Researchers have studied things like pebble layers, shell fragments, and coral rubble in Fiji to find out what has happened there in the past. Yanan Li and others drilled cores to find debris pushed 120m into the mangroves by the worst of the worst tropical cyclones. Handily, they also had two bad storms recorded in the last century to calibrate what they found. Awkwardly, the big storms were more common in the Little Ice Age.
via climate science
July 4, 2025 at 01:30AM
Part I yesterday explained Adam Smith’s notion that general human betterment was the unintended result of each individual following his own self-interest in the market arena of voluntary and competitive exchange. Adam Smith considered such natural order far superior to attempts by government, by those in political power, to design and impose an order and coordination in the actions of the members of society.
Echoing his earlier warnings about the social engineer, that “man of system,” Smith stated:
By pursuing his own interest [the individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good . . .
What is the specie of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his own situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him.
The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which can safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
It is not that Adam Smith believed that people always knew enough to never make a mistake, or that their speculative judgments about an uncertain future would always be correct so disappoints or losses would never be suffered.
He reasoned that each man, in his own corner of society, has a better understanding of his own circumstances and opportunities in the context of his own wants, desires and goals. And that each individual has the strongest motive and incentive to try to make his decisions wisely since failures experienced fell upon him. He who bears the costs and reaps the potential benefits has the greatest incentive to minimize the former and maximize the latter.
The same does not apply, Smith argued, when those in political power make the decisions. The “statesman” in a faraway capital can never know and understand things the way each individual can evaluate and judge them in their own unique surroundings. No legislator bears the cost of the wrong decisions he imposes on others; after all, he continues to live off compulsory taxes collected from those upon whom he has imposed harm.
Freedom of Trade at Home and Abroad
Adam Smith believed that international trade should be left to the free market as much as domestic economic activity.
For the same self-interested reasons, Adam Smith argued that it was superfluous and counter-productive for government to attempt to manage and direct the importing or exporting of goods and services to maintain a presumed “favorable” balance of trade, or to prevent a feared balance of trade “deficit.”
Each individual tries to minimize the costs that must be incurred in achieving his goals and ends. He only makes at home what is less expensive to make than to buy from others. And he buys desired goods from others only when those others can provide them at a lower cost in resources and labor and time, than if the individual attempted to produce that good through his own self-sufficient efforts.
Thus, goods are purchased from producers in other countries only when they can offer them at a lower cost than manufacturing them in one’s own country. And, in turn, one purchases those foreign produced goods by supplying the foreign seller with some good or service at a lower cost than if he tried to produce it in his own country.
When governments, through regulations and controls, force a product to be produced at home that could be less expensively purchased from abroad, it is misdirecting scarce resources and labor into wasteful and inefficient uses.
The result must be that the wealth of that nation – and the material wellbeing of its citizens — is reduced by the amount by which more resources and labor must be devoted to making wanted goods than could be obtained through a free system of international division of labor and peaceful, mutually beneficial exchange.
Hence, it is more prudent for the prosperity of one’s own nation to leave production and trade to the self-interested actions of the citizenry.
Commerce Fosters a Good and Civil Society
Finally, Adam Smith argued that the benefits from free and competitive commerce and trade were not only the material improvements in man’s condition. It also served as a method for civilizing men, if by civilization is meant, at least partly, courtesy, and respect for others, and an allegiance to honesty and fulfillment of promises.
When men deal with each other on a daily and regular basis, they soon learn that their own wellbeing requires of them sensitivity for those with whom they trade. Losing the confidence or the trust of one’s trading partners can result in social and economic injury to oneself.
The self-interest that guides a man to demonstrate courtesy and thoughtfulness for his customers, under the fear of losing their business to some rival with superior manners or etiquette to his own, tends over time to be internalized as habituated “proper behavior” to others in general and in most circumstances.
And through this social process, the other-orientedness that voluntary exchange requires of each individual in his own self-interest if he is to attain his own personal ends, fosters the institutionalization of interpersonal conduct that is usually considered essential to a well-mannered society and cultured civilization.
Again, in Adam Smith’s own words, from his Lectures on Jurisprudence:
Whenever commerce is introduced into any country, probity and punctuality always accompany it . . .
It is far more reducible to self-interest, that general principle which regulates the actions of every man, and which leads men to act in a certain manner from views of advantage, and is as deeply implanted in an Englishman as a Dutchman.
A dealer is afraid of losing his character, and is scrupulous in observing every engagement. When a person makes perhaps 20 contracts in a day, he cannot gain so much by endeavoring to impose on his neighbors, as the very appearance of a cheat would make him lose.
