The Objective Standard Blog
The Objective Standard Blog
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade
An event announcement from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:A talk at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
Who: Dr. Keith Lockitch, fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
What: A talk examining the drastic claims put forth by environmentalists, and a critical look at their fundamental goal
Where: Angell Hall, Auditorium C, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48105
When: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, at 7:30 p.m.
Description: Environmentalists claim that our use of carbon-based energy is altering the climate, making us more vulnerable to climate disasters. Human survival, they insist, requires the immediate abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free sources. So why do environmentalist groups vehemently oppose projects involving every alternative form of energy ever proposed to replace fossil fuels--including wind farms and solar power plants? And why do they ignore the dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events? Before we rush headlong into drastic climate policies and energy rationing, a critical examination of these policies is urgently needed. Dr. Lockitch will address these important issues and answer audience questions.
Admission: FREE. Open to students and the public.
Bio: Dr. Keith Lockitch is a fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He teaches writing courses for the Objectivist Academic Center’s undergraduate program and a history of physics course for the graduate program. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register, San Francisco Chronicle, Australia’s Herald Sun and the Canberra Times, and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch has been a frequent guest on radio shows such as The Thom Hartmann Program. Prior to joining ARI in 2003, Dr. Lockitch was a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University. He is an alumnus of the Objectivist Graduate Center.
More information: Please e-mail Adam Gaglio, president of the University of Michigan Students of Objectivism, at agaglio@umich.edu.
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Environmentalism, Events, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
2009 Front Range Objectivism Media Output
Kudos to all the writers and activists involved with Front Range Objectivism. As reported by Paul Hsieh, in 2009 FRO members published 3 articles, 57 op-eds, and 48 letters to the editor.
Some of the topics covered include the financial crisis, health care, gun control, environmentalism, free speech, and government regulation.
The majority of this writing was done by people working in their spare time, in addition to their day jobs.
This list does not include numerous citations and interviews in local and national media, participation in Tea Party events, letters to elected officials, and blogging.
I'd like to thank my fellow FRO activists for their hard work this past year.
The detailed list of our published output includes the following:
Articles: 3
Ari Armstrong, "Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It: A Survey of Amity Shlaes's History of the Great Depression", The Objective Standard, Spring 2009.
Monica Hughes, "A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture", The Objective Standard, Summer 2009.
Paul Hsieh, "How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability", The Objective Standard, Fall 2009.
OpEds: 57
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Shut down corporate welfare for tourism", Grand Junction Free Press, 1/5/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Universal healthcare and the waistline police", Christian Science Monitor, 1/7/2009. (Also redistributed to ABC News, Yahoo News and multiple local newspapers.)
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Obamanomics threaten economic recovery", Grand Junction Free Press, 1/19/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Free Our Beer", Colorado Daily, 1/25/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Salazar promotes special-interest warfare", Grand Junction Free Press, 2/2/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Obama's Regulatory Chief Believes in Paternalistic Government", Pajamas Media, 2/10/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "We're From the Government and We're Here to Help You Drive", Grand Junction Free Press, 2/16/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Food Thoughts", Boulder Weekly, 2/19/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "America Doesn't Need a Health Care Czar", Washington Examiner, 2/23/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Protests", Pajamas Media, 3/2/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Political Controls Provoke Producers to Go On Strike", Grand Junction Free Press, 3/2/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Beware single-payer health care", Colorado Daily, 3/8/2009 (also Denver Daily News, 3/9/2009).
Paul Hsieh, "Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil", Pajamas Media, 3/22/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary’s", Grand Junction Free Press, 3/30/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "See you at the Grand Junction Tea Party", Grand Junction Free Press, 4/13/2009.
Lin and Ari Armstrong, "After tea, try long, cool drink of liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 4/27/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care", Pajamas Media, 5/5/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Legislature Passes Job-Killing Bills”, Grand Junction Free Press, 5/11/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Udall's credit controls punish the responsible", Colorado Daily, 5/24/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Invasion forces headed for Japan", Grand Junction Free Press, 5/25/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Are you a conservative or a liberal?", Grand Junction Free Press, 6/8/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Reject political control of health care", Grand Junction Free Press, 6/24/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "More poison, not an antidote: Mandating employer health insurance”, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/28/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Politicians Cause Mortgage Meltdown", Grand Junction Free Press, 7/6/2009
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "DeMint's health handouts violate liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 7/20/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Hope and change in Harry Potter", Denver Daily News, 7/22/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Don’t ban or force abortions", Boulder Weekly, 7/23/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "The Federal Health Care Muggers", PajamasMedia, 7/24/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "In health debate, left and right need to check premises", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/3/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Rationing inherent in Obamacare", Colorado Springs Gazette, 8/14/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "That government is best which protects individual rights", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/17/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Not a health care remedy", Denver Daily News, 8/21/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Debunking health care reform myths", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/31/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "The Free Market Is Not Another Form of Rationing", PajamasMedia, 9/2/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Is Not a Privilege... Nor Is It a Right", PajamasMedia, 9/8/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Atlas Shrugged relevant for modern times", Longmont Times-Call, 9/14/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Restore free market to address preexisting conditions", Grand Junction Free Press, 9/14/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Is Your Doctor Getting Ready To Quit"?, PajamasMedia, 9/18/2009. Edited version also appeared as "Health Overhaul Could Force Doctors to Quit", Health Care News (Heartland Institute), 10/13/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare", Colorado Springs Gazette, 9/18/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Fifty Ways to Leave Obama", Grand Junction Free Press, 9/28/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Healthcare in Massachusetts: A Warning For America", Christian Science Monitor, 9/30/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "The Real Stakes", Denver Post, 10/1/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Pay Your Own Doctors", Colorado Daily, 10/2/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "James Warner Shares Light of Liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/12/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Radical environmentalists undermine human progress", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/26/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare", PajamasMedia, 11/2/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Bizarro Health Care 'Reform': Expect Less, Pay More", PajamasMedia, 11/5/2009.
