Reason For Liberty » GlobalWarming

US Congress and Global Warming

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:45:39 +0000

Hello Friends, I have shifted my writing portal from here to http://rationallibertariancorner.com/ you may check for my New articles at my website.

Global warming or climate change is a worldwide disquiet that needs to be addressed in a proper way. Scientific studies have regularly provided enough evidences regarding the regarding the human activities that harms the natural balance of our planet by producing large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), most notably Carbon Di Oxide (CO2) by burning fuels. Now when it is established that global warming is a real concern, why is it that the world’s leading power, the United States is not able to legislate enough stern laws to check the pollution, emission of greenhouse gases, human activities that are causing global warming and to provide better greener ways to lead the world. The United States is the biggest contributor of green house gases, specifically the Carbon Di Oxide emission from coal based power plants, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of U.S reports that the United States’ Greenhouse Gas emission grew by 12% between 1990 and 2001. The global warming has already raised the average global sea level by four to eight inches during the last 100 years. Scientists believe that the increasing levels of GHGs may cause acute climatic and health impacts on humanity. Despite of all these known facts, the government of United States under the leadership of President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and refused to sign the agreement that required United States to reduce its GHGs emission rate to 5% to 8% below their average level of 1990 by 2008 to 2012. On the other hand, Bush supported the idea of voluntary research and efforts at enhancing energy efficiency. In 2002 at Climate Action Report to the United Nations, Bush administration accepted the risks from global warming and informed that the GHGs emission of United States will increase by almost 43 per cent between 2002 and 2020 if the US government does not take stern actions to reduce GHGs emission¹ In July 2004, Bush administration again accepted in their report to Congress on U.S. Climate Change Science Program that that the most probable explanation for global warming since 1950 is the increasing levels of carbon dioxide from human activities. However, Bush administration maintained their position to not to opt for any compulsory policies to reduce the emission of GHGs until more conclusive evidences about global warming are not produced. Global warming is affecting everybody on the earth and it is the cause of serious damages to all. Yet, no country initiates to take stern steps to reduce their reduction of GHGs. In his journal regarding Global Warming and its affect, Bradford Mank raises the question “Is Injury to All Injury to None?”² The idea is simple, since global warming is definitely hurting everybody, yet, the prevention requires immediate actions that may prove to be commercially unviable, hence the governments throughout the world and specially the US government hesitate to bring about any concrete change in their policies to reduce emission of GHGs. Maybe, the injury to all is nobody’s concern.
On January 20th, 2009, when Barack Obama took charge as the 44th president of US, everybody hoped for better involvement of United States government and Congress in the bid to reduce the emission of GHGs worldwide³
Yet, apart from some policy changes, the new administration of US also failed to take any concrete and defining step to face the dangers of global warming and to resolve to reduce the emission of GHGs significantly.

Federal/National Climate Policy

The Copenhagen Climate Summit failed⁴ to impress anybody and despite all the hopes attached with Obama, no significant change was visible. Obviously, Obama administration had a great deal of immediate problems to tackle with including the recession period of 2009, the huge stimulus and highly increasing national debt along with the socialistic burdensome programs like healthcare reforms. However, a change was visible in the attitude of administration and on January 26, 2009, the House of Representatives of US Energy Independence and Climate Legislation, the Congress also passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, both the legislations were meant to encourage renewable energy usage and increase energy efficiency. The Cash for Clunker program suggested the US administration’s initiative towards the greener options, the Cap Carbon Trade plan showed positive approach towards greener US, and US government also started trying to encourage innovators and entrepreneurs to create greener jobs.⁵ . The Clean Energy Job and American Power Act provided many programs that will raise funds from government to invest in the inventions and development of greener options for electricity requirements and will provide huge opportunity of green jobs.⁶ Yet, on bigger plan, there is no strict path towards achieving and implementing some policies that would lead US to reduce the emission of GHGs to about 5% to 8% below the level of 1990′s.
Not only that, all these positive steps towards clean air, green surroundings, clear atmosphere and cooler globe faced opposition within the senate in the form of The Dirty Air Act. The Dirty Air Act attacks the Clean Air Act directly. Many big oil companies and some senators along with their lobbyists claimed that Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) statement about the dangers of carbon pollution does not show any major threat to public health or welfare. If the Dirty Air Act passes, the US consumption of foreign and domestic oil will increase further and that will undo all the positive steps taken towards greener USA.⁷

Business Partnerships

One of the main reason behind the inability of the Congress of US is the powerful US corporate that funds in electoral campaigns. The business partnerships of US provide a space of such political forum where the motives of big enterprises cannot be ignored. Obviously, the big conglomerate like BP America, DuPont, and General Electric etc cannot afford to let Congress restrict their source of profits. Furthermore, no government would like to hurt the economy of the nation by almost destroying the leading industries of the country. The big oil companies deny accepting Clean Air Act, or any other proposal to reduce the carbon consumption.
William R. Cline in his book The Economics of Global Warming explained the expected economic damages that may be caused by global warming. He suggested that if the damages caused by global warming are smaller than the costs of reduction of emissions from fossil fuels, deforestation and other sources, than the attempt to discourage usage of carbon or fossil fuels is irrational.⁸
Self-interest is the main motive of any person that drives him to take rational decisions and implement them properly. Thus, if it is shown that the economic losses due to global warming are much more than the losses one will face by reducing carbon consumption, than naturally, the person will opt to reduce carbon consumption because that will be lesser loss for him or her and it will be healthier option too. Thus, it is easier for individuals to opt for greener options while it is difficult for the government or Congress to resolve and adopt policies to control carbon footprints. The reason being, as a collective, Congress or US government cannot think for individual losses, they will only think for the better profits of maintaining relations with big conglomerates, big oil companies and industries like GE, DuPont etc. The evil nexus of government and corporate will never let the greener options establish themselves in the market because the government will keep stimulating the conglomerates. Yet, an individual by himself can opt for greener, hybrid cars, which will consumer lesser fuel, the individual as a consumer may rift the market towards the greener options available in the market. The key to the trouble of global warming is consumerism. Consumerism is the principle of Free Market, which states, “free choice of consumer should rule the market, or, the consumer decides the economic structure of the society”.⁹
As it is clear that the public realizes the dangers of global warming much better than the Congress or US government, the citizens should opt for the free market principle rather than waiting for government to take proper actions. If the consumers prefers and demand green alternatives, clearer energy resources, fuel efficient cars, energy efficient appliances, renewable energy resources and other appliances to reduce their individual carbon fingerprints, than the producer, manufacturers and providers will be forced to provide environmental friendly alternatives for the society. Consumerism is the boon for human development (Reason for Liberty, 2010), and hence, if the individuals, the consumers consider that global warming is greater loss and hence they should opt for greener options, than the entrepreneurs, innovators and manufacturers will themselves be heralded towards providing greener options because that will be the more profitable execution for them. Once the big conglomerate start producing greener alternatives, the government will also feel no objection to provide greener policies, also, when consumers themselves will demand green market, green goods, green services and lesser carbon fingerprints, then the role of government will be minimal in case of improving the conditions of global temperatures.

Performance of States on global warming platform

Stephen Lacey reports that some of the states are moving faster towards green renewable energy options than the federal government or Congress. California, New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Ohio are not only proving to be great market for renewable energy resources like solar energy and wind energy, the state governments are also promoting the renewable energy options to far extent. Recently, Texas got rid of its eight coal power plants.¹⁰ Texas not only opted for nuclear alternative, but the Texas government approved plans to supply 35 per cent of power needs through renewable energy resources.
Stephen Lacey further reveal that the interference of state government in market through the SREC program is benefitting few large companies at the expense of many small companies.¹¹ The picture clarifies the reason why the state governments are running faster towards greener US with lesser carbon footprints. The federal government deals with higher degree of market interference and hence, the Congress remains in effect of big business to create corrupt nexus that cannot decide for better greener options. State governments on the other hand have lesser power to interfere with the market, hence they are a little faster, yet, if somehow the government is decentralized and restricted from interfering the market, that is, if the market is left free, then the market will force the entrepreneurs, manufacturers, producers and business conglomerates to provide better, greener options to reduce the GHGs emission and ease the acute global warming conditions, the reason being, consumers demand “green” solutions to the global warming crisis. The demand of green alternatives by consumers will prompt the free market to create green jobs and will incentivize the entrepreneurs and energy industries to innovate better energy efficient renewable energy resources extraction.

