Earth Day Past and Present, the Lies may Change but the Agenda remains the Same

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 27th, 2013

Week in Review

If you’re old you probably get exasperated by the environmentalists.  And their hand-wrenching cries that the planet will die if we don’t start acting right now.  Before it’s too late.  Things we’ve been hearing for the last 40 some years.  Which is why us old farts get exasperated.  We’ve been hearing these dire warnings for 40 some years.  Which means we haven’t acted yet to save the planet.  Because they are still wringing their hands about the coming environmental apocalypse.  Yet if these people knew what they were talking about 40 some years ago we wouldn’t be here now.  We’d be dead.  As well as the planet.  Based on their dire warnings some 40 years ago.  So when it comes to credibility the environmentalists have none.

The environmentalists are like the boy who cried wolf.  I say ‘like’ because in the Aesop Fable no one believes the boy when he is telling the truth because he has lied so often in the past.  In real life environmentalists never tell the truth.  So you never have to worry about not believing them when they are, in fact, telling the truth.  Here’s a joke to help you remember this.  How can you tell when environmentalists are lying?  Their lips are moving.

After being so wrong for so long you just can’t take them seriously anymore.  Which is why they teach environmentalism to our kids in school.  Because they’re young.  We may be a lost cause but they have a chance to still scare the bejesus out of our kids.  Who are hearing these dire warnings for the first time.  And believe what their teachers tell them.  They believe them so much that they come home from school and argue with their parents about how we are destroying the planet.  Little do they realize that their teachers are just trying to get these kids to become Democrat voters when they turn of age.  So they and their unions continue to have friends in high places.  That will help them keep their generous pay and benefit packages.  For people lie for a reason.  And usually that reason is money.  If these teachers aren’t frightening our kids about the global warming boogeyman for money then just why are they lying to them?

So what were they saying 40 some years ago?  Well, on the anniversary of Earth Day a lot of people have been pointing out some of their worst predictions.  Here are 13 that should have every environmentalist hanging their head in shame (see 13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970 by Jon Gabriel posted 4/22/2013 on FreedomWorks).

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

These are from two prestigious universities and the esteemed New York Times.  That are supposed to be the wisest and brightest among us.  People we can trust.  Now either they’re not very wise or bright.  Or they are not trustworthy.  For the world has never been a better place for human habitation.  Life got better.  Not worse.  In fact, the only threat for human habitation is birth control and abortion.  And advances in medicine.  We’re having fewer kids to grow up and enter the workforce to pay taxes.  While advances in medicine our letting those who leave the workforce live a long time into retirement.  This is the danger to mankind.  The collapse of the welfare state that may degenerate in rioting.  And it was the same people incidentally that gave us the welfare state that are now trying to scare the bejesus out of us that we’re killing the planet.  If anyone is killing anything it’s the political left and their unsustainable welfare state.

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

The only thing causing famine in these poorer countries are environmentalists.  Who are forcing us to make gasoline out of corn.  That’s right, we have such large food surpluses we use it for fuel.  Raising the price of food for the poorest of people.  And leaving less to give to the hungry because we’re making ethanol out of it to save us from global warming.  The environmentalists were the only ones wringing their hands about these coming famines.  While there are some famines they are usually in countries with the kind of government these environmentalists like.  Those who put people before profits.  Like the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  The People’s Republic of China (under Mao).  And North Korea.  Who all suffered/are suffering recurring famines because they put people before profits.  North Korea still cannot feed her people.  But the environmentalist will love how clean and unspoiled their country is.  For their society is so undeveloped that most houses don’t even have electricity or a furnace.  And while advanced economies have an obesity problem even in their poorer populations most North Koreans are malnourished.  Advanced economies that use energy can feed their people.  And support a growing population.  Even Hong Kong can prosper.  An island on a rock.  With little resources.  That imports just about everything they eat.  And yet they have one of the highest standards of living.  With no famine.  Because Hong Kong is a bastion of laissez-faire capitalism.

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

With all the talk of global warming and rising sea levels it is hard not to laugh at this nonsense.  The greatest threat to civilizations is dealing with aging populations.  Who are living far longer than any actuary predicted.  Not only is air pollution NOT claiming hundreds of thousands of lives we’re actually living longer.  Showing how ignorant and/or politically motivated these ecologists and environmentalist were.  And still are.  For it wasn’t that long after they got us all scared about the coming Ice Age that they started scaring us about global warming.  Either they were using flawed climate models or they were just lying to us.  For you can’t go from we’re killing the planet with global cooling to we’re killing the planet with global warming in a matter of a decade or two.

What is obvious is that these people have been and still are politically motivated.  They look at small snapshots of data and tell us the sky is falling.  For what reason?  Well, most of these environmentalists are anti-capitalists.  Whose environmentalist hysteria has led to what?  A lot of environmental regulations targeted at business.  Making it harder for them to stay in business.  Old people understand this.  Our kids don’t.  So they brain wash our kids in the public school so they come home and tell us what horrible people we are.  But they will learn the truth one day.  In about 40 years or so from now they will be reading about the silly predictions of people like Al Gore.  Shake their heads.  And listen to their kids coming home from school.  Telling them how they’re destroying the planet with all of their global cooling.  Which may be the fear in vogue then.  Or perhaps they will find something new to scare our grandchildren about in school.  Whatever it is the teachers of the future will be scaring our kids with it so they will grow up and vote Democrat.  So they and their unions continue to have friends in high places.  That will help them keep their generous pay and benefit packages.  For some things never change.  Unlike the warming and cooling of the planet.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Climate ‘Scientists’ have found Proof that Climate Change causes Humanitarian Disasters

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

Now we have proof that global warming causes humanitarian disasters.  Well, not proof in a real scientific way.  But in the kind of way that you have to note with asterisk.  With the asterisk denoting that this science is not real science.  But climate science.  Where the science is more politics than science.  As evident by the vast majority (if not all) the climate ‘scientists’ are anti-capitalists and/or favor more restrictive business regulations.  This is the ‘science’ that has found proof that climate change has led to a humanitarian disaster (see Humanitarian disaster blamed on climate change by Michael Marshall posted 3/1/2013 on New Scientist).

