Finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

New paper sheds light on reasons behind the lack of renewable energy lending from China’s policy banks
Source: “Chinese Development Finance for Solar and Wind Power Abroad”, Bo Kong & Kevin P. Gallagher, Feb 2020
From 2000-2018 China’s two policy banks, the China Development Bank (CDB) and China Export Import Bank (CHEXIM), loaned over USD 251.3 billion to overseas energy sector projects. Of that finance, traditional energy sources such as coal and hydro dominated, occupying 45.2% and 33.7% of the total finacinging respectively. Just 2.3% went to wind and solar projects.
Given that China is the world’s leading manufacturer of wind and solar power generation equipment, given that the domestic renewables sector is experiencing overcapacity, given that Belt and Road actors have been tasked from the highest levels with expanding a “green BRI”, and given the enormous energy needs and renewable potential in BRI countries, why has so little of China’s two policy banks’ overseas finance go toward wind and solar projects?
A recent paper by Boston University Global Development Policy Center’s Kevin Gallagher and Bo Kong labeled this reality a “counterfactual puzzle” and dug into the reasons for it. Why China’s Belt and Road Initiative has not led to large scale deployment of renewables as has been seen domestically in China is a question on the lips of many on the climate community, from NGOs to government staffers. Panda Paw Dragon Claw seeks to provide some insights on that critical question by digesting a few recently published papers and reports on that topic for our readers.
Is there potential for a renewable-powered Belt and Road?
In theory, both the supply and demand side for a large scale roll out of renewable energy projects along the Belt and Road are well aligned.
On the supply side, China has been a global leader in wind and solar power investment, manufacturing and deployment for most of a decade. Moreover, with the domestic market plagued with overcapacity, there is also a push factor from the supply side propelling Chinese companies to explore new markets. By as early as 2012 China’s solar PV production capacity exceeded total global demand by 33%. In fact, the overcapacity problem was in part driven by the two policy banks’ huge amounts of financing for the sector. By 2017, CBD and CHEXIM financing was behind about 40% of total installed wind and solar power in China, the paper points out.
In addition, both CDB and CHEXIM have an explicit mandate to promote the international expansion of China’s renewable energy sector. As early as 2015, a “guiding opinion” document from the State Council urged companies to “actively participate in investment and construction” of wind and solar PV projects overseas. In the same year, Deputy Director General of the New Energy Department of China’s National Energy Administration (NEA), Liang Zhipeng, publicly urged CDB and CHEXIM to assist China’s renewable energy companies’ exports, investments and expansion overseas.
This is backed up by a political vision for a “green Belt and Road” endorsed multiple times by President Xi Jinping himself. It also more broadly dovetails with China’s ambition to be seen as a key partner or even leader in global climate governance.
On the demand side, Belt and Road countries are projected to see large growth in power demand over the coming decades and an enormous market for solar and wind investment awaits, estimated at almost USD 800 billion globally. A report from Tsinghua University, Vivid Economics and Climateworks Foundation last year projected that keeping economic growth pathways across Belt and Road countries in line with the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree target could require investment to the tune of nearly USD 12 trillion up to 2030.
The post China’s Missing Solar & Wind Finance For Overseas Energy Projects Revealed appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3eNKzXw
April 23, 2020 at 04:09AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-23--Using Cosmic Rays to Predict Volcanic Eruptions?

Are Cosmic Rays a Key to Forecasting Volcanic Eruptions ?
A combination of relativistic particles and artificial intelligence may provide a new way to forecast when a volcano could erupt .
Forecasting volcanic eruptions is notoriously challenging , but a team of Japanese scientists may have found a new method using relativistic particles from space .
A new pilot study , conducted on a highly active Japanese volcano , used a type of high-energy particle called a muon to map the interior structure of the volcano .
When analyzed with machine learning algorithms , these maps could help diagnose when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus far , the feasibility of the method has been examined on only one volcano , but it could eventually be more widely applied as the technique is further refined .
Eruption forecasting typically relies on volcanic gas emissions , surface changes , or seismography—which measures trembles in the ground that are often a precursor to eruptions .
The new method instead took a visual approach and built on the imaging technique known as muography .
First developed in the 1970s to map secret chambers in Egyptian pyramids , muography uses cosmic rays—high-energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the galaxy—to map giant objects , similar to an oversized X-ray machine .
Although this pilot study was conducted on only one volcano , it has the potential to be extended to other volcanoes in the future , though there are potential roadblocks .
