Eleutherian

Reuters reports that African Union leaders met ahead of the UN summit on climate change to agree on a request of $67 billion per year from "rich nations." The request rests on the argument that "rich nations," not African countries, are responsible for the climate change in Africa.

I won't deny the existence of climate change. However, it is more a regional phenomenon than a global one. For example, many environmentalists cite the melting glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro as a sign of global warming. These people overlook basic science. The area surrounding Mt. Kilimanjaro has been largely deforested by the local population. Due to the deforestation, less water evaporates from the trees, providing less snowfall to replenish the glaciers each year on the mountain.

Deforestation and land degradation is rampant throughout much of the African continent. It was not caused by "rich nations."

As for the request of $67 billion per year, this sum will have no effect at best. In 2005, the Center for Global Development released a study, finding that short-impact aid worked better than aid that had a long-term goal. The study also found that aid "had a zero effect on growth when it reached 8 percent of the recipient’s GDP, and after that the additional aid had a negative effect on growth."

So, up to a certain point aid can work, but efforts past that actually impede growth. Therefore, the continued aid given to the average African country is actually harming it, with 15% of its GDP coming from aid in the 1990s. Most likely, that percentage has increased, especially with the Millennium Development Goals.

The additional $67 billion per year will likely cause more harm than good.

Earlier this week, I posted on the annual seal hunt in Namibia where an estimated 90,000 seals will be clubbed this year. I want to follow-up on this post, particularly with regard to Francois Hugo, where I stated:

Other activists, like Francois Hugo of Seal Alert South Africa, have taken a more practical approach. Hugo effectively delayed Namibia's seal hunt by one week after his failed attempt to purchase the company that purchases the Namibian seal products. While another company would have seen the opportunity to gain a large market share as a result, this at least represents a private sector approach to the cause.

Seal Alert South Africa issued a press release today, announcing their tactics. Instead of picketing and going through international organizations to increase publicity, Mr. Hugo and Seal Alert-SA are working with the Namibian government, asking what it will take to add seals to their protected species list.

Hugo recognizes that traditional means will only serve to isolate the country (and its resources), "Exposing Namibia to international negative images and boycotts for decades to come." This is an activist organization who looks beyond his goals to the consequences of his means, and he should be commended for that.

While I may be wrong in my perception of this organization, please feel free to check them out for yourself at http://sealalertsa.wordpress.com.

The Huffington Post has an interesting article on baby seal clubbing in Namibia. Hunters in the annual commercial seal hunt are expected to club approximately 90,000 seals (representing a little over 10% of the country's seal population of 850,000). The article states:

Namibia is one of only a few remaining countries with a commercial seal harvest. The government argues that the seal population needs to be controlled to protect fish stocks....The government has said seals consume 900,000 tons of fish each year, more than a third of the fishing industry's catch, and that the cull is needed to protect fisheries.

Two interesting points are raised in this article (amusingly titled "Seal Sorrow").

First, there are two instances of how the natural market forces of supply and demand influence the seal clubbing industry around the world:

1. Due to the economic recession and changing consumer tastes, hunters in Canada clubbed less than one-third of their alloted quota. Without adequate demand for seal products, less seals will be hunted each year. This involves economic considerations and cultural preferences - NOT government mandates. It is not the proper role of government to legislate morality.
2. In Namibia, seals are clubbed because they threaten an important human food supply. The real problem here is not the seals but rather the lack of fish. Fishery populations are declining around the world from the over-harvesting that occurs under traditional systems. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has proposed instituting individual fishing quotas (IFQs), which gives fishers an incentive to increase the size of their resource. Reason Magazine previously covered and supported similar IFQ systems that have prospered in New Zealand, showing the effectiveness of private sector ownership as an incentive.

The second notable point from the article is the response by animal activists. Some groups continue to work through governments to try to ban the industry and their products. However, they have only succeeded in making felons out of hunters and creating black markets for their goods. Other activists, like Francois Hugo of Seal Alert South Africa, have taken a more practical approach. Hugo effectively delayed Namibia's seal hunt by one week after his failed attempt to purchase the company that purchases the Namibian seal products. While another company would have seen the opportunity to gain a large market share as a result, this at least represents a private sector approach to the cause.