Oh, the luxuries of being able to grow your own food.  The convenience of local farms where you can pay more for the ordinary, instead of just paying more for the extraordinary.  The amazing feeling of not having to care about the elevated price of every-day produce…

The argument, generally, is that the distribution of our food supply somehow contributes to the pollution of this planet.  The second part of that argument is, we should stop suburban sprawl in order to save farm lands which we are apparently losing at an alarming rate.  What this tells me is, at an alarming rate, inefficient farmers are going out of business because their crop is either inferior or too expensive for the average person to afford.

I wish I could say I cared about the common farmer enough to pay more for fruits and veggies than I already do… but I can’t.  I can’t because I’m not particularly wealthy… and I don’t because I can’t very well prove that what they’re doing is “less bad” for the environment.   In fact it’s been implied that local farms are less efficient, thus polluting at a higher rate than some of the large corporate farms who transport their foods all over the world.

Take this example for instance:  http://skepticblog.org/2009/05/28/the-fallacy-of-locally-grown-produce/

I love what this blog has to say… Farmers markets are great for the sometimes jumbo produce or seasonal goodies, but it’s just not practical for everyday living for all people.  Especially those who are high-and-mighty on their horse, claiming to be better to our earth because they assume the claims are correct — that the “buy local” propaganda is accurate.  It’s easier to fly the flag of a local produce supporter when you live in America’s heartland where farms are aplenty.  What about people who live in big cities, where the closest farms are far… far away?  I’m sure there are still some seemingly environmentally friendly people buying their high-priced regular produce at a farmers market… hopefully not claiming they do so in order to save the planet.

I’m from a family of farmers (surprise) and I realize that corporate farms are making it very difficult for the little-guy now-a-days.  I have a family member working for Monsanto, his parents raise hogs and have a fertilizer company… my other aunt and uncle grow some staple crops, along with some grapes and they have a winery…  and my other OTHER uncle and his family grow the standard subsidized crops, have a few cows, standard farming protocol from my understanding.   It’s not that I’m insensitive to farmers, its that I truly see what my principles are and am willing to accept what truly satisfies them.

Whole foods, as fresh as possible, as efficient as possible… plenty of veggies and fruits, high-quality, organic when realistic in price, and enough for everyone to eat.  Now,  just because I’ve educated myself to vaguely understand how this can be achieved in an affordable and truly fair way to all people, doesn’t make me an earth hater.  It makes me a formerly left-leaning health-conscious individual; a now economically-aware individual who can make truly educated decisions, not just popular decisions based on marketing campaigns.

The implication of the slogan, NO FARMS, NO FOOD, is that if we allow suburban sprawl and urbanization to bulldoze the land and pop up mini-malls and housing developemnts everywhere, that we’ll no longer have food.  This is silly… just plane ignorance.  Trust me, if we need food to live, someone will find it profitable to hold onto their land and keep growing you your food… it just may be a super-corporate farm, doing it better, for less.

“People can’t afford to pay attention to flowers until they have enough to eat.” –Michael Pollan This, a quote from journalist, author, and lefty-activist Michael Pollan, a professor at Berkley.

He writes this in his book “The Botany of Desire”, a book discussing why humans crave the things we do, such as sweetness, beauty, and intoxication, etc. He makes a solid point when discussing how people in Africa traditionally don’t really seem to care about flowers. I think if I had a 50% chance of contracting a deadly and painful disease that would kill me before I was 5, I might be less inclined to give a damn about flowers as well.

Funny, how such trivial things can become a #1 priority once someone is rich enough to care. I’m sure countries like China, India, and parts of Africa are losing sleep over the narrow-sighted science which is the global warming scare. I’m sure they’re all ecstatic that the birds in North America are safe, while they’re dying of Malaria and people like Rachel Carson go down in history as saints. I’m sure they’re pumped that international strong-arms such as the UNEP want to cap and tax their carbon emissions, stunt their economic growth, and forever keep their people shoeless, pooping in holes in the ground, covered in flies, and sleeping under tarps.

Simply put, an environmentalist humanitarian is an oxymoron. Your war against carbon is a war against the poor…

“People can’t afford to pay attention to carbon until they’re no longer sleeping in cardboard boxes.”

PERC’s Brian Yablonski looks at the future of our national parks and examines how we can use markets to protect and conserve our national treasures.