Deep learning works only for large data sets , which don ’ t yet exist for many volcanoes .
And acquiring sufficient data requires a large number of eruptions , a limiting factor for volcanoes that aren ’ t as active as Sakurajima .
Citation : Johnson-Groh , M. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key to forecasting volcanic eruptions ?
, Eos , 101 , https : //doi.org/10.1029/2020EO142927 .
Published on 21 April 2020 .
Pretty cool schist !
Although this bit is funny : Cosmic rays can only be used to predict eruptions of volcanoes that erupt frequently .
Now , on to some very uncool schist… [ Insert hairpin-turn segue ] 0.1 % of Dallas County has tested positive for ChiCom-19 and 0.00 % have died from it .
At this rate , Dallas County will cross the Mendoza Line ( .200 batting average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Dallas County refuses to report how many residents have recovered from ChiCom-19 , so we can ’ t get an accurate count of active cases , the hospital and ICU admission rates indicate that Dallas County is well-past the peak… Despite the fact that Dallas County is clearly well-past the peak of the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis , Fire Marshal Gump has extended the hostage crisis through May 15… Dallas County Commissioners Extend ‘ Safer at Home ’ Order to May 15 Crowds gathered outside as Dallas County Commissioners worked through tough conversations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By Alanna Quillen • Published April 21 , 2020 Dallas County Commissioners Tuesday voted 3-2 to extend the county ’ s Safer at Home order until May 15 , keeping restrictions in place about which businesses may operate and how large public gatherings may be while advising people to stay at home unless they are conducting “ essential business.
” The county reserves the option to extend the order depending on how cases and testing develops in the county in the coming weeks .
The county ’ s disaster declaration , a separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 .
During the meeting a dozens of demonstrators staged a protest outside the County Administration Building at Dealey Plaza .
Critics of the stay-at-home order complained about the loss of jobs and income .
Several nurses , who said they were there to support public health , faced off with the demonstrators .
Dallas County Health and Human Services Director Dr. Philip Huang recommended that the court extend the Safer at Home order until May 31 .
Experts advised that cases should trend downward for at least two weeks before the community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice of May 15th was a compromise .
Commissioners John Wiley Price and J.J. Koch were the no votes .
They wanted a better schedule for reopening more non-essential businesses and restoring more jobs .
“ I ’ m talking about people and survival and so that ’ s the difference , ” Price said .
“ Give them an opportunity to survive.
” Truly strange times… I have been in almost total agreement with Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price over the past month… And I never agreed with him on anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes to continue the hostage crisis into at least mid-May were : Gump and Dallas County Health and Human Services Director Dr. Philip Huang were among many government officials relying on the wildly inaccurate COVID Act Now models as justification for strangling our economy .
Bear in mind , the purpose of the COVID Act Now models is to perpetually keep the economy shut down : When Gump cited the model in the image above ( March 23 ) , Texas hospitals were on the verge of being overwhelmed with ChiCom-19 patients , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
The model has Texas at around 2,300 hospitalizations by April 8 .
As of April 20 , the number stood at 1,678 .
They have since adjusted their model downward to erase its past failures .
Even then , the current model has Texas hospitals looking like the “ bring out your dead ” scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail , within two weeks of releasing the hostages .
I didn ’ t do a screen capture of the Texas model back on April 7 ; but I did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a screen capture of New York and can compare it today ’ s model .
So why is the organization or seemingly innocent online mapping tool using inaccurate algorithms to scaremonger leaders into tanking the economy ?
Politics , of course .
Founders of the site include Democratic Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins and three Silicon Valley tech workers and Democratic activists — Zachary Rosen , Max Henderson , and Igor Kofman — who are all also donors to various Democratic campaigns and political organizations since 2016 .
Henderson and Kofman donated to the Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donated to the Democratic National Committee , recently resigned Democratic Rep. Katie Hill , and other Democratic candidates .
Prior to building the COVID Act Now website , Kofman created an online game designed to raise $ 1 million for the eventual 2020 Democratic candidate and defeat President Trump .
The game ’ s website is now defunct .
Perhaps the goal of COVID Act Now was never to provide accurate information , but to scare citizens and government officials into to implementing rash and draconian measures .
The creators even admit as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model is designed to drive fast action , not predict the future.
” They generated this model under the guise of protecting communities from overrun hospitals , a trend that is not on track to happen as they predicted .