For the first time, we have proof that climate change has led to a humanitarian disaster. The East African drought of 2011, which resulted in a famine that killed at least 50,000 people, was partly caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

For the first time the climate ‘scientists’ have proof that all the climate doom and gloom they’ve been preaching the last few decades is for real?  That until now it was at best a hunch?  They didn’t say that then.  In fact they spoke then with the same certainty that they now speak with.  So why should we believe this now?  How do we know that they won’t say in the future that they can finally, for the first time, actually prove something?  And it won’t be different from something they told us in the past?

Humanity’s activities had no effect on the short rains – they failed because of a strong La Niña in the Pacific. “That’s natural,” says Stott.

But climate change did affect the long rains, making them more likely to fail (Geophysical Research Letters, doi.org/kmv). The model could only reproduce the scale of the drought if it included greenhouse gas emissions.

I have a model, too.  A formula.  It’s one that predicts the future economy.  Here it is.  EO=If(P=EC, good, bad).  Where P=President, EC=Economically Conservative and EO=Economic Outlook.  And it works as a standard ‘if’ function on a spreadsheet program.  If the president is economically conservative then the economic outlook is good.  If the president is NOT economically conservative then the economic outlook is bad.  And it is a proven formula.

The economy has been bad under President Obama who is not economically conservative.  But good under President George W. Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Ronald Reagan.  Who were all economically conservative.  At least to a certain degree.  It was bad under Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.  Who weren’t economically conservative.  With Republican Richard Nixon even calling himself a Keynesian after he decoupled the dollar from gold.  It went from good to bad under JBJ.  Who wasn’t economically conservative.  It went from bad to good under JFK who was economically conservative.  We call the Fifties Happy Days because the economy was pretty good under Eisenhower.  Who was economically conservative (his foreign policy dwarfed any interest in meddling with the domestic economy).  Truman and FDR were New Dealers.  Who weren’t economically conservative in the least.  And neither was Herbert Hoover.  Whose non-conservative economic policies helped to kick off the recession that FDR transformed into the Great Depression.  Both Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding were economically conservative.  And their policies gave us great economic prosperity.  And so on.

I’d have to modify the formula to account for President Clinton.  For though the economy did well while he was in office it is a little more complicated with him.  Who kind of fell ass-backwards into some good economic times.  First of all he was still riding the wave of Reaganomics.  He had a peace dividend from Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War.  Asia was suffering a financial crisis.  Japan was just beginning their Lost Decade.  And after only 2 years in office Clinton lost Congress.  Forcing him to scale back on his liberal agenda.  Also, it was under Clinton that we got the dot-com boom (and irrational exuberance) and the subsequent subprime mortgage crisis.  Making a lot of Clinton’s economic growth, then, artificial.  A bubble.  The dot-com bubble bursting just after Clinton left office.  The subprime mortgage housing bubble bursting in 2007.  So Clinton, who was not economically conservative, made a mess of things but was lucky enough to be out of office when the train wreck of his administration’s policies hit.  Especially those initiated by his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending that gave us the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession.

So my model works.  History supports it.  Yet which model will be taken more seriously?  The one that is so complex with so many variables that no one can be sure what’s going on with it.  The one that took a lot of fine-tuning to get it to explain anything the way they wanted it to explain it.  Which is why it took until now to prove something for the first time.  Unlike mine.  Which has been proving things for decades.

The team calculate that climate change is responsible for between 24 per cent and 99 per cent of the risk of long rains failure.

Further proof that climate science is not real science.  Proving something is 24-99% responsible is not scientific.  I know.  I was marked down for something 4 places PAST the decimal point while in college.  When I protested that I was close enough the professor said that isn’t how science works.  Being close enough just doesn’t work.  You may eat food that is 99% salmonella-free.   But you sure aren’t going to eat food that is only 24% salmonella-free.

Although Stott’s findings add to the evidence that East Africa will face more droughts as the climate warms, for now, the region is slowly recovering from 2011. The short rains at the end of 2012 were good, and the latest forecasts suggest that the long rains will be roughly normal, or at least not far below that.

If the climate is warming because of man-made global warming how can the model show East Africa is cooling now?  Climate ‘scientists’ have been saying that if we don’t act NOW we’re doomed.  Because it could take decades to reverse the damage we’ve caused.  If so how is it that East Africa is reversing the damage in little over a year?  Despite the world NOT taking urgent measure to reverse global warming?  Or is what happening the normal ebb and flow of warming and cooling periods of climate that has little if anything to do with whatever man is putting into the atmosphere?

In the long run, studies that attribute blame in this way could be used by people attempting to sue for damages relating to climate change. A number of such cases are currently moving through US courts, spearheaded by the Alaskan village of Kivalina. The village is threatened by increased storm surges that may be linked to climate change, and its residents are suing major energy companies for the cost of evacuating.

Such cases still face significant challenges, says environmental lawyer Tracy Hester of the University of Houston in Texas. Anyone trying to bring one to court will have to link the damages they have suffered to a particular source of emissions.

How about that?  The ultimate use for such a model is for someone to sue some business.  Just as an anti-capitalist is wont to do.

I have another model.  This one points to who is responsible for global warming.  And who we should be suing.  Before global warming there was global cooling.  Climate ‘scientists’ were warning us about the coming ice age.  That changed sometime during the late 20th Century.  When the climate ‘scientists’ changed their minds and said the planet was warming.  Without really giving a good reason why they switched from cooling to warming.  But as they warned us they got the politicians to write new environmental laws.  To prevent warming.  And to save the planet.  Adding emission controls on our cars and power plants.  Launching their war on coal.  And what happened?  Temperatures continued to rise.  To the highest they had ever been.  As they continued to urge us to take even more drastic actions.  Before it was too late.