Conclusion: The Actual Way to Improve Climate

It is quite clear that the US congress and federal government is lacking will and strong leadership to bring about any significant change in the policies to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases emission. The nexus between politicians, big business conglomerates and oil companies seems to be evil enough to thwart any possible change in the attitude of Congress towards the acute need of reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emission. It is evident that if nothing would be done to prevent or slow down global warming, there can be disastrous consequences on whole world. US federal government and Congress find it self unable to deal with the situation because the Congress cannot afford the economic turmoil if it breaks relations with the big business conglomerates and oil companies. Instead of taking firm and stern actions to compel the big industries to reduce their carbon footprints, Congress tries to cajole them to agree with a cap on carbon. Pete DuPont stated clearly that “global warming looks like neither the alarmists’ serious threat, nor an immediate crisis that requires governmental control of America’s economy to reduce it”, He suggested that Congress should consider the costs before passing policies on Global Warming.¹² In such a scenario, it is difficult to believe that the big conglomerates like BP America, DuPont, and General Electric etc will accept the necessity of time so easily. Yet, there is a hope to save the earth against the ill-human activities. The individual citizens of U.S and whole round the world can force the conglomerates, politicians and governments too by denying their interference and monopoly in market and by demanding better, greener and feasible energy options.
Once the consumers themselves decide to reduce their own carbon footprints, the big companies will be forced to follow the suit. Congress, federal government and state government meanwhile should stop interfering with the market and let the new players, competitors, entrepreneurs and innovators provide better and efficient energy solutions so that the big conglomerate of US may also feel compelled to work towards a greener future. The key for a better, greener and safer world against the glooming danger of global warming is in the hands of consumer and in the policies of free market. The nexus between government, politicians and big business need to relieve the market to create greener world.

Climate Action Report, 2002, Ratification of Kyoto Aside: How International Law and Market Uncertainty Obviate the Current U.S. Approach to Climate Change Emissions
Bradford Mank, 2005, Standing and Global Warming; Environmental Law, Vol. 35
Oliver A. Houck, 2009, Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility
BBC News, 2009, Why Did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? BBC News, 22nd December, 2009
Legislation, Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee of US, 2010
Clean Energy Job and American Power Act, 2009
Dirty Air Act round up, 2010
William R. Cline, 1992, The Economics of Global Warming, Institute for International Economics Washington DC
Reason for Liberty, 2010, Consumerism is a Boon for Human Development, Reason for Liberty, April 19th,2010
Stephen Lacey, 2008, U.S State Solar Debate: Will SRECs Create Unhealthy Market Concentration? New Hampshire, United States
Stephen Lacey, 2008, U.S State Solar Debate: Will SRECs Create Unhealthy Market Concentration? New Hampshire, United States
Pete DuPont, 2009, Time for Inaction on Global Warming, Congress should consider the costs before passing “cap and trade” The Wall Street Journal

Going green or Going Nuclear?

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:24:44 +0000

Energy is no different from a river, it flows or it is stored. We obtain all the required energy from the stored energy resources, otherwise we construct dams to capture the flowing energy and hence make it usable.
The fake term “renewable energy” often used and advertised by environmentalist is nothing but the stored energy of the sun.
In reality, there is nothing like “renewable energy”, every energy resource including the sun is limited.
Environmentalists often shout against the use of Fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuels are also nothing but stored solar energy. The capturing of solar energy in form of fossil takes millions of years and fossil fuels are highly concentrated source of energy, almost 10 times more concentrated than wood. The wind energy or raw solar energy the flow of energy is too weak to be used. Solar energy is 10 to 50 times less concentrated than fossil fuel. There is no technology to concentrate solar or wind energy and hence, to harvest any significant amount of energy directly from flowing solar or wind energy, the only way is to use more and more land, but land space is limited and that limits the use of both solar and wind energy.
According to T. Boone Pickens’s famous wind energy drive,¹ a single wind energy power station would require some 12,000 square miles of land area. That is too much when compared with the land space required for a Nuclear power plant.
Another natural store of energy is coal that is extremely abundant in nature. We may never run out of coal no matter how much we use it. Coal is a concentrated store of energy, much concentrated than wood.
Octane molecules of gasoline are further dense source of energy; they are densest form of all resources of carbon energy. Carbon energy itself is nothing but a natural dam of solar energy that is carbon energy is solar energy.
Yet, environmentalists want to reduce world’s carbon footprints; hence, they want to ban usage of carbon energy resources. On the contrary, they support the use of solar energy, wind energy in crude, and dilute form.
Nuclear energy is very different from any of the above discussed energy resources.
Nuclear energy is not a form of solar energy; the Sun is not the source of nuclear energy. People in general know less about nuclear energy.
A pinch of uranium contains more energy than 100 full trucks of coal. Despite the governments throughout the world providing support to solar and wind energy power plants by means of government subsidies (regulators forces utility companies to but renewable energy), the solar and wind energy plants produces only about 0.9% of the total electricity we consume.
The most effective solar panels (used on the space stations) are expensive and their conversion efficiency is only about 20%, which is too less. We cannot support the idea of using those much expensive solar panels with such less efficiency rate to be adopted on earth. Twelve miles of solar reflectors generate a meager 300 megawatt of energy, we can not rely on them, also, the reflectors must be kept exceptionally clean and maintained to the hilt, and otherwise they will not work. At the stage of current technological knowledge, no conceivable mix of solar, wind, sea or wave energy can fulfil even half of our demand for energy.
Environmentalists are against carbon energy resources, one may think they are right, but they are against nuclear energy resource too and they support only the crude form of solar, wind and water energy. Obviously, they want to push us back to the dark ages² .
The wind, solar and wave energy can be made more efficient with improving science and technology, not by forcing all of us to go without electricity.
The environmentalists call for massive subsidization for wind and solar energy, while they want to abort usage of carbon energy by applying carbon taxes.
Subsidies for wind and solar energy along with ethanol, recycling and many other similar issues clarifies that they are not efficient, because if they are efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? They need to be subsidized because they are not efficient.
Energy resources for which the environmentalist cries for are those, which benefit no one. The only reason environmentalist want them to be subsidized is the fact that they cannot compete in the market. No one will opt for wind or solar energy in a free market because it is inefficient very less, causes loss. In order to force people to opt for solar and wind energy, environmentalists suggest carbon taxes.
All this clarifies solar and wind energy is not good enough yet.
When the technology will improve and with that improve the efficiency of solar and wind energy, the free market will adopt them freely.
Wind will still fail to be any major source of energy because of the difficulty of transmitting the wind energy power. Wind is also unpredictable and hence the production of energy will also remain unpredictable.
Energy through nuclear fission is the proper alternative to any form solar energy that may solve out all the genuine environmental concerns, and they will ensure that we keep progressing in the future rather than being pushed backward to dark ages.
Uranium produces enormous amount of energy in a very little place that wind and solar energy together can not come close to.
Those who oppose nuclear energy are simply against any realistic way towards sustaining and improvement of technological advancement and our life in turn.
Uranium is abundant, clean and safe to use, furthermore, the residual of the nuclear reactors, that is, the “nuclear waste” can also be re-used after enriching plutonium.
The environmental geeks show their concern about the safety of nuclear reactors.
One of such nuclear accident happened at Chernobyl,³ every green geek puts up that case, what they do not tell us is the fact that, that mishap happened just because that US government run reactor was highly unsafe.
The greatest scientific feat of 20th century was the discovery of neutron and the knowledge about the highly concentrated nuclear energy. We discovered that the energy concentrated in nucleus of atom is 2 million times as more as the energy concentrated in the shell of atom.
The energy in the shell of atom is known as the chemical energy. Everything from wood to coal, from crude oil to gasoline is the play of chemical energy. Using chemical energy thus does not necessarily decreases the carbon footprints. The only way to successfully decrease our carbon footprints without pushing us backward to dark ages is the Nuclear energy.
The danger of nuclear waste is false because in reality, there remains nothing like “nuclear waste”; the waste of nuclear reactor can be used for further production of energy without hurting the environment by any means.
That so-called nuclear waste is also being used as the medical isotopes. About 40% of advanced medicines now are Nuclear medicine.
Conclusion: Nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest and most effective and efficient way we have, to not only to fulfil our current requirements but to meet all futuristic demands without leaving any carbon footprints.
Anyone who opposes Nuclear energy is whole out wrong and is against human progress and prosperity.

