PDA

View Full Version : Boycott the UN's World Water Day



mick silver
20th January 2013, 12:31 PM
http://www.thedailybell.com/28589/Boycott-the-UNs-World-Water-Day ... Boycott the UN's World Water Day
By Staff Report
http://www.thedailybell.com/images/feedbackicon2.jpg
8
http://www.thedailybell.com/images/library/waterboycott.jpg
(Em)Powering a thirsty world – water and energy for a world we want! ... UN (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=1848) launches Water Cooperation 2013 ... In December 2010, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2013 as the United Nations International Year of Water Cooperation. In reflection of this declaration, the 2013 World Water Day, which will take place on 22 March 2013, also will be dedicated to water cooperation. Therefore, UN-Water has called upon UNESCO to lead the 2013 United Nations International Year on Water Cooperation, in particular because of the Organization's unique multidisciplinary approach which blends the natural and social sciences, education, culture and communication. Given the intrinsic nature of water as a transversal and universal element, the United Nations International Year on Water Cooperation naturally would embrace and touch upon all these aspects. – United Nations
Dominant Social Theme: The UN can solve all our resource problems with the proper planning, especially water scarcity.
Free-Market Analysis: With the UN's World Water Day fast approaching on March 22, we wanted to take the opportunity to urge people not to attend and not to participate.
What is not particularly clear about UN efforts because they are so massive and so obfuscated is that the entire world body is nothing but an application of soft fascism (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=1902). It probably won't stop, but it should.
The UN's entire methodology is based on a rhetorical trick. The idea constantly enunciated when it comes to food, water or energy is that the "world's" haves are withholding critical elements from the world's have-nots. And when this argument cannot be made, the default argument is simply that there is not enough to go around and the UN will act as a disinterested mediator.
And the effort, critically, removes any consideration of the market itself.
The idea that is constantly presented (by the absence of other discussions) is that if the UN doesn't take action, the world's problems will go unaddressed. It's an evil misdirection. And it's being put forth by a body with a lot of clout.
People don't realize exactly how big the UN really is. It's a huge institution with tentacles in literally every nook and cranny of the Earth. Its budget is five billion, but if it were a private company, it would have to be realizing about US$100 billion in revenue to gain US$5 billion in profits.
By contrast, Apple Computers – the most successful company in US history – generated about US$40 billion in 2012. As a listed company, Apple was worth over US$600 billion in 2012. How much would the UN be worth? A trillion? And not because it produces anything but because of its clout and ability to meddle globally wherever it chooses.
In order to justify that meddling, the UN is constantly proposing its own brand of bureaucratic activism. Here's a just-written UN "thematic consultation" for water that is supposed to provide a foundation for a larger conversation by various "stakeholders.""
As most of the inhabitants on our planet know, every plant needs water and light to grow. The same is also true for our economies. Water and energy in different forms are key productive resource in the creation of all the goods and services that supply our daily needs and wants. It should be easy for everyone to see how absolutely indispensable water and energy is for building a world we want.
Water is also needed for essentially all production of energy - and energy is a key input in securing that the right amount of water, not too much nor too little, is available at the right time all across our globe.
This is where things start to get complicated. The useful amounts of water and energy on our planet are limited and there is and will in all likelihood not be enough for all the things that we would want to use water and energy for. In addition, water and energy are so intimately linked that actions to increase access to one of them will inevitably have effects on the other. This is both a challenge and an opportunity. If we are wise we can tap in to the synergies that the relationship between water and energy present and increase access to both. The challenge is that if we are unwise we may trap ourselves in a downward spiral.
Essentially, a world we want has to be a water and energy wise world. The question then is: What is a water and energy wise world and how do we achieve it?
How do we balance between different uses of water? Shall we use water to grow bio-fuels for carbon neutral energy? Shall we foster water efficiency in the energy sector by putting a scarcity price on the water resources used? Do we know enough about the relationship between water and energy to even start discussing these issues? If we don't how shall we start building this knowledge? Please contribute with yours!
See how these issues are framed? Both the problem and the solution are presented in entirely bureaucratic terms. The problem, we are told, is increasing scarcity. The solution, we learn, is a cooperative global effort to address the "scarcity" organized and overseen by the UN itself.
About a year ago, in an article entitled, "The World Is Running Out of Water Again," we suggested that the difficulties faced by a water-needy world could better be provided by desalinization technology than UN palavers.
At the time we quoted a press release we'd just found on the 'Net regarding desalinization. It took us about a minute of Internet searching, we wrote, to find a PR.com press release: "Desalination Set to Become an Integral Part of South Africa's Water Resources Says TechSci Research." We provided an excerpt as follows:
According to a recently published report by TechSci Research "South Africa Desalination Market Forecast & Opportunities, 2017" South Africa water desalination market is all set to grow at CAGR of 28% for next five years. Recent developments in the market are taking place in the form of new plants being set up by the municipalities and this trend will follow for a long time as the Desalination market in South Africa is still a niche market. Moreover the technological advances in the Desalination industry is forecasted to give a much awaited thrust to this market in South Africa.
"South Africa desalination market is at its nascent stage where the government has recently started encouraging it for meeting fresh water demand in the country. It is forecasted that number of plants in South Africa will triple by 2017," said Karan Chechi, Research Director at TechSci Research a global research based management consulting firm.
Characterized by periodical and ongoing droughts coupled with the growing water needs of the inhabitants and the other industrial and agricultural consumers, South Africa has very little to further leverage on its existing water resources and more so when they too are limited ...
"South Africa Desalination Market Forecast & Opportunities, 2017" gives a detailed and unprejudiced overview on the Desalination market in South Africa. The report has critically evaluated all the aspects related to water market and helps the reader to get a complete overview on the latest trends and the market potential of the technology of Desalination in South Africa.
We concluded by pointing out that desalinization was not likely "the absolute cure for water shortages." But human ingenuity, we wrote, is as boundless as the "problems" that the elites and the UN constantly discover. We have no reason to change our opinion.
Conclusion: Boycott World Water Day.

mick silver
20th January 2013, 12:36 PM
hock: NYTimes Shuts Environmental Desk – Global Warming Meme Going Extinct?
By Staff Report
http://www.thedailybell.com/images/feedbackicon2.jpg
16
http://www.thedailybell.com/images/library/NYTimes.jpg
It's Death of Little Nell time again in the field of climate "science." The New York Times – aka Pravda – has announced the closure of its Environment Desk. Rumours that the entire environment team, headed by Andy Revkin, have volunteered to be recycled into compost and spread on the lawn of the new billion dollar home Al Gore (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=2895) bought with the proceeds of his sale of Current TV to Middle Eastern oil interests are as yet unconfirmed. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: A tragedy of unparalleled proportions has befallen the environment. It is getting harder and harder to save the world ...
Free-Market Analysis: The irascible and brilliant James Delingpole has just posted an article over at the UK Telegraph announcing the closure of the New York Times's environmental desk. Big news, indeed ...
It is an article that lampoons its subject even while declaring victory. Delingpole, in fact, deserves this moment. A novelist and a determined opponent of the power elite (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=610)'s global warming (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=1919) propaganda, he has been at the forefront of mainstream debunkery of "warmist" nonsense.
Lately, with the advent of what we call the Internet Reformation (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=2195), the predigested sophism of outlets such as the New York Times has become less and less appetizing. As fewer turn to the Times for news and information, the publication has languished, and so have its fiefdoms like the Boston Globe.
The continual struggle for money has taken its toll on the Times's resources. And now it has apparently resulted in the shutdown of a desk supporting one of the power elite's key dominant social themes (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=652). Here's how Delingpole puts it:
It's very, very sad and that all over the Arctic baby polar bears are weeping bitter tears of regret. A spokesman for the New York Times, quoted in the Guardian, has reaffirmed the paper's commitment to environmental issues.
"We devote a lot of resources to it, now more than ever. We have not lost any desire for environmental coverage. This is purely a structural matter."
Absolutely. It's what newspapers always do when they're committed to a particular field: close down the entire department responsible for covering it.
But it's still not going to stop some mean-minded cynics sniping and casting aspersions, I'll bet. Why, some of them will be pointing out the eerie coincidence with the Met Office recent tacit admission that "global warming" isn't anywhere near what that their dodgy models predicted it would be.
And also with NASA (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=28353)'s recent admission that solar variation has a much more significant on terrestrial climate than it has hitherto been prepared to acknowledge. If you didn't know better, you'd almost get the impression that AGW theory has been so crushingly falsified that hard-headed newspaper executives, even ones at papers as painfully right-on as the New York Times, just aren't prepared to fund its promulgation any more.
What this means for similarly overstaffed environment desks at other left-wing newspapers one can scarcely begin to imagine. Might it be that we never again read a piece by Leo Hickman entitled "How Do You Tell Your Five Year Old Son That His World Is About To Explode In A Blazing Fireball Because Of Man's Selfishness (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=2590) And Greed And Refusal To Change His Lifestyle?"
Ah, we could continue to quote, but you'll have to take a digital trek over to the Telegraph to read the rest. From our perspective, the news itself trumps even the cleverest of articles (and Delingpole is quite clever).
We don't want to read too much into this closing, of course. The New York Times is a newspaper and shutting down whole news desks may or may not be a reflection of larger elite priorities.
In fact, we can't see the top elites giving up on the global warming meme (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=654), as it is necessary to so many other promotions. It will generally be a good deal harder to take over the world if one cannot insist that people be subject to invasive inspections and rationing in order to combat a global warming-induced universal drought.
But speaking from a purely speculative standpoint, we've noticed that far more resources seem to be put into the so-called war on terror (http://www.thedailybell.com/floatWindow.cfm?id=1877) these days. The French, for instance, have just started a whole new war in Mali.
Is it possible that the elites have made a tactical decision to de-emphasize global warming while raising up the profile of the "war on terror"?
Whether or not this is the case, the ongoing demise of the global warming (climate change) meme is significant, from our perspective. As foremost promoters of the Internet Reformation – the idea that 'Net-based technology is playing havoc with elite plans for global domination – this announcement by the Times further confirms our argument that the elites are not a monolithic entity pre-ordained to triumph.
Conclusion: The elites are a collection of (inbred) enormously wealthy human beings. They are not gods. They, too, stumble and fail. The spread of this new Reformation is making their lives a good deal more difficult, in our humble view. The ramifications, as we often point out, are immense.