Not only is the data false , and looking more incorrect with each passing day , but the website is optimized for a disinformation campaign .
A social media share button prompts users to share their models and alarming graphs on Facebook and Twitter with the auto-fill text , “ This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent X ’ s hospital system from being overloaded by Coronavirus.
” The votes to liberate the hostages at the end of April were : Fortunately for us hostages , the Governor of the Great State of Texas outranks Fire Marshal Gump .
In my never ending effort to eliminate political correctness , I refer to all things coronavirus as ChiCom-19 .
County Judge Clay Jenkins is the chief executive of Dallas County and presides over the County Commissioners Court .
He looks like the Jim Carrey character , Fire Marshal Bill from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forrest Gump .
What do ChiCom-19 and Fire Marshal Gump have to do with using cosmic rays to predict volcanic eruptions ?

Guest “cool schist” by David Middleton
Are Cosmic Rays a Key to Forecasting Volcanic Eruptions?
A combination of relativistic particles and artificial intelligence may provide a new way to forecast when a volcano could erupt. By Mara Johnson-Groh 23 hours ago Forecasting volcanic eruptions is notoriously challenging, but a team of Japanese scientists may have found a new method using relativistic particles from space. A new pilot study, conducted on a highly active Japanese volcano, used a type of high-energy particle called a muon to map the interior structure of the volcano. When analyzed with machine learning algorithms, these maps could help diagnose when a volcano is about to blow. Thus far, the feasibility of the method has been examined on only one volcano, but it could eventually be more widely applied as the technique is further refined. Eruption forecasting typically relies on volcanic gas emissions, surface changes, or seismography—which measures trembles in the ground that are often a precursor to eruptions. The new method instead took a visual approach and built on the imaging technique known as muography. First developed in the 1970s to map secret chambers in Egyptian pyramids, muography uses cosmic rays—high-energy particles originating on the Sun and across the galaxy—to map giant objects, similar to an oversized X-ray machine. […] Although this pilot study was conducted on only one volcano, it has the potential to be extended to other volcanoes in the future, though there are potential roadblocks. Deep learning works only for large data sets, which don’t yet exist for many volcanoes. And acquiring sufficient data requires a large number of eruptions, a limiting factor for volcanoes that aren’t as active as Sakurajima. […] Citation: Johnson-Groh, M. (2020), Are cosmic rays a key to forecasting volcanic eruptions?, Eos, 101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EO142927. Published on 21 April 2020. EOS
Pretty cool schist! Although this bit is funny:
[A]cquiring sufficient data requires a large number of eruptions, a limiting factor for volcanoes that aren’t as active as Sakurajima.
Cosmic rays can only be used to predict eruptions of volcanoes that erupt frequently.
Now, on to some very uncool schist… [Insert hairpin-turn segue]
Day Thirty-Something of America Held Hostage by ChiCom-19
Dallas County update, as of noon Tuesday…
4/22/2020 Dallas County CHICOM-19 Population Cases Deaths 2,637,772 2,602 64 2.5% % of population with 0.10% 0.00% % with, rounded 0.1% 0.00% % without 99.90% 100.00% % without, rounded 99.9% 100.0% Menodoza Line (.200) 12/15/2034 0.200
0.1% of Dallas County has tested positive for ChiCom-19 and 0.00% have died from it. At this rate, Dallas County will cross the Mendoza Line (.200 batting average) on December 15, 2034. While Dallas County refuses to report how many residents have recovered from ChiCom-19, so we can’t get an accurate count of active cases, the hospital and ICU admission rates indicate that Dallas County is well-past the peak…
Despite the fact that Dallas County is clearly well-past the peak of the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis, Fire Marshal Gump has extended the hostage crisis through May 15…
Dallas County Commissioners Extend ‘Safer at Home’ Order to May 15
Crowds gathered outside as Dallas County Commissioners worked through tough conversations regarding stay-at-home orders and relieving small business
By Alanna Quillen • Published April 21, 2020 Dallas County Commissioners Tuesday voted 3-2 to extend the county’s Safer at Home order until May 15, keeping restrictions in place about which businesses may operate and how large public gatherings may be while advising people to stay at home unless they are conducting “essential business.” The county reserves the option to extend the order depending on how cases and testing develops in the county in the coming weeks. The county’s disaster declaration, a separate document, is in effect until May 20. During the meeting a dozens of demonstrators staged a protest outside the County Administration Building at Dealey Plaza. Critics of the stay-at-home order complained about the loss of jobs and income. Several nurses, who said they were there to support public health, faced off with the demonstrators. Dallas County Health and Human Services Director Dr. Philip Huang recommended that the court extend the Safer at Home order until May 31. Experts advised that cases should trend downward for at least two weeks before the community begins to return to normal. The choice of May 15th was a compromise. Commissioners John Wiley Price and J.J. Koch were the no votes. They wanted a better schedule for reopening more non-essential businesses and restoring more jobs. “I’m talking about people and survival and so that’s the difference,” Price said. “Give them an opportunity to survive.” […] NBC5DFW
This is worth repeating:
“I’m talking about people and survival and so that’s the difference,” Price said. “Give them an opportunity to survive.” Dallas County Commissioner, Precinct 3 John Wiley Price (D)
Truly strange times… I have been in almost total agreement with Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price over the past month… And I never agreed with him on anything over the past 35 years.
