Modstanden mod kapitalisme er [... ] modstand mod mennesker og deres muligheder for at skabe og udvikle de samfund, der i stadig højere grad kan levere frie, rige og trygge liv. Liv, som det kulturelle og politiske aristokrati ser ned på, men som langt de fleste af os på kloden drømmer om og ønsker. Connie Hedegaards antikapitalistiske dagsorden er [...] ikke bare amoralsk. Den er farlig. Og hvis hun interesserede sig lidt for det EU, hun er magthaver i, ville hun vide hvorfor: De borgerkrigslignende tilstande i Sydeuropa er netop et produkt af, at EU har ofret velstandsskabelsen på et andet moralistisk projekt, nemlig nedbrydningen af nationalstaterne gennem stadig øget europæisk integration. Argumenterne for euroen var aldrig økonomiske, men politiske (læs: moralistiske). Krisen i Sydeuropa er en direkte konsekvens af manglende økonomisk vækst. En krise, der truer ikke bare levevilkårene for virkelige mennesker på vores kontinent, men også freden. Forstår Connie Hedegaard virkelig ikke det?

Læs mere:
http://www.b.dk/kronikker/connie-hedegaards-farlige-antikapitalisme

[F]or the combustion phase, it is possible to burn fossil fuels more efficiently than biomass. Hence, the former ought to reduce CO2 emissions overall. But a more sophisticated analysis ought to consider life-cycle consequences (including CO2 released in extraction, preparation, transportation, etc., of the two forms of biomass). [...] Biomass may be renewable, politically correct, and fossil-fuel displacing. But it is unlikely to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations much, if at all.
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/09/biomass-vs-fossil-fuels-co2-battery/

So long as one uses carbon-based combustion, the chances of reducing CO2 emissions are nil, whether one uses new biomass or a fossil fuel. In fact, since newer carbon sources are also associated with higher moisture content in the fuel, burning them would increase CO2 per unit of usable energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/batteries-from-the-carboniferous/

The construction of a biomass plant at the Anglesey Aluminium Metals (AAM) site in Wales has been approved by the UK government. The plant, which is powered by wood-burning, has the potential to fuel over 300,000 homes and will provide the area with 700 new jobs. Energy minister Charles Hendry commended the approval of the plant claiming that it will provide a “reliable, secure, flexible and renewable source of power”. Despite Hendry’s praise, critics claim that the plant will create as many environmental problems as it will cure.

http://stockholmnetworkblog.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/uk-government-approves-anglesey-biomass-plant/

"Power over nature is the sort of power on which civilization must be built; the record of man’s history is the record of the advance or attempted advance of that power. Power over men, on the other hand, does not raise the general standard of living or promote the satisfactions of all, as does power over nature. By its very essence, only some men in society can wield power over men. Where power over man exists, some must be the powerful, and others must be objects of power. But every man can and does achieve power over nature.

In fact, if we look at the basic condition of man as he enters the world, it is obvious that the only way to preserve his life and advance himself is to conquer nature—to transform the face of the earth to satisfy his wants. From the point of view of all the members of the human race, it is obvious that only such a conquest is productive and life-sustaining. Power of one man over another cannot contribute to the advance of mankind; it can only bring about a society in which plunder has replaced production, hegemony has supplanted contract, violence and conflict have taken the place of the peaceful order and harmony of the market. Power of one man over another is parasitic rather than creative, for it means that the nature conquerors are subjected to the dictation of those who conquer their fellowman instead. Any society of force—whether ruled by criminal bands or by an organized State—fundamentally means the rule of the jungle, or economic chaos. Furthermore, it would be a jungle, a struggle in the sense of the Social Darwinists, in which the survivors would not really be the “fittest,” for the “fitness” of the victors would consist solely in their ability to prey on producers. They would not be the ones best fitted for advancing the human species: these are the producers, the conquerors of nature.

The libertarian doctrine, then, advocates the maximization of man’s power over nature and the eradication of the power of man over man. Statists, in elevating the latter power, often fail to realize that in their system man’s power over nature would wither and become negligible."

Murray Rothbard in Man, Economy and State with Power and Market

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18b.asp#11B._Power_Over_Nature

[T]he entire world physically consists of nothing but chemical elements. These elements are never destroyed. They simply reappear in different combinations, in different proportions, in different places. Apart from what has been lost in a few rockets, the quantity of every chemical element in the world today is the same as it was before the Industrial Revolution. The only difference is that, because of the Industrial Revolution, instead of lying dormant, out of man's control, the chemical elements have been moved about, as never before, in such a way as to improve human life and well-being. For instance, some part of the world's iron and copper has been moved from the interior of the earth, where it was useless, to now constitute buildings, bridges, automobiles, and a million and one other things of benefit to human life. Some part of the world's carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen has been separated from certain compounds and recombined in others, in the process releasing energy to heat and light homes, power industrial machinery, automobiles, airplanes, ships, and railroad trains, and in countless other ways serve human life. It follows that insofar as man's environment consists of the chemical elements iron, copper, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, and his productive activity makes them useful to himself in these ways, his environment is correspondingly improved. All that all of man's productive activities fundamentally consist of is the rearrangement of nature-given chemical elements for the purpose of making them stand in a more useful relationship to himself--that is, for the purpose of improving his environment.

