How capitalism will save the world from climate change.

In the picture are watermelons, green on the outside, but red on the inside. That serves as a clumsy metaphor for many environmentalists today: socialists with a superficial cover. If you expected me to blurt out the explanation behind that headline title, alas I'm not that smart, but George Reisman is. So I will yield to his wisdom. The excerpt below is from the conclusion of an article that does supply a brilliant explanation for my headline.
 
"Marxian “scientific socialism” was collectivism in its boisterous, arrogant youth. Environmentalism is collectivism in its demented old age. It will be much easier to overcome than was Marxism. Marxism, however falsely and dishonestly, at least promised major positives: the unlocking of human potential and the achievement of future material prosperity. Environmentalism is reduced to trying to find terrified people with less than the mentality of children, to whom it can offer the prospect of avoiding wind and rain. It is the intellectual death rattle of collectivism. When it has been overcome, a world-embracing capitalist economy will be able to come into existence and be capable in fact of achieving unprecedented economic progress and prosperity across the entire globe."


If you want to read the full explanation, go here, you will not regret that you did.

Nuclear Power - Seen and Unseen - Part 2

Smoke rising from Reactor 3 Fukushima

The massive clean-up in North-Eastern Japan is just beginning. It is one thing to have a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that are both natural and unpredictable events, but that disaster was compounded by a man-made event, that might have been preventable; the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. There is lots of blame to go around, but it is too early to start.

The after quake clean-up is literally happening under a (radioactive) cloud. No one is liable for the natural events, they come with the territory, with Japan, but who is responsible for the nuclear mess? Is it TEPCO, are they responsible? Of course they are. But they already have huge debt, minimal insurance coverage, and they may be responsible for paying off farmers in the area around the plant. They may also default and not meet any of their obligations. Ultimately like in every other country that has nuclear power plants, the government (taxpayers) hold the greatest liability.

Thus it is the nature of nuclear power that makes it very unlikely to exist in totally free markets. Who would insure a nuclear power station? How long would the contract last? What happens to nuclear reactors when their useful lifespan is over, still insured? Who would be liable for the waste generated by the plants, waste products that have half-lives of tens-of-thousands-of-years? These are real problems that would make contracts, voluntary agreements among free-trading individuals and corporations, unrealistic. 

If you think nuclear power is a good idea, safe and economical, then you are deluded. You must believe governments have the right to force people and their children and their children's children and so on, to accept the liability for these things forever, or tens-of-thousands of years, whichever comes first. What choice do those future generations have? None! Don't believe me? If you are Canadian go look at the "Nuclear Liability Act," which limits power plants to $75 million of liability for any one incident (see Section 31 of the Act). Imagine a class-action suit on behalf of 5 million people exposed to radiation, that would bring a whopping $15 each! Who pays for the rest? Taxpayers do. Of course that is the unseen and unseemly part of nuclear power, there were no voluntary agreements entered in to, it is simple coercion. In whose interests has this law been written? Does it protect the rights of Canadians like laws are supposed to?

If you are American, check out the Price-Anderson Act, same idea different country. In fact such laws exist in all countries where nuclear liability is a concern.

Think about this next time you switch on the lights, and realize that there are other options that may not be acceptable by the standards of present day green environmentalists, but the other options are better than freezing in the dark.

Below is a video where Stefan Molyneux brings you True News about nuclear power.

Nuclear Power - Seen and Unseen - Part 1

Each red dot above represents a nuclear power station usually with several reactors.

If I were a believer in conspiracy theories (I'm not), I might suggest that the entire global warming crisis was concocted to revive a moribund nuclear industry. Why would I say that? The nuclear power industry received body blows a generation ago after Three-Mile-Island and Chernobyl. The fear associated with those events justifiably curtailed the building of nuclear power stations worldwide. That fear has since been replaced by the fear of global warming consequences, and of course nuclear power stations don't produce greenhouse gases. Unfortunately we have been reminded that nuclear power stations do produce something besides electricity.
 As I write this, a radiation cloud is still wafting over Fukushima Prefecture and surrounding regions in Japan and out to sea. The population of Northeastern Japan has endured a magnitude 9.0 earthquake followed by a very destructive Tsunami, followed by a nuclear accident. "Accident" does not seem adequate, this was an accident that was waiting to happen, it was just a matter of time. The event was almost as predictable as earthquakes in Japan; they happen, they happen often, and in a country that has 55 commercial nuclear reactors (third largest number on earth) an earthquake related nuclear disaster was almost predestined - Murphy's Law.
In the radiation cloud are radioisotopes like Xenon and Iodine each with a relatively short half-life, and Caesium, with a half-life of just over 30 years. The dispersion of this cloud may be visualized on this website.