Great video examining the concepts behind Free Market Environmentalism.

The Privatisation of the Commons really was a Tragedy after all.

Yesterday I wrote a post about the complete failure of the political class to be honest with the voting public about the nature of the environmental challenge ahead, and how it is going to radically change the way we live.

Today I’m going to continue on this theme by looking at why the politicians appear to be deceiving us.

The reasoning is slightly deeper than it would appear to the normal cynical observer. It’s not merely about electoral politics. It’s also about a fundmental, but misguided, faith in the free market.

There are many degrees of environmentalist. While most of us think that the greenies are all tree-hugging, not-washing, hemp-wearing (and smoking) Swampys, there are much smarter types, infesting corporate institutions, Whitehall and academia, and you’ll most often find them wearing a tailored suit.

They are the free market environmentalists (FME). They believe that, whatever the nature of the environmental problem, the market will always provide a solution. They are the bastion of capitalists hoping that they will never truly have to change their ways. Such FMEs provide the fig leaf that capitalism craves to continue. Because that is the nature of capitalism. It is neither inherently good or bad. It simply exists, and seeks ways to perpetuate that existence. It is a state of mind as much as it is a financial system.

A FME believes that concepts like emissions trading will enable the environmental cost to be turned into a financial figure, which then will be factored into the supply/demand equations that the market operates on. They believe that privatising the Amazon Rainforest, for example, would provide the necessary incentives for it to be truly managed and protected. They believe that there is no grave need to panic over running out of oil or gas, because the free market will adapt, innovation will prevail, and someone will come up with an solution that will supply alternatives. This will happen when it becomes more economical to use the alternative than buy, say, another barrel of oil.

Most mainstream politicians fall into this category for reasons of convenience. It is extremely easy to say that there is no real problem because we will rely on the genius of future generations to rescue us from the abyss. And we will also rely on future generations to sort out that huge amount of nuclear waste sitting in Sellafield, and all over the planet. Oh, and they can work out how on Earth the Earth is going to cope with all these people.

FME is not an answer. It is a corporate shill. It is a way to buy capitalism the time and credibility to distract us from appreciating the true nature of the problem, beyond the point past which it’s worth us doing anything about it.

Too much faith is placed in the market providing an answer; but capitalism has this wonderful way of making us blind to history. We see it now: one credit crunch, followed by one deep recession. But what lessons have been learned? What has actually changed to stop it from happening again?

Nothing. Nothing at all. How many more economic crises must we be put through to realise that the short termism of capitalism cannot be squared with the long-term reality that is the existence of this planet?

I guess you can conclude that I’m not an optimist about our future prospects…

Lynne Kiesling

At Aguanomics, David Zetland takes on a topic that I find greatly interesting and important — using private property rights to conserve endangered species, reduce poaching, and enable indigenous communities who live around such animals to thrive without species extinction as a consequence. In fact, one of my first-ever posts back in 2002 was about the Irbis Enterprises work with Mongolian herders and snow leopards. I also discussed property rights in tigers in a 2005 post and a 2006 post. Note that Irbis Enterprises is now part of the Snow Leopard Trust.

David observes

That’s why the Brazilian rainforest is disappearing — because government policy makes it easier to slash and burn and move on than to conserve the greenery.

The way to protect the rainforest, the whales, etc. is with stronger property rights, and individuals and companies (e.g., the Nature Conservancy) are set up to provide that protection. (To learn more about this kind of free market environmentalism, visit the Property and Environment Research Center.)

Note also that property rights are not just a binary yes-no either-or. Ownership implies a variety of rights (the frequent metaphor is that a property right is a bundle of sticks), and if you have defined, defensible, divisible, and alienable property rights, then you are more likely to get the beneficial outcomes David discusses.

For example, if you own a piece of property between my property and a lovely mountain range, if I value my view by enough, I can buy your development rights on your property. If that happens, then you and subsequent owners can build on the property, but not in a way that impedes my view. In that case the divisibility of your property rights means that you can profit from selling me a right that I value more than you do. [With thanks to Randy Simmons, from whom I've plagiarized this example.]