If the temperatures are still rising even after reducing harmful emissions what can one rationally conclude?  This temperature rise must be man-made.  The climate ‘scientists’ caused it.  (And should be the ones we’re suing.)  By forcing us to cut back on the cooling emissions of our coal-fired power plants.  For they put the same things into the atmosphere an erupting volcano does.  And erupting volcanoes cool the planet.  Which brings me to my other model.  It, too, is a simple equation.  CC=If(DIF=L, warming, not warming).  Where DIF=Dominant Influential Force, L=Liberal and CC=Climate Change.  If the dominating influential force is liberal they will restrict cooling emissions that are similar to what volcanoes produce, causing global warming.  If the dominating influential force is not liberal then cooling emissions may increase and not warm the planet.

Noting that people who are economically conservative are not liberal you can combine my two equations into one with some simple substitutions.  Which reduces down to an even simpler formula.  If you want a healthy economy and a healthy planet vote conservative.  Which the empirical data supports.  As President Obama’s policies are doing little to fix the economy or the environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT158: “Journalists are more partisan than wise.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 22nd, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Mainstream Media sacrifice their Journalistic Integrity to help the Obama Administration Advance their Agenda

The president has warned that the $85 billion in spending cuts of the sequester will gut government programs leaving Americans at great peril.  This despite baseline budgeting automatically increases spending every year.  From 1974 (after Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold and the government adopted baseline budgeting) through 2008 (before the spending orgy of the Obama administration) federal spending increased approximately 7.5% each year.  Crunching the numbers for the spending increase from 2012 to 2013 we get $284.7 billion.  Applying the cuts of the sequester reduces this increase in spending to $199.7 billion.  We will spend more in 2013 than we did in 2012.  Even AFTER the sequester cuts.  So all the peril the president is warning us about is not real.  He’s lying for political gain.

Yet the mainstream media is discussing this issue as if there are real cuts in spending.  That we will reduce spending in the numerous government programs the president warns about if we let the sequester happen.  Less food inspection.  Less airport security.  Fewer police officers.  Fewer firefighters.  Fewer teachers.  Fewer flu vaccinations.  And less childcare.  In their reports they discuss these as a matter of fact.  When they are just not true.  And it’s no secret.  Anyone can do what we did and look at federal outlays and see the automatic spending increases each year.  And see that we will still spend more in 2013 after the sequester cuts than we did in 2012.  You’d think a journalist would study the facts.  The historical record.  And then question the president and his administration.  Ask them why they are lying.  But they don’t.  Why?

Because they are partisan.  Committed to the leftist agenda the president is trying to pass.  So they either help spread the lie.  Being complicit in the lie.  Or they spread the lie because they are victims of the lie.  They are so committed to the leftist agenda that they don’t question anything coming from the liberal left.  Because they want to believe.  They sacrifice their journalistic integrity to help the administration advance their agenda.  More a propaganda arm of the administration than a free press.  The kind of journalism they practice in Venezuela.  Cuba.  China.  North Korea.  And the kind of journalism they practiced in East Germany.  The Soviet Union.  And Nazi Germany.  Where there was no free press.  Only state propaganda.  Propaganda in a totalitarian regime is one thing.  They already oppress their people and their news is more for the benefit of outsiders.  Where they lie about record harvests.  And record gains in industrial production.  Things their people have long stopped believing as they suffer through the misery of the reality.  But it’s different in a free country.  For it lends legitimacy for illegitimate actions of government.  And allows them to overstep the restraints of their constitutional authority.

The Mainstream Media helped Downplay the Resurgent al Qaeda in Benghazi to help President Obama win Reelection

In 2010 the greatest cause of accidental deaths for children age 5-15 was motor vehicle accidents.  In 2010 there were 806 deaths.  Representing 49.1% of all deaths.  The number two cause was drowning with 251 deaths.  Or 15.3% of the total.  Next came fire/burn at 135 deaths.  Then death by suffocation at 79 deaths.  Then death by other land transportation at 68 deaths.  Then poisoning at 54 deaths.  Then came firearms at 37 deaths.  Yet many in the mainstream media actively support the Obama administration in their push for gun control.  Especially a ban on assault weapons.  Even if (as they say so often) it saves only one child.  But guns aren’t the leading cause of death for children.  In fact, as horrific as scenes like the Newtown shooting are they are very rare occurrences.  Far more children die in automobile accidents each year.  No doubt because we are driving smaller cars to save the planet (lighter cars means greater gas mileage and less pollution).  But the journalists don’t report this fact.  Because they endorse the leftist agenda of saving the planet.  And more gun control.  Even if saving the planet means the death of more children from driving in smaller and less safe cars.  While more gun control probably won’t save a single child.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy record has been a poor one.  The greatest threat to peace and stability in the Mideast and North Africa is Iran.  Yet the Obama administration did not support the Green Revolution protesting the 2009 Iranian election results that most felt were unfair.  There are few bigger enemies of the United States.  The Iranian supported insurgency killed or wounded a lot of U.S. military in Iraq.  Our strongest allies in the region (Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia) all feared growing Iranian influence in the region.  But given an opportunity to support an uprising that could overthrow a great enemy to peace and stability the Obama administration did nothing.  But when the Arab Spring swept through Egypt the president abandoned one of America’s most stalwart allies and the anchor to stability in the region.  Hosni Mubarak.  Now the Iranian influence in Egypt is stronger than ever.  When the Arab Spring spread to Libya the Obama administration supported that movement, too.  Despite Colonel Muammar Gaddafi having denounced terrorism and supported the Americans in the war against al Qaeda.  When the Arab Spring spread to Syria the president did not support that protest.  Despite Syria being Iran’s strongest ally in the region.  A sponsor of terrorism.  And a nation with a chemical arsenal likely manufactured by Iraq (those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had used on his people but had disappeared when the Americans arrived on the scene, likely having skedaddled across the border into Syria).  As bad as the ruling regime was in Syria we did nothing to help Syrians overthrow their oppressor.