T Boon Pickens, Pickens plan
The Catastrophic Lovers want to return to Dark Ages, Reason for Liberty
The Chernobyl Disaster, wikipedia

The Changing Climate

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:08:14 +0000

It is very common to hear some environmentalist on any main stream media freaking out about the global warming and rehashing the swan song of environmentalists concerning assumed disasters that await the world if it carry on with its evil ways of fossil fuel consumption: the disappearance of islands beneath the sea, the flooding of coastal cities, more severe droughts and hurricanes, famines, disease, the displacement of tens of millions of people from their traditional homelands and the disappearance of glaciers.
However now the climate is surely changing and in this new climate, those environmentalists surprisingly are accepting their faults, yet they are not ready to take the responsibility.
Recently, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a panel of 2500 of the best climate scientists in the world, accepted that they made a huge goof-up regarding their blow-horns about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.¹
The IPCC, which is a noble winning organization of environmentalist alarmed about the catastrophic threat of melting of Himalayan glacier by 2035, that is, within 20 years, IPCC expected the disastrous end of the Himalayan range. Now when there are no signs of any such apocalyptic change in any new future, they have accepted that it was mistake. The mistake was a result of extreme irresponsibility and carelessness of these climate scientists of the noble winning IPCC organization. First of all, they never studied the Himalayan glaciers with any objectivity and the report they issued was borrowed from a 1996 Russian study, obviously, the study was not at all authentic. Not only that, the Russian study by V M Kotlyakov also predicted a date of 2350 for an expected decrease in Himalayan glacier. The IPCC scientists and climate reporters not only copied a non-authentic study, they also goofed up with the predicted date and made it to 2035. It might be a small typographical error that advanced the apocalyptic deadline by 300 years.
Similarly, the same reputed UN’s union of environmentalists also issued a report regarding the disappearance of Amazon forests based on another baseless report by some advocacy group WWF.² The author of that report on Amazon was also not written by any specialist on Amazon forests, but by a freelance journalist with no authenticity. IPCC never considered the importance to check the validity of such apocalyptical threat before lamenting it as a possible danger to force their socialistic dream of stern governmental actions throughout the world.
Now it is well known through out the world that all these environmentalists keep lying about the shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, rising sea levels and depleting rainforests. Yet nobody in the IPCC, not even the chairman Mr. R.K Pachauri is ready to take the responsibility of such so-called mistakes. Were they intentional?

Changing views of Climatologists

Some of the climate scientists have started trying to search out some feasible excuses to suggest why not all their predicted warnings about the apocalyptic changes in environment are proving to be true. Such a recent study suggests that the Earth did not warm up noticeably over the period of last decade even though the greenhouse gases are increasing dramatically because of a new stratospheric phenomenon 10 miles above our heads. The study suggests that somehow, the water vapour in the stratosphere has been decreased. As the water in atmosphere traps heat, lesser water in stratosphere means lesser heat. That is, although greenhouse gases are continually increasing, the atmosphere has changed itself in such a way that there is no global warming and in fact there is lesser heat. The atmosphere thus, has acted for the benefit of humanity.³
Although it is just an excuse, it suggests that now instead of keep issuing the threats of apocalypse every second day, environmentalists and climate scientists need to stress over searching for better excuses to hide out their deceits.

The Growing Glaciers

Despite all hullabaloo of global warming, the glaciers are growing all around the world. How is that possible that IPCC issues an unauthentic report about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, while the scientists from other group make a documentary about how the Himalayan glaciers are ever increasing since the last three decades?
Here is a list of 12 glaciers that have not heard the news about Global warming. They are growing and growing fast.⁴
It is a fact that the fake calls of apocalyptic dangers of global warming are not going to pay the socialist set of environmentalists any success. Yet, it would also be wrong to say that climate is not changing, climate is always changing and so do the human beings and other life forms. We evolve with time we change.
Professor Ian Plimer (University of Adelaide) in his book “Heaven an Earth” explains why CO2 cannot be a cause of global warming; here is a transcript of his scientifically recognized book Heaven and Earth.⁵
Despite the 21st century decrease in global temperature, we are perpetually warned of dangerous global warming. Every evening one can see a disturbing documentary over some news channel showing some absurd claims (just like that of IPCC claims of disappearing Himalayan glaciers etc.) all these environmentalists and green activists obviously want us to believe that if we try to live a happy, healthy prosperous life, we will be no better than the devil ready to cause havoc on earth. Obviously, they want the governments to control us and force us to sacrifice ourselves, our progress for the greater cause of saving the environment from the alleged threat of global warming.

Alternative solutions for alleged global warming

In the book Super Freakonomics⁶ the author argues that even if CO2 is causing global warming and if global warming is a real threat, then also it is not necessary that governments all around the world need to enforce draconian laws and cuts in carbon dioxide emission that would cost many trillions of dollars and will force the poor to be poorer. Rather some better geo-engineering solutions can be adopted to keep the earth cool despite the increased concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere.
Just like the present water vapor in the stratosphere can actually cause the globe to cool down irrespective of increased concentration of carbon dioxide, engineers can pump sulphur dioxide in stratosphere by a suspended hose using helium balloons. There can be numerous ways to actually control any global warming if it is occurring at any dangerous rate, but the fact is, since the 21st century, the earth is cooling off.
The environmentalists knows that it would be hard for them to contend at the issue of global warming because the evidences are totally against them and hence they are playing the new trick. Now days, the catastrophe lovers does not shout for Global Warming, rather they call for Climate Change. Climate change is a reality, climate keep changing since ever and forever. Mainstream economists, along with scientists and engineers, are increasingly joining in the climate change debate as technical experts, with the prospects of lucrative funding ultimately paid for through coercive taxation. The evolution of the climate change debate mirrors the almost universal support of economists as expert technical advisers for central banking and Keynesian policy prescriptions such as Cap and Trade policy etc.
Conclusion: Global warming is gradually proving out to be another fake call of the socialists just to dishearten the freedom loving individuals and to force common public to suffer under governmental duress and keep thinking that freedom is sinful and progress is evil. We need to save ourselves from such unholy misguiding tirade of socialist environmentalists, economists and media persons who are trying to baffle public to enforce governmental control over their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Update: A good article against Global warming fraud in “Open” : http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

Indian Environment Minister Jairam ramesh says:: There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report,” Ramesh told a news channel here.
Stressing that the IPCC’s weakness was that it didn’t do original research and derives assessments from published literature, the minister announced a climate change panel for India. Economic Times

Times of India IPCC retracts 2035 alarm on Himalayan glacier melt
The Telegraph After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
NPR News ,Atmospheric Dry Spell Eases Global Warming
12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming, Turns out the IPCC’s chicken little story that all the Himalayan glaciers are melting is just another exaggeration. Or fraud. Take your choice. You know, like the stats coming out of East Anglia CRU. And its claim that Antarctica is melting. And that Greenland’s ice cap is melting. And that sea levels are rising. And that the polar bears are dying. Fact is, some glaciers are retreating, but many others around the world are growing.
Professor Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne
SuperFreakonomics,Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance

The Cost of being Green

Unpretentious Diva — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:52:36 +0000