Think about what a boon this would be in the rainforest. Organizations like pharmaceutical companies and environmental nonprofits could own the land and the plants, water, and animals on it, and could exchange specific development rights that were contingent upon not destroying the assets. Think about the implications for another current tradeoff in land use in Brazil — rainforest vs. clear-cutting to plant soybeans for soy biodiesel. If the big ag companies had to pay to buy the rainforest, that would change the economics of soy biodiesel, not to mention the implications of rainforest owners being able to retain development rights and divide up the bundle of rights.

This divisibility is also how conservation easements work — a property owner sells (or gives, in the case of it being a charitable contribution) a piece of his/her bundle of rights.

The idea is pretty intuitive for land, watersheds, viewsheds, etc., but how about animals? To my mind, animals are more like water and less like land; animals move, and that means I think the characteristic of the property right in animals is the ability of the community to define and enforce use rights. That means treating the animal population as a common-pool resource and defining use rights (number allowed to kill per year, for example).

Lynne Kiesling

The New York Times has an interesting article on how the growth of carbon markets enables us to quantify the environmental value of forests.

The researchers found that paying to conserve the forest was more valuable than plantations as long as poorer nations could earn $10 to $33 for each metric ton of CO₂ saved. Currently a credit representing a metric ton of CO₂ sells for about $20 in the European Union, which has the world’s largest greenhouse gas trading system.

In addition, the researchers found that peat forest areas, where stored carbon is most abundant and thus cheapest to manage, contained almost twice the mammal species density as other areas of forest.

Of course, anyone who has followed the development and the membership of the Chicago Climate Exchange will not be surprised by that finding; note the number of forestry members of the CCX. The CCX also illustrates the value of having private parties come together voluntarily to determine mutually beneficial use rights in the common-pool resource that is the climate system, even without a bureaucratically-determined cap.

Jack Kemp died a few days ago.  He had served as a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise institute, where he worked on environmental matters:Jack Kemp is a distinguished fellow at CEI. The CEI page on him states:

His work at CEI centers on promoting rational, free-market environmental policies. He has spoken out against the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and other international efforts to curb economic growth, and he has championed free and open trade as the key to prosperity, in both the developing and industrialized worlds. Mr. Kemp is also a co-director of Empower America, a public-policy and advocacy organization he co-founded in 1993 with William Bennett, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Vin Weber, and Founding Chairman Ted Forstmann. Prior to 1993, he served for four years as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and proved to be one of our nation

Strangely, the entry ends in mid-sentence, but it does provide some insight into his career.  He combined at least rhetorical support for environmental protection with strong opposition to regulation.  His position was captured by a comment from his v.p. debate with Al Gore:

Look, we recognize that this country has to live in balance with our environment. Every one of us who have children and grandchildren recognize how we have to reach a balance. It is not jobs versus our environment. Both are important. This is the most over-regulated, overly litigated economy in our nation’s history. And to call a businessman or woman who sits down and has a chance to express his or her interest in how to make these laws work and call them a polluter is just outrageous. It is typical of the anti-capitalistic mentality of this Administration. That will change because we believe in democratic capitalism for everybody.

Still, he did admit that environmental problems are real, which was a step ahead of some others today.

via: The Cagle Post

Hope you like this jokes!

That Explains the Radiation Suit

Greenpeace employee to college girl: Hey! Are you pro-environment?
College girl: No, sorry, post-apocalyptic.

Chicago, Illinois

Overheard by: rabbit

A couple nights ago, I was sitting with my family at home.  It was late at night and the  TV was on playing the scariest videos I’ve seen.  It seems that the world is slowly dying and this time, it is humans that are to be blamed.  The Pacific Ocean is slowly dying.

Video: Don’t eat fish

But it is not only humans who are to be blamed.  As a matter of fact, this is a more complex story than people trowing trash to the sea.  This is part of what Garrett Hardin first published in the journal Science in 1968;  it is called the Tragedy of the Commons and it seems that the only solution the seas & the planet have on their side is to privatize the seas.

Really, it is the only solution left for the seas.  If  interested in learning more about sea privatization take a look of this videos,

• What is Free Market Environmentalism? by Jane Shaw is a Senior Fellow of PERC, Property and Environment Research Center.

• Interview with Birgir T. Pétursson by Luis Figueroa bt Birgir T. Pétursson

• ¿Por qué no se extinguen las gallinas? Bienes públicos y privados byl Dr. Enrique Ghersi

El día sábado 29 de mayo algunos celebrarán la hora de la Tierra.  La publicidad en los medios de comunicación y el intenso efecto sentimental que este día implica ha sido muy exitoso.