Hannah Krening, "Dissent and Nationalization of Health Care", Denver Post, 11/8/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "If planet did warm, low-cost tech could cool it", Grand Junction Free Press, 11/9/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Why we should keep selling low-priced books", Denver Post, 11/12/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Mafia-Style Health Insurance: An Offer You Can't Refuse", Washington Examiner, 11/16/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Environmentalist clowns threatening human life", Colorado Springs Gazette, 11/20/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "People vote for freedom with their feet and effort", Grand Junction Free Press, 11/23/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Have a Harry Potter Christmas", Grand Junction Free Press, 12/7/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "ObamaCare: Tightening the Noose Around Private Health Care", PajamasMedia, 12/15/2009.
Monica Hughes, "Animal fat, sugar and diabetes", Denver Post, 12/17/2009.
Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Ralph Carr shows politicians can stand for liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 12/21/2009.
LTEs: 48
Paul Hsieh, "'Concierge' model offers a free-market solution", Baltimore Sun, 1/2/2009.
Brian Schwartz, " Come together... right now: It's the law", Boulder Daily Camera, 1/3/2009.
Gina Liggett, "Science adviser pick is pure politics", Rocky Mountain News, 1/6/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Economic grief started with Hoover, not FDR", Denver Post, 1/7/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "New insurance law wastes taxpayer dollars", Denver Post, 1/7/2009.
Richard Watts, "Let's try capitalism for a change", Rocky Mountain News, 1/9/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Year-round Schooling", Boulder Daily Camera, 1/10/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Kefalas readies comprehensive health-care bill", Northern Colorado Business Report, 1/16/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Government paternalism saps desire to make own decisions", Colorado Springs Gazette, 1/22/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Medicare For All", Boulder Daily Camera, 2/7/2009.
Hannah Krening, "The Stimulus Plan", Denver Post, 2/11/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Single-payer health care has failed in every other country", Rocky Mountain News, 2/18/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Heads they win, tails we lose", Rocky Mountain News, 2/19/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "No food stamp soup for you!", Westworld, 2/19/2009.
Richard Watts, "Lincoln did not value unity above liberty", Rocky Mountain News, 2/25/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Free market alternatives to zoning", Boulder Daily Camera, 2/28/2009.
Ari Armstrong, "Legislator’s comments on promiscuous women", Denver Post, 3/4/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "HB 1256 would aid health coverage", Denver Business Journal, 3/6/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Ward Churchill", Boulder Daily Camera, 3/28/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Our Health, and the Health of Insurers", New York Times, 3/30/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Eliminating the charitable tax deduction", Denver Post, 3/30/2009.
David Weatherell, "Employee Free Choice Act", Denver Post, 4/1/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Prepare For More Expensive Medical Insurance", Boulder Daily Camera, 4/12/2009.
Doug Kreninng, "Denver's Tea Party", Denver Post, 4/18/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Drug legalization", Boulder Daily Camera, 4/19/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Taking guns won't hike safety", Colorado Springs Gazette, 4/24/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Don't Raise Taxes, Legalize Marijuana”, Boulder Daily Camera, 5/16/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Sotomayor for Supreme Court", Boulder Daily Camera, 5/30/2009.
Anders Ingemarson, "Is Canadian Health Care Better?", Denver Post, 6/14/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Reform: Coverage Is Not Care”, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/16/2009.
Hannah Krening, "Time to fight for your rights", Colorado Springs Gazette, 7/3/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "The Public plan will be the only plan", Boulder Daily Camera, 7/4/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Systems", Boulder Dail Camera, 7/18/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Democrats' health care 'reform' would reform nothing", Boulder Daily Camera, 7/25/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Cash For Clunkers", Boulder Daily Camera, 8/8/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Debate", Denver Business Journal, 8/10/2009.
Anders Ingemarson, "The Heart of the Health Care Debate", Denver Post, 8/19/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Health Care Statistics", Denver Post, 8/29/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Single payer: rationing both ideas and medicine", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/5/2009.
Doug Krening, "Health Care Debate Renewed", Denver Post, 9/13/2009.
Briain Schwartz, "Boulder land use restrictions undermine rights & personal responsibility", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/18/2009.
Diana Hsieh, "Government’s attempts to stifle speech", Denver Post, 10/20/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Health care reform and the public option", Denver Post, 10/30/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "The Incentives Aren't To Help You", Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2009.