Now civil war engulfs Syria.  Elements of al Qaeda have joined the opposition.  Making sure Iran wins however things turn out there.  And the Iranian influence is stronger than ever in Libya.  When al Qaeda killed the American diplomat in Benghazi the Obama administration made up a story about a YouTube video causing spontaneous protests that led to the ambassador’s death along with three other Americans.  To downplay a resurgent al Qaeda during the 2012 election campaign.  As they had refused to beef up security in Benghazi as the ambassador requested.  Because it would look bad in the 2012 election.  Yet the mainstream media did not question these very poor decisions the Obama administration made for political reasons.  Instead accepting their position that there was nothing newsworthy in Benghazi.  Which they wholeheartedly reported.  Refusing to even ask questions.  Such as why did they refuse the ambassador’s request for more security?  Who edited the talking points for Ambassador Rice used for the Sunday morning shows?  Or why is al Qaeda now stronger in the Middle East, North Africa and West Africa after 4 years of the Obama administration that they were during 8 years of the Bush administration?  No.  They showed no journalistic curiosity.  Or integrity.  Simply accepting the administration’s statements as fact.  While the Middle East and Africa become more dangerous places.

The Mainstream Media is no longer a Free Press for the People but a Propaganda Arm of the Obama Administration

Obamacare is the most sweeping change to the American economy since LBJ’s Great Society.  Which was the most sweeping change since FDR’s New Deal.  The American Left has always wanted a national health care system.  Just like what they have in the United Kingdom.  The Left likes to point to their National Health Service (NHS) as the right way to do health care.  As does the mainstream media.  Yet if you read the British papers their NHS is not all the American Left says it is.  Britain’s aging population has caused health care spending to explode.  The UK is in the midst of massive budget cuts to bring down health care spending.  While the NHS has long tried to deal with chronic problems of long wait times.  Rationing.  A shortage of doctors and nurses.  Even ambulances.  Their emergency rooms are overflowing with people with non-emergencies as the NHS closed their neighborhood clinics to reduce costs.  And the quality of care has been falling in their hospitals.  The problems in the NHS are no secret.  All you have to do is pick up a British paper and read about them.  For they are ongoing.  Yet the mainstream media never reported these problems during the Obamacare debate.  Or what passed for a debate.  No.  They never asked how Obamacare was going to avoid all the problems they were having in the NHS.  Which they should have.  As the US has an aging population, too.  Worse, they have about five times the population the UK has.  Guaranteeing any problems they have will be five times worse in the US.  Serious questions a good journalist should have asked.  But no.  They didn’t.  Because they support the liberal agenda more than they believe in journalistic integrity.  So they only report what helps the administration.  While avoiding anything that is critical of them.  Or their agenda.

When it comes to economics the mainstream media are all supporters of Keynesian economics.  Despite their record of failure.  When Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971 it allowed the government to go all in with Keynesian economics.  And they did.  Printing so much money that it led to excessive inflation, high unemployment and economic stagnation.  Ronald Reagan reversed those Keynesian policies.  His administration stopped printing money.  And got the government out of the private sector economy.  Cutting regulations.  As well as tax rates.  And economic activity exploded.  There was so much economic activity that tax revenue nearly doubled.  Even at those lower tax rates.  But the mainstream media doesn’t report this.  Instead, they revise history.  Always supporting Keynesian economic policies as they allow government to expand.  So they can implement their leftist agenda.  Which is anti-business.  Pushing higher regulations.  And higher taxes.  And whenever anyone talks about Reaganomics they say those cuts in tax rates only increased the deficit.  When the historical record clearly shows tax receipts increased.  Which they could easily look up (see Table 2.1—RECEIPTS BY SOURCE: 1934–2017).  But they don’t.  Or chose not to.  Preferring to support the liberal agenda.  Instead of having journalistic integrity.

The mainstream media today is no longer a free press for the people.  They are an extension of the Democrat Party.  At least the liberal wing of the Democrat Party.  More of a propaganda arm of the Obama administration.  That is more interested in changing the country than keeping our politicians honest.  Or reporting the facts.  They are fiercely partisan.  Or they are just not very smart.  Either woefully ignorant of the material they report on.  Or so in the bag for the Obama administration that they will report falsehoods as truth.  The kind of thing that isn’t a big deal in a totalitarian regime.  But a pretty big deal in a free country with a government that continues to try to exceed its constitutional authority.  For a free press is the vanguard of a free country.  Keeping the politicians honest so they can’t exceed their constitutional authority.  And if the journalists aren’t going to do their job by the time we find out what our politicians are doing it will be too late.  As we now have Obamacare as law.  Which passed on partisan lines.  With enough moderates and independents voting for Obamacare as few in America knew of all the problems the British were having with their national health care.  Today it’s Obamacare.  Tomorrow it may be gun control.  Or a war in the Middle East thanks to a resurgent al Qaeda.  And a growing Iranian influence.  Thanks to such a poor job in foreign policy that if the mainstream media had reported it honestly President Obama may not have won reelection.  And four Americans may not have died in Benghazi.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The President’s Green Initiative would have Worked Better if China didn’t build Better Solar Panels for Less

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 28th, 2012

Week in Review

President Obama loaned a half billion dollars to Solyndra to create jobs of the future.  Solyndra filed bankruptcy shortly thereafter.  And they are not the only green investment to go belly up.  But the president hasn’t given up on his green energy.  Especially solar power.  Despite China (see Rays of hope for solar firms by Wang Jun and Chen Jia posted 10/26/2012 on China Daily USA).

China’s solar-panel industry has been rocked by recent US duties on its exports to combat alleged dumping and the specter of similar action by European authorities.

At least one company sees the standoff as an opportunity, however…

In the industry’s trade tussle with the United States, Zhou believes, weaker companies will suffer most, and some may fail…

CSG PVTech, a subsidiary of Shenzhen-listed CSG Holding Co, makes panels and modules studded with photovoltaic, or PV, cells that draw on the sun’s rays to produce electricity. Zhou said his confidence in the company is backed by recognition its products have received abroad.