Sin embargo, muchos (quizás la gran mayoría) desconocen las implicaciones de esta celebración.  Los que lo apoyan y quienes proponen celebrar este día no quieren que nosotros sólo apaguemos algunas bombillas y dejemos de ver televisión.  Lo que estos grupos proponen es la muerte indirecta de millones de personas y la posiblidad de que millones más queden sin empleo y hogares.  Estos grupos proponen una reducción masiva de las emisiones de carbono por los países que el día de hoy proveen al mundo entero de productos y servicios.  La reducción de estas emisiones de carbono implica que se reduzcan en al menos 80% menos que los niveles existentes en al año 1990.  Esta reducción va más allá de apagar la tele o apagar las luces de Times Square por una hora.  Cumplir con la meta de las emisiones de carbono que ellos proponen, implicaría una inmensa reducción del uso de energía (y la producción que utiliza esta energía) a niveles alarmantes.

Sin duda el planeta tierra debe ser cuidado.  Es nuestro único hogar y espero que las generaciones que me sucederán podrán disfrutar de aire limpio, agua fresca y acceso a parques verdes (algo que yo ahora apenas y tengo).  Pero el prestarse a participar en actividades tan nocivas implicaría la muerte de millones de humanos y esto es algo que no estoy dispuesto a apoyar.

Un claro ejemplo para ejemplificar el impacto que tendría una reducción de esas emisiones de carbono se encuentra en las salas de cuidado intensivo de cientos de hospitales alrededor del mundo.  El reducir esas emisiones de carbono implicará el cierre de millones de salas de servicios intensivos y/o indirectamente, implicará la eliminación de muchos de los productos, medicamientos, servicios, aparatos y o empleados que hoy 23 de marzo de 2009 son necesarios para tener esas salas funcionando al 100%.  Además, una reducción en la producción de las industrias implicará también una reducción y retraso en la investigación y desarrollo de nuevos productos y servicios; que probablemente servirían para tratar a esas personas enfermas.

Mi abuela se encuentra internada ahora en una de esas salas de cuidado intensivo y por el amor que tengo a su vida me niego a apoyar iniciativas que buscan destruir el trabajo de hombres dignos que permitieron que ella viviera un día más.

Ahora, piensen ustedes en los cientos de servicios y productos a los cuales es muy probable no tengan acceso si estas emisiones de carbono fueran reducidas en todo el planeta.  ¿No creen que ustedes también se verán afectados por estas externalidades negativas?

Tan sólo piensen y hagan uso de la razón para analizar sus pensamientos… tan sólo piensen y razonen.

Lynne Kiesling

The fundamental cause of most environmental problems — whether air pollution, climate change, or species extinction, for example — is ill-defined property rights. Ill-define property rights lead to inefficient resource use decisions, resource overuse, and accelerated resource use. The effect of human action on the rate and pattern of species extinction is an example of this issue. Places where people have found ways to define property rights in endangered species have seen them return to healthy, robust populations (such as elephants in Kenya). Some previous KP posts have addressed species extinction.

This proposal from a team of biologists is another idea in the direction of establishing property rights in endangered species: require property developers to buy financial contracts tied to the health of a species:

Under their plan, the government would determine the cost of protecting a species if it becomes endangered. That money would be set aside to fund contracts with payouts pegged to species health. The contracts would be sold to landowners and developers whose actions directly affect the animals, though the contracts could be freely re-sold.

Should animal numbers fall beneath a predetermined threshold, contracts would be voided, and money devoted to anticipated recovery programs. If the species thrives, investors would be rewarded, with profits growing in direct proportion to species health.

Despite the snarky comments in the Wired blog post, this is an idea worth elaborating on and testing (using economic laboratory experiments, of course). The experimental testing would be crucial for ensuring that such a policy would achieve its intended objectives, and not result in, for example, strategic species arbitrage transactions.

Very interesting.

Y como dice el refrán al final estamos viendo las piedras del río que tanto había sonado. El 02 de enero empezamos con los precios del petróleo por arriba de los $100.00 dólares empujados por la presión en los mercados bursátiles de los grandes comerciantes mundiales de petróleo.