George Reisman

http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&Id=143

More essays by George Reisman

["The Climate Hysteria - What Is It All About?": ] This provocative book examines the latest political developments surrounding the issue of climate change and their relationship to the current state of climate science. It begins by exploring the question of whether there has been any substantial warming outside the range of natural variability (answer: no), continues by examining whether the alleged increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 100 years is a principle cause of global warming (answer: no), discusses the possible impact of current climate policies on economics and the demography (answer: dangerous), and concludes by discussing whether global warming would be a more of a bane or benefit if it should be proven true (answer: it depends!).

Read more here:
http://www.cfact.eu/thisweeksfeature_74.shtml

A radically different view of global warming science has emerged in recent years contrary to the shrill gloom-and-doom projections that are so popular in Washington and elsewhere. In the new book Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know, Cato scholar and University of Virginia scientist Patrick Michaels explains this consistent alternative view of climate change, which has arisen in the peer-reviewed scientific literature yet receives little public attention. Why, for example, have the last 12 years shown no net surface warming? What does this say about projections from the United Nations- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? What's the relationship between hurricanes and global warming? Are editors who issue dramatic projections rewarded over those who publish findings of more moderate impacts? Michaels will demonstrate evidence for modest climate change impacts and propose that we continue our adaptation to these changes.

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5761

We already know that costly foreign-aid schemes don’t do much good--and if you need a refresher course on that grim subject, read the new book “Dead Aid” by Zambian native Dambisa Moyo. The alternative to aid is trade, which has the effect of strengthening economies for both consumers and producers. People who live in poverty are far more likely to deplete natural resources, if only because they feel a deeper sense of desperation. For a person whose family is hungry, an acre of rainforest is a logging opportunity. For a person whose material position is more secure, an acre of rainforest may well be something to preserve and protect. Because of this, tying developing countries to the global economy, and allowing them access to wealthy markets in North America, Europe, and Japan, is a key to long-term environmental sustainability. -- Dean Kleckner

See also www.eco-imperialism.com

Et nyt speciale fra Aalborg Universitet omtaler Cophagen Institute som en blandt de mange aktører,der findes i dansk energi-politik, hvor COIN naturligvis må placeres i kategorien af de grupperinger som er bekymret over de økonomiske konsekvenser ved politikker forbundet med klimahysteriet og andre miljøtosserier. Forhåbentlig er der i praksis også bidraget til følgende trend i energipolitikken, som den - måske lidt for rosenrødt - skitseres i specialet:

Hvor energipolitikken før var politisk fastlagt, sker det nu hos private aktører. Det betyder også, at kritik af energipolitikken vil få en anden karakter. Hvor det før var et politisk spørgsmål, der stod til politisk debat, er det i dag i højere grad et privat anliggende for selskaberne. Dermed er der også sket en begrænsning i den politiske styring af sektoren. [...] Dermed har udviklingen i den danske energipolitik betydet, at fokus på miljøhensyn er blevet flyttet til et fokus på de erhvervspolitiske hensyn. Et skifte, som blev sat i gang med liberaliseringsdirektivet fra EU, og som blev markant ved det kritiske valg i 2001. Skiftet til erhvervspolitiske hensyn i energipolitikken blev styrende for omstruktureringen af energisektoren efter regeringsskiftet i 2001. Dermed blev det erhvervspolitiske fokus indbygget i de nye rammer for energisektoren. Organiseringen i private selskaber, som skal konkurrere[...] på et liberaliseret marked, er med til at sikre det erhvervspolitiske fokus i den fremtidige energipolitik. Læs mere her:
http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/fbspretrieve/15974464/master__dansk_energipolitik.doc

- Bare det var så vel.

http://s-espersen.blogspot.com/search/label/EU

Økonomen George Reisman har givet et ganske intelligent bud på, hvordan vi som mennesker bør forholde os til den påvirkning, som er en følge af generel økonomisk aktivitet, og som kan beskrives som ”kollektiv”. Eksempler på sådanne kollektive former for påvirkning kan være lokal luftforurening fra en befærdet vej – eller det kan være den påvirkning, som mennesker kollektivt bidrager til, når det gælder global opvarmning (eller nedkøling). - Omvendt er der altså netop ikke tale om luftforureningen, der kommer fra naboen, der brænder bildæk af, og som naturligvis er at beskrive som individuel, og samtidig påviseligt kommer fra sådan en konkret nabo.)