For example, German solar-industry publisher Photon, which tests PV cells and related equipment, since 2010 has ranked CSG-made modules containing monocrystalline-silicon cells among the top three in the world and polycrystalline-silicon modules among the top 10…

Although he oversees both European and US operations for CSG PVTech, it’s clear where Zhou’s focus resides…

“California is a bigger market than Germany,” he said, pointing out that the US state meets the two key requirements – lots of sunshine and a huge demand for electricity.

Jack Pryor, CEO of Access Solar Inc, a Palm Springs installer of panels in homes, said his company is currently outfitting over 110 new townhouses in California with CSG PV panels…

By working with installers like Access Solar, Zhou plans to turn CSG’s focus in the US from business-to-business to business-to-customer, in hopes of making the Chinese company a household name.

He admits, however, that like many Chinese enterprises, a limited understanding of marketing is a hurdle.

“We sell products, but we don’t understand how to sell service,” he said. “As a result, our value chain is too short.”

Zhou aims to sell both.

So not only can the Chinese make solar panels far cheaper than the Americans they make quality stuff.  In fact they make one product that is in the top three in the world.  And another that is in the top 10.  Inexpensive and high quality?  Hard to compete against that.  But it even gets worse for those jobs of the future.  American installers are partnering with China.  And China is working on providing excellent service in addition to low prices and high quality.

So it looks like the president’s green initiative will help create those jobs of the future after all…in China.  But they’re trying to stop that by slapping anti-dumping duties on them.  Of course, that just raises the cost of saving the planet.  Discouraging people from installing solar panels on their houses because of these higher costs.  So the president’s green initiative is basically a lose-lose.  No jobs of the future.  And discouraging people from trying to save the planet.  Oh, and the president’s war on coal is raising the cost of electric power.  So the president’s policies are a triple loser.

Solar power.  It was going to pull America out of the Great Recession by creating jobs of the future.  Instead we get bankruptcies of government subsidized firms.  And higher unemployment than there was four years ago.  Is it me or is solar power not the panacea that the president said it was?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A Battle is Building in Australia over their Carbon Tax

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2012

Week in Review

Nations with high tax rates tend to have less foreign investment than nations with low tax rates.  Because lower tax rates allow companies to earn more profits.  More profitable companies have higher stock prices.  And higher earnings per share of stock.  Which means higher returns on foreign investments.  The whole argument about raising taxes on the big corporations is that they’re rich enough and can afford to pay more of their earnings in taxes.  So we know that higher taxes mean lower earnings.  Unless, apparently, it’s a carbon tax (see Abbott won’t axe carbon tax, Combet says posted 10/24/2012 on Sky News).

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has attacked Tony Abbott’s plan to repeal Labor’s carbon tax as a sovereign risk…

Mr Combet believes abolishing the carbon price – which Mr Abbott says would be the coalition’s first order of government – would diminish Australia’s standing with the international investment community…

“Repealing the carbon price would be damaging to investment confidence and undermine the business decisions which have already been taken.

“This would see financial markets increasing the risk premiums for investments in Australia.”

Mr Combet said people would still pay more for power but without any environmental benefit.

So carbon taxes make consumers pay more for power.  According to the people that gave Australia the carbon tax.  This is the price of fighting global warming.  Higher consumer costs.  And a lower quality of life.  As people have less money to spend on themselves because the government is taking more of their money.

And yet repealing the carbon tax won’t lower the cost of power.  Interesting.  If you increased the cost of power with a carbon tax you’d think you’d reduce the cost of power by eliminating the carbon tax.  So why won’t the price of power come down?  The power companies would have a vested interest to show the people how bad a carbon tax is.  So they will never vote another carbon tax in.  And if the people are going to pay the same for power whether they have a carbon tax or not they’ll probably say,  “Well, if it doesn’t cost any more we might as well as save the planet.”  And vote to restore that carbon tax.  So the power companies would be wise to lower their rates once they repeal the carbon tax.  And most likely will.  As it is in their best long-term interests.

When a country starts using words like ‘nationalizing’ and ‘socialism’ investors will require a higher risk premium.  There’s nothing that will wipe out an investment like a 100% tax on their investments after the state takes it over.  When a country adopts a highly inflationary monetary policy investors will require a higher risk premium.  But one thing investors don’t ask for a higher risk premium is for low taxes.  As low taxes typically stimulate economic activity.  Which creates higher corporate profits.  And higher returns on investment.

Of course, a carbon tax provides a windfall of revenue for governments.  Especially those governments that like to spend the money.  So if this will have an effect on their sovereign debt this means the carbon tax has more to do with funding government spending that saving the planet.  And the risk premium is the higher interest rates they will have to pay on their government bonds if they repeal the carbon tax.  As they will have to borrow even more money to fund their out of control spending.

Remember this lesson well.  This is what a carbon tax is for.  Government spending.  Not to fight global warming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s Green Energy Investment into Electric Cars is a Failure According to CB0

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Saving the planet with electric cars is a costly endeavor.  Part of the problem is that no one wants these cars.  Even with fat government subsidies.  Because people would rather have big SUVs, trucks and full-size sedans.  Vehicles that are useful.  Safe.  And have big gasoline engines in them that will always get you home.  Which is why the government’s green energy investment into the electric car industry will never deliver any of its promises (see U.S. electric car policy to cost $7.5 billion by 2019: CBO by Bernie Woodall and Deepa Seetharaman posted 9/20/2012 on Reuters).

U.S. federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have “little to no impact” on overall national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.

Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion cost, the CBO said.

The rest of the cost comprises of $2.4 billion in grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles as well as $3.1 billion in loans to auto companies designed to spur production of fuel-efficient vehicles.

“The more electric and other high-fuel-economy vehicles that are sold because of the tax credits, the more low-fuel-economy vehicles that automakers can sell and still meet the standards,” according to the report.