Según explican en The Economist, esta ocasión los “culpables” fueron los estadounidenses que entraron en una corrida de precios luego del fuerte descenso de las temperaturas de finales del año pasado; además, de los cotidianos problemas que ha habido en Nigeria por causa de la corrupción (Nigeria es uno de los grandes productores mundiales de petróleo que pocos suelen recordar).

¿En qué afecta a los pequeños consumidores como usted y como yo? Fría y llanamente quizás en poco o en nada que hayamos notado. Desde el año 2002 el precio del petróleo ha aumentado casi 5 veces su precio y el consumo de la gasolina por galón o litro ha aumentado al unísono sin que la gente deje de comprar. Los precios de los productos de consumo básico continúan aumentando, el parque vehicular en las ciudades continúa aumentando y tan sólo algunos afortunados pueden invertir más dinero en comprar automóviles híbridos. En fin, todo está más caro y lo menos que hacemos es gastar menos gasolina o utilizar medios alternativos de transporte.

No olvidemos que el petróleo no sólo se utiliza para nuestros vehículos y otros medios de transporte. El petróleo es utilizado en la industria, en la generación de electricidad y las empresas que diariamente nos proveen de servicios básicos.

Acá hay mucho dinero involucrado y a pesar de que llegó tan sólo por un día a los $100.00 dólares hay mucho dinero que los inversionistas en Wall Street se han metido a los bolsillos en ganancias.

Ojalá y tuviera un mi pozo de petróleo crudo… haría mis paquetes de 2×1… jejeje!

The History Channel realizó un concurso para todos aquellos arquitectos y diseñadores que vivieran en el futuro (link al concurso).  Su meta, plasmar la visión de su mente durante sueños y viajes en planos y maquetas del futuro.  El objetivo diseñar una imagen de lo que podría ser Los Angeles, Nueva York y Chicago en los próximos 100 ó 200 años.

Me fascina el futuro.  Me muero por conocerlo y por eso me apasiona leer cuanto puedo de la historia de la Humanidad.  Gracias a la historia estamos acá.  Gracias a hoy, mañana podremos construir y disfrutar de muchas cosas más!  Fantástico!

VIDEO: The City of the Future Winners and proposals at the History Channel Contest.

Más importante aún es que los ganadores se debieron fijar en la historia de las ciudades, sus habitantes, sus costumbres y fortalezas.  Y también en sus debilidades.  En reconocer que el planeta continúa cambiando y las ciudades, aunque muchos no lo quieran aceptar, también podrían ser destruidas por la naturaleza que destruye y construye sin que el hombre pueda o deba siquiera intentar detenerla. 

Su propuesta: adaptarse a los cambios climáticos, geográficos e hidrográficos.  Respetar la naturaleza y aprovechar al máximo los recursos aún disponibles para los humanos.  Reparar los daños causados a la naturaleza por las ciudades. 

¿Acaso no es esta una mejor propuesta que intentar detener el mundo?

VIDEO: Los Angeles 2106

Hace 2 días un terremoto de 7,7 grados en la Escala Richter con epicentro en el norte de Chile, Sudamérica causó la muerte de 2 muertos personas y 45 heridos que vivían en las ciudades de Antofagasta, Calama e Iquique (las ciudades más importantes de la región con algunos cientos de miles de habitantes). En la ciudad de Santiago, con aproximadamente 4 millones de habitantes, el temblor se sintió como un leve susto para quienes vivimos en la ciudad y desde mi edificio tuve un leve movimiento estomacal que nos dio un tema de conversación en la oficina.

Ayer por la tarde, el ciclón Sidr, tocó territorio continental cuando ingresó a la costa de Bangladesh (mapa de área afectada) y en tan sólo unas horas el conteo de muertos superaba las 500 personas y los desaparecidos era ya más de 1000. El día de hoy a las 2pm (EST) ya el conteo de muertos superaba las 1000 personas y cientos de miles de personas habían quedado desplazadas.

Las estadísticas anunciaban la posibilidad de que Bangladesh, uno de los países más planos del mundo, estuviera para el fin de semana con 5 metros de agua por arriba del nivel del mar y con un 60% del territorio del país inundado.

Pensar en hacer una comparación de desastres naturales en la vida humana no es imposible de hacer a pesar de que uno fue un terremoto y el otro un ciclón. Tan sólo recordemos la cantidad de fallecidos durante el último terremoto en Pakistán en el año 2005. Lo que si podemos y debemos recordar es que Chile es un país latinoamericano que, aunque sólo tiene 15 millones de habitantes, es uno de los países más ricos del continente y por lo tanto uno de los mejor preparados para enfrentar el embate de la naturaleza.