Det centrale er således at ihukomme, at ingen enkeltstående person – ej heller nogen bestemt virksomhed alene har nogen skyld eller noget ansvar for global opvarmning. Det er kun når man kumulerer adfærden fra eksempelvis udstødning og energiforbrug, at der kan påvises en påvirkning, som man så efterfølgende kan kalde for kollektiv. Det vigtige her er netop derfor, at man ikke kan føre ansvaret tilbage til nogen enkeltstående person – eller nogen enkeltstående virksomhed.

Tilsvarende kan den enkelte bilist ved sin udstødning de to gange han eller hun kører på den befærdede motorvej alene ikke dokumenteres at forårsage nogen påviselig forurening af luften. Det er kun når titusinder passerer forbi i løbet af dagen, at den kumulerede/ophobede mængde af partikler bliver signifikant og mærkbar. Den enkelte bilist er derfor heller ikke ansvarlig for den lokale luftforurening, der findes ved sådan en vej.

Alligevel skal den enkelte bilist efter det kollektivistiske princip ikke alene beskattes for sin adfærd, selv om denne adfærd ikke i sig selv er skadeforvoldende. Man vil endda beskatte adfærden så mærkbart, at skatten/afgiften fører til ændret adfærd for en så stor del af trafikanterne, at man – hvis de grønne fik deres vilje – kunne reducere trafikken markant. Denne kollektive straf af en adfærd, der for den enkelte alligevel ikke kan beskrives som forurening, er derfor udtryk for en urimelig tankegang: - Et individs handling er i sig selv ikke-skadelig (i modsætning til den skade som en nabo kunne forvolde ved direkte forurening af ens grund). Den kumulerede påvirkning har derimod en vis påvirkning. Dette får så kollektivisterne til at anslå en samlet skade, som de så fordeler ud på deres angivelige skades-forvoldere - Men som vi netop har konstateret, så er de enkelte individer ikke ansvarlige hver for sig (Og dermed ikke berettigede til nogen straf i form af skatter og afgifter).

George Reismans svar til kollektivisterne og os andre er både logisk og meningsfuldt. - Svaret handler i alt sin enkelthed om, at ovenstående former for kumuleret/ophobet påvirkning må tackles på nøjagtig samme måde, som man forholder sig til forandringer i naturen; netop eftersom der ikke er tale om individer, der i sig selv forvolder skade. Den kollektivistiske tilgang sniger derimod kollektivismens princip ind i selve problemopstillingen (Den gør individuel adfærd til noget grundlæggende kollektivt). Problemet er i virkeligheden primært individuelt (jf. de steder hvor man bosætter sig), men problemstillingen kan i frivillighed gøres til at fælles anliggende i et fleksibelt omfang, hvis man vælger at gøre det:

For det logiske svar på kumuleret / kollektiv påvirkning af det menneskelige samfund fra menneskelig side bør således tackles på nøjagtig samme måde som vi mennesker har forholdt os til de mange måder, som naturen udfordrer os på: - i kraft af friheden til at handle rationelt, som individer og i frivillige fællesskaber – gennem de mange løsninger som private virksomheder vil kunne tilbyde; og altså netop med den samme frihed og fleksibilitet, som vi har forholdt os til naturens mange udfordringer på.

Det eneste alternativ til Reismans indfaldsvinkel, hvor man forholder sig til kumuleret menneskelig påvirkning på samme måde som man tackler naturens udfordringer, er vel at mærke flere skatter, mere statslig ”kontrol”, - men - som historien med al tydelighed dokumenterer - samtidig ikke bedre forhold for mennesker – og slet ikke et bedre miljø – jf. planøkonomiernes sammenbrud i Øst, og ikke mindst de usunde livsvilkår, som man skabte dér.

Mere om George Reisman i artiklen:

Hvordan vi bør forholde os til menneskelige påvirkninger af klimaet

George Reismans ideer præsenteres i nedenstående foredrag:

Environmental and Resource Economics:
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/mu05-Reisman4.mp3 - 2005

Flere foredrag her

Hudson Institute environmental economist Dennis Avery said: "The Earth's warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the "scary" 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration — and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly."

As a direct result of the global-warming hysteria, which, as noted above, was grossly overblown to say the least, governments reacted by restricting energy production from traditional sources, such as oil, gas and coal, and by enacting very costly regulations on CO2 emission sources. Governments also quickly jumped on the fad of "biomass" production, which, at least in the case of corn, does not result in less CO2 but more than standard oil and gas wells produce — a clear "intelligence" failure.

Read more in Real Intelligence Failures by Richard Rahn.