As a result, tax credits will have “little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”

So auto makers are selling electric vehicles for two reasons.  Government subsidies.  And so they can sell more lower-fuel-economy and higher-polluting profitable vehicles.  The kind of vehicles the people want to buy.  And will buy without any government subsidies.  No one wants to buy the electric cars.  And the automakers can’t make any money selling the electric cars.  The only way any sales of electric cars happen is by transferring a large chunk of their cost to the taxpayers.  Against their will.  But, then again, that’s what government is for these days, isn’t it?  Going against the will of their constituents.

While drivers of these electric vehicles use less gasoline and emit less greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide, the cost to the government can be high, the CBO found. The U.S. government will spend anywhere from $3 to $7 for each gallon of gasoline saved by consumers driving electric vehicles…

The CBO said an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours is eligible for the maximum tax credit of $7,500.

“However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle,” the CBO said.

And, the bigger the battery the greater the cost disadvantage for buyers of plug-in vehicles and conventional vehicles, the CBO said.

What happened to that laser-like focus on creating jobs?  That’s what President Obama said back in 2009.  And here we are in 2012 still suffering in the Great Recession.  Despite their Recovery Summer back in 2010.  The president is spending a lot of money.  Some $500 billion or more to the solar panel maker Solyndra now in bankruptcy.  As well as other green energy investments.  Including the investment into electric cars to wean us off of expensive gasoline.  While the cost of the subsidies for these electric cars will basically double the price of gasoline the rest of us pay (the price of the subsidy costs us as much as what gasoline costs us).

We’d be better off just paying for the expensive gasoline to put into the cars we want to buy.

But it’s worth the price to save the planet.  That’s what they say.  But I can’t help but notice that the planet has never been in worse shape since we started trying to save it.  We know volcanic eruptions can lower the earth’s temperature with the amount of smoke, soot, ash and sulfur dioxide they put into the atmosphere.   Periods of global cooling correlate to active volcanic activity.  So that’s a given.  We know it for a fact.  So is it any coincidence that when we started putting scrubbers onto our coal-fired power plants to remove these same things from our smoke stacks that global temperatures began to rise?

Once upon a time we all burned coal in our houses for heat.  Coal-fired locomotives transported people and freight.  And every factory had a coal-fired steam engine.  We covered our cities in smoke, soot and ash from all the coal we burned.  But there was no global warming then like we have today.  Why?  Can it be that burning coal releases the same stuff volcanoes release when they erupt?  And cool the planet?  Perhaps.  If the global warming alarmists were right then the attack on coal and all the emission controls they mandated on our cars should have made the planet a chilly place.  Shortening our growing seasons.  And given us a famine or two along the way.  But that hasn’t happened.  Because the global warming alarmists have been warning us that the end of the world was only 3 years away for the last 30 years.  How much longer are we to quake in our shoes from their nonsense?

The earth is fine.  We need to stop listening to these people.  Because all they’re doing is transferring enormous sums of money from the private sector to the public sector.  To play their games.  And live comfortably.  While those of us paying the taxes and buying the things they make ever more expensive have to sacrifice our quality of life so these talentless alarmist hacks can live a comfortable elitist life at our expense.  And they’re laughing at us all the way to the bank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s Labor Party getting Sensible in not Closing Down Coal-Fired Power Plants?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 8th, 2012

Week in Review

Australia is moving towards a green energy future.  They’ve implemented a carbon tax.  And they’re moving ahead with closing coal-fired power plants and replacing them with renewable energy power plants.  Such as the International solar power company Fotowatio Renewable Ventures’ new 20 megawatt solar power facility.  Soon to be Australia’s largest solar power plant.  Which, at a capacity factor of 18%, will put up to 3.6 megawatts of useful electric power onto the electric grid.  Something that will only add $13 annually to all householder power bills.  And with new solar power plants coming on line like this they can afford to pay to shut down those dirty coal-fired power plants (see Govt breached faith on power stns: Greens by AAP posted 9/5/2012 on the Herald Sun).

Energy Minister Martin Ferguson on Wednesday announced Labor had abandoned plans to pay some coal-fired power generators to shut down, under its so-called contract for closure program…

“The whole point of addressing global warming through an emissions trading scheme is to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel and to renewable energy,” Senator Milne said.

“Shutting down some of the dirtiest coal-fired power stations was at the heart of what we are trying to do.

Politics aside Australians are lucky Labor abandoned their plans.  Let’s look at just one of those dirty coal-fired power plants.  Say, the Liddell Power Station.  With four (4) 500 MW units that can produce 2,000 megawatts of electric power.  With a capacity factor of about 90% (for a coal-fired power plant) that comes to 1,800 megawatts of useful, reliable power.  So, to shut down the Liddell Power Station you would need 500 of the Fotowatio Renewable Ventures’ new 20 megawatt solar power facilities.  Which is a lot.  And about 499 more than they are planning to build.  Do you see a potential problem with this plan of closing coal-fired power plants?  To help clarify let’s do the math.  If one of these plants adds $13 annually to all householder power bills 500 plants will add $6,500 annually to all householder power bills.

The problem with green energy is that it can’t produce as much power as coal can.  They may feel good about doing their part to save the planet but in the process they may cause recurring power blackouts as they starve their nation of electric power.  To the point that people may start dying as the diminished electric capacity can’t run the waste water treatment plants.  Their hospitals.  Or their food processing industry.  Not to mention people suffering these rolling blackouts in their homes.  Spoiling the food in their refrigerators.  Their sewers backing up raw sewage because there is no electricity to run their sump pumps.  And people unable to run their home medical devices.