Bangladesh por otro lado es uno de los países más poblados del planeta (más de 150 millones de habitantes – con 1045 habitantes por km2.) y a la vez uno de los más pobres (PIB per capita – $2,270).

Este es un ejemplo más de como la única forma en que podemos enfrentar los cambios del clima, lluvias, relámpagos, terremotos y huracanes es preparándonos para enfrentarlos. ¿Cómo lo haremos? Pagando por esa protección. Y la única forma de pagar por esa protección es con capital que producen las industrias y el comercio. Un país que produce productos y genera el capital suficiente puede pagar por la protección de sus inversiones, y por lo tanto, pagar por la protección del capital humano.

Este es uno de los mejores ejemplos para explicar que el cambio climático no se combate. El cambio climático se analiza, se entiende y luego, se paga para poder protegerse contra las inclemencias de la naturaleza.

A few months weeks ago, in October 17th. The Economist published the following:

“But oil’s attractions to investors have recently increased because the market has moved into “backwardation”, where futures prices are lower than the current (spot) price. Investors can thus earn a “roll yield” by buying the future and waiting for the price to rise to the spot level.”

Indeed, such thing happened just one day ago when the price o oil reached a historical price of US$96.00/barrel and it is still on the rise.

Oil is a commody that is very VERY volatile and elastic due to demand. And specially due to speculative demand, were investors can push the prices to reach “high enough” levels that consumers will agree upon. What you may not know is that a push in that speculative demand is one more component of high oil prices that render millions of dollars to investors, and also to producers while demand starts declining and prices stabilize.

However, while the rise in oil prices stimulate the research of alternative means of fuel such as ethanol and natural gas; the overall prices of commodities will rise. We are not running out of oil, but we are also not gaining any money from price elasticity of oil. Meanwhile, research will always be at work in order to find cheaper ways of fueling the world economy! Indeed, human history is all about that: learning better ways of saving resources, increasing profitability and offering final products at a competitive price to satisfy consumers needs.

This is all about progress, and progress occurs because of research, and research occurs only where there is enough money and savings to pay for better means of gaining money. Do you think this is bad? Is it immoral?

Isn’t this actually one of the best ways of creating a better life for human kind?

Ayer me estaba duchando y pensé que no podría ser un buen ecohistérico.  Para ser ecohistérico tendría que evitar bañarme porque gasto demasiada agua y de paso la calefacción de mi ducha de “pela-pollos” es un excesivo gasto de luz.  Pero tampoco podría serlo porque implicaría tener la siguiente rutina en mi día:

QUEDARME SENTADO DURANTE TODO EL DÍA PLÁCIDAMENTE AL LADO DE UN VERDE, VERDE, VERDEEEEE ÁRBOL EVITANDO RESPIRAR MIENTRAS ESPERO CAIGA UN FRUTO MADURO DEL QUE POR FORTUNA SERÁ UN MANZANO.

Esto se es que una reducción al absurdo (y odio estas cosas) pero por qué no puedo hacer yo lo mismo que hacen los ecohistéricos que nos acusan de estar destruyendo al mundo de manera irreparable y que acusan a TODOS los seres humanos de ser unos asesinos de millones de animales y habitats para animales y vida en este planeta.

Acaso no se han cansado de escuchar a esos idiotas gritar mientras fuman algún monte o comen slow food el grito de que “el mundo se está destruyendo irreparablemente y la culpa es de la industria que contamina el planeta por culpa de la ambición capitalista egoísta”.

¿Pero quiénes son esos que suelen quejarse?  Pues normalmente son oportunistas que han encontrado una mina de oro en la “lucha medioambiental”, que llegaron a un estado mental limitado después de fumar tantas porquerías, que viven vidas fracasadas y no tienen de otra que acusar al mundo entero de su insignificancia, que creen es fácil quejarse del mundo y los humanos cuando es en realidad gracias a ellos que tienen ropa, zapatos, bicicletas, hule, lápices, bocinas amplificadoras, pancartas, cigarrillos, mariguana, comida y de paso agua limpia para darse una ducha de vez en cuando.