Gina Liggett, "Governor’s proposal to tax candy and soda", Denver Post, 11/18/2009.
Brian Schwartz, "Why To Condemn Insurance Companies", Boulder Daily Camera, 12/5/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "The Climate Science Isn't Settled", Wall Street Journal, 12/7/2009.
Paul Hsieh, "Raising Federal Debt Ceiling", Denver Post, 12/20/2009.
Remarkable!
Labels: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
The Winter Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Winter issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, we are making Robert Mayhew’s review of Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Winter issue are:
ARTICLES
Pharmacide: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Self-Destructive Effort to Loot America
by Cassandra ClarkAntitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration’s Anti-Business Cudgel
by Eric DanielsWhat the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” HR 3962, Actually Says
by John David LewisThe California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights
by Paul BeardThe Barbary Wars and Their Lesson for Combating Piracy Today
by Doug AltnerObjective Moral Values
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns
Reviewed by Robert MayhewHeaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer
Reviewed by Gus Van HornRed Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner
Reviewed by Daniel WahlIslamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh
Reviewed by Andrew LewisThe Israel Test by George Gilder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
Due to popular demand, we have extended our 60% off sale through January 1. Online subscriptions—including gift subscriptions—are only $19. If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the perfect time to give it a try. And if you are looking for the perfect gift for an active-minded friend or relative, what could be better than a steady stream of clearly written, easy-to-read articles addressing current events and cultural issues from a rational, principled perspective? You can purchase gift subscriptions online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Enjoy your holidays!
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion
Friday, April 17, 2009
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day
Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.
In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.
Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.
It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.
On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
Labels: Environmentalism, Events, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Thursday, April 02, 2009
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy: A panel discussion at UCLA
What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q&A
Who: Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Willie Soon, geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Where: UCLA Campus, Ackerman Grand Ballroom, Los Angeles, California
When: Monday, April 13, 2009, at 7 p.m.
Admission: FREE. The public and media are invited.
Sponsored by: LOGIC, the UCLA Objectivist Club
More information: Visit http://www.clublogic.org/ or e-mail info@ClubLogic.org
Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bio: Dr. Keith Lockitch has a PhD in physics from University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He lectures publicly on these topics, and his writings have appeared in such publications as the Washington Times and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch is also a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. Before joining the Ayn Rand Institute in 2003, Dr. Lockitch was a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.
Bio: Dr. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute (based in Washington, D.C.). He writes and lectures on issues related to the sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection published March 2004. (All views expressed are strictly of his own and do not reflect upon any other persons or institutions.)
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Environmentalism, Events, Science and Technology
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Real Meaning of Earth Hour by Keith Lockitch
On Saturday, March 28, cities around the world will turn off their lights to observe “Earth Hour.” Iconic landmarks from the Sydney Opera House to Manhattan’s skyscrapers will be darkened to encourage reduced energy use and signal a commitment to fighting climate change.
While a one-hour blackout will admittedly have little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, organizers say, is the event’s symbolic meaning. That’s true, but not in the way organizers intend.
We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change—that man-made greenhouse gases are indisputably causing a planetary emergency. But there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claims of climate catastrophe. And what’s never mentioned? The fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by climate activists would, itself, cause significant harm.
Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth—this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.
People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.
This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.
Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.
Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.
Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe. What we really need is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life (including, of course, to our ability to cope with any changes in the climate).
It is true that the importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.
Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Science and Technology
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Green Energy Fantasy by Keith Lockitch
Will a green energy industry be an engine of economic growth? Many want us to think so, including our new President. Apparently a booming green economy with millions of new jobs is just around the corner. All we need is the right mix of government “incentives.”
These include a huge (de facto) tax on carbon emissions imposed through a cap-and-trade regulatory scheme, as well as huge government subsidies for “renewable,” carbon-free sources. The hope is that these government sticks and carrots will turn today’s pitiful “green energy” industry, which produces an insignificant fraction of American energy, into a source of abundant, affordable energy that can replace today’s fossil-fuel-dominated industry.
This view is a fantasy—one that could devastate America’s economy. The reality is that “green energy” is at best a sophisticated make-work program.
There is a reason why less than 2 percent of the world’s energy currently comes from “renewable” sources such as wind and solar—the very sources that are supposedly going to power the new green economy: despite billions of dollars in government subsidies, funding decades of research, they have not proven themselves to be practical sources of energy. Indeed, without government mandates forcing their adoption in most Western countries, their high cost would make them even less prevalent.
Consider that it takes about 1,000 wind turbines, occupying tens of thousands of acres, to produce as much electricity as just one medium-sized, coal-fired power plant. And that’s if the wind is blowing: the intermittency of wind wreaks havoc on electricity grids, which need a stable flow of power, thus requiring expensive, redundant backup capacity or an unbuilt, unproven “smart grid.”
Or consider the “promise” of solar. Two projects in development will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar cells in the hope of generating about 800 megawatts of power (as much as one large coal-fired plant). But that power output will only be achieved when the sun is shining brightly—around noon on sunny days; the actual output will be less than a third that amount. And the electricity will cost more than market price, even with the life-support of federal subsidies that keeps the solar industry going. The major factor driving the project is not the promise of abundant power but California’s state quota requiring 20 percent “renewable” electricity by 2010.
More than 81 percent of world energy comes from fossil fuels, and half of America’s electricity is generated by burning coal. Carbon sources are literally keeping us alive. There is no evidence that they have—or will soon have—a viable replacement in transportation fuel, and there is only one in electricity generation, nuclear, which “green energy” advocates also oppose.
We all saw the ripple effects last summer when gas prices shot above $4 per gallon, and higher transportation costs drove up prices of everything from plane fares to vegetables. If green policies cause a permanent, and likely far greater, hike in the cost of all forms of energy, what shockwaves would that send through our already badly damaged economy?
We don’t want to find out.
Regardless of one’s views on global warming—and there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claim that manmade carbon emissions are causing catastrophe—the fact is that kneecapping the fossil fuel industry while diverting tax dollars into expensive, impractical forms of energy will not be an economic boon, but an economic disaster.
We in developed countries take industrial-scale energy for granted and often fail to appreciate its crucial value to our lives—including its indispensable role in enabling us to deal with drought, storms, temperature extremes, and other climate challenges we are told to fear by global-warming alarmists.
If we want to restore economic growth and reduce our vulnerability to the elements, what we need is not “green energy” forced upon us by government coercion but real energy delivered on a free market.
Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Rational Science versus Sacrificial Politics
Posted by John David Lewis and Paul Saunders
The Obama administration continues to appoint radical environmentalists who want us to commit industrial suicide on behalf of nature. Meanwhile, top-rank scientists continue to renounce claims of a coming climate disaster.
The latest scientist to voice his conclusions is retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon. As chief of several NASA programs from 1982 to 1994, Theon was responsible for all weather and climate research, and oversaw the work of Dr. James Hansen. Hansen is NASA’s foremost proponent of man-made global warming—and a strong supporter of Al Gore. Hansen has compared coal trains to Nazi death trains, and has lobbied for the prosecution of coal industry executives. Hansen also claims to have been "muzzled" by the Bush administration.
Dr. Theon has repudiated all of this. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.
Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.
As regards computer software models—the primary source of support for the claims of global warming advocates—Dr. Theon writes: "Climate models are useless."
Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
Dr. Theon is in good company. A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 names more than 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears. This is greater than twelve times as many scientists as the 52 who co-authored the UN reports that American bureaucrats continue to cite. These 650 scientists include: Aerospace engineer, physicist, and NASA Administrator (April 13, 2005 to January 20, 2009) Dr. Michael Griffin; Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology; Geophysicist and former astronaut Dr. Phil Chapman; Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt; Apollo 7 Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham; Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette (formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor); Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist and former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center; Climatologist Dr. John Christy; Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer; and Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility.
In summary, while the vast majority of scientists are going in one direction—repudiating claims of a man-made climate disaster—politicians are going the other direction—embracing such claims and shackling industry on those “grounds.” Why? Why, as the scientific case for man-made global warming collapses, are politicians all the more determined to impose draconian controls on industry?
The answer is morality. Politics is directly dependent upon morality. Politicians who follow a morality of sacrifice will impose laws that enforce that “ideal.” Conversely, those who follow a morality of rational self-interest will act to protect our rights—including our rights to productive action.
The observations, analyses, and conclusions of scientists have never deterred those who are committed to the morality of sacrifice. This latest disparity between science and politics is yet another example of this fact.
Labels: Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Friday, January 09, 2009
'Green' vs. Good
Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent op-ed in today’s Washington Times titled “Environmental angst: Going ‘green’ doesn’t work.” Here’s an excerpt:
Why is it that no matter what sacrifices you make to try to reduce your “environmental footprint,” it never seems to be enough? Well, consider why it is that you have an “environmental footprint” in the first place.
Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature. Every value we create to advance our well-being, every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit.
From the perspective of human life and happiness, a big “environmental footprint” is an enormous positive. This is why people in India and China are striving to increase theirs: to build better roads, more cars and computers, new factories and power plants and hospitals.
But for environmentalism, the size of your “footprint” is the measure of your guilt. Nature, according to green philosophy, is something to be left alone to be preserved untouched by human activity. Their notion of an “environmental footprint” is intended as a measure of how much you “disturb” nature, with disturbing nature viewed as a sin requiring atonement. Just as the Christian concept of original sin conveys the message that human beings are stained with evil simply for having been born, the green concept of an “environmental footprint” implies that you should feel guilty for your very existence.
Read the whole thing and pass it along. As Lockitch makes clear, if the environmentalists had their way in full, man would cease to exist—and to the extent that they have their way at all, we suffer the consequences. Every thinking person needs to be aware of the nature of this movement.
Labels: Environmentalism
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Forthcoming Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Winter issue of The Objective Standard is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, “Capitalism and the Moral High Ground” and “Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” are available early and to all.
The contents of the Winter issue are:
From the Editor
Letters & RepliesARTICLES
“Capitalism and the Moral High Ground” by Craig Biddle
“Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” by John David Lewis
“Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet” by Raymond C. Niles
“Bubble Boy: Alan Greenspan’s Rejection of Reason and Morality” by Gus Van Horn
“The Assault on Energy Producers” by Brian P. Simpson
“Demystifying Newton: The Force Behind the Genius” by Gena Gorlin
“Errors in Inductive Reasoning” by David HarrimanBOOKS REVIEWED
New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton Folsom Jr. (reviewed by Eric Daniels)
Better Day Coming: Blacks and Equality, 1890–2000 by Adam Fairclough (reviewed by Gus Van Horn)
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, you can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151. And the Standard makes a great Christmas gift for your active-minded friends, colleagues, and relatives. Everyone concerned with the future should be reading this journal today.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Foreign Policy and War, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Science and Technology
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Frontline Heats Up Global Warming Alarmism
Washington, DC—On Tuesday evening, PBS premiered Heat, a Frontline documentary exploring the economics and politics of climate change. After travelling the world interviewing corporate CEOs and political leaders, Frontline correspondent Martin Smith argues that a “huge and concerted push from government” is necessary to prevent a major catastrophe.
But according to Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: “A huge push from government on climate change would be a major catastrophe.
“One thing the documentary shows pretty clearly is the repeated failure of government economic intervention—especially in the form of policies aimed at centrally planning energy production, such as government subsidies for corn ethanol. These have distorted world food markets by diverting billions of taxpayer dollars away from investments that market participants would have freely chosen and into the production of corn for burning up in our gas tanks, with the resulting distortions to world food prices causing food riots and starvation.
“Government policies aimed at severely restricting carbon emissions would inflict a major blow to the economy. Industrial-scale energy is an indispensable, life-saving value, and currently there is simply no practical way to produce abundant carbon-free energy. Nuclear power could generate substantial amounts of electricity, but environmentalists have consistently fought it tooth and nail. And even nuclear can’t fuel the internal combustion engines of the world’s 800 million oil-powered vehicles.
“The more important point is that there is no need whatsoever to restrict carbon emissions,” said Lockitch. “The scientific jury is still out on the extent of man’s contribution to global warming. But even if we are causing large-scale changes to the climate--this is not a planetary emergency. If individuals on the free market can smoothly absorb the major transitions that occurred in moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile or the rapid population growth that accompanied the Industrial Revolution, they can adapt to large-scale climate change. The freer we are from the burdens of government intervention, the more we can continue to produce wealth, economic growth, and the means of adapting to whatever changes occur, if any.
“The irony is that the very policies that people are pushing for in the name of fighting global warming—such as a massive expansion of government control over the production and consumption of energy—would severely reduce our ability to cope with nature. This would inflict upon us an economic catastrophe far worse than anything the climate could deliver.
“The real threat we face is not the possibility of large-scale changes to the climate, but the much more dangerous possibility of drastic government policies enacted in the name of climate change.”
### ### ###
Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Urgent Call to Action: EPA Threatens Your Life
From John Lewis and Paul Saunders
To all Americans:
NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.
On July 11, 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). This document details how the EPA intends to claim unlimited power over the life of every American.
The EPA action follows a US Supreme Court Decision ruling that defined carbon dioxide as a "pollutant." This ruling defies logic, nature, and common sense. The Canadian Government has openly declared that carbon dioxide is a vital "nutrient"—without it, plants die. It is a natural compound that we exhale. It has always existed in nature, often at far higher levels than today. If carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then all human life is pollution.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, President Bush issued Executive Order # 13432 (May, 2007) directing the EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy “to ensure the coordinated and effective exercise of the authorities of the President and the heads of the [DOT], the Department of Energy, and [EPA] to protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines . . ."
The EPA's document starts with a clear warning that using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 will lead to uncontrollable growth of the agency’s power:
"EPA’s analyses leading up to this ANPR have increasingly raised questions of such importance that the scope of the agency’s task has continued to expand. For instance, it has become clear that if EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs [Greenhouse Gases]—such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals—could also be triggered. One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land." (ANPR p. 5)
The ANPR also includes the following, in a comment by the Department of Agriculture:
"many of the emissions are the result of natural biological processes that are as old as agriculture itself. For instance, technology does not currently exist to prevent the methane produced by enteric fermentation associated with the digestive processes in cows and the cultivation of rice crops; the nitrous oxide produced from the tillage of soils used to grow crops; and the carbon dioxide produced by soil and animal agricultural respiratory processes. The only means of controlling such emissions would be through limiting production, which would result in decreased food supply and radical changes in human diets." (ANPR pp. 66-67)
Under these rules, the EPA will have the power to ration food production, to approve its content, and to control its distribution.
This is only the tip of an iceberg of massive government power, about to be unleashed against every American. The EPA intends, for instance, to take authority over transportation—including motor vehicle emissions testing, shipping, and railroads; to assume local building permit authority; to set emissions standards for lawnmowers; and to regulate nearly two and a half million buildings with natural gas heating..
To make matters worse, the U.S. Senate is now considering a bill, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 and 2008: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2191.This bill will add the following to the powers of the EPA:
- establish a Climate Registry, a bureaucracy to “collect high-quality greenhouse gas emission data” (Sec 1102)
- require business owners and operators to submit an “emission allowance” or offset credit for their emissions, with compliance determined by the EPA Administrator, who shall “establish and distribute . . . emission allowances” and set the penalties for non-compliance (Sec 1202). All natural gas emissions will be included (Sec 1204)
- establish a Domestic Offset Program, to “promulgate regulations authorizing the issuance and certification of offset allowances.” Project owners must “register emissions under the Federal Greenhouse Gas Registry” (Sec. 2402)
- establish a Carbon Market Efficiency Board, to set the quantity of emission allowances, the period of paybacks for an allowance, the interest rate at which an emission allowance may be borrowed, etc. (Sec. 2602-2604)
- establish "as a nonprofit corporation without stock, a corporation to be known as the `Climate Change Credit Corporation'," that “shall not be considered to be an agency or establishment of the Federal Government” (Sec 4201) This "corporation" will hold life and death power over every business in the United States.
The Lieberman-Warner Senate bill, and its equivalent in the U.S. House of Representatives, are not part of the EPA document, and not part of the EPA request for comment. But such legislation is part of the total environmentalist political agenda. It gives us an idea what is coming if we do not make our voices heard and end these plans to destroy our freedom and our lives.
We condemn and oppose all such outrageous attacks on American life, liberty, and property.
THE EPA HAS INVITED PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITS "ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING."
To make our voices heard, we have transmitted a letter with comments to the EPA. We urge you to do the same.
We invite you to:
1. READ OUR COVER LETTERTO THE EPA, WHICH STATES OUR SIX REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY OPPOSING THE EPA'S PROPOSED RULES:
2. READ OUR COMMENTS TO THE EPA, "THE EPA'S ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RUINATION," WHICH FURTHER EXPLAINS OUR POSITION:
For a longer exposition of the reasons behind these comments, see the article by John David Lewis, "History, Politics, and Claims to Man-made Global Warming," forthcoming in the journal Social Philosophy and Policy vol. 26 no. 2; to be published as an edited volume "Environmentalism," edited by Ellen-Fraenkel Paul, Jeff Paul, and Fred Miller (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
3. READ THE EPA DOCUMENT (HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS) AND ASK YOURSELF: DO YOU AGREE? IF SO, THEN SEND YOUR OWN LETTER TO THE EPA!
4. GO TO OUR SAMPLE LETTER, WHICH YOU MAY COPY, EDIT, AND SIGN—OR EXPRESS YOUR OWN VIEWS IN YOUR OWN LETTER.
IMPORTANT!!—Identify your comments as: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
5. SEND YOUR LETTER, EMAIL, OR WEB COMMENTS TO THE EPA.
Here's a link for submitting comments: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComme...
Here's where one can view comments already submitted:http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&N...
Or, send your comments by one of the following methods:
- www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
- Email: A-and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov
- Fax: 202-566-9744
- Mail:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode: 2822T
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
6. COMMENTS ARE DUE BEFORE NOVEMBER 11, 2008.
If these plans are not stopped, we may eke out our lives chewing the equivalent of Ma Chalmers’ moldy soybeans.
Ma Chalmers is a character in Ayn Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged (NY: Signet, 1996), 858, 862. Because government bureaucrats had taken control of all transportation, and arbitrarily decided that soybeans were more important than the wheat crop of Minnesota, that wheat crop—vital to human survival—was left to rot. Millions of dollars in tax money had been given to Ma Chalmers' "Project Soybean," a sociological project intended to change people's behavior, “for the purpose of reconditioning the dietary habits of the nation.” A bureaucrat explained the government's action: “Well, after all, it is a matter of opinion whether wheat is essential to a nations' welfare—there are those of more progressive views who feel that the soybean is, perhaps, of far greater value [than grain]." As a result, the wheat rotted and the soybeans were too moldy to eat.
SOURCES CITED:
The ANPR: Environmental Protection Agency, “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” 40 CFR Chapter I [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318; FRL-8694-2] RIN 2060-AP12, “Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act.” Signed by the EPA Administrator July 11, 2008: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ANPRPreamble.pdf.
The Supreme Court Decision: Massachusetts et al. V. Environmental Protection Agency et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit No. 05–1120. Decided April 2, 2007: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21106.
The Supreme Court decision and the Executive Order are discussed in the ANPR, pages 78-83.
The Canadian Government statement on carbon dioxide is by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, which advised that "growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient." Studies have shown that plants suffer and die when CO2 falls below 200 parts per million. The present level is about 380 ppm. Early in the Earth's history, CO2 has been as high as 5,000 ppm. Plant life grew vigorously when levels were between 2,000 and 1,000 ppm.
Labels: Announcements, Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law
Saturday, September 20, 2008
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy
What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q & A.
Who: Keith Lockitch, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Where: Taper Hall of Humanities (THH) Room 102
When: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm
For maps and directions, click here: http://www.usc.edu/about/visit/upc/driving_directions/
Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Keith Lockitch is a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, specializing in science and environmental policy. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register, San Francisco Chronicle, Australia’s Herald Sun and Canberra Times, and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch has been a frequent guest on radio shows such as The Thom Hartmann Program on Air America Radio. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics.
Dr. Lockitch teaches for the Ayn Rand Institute’s Objectivist Academic Center; he teaches writing for the Center’s undergraduate program and a history of physics course for its graduate program. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and has conducted postdoctoral research in relativistic astrophysics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.
