Thursday 31 January 2013

Rachel Carson - manipulator or messiah?


The definitive start to the environmental movement goes back to 1962 when  Rachael Carson published Silent Spring. Prior to the book being published, and to this day, experts in various disciplines have pointed out the shortcomings of her writings. Faced with compelling facts to the contrary people still blindly follow her writings.  One of her unintended legacy’s  is giving the environmental movement a blueprint on how to effectively use misinformation and half-truths. People like David Suzuki, Chief Theresa Spence, Al Gore and others are masters of manipulation distorting facts on virtually every media campaign. Rachael Carson taught them how to cherry pick data to prove a point and ignore any data to the contrary. It matters little if they are right or wrong just that they are heard.  Please take a moment to read the article below and ThinkTwice next time you hear her name mentioned.
Paul Visentin
ThinkTwice group




Silent spring at 50:Reflections on an environmental classic



Fifty years after the publication of Rachel Carsons Silent Springthe books legacy is mixed. It helped raise awareness about the costs of mass spraying operationsbut it also provided justification for campaigns against the use of DDT in malaria control programswhich contributed to the deaths of millions in Africa and Asia.

 

Despite blunders in Silent Springthe book is often cited with reverence. An example is Discover magazine ranking it one of the 25 greatest science books ever writtennoting that [h]er chilling vision of a birdless America is still haunting(Discover 2006). This accolade for an advocacy book aimed at a mass audience typifies how Silent Spring is treated. As Wallace Kaufman notesexcept for Henry David ThoreauCarson has been cited more than any other environmental writer (MeinersDesrochersand Morriss 2012Ch. 2).

 

Carsons earlier publications on the oceans and marine life were fine works of nature writing that helped build her reputation. In Silent Springshe shifted from documenting natures beauty to advocating positions linked to a darker tradition in American environmental thinking: neo-Malthusian population control and anti-technology efforts. She drew on her reputation as a nature writer to give these ideas a more acceptable face. Canonizing Silent Spring helped build those darker themes into mainstream environmentalism today. For those of us who believeas did the late Julian Simonthat humanity is the ultimate resource(Simon 1998)that was a tragic wrong turn.

 

Carsons prose is powerfulbut the substance of the book is not what one would expect from a leading sciencebook. Silent Spring presented an emotional argument against chemical pesticides. It left key data and issues out of the picture. Her outrage was prompted in part by government spray programs that blanketed cropland and forests with heavy doses of pesticides in efforts to eradicate pests. Such programs often ran roughshod over landownerswishes. But it was not only the overuse that agitated Carson. She was highly critical of chemical pest control in general. She proposed mass introduction of alien species as a means of biologicalcontrol of pestsa problematic alternative. Above allSilent Spring is a work of advocacyweaving anecdotes and carefully selected bits of science into a compelling brief against uses of chemicals that had already saved millions of lives at the time Carson wrote.

 

This PERC Policy Series draws on a larger work by a group of scholars assembled to examine Silent Spring in the context of the time in which Carson was writing. As is appropriate for a work intended to influence public policySilent Spring deserves critical analysis. The complete analysis will be published in 2012 by the Cato Institute as Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of RachelCarson (readers who would like more detailed documentation for the abbreviated discussion here will find it in the book).
 




Historical Background 
 
Todaythere is a vague perception that the 1950s were a time of reckless chemical usage. Although innovations in chemistry were hailed—the inventor of DDT was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for discovering itand U.S. servicemen in World War II praised it for preventing insect-borne diseases—there were concerns about DDT from its earliest use. As World War II drew to a closeCarsons employerthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)worried that organochlorides such as DDT damaged wildlife. The U.S. Department of Agrigulture (USDA)a larger and more powerful agency than the FWSwon the initial skirmishbut the claims and the clashes between agricultural interests and wildlife advocates were present from the start. FWS gained an ally when the FDA entered the debate as the agency sought authority to regulate residues in food.
 
