Sorry, I mean global climate change.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s “official” Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/pr-ar4-2007-05-briefing-bonn.htm).

Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.

Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.

The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]

What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows.

It’s been a while since I read through the IPCC report abstract but I recall several instances where they made dire predictions without adequate backing or explanation. Perhaps it was due to it being an abstract but at 70+ pages if I remember correctly they could have in the least made reference to the data.

The whole global climate change movement is sneaky like this. Even when they are honest the solutions to any problem is increased government control even though in almost every country it’s in fact the government which does the most polluting and is responsible for ignoring property rights thereby allowing others to pollute.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/…

Green Party candidates like Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay, and Katherine “Kat” Swift offer positive solutions.The British are paying $8 dollars a gallon for gas. Goldman Sachs predicts Americans will be paying $6 a gallon next year.

Green Party candidates positive solutions. “More Trains, Less Traffic”. Build modern high speed rail across America. New High Speed rail in the intersate corridors, and light rail in communities to cut dependance on foreign oil in half. Stop wanton waste of $1 Trillion tax dollars on foriegn military misadventure. Stop the deficit spending that has brought a weaking dollar, and inflated prices. Seek political solutions for political problems. Use tax savings to balance annual $3.1 trillion federal budget, pay off $9.4 Trillion federal debt, install auditable accounting system at pentagon. Build rail with tax savings.

Kent Mesplay, ” Cut out tax payer funded oil, auto, aspault subsidies”.

Columist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this week. “Tax the damn thing.”

“Why have the extra $2 dollars (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gas tax.” To pay off the federal debt and strengthen the U.S. economy. Force conservation.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S.auto fleet, change driving habits, and hugely reduce U.S. oil demand and bring down world oil prices .. the American consumer and American economy reap all the benefits”.

Don’t know if the spelling mistakes are in the original press release but I’d hope not. Couldn’t find this release on their website so I’m not sure of the source. I’m interested in the economic theory behind this along with the constitutional validation. I have a feeling the former would be overly simplistic and the latter based on the fallacious living document theory. I’m not entirely sure I understand the tax floor at $4/gallon of gas. Does that mean if prices drop the tax will become a greater percentage or the retail price? Does that imply that they will raise the tax as the gas price increases in order to at least keep the percentage the same? How will this light rail work in the nonmetropolitian areas where at least 1/6th of the population lives in? I know that where I grew up buses and light rail would be almost completely useless. Where is the justification for taxing those individuals who happen to live in rural areas where these services won’t ever reach? Will anyone acknowledge that the unconstitutional interstate highway system very likely was a major component of our current situation? Are the people advocating this claimed solution claiming that this government intervention will be different because it’d be done “right” by the “correct” people unlike the very consistent string of “wrong” individuals prior? What do they propose to do for those who couldn’t afford artificially inflated $6/gallon gasoline?

I recently demolished a wall of my bathroom. This resulted in a large amount of plaster, slats and several 2×3 studs. While pulling the nails out of the corkscrewed studs I asked myself, “What incentive do I have to reuse this wood?” If I leave it on the curb, the garbage men will come by, put it in their truck and it will go away. I don’t usually think about the price I pay for garbage service because I always seem to pay the same amount and the money trail from my pocket to the curb is incredibly obfuscated. Somewhere in the mix of taxes you pay is the money for people to regularly collect your garbage. Chances are we overpay. The net result of this system is we feel no real pressure to reduce the amount of waste we produce.

Waste disposal is a necessity. Just like we need to eat, we also need a way to safely handle the byproducts of our daily lives. It would be ludicrous for me to entrust someone else with the sole responsibility of feeding me. That person would have complete control over me. The same is true of the handling of waste. If we entrust this critical part of our lives to a government they have the power to inflict serious pain upon us. Sacrificing even this small amount of our individual sovereignty has consequences. It’s similar to a child who’s parents clean her room. She never learns the value of responsibility and paramount to that she does not feel empowered. It leaves us unable to function and dissatisfied.

Also not having waste disposal in the hands of the community makes reuse much more difficult. If I need a bench for painting items in my workshop it should be much easier for me to get one at the local dump than to purchase or build a new one. Also recall that we have specific regulations and liability issues that make reuse difficult. Currently the operator of a salvage yard is partially liable for actions I choose to take there and they are required to not salvage certain items for “safety” reasons.

So what options do we have to reform the waste management system? Real privatization, not the corporatism that currently exists, isn’t a terrible idea. If we were billed based on the amount of trash we created we would be more likely to reduce, reuse and recycle. This doesn’t solve the empowerment issue, but it does make us slightly more responsible for the waste we produce. Unfortunately private entities removing waste would have a tendency to make the garbage “disappear” by moving it to an area where it’s cheaper to dispose of it. This makes perfect business sense, but it also allows the community to continue to be wasteful without seeing the real effects. Don’t forget that as garbage is trucked to the poorer side of the state, with cheaper property values, the gap between the classes is even further highlighted. Nothing says “I’m better than you” like putting your waste in someone else’s backyard. Also the community is still placing a task vital to their existence in the hands of a separate entity. The power has just shifted from the government to a private corporation.

I propose that the best model to handle the waste management issue would be that of a community co-operative. By taking responsibility for the garbage they generate, a community can incentivize all three of the Rs and dissuade people from using hazardous or difficult-to-deal-with materials. The key to the success of this co-operative would be community ownership of the means of production, in this case the landfill and recycling facilities. By having people from the community work in the co-op and maintaining worker control of the organization’s decision making mechanisms you can assure a business that meets the needs of the community. The community becomes more educated about waste disposal and derives a sense of satisfaction from their self sufficiency. Labor can be used to pay for waste removal services so the currently unemployed can still afford this necessity. In time the ecological impact of the community would be minimized. It could also serve as a model for other community services. The benefits of community cooperation are endless.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/…

Some of the toughest obstacles American businesses face come not from other companies or the economy, but from the media – journalists exaggerating an issue to make a story sexier or anti-business groups influencing the media to advance their agenda. Four of the stories on the following list started with a press release or report from an environmentalist group, labor union or “consumer group.”

Those exaggerations or manipulations resulted in lost jobs, lost revenue, unfounded health scares, unnecessary government intervention, and even deaths. The Business & Media Institute has compiled a list of the nine worst business stories (of the last 50 years).

If we had a loser pays court system we’d have a lot less of this. The socialist court system mitigates the cost of suing and therefore encourages a sue happy system. It’d be nice if ostracism was a tool the businesses would use to get back at those who make false statements. I wonder if there is a reason they don’t. As you can see with the DDT issue when the government acts and does so incorrectly many people are affected and in this case likely died as a result.