When people seldom deal with one another, we find that they are somewhat disposed to cheat, because they can gain more by a smart trick than they can lose by the injury that it does to their character . . .
Wherever dealing are frequent, a man does not expect to gain so much by any one contract as by probity and punctuality in the whole, and a prudent dealer, who is sensible of his real interest, would rather choose to lose what he has a right to than give any ground for suspicion . . .
When the greater part of people are merchants they always bring probity and punctuality into fashion, and these therefore are the principle virtues of a commercial nation.
Difficulties in Establishing a System of Natural Liberty
Adam Smith was well aware that deregulating commerce and industry, and freeing domestic and foreign trade from government control was not an easy matter. In “The Wealth of Nations” he referred to two obstacles in the way of establishing that “system of natural liberty.”
First, what he called “the prejudices of the public,” by which he meant the often-difficult task of getting ordinary citizens to see and understand the beneficial workings of and the logic behind a free competitive market.
And, second, what he referred to as the “power of the interests,” that is, those special interest groups that lobby and pressure government to provide them with anti-competitive regulations and restrictions, protections for foreign rivals, and subsidies and tax-funded redistributions to the harm of and the cost to consumers, taxpayers, and potential competitors locked out of the marketplace.
Indeed, when Adam Smith died in 1790 at the age of 67, it seemed highly unlikely that his idea and ideal of individual freedom and economic liberty would ever triumph. He believed it was utopian to ever expect the achievement of a regime of freedom of trade and enterprise.
The Power of Ideas for Freedom
Yet, in the equivalent of one lifetime after his death, by the middle of the nineteenth century, freedom of enterprise prevailed not only in the United States, but had been established in his own country of Great Britain, and soon was spreading in varying degrees to other parts of Europe and then other areas of the world.
The threats to economic freedom today are no greater than during Adam Smith’s own time about 250 years ago. And the same “prejudices of the public” and “power of the interests” stand in the way.
In spite of Adam Smith’s own pessimism, his arguments and their eventual triumph for a good part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries demonstrates the power of ideas.
If we take to heart and apply the logic of Adam Smith’s own explanation of the workings of a free market system to our own times, we, too, can triumph and establish a even better and more consistent “system of natural liberty” for ourselves and for the world that we will leave to our children and grandchildren.
———————–
Professor Richard Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. Part I was published yesterday.
His books include author of Austrian Economics and Public Policy: Restoring Freedom and Prosperity (Future of Freedom Foundation, 2016); Monetary Central Planning and the State (Future of Freedom Foundation, 2015); as well as the author of Political Economy, Public Policy, and Monetary Economics: Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian Tradition (Routledge, 2010) and Austrian Economics and the Political Economy of Freedom (Edward Elgar, 2003).
The post Adam Smith’s Insight for Independence Day 2025 (Part II) appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
July 4, 2025 at 01:09AM
By P Gosselin
Just 12 car trips person per year would be allowed!
The Berlin Constitutional Court has declared the “Berlin car-free” referendum admissible, paving the way for a possible drastic reduction in car traffic.
Hat-tip: Blackout News
Cars may soon be banned in Berlin. Image generated by Grok 3 AI
The court found that the aim of promoting health and climate protection is a legitimate legislative objective and that the draft does not violate fundamental rights.
There is no constitutional right to individual road use.
The initiative aims for a car-free Berlin center in which private car trips would be limited to just twelve per person per year. Exceptions would be for police, emergency services and people with mobility impairments. Delivery traffic and special cases such as services would be able to be approved digitally. The proponents argue that the aim is not to replace combustion engines with electric cars, but to reduce the total number of vehicles around the city center.
“We have won, right down the line: the future of Berlin belongs to safety, climate protection and the health of all Berliners – and not to unrestrained car traffic,” said the Volksentscheid Berlin autofrei (Referendum Berlin car-free) in a statement.
170,000 signatures needed for a referendum
Next, the initiative must collect 170,000 signatures within four months in order to bring about a binding referendum.
The initiative, however, faces opposition from various groups. Business associations, such as the Association of Business Associations in Berlin and Brandenburg (UVB), have warned that a widespread car ban would be a severe blow to the economy in the capital region. They fear reduced customer access, especially for businesses that rely on delivery services or customers traveling by car.
There are also concerns that restricting car use would interfere with property rights, as car owners within the affected zone would be limited in how they could use their vehicles near their homes. Many residents and businesses rely on cars for their daily commutes, deliveries, and other activities. The proposed restrictions, allowing only 12 private car trips per person per year within the city’s S-Bahn ring.
Critics also point to the current state of public transport infrastructure, expressing concerns about “significant bottlenecks” and overcrowding if a large number of car users switch to public transport. While Berlin has an extensive public transport network, it probably isn’t robust enough to handle such a massive shift.
The current conservative-led Senate under Mayor Kai Wegner (CDU) has actively opposed traffic reduction policies, campaigning against bicycle lane expansion, speed limits, and parking reductions. Residents should be able to choose their mode of transport, including cars.
While the court has deemed the initiative legally permissible, there remains a number of hurdles, including a potential referendum. Past experiences with referendums in Berlin show that implementation can be challenging due to political resistance.
There are also questions about how the 12-trip limit per person would be enforced, raising concerns about bureaucracy and data privacy.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
July 4, 2025 at 12:02AM
A report titled “African Energy Leadership: The Case for 100% Renewable Energy” was published last week, claiming that “Africa could save between $3 trillion and $5 trillion by transitioning to a fully renewable energy system by 2050.” This shift, it asserted, would also create up to 5.4 million new energy sector jobs, significantly more than the 3.2 million jobs projected “under current fossil fuel trajectories.” This report by the environmental NGO (ENGO) Power Shift Africa in collaboration with the University of Technology Sydney’s Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS-ISF) was launched at the Bonn Climate Conference (SB62).
In recent years, the concept of “leapfrogging” over fossil‑fuel development to craft a 100 % renewable energy system in Africa has gained traction: bypass oil, gas and coal, build “clean” solar and wind farms instead, and align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C global warming target. Proponents point to “dramatic cost reductions” in solar and wind, enormous “theoretical potential” and massive economic benefits with “millions of new green jobs”.
Tilak’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
And yet for all these glossy numbers, the physics, economics, and on‑the‑ground realities tell a far more sobering story. The leapfrog narrative is less a roadmap to prosperity than a vapid fig‑leaf for Western moral satisfaction, an exercise in a hypocritical carbon colonialism.
Leapfrogging is an Empty Notion
The concept of Africa leapfrogging to a 100% renewable energy system, bypassing conventional fossil fuels, defies the fundamental constraints of physics and economics. This has been incisively outlined by Mark P. Mills in his paper on “magical thinking” among promoters of renewable energy. Mills argues that renewables like solar and wind, despite cost declines, are inherently limited by their low energy density and intermittency, requiring vast land areas and expensive storage solutions to achieve reliability—challenges magnified in Africa’s context, where industrial-scale energy demand is critical for modern economic growth.
Solar and wind’s capacity factors (20–30% in optimal conditions) cannot match the consistent, high-density output of fossil fuels, which are essential for powering heavy industry, urban infrastructure, hospitals, water treatment plants and the like. Economically, the massive capital required for grid upgrades, battery storage, and transmission interconnectors—estimated at $100 billion annually for universal energy access by 2030—far exceeds Africa’s current 2–3% share of global renewable investments. Expecting renewables alone to meet Africa’s energy needs ignores the physical reality of energy density and the economic impracticality of scaling intermittent sources without reliable backups. These facts render leapfrogging a fantastical notion detached from the continent’s developmental imperatives.
Environmental zealots in the West would deny Africa the very infrastructure that historically lifted their own societies out of poverty. For instance, a major pollution problem afflicting developing countries is the domestic combustion of solid (bio)fuels. According to the World Health Organization, 4.3 million deaths annually are directly attributable to indoor air pollution. If poor Africans remain stuck on traditional biomass cookstoves instead of gaining access to cheap propane gas or cheap and reliable grid electricity (fuelled by natural gas or coal), this annual toll will only rise. In rich countries, households moved from dung, wood and crop residue fires to coal, to oil, to gas and electricity—each step up the energy ladder improving well‑being.
Today, those building blocks are blocked or actively removed by the climate zealots working via ENGOs and captive institutions of the climate industrial complex like the World Bank and the IMF. Instead of reliable electric grids, Africa is offered solar cookstoves and humanitarian sentiment—an insult in the guise of charity. As Vaclav Smil has conclusively demonstrated, no country in the world has developed without the dense energy available from fossil fuels. Coal, oil and natural gas have powered urbanization, industrialization and agricultural productivity.
What Do African Leaders Want?
It is not possible to generalize across the vast continent, but some facts stand out. Africa is the world’s second largest and second-most populous continent (after Asia in both aspects). Unlike Asia, Africa remains largely mired in poverty and much of the population has limited access to energy. Africa’s 54 countries, 3 dependencies, and one disputed territory (Western Sahara) accounted for just over 18% of the world’s population in 2020 but its share of global primary energy consumption amounted to only 3.4% in 2022. Poverty and poor access to energy, one suspects, are not just coincidences but reflective of a more general malaise. But what are its governments doing about it?
The African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change was established as an alliance of African member states to represent the interests of the region in international climate change negotiations with “a common and unified voice”. In an interview in June 2022, the Chair of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) on climate change, Mr. Ephraim Mwepya Shitima of Zambia, said that “COP27 should be about advancing implementation of the [UN IPCC’s] National Determined Contributions (NDCs), including adaptation and mitigation efforts and delivery of finance to enhance implementation.”
In short, Mr. Shitima seemed to represent Africa as a supplicant for climate finance:
Africa is poor and responsible for a relatively small share of global carbon dioxide emissions yet suffers from the effects of climate change. Surely the developed countries, who are responsible for most of the historical emissions, need to financially assist Africa in adapting to climate change in any equitable outcome. For its part, Africa will pursue a “low carbon” and “sustainable” development trajectory.
This position, however, is far from representing a common and unified voice for the continent. In the lead up to COP27 (held in Egypt in 2023), Amani Abou-Zeid, the African Union Commissioner for Infrastructure and Energy, said that African countries advocated for “a common energy position that sees fossil fuels as necessary to expanding economies and electricity access.” N. J. Ayuk, Executive Chairman at the African Energy Chamber, is even more forthright:
“Africans don’t hate Oil and Gas companies. We love Oil and today we love gas even more because we know gas will give us a chance to industrialize. No country has ever been developed by fancy wind and green hydrogen. Africans see Oil and Gas as a path to success and a solution to their problems. The demonization of oil and gas companies will not work.”
Younger, more dynamic African leaders such as Abou-Zeid, Ayuk and Jusper Machogu find it not only infeasible but immoral for their governments to leave their fossil fuels resources in the ground in return for “climate finance” from virtue-signaling Western governments and multilateral agencies such as the World Bank to invest on unreliable solar and wind. Africa needs all the coal, oil and gas it can exploit, to achieve rapid economic development for their aspiring populations. Asia, and now President Trump’s American “energy dominance”, are their models for fossil fuel-based economic development, not a hypocritical, deluded EU that has begun backpedalling from the costly “energy transition” that their own citizens are rebelling against.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright believes that fossil fuels are the solution to the widespread lack of energy access in Africa, dismissing the challenge posed by climate change and calling too much emphasis on addressing it “destructive.” Speaking to a roomful of African officials and business people at a Powering Africa summit in Washington earlier this year, Secretary Wright said Western countries such as the United States have for years been “shamelessly” telling Africa that coal is bad and not to develop it. He said:
“That’s just nonsense, 100 percent nonsense…Coal transformed our world and made it better, extended life expectancy and grew opportunities, and coal globally will be the largest source of electricity for decades to come. That’s not a policy, that’s not a desire, that’s just a reality.”
As the Net Zero and “energy transition” narratives get increasingly threadbare, global investments into fossil fuel projects are surging. Global banks significantly increased their financing for coal, oil and gas projects last year, according to a new report by climate advocacy groups including the Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club, marking a reversal at a time when lenders are backtracking on climate pledges. According to the recently published report, banks fossil fuel financing was 23% higher than the previous year.
A spate of oil and gas projects are now being financed in Niger, Senegal, Cote D’Ivoire, Uganda and Kenya. In March, under Secretary Wright’s watch, the US Export-Import Bank (Exim) approved a direct loan of up to $4.7 billion to support the world-class Mozambique LNG project in Cabo Delgado, marking a significant milestone in the project’s revival after years of uncertainty.
Enough with the Technobabble
What is it about Africa that attracts Western climate zealots to offer policy advice on energy and environment? Is it that the West suffers from a Rousseau-esque angst over modern life and hankers after a mythological state of nature in Africa? Does the myth of the noble savage compel Westerners who regret their modern industrial norms to practice carbon imperialism over the world’s least developed continent? The “do as I say, not as I did” syndrome which afflicts Western intelligentsia is applied with particular insistence to African policymakers, given that the major Asian developing countries depend less on international development aid and finance for their domestic investments.
Africa is not an anthropological museum for Western virtue, and the energy “leapfrogging” myth is a neo-colonial fable dressed in technobabble. Africa should climb the same energy ladder that raised the West out of an energy-starved perennial poverty of the pre-industrial era.
A version of this article was first published at:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
July 3, 2025 at 08:07PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 