While whole world is blindly running for the goal of being green, the latest annual survey of National Geographic Society has announced India as the winner. The Greendex of Indians is 59.5 and India is at the top. The Greendex indicates the consumer behavior of a certain region or country and compares the sustainable power consuming behavior of the consumers.¹
For some environment crazy folks, this might prove to be an encouragement and they might feel great about the fact that Indians have been declared as the forerunners of the campaign Green Earth, yet, the question that is to be asked is, what keeps India at the topmost position of that green index? How come one of the most populous country is the least power consuming too?
Some will believe that Indians are naturally environment friendly and they care for earth, some may say that Indians are well-mannered about their consuming habits, yet the reality is different. The topmost position of India on that Greendex also indicates the poverty ridden situation of Indian power sector and the consumers’ plight.
Despite an ambitious rural electrification program, some 400 million Indians still have no access to electricity. While 80 percent of Indian villages have at least an electricity line, just 44 percent of rural households have access to electricity. According to a sample of 97,882 households in 2002, electricity was the main source of lighting for 53% of rural households.²
Now the reality comes out to be clearer, Indian consumers are not consuming lesser power by will or because of their habits, rather they have no electricity to use, their nights are as dark as they were before Edison invented the first electric bulb. They cannot use fans, coolers or heaters, they cannot imagine of an air conditioned bedroom for their kids.
The situations are no better in urban India. Even the most busy and important metropolitans of India constantly suffers 3-4 hours blackout everyday.
All Cities in Maharashtra like Pune, Pimpri Chinchwad, Navi Mumbai,
Thane, Kalyan-Dombivali, UlhasNagar, Nashik..the list is endless have 20 hours per day electric supply. Pune is the 7th largest city in India and Navi Mumbai and Thane are also very large cities too. Most of villages in Maharastra face power cuts for 16 hours a day. In some states like UP, Haryana and Bihar even cities are no better than villages and suffers heavy power cuts for 6-8 hours every day. Almost all Indian cities suffer a minimum of 2 hour power cut. Even Delhi and Mumbai suffer power cuts, can we expect a power cut of 4 hours in Las Vegas or New York?
Obviously when there is no electricity, how can anyone consume electricity?
That is obviously one of the reason of why India lacks domestic consumption of electronic appliances too.
The result is the higher position of India on that Greendex.³
Electricity is not the only issue. Indians are the most frequent consumers of self-grown food, with 35% eating what they grow several times a week or daily. No wonder there is lack of awareness of nutrition content and that is the reason why India faces maximum cases of malnutrition, Indian mothers faces maximum cases of miscarriage and infanticides.
Indian consumers obviously are least likely to own a car or any private transporting system, rather they uses public transportation system. One can check the troubles of local trains and blueline buses. Would not any Indian prefer to have his own car if he could? With the advent of Nano and other smaller and cheaper cars, things will change fast. So yes, Indians are most likely to use a scooter or motorcycle or at the most, a compact car and hence the mileage of Indian consumers is pretty lower than the average of consumers of other countries.
All this proves that the Indian Green-ness is driven out of compulsion rather than conviction. India is green because Indians do not have access to electricity, Indians cannot afford to have personal vehicles although they want to, and the luxurious cars are still beyond the reach of common Indians. Indians are greener because they are addicted to malnutrition.
Now the question is, should Indians try to remain green, or will Indians like to remain green? Should not all Indians have access to electricity, nutritious food better health-care system? Should not a middle class or lower middle class Indian have the potential to buy a car or a motorcycle?
Green is synonymous of poor. Yet crazy environmentalists keep shouting for Go Green and for their crazy ideas of global warming catastrophic fear mongering⁴ they tend to implicate poverty and malnutrition on masses.
Basically, the major carbon dioxide emitter is the power sector of any country. In India, 63.3% of electricity is produced by coal or oil or gas based thermal power plants. Merely 7% of power is produced by renewable source of energy, and that cannot be increased anyhow because of geographic positions and inconsistency of solar power or wind mills, the options left are either hydro power or nuclear power. Hydro power is obviously dangerous as they pertain to increase tectonic tensions and cause massive earthquakes as one was seen by China⁵ recently. Hence, the remaining is nuclear power, and that too is not so proper, as nuclear wastes are much more hazardous than any waste the thermal power plants can produce.
Nobody want to remain poor, nobody really want to remain without electricity too, they do want to own a TV, a computer, a fan, an air cooler and other simple electric and electronic appliances and they do have a right to have one if they can earn and afford. Thus, even though India is at the top of Green Ladder at present, it is not going to last long.
Should we worry for it? Or ask, should we keep Indians to remain poor always with no access to electricity, and a better life, or should we just forget about the crazy idea of “Go Green” and global warming?⁶
Climate is meant to be changed, evolution and technology makes it possible for us to bear any sort of change.

Indians are world’s greenest, Times of India
Indian Power Sector, Wikipedia
Indians are world’s greenest, Times of India
Global Warming is cooling down to ice Age, Reason for Liberty
China, Communism, Corruption and Earthquakes, Reason for Liberty
The Catastrophe lovers want to return to Dark age, Reason for Liberty

Carbon emission norms: A green initiative

Unpretentious Diva — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:19:31 +0000

Globalization not only has raised a stage of cultural sharing and expansions, it has provided a wider scope in every aspect of common life whole round the world.
National politics is also not unscathed of the global effects. Out national politics and economics, so much depends on the various global international groups, organizations, planning commissions, treaties and protocols.
One of the most important of them is the Kyoto Protocol and Environmentalism is the new political mantra at the helm.
Almost every other country is now whirling around to cut the carbon emission rates.
Now when there are enough evidences that global warming is nothing but a fake idea, the environmentalist politicians have a new way to rush upon their emotional tactics based on the call to “save mother earth”.
US president Obama has promised to invigorate the green energy industry as the new engine for the economic growth. The current economic crisis is providing enough chances to raise his sticks and implement his plans to create the new bubble of green economy providing millions of new jobs and to achieve that, he is going to implement some governmental “incentives” to promote green energy.
These incentives include carbon taxes and huge subsidies for innovation and development of “renewable” non-carbon energy resources.
India is also not very far behind, and as India is a signatory member of Kyoto protocol, Indian government promised it would introduce new norms that would involve tax concessions, incentive schemes including legislative framework to motivate Indian Inc. to effectively undertake carbon emissions reduction program.¹
India is already facing an electricity crisis and we really do not produce enough electricity to provide electricity in every household. A big portion of rural India still remains in dark at nights. Yet our politicians can promise to reduce carbon emission within a scheduled period.
Obviously, politicians never promise to fulfill their commitments.
On reality grounds, the “green energy” drive is fake and failure because, the environmentalists not only oppose the coal thermal electric plants, they also oppose nuclear plants too, and what they support for is the “renewable energy resources” like wind, solar and sea energy and that makes it a conundrum.
The governments, by providing huge subsidies to the innovation in green energy market can make it some heavy deal, but it will not be helping anyone.
The renewable energy resources cannot fulfil our requirements of energy not because we lack technology, but because it is not viable nor it is economic.
Around 76% of Indian energy comes through coal thermal plants, 21 % by hydroelectric plants and 3 % by nuclear plants. With the new nuclear energy deal, India will try to look for options to increase the percentage of nuclear energy.²
The “renewable” resources play almost no role. We cannot rely on wind mills because of intermittent nature of winds; also, wind mills require huge grounds. We cannot rely on solar cells, because of extremely low efficiencies of solar cells; also, it is not economically viable idea. The latest and most efficient solar cells use Lead selenide (PbSe) in their making. Just like PbSe, almost all heavy metal salts necessary for a solar cell are toxic in nature and can cause much greater harms to environment than what CO2 can cause. That is, the renewable resources can harm nature much more. In addition, heavy metals are rare, hence expensive, and thus not economically viable.
No matter how huge subsidies government provide, we cannot afford it.
Furthermore, such endeavours have already proven their failure.³
Many European countries are again returning towards coal thermal plants because their earlier initiatives to bring upon carbon taxes, investment, and subsidies in green energy are making electricity too much costly and hence common people are suffering, also, no plans are working to decrease any carbon emission.⁴
The conundrum of energy is because, fossil fuels are finite, we cannot remain dependent on them forever, renewable energy resources are not sufficient to fulfill our requirements, and nuclear energy is also not a very viable option.
Although fossil fuels may end earlier, yet the charcoal and coal tar beds will keep providing enough fuel and hence power to the world for longer periods.
The example of European failure clearly explains why taxes never work. Because of increased carbon taxes, the price of coal increased sharply and that was what government wanted to fight against global warming. Yet the result of all this is the huge increase in power rates needed for everyday usage.
India is already facing huge inflation rates. The rich can buy costly power and electricity too, the green energy steps will stress more burdens over the poor and no carbon tax can actually reduce that burden.
Carbon tax is also not a good economic move and it will increase poverty. We know that to reduce and ultimately remove poverty, production is the only way. By slapping carbon taxes on production houses, government will reduce the production and that will increase poverty.
The overall situation is government can provide no viable solution for electricity crisis and the environmental cause simultaneously. Government interference in market in support of environmentalism will not only make people poor, it will hurt the environment more. We cannot opt for hydroelectric plants because of the other side damages hydroelectric plants can cause (Earthquakes). With the limitations of wind and sea energy, and the economic failure of solar cells, we can not rely on them; furthermore, the making of solar cells can prove to be bigger danger to environment and human life. Not only Lead Selenide but polysilicons also left a huge toxic residual, which harms human life and nature much more than coal and we cannot rely on nuclear energy production too. Even in US nuclear power plants provide only 17% required energy and government are in opposition to nuclear plants because of the dangers of nuclear waste and the consequences. There is no safe way to dump nuclear wastes.
Overall, coal is the best option for our energy requirements and as we know that coal will keep serving us for many centuries more, we have enough time to innovate, invent and discover new ways, yet for that too, government interference is not viable.
In fact, the more we provide freedom to market, the more close we reach towards the solution for the energy conundrum.⁵
The current electricity losses in India during transmission and distribution are around 45%. It is huge and if we privatize the production, transmission and distribution of energy, the private owners will reduce this huge loss because of their profit incentives and that not only will bring electricity within reach or poor, it will make many dark villages bright.
The privatization of electric distribution is already an ongoing process and it is helping in reducing the wastage, yet we need a free market in electricity sector as that would induce the private investment in the innovation and development of energy production techniques and that will include nuclear techniques too.
Furthermore, if government stop interfering in oil, coal market, and stop providing subsidies, the common users will also get incentives to reduce wastage and over usage.
Thus, the real green initiative will be the reduction of government interference in market and provision of property rights as that will reduce any chances of exploitation of common man through government supported corporatism. We need to understand the difference between corporatism or crony capitalism and free market laissez-faire capitalism, and we need to adopt the later one.
The current slapping of carbon taxes on Industries and dumping of collected tax in non-viable energy resources is not going to help either environment or the economy.
Basically, the US government and other governments also, aim to slap carbon taxes just to decrease the fiscal deficits, as government know that industries cannot work without carbon. Such moves are never taken for helping environmental cause; they are rather more Keynesian economic steps to increase taxes, which ultimately hurt the economy as production reduces.
The promises of huge governmental investments and subsidies in green energy are also nothing but similar Keynesian steps to increase government spending.
Yet, it is highly improbable to help any economy with such spending in non-productive activities; they will cause further economic downturn.
Taxation and subsidies never brings any good.