Mientras que, aquellos que realmente queremos y creemos en la posibilidad de un mejor modo de vida trabajamos en industrias productivas que se han encargado de aumentar la riqueza del planeta y de nuestras comunidades al ofrecer salarios más altos, productos más baratos para el consumo, capital suficiente para invertir en industrias más limpias y eficientes, capital para invertir en estudios de protección de la vida y de investigación científica que además de mejorar la vida de los seres humanos beneficiará al planeta entero, que produce la protección para defender a los más pobres de las inclemencias climáticas y del embate de tormentas, tornados, huracanes y terremotos. 

Acaso no han pensado que somos realmente nosotros los que permitimos los hombre vivan mejor, que los recursos sean utilizados de maneras más eficientes, de que el progreso y el bienestar humano siga en marcha y de que de paso podamos defender a miles de personas más del inevitable cambio del planeta que como muchos han olvidado es una constante y se llama evolución.

El día de hoy se está realizando en los 7 continentes y en distintas ciudades del mundo el concierto Live Earth que durante 24 horas tendrá más de 100 cantautores en escena y será presenciado por aproximadamente 2 mil millones de humanos.

Su visión: es iniciar un movimiento global para resolver la crisis climática.

Su meta: unir por medio de la música a millones de humanos en un afán por cumplir las metas de los medioambientalistas, ecohistéricos, industrias verdes y bolsillos de Al Gore quien este año lo organizó como una de las figuras más importantes del evento.

La amenaza: que los intereses de la Alianza por la Protección del Clima y cientos de organizaciones medio ambientales creen que la única forma de resolver los cambios climáticos globales (ellos le llaman crisis climática) es por medio de la reducción de la producción industrial y de agentes contaminantes producidos por el hombre.

Según ellos, de esta manera serán capaces tal cual haría un dios del Olimpo de detener el cambio climático en el planeta tierra.

Claro, es imposible detener la evolución y dentro de la misma las fluctuaciones climáticas del planeta siempre han ocurrido, ocurren y seguirán ocurriendo.

Me alegra el saber que al menos están logrando hacer conocer a las masas humanas que los productos son escasos y que es necesario conocer el uso eficiente de los mismo. Ahora, sus propuestas son detener el mundo entero y luego llenar los bolsillos de millones de billetes “verdes” de aquellos que escriben libros, dirigen movimientos ecohistéricos, producen películas o realizan eventos públicos masivos.

Ahora es más importante combatir el cambio climático global que unir a millones de humanos para hacerles ver que la pobreza es un mal que aqueja a todas las sociedades. ¿Ahora, qué pasará con los millones de hombres pobres que deberán dejar el espacio para los ecohistéricos?

¿Acaso a alguien le importa más cambiar el clima que producir la riqueza suficiente para eliminar la pobreza?

Tal cual es la respuesta que nos dan los ecohistéricos. Valen menos unos cuantos millones de hombres pobres muriendo de hambre en el Tercer Mundo que la LUCHA contra LA INDUSTRIA CAPITALISTA que les da de comer y les provee de todos los artículos con los cuales realizan sus campañas.

Que asco tengo y no puedo pensar que tengo tears on my pillow. El mundo no esta loco, son los hombres quienes están cegados por sus deseos de dominar la naturaleza.

Descansen en paz los hombres… ¡los ecohistéricos han llegado!

En realidad el tratar de sonar científico e ilustrado cuando los datos y estadísticas se mezclan con pasiones y fuertes sentimientos es una de las grandes obras de la retórica utilizadas a favor del “combate al cambio climático”. ¿Acaso nos está atacando el clima? ¿Acaso podemos hacer ALGUNA cosa para atacar el clima? ¿Acaso el hombre es el culpable del cambio climático?

Por supuesto que NO, NO y NO.

Esta fotografía que encontré en Pasa la Vida ilustra una postal de principios del siglo XX en que ilustraban e imaginaban cómo sería la vida en el planeta en el año 2000 (En la fotografía aparece una máquina de limpieza atmosférica de 1900. Tan sólo puedo reirme y pensar en Al Gore manejándola!!!!). Mientras que a principios de siglo el pensamiento moderno nos llevaba a crear un hombre capaz de inventar y construir cualquier cosa es ahora a principios del siglo XXI que la perfidia de la posmodernidad nos ha hecho empezar a imaginar “cómo lo destruiremos”.