Willie Soon is both an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon is the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for New Astronomy. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute (based in Washington DC). He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection, published March 2004. He also co-authored (with P. N. Okeke) the textbook Introduction to Astronomy that is used (now taught at the University of Nigeria) for students with little or no access to telescopes. Dr. Soon’s honors include a 1989 IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society Graduate Scholastic Award and a Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award from the University of Southern California for “the most representative PhD research thesis” of 1991. In 2003 he was invited to testify in the United States Senate and was later recognized, with a monetary award, for “detailed scholarship on biogeological and climatic change over the past 1000 years” by the Smithsonian Institution. In June 2004 he was presented with the Petr Beckmann Award of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness for “courage and achievement in defense of scientific truth and freedom.”
All views expressed are strictly his own and do not reflect upon any other person(s) or institutions.
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Events, Science and Technology
Monday, September 15, 2008
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy
What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q&A
Who: Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Willie Soon, geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Where: 145 Dwinelle Hall, UCB campus, Berkeley 94720
When: Thursday, September 25, 2008, 6:30 pm
Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Keith Lockitch is a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, specializing in science and environmental policy. His writings have appeared in numerous newspapers and he has been a frequent guest on radio shows. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. Dr. Lockitch teaches a history of physics course for the Ayn Rand Institute’s Objectivist Academic Center. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and has conducted postdoctoral research in relativistic astrophysics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.
Willie Soon is both an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon is the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for the journal New Astronomy. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute. He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.
For more information on this talk, please e-mail media@aynrandcenter.org
### ### ###
Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews now and after his panel discussion.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrandcenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARI’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Greens Against Renewable Energy
Washington, DC—Green activists have been pushing for "renewable energy" for decades, even though it shows little promise—after billions of dollars in government subsidies—of ever being practical and inexpensive. Nevertheless, plans are springing up all over the country for large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects.
But now, in addition to their enormous technical obstacles, these green power projects are facing fierce opposition . . . from environmentalists.
The Bureau of Land Management has reportedly received more than 130 proposals to build solar power plants on federal lands in the Southwest. New transmission lines to carry the power from the sun-baked deserts to places where electricity users actually live are also under consideration.
However, the solar applications are mired in environmental impact studies, which one solar industry executive said "could completely stunt the growth of the industry." And the plans for new transmission capacity are being ferociously protested by environmentalists decrying the "permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine public lands."
According to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Center: "This just shows the true objective of green activism. Environmentalists don't actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether.
"The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy—even ones that are supposedly green and renewable—will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation.
"Since the use of energy is an indispensable component of everything we do in our lives, the greens' opposition to even such ridiculous, impractical sources of energy as solar and wind reveals their basic animus against human life.
"An exasperated Arnold Schwarzenegger said 'if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it.' But that is the whole point. On green philosophy, there is literally no place on earth for mankind."
Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
For Greens, the Energy Crisis Is Not a Problem, It's the Solution
Irvine, CA—Two of the problems our presidential candidates are being called upon to solve are the spiraling cost of energy and the "crisis" of man-made global warming. Both Senators McCain and Obama claim to have a unified strategy for tackling both problems.
"The notion that these two issues can be addressed simultaneously is nonsense," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "No policy aimed at 'fighting global warming' can help solve the energy crisis. An energy crisis is the proposed 'solution' to global warming.
"More than 85 percent of the world's energy comes from carbon-producing fossil fuels. And despite all the propaganda we hear about a 'new energy economy' just around the corner, there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon. Any measures enacted to 'fight climate change' can lead only to a worsening of the energy crisis.
"And it is not at all clear that climate change is something that needs to be fought. Even though we are constantly told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, in fact global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes and a catastrophic rise in sea levels, yet the data don't support such claims. Global warming alarmism is more environmentalist hype than scientific fact.
"There is no evidence that cutting off our carbon emissions would have any noticeable impact on the world's climate," Lockitch said. "Yet it would cause a catastrophic blow to the world's economy and therefore to people's lives. Energy use is an indispensable component of almost everything we do every day. And billions of people around the world are suffering right now for lack of abundant energy.
"The only crisis we need to worry about is the unnecessarily high cost of energy—and the solution to that is to remove coercive Green restrictions on oil production, and to start drilling and burning."
### ### ###
Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To interview Dr. Lockitch or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Investigate Big Congress, Not Big Oil by Alex Epstein
With gasoline prices exceeding $4 a gallon in some states, politicians are responding as usual: Blame Big Oil First. Several prominent senators have once again summoned industry leaders to Capitol Hill, subjecting them to yet another barrage of rhetorical questions, interruptions, accusations, and sermons. The lawmakers' goal, claims Sen. Patrick Leahy, is to identify "causes of the rising price of oil on which Congress can act." But the foregone conclusion is that "price gouging," "collusion," and "market manipulation" by Big Oil, or speculation by financiers, is responsible.
The simple fact that such Congressional investigations are designed to obscure is that the prices of oil and gasoline are determined by supply and demand—which neither private oil companies nor speculators have any power to dictate in their favor. If they had such market mastery, then why didn't they use it in the 1990s, when gasoline was selling at a barely profitable $1 a gallon? To be sure, speculators can bid up prices—but they only do so when they believe that oil will become even more expensive in the future, and only make money when they are right.
The question Congress should really be asking, then, is: What nonmarket factors are distorting supply and demand? If they sought an honest answer, they would discover that much of the blame lies with Congress itself.
No one disputes that environmentalist laws passed by Congress have cut off some of our most promising and plentiful sources of oil. In the name of safeguarding a tiny portion of caribou habitat in the Alaskan wilderness, drilling is prohibited in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge—a potential source of 1 million barrels a day, 5 percent of America's daily oil consumption. Also off-limits is 85 percent of America's coastline, which Shell estimates contains some 100 billion recoverable barrels—13 times America's annual oil consumption—and the vast majority of oil shale in Colorado, which Shell estimates at 1.5 trillion barrels.
Congress should publicize these facts, prepare an inventory of how many oil-rich areas they have blocked off, and bring in economists to estimate how much all of this raises gas prices.
And how about the effects of Congress's open hostility toward the future of oil? Our politicians damn oil as an "addiction" to be eliminated, and seek to cut—by up to 90 percent—the use of oil and other vital fossil fuels that make our standard of living possible. Congress should ask oil executives how this possible forced cut in demand affects their industry. It should ask whether they feel safe to make the billion dollar investments and decades-long plans that oil production requires when Barack Obama, a leading presidential candidate, can uncontroversially proclaim that "the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil." Is it a coincidence that the much-maligned speculators think oil will become even scarcer in the future, and are acting accordingly?
In addition to investigating its own impact on gasoline prices, Congress should investigate how its economic policy partner, the Federal Reserve, has raised our gas prices by lowering the value of the dollars we buy gasoline with. The Fed, along with the Treasury Department, has for years had an inflationary policy that has caused the value of the dollar to plummet relative to other currencies. Were it not for this devaluation of the dollar, oil prices would likely be 40 percent lower—as they are for those on the Euro. Why not call a free-market economist to the stand and ask how much more expensive Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Henry Paulson have made our gasoline?
Americans deserve to know the story—in all its gory detail—of what their government has done and is doing to cause high prices at the pump, and to make gasoline—indeed, all energy—more scarce and more expensive in the future. A congressional investigation of Congress would be a great public service.
Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on business issues. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Environmentalism
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right
Who: Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
What: A Ford Hall Forum talk that will consider how the opposing forces of reason and emotionalism have manifested themselves in American culture in the four decades since Woodstock, with special focus on the rise of religion and environmentalism. A Q & A will follow.
Where: Old South Meeting House, 310 Washington Street, Boston, MA
When: Thursday, May 8, 2008, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Summary: At Ford Hall Forum in 1969, Ayn Rand examined the cultural significance of two high-profile, enormously well-attended but very different events: Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch.
In her lecture, “Apollo and Dionysus,” she showed how philosophical ideas play out in a culture: she showed why these two events, so opposite in nature, were a product of a long-standing philosophical dichotomy, reason versus emotion. She concluded her talk by noting that, against the bromide that man’s senses and reason confine him to the grubby, material world while his mystical emotions lift him to the stars, Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch “offered you a literal dramatization of the truth: it is man’s irrational emotions that bring him down to the mud; it is man’s reason that lifts him to the stars.”
In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will consider how these two opposing forces, reason and emotionalism, have manifested themselves in American culture in the ensuing decades. He will examine the Apollonian elements which are lifting us to the stars. And he will examine the Dionysian elements—religion and environmentalism—which are dragging us back down into the mud, figuratively and literally.
For more information on this talk, please e-mail events@aynrand.org
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Events, Religion
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Exploit-the-Earth Day Materials
April 22 is Exploit-the-Earth Day, and the following banners, blurb, and article are available for use on websites and blogs for the purpose of spreading the word and celebrating the holiday. Let the world know where you stand and why.
EED Blurb:
Exploit the Earth or Die™
It’s not a threat. It’s a fact. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
The fact annoys some people. But it shouldn’t: Hence our “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign.
Place an EED banner on your blog or website; wear an EED T-shirt; drink from an EED mug. The good guys will smile. The bad guys will snarl. And the battle for civilization and against “environmentalism” will be brought to the fundamental alternative whereupon the matter ultimately must be decided: life or death.
Copyright ©2008 The Objective Standard. All Rights Reserved.
EED Op-Ed:
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day
Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.
As I wrote for The Objective Standard’s “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign:
Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may.
Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.
In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.
Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, vegetables, fruits, and the like. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.
It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept the notion that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.
On April 22, let the world know where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
Copyright ©2008 The Objective Standard. All Rights Reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism
Thursday, April 17, 2008
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day
Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.
As I wrote for The Objective Standard’s “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign:
Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may.
Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.
In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.
Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, vegetables, fruits, and the like. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.
It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept the notion that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.
On April 22, let the world know where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
Labels: Environmentalism, Philosophy
Blog Feed
Click the button below to subscribe to our blog's feed.
Get the Feed
Subscribe to the journal for people of reason.
Topics
- Announcements
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- Business and Economics
- Education
- Environmentalism
- Events
- Foreign Policy and War
- Healthcare
- History
- Individual Rights and Law
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Religion
- Science and Technology
- The Arts
Blog Archive
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
Advertisement
Advertisement