Indian government to Introduce new Carbon emission norms, Commodityonline news
Electricity in India, Wikipedia
Failure of European Green Initiatives, Reuters news
Failure of European Green Initiatives, Reuters news
Electricity in India, Wikipedia

Environmentalism and Human Action

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:16:19 +0000

Gaia, the Greek supreme goddess of Earth, the inspiration of all environmentalists is the force, which moves millions of us, humans towards the green revolution, the revolution to protect the environment at the expense of Human Life and progress.
It is not very difficult to understand that environmentalism is a product of a failed hypothesis of socialism. To rule over human masses, often the wicked uses the weapon of guilt and sacrifice.
Gaia hypothesis¹ considers the Earth as a single organism, a single living body. We all species, rivers, sea, oceans, mountains, air everything on earth and atmosphere, being the part of the single living body, which is earth. It is very simple observation to be made. Yet it ignored the basic fact that only the Individual thinks, only the Individual act, and he act for his life, for his progress.
Socialism, which imagined all national as one under the rule of a welfare state with socialist planners as the ruling head, where the Individual aspirations of a human and his freedom to live and act for his own sake and development was supposed to be a sacrificial entity which must be sacrificed for the sake of common good of that single body which humanity, or a society represents.
Because of its unrealistic and irrational base of thought, socialism ended as a killer of millions. Nazism and all of its murders aside, Marxian “scientific” socialism was responsible for more than eighty million murders in the twentieth century: thirty million in the former Soviet Union, fifty million in Communist China, and untold millions more in the remote countries including India, where the virus of Naxalism and Maoism is still killing people. Environmentalism is the residual of same culture of repression, oppression and exploitation of Individual liberty and his will for his progress.
Every parent wants his children to lead a life better than what they experienced themselves. This simple natural instinct of human makes it possible for every parent to work, innovate and create wealth, pleasure, and comfort for their children. Towards the better way of life, is the motto of civilization, which lead human to innovate agriculture, housing, wheels, and the list goes on towards the latest technologies.
Everything we do to maintain our lives has an impact on nature. Every assessment we create to advance our well-being; every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone, mobile laptop we manufacture, is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from changing nature for our own benefit. It is all selfish; we lead towards progress, sustenance, good living by the virtue of selfishness.
Is it wrong? Changing environment for our own development, comforts and progress, how can it be wrong, and if it is wrong, then why do we want more and better roads, better flyovers, infrastructure, more cars and computers, new factories, industries, hospitals, health-care centres? We keep on changing the world, the environment. It is impossible to live without changing the environment for our selfish purpose.
Yet, the socialist turned environmentalists want you to be guilty, guilty of being better than other animals and species. How can one suggest that all species on earth are equal? Can one suggest the same to the Lion, and stop him from killing and eating a deer? Can we stop a horse from eating the grass? How can we suppose man to give up his aspirations to be better to make better comfortable world by changing the environment, by progressing, innovating, capitalizing on the raw material.
If it is a matter of guilt for Man that he changed the nature, the environment, than this guilt will always remain because change is the rule of nature. Every time we take a breath, we convert oxygen to carbon-di-oxide, causing the green house effect. Should we stop breathing? As a matter of truth, no philosophy or political movement based on sense of guilt, self-pity and sacrifice can be honest and workable. How can we be guilty to have a laptop, electricity in our homes, excellently architecture houses, better roads, proper communication process, mobiles, Iphones?
If we project a satellite in outer orbits of earth atmosphere, the environmentalists will call it pollution of atmosphere, a thing of guilt, can we give that up?
If we spray DDT to save ourselves from malaria, it causes pollution, but it saves us. Can we deny that, should we feel guilty of killing mosquitoes?
Environmentalist McKibben in his book “The End of Nature”² says

“Human beings — any one of us, and our species as a whole — are not all-important, not at the center of the world. One of his supporters says “We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value — to me — than another human body, or a billion of them.”

Obviously, they have less value or almost no value for the human life, his freedom and sanctity. We change bulbs to fluorescent lights, did we considered the harmful effects of mercury on human? Yet, human life is secondary and sacrificial, first is environment, as if changing all bulbs to fluorescent tubes will conserve the environment. In fact, it also changes the environment. So we must feel guilty of using electricity too.
Recently, governments are stressing more on nuclear electricity plants; in order to banish coal based thermal electric plants. Obviously, it is for preventing the global warming, which is nonexistent because since 1998, earth is cooling fast. The question is, who will manage the nuclear wastes and how? Is CO2 more dangerous or nuclear wastes?
No individual want to give up his search for better life, more comfort and happiness. Thus, it is necessary for the socialist environmentalists to use the “guilt factor” as a tool to induce a forcible sacrifice on citizens. To rule over citizen, they need power, the political power of big government, where the government politicians and officials will “think” what is better for the individuals, as the individuals are all selfish and will hurt the earth, and those government officials and politicians are the great selfless social servants which need to rule over individuals and treat them as slaves to order ban and censor their lives. For all that big fraud of making human society slaves of some ruling sectors, they need big governments, higher organized socialistic set up of state. As Ludwig Von Mises put it up

“The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.”

Yet, it is up to us to think rationally and better. What is the right way of life, forward progress or backward chaos, the return to Dark Age?
Should we look forward to search the corners of solar system outside the earth to expand our reach in order to gain better and more resources for the human individual development, or should we look back to give up all our progress and start going back renouncing human progress and loving the animalistic life?
Every poor want to earn better facility, electricity in his remote village and house, drinkable safe water, television, mobiles, Iphones, computers, fans air conditioners, everything, which the rich and urban life enjoys. To let the poor enjoy the richness of life is to let the human exploit the nature further and change the environment to extract more raw material and synthesize. We should understand that reduction of poverty is possible by only one means, by producing more. Equality of rich and poor by looting richness from the rich is not the aim, aim is to let the poor become rich and enjoy the best essence of life and keep innovating developing it, obviously by exploiting the nature.

“The difference between animals and human is that the animals change themselves for the environment, but the human change the environment for themselves”. Ayn Rand.

Update: A news worth mentioning, 93 year old man freezes to death after city limits electricity.

Gaia Hypothesis, Wikipedia Link
Environmentalist McKibben, “The End of Nature”

Global Warming is cooling down to Ice Age

Unpretentious Diva — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 06:45:23 +0000

In December 2008, at the U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said fabricated global warming is a media generated myth without basis. The Chairman of the International Geological Congress, climatologist Dr. David Gee said,

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”¹

Ohh yes, despite all Global Warming cries, World is cooling down.
We discussed about the myths of Global Warming earlier here.
In the late 90′s there were speculations that Carbon Emission is causing Global Warming. There were enough speculations to support it
1> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it’s a proven fact.
2> Global warming is being observed since decades and atmospheric carbon concentration is also rising.
3> There is no other plausible reason for global warming.
Thus this jigsaw puzzle speculated that human are responsible² they should be guilty, sad, worried and they should now sacrifice.