Dense cuenta, en 1900 todo era fantástico y creativo, innovador e inventivo. En el 2000 hemos creado todo lo opuesto, tan sólo hay que ver las grandes proyecciones de Hollywood pronosticando catástrofes globales. Ahí encontraremos una respuesta a lo que le espera al hombre en este nuevo siglo… seguramente alguna pizca de la decadencia que ya empezamos a creer cuando nos “creemos atacados” por el clima, el hombre, la industria, los inventos y el progreso.

Di no al calentamiento global antropogénico! Di no al posmodernismo premonizor del caos!

Di sí al progreso, la industria, el uso eficiente y responsable de los recursos. Di sí al genio creador y a los balances de poder que crearan un mundo más verde y mejor!

“What we have to do is to find a creative way to share our virtues with the rest of the world.  Not to try to perpetuate the horrible lifestyles that have dominated history.”

I had the chance of meeting Fred Smith (President & founder of the CEI) in Washington, DC last summer when I was a Koch Fellow.  Since then, his spirit and passion for free market and reason made an impact in me.  He said to me once that there is no point of discussing things with the people with whom you think likewise but with those who will argue you are wrong and who will try kicking your ass.

I listened very carefully to his comment and since then I have found the most amazing friends and conversations with people just like these.

In this video he is discussing Global Warming issues and Sheryl Crow’s asking for a toilet paper regulation.  He’s just smart,  fun, very clever, and explains things in a fantastic way!

Interview of Fred Smith by Tucker Carlson

Link to Video Conference: Protecting Antiquities
by: Fred L. Smith Jr.
Protecting Antiquities
4 de noviembre de 2006 (66 minutes)

Universidad Francisco Marroquín, Guatemala

I have just found this video. Here’s what the authors say about this educational video for students on the principles of Economics:

Most of us associate wealth with money but real wealth can only be achieved through the production and distribution of goods and services. This sample of a series of ten playful English segments will explain how society evolved in such a way to enable a huge increase in production to be achieved. Of course there were no television cameras or film crews available 10,000 years ago to record what happened, so this series uses cartoons to illustrate how things might have been all those years ago!

The Foundations of Wealth is designed to help students understand what the subject of Economics is all about. Economic decisions are made every day even though students may not be aware of them. For example, all of us think about: How will I choose to spend my time today? How will I choose to spend my money? Who made the things I use? How were they made? This series of videos will help explain a great deal about the way in which these decisions are made.

Link for buying the DVD if any of you is interested in getting it for your class and/or children: http://www.izzit.org/products/index.php

The Foundations of Wealth sample 2

Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe … there’s no need to feel bad. According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn’t your fault and there’s nothing you can do about it. We’ve almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they’ve got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.

<object width=”500″ height=”403″><param name=”FlashVars” value=”apiHost=api.sevenload.com”/><param name=”movie” value=”http://en.sevenload.com/pl/ha4PoKY/500×403/swf” /><embed src=”http://en.sevenload.com/pl/ha4PoKY/500×403/swf” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”500″ height=”403″ allowfullscreen=”true” FlashVars=”apiHost=api.sevenload.com”></embed></object><br />Link: <a href=”http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle”>sevenload.com</a>

This is the link to the website of “TheGreat Global Warming Swindle” at Channel 4

I have written a couple more articles on Global Warming where you will find more resources and commentaries about this subject. Here is the link to read them: Homo Homini Lupus on Global Warming

I have just finished reading this essay on Global Warming from Fred Singer Ph.D. and I hope you all will read it also.

(click here to read the essay)

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the absence of a sufficient scientific basis for the Global Climate Treaty or for the kind of hasty and drastic bureaucratic “solutions” arising from the December 1997 Conference of the Parties (COP-3) in Kyoto, Japan.

During more than two dozen seminar lectures presented in the United States and Europe during the past two years, I found that audiences – both scientists and non-scientists – responded most favorably when they could see the actual data supporting some of the major scientific conclusions about climate change. Those conclusions are that:

· There is no current global warming and little to be expected in the future.

· The past, both recent and geologic, has seen large and rapid natural changes in temperature.

· Any onset of warmer temperatures would be expected to produce a drop in sea level, not a rise.

· The science of climate change is not “settled” or “compelling,” and there is hardly any consensus within the informed scientific community.