The votes to continue the hostage crisis into at least mid-May were:
County Judge Clay Jenkins, AKA Fire Marshal Gump (D) Commissioner, Precinct 1 Theresa Daniel (D) Commissioner, Precinct 4 Elba Garcia (D)
All left-wing Democrats.
Gump and Dallas County Health and Human Services Director Dr. Philip Huang were among many government officials relying on the wildly inaccurate COVID Act Now models as justification for strangling our economy.
Dallas County Judge Clay (Fire Marshal Gump) Jenkins babbling incoherently.
Bear in mind, the purpose of the COVID Act Now models is to perpetually keep the economy shut down:
This model updates every 3 days and is intended to help make fast decisions, not predict the future.
Covid Act Now
When Gump cited the model in the image above (March 23), Texas hospitals were on the verge of being overwhelmed with ChiCom-19 patients, if we didn’t self-immolate our economy. The model has Texas at around 2,300 hospitalizations by April 8. As of April 20, the number stood at 1,678. They have since adjusted their model downward to erase its past failures. Even then, the current model has Texas hospitals looking like the “bring out your dead” scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, within two weeks of releasing the hostages. I didn’t do a screen capture of the Texas model back on April 7; but I did grab one today.
I did get a screen capture of New York and can compare it today’s model.
On April 8, New York has less than 16,000 hospitalized ChiCom-19 patients… But stood at the edge of the abyss.
As of April 22, New York State was still at the edge of the abyss.
So why is the organization or seemingly innocent online mapping tool using inaccurate algorithms to scaremonger leaders into tanking the economy? Politics, of course. Founders of the site include Democratic Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins and three Silicon Valley tech workers and Democratic activists — Zachary Rosen, Max Henderson, and Igor Kofman — who are all also donors to various Democratic campaigns and political organizations since 2016. Henderson and Kofman donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, while Rosen donated to the Democratic National Committee, recently resigned Democratic Rep. Katie Hill, and other Democratic candidates. Prior to building the COVID Act Now website, Kofman created an online game designed to raise $1 million for the eventual 2020 Democratic candidate and defeat President Trump. The game’s website is now defunct. Perhaps the goal of COVID Act Now was never to provide accurate information, but to scare citizens and government officials into to implementing rash and draconian measures. The creators even admit as much with the caveat that “this model is designed to drive fast action, not predict the future.” They generated this model under the guise of protecting communities from overrun hospitals, a trend that is not on track to happen as they predicted. Not only is the data false, and looking more incorrect with each passing day, but the website is optimized for a disinformation campaign. A social media share button prompts users to share their models and alarming graphs on Facebook and Twitter with the auto-fill text, “This is the point of no return for intervention to prevent X’s hospital system from being overloaded by Coronavirus.” The Federalist
The votes to liberate the hostages at the end of April were:
Commissioner, Precinct 2 J.J. Koch (R) Commissioner, Precinct 3 John Wiley Price (D)
Fortunately for us hostages, the Governor of the Great State of Texas outranks Fire Marshal Gump.
Dallas County extends stay-at-home order through May 15, but Abbott may overrule action
BY STEFAN STEVENSON
APRIL 21, 2020 Dallas County extended its coronavirus pandemic stay-at-home order through May 15, two weeks beyond the statewide order from Gov. Greg Abbott. Tuesday’s 3-2 vote by county commissioners could be overruled by Abbott. Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, who cast one of the three votes to extend the order, said he’ll leave it up to the state to decide. […] Fort Worth Startle-Gram
ChiCom-19?