Since carbon emission is causing global warming, hence coal mines should be closed, petroleum usage should be dropped, business and production should be kept at a halt. People should wither in cold, dark and hunger, but it is a sacrifice, sacrifice for a greater cause, and cause is to save the earth against global warming.
How anti-human, anti-poor governments can become to save earth? Also, governments have a dream to eliminate poverty too, how? By killing poor, and destroying away means of production?
Kyoto protocol was proposed in 1997 and Indian government jumped signing on it, why? Was it because India is first and foremost while worrying for the globe, its warming and protection? Ohh yes, India and Indians are meant to sacrifice.
Or was it because government wanted to put up a limit against the common citizen to grow by his endeavors, innovation and enterprising abilities? Kyoto protocol “assumed” that carbon emission causes global warming, hence the nations should restrict the carbon emission. Thus, government had a reason to license and control industries, business and production. Yet, it was all wrong.

1>In 2003, scientific data started showing that carbon emission has nothing to do with global warming. From 1940 to 1975, the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased.
2>In 2004, the temporal resolution of ice core data showed that in past warming events of History, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. That is, global warming had nothing to do with carbon emission rates. If carbon emission has nothing to do with global warming, are hot girls causing global warming?
In this new decade at the end of 2008, again new scientific data are out showing there is No Global Warming.
3>Earth saw its height of temperature in 1998, since then the temperature is falling, in 2007, the temperature dropped extremely and in 2008, it reached the 1980 levels.

So global temperatures are decreasing fast, while CO2 is increasing fast, how can it be true? CO2 must warm the globe, but that is not happening.
The temporal resolution data at Vostok Russia shows that Holocene period of warmth is over, and now we are entering in Ice Age. Ohh Al Gore where are you.

Obama is hell-bent to introduce carbon emission tax in America. No doubt, Indian government and other world’s government will follow the suit. They will waste millions of rupees and dollars of tax payer’s money in ‘innovating’ new ways to produce power.
So why government ignores the real fact and why government try to make the myth of ‘global warming’ a reality when the scientific data shows the globe is cooling.
Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and technology, Dr. Kunihiko says,

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”³

Is it so difficult to guess the answer?
We discussed the solution of poverty here properly, to reduce poverty; we need to increase production, production in all spheres. Yet how it will be possible if governments are hell-bent to control industries, factories and enterprises by fixing carbon emissions, taxing on it? The answer lies in the madness of egalitarians, socialists and communists. They know that by collective measures and governmental control, they cannot reduce poverty, because they are against progress, against production. Since they cannot increase the production ability of poor, they want to decrease the production ability of rich and able, and their idea is to distribute it in poor.
The same old Robin Hood the looter idea, loot rich, feed poor. I wonder why couldn’t Robin Hood started producing wealth and richness and then voluntarily spread it in poor, lazy beggars. Government is just like Robin Hood. Government cannot produce wealth, politicians cannot create employment, it cannot innovate, and it cannot feed poor for always. It cannot make them work too.
Yet, do the government cares for poor?
It is the dilemma of central politics and government controlled economy, it is counterintuitive, discriminatory on wrong grounds, anti-productive, and unjust.
All environmental laws and carbon emission taxes will restrict rich capitalists from making more money. Will it affect them? No, they are already rich. So whom will it affect? It will affect the poor, who needs job and work, who need to increase his productivity so that he may feed his wife and children well, he may save some money to make his children learn. He needs capitalists to install new industries, factories and mills and increase production.
Similarly, Minimum wages laws, whom do they help?
Minimum wages law forces people to discriminate on religion and caste and hence divides the society on irrational premises. If an employer need to employ two workers, and government has fixed the minimum wages limits. Then he has no incentive to choose that worker who gets ready to work for lesser salary and in that case, the employer has no incentive to employ a person of other caste or race or religion. Why won’t he employ the person of his own caste, race and religion?
In absence of minimum wage law though, the employer will have to choose that worker who is ready to work at lower salary irrespective of his religion, caste or race.

Similarly, laws against “child labor” benefit the relatively well off at the expense of the needy. A person from middle class or lower middle class may not like his children to work. Yet, how will a poor child survive if his parents are not able to feed him? He needs to work, may be he need to feed his ill-mother.
The world is not perfect, and the more government tries to make it perfect, the more it becomes worse. The best way for government to help poor is let them increase their productivity, and that is possible only if government keeps away from economic sector completely.

Disclaimer: I agree with the Idea that we should not pollute the environment. I don’t think there is anyone out there that wants dirty air or water. The problem I have is that we as Indians are asked to NOT to try to better our life style, we are suggested to sacrifice our right to get better water, better air, and all this on pure lies. It makes no sense that government in order to reduce carbon emission start subsidizing ethanol/oil rich crops and promote GM crops. I know their intentions may not be wrong, but their policies, are simply wrong and anti-poor, anti-progress and anti-human. It makes no sense that India slows down its industrial progress just for the sake of maintaining carbon emission rates, because some skeptic scientists believe that CO2 is causing warming, while the facts says, Globe is cooling up fast.

(source), www.mlive.com
Jigaw Puzzle,Techshout
(source), www.mlive.com

Dowry- The Other Facet

Unpretentious Diva — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:21:00 +0000

Talks of dowry are nothing new for Indians. No matters how much the percentage of literacy has been increased, or how much standards of living have been enhanced, such cursed cultural-religious ceremonial system of marriage remains in the realm of Indian marriages. The bride’s family pays a dowry to the groom to recognize that he will provide good life and security for his wife.
If someone personally asks to me, I have no problem regarding dowry. But I have sincere problems with marriage and society. Basically, dowry is no wrong if it is NOT taken as religious-cultural tradition, but taken as a legal contract. Breach of the contract will mean legal charges being filed against the breaker of that simple contract. For that marriage contract, the two partners, who surely can be lovers, will sit up with calmness to discuss their priorities, philosophical, political, social, individual preferences and patterns and will make a mutually beneficial marriage rules applicable for both of them equally. Obviously, that written document may or may not involve any monetary transactions, that is, dowry may or may not be a part of such free-willed marriage contract. Yet, the contract will be enforceable.
The breakage of simply defined rules for the couple by any of the party may and will lead to punishment (monetary or otherwise). It is freedom of both the girl and boys to keep up their desires regarding a happy married life and make their personal laws for the mutually beneficial relation between the two. The couple may/may not agree on varied subjects like allowance for polygamy or polyandry etc. let’s say a couple agrees for monoandrous and monogamous relation, i.e. for both the bride and groom, sex outside the marriage is unbearable. That is, two people married on mutual consent for monogamy/monoandry. After age 40, male felt he don’t want sex anymore.
Then there should be freedom for wife to take divorce and go for other man, but if the husband and wife agrees to remain in contract, and allow polyandry for wife, then there is no problem. But if wife cheats, than it is cheat and immorality, that is, polyandry/polygamy itself is not immoral, but if there is a contract for monoandry/monogamy and that contract is breached not by the mutual consent of the two parties engaged, but by cheating and fraud, then it is immoral and illegal, and that will be punished as breach of contract.
But in India, the marriage system is not contract based. And that is why dowry becomes a demon. There’s no legal responsibility of the husband to take good care of wife, while he can surely exploit the girl/wife for further demands of dowry by simply acting illegal. Anywhere and in any form, where there is no economic and social freedom for the individuals, the women suffers predominantly. The women will keep suffering the illegal and immoral acts of her dowry-demanding corrupt husband while he will keep breaking the generally presumed marriages law. Woman won’t oppose because of the fear of society, how the hell will she live if she leaves her coercive and exploiter husband? Living alone is such a curse for a woman you know, and what and how will she earn and eat? Will she again be an unwanted responsibility on her father’s/ brother’s shoulders? What will happen to her children etc, so many ill-reasons for a woman to keep suffering within the four walls of her imprisoning SASURAL! Obviously, woman will have to counter attack such societal moralities which forces her to accept the wrong and discourages her to use her individual rights. It is not like government or society hasn’t done anything for the women. There are various laws against dowry and domestic violence. But such laws are irrefutably redundant and on a reasonable basis, are wrong. They are redundant because irrespective of all such laws, the violence against women and the dowry-demands never stopped. They are unreasonable, because on legal formats, such laws create a difference between rights of men and women on gender basis, providing more and unbalanced legal powers to the women. Because of societal inequalities between the two genders, the genuinely needing women seldom (nearly never) get themselves in a position to use such laws and earn justice. While on other hand, some of the pretentious and cheater women irresponsibly use such laws to harass and exploit the male counterparts.
The ideal state would be equal and reasonable irrevocable rights and total freedom for citizens irrespective of their gender, class, creed, religion etc and non-interference of government, society, authority in individual freedom. < discussed here Liberty, Tolerance, Freedom of expression and Political Correctness!
In Ayn Rand’s words, “Evil requires the sanction of Victim!” it is the woman who can stop all the atrocities against womanhood. It is her individual strength and the inalienable rational rights which she acquires by virtue of her own rational faculty and not by the provision of any government or society which can and ultimately will prompt her to stand against any ill-defined tradition or cultural-religious based ill-practices.
A woman’s freedom is not dependent on the irrational reservation or governmental announced laws based on flawed basis. The freedom and enlightenment of womanhood is dependent only on the individual woman standing on her own against any ill any injustice of religion, society, community or state government. It is the woman alone, who can safeguard and void the evil victimizing her, and none else. And for that, obviously women will have to demand for her individual rights, she will have to stand alone. She will have to be the light!

