Rio+20 a miserable flop. Glad to hear it!

Peter Foster:

“[N]othing less than a disaster for the planet,” declared Nnimmo Bassey, Nigerian poet and chair of Friends of the Earth International. “[A]n epic failure,” claimed Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International executive director. ‘[A] colossal waste of time,” chimed in Jim Leape, international director-general of World Wildlife Fund.

An umbrella group of NGOs bemoaned the official text’s lack of mention of “planetary boundaries, tipping points or planetary carrying capacity,” the very shibboleth’s of radical environmentalism’s zero-sum thinking.

Significantly, the mother and father of sustainable development, Gro Harlem Brundtland and Maurice “Chairman Mo” Strong, carped — or should that be gro-aned and mo-aned — from the Rio sidelines.

... Canada should be justly proud of being in the vanguard of this return to balance both via its withdrawal from Kyoto and the environmental provisions of Bill C-38, which do not seek to trash safeguards — as alarmists have suggested — but to eliminate duplication, bureaucratic overreach, and the potential for sheer obstructionism.

Meanwhile, once again, Canada Awarded “Fossil of the Day” in Rio [makes me proud]:

... Environment Minister Peter Kent said the awards are politically motivated, and don't reflect Canada's commitment to promoting sustainable development at a global level. [I hope that means Canada's commitment to global "sustainable development" is non-existent]. ...

Kent agreed with the fossil-award nominators, however, that Canada does not want to discuss funding for the green economy. ... "... There are some countries that would like Rio to be a pledging conference for wealth transfer," the minister said. ...

Harper-hating media

BC Blue comments on the media frenzy over the Robocall "scandal".

And today Andrew Coyne climbed aboard the "conspiracy" bandwagon.  Note that he's now 'coyned' the term "Robocon" as a substitute for Robocall. Too cute.

It apparently hasn't occurred to Coyne that the "conspiracy" here is that first Liberals and now NDP partisans are coming out of the woodwork to claim they've been Robocalled by Conservatives.  It's a convenient, risk-free smear they can perpetuate till the cows come home.

Update: From BC Blue - NDP MP Pat ("Big Mouth") Martin being sued for defamation

Insurance industry hyping global warming

It was front page news last Thursday:

... Canadians renewing their home insurance are likely to find their premiums have risen sharply from last year, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada says the main culprit is climate change.

... Henry Blumenthal, the chief underwriter for TD insurance, left no doubt he is a firm believer in global warming. “Not only do we believe, it’s a proven fact,” he said in an interview, adding premiums for his customers are rising 10% to 15% because of the issue. “It’s the number one headache issue the property and casualty industry is facing.” ...

“Headache” my arse, unless that’s insurance-speak for “excuse to jack up rates”. Only a complete naif could believe such hype from an industry that stands to gain billion$ from it.  On Saturday Lawrence Solomon nailed it:

... home insurance premiums — and the insurance industry’s profits — depend largely on the industry’s skill in making two types of investments: in the stock market and in marketing that scares the bejesus out of its customers.

... The insurance industry wants more money to cover its poor stock picks. And more money again to cover future global warming risks. With the government’s blessing, insurers will now jack up your home insurance premiums by 10% to 15% in the coming year.

... The insurance industry earned every dollar that it makes from global warming — its sharp-eyed marketers spotted the potential before anyone else. In 1973, Munich Re, one of the world’s largest insurers, warned that rising temperatures could result in receding glaciers and polar caps, shrinking lakes, and rising ocean temperatures, with carbon dioxide as the culprit.

... Canadian insurers like TD Insurance claim “it’s a proven fact” that climate change is driving rate increases. This is true, not because the science justifies rate increases but because government regulators and many in the public accept the claim as valid. The actual facts, from those not associated with the IPCC, say quite the opposite, and emphatically so.

... Last year, the American Meteorological Society published a peer-reviewed study that investigated insurance claims from extreme weather events. ... The conclusion: “The studies show no trends in losses … that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.” ...

Thank you, Larry! Now, if only the insurance regulators read FP Comment and weren't in bed with insurers.

Boot the government out of our kitchens

I’ve long maintained that there is no such thing as junk food.  Today, Wendy McElroy provides more ammo against the food fascists:

... food is .. one of the main forms of self-control you exercise over your own life. It means something different to everyone, and that's what makes attempts by the state to set one standard for all so offensive.

... The typical counter-argument is to say that since society pays for our health care, we owe it to society to lead healthy lives. In short, your neighbour has a vested financial interest in what goes into your body. If you won't take care of it, the government will make you.

This line of reasoning - rather than justifying a Nanny State or a nosy neighbour dictating your personal choices - constitutes a powerful argument against socialized medicine, but it doesn't do much to say that the government should control what you eat. If socialized medicine had been advertised decades ago as a government mandate to control the minutia of your daily life, then it would probably have never been implemented....

... We need to kick the government out of our kitchens.

Read the whole column.

Climate scam model

Of all the climate models out there, this is the most accurate one:

[via]

The carbon-trading shell game

In a recent Harper's Magazine article "Conning the Climate: Inside the Carbon-Trading Shellgame" Mark Schapiro provides a comprehensive look into the intricacies, vagaries and risks associated with the global carbon emissions market which is now at $300+ billion and growing fast. Jeremy Warner of the Telegraph writes an overview and comments:

According to Mr Schapiro, carbon trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth. Since Kyoto signatories bought in to the cap and trade concept in 2005, there have been more than $300bn carbon transactions, prompting several investment banks, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, to set up their own carbon trading desks. But that’s just the start. If President Obama and his supporters can institute a cap-and-trade system in the United States – and that’s a big if for this increasingly marooned presidency – demand could explode into a $2 to $3 trillion market.

And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon credits, or finding carbon reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible.

... The whole thing, though well intentioned, looks wide open to abuse and scams. Mr Schapiro’s account of the carbon trading market is obviously a sceptical one, and no doubt there are others that take a less cynical view. But I wonder what all the wide eyed climate change campaigners are going to say when the first scandals begin to break, still more what they’ll make of it when the whole thing turns out to be another giant asset bubble – if indeed the non production of carbon can be described as an asset.

The above is via FOS who note another potentially catastrophic problem:

The U.N. has authorized 26 firms to participate in the lucrative business of validating these promises world-wide. Due to irregularities the U.N. temporarily suspended the two largest validators - Swiss-based SGS and the Norwegian DNV. However, any questionable carbon credits are never revoked, because that could destroy the market. [Hmm. The U.N., of oil-for-food fraud infamy, overseeing validation of trading in the non-delivery of an invisible gas? What could possibly go wrong?]

Woman suing Canada for $2.5 million

Big surprise! Suaad Hagi Mohamud, stranded in Kenya because of questions about her Canadian identity, is suing:

‘I don't care about money,' ‘I'm only (going) to court so this never happens to another Canadian citizen.'

Uh huh.

CTV poll

Junk Food? There's NO SUCH THING!

Recently there's been a lot of hype surrounding so-called 'junk food'. Headlines - "Childhood Obesity - Junk Food to Blame"; books and movies - "Fast Food Nation" and "Supersize Me!" Socialist busy-bodies, trial lawyers and opportunists of every other stripe are trying to get a piece of the action.

Well, IMHO, there's no such thing as junk food. All food has a useful place in a healthy diet. Potato chips, chocolate bars, soft drinks as part of any balanced meal are all good for you. And you can wreck your body by eating too much of any food. The problem, if there is one, is junk DIETS, junk eating habits. But with all the media hype and political posturing one thing seems near certain - the nanny state will step in to slap a tax on the latest scapegoat - food.

There are so many ways this seems wrong it’s hard to know where to begin but here's the short list:

One, it’s unlikely to work. Since poor eating habits are the problem, those few who may be deterred by ‘junk’ food taxes will more than likely shift their overeating to other foods. Or, in accordance with the law of unintended consequences, they’ll sacrifice ‘healthy’ food to enable them to afford their ‘junk’ food habit.

Two, it’s a regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest. One more simple pleasure under seige by government.

Three, it’s doubly unfair because while it targets overeaters, a minority, it penalizes everyone. Why should everyone, including the poor, suffer a penalty aimed at deterring people with poor eating habits?

Four, the scientific basis for assumptions about weight and health is murky at best. Mortality is a reasonable measure of health and the results of at least one study showed that "Overweight was not associated with excess mortality." Statistically overweight people live no shorter lives than do those of normal weight. Only for the obese and the underweight is there an effect. Perhaps the 'junk' we need to be most concerned with is the ‘junk science’ being peddled to support ‘junk’ food theory.

Five, but not least, this is nanny-statism taken to a new height. Even assuming it were workable, it’s still an arrogant, totalitarian, one-size-fits-all measure. It’s state interference with one of our most basic personal responsibilities - eating habits. And children’s diets are parents’ responsibility.

People should be outraged by the gall of politicians and government bureaucrats attempting to micro-manage their lives, and with the media for its over-enthusiastic hype. Following this path to its ultimate conclusion will lead to government regulation of every aspect of our lives - everything being decided for us - everyone treated like an errant adolescent or serf - what isn’t forbidden is compulsory. In the broadest sense of the health of the citizenry, this is can hardly be a healthy state of affairs.

And, please, let’s not hear the tired argument that this is the government’s business because of the supposed $billions ‘junk’ food consumption costs the health care system. If anything this is one more strike against state monopoly healthcare which is being used to justify ever more interference in our personal lives.