For those of us who live in Eastern North America, where there are many, many nuclear reactors (see the map above), you may feel safe that magnitude 9.0 earthquakes and tsunamis are very unlikely. The simple truth about the Fukushima disaster is that the partial core-meltdowns (or worse, it's not over yet) were caused by an interruption in the cooling of these reactors. The cooling pumps stopped because of a power outage and an inability to restart the pumps due to the tsunami etc. The back-up systems had failed, first the generators then the batteries, the power station was in a blackout, which continues on 4 of the 6 reactors at this writing.

Can blackouts happen here? Absolutely! On the afternoon of Aug. 14th, 2003 a major blackout caused the automatic rapid shutdown of 9 US reactors and 7 reactors in Ontario (see Chapter 8, pg. 111 in that report), all of them operating at high power levels because of the heatwave in the region on that day. Fortunately for us, the cooling systems of these reactors were maintained, but the reactors in the Toronto area were offline until sometime between Aug. 22 and 25, more than a week later. This had significant economic consequences to Ontario and the region. Tragically the situation in Japan is offering us a glimpse, a lesson, at possible futures.
    
My purpose here, is not to scare anyone, the levels of radiation in Japan are relatively low, and you may do your own assessment of that using this radiation dose chart online from this blogpost. My purpose is to continue a discussion on the use of nuclear energy. There are at least 104 commercial nuclear reactors on 64 sites in the United States, with an additional 34 research reactors at Universities across the US, and an estimated 272 military reactors. In Canada there are at least 23 commercial reactors (plus two are planned), and 19 research reactors at research centres and Universities across Canada. 

Since 1952, when the first nuclear reactor came online, their have been at least 100 significant nuclear accidents around the world. While fatalities have been low, that real number is difficult to calculate given the slow rate at which radiation-related health problems occur. Look at the map of nuclear power stations above again. Do you live near one of those red dots? Probably, even if you don't, a radiation cloud from an accident can be carried quite a distance. If you live in Ontario where prevailing winds from the west and southwest are common, well, you can see what I mean? So what kind of pollution would you prefer, the radioactive kind, or just plain old air pollution and carbon dioxide (which is not a pollutant really)? I know what I prefer.
See part 2 soon.

Global warming and energy production

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I am a global warming skeptic. Not so much that I don't believe warming is happening, I just don't believe efforts in Canada, the United States or Europe will make any difference to mitigating warming (and why would we want too?). I don't believe that forcing people to alter their lifestyles by having them pay huge price penalties for carbon dioxide production is moral, regardless of the supposed noble cause (saving the planet!?). I also don't believe that the models presented by the United Nations or any other group could possibly be accurate (given what we don't know) or that there is any risk in just doing nothing (my preference).
Lately I have been involved in researching electric power generation because of its implications for the next election in Ontario. Our current provincial government has already set Ontario on a course that is supposed to reduce our "carbon footprint" but at great expense to  the population, and to Ontario's competitive position among its neighbours. Two-thirds of Ontario's future electricity production is forecast to be nuclear or non-conventional (wind, solar).
Well, nuclear power has been in the news of late, and I will have much more to say about it soon, but I found it refreshing to watch the video below from a global warming believer who is actually trying to get the science right. Richard A. Muller, a retired physics teacher from UC.Berkeley speaks about:

> why our efforts to reduce our CO2 emissions may be futile because of developing nations 
> the exaggerated rhetoric used by the IPCC and other warmists
> the exaggerated data about ice cap melting, glacier melting, sea level rising, hurricanes etc.
> the "Climategate" scandal and the facts about the fraud committed by scientists

Prof. Muller injects a degree of uncertainty about the warmists' data that has been sadly lacking. He admits that there is uncertainty, unlike the Gores and Suzukis of the world that claim the science is settled. I disagree with Prof. Muller on the moral issue of coercing joint global effort to reduce warming, and I also disagree with him on China. He assumes that China will continue to grow into the future as it has in the past 20 years (10% per year). I find that difficult to believe as I've indicated before. A recent article in Canadian Business Magazine titled China's Coming Collapse (by Jason Kirby) details why China's apparent success may be just a mirage, much the same as the Japanese bubble of the 1980's that resulted in Japan's lost decade. Mr. Kirby can be heard on a podcast discussing this article if you prefer.
So here is Richard A. Muller, from UC.Berkeley speaking about Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal etc: