Med COIN-Bloggen kommenteres lÃ¸bende pÃ¥ dagsaktuelle emner. Vi vil sÃ¸ge at prÃ¦ge debatten, sÃ¥dan at de skjulte konsekvenser ved nye former for indgreb, afgifter, skatter, forbud bliver gjort mere synlige.
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research:
With $2.3 billion in Recovery Act tax credits allocated for green manufacturers, President Barack Obama and other Democratic politicians have high hopes for green technology. But their expectations clash with both economic theory and practical experience in Europe. Green programs in Spain destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create almost five jobs in the general economy. Wind and solar power have raised household energy prices by 7.5 percent in Germany, and Denmark has the highest electricity prices in the European Union. Central planners in the United States trying to promote green industry will fare no better at creating jobs or stimulating the economy.
CO2 kvoter reducerer beskÃ¦ftigelsen og forringer kÃ¸bekraften
Deltag i debat om DDT her:
In the 1930s, the[The National Geographic] notes, the United States was in malaria trouble up to its knees. There were millions of cases of the disease, but swamps were bulldozed, DDT was sprayed in homes to kill the mosquitoes and, by 1950, presto: disease gone.
The U.N. World Health Organization also went on the march in 1955, spending billions of dollars and spraying tons of DDT, but then the money went away, and not long afterward other things began to happen.
One of the most significant was the publication of Rachel Carsonâ€™s "Silent Spring," which said DDT was killing birds and other animals. The book had such an impact that eventually there was a ban on the pesticide for farm use around a goodly portion of the globe.
The National Geographic is not in the business of controversy, and it makes it sound as if it was the agricultural ban in and of itself that then led to disuse of DDT in combating malaria. It became extremely difficult to get the pesticide, it says, and decreased availability is indeed part of the story.
But another part â€” the criminally negligent part â€” is that a number of environmental groups fought successfully to prevent its use even when it was applied carefully inside homes with no danger to wildlife and no scientifically persuasive evidence of any harm to humans...
Jay Ambrose: The ban on DDT pesticide is war against humanity
...the environmental hysteria led to DDT's suppression in Africa, where its use had been dramatically reducing deaths. American foreign aid could be used to finance ineffective alternative anti-malaria methods, but not DDT. Within a short time, the mosquitoes and malaria reappeared, and deaths skyrocketed. Tens of millions of people have died in that time.
Hooray for DDT's Life-Saving Comeback
Environmentalists and aid bureaucrats insisted that DDT could be replaced by other pesticides and procedures such as "integrated vector management." But mosquitoes quickly developed resistance to newer pesticides, and vector management was a gimcrack theory that failed everywhere it was tried.
Malaria rates began soaring worldwide, not only in Africa but in areas which a few years earlier had been malaria-free. Only a small number of nations with the financial ability to fund their own programs, such as Ecuador, Mexico, and South Africa, continued DDT use. In all cases, these countries remained healthy. (The Clinton administration demanded that Mexico give up DDT as a condition for NAFTA being put into effect. This was done, and malaria rates shot sky-high.)
Despite clear evidence as to the effects, international aid groups such as the World Health Organization and USAid ceased supporting DDT operations. By the mid-80s, malaria had reached and surpassed previous levels. Up to 500 million people were suffering attacks each year. Two to three million of them died as a result. Up to nine-tenths of the dead were children under five.
Rachel Carson and the Deaths of Millions
"DDT is the answer to our problems," said Dr John Rwakimari, head of the national malaria program in Uganda, where malaria rates have increased five-fold in 15 years. "We must do something."
European Union officials recently warned Uganda that it would be "taking a risk" if it reintroduced DDT.
In Kenya, flower growers say Western supermarkets are wary of the chemical, putting the nation's $US400 million ($A528 million) horticulture industry at risk. Kenya is the top supplier of fresh-cut flowers to the EU.
But African officials complain of hypocrisy on the part of Westerners, who used DDT to eradicate their own malaria problems decades ago and now push Africa to rely on harder-to-implement methods such as mosquito nets.
"The human cost of the Western policies is very high," said economist James Shikwat, director of the Inter Region Economic Network in Nairobi.
African nations lift DDT ban to fight malaria
I met Dr. Edwards in the 1990s while researching the DDT controversy. We collaborated in 1999 on the fact sheet "100 Things You Should Know About DDT."
Since then, there have been growing rumblings of a rehabilitation for DDT. Public health professionals and non-governmental organizations, notably Africa Fighting Malaria, stepped up efforts to increase the use of DDT.
Now, even the New York Times has seen the light, running a pro-DDT editorial on Dec. 23, 2002 ("Fighting Malaria with DDT), a pro-DDT op-ed column on Aug. 7, 2003 (Is there a place for DDT?") and, most recently, a pro-DDT New York Times Magazine article on April 11, 2004. ("What the World Needs Now is DDT").
Scientist Who Warned Against DDT Ban Dies
John Stossel - DDT
Reject Environmentalism, Not DDT
[D]octors have mastered the anti-free-market sneer: Markets are good for crass consumer goods like washing machines and computers, but health care is too complicated for people to understand.
But thatâ€™s nonsense. When you buy a car, must you be an expert on automotive engineering? No. And yet the worst you can buy in America is much better than the best that the Soviet blocâ€™s central planners could produce. Remember the Trabant? The Yugo? They disappeared along with the Berlin Wall because governments never serve consumers as well as market competitors do. Read more in Competition Would Save Medicine, Too by John Stossel.