Let us consider a just opposite situation. Let’s say it is not bride or her family who have to pay dowry, but it is the groom who has to pay dowry in order to get married to prove to the bride’s family that he will be a good provider. Will that change the situations of womanhood to any better state?
Obviously, the answer is a big NO. It won’t effect in the situation of women in the society. The example is the Thailand’s cultural/traditional system of “Sin Sod”, according to which, the male has to give dowry to prove that he can be a good provider for the bride. But, in absence of social and economical freedom, even that causes a curse to women. (Read more about Sin Sod here Thai Dowries Change with Time.
Obviously, I am not against this system too if individual rights and mutually consensual premises are enforced under free-will contract system.
Many westerners marries farm girls from NE of Thailand by paying good amount in Sin Sod, some of them even marries girls who have already worked in bars or prostitution rackets for the cause of poverty.
Mostly, girls are being sold there by their families irrespective of their consent or non-consent just for the cause of greed of money by the poor farmers. The girls may be minors too. Hence, it causes unwanted breakage of individual rights and exploitation of individuals who obviously are women, girls. Many Thai men just cannot marry because of lack of good amount for Sin Sod, again similar situations as in India. There also, the dowry system proves to be working ok at rich family cordons. But at middle class and poor class, same dowry system proves to be havoc. It simply shows that, until the woman herself won’t stand for her individual rights as an individual and not as a mere part of a family or community or sect or religion/tradition or country, she won’t get any justice, no matters what ever changes the cultural traditions may take place. There is only one way for freedom, and that way is the Individual’s will and strength to be free on the basis of reason!

http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html

The catastrophe lovers want to return to Dark Ages

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:47:00 +0000

I am sorry if I sound repetitive. But the subject is so hilariously abrupt, that I just cannot avoid writing about it. Since last three days two of my closest friends kept stressing on dangers of global warming, and today I am writing it again.
It is not like I am against the fact that climate is changing. Climate do change, it is the basic property of climate. If climate wouldn’t have changed, could we have had any possibility of existence? Dinosaurs might not have let us thrive. Climate changed that’s why the mammals grew and spread all over, and we humans are one of the species who won the race of adaptation accordingly.
No matters what we do, climate will never stop changing. As we say in Hindi, “Parivartan Sansaar Ka Niyam Hai”, it is a natural rule of the climate and environment to keep changing, it is unavoidable.
So what should be done? Only that can be done which the human is constantly doing since the eons of his existence. That is, to keep adapting and winning over the climate, keep changing accordingly and use the climate and change most proficiently, exploiting the climate for the benefit of Human Kind. That is the reality which cannot be ignored.
Man can do nothing else.
Last month, a worldwide joke was staged by the hooligans of the global warming gang. On March 29, at evening, cities whole round the world put their lights and electricity off for a period of an hour, which they named Earth Hour. The basic concept was, to spread awareness about the dangers of global warming. Residential lights were shut off, even the great buildings like Sydney Opera House, remained dark for those 60 minutes.
Can you imagine life without electricity? It was organized to make public think how to reduce energy consumptions and hence carbon emissions, though the organizers accepted that the dark for an hour affected nothing on carbon emission. Every now and then, people shout that global warming is real and serious. The public discussion forums are full of heated debates on global warming; they keep using electricity for their fun for debating to prove that there is a catastrophe lurking around.It is genuinely disputable that any kind of planetary disaster is going to happen.
Such predictions have always been disputed, and will be done again and again, by various sober scientists skeptical of the global warming Myth.
Yet, the fact which is kept hidden by these propagandist of global warming is, if the greenhouse gases will be reduced to the limits they suggests, it will cause a greater harm by itself. Greenhouse gases are essential for life.
Now these politically motivated environmentalists demand for a huge reduction in carbon emissions, like about 75 percent below the 1990’s limits. What that means? Fossil fuels are the major resource of electrical energy, 86 percent of whole world energy in 2005 was produced by fossil fuels. So, to reduce it to 75% of 1990 levels, it needs to hugely reduce our energy utilization. Common people never realize what they mean actually. The fact is, we just cannot live without energy. We take it for granted, and never think of how much profit we gain from it and how dependent we are on it. we use cars, and bikes for going to schools and offices, we use gas for making food, we use air conditions , coolers, heaters, we use computers, laptops, fans, lifts elevators…every step of our life is dependent on electricity.
Can one live in Alaska or Siberia or Ohio or even London without heaters?
Can one live in Rajasthan, or Mumbai or Madhya Pradesh, or some part in Bangkok, Malaysia, or central Asia, or Africa without cooling systems?
People don’t realize what sacrifice these environmentalists “actually” demands from us, and thinks that by roping a tree in their garden or letting one bulb off they are doing great.
Nah, they are just getting befooled and bemused. By switching off light for an hour, while they always knew that after 60 minutes all will be same, they thought they saved earth. They thought so, because earth was never in danger. There is simply no catastrophe going to happen, it’s all myth. But consider this, if that earth Hour is extended to an earth day, or an Earth Month, or Earth year? That is, no electricity for a day, or a month or an year. No one will agree, because it’s useless. For an hour, it was like party time.
In reality, it is all political illusion created for the benefits of those politicians.
We just cannot live without energy, and for energy we need to exploit nature. If fossil fuel usage will be reduced for a degree, then nuclear electric plants will have to be implanted. Now how this nuclear electric plant came in existence? By technology, technology provided the alternative, not these environmentalists’ philosophers and politicians.
What are they demanding? They have no consideration about how our life with reduced electric consumption or without any electricity, what only they demand is to whip the middle class whole round the world and deny them electricity with their much demanded draconian laws on carbon-reduction, applying carbon taxes, absolute bans on further thermal power plants. Doesn’t it sound creepy?
Even today, electricity is not available in villages of India. So, will those villages remain always in dark and will never grow above the dark ages? Not only that, they even don’t want the middle class of cities to have facility of electricity.
It is a sure reality, that with all climate changes, Earth and Humanity has no danger, and not a single man on earth is going to die because of global warming Myth, but this is a bigger reality, that if these propagandists got success in their mad run, they will sure cause a catastrophe on earth by cutting carbon emission. Because to exploit resources, is essential for living. With those carbon and electricity taxes, what will remain in the hands of the poor and middle class whole round the world? Right from medical gynecologist operation theaters to morgues, we need electricity at every step, and every step there will further taxes and bans and loot. What they really want is to make us feel guilty of being alive, destroy our economy, destruct every hope and happiness we can cater, and deny the simple scientific facts for their own madness of political benefits.
Some people suggest that it’s the western propaganda against developing world. It is further nuisance; in fact, it is the major attack on developed nations and developing nations combined by the socialists/communistic crap, it is against freedom, it is against liberty, and it is against capitalism.
It is all a try to reduce the advancement of Humanity to the savage of dark ages again. They want to stop and cull the industrial revolution. They want to ban the producers, the hard workers, the innovators. They want to destroy the spirit of human to excel over environment and turn it for the favor of humanity, and that is the real danger.

Water Crisis in India, Is subsidizing water a sustainable solution?

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:00 +0000

Rahiman Paani Rakhiye!
Bin Paani Sab soon!!
Paani Gaye naa oobre!
Moti, Manas, Choon !!

In our lives, water is priceless. Sans water, pearls, humans and lime have no existence.