Responding to concerns about chemical exposurethe House of Representatives passed a resolution in 1950 calling for an investigation into chemicals in food products. Rep. James J. Delaney of New York was named as chair of the House Select Committee to investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products(Meiners et al. 2012Ch. 9). To be the committees chief counselDelaney chose Vincent A. Kleinfeldthe FDAs general counsel. Kleinfeld ran masterful hearings for the Select Committeecarefully building a case for more authority. Although agricultural interests were represented on the committee and were powerful in CongressKleinfeld outmaneuvered them by using USDA and agricultural witnessestestimony to paint the USDA as a biased agency beholden to special interests. His questioning of witnesses created the impression that the USDA was ignorant of the harms that were being inflicted on the public by the use of toxic chemicals that tainted food. The hearings attracted considerable attentiondrawing major media coverage as they were held around the country.


 

Tuesday 22 January 2013

The carbon trading money tree


If the carbon trading business seems too good to be true, maybe there’s a good reason
Kelvin Kemm
The COP-18 environmental conference held in Doha has come and gone. In the wake of high expectations for a successor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol was extended, but only after bitter debate – and several countries have withdrawn from the process or signalled their intent to do so.
Moreover, many observers believe the decision to extend the Protocol was primarily the result of countries not having the courage to stop or scuttle it outright, and not actually knowing what to do next.  So the easy way out was to just extend Kyoto and also promise the developing world lots and lots of dollars for “climate mitigation,” which is a sort of apology from the first world for having allegedly messed up the planet in the first place with their fossil fuels and economic development.   
Whether the billions of promised aid dollars will really materialize is another matter. But a lot of people have already gotten rich – including Al Gore, hundreds of climate scientists, and thousands of environmental activists and government bureaucrats – and others are trying to cash in.
I recently read an article in a South African magazine concerning carbon trading. Headlined “The Big C is a Money Tree,” the article included a picture of a tree with hundreds of dollar bills hanging on the branches. Its essence was that people can easily make loads of money in the carbon trading business. Unfortunately, much of the sentiment was correct. So alarm bells should be ringing.
When it appears easy to make a lot of money from something simple, then in all probability something is wrong. The economic rules which govern the world usually dictate that it is not easy to make a lot of money with not much effort.
Consider the hamburger market. If it is easy to sell a large number of hamburgers and make a lot of money, then what happens is a competitor joins the market, then another, and another. The result is that the quality of the hamburgers goes up and the price comes down. This is all because the natural competition forces the sellers to offer the best quality at the lowest price.
If one of the hamburger sellers can’t make the grade, he goes out of business.  None of the hamburger sellers really wants to be kind and sympathetic to the consumers, but they have no option but to be attentive to their customers or the customers just go to a competitor. Hamburger suppliers have to offer a good product at a good price to stay in business. So the basis of the hamburger business is good cooking, good service and efficient meal production.
So one can ask the question: What is the basis of the carbon trading business? It is buying or renting air with less carbon dioxide (CO2) – based on assertions that CO2 causes global warming, climate change, and more frequent and intense storms, droughts and floods. Sounds dicey, doesn’t it?
What happens is that if some company, say in Germany, wants to extend its factory, and they are going to have to produce carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the operation of the plant, they may find that they will exceed their CO2 emission quota.
If a company in Germany wants to expand its factory, and operating this larger facility will produce carbon dioxide, the new operation may exceed the company’s CO2 emission quota. One way out of this predicament is to come to a country like South Africa and find some land where workers can grow plants that take CO2 out of the air. Another is to find a factory that emits CO2 and help it buy and install technology that removes some tons of CO2 from the factory’s emission.
(There is a type of South African cactus called Spekboom, which translates as “bacon tree.” The connection between cactus and bacon is not clear. It’s easy to plant. You just break off a soft branch, push it into the ground, and it grows – normally to about a meter tall, but sometimes to 3m over many years. Spekboom grows in arid areas like weeds and is generally useless. But it apparently absorbs much more CO2 than normal plants. So Europeans pay South Africans tidy sums to plant fields of the stuff. The Europeans then claim “carbon credits” and feel righteous, while South Africans get rich watching weeds grow.)
Each time one of these operations removes 10 tons of CO2 from South African airspace, the German company can put the same amount of CO2 into Germany’s air and (presto!) all is great again, because on balance the total CO2 emitted into whole world’s atmosphere is equalized.
Then the German company pays the South African company a lot of dollars per month to keep South Africa’s air “clean,” so that the German company can put the “saved” CO2 back into Germany’s air.
So the basis of the carbon trading business is to rent “clean” air from somebody else.
Therefore if you launch a major project to develop a new factory, and a significant part of the budget is carbon trading income, then don’t forget that renting clean air is part of the asset of the business.
If the Kyoto Protocol collapses and the clean air requirement falls away – then your investment blows away in a breeze … of “clean” air. That would be disastrous for you. And that is a primary reason why so many people are determined to perpetuate Kyoto in some form or another.
Many people would never build their new factory on a foundation of sand. But they are happy to build it on a foundation of air. I say: “Be careful.”
If it turns out that man-made industrial CO2 is not leading to climate change then the whole carbon market could disappear faster than a puff of wind.
Remember that the measured increase in the earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last century does not match global temperature increase very well; in fact, a good correlation is distinctly absent. Furthermore, a competing theory argues that the sun’s magnetic influence on incoming cosmic radiation seems to match the observed temperature profile of the planet a lot better; this theory relates to varying cloud cover, influenced by the varying amount of incoming cosmic radiation.
The carbon trading business seems too good to be true.  Money trees are not common.  Warning bells should be ringing.
___________
Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategy consultant in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a member of the International Board of Advisors of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), based in Washington, DC (www.CFACT.org) and received the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.

Wednesday 16 January 2013

Environmental groups and their funders


Environmental charities depend on large annual donations from various sources to exist. The audited financials for one group in the Kootenays, Wildsight, suggests it relies heavily on US foundations. Wildsight, Sierra Club, Canadian Parks and Wilderness (CPAWS), all registered charities, are media savvy groups that continually challenge all levels of government to change. They often make statements backed up by their “experts” or “science”, hardly ever revealing their source of information. Take one fact and stretch it as far as the media will allow until they are challenged where they become eerily silent. The US foundations listed below are spending millions in BC for campaigns that range from Atlin in the northwest  to the Flathead valley in the Southeast. Are they driven by other agendas such as the ones Vivian Krause has identified? Are there larger issues at play that groups like Wildsight have become pawns to? Is Wildsight  facing an identity crunch due in part to their general acceptance of “change or else” preaching’s of David Suzuki and Al Gore?


One has to wonder who Wildsight represents. From 2001-2011 Wildsight revenue totals of 6.2 million dollars with a membership that fluctuates between 200 and 500. From 2004-2012 CPAWS revenue topped 38 million. These are just two of the 100’s of groups being funded. It’s time for US and Canadian funders to Thinktwice about funding groups that are built on misinformation and political interference. David Suzuki recently commented on his website Environmentalism has failed” but it certainly isn’t because of a lack of money.
The figures below are from the audited financials that Wildsight recently posted to their website. This includes the Regional Wildsight audited financials from 2001-2011 not the other 5 branch offices that have to fund themselves from other sources. The monies that Regional Wildsight brings in pales in comparison with Suzuki Foundation or the Sierra Club of Canada. Environmentalism is big business in BC; maybe the provincial government should replace the carbon tax with a  green tax on the environmentalists. They seem to always want action from the government; its only fair they pay their way.  
Paul Visentin
Member of ThinkTwice group




Government and Taxpayer Grants 2001-2011

$1,438,959

BC Gaming Commission

$ 127,396

City of Fernie

$ 6,010

Columbia Shuswap Regional District

$ 14,350

District of Invermere

$ 9,957

Government of Canada

$ 176,786

Province of British Columbia

$ 32,131

Regional District of Central Kootenay

$ 24,479

Regional District of East Kootenay

$ 37,195

BC Hydro

$ 26,000

Columbia Basin Trust

$ 975,655

Columbia Power Corp

$ 8,000

Village of Radium Hot Springs

$ 1,000

US Grants 2001-2011

$3259391

444's Foundation

$ 231,635

The Brainerd Foundation

$ 321,552

The Bullitt Foundation

$ 247,621

Confluence Fund

$ 15,616

Conservation Alliance

$ 16,103

Conservation Northwest

$ 3,039

Endswell Foundation

$ 39,767

Global Nature Fund

$ 79,768

Henry P Kendall Foundation

$ 201,126

LaSalle Adams Fund

$ 189,923

National Parks Conservation Assoc

$ 1,010

Norcross Wilderness Foundation Inc.

$ 13,029

Patagonia Inc.

$ 28,795

The Lazar Foundation

$ 182,184

Unilever Foundation

$ 484,215

Wilburforce Foundation

$ 968,877

Yellowstone to Yukon

$ 235,131

Canadian Grants 2001-2011

$ 1,514,728

Art Twomey Memorial

$ 15,284

Banff Centre

$ 1,000

BC Cattlemans Association

$ 5,000

Candian Products Forest

$ 5,000

Canadian Mountain Holidays

$ 1,500

The Chawkers Foundation

$ 10,000

CPAWS

$ 30,750

Community fund - North Kootenay Lake Society

$ 600

Columbia Valley Foundation

$ 7,535

Columbia Wetlands Stewardship

$ 16,939

Crowsnest Conservation Society

$ 10,685

Ducks Unlimited

$ 1,000

East Kootenay Invasive Plant Council

$ 500

Encana Foundation

$ 45,000

The Eleanor Luxton Historical Society

$ 60,000

Federation of Canadian Municipalities

$ 22,445

Fortis BC

$ 15,000

Fraser Basin Council

$ 15,000

The Kimberley Nature Park Society

$ 3,807

Kicking Horse Coffee

$ 20,945

Lever Ponds Foundation

$ 18,050

Lush Handmade Cosmetics

$ 5,000

Lake Windermere District Lions Club

$ 1,264

The MacLean Foundation

$ 50,972

George Cedric Metcalf Foundation

$ 5,000

Mountain Equipment Coop

$ 56,011

Nature Canada

$ 19,000

Nature Conservancy Canada

$ 1,000

Nature Trust BC

$ 1,000

Osprey Community Foundation

$ 2,634

Pembina Institute

$ 1,500

RBC Foundation

$ 106,585

Real Estate Foundation

$ 116,000

Yves Rocher Amerique Du Nord Inc.

$ 7,000

The Rockies Institute Fernie Chamber of Commerce

$ 1,200

Sea Change Marine Conservation

$ 417

Shell Environmental Fund

$ 120,200

Sierra Club of BC Foundation

$ 101,137

Snowy Owl Management Inc.

$ 1,000

The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund

$ 14,000

The Sage Foundation

$ 2,000

The Richard Ivey Foundation

$ 150,150

TD Friends of the Environment

$ 13,600

Tembec Industries Inc.

$ 96,197

Tides Canada

$ 81,902

Transcanada Pipelines Ltd.

$ 15,000

Vancouver Foundation

$ 159,357

Van City Credit Union

$ 5,000

Waste Management

$ 1,000

West Coast Environmental Law

$ 32,398

Western Canadian Wilderness Committee

$ 1,500

Terasen Gas

$ 10,000

Wildsight Golden

$ 3,767

World Wildlife Fund

$ 25,717

Total Grants 2001-2011

$ 6,283,647

Canadian Gov't Grants

$ 1,508,898

American Grants

$ 3,260,021

Canadian Non Gov't Grants

$ 1,514,728

11 year average % of total grants

Canadian Gov't Grants

23%

American Grants

54%

Canadian Non Gov't Grants

24%

11 year average %Total Non-Government Grants

 

Canadian Grants

31%

American Grants

67%

Membership revenue 2001-2011

Membership @ $20/person average 2001-2011

Membership revenue as % of total grants

$87,522

382

1.28%

Source - Wildsight Audited Financials 2001-2011