[James] Gwartneyâ€™s data [...] show the relationship between economic freedom and income. As countries get freer, per capita GDP rises. The least-free nations have a per-capita GDP of about $3,300. The next group up the freedom ladder has a per capita GDP of about $6,100; the next, $10,773. The freest group of nations comes in at more than $26,000. - Gwartneyâ€™s data show that itâ€™s better to be poor in a more-free country than in a less-free country. In the freest countries, the poorest 10 percent earn on average more than $7,300 a year versus $905 in the least free countries. And, of course, in a free society, people often move out of the poorest groups. - Finally, the study also finds a strong correlation between economic freedom and environmental quality. - Read more in A Freer World Is a Better World by John Stossel.
Hvad enten klimaforandringerne er menneskeskabte eller naturlige, skal der en stÃ¦rk Ã¸konomi til at beskytte os imod dem. Derfor er det vigtigt, at vi ikke kÃ¸rer Ã¸konomien ned i unyttige forsÃ¸g pÃ¥ at begrÃ¦nse CO2-udledningen - Det sagde undertegnede i 2005, den 28. juni til iDag - Industriens Dagblad. Anledningen var en konference som Copenhagen Institute afholdt om Kyoto-protokollen og de Ã¸konomiske konsekvenser ved at forfÃ¸lge "Kyoto-sporet".
Under overskriften Kyoto kritiske resultater kan man lÃ¦se hvad, der ellers er blevet sagt og skrevet fra Copenhagen Institutes side om emnet.
BemÃ¦rk sÃ¥ledes at der ikke siges det samme som BjÃ¸rn Lomborg. For det er vigtigt, at huske pÃ¥, at Lomborg er socialist, og at man desvÃ¦rre er nÃ¥et til et tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, hvor socialister skÃ¦ndes om hvad borgerne i den frie verden skal bruge deres penge pÃ¥. I praksis er der med andre ord tale om forskellige socialister, der laver en rÃ¦kke lister over, hvilke projekter de helst vil bruge de midler pÃ¥, som de konfiskerer til. Men der er altsÃ¥ alternativer til dette afsÃ¦t.
Journalist John Stossel udtrykker det alternative sÃ¥ledes:
Government is a blunt instrument, riddled with self-serving politics and special-interest pandering. To expect it to do something as complicated as calibrate regulations and taxes to fine-tune the climate â€” without making many people poorer and a few cronies richer â€” is naive. But that doesnâ€™t mean we can do nothing. We have a powerful generator of solutions if we let it work: the free market.
- Mere i Free Market Solutions to Global Warming.
Der er omkring 21 millioner indbyggere i Australien, men kun 13.645.073 af dem lod sig registrere for at stemme i det nyligt afholdte parlamentsvalg. Resultatet af parlamentsvalget kan ses pÃ¥ http://vtr.aec.gov.au/
Alt tyder pÃ¥ en sejr for det socialdemokratiske "Australian Labor Party". Valgsejren betyder sandsynligvis ogsÃ¥, at Australien vil tilslutte sig Kyoto-protokollen.
LÃ¦s om de grÃ¸nne i Australien i: Archive for the 'Green Poppycock' Category.
John Stossel: Al Gore Global Warming Debate (set i arkivet).
"The media may scream that â€œthe science is inâ€ and the â€œdebate is over,â€ but in fact it continues vigorously, with credentialed climate scientists on both side of the divide". - Det siger ABC Newsâ€™ tv-vÃ¦rt John Stossel i kommentaren - Don't Look to Government to Cool the Planet .
- I artiklen giver Stossel eksempler pÃ¥ hvorfor og hvordan, debatten om klimaforandringer og global opvarmning trives i bedste velgÃ¥ende. Han nÃ¦vner ogsÃ¥ problemer forbundet med FN's klimapanel IPCC. Han pÃ¥peger derudover problemer forbundet med, hvad man aktuelt gÃ¸r for at imÃ¸degÃ¥ det angivelige problem. Til slut i sin kommentar lover han, at han i nÃ¦ste uge vil fortÃ¦lle, hvad den private sektor burde gÃ¸re.
[B]efore I go running to our federal government to set things right for us ... Iâ€™ll check my premises. Before asking government to solve our â€œillsâ€ â€” something theyâ€™ve proven not proficient at in most areas â€” Iâ€™ll first ask, â€œwhy are we in this position in the first place?â€
Well, I know what most politicians, what Michael Moore, and, unfortunately, what most Americans would answer: â€œthe free enterprise system has let us down.â€
The reason I know this is because I hear it constantly. I only wish that before people â€” especially influential ones â€” utter these conclusions, they would first take Ms. [Ayn] Randâ€™s advice and check their premises.
- Read more in Bob Burg's article - Socialized Medicine? Check Your Premises!
See also Michael Moore and Me by John Stossel: Private competitors innovate or die. Government workers do what they did last year.
OK, but [ethanol] will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.
Well, then, the ethanol champs must be right when they say it will reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming.
Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," [Jerry] Taylor [CATO Institute] says.
- LÃ¦s The Many Myths of Ethanol af John Stossel. (I kommentaren findes links til kilder om emnet).