In 1991-1992, under the prime minister ship of Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, India adopted liberalization of economy. India was suffering impending international defaults and was under huge economic crisis. But P.V Narasimha Rao, who was also popular as Modern Chanakya because of his ability to steer through economic and political crisis gave a new path to India.
Since then, we have had surged a great path in economic and financial development during the last 2 decades. The technology, the usage, the production everything has been increased and hence the progress. Employment is being created and individual freedom is being achieved.
Prior to it, the general resources such as water or oil were freely obtainable in profusion and no price was attached to it but now it is not so.
Now a day, when you look at the accessing, cleaning and transporting processes of water, the cost of water becomes obvious, the water is a cost-effective good now.
As a matter of fact, there is no shortage of water. But is that water drinkable? That is the main question. Fresh uncontaminated water is no longer available in ample amounts. Pollution makes it unhygienic. So, in order to make it consumable again, it needs to be processed and cleaned. And there comes the cost.
Water is an important resource and one cannot live without it. Yet, there is also a hidden fact, that a thing unearned never gets its proper value. Progress is a long-term concerning issue. In India, the government gives free subsidized electricity to farmers to pump water. The net result is that the water-sources begin to get exhausted as more water is pumped than what is needed. After some time, the sources desiccated up, and now, costs involving water are higher. It is a fact that subsidies and taxation never works positively in long-term notions and this is just an example.
Water is no more a sustainable free source, and hence neither It is not sustainable to keep giving free water to people. We have to learn and make the masses understand that common procedures are not sustainable. Water can be provided free, but it won’t be processed properly, and that may cause health hazards. For maintaining hygiene and health precautions and safety, proper water orientation and processing is needed and it surely includes costs.
We need to learn from the experience of nations like The Philippines, Cambodia and Thailand that even the underprivileged are becoming conscious of the benefits and reimbursement of sustainable solutions. We need to convince people that it is better to pay than get everything for free.
There is also another view for this fact that free-water provisions are unsustainable, but they are unhelpful, non-working and in fact more consuming.
Even though water contribution is highly subsidized practically in almost all cities of India, very few Below Poverty Line (BPL) families actually have water connections in their houses, most of BPL people don’t even have a permanent household, i.e. even though government provides subsidy schemes for the poor, but poor are unable to get any use of it, While upper income families gets advantage from these subsidies system although they could have paid for the water righteously. Since they gets subsidized water, they never understands the real value of it and spends it profusely, on the other hand BPL people remains dependent on the NagarPalika free-water supply tanks or bring water from public water posts, water tankers, or public wells or rivers or fountains. Often these people are strained to buy water from private vendors too. Unfortunately, even wherever this water is provided without any charge, we over and over again undervalue the factual cost paid by the poor in obtaining it. The women from far away come to get water from the free service tankers of free-waterline posts. That is just a work for no price. In fact at the name of providing free water, we cause them to loose their precious time in which they might have done some other labor to earn money.
As a matter of fact, all this subsidy system never reaches to help the poor.
It is better if we remove subsidies from water and learn that it is better to pay for it rather than get it for free. If people will pay for it without subsidies, they will understand the real cost of it and will take it as a costly good and use it with wisdom of conservation.

A supportive paper presentation for my debate is Here

Recent progress on the issue of Global warming…

Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC) suggested a different outlook towards the global warming issue and urged all the governments around the world to eradicate subsidies and taxes on agriculture and forestry, and privatize the Government-owned land and water resourced. CSCCC termed the IPCC as “alarmist” and “heavily biased”, the report urged the governments to curb restrictions on rights of property and barriers to free enterprises and entrepreneurship and remove licensing systems completely.
CSCCC is well known to educate the public whole round the world about economics and science of climate change, suggested that such steps will make people richer and hence will increase their capacities to adapt with climate changes.
Representing the real strong correlation between prosperity and health and clean environment, CSCCC argued that preeminent way to reduce the susceptibility of public against potentially harmful aspects of climate change is to allow them to get rich and avail themselves all the measures a rich can afford.
The report was unconfined by Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, who is closely concerned with India’s efforts to come up with a National Action Plan on climate change under the order of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Clearly disturbing in the group of people who were demanding widely-accepted idea on the issue, Montek wondered aloud whether more than 2,500 scientists in the IPCC could go so horribly wrong as the current report made them out to be.

Read the original news Here at Indian Express
Here, Swaminatahn A.Aiyar discusses in Times of India how Government is Wasting $50 bn on major irrigation. The article clearly shows how government for the politcian’s corruption uses public money for shear wastage. I have allready mentioned. remove subsidies, remove government from water resources.
Water problem will improove itself.
all problems including Global Warming are majorly because of Government.

Earth Day “Save The Planet”, Environmentalism, hype of Global Warming, Ice Age – A Danger

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:20:00 +0000

Just few days ago, I and Susan were discussing about people so easily believing in all crap of Global Warming and Cold Era while they pronounce superstitions and theism as gullibility. And now, the Earth Day is coming again, the 22nd of April. Doesn’t it sound funny? Do they really believe that human as whole is any comparable force against nature?
Earth Day always approaches with a grave danger for the mankind. The danger is not from smog or acid rain or cutting of forests as the Environmentalists are constantly trying to indoctrinate us. The danger is Environmentalism itself. The principle of environmentalists is remains dubiously anti-human.
As a matter of fact, environmentalists are no better than the people crying for Ram and the Ram Setu without having any logical evidence of it to avoid the making of canal from southern India to SriLanka. The religionists’ uses religion and superstitions to avoid developing schemes and progress of society just for the sake of political favors and befooling people, same way, and environmentalism is also being used for political profits whole round the world.
They say that nature has intrinsic values to be revered for its well-being irrespective of any benefit for the human-kind. That is, man should be banned from using nature for his own ends. If nature has its own intrinsic value, then any try to change the environment is immoral. Now who can believe that shit? So, was it immoral of the cave men to get out of the caves and make huts for themselves? Or the discovery of fire was immoral or the agricultural initiation was immoral? This fake doctrine of Nature’s intrinsic value is never against a Tiger that eats deer or termites that ruins the woods and trees, the wrong is only man if he wants or extracts something from nature.
So what is the ideal world for an environmentalist? Certainly it is not the 21st century, it is the Neanderthal era with no human intervention in nature, a world without change or innovation, without manly effort for survival as it would be mystically guaranteed as human will mystically merge with environment. Now think about this, if the environmentalist’s mentality had been prevailed in 18th or 19th century would we have had any Industrial revolution? Yet, environmentalists might have cheered that situation. How could have they saved themselves without the benefits of modern science and technology? If Edward Jenner had got some influence of these creepy environmentalists and had denied experimenting on cows, would he had discovered Vaccination and cure for smallpox?
The question arises how and from where such ridiculous theme of environmental hazards due to human progress and other craps of Global Warming got its roots? Michael Crichton tries to explain it here in his Essay
The basic goal of environmentalists is to restrict men from changing the environment, as if man is some kind of devil. That is, environmentalism is basically anti-human. This is a well-known fact that for survival any living-being needs to exploit the environment. If that living being won’t exploit the nature, the other beings will exploit that being. Don’t use pesticides, and pests will not only eat up all agricultural products but the jungles too.
Only by exploitation can a being safeguard its life and project a long life with conscious goals. Obviously intrusion improves environment if environment means the external material conditions of human life. Isn’t it better that we live in well made house with air conditioned best technology appliances to help and ease us? Exploitation is a requirement of the mankind for survival. But environmentalists take nature as without man. Man has no righteous requisites, although trees, ponds, birds, fishes, fungi and bacteria certainly have rights according to environmentalists. If sharks won’t be controlled at shores, will they leave human without hurting them? No, they will exploit man and will eat it up. Every being exploit the nature and every other being is a part of nature for that being.
A consistent environmentalist Paul Taylor says “The ending of the human epoch on Earth,” in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, “would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” … This is the naked horrendous truth of environmentalism: it does shed tears at the death of one shark or tiger or tree but actually welcomes the demise of billions of populace. Can there be any more malevolent, anti-human, man-hating philosophy? The base line of environmentalism is sacrifice, Self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of elongated life-spans, healthier lives, more affluent lives, more pleasurable lives, overall, the sacrifice of humanity. But no individual is born in servitude, freedom is birth right. Every individual have moral right to live his life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice his life or pleasure or affluence for the needs of others and certainly not for the non-human.
We must not let these environmentalists with disastrous motives against human kind to distract us from developing, progressing and gaining further pleasure, knowledge, technological advancement and essence of life.
George Clooney explains all this freakishness of environmentalists’ spree of “Save the Planet” exactly in this video

Watch It
Related Post::The catastrophe lovers want to return to Dark Ages