Saying you want to save the planet may make you feel good.  It may even impress your friends.  But advanced countries need electric power for the necessities of life.  Beyond relaxing in your air conditioning.  Watching television.  Or charging your battery for your smartphone.  Saying you want to replace coal with renewable energies is one thing.  But doing it is another.  Because we consume a lot of electric power.  Which is why we turned to coal in the first place.  Because coal is a high-density energy source.  A little of it goes a long why.  Which is why one coal-fired power plant can produce 1800 megawatts of electric power while a nation’s largest solar power plant can only produce 3.6 megawatts of useful electric power.  Coal can and will take care of us.  Something solar power simply can’t do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Liquid Silicone Cooling allows LED Lamp to Look as Good as an Edison Incandescent Lamp

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Stand aside compact fluorescent lamp.  There’s a new lamp in town.  And this one is really high tech (see SWITCH60 Review: The First Liquid-Cooled LED Bulb Will Light Up Your House Like Edison by Rebecca Boyle posted 8/20/2012 on Popular Science).

The ice cream cone-shaped fluorescent light bulb was supposed to be the lamp of the future, producing just as much light as the century-old Edison incandescent at a fraction of the energy. But CFLs look terrible, enveloping rooms in an unfriendly bluish hue. LED lamps are the next future of lighting, but they have their own obstacles to overcome, including sensitive electronics that can burn out when they get warm. SWITCH, the first liquid-cooled light bulb, aims to solve that issue and light up your house with the comfortable yellow glow of the incandescent.

But we already have a lamp that can give us the “comfortable yellow glow” of the Edison incandescent lamp.  The Edison incandescent lamp.  And they’re inexpensive.  You can get a pack of three for a couple of bucks.  And they last longer than some of the compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) I’ve used.  Yes, those same CFLs rated for a bajillion hours.  Must be metric hours because they just don’t last in my household.

The weight is behind this bulb’s secret — it’s full of liquid silicone, which dissipates heat from the 10 LEDs (12 LEDs for the 100-watt version). Warmer silicone moves toward the glass exterior, where heat dissipates into the air; as it cools, the silicone drops back toward the bulb’s heart. Think of a lava lamp; this works basically the same way, said Dave Horn, chief technology officer at SWITCH. You just can’t see the gloopy circulation.

The bulb also contains a volume-compensation device that works somewhat like a piston to keep the bulb at atmospheric pressure. If the bulb breaks, it won’t explode. Plus, liquid silicone is food-safe and clear, so if you drop one and it breaks, your carpet won’t stain and your dog won’t get sick. This is a benefit over the mercury vapor-filled CFL, which can emit harmful mercury if it shatters.

You know what kind of lamp you can throw away as easily as the Edison incandescent lamp?  The Edison incandescent lamp.  If you broke one you didn’t worry about putting on your hazardous-material suit to dispose of it.  Or going to the bank to withdraw some money to buy another lamp to replace it.

Are we making lamps just a little too high tech?  Circulating liquid silicone?  These are some high-tech lamps that probably require some intensive manufacturing skills.  Are they going to make these in U.S. manufacturing plants?  Or because of their incredible cost will they have the Chinese make these, too?  Like solar panels?

Food-safe liquid silicone?  Isn’t this what was bursting inside all those women with breast implants?  According to all those lawsuits silicone wasn’t food-safe.  Or perhaps those were frivolous lawsuits like the manufacturers said they were.  Who knows?  Some say a leaking breast implant will make you sick.  While others say you can lunch on liquid silicone.  That’s the problem with science in America.  Lawyers can politicize it.

The 60-watt version will set you back $40, and the brighter ones go for $60… The bulbs aren’t on sale yet, but they were shipped earlier this month to hotels and other hospitality establishments, so you may start seeing them soon.

Wow.  That’s as high as one dollar a watt.  A pack of three can cost as much as $180.  You know what that means?  That’s right.  These lamps are going to grow legs and walk out of those hotel rooms.

Yes, price should come down over time.  Just like it was supposed to do with the CFLs.  But before the CFL got to be everything they said it would be it’s already yesterday’s technology.  So what will be the new lamp technology in the years to come while the LED lamps become more wallet-friendly and people-pleasing?  Perhaps the Edison incandescent lamp.

We have so much coal and natural gas in this country that we can keep electricity rates low long into the future.  If we give up this nonsense of windmills and solar panels.  And global warming?  Perhaps if we pump up some more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide from our coal-fired power plants into the atmosphere we can bring down global temperatures.  Just like the volcanoes do when they spew carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, cooling the planet in the process.  Perhaps if we stop trying to save the planet the planet may have a chance to survive.

If people want the Edison incandescent lamp we should let them have it.  It’s a good lamp.  No one is denying it.  Even the people trying to replace it.  Because the bar to measure every new lamp technology is the one lamp we all know and love.  The Edison incandescent lamp.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s New Carbon Tax is Raising Prices and Government Dander

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2012

Week in Review

The carbon tax has arrived in Australia.  It’s raising the cost of doing business.  And raising prices.  Surprisingly, there’s not a whole lot of love for this new tax (see ACCC to probe Brumby’s for advising stores to ‘let carbon tax take blame for price rises’ by Lanai Vasek posted 7/4/2012 on The Australian).

LABOR has accused the Brumby’s bakery chain of “reprehensible” behaviour after the company advised franchisees to “let the carbon tax take the blame” for price rises.

The consumer watchdog will investigate after Brumby’s managing director Deane Priest advised store owners in her June newsletter to “take an opportunity to make some (price) moves in June and July”.

“Let the carbon tax take the blame, after all your costs will be going up due to it,” she said…

“This sort of behaviour is reprehensible. Anyone who is found to have been jacking-up prices unnecessarily and blaming the carbon tax will be subject to enforcement by the ACCC…

“Businesses are entitled to increase their prices as they see fit. It is business as usual, so long as any claims or representations made about the impact of the carbon price are truthful and have a reasonable basis…

If a business is found to have made a false or misleading claim regarding the carbon tax, the ACCC’s website says the watchdog has the power to issue infringement notices of $6600 for a corporation (or $66 000 for a listed corporation); take legal action against a business for breaches of the ACL; seek court-imposed penalties of up to $1.1 million for serious breaches of the ACL or injunctions to stop a business from making certain carbon price claims.