In my never ending effort to eliminate political correctness, I refer to all things coronavirus as ChiCom-19.
Fire Marshal Gump?
County Judge Clay Jenkins is the chief executive of Dallas County and presides over the County Commissioners Court. He looks like the Jim Carrey character, Fire Marshal Bill from In Living Color and he talks like Forrest Gump.
What do ChiCom-19 and Fire Marshal Gump have to do with using cosmic rays to predict volcanic eruptions?
Absolutely nothing.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-23--Happy Earth Day! None Of The Eco-Doomsday Predictions Have Come True

More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22 , 1970 .
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day , Then and Now , ” by Ronald Bailey of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970 .
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade , many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many of the same are being regurgitated today , but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago , yes 50 years ago , was that the “ the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000 ” .
The 1970 ’ s were a lousy decade .
Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war , endless political scandals , and a faltering economy .
The first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ okay , “ celebrated ” doesn ’ t capture the funereal tone of the event .
The events ( organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn ) predicted death , destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded .
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day , 1970 : 1 .
“ Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.
” — Harvard biologist George Wald 2 .
“ We are in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this nation , and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.
” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner 3 .
“ Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources , not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.
” — New York Times editorial 4 .
“ Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make .
The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biologist Paul Ehrlich 5 .
“ Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [ By 1975 ] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions .
Other experts , more optimistic , think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.
” — Paul Ehrlich 6 .
“ It is already too late to avoid mass starvation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth Day 7 .
“ Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable : by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India ; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India , Pakistan , China and the Near East , Africa .
By the year 2000 , or conceivably sooner , South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… .
By the year 2000 , thirty years from now , the entire world , with the exception of Western Europe , North America , and Australia , will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University professor Peter Gunter 8 .
“ In a decade , urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.
” — Life magazine 9 .
“ At the present rate of nitrogen buildup , it ’ s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.
” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt 10 .
“ Air pollution…is certainly going to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next few years alone.
” — Paul Ehrlich 11 .
“ By the year 2000 , if present trends continue , we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won ’ t be any more crude oil .
You ’ ll drive up to the pump and say , ‘ Fill ‘ er up , buddy , ’ and he ’ ll say , ‘ I am very sorry , there isn ’ t any.
’ ” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt 12 .
“ [ One ] theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover will continue to thicken as more dust , fumes , and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes .
Screened from the sun ’ s heat , the planet will cool , the water vapor will fall and freeze , and a new Ice Age will be born.
” — Newsweek magazine 13 .
“ The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years .
If present trends continue , the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year 2000 .
This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.
” — Kenneth Watt History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak .
I guess we ’ ll need to critique the 2020 doomsday predictions in the year 2050 and see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago .
This piece first appeared on CFACT.org via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE @ @

By Paul Homewood
More than three decades before Greta Thunberg was born — the Swedish environmental activist on climate change — more than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
We now look back at quotes from Earth Day, Then and Now,” by Ronald Bailey of the spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions from Earth Day 1970.
Considering the current doomsday predictions scaremonger activists are verbalizing about global warming that will result in the demise of civilization within the next decade, many of those unscientific 1970 predictions are being reincarnated on today’s social and news media outlets.
Many of the same are being regurgitated today, but the best prediction from the first earth day five decades ago, yes 50 years ago, was that the “the pending ice age as earth had been cooling since 1950 and that the temperature would be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000”.
The 1970’s were a lousy decade. Embarrassing movies and dreadful music reflected the national doomsday mood following an unpopular war, endless political scandals, and a faltering economy.
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970 — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.
Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:
1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
3. “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
6. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
7. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
8. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine
13. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
History seems to repeat itself as there will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak. I guess we’ll need to critique the 2020 doomsday predictions in the year 2050 and see if they were any better than those from the first Earth Day 50 years ago.
This piece first appeared on CFACT.org
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3eNKBP8
April 23, 2020 at 03:57AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-23--Avoidable Self-Harm: Chaotically Intermittent Wind & Solar Destroying Australia’s (Once) Reliable Po

Avoidable Self-Harm: Chaotically Intermittent Wind & Solar Destroying Australia’s (Once) Reliable Power Grid

An obsession with chaotically intermittent wind and solar poses an existential threat to Australia ’ s power grid .
So @ @ @ @ @ been limited to “ demand management ” ( a euphemism for controlled blackouts ) and @ @ @ @ @ South Australia , plenty of uncontrolled blackouts , including the big one in September 2016 @ @ @ @ @ black : [ … ]

An obsession with chaotically intermittent wind and solar poses an existential threat to Australia’s power grid. So far, it’s been limited to “demand management” (a euphemism for controlled blackouts) and in wind and solar obsessed South Australia, plenty of uncontrolled blackouts, including the big one in September 2016 when the whole State went black: […]
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/3aC7n9m
April 23, 2020 at 02:38AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-23--UN WANTS US ALL TO GO FULL TILT TO SPEND WHAT’S LEFT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

What a ridiculous statement , and what a pity we can not see someone try to defend it on a TV news bulletin .
But alas , no – all we get on the news are endless stories about the coronavirus outbreak , as if nothing else is going on .
In any case all our news broadcasters would agree with them !
How might the interview go ?
So , our economies are in free-fall unemployment is at its highest and the government does not have enough revenue to cover its spending commitments , and you are suggesting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent on climate action instead of trying to rebuild our national infrastructure or our manufacturing base .
Brilliant .
The extraordinary statements have been published in a document by the Green Climate Fund – an international organisation with a $ 10.3 billion budget ( US ) .
Australia gifted it $ 200 million ( AUD ) in 2015 but Prime Minister Scott Morrison axed further contributions after questions were raised about funds being sent to China , the single largest CO2 emitter in the world .
“ While COVID-19 is causing untold suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health crisis in modern times offers an opportunity to direct finances towards bolstering climate action .
GCF will continue to make critical investments in climate-resilient water resource management , health care facilities , agriculture and livelihoods – all of which are essential to subduing and overcoming the pandemic , ” the organisation wrote in an official public update .
“ Similarly , we will step up our efforts to catalyse green investment to relaunch economies on low-emission , climate-resilient trajectories .
“ The Green Climate Fund is confident that only a united approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – will provide lasting solutions to both the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change.
” The Green Climate Fund went on to suggest that climate change was a threat comparable to COVID-19 which has killed 165,000 people , infected millions more and ravaged global economies .
“ The COVID-19 pandemic and the global response required to stem it shows the importance of acting together to solve unparalleled threats to people and our planet , ” the GCF said .
“ The far-reaching impacts of COVID-19 are a stark reminder of the catastrophic implications the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A Sky News special investigation last year revealed the GCF squandered $ 3.7 million flying staff around the world for climate change conferences .
The bureaucrats which run the GFC were paid $ 65 million in wages – a figure that has been steadily ballooning each year .
It can also now be revealed that the fund sent $ 157.5 million ( AUD ) to China in December despite the country planning on increasing emissions by several thousand mega tonnes of CO2 by 2030 .
China escaped having to pay a cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to its “ developing nation ” status even though it is a global superpower with the world ’ s second largest economy .
China ’ s failure to contribute to the fund led to US President Donald Trump withdrawing from the deal , clawing back billions .
However , funds Australians contributed still in part went towards financing a major antistructure project in Shandong – one of the biggest polluting cities in the world which has a $ 1.1 trillion GDP ( US ) .
The Green Climate Fund will finance “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new energy vehicles and bus rapid transit green corridors ” in the major metropolis .

UN Climate Change Fund Calls Coronavirus An ‘Opportunity’ To Re-Shape The World
Sky News, 20 April 2020
The UN-funded financial arm of the Paris Agreement has labelled the killer coronavirus an “opportunity” to raise funds for climate change action and “relaunch economies on low-emission, climate-resilient trajectories”.
What a ridiculous statement, and what a pity we cannot see someone try to defend it on a TV news bulletin. But alas, no – all we get on the news are endless stories about the coronavirus outbreak, as if nothing else is going on. In any case all our news broadcasters would agree with them! How might the interview go?
So, our economies are in free-fall unemployment is at its highest and the government does not have enough revenue to cover its spending commitments, and you are suggesting the meagre resources we have left should be spent on climate action instead of trying to rebuild our national infrastructure or our manufacturing base. Brilliant.
The extraordinary statements have been published in a document by the Green Climate Fund – an international organisation with a $10.3 billion budget (US).
Australia gifted it $200 million (AUD) in 2015 but Prime Minister Scott Morrison axed further contributions after questions were raised about funds being sent to China, the single largest CO2 emitter in the world.
“While COVID-19 is causing untold suffering, the international response to this unprecedented health crisis in modern times offers an opportunity to direct finances towards bolstering climate action. GCF will continue to make critical investments in climate-resilient water resource management, health care facilities, agriculture and livelihoods – all of which are essential to subduing and overcoming the pandemic,” the organisation wrote in an official public update.
“Similarly, we will step up our efforts to catalyse green investment to relaunch economies on low-emission, climate-resilient trajectories.
“The Green Climate Fund is confident that only a united approach – bringing together determined efforts and innovation – will provide lasting solutions to both the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change.”
The Green Climate Fund went on to suggest that climate change was a threat comparable to COVID-19 which has killed 165,000 people, infected millions more and ravaged global economies.
“The COVID-19 pandemic and the global response required to stem it shows the importance of acting together to solve unparalleled threats to people and our planet,” the GCF said.
“The far-reaching impacts of COVID-19 are a stark reminder of the catastrophic implications the world faces if we don’t.”
A Sky News special investigation last year revealed the GCF squandered $3.7 million flying staff around the world for climate change conferences.
The bureaucrats which run the GFC were paid $65 million in wages – a figure that has been steadily ballooning each year. It can also now be revealed that the fund sent $157.5 million (AUD) to China in December despite the country planning on increasing emissions by several thousand mega tonnes of CO2 by 2030. China escaped having to pay a cent towards the climate change fund by hanging on to its “developing nation” status even though it is a global superpower with the world’s second largest economy.
China’s failure to contribute to the fund led to US President Donald Trump withdrawing from the deal, clawing back billions.
However, funds Australians contributed still in part went towards financing a major antistructure project in Shandong – one of the biggest polluting cities in the world which has a $1.1 trillion GDP (US). The Green Climate Fund will finance “low carbon transport with supporting investments in new energy vehicles and bus rapid transit green corridors” in the major metropolis.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-23--‘A Look at Resourceful Earth Day’ (Fred Smith Jr. on Julian Simon)

Ed .
Note : Fred L. Smith Jr. ( 1940– ) , founder and chairman emeritus of the Competitive Enterprise Institute , originally published this article in April 1999 .
Its insights remain as relevant today as 21 years ago .
April 22 , once associated with the optimism of revolutionary Marxism ( as the birthday of Lenin ) and then with the pessimism of modern Malthusianism ( as the environmentalist ’ s Earth Day since 1970 ) , merits redemption .
A new label , Resourceful Earth Day , is appropriate as we enter the 21st century , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing ability to solve environmental as well as economic problems .
This title , of course , is inspired by the late Julian Simon , author of “ The Resourceful Earth , ” who combated with passion and power those who viewed man as the cancer of this planet and his future as bleak and austere .
Resourceful Earth Day also signals a hope more appropriate to spring , marking a return to a positive view of man ’ s role on this planet .
Indeed the old Marxists , convinced that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic and technological change .
The forces of change , they believed , would move man toward heaven here on Earth .
That optimistic element has disappeared .
The environmental establishment has grown increasingly gloomy , convinced that the Earth is suffering from the “ Terrible Toos ” — too many people , too much consumption , too great a reliance on technology which is understood too little .
Earth Day has become a day of atonement for man ’ s criminal assault on our planet .
That pessimism reflects , in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer on their side ; thus , change is no longer in their interest .
Stasis must be the order of the day .
With attacks on things like biotechnology , automobiles , suburban opportunity and trade , they now seek only , as Aaron Wildavsky noted , “ an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population eating lower on the food chain , consuming a lot less , and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.
” Had God not expelled man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story goes , the “ greens ” certainly would have .
And , indeed , their ideal land use is “ wilderness , ” defined as an area from which man is excluded .
Simon was a wonderful critic of all this foolishness .
He investigated and refuted the gloomy projections that Western Civilization was a failure , that our civilization was non-sustainable and doomed to inevitable decline as the planet ’ s finite resources were depleted .
But the finite nature of the Earth ’ s material resources pose no great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth ’ s most precious resource is infinite and organic .
It is its people , contributing to the ever-growing stock of useful human knowledge .
When people have been free to apply their intellect , they have always found ways to meet needs and answer crises , and always will .
Simon pointed out that , while people are born with stomachs , they are born with brains and hands as well .
The latter allow them to create far more than they consume .
People , after all , are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth in the world ’ s food supply has outstripped the growth in the world ’ s population .
The problems of famine , overpopulation , poverty and disease are resolvable .
In fact , they have been resolved in the United States and other places where human ingenuity is free to solve them .
The calamity criers of the green movement predicted great disasters afflicting the planet by the year 2000 .
The Carter administration ’ s Global 2000 Report forecast global calamity , and Paul Ehrlich claimed on the “ Johnny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a gambler , I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
” Unfortunately for the eco-catastrophists , as we approach their due date for disaster , the planet is in increasingly good shape .
This point was recently conceded by America ’ s arch-druid .
“ Not only do we have the healthiest economy in a generation , ” said Vice President Al Gore , “ we also have the cleanest environment.
” On this Resourceful Earth Day , we may hope that Gore and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ponder these points and rethink the wisdom of the current policy of placing all one ’ s faith in federal political solutions .
The greens ’ constant calls for massive government controls , forced population limits , harsh curbs on economic activity , and a curtailing of technology threaten to produce exactly the results that such actions seek to avoid —a world of ecological and economic disaster .
On this April 22 , let us commit to both a freer and a cleaner world ; they go together after all .

Ed. Note: Fred L. Smith Jr. (1940–), founder and chairman emeritus of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, originally published this article in April 1999. Its insights remain as relevant today as 21 years ago.
April 22, once associated with the optimism of revolutionary Marxism (as the birthday of Lenin) and then with the pessimism of modern Malthusianism (as the environmentalist’s Earth Day since 1970), merits redemption.
A new label, Resourceful Earth Day, is appropriate as we enter the 21st century, a title selected to honor mankind’s increasing ability to solve environmental as well as economic problems.
This title, of course, is inspired by the late Julian Simon, author of “The Resourceful Earth,” who combated with passion and power those who viewed man as the cancer of this planet and his future as bleak and austere.
Resourceful Earth Day also signals a hope more appropriate to spring, marking a return to a positive view of man’s role on this planet. Indeed the old Marxists, convinced that they would dominate the future, optimistically favored economic and technological change. The forces of change, they believed, would move man toward heaven here on Earth.
That optimistic element has disappeared. The environmental establishment has grown increasingly gloomy, convinced that the Earth is suffering from the “Terrible Toos” — too many people, too much consumption, too great a reliance on technology which is understood too little. Earth Day has become a day of atonement for man’s criminal assault on our planet. That pessimism reflects, in part, their realization that history is no longer on their side; thus, change is no longer in their interest. Stasis must be the order of the day.
With attacks on things like biotechnology, automobiles, suburban opportunity and trade, they now seek only, as Aaron Wildavsky noted, “an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.”
Had God not expelled man from the Garden of Eden, so the story goes, the “greens” certainly would have. And, indeed, their ideal land use is “wilderness,” defined as an area from which man is excluded.
Simon was a wonderful critic of all this foolishness. He investigated and refuted the gloomy projections that Western Civilization was a failure, that our civilization was non-sustainable and doomed to inevitable decline as the planet’s finite resources were depleted.
But the finite nature of the Earth’s material resources pose no great problem, he argued, because the Earth’s most precious resource is infinite and organic. It is its people, contributing to the ever-growing stock of useful human knowledge. When people have been free to apply their intellect, they have always found ways to meet needs and answer crises, and always will.
Simon pointed out that, while people are born with stomachs, they are born with brains and hands as well. The latter allow them to create far more than they consume. People, after all, are not ciphers, which helps explain how the growth in the world’s food supply has outstripped the growth in the world’s population.
The problems of famine, overpopulation, poverty and disease are resolvable. In fact, they have been resolved in the United States and other places where human ingenuity is free to solve them. The calamity criers of the green movement predicted great disasters afflicting the planet by the year 2000. The Carter administration’s Global 2000 Report forecast global calamity, and Paul Ehrlich claimed on the “Johnny Carson Show,” “If I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
Unfortunately for the eco-catastrophists, as we approach their due date for disaster, the planet is in increasingly good shape. This point was recently conceded by America’s arch-druid. “Not only do we have the healthiest economy in a generation,” said Vice President Al Gore, “we also have the cleanest environment.”
On this Resourceful Earth Day, we may hope that Gore and his fellow foot soldiers in the environmental brigades will ponder these points and rethink the wisdom of the current policy of placing all one’s faith in federal political solutions. The greens’ constant calls for massive government controls, forced population limits, harsh curbs on economic activity, and a curtailing of technology threaten to produce exactly the results that such actions seek to avoid —a world of ecological and economic disaster. On this April 22, let us commit to both a freer and a cleaner world; they go together after all.