The controversial tax came into effect on Sunday with an initial starting price of $23 a tonne. It will move to a floating price emissions trading scheme from 2015.

My, the government appears a little testy about their carbon tax, don’t they?  Probably because they know what a fraud it is.  The people don’t want to pay it.  The businesses don’t want to pay it.  And paying it won’t do a thing to save the planet.  It’ll just transfer a lot of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  Which is why governments like the carbon tax.  Well, that.  And the fact that you can say whatever you want about the good the tax is doing to save the planet.  I mean, if they say that the tax is responsible for preventing a 0.7 degree rise in global temperatures how are you going to argue against that?  There is no way to measure this.  There’s just no way to connect empirical observations of temperature to fiscal policy.

Weather is a whacky thing.  America just suffered through a week-long heat wave following a warm winter and a dry spring.  Proof the global warming alarmists say of global warming.  Yet Britain is suffering their coldest and wettest summer since they began record keeping.  So whatever is happening with the weather isn’t happening globally.  And it’s not climate change.  It’s just the weather.  Sometimes it’s hot.  Sometimes it’s cold.  Because there are a lot of variables that create our weather.  With sunspot activity and volcanic eruptions being high on the list of influencing factors.  While man is farther down that list.  Much farther.

That said few governments can pass up a new tax.  Especially one that has such a noble purpose.  Such as saving the planet.  And they don’t take kindly to businesses telling their customers how much the new carbon tax will cost them.  For no business ever pays a tax.  Their customers do.  And every time the government raises taxes business have to pass it on to their customers in their prices.  Because they have to cover all of their costs in their prices to remain in business.  And taxes are a cost of doing business.  As far as raising their prices higher than the carbon tax?  Well, their competition will tend to that.  That’s the beautiful thing about free market competition.  It always makes a business’ price the right price.  For if it’s too high they will lose business to their competition.  And that will happen without any government investigation. 

It is a beautiful thing.  Free market competition.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Canadians are Closing Large Outdoor Laboratory that Tests Environmental Impact on pollutants in Ecosystem

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

Now it appears that the Canadian government hates the planet.  As hard as that is to believe.  But here they are pulling the funding to a vital scientific research center.  That few have probably ever heard of before (see Scientists decry Ottawa’s plan to close environmental research centre by SHAWN McCARTHY posted 6/1/2012 on The Globe and Mail).

For six years, Cynthia Gilmour, senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, led a research team that annually poured a teaspoon of mercury isotope, diluted in water, into a small, remote lake in Northwestern Ontario.

The international project was being conducted in the federally funded Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a unique outdoor laboratory for ecosystem research consisting of 58 lakes and their drainage areas.

Dr. Gilmour and her colleagues from the United States and Canada wanted to determine the environmental impacts of new deposits of mercury – a powerful brain toxin – into a lake that already had high background levels. The ELA was the one place in the world where they could do that.

The centre has hosted a number of groundbreaking research projects over its 55 years, including major advances in the understanding of lake acidification and eutrophication – the destruction of a body of water through the addition of nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates.

Now, as part of its spending restraint, the Harper government has announced that Fisheries and Oceans Canada will stop funding the Experimental Lakes Area and close the world-renowned research centre by next April if a new operator cannot be found…

Departmental officials are “working aggressively” to find a group to take over the funding, said David Gillis, director-general of the department’s Ocean and Ecosystem Science division. He said the operating costs amount to about $700,000 a year, though former chief scientists say the baseline budget is more like $3-million annually when core researchers are included…

“By shutting ELA you remove a critical tool for finding the most reasonable and cost-effective solutions to national and international environmental issues,” she wrote. “The small federal investment in the research station has been returned thousands of times over in public and ecosystem health.”

Wow.  Science is expensive.  Especially researchers.

It would be interesting to see their books.  This is an area containing 58 lakes.  So I’m guessing it’s outdoors.  With a laboratory located inside a building somewhere.  That has either electricity connected to it.  Or they have a generator to provide their energy needs.  Now they’re not building the laboratory or the energy infrastructure each year so most of this operating budget must be consumables.  Like energy (electricity, natural gas, oil, gasoline, etc.).  Food.  And water.  As I’m guessing they’re not drinking the water they’re polluting with mercury.  They may also have a few vehicles.  A helicopter or two.  Some boats.  Which they may be paying interest and principle on as well as paying for a pilot.  And some scientific equipment.  Test tubes.  Beakers.  Erlenmeyer flasks.  To replace the ones they drop.  And an IT tech to fix the occasional problem with their computer equipment.  Perhaps that’s what the $700,000 annual budget covers. 

If the scientists each earned, say, $125,000 a year in wages and benefits the other $2.3 million would pay for about 18 researchers.  Do they have 18 researches?  Do they need 18 researchers?  Are they running so many experiments that it keeps 18 researches busy year round?  Or is it only open for the summer months?  When the lakes aren’t frozen and covered with snow.  If so then it’s only a part-time gig for these researches.  Which means they wouldn’t be earning $125,000 in wages and benefits.  So if they were only earning, say, $30,000 in wages and benefits for their few months there that $2.3 million would pay for about 75 researchers. Which is a lot more than 18. 

Still some say this is a small federal investment.  Of course, when the provincial and federal governments are both running deficits $3 million is a lot of money.  But you know who this isn’t a lot of money to?  Rich environmentalist celebrities.  Those who bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.  The same people who showered President Obama with millions of dollars in one fund raiser after he endorsed same-sex marriage.  They could all pitch in and cover these costs to save the planet they are so worried about.  And it wouldn’t make a dent in their lifestyle.  They could do this.  But I doubt they will.  For they rather have the government spend our tax dollars for their worthy causes.  While they hire the finest tax lawyers to hide as much of their wealth as possible from the taxman. 

But this could in fact help them hide their money from the taxman.  For this could be a large charitable deduction.  It would be a win-win.  Save the planet.  Save their wealth.  And let them worry about what they’re doing up there for $3 million a year.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries