Hunting Restores Wildlife in Mozambique

Trophy hunting brings back animals, big and small, and helps a local community.


A new video by PERC (the Property and Environment Research Center) describes how trophy hunting in Coutada 11, a million-acre area in Mozambique, has brought back its wildlife. Devastated by a civil war that ended in 1992, Mozambique lost most of its wildlife, especially large animals such as lions and leopards As part of the recovery from the war, the Mozambique government began leasing its game reserves to private businesses.

In 1994 Mark Haldane, who runs an African safari business in South Africa and Botswana visited Coutada 11, an area in the Zambesi River delta. “It was absolutely beautiful,” he says in the video. “The problem was they had hardly any animals.”

Using funds from his existing business, Haldane began building up wildlife again. The key was to involve the local community. The company built a clinic and a school and regularly provides meat from hunting. It also hired former poachers as salaried anti-poachers.

The biggest threat to protecting the animals, says Haldane, is proposed laws that would ban the importation of trophy animals such as elephants and lions into the U.S. and other countries, “If you take those species out of the equation many of those operations become unviable,” he says, and other species enter a “downward spiral” The video includes examples of success in African wildlife

  • Mozambique’s increase of buffalo from 1200 in 1994 to 25,000 today
  • Southern white rhinos in South Africa, from 1,000 to 19,000 between 1960 and 2019
  • Elephant numbers in Namibia tripling from 1995 to 2018
  • In Zimbabwe elephant numbers doubling between 1980 and 2019

For an essay about the video see Acton Institute’s website.

Recycling Goes Bust, So Interest Groups Seek Federal Help

$500 million for ‘infrastructure’; $75 million for “education.”


In three recent articles by Waste Dive, an online newspaper that covers the waste-and-recovery industry, this picture emerges:

Recycling is in trouble, thanks in part to China’s decision in 2017 to stop accepting waste from other countries. Residential recycling, which has never made money, is cash-strapped.

What to do? Look for federal funds.

Two major recycling bills have been proposed in the last few weeks, and at a November recycling summit the EPA secretary’ confirmed an interest in federal action.

The new developments:

  • A bill called RECOVER, supported by the much of the waste industry,would provide $500 million in recycling “infrastructure.” If that seems vague, it is. However, it “would allocate $500 million in matching federal funds for states, municipalities, and tribes. That money is meant to improve various aspects of collection and processing infrastructure.”
  • A bill called RECYCLE would focus on education and would only authorize $75 million over three years.  “RECYCLE is less ambitious and seems to be supported by environmental groups as well as industry,” says Dive. It would provide recycling education grants and require the EPA to take steps to increase recycling rates and to reduce contamination of recycling waste streams.
  • Not to be ignored is new recycling policies by the EPA. Says Waste Dive: “Compared to prior years, when the Trump administration proposed dramatically reducing the EPA’s budget and eliminating its recycling program, this about face is notable.”

In an interview with Dive, EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler acknowledged that China’s halt in waste imports was a big reason. “‘I think it’s a big priority because it’s a problem that we have to solve. And it’s really going to take some federal attention to solve it,’ he told Waste Dive, going on to mention a need to improve the quality and quantity of recycled feedstock for new products.” Adds Waste Dive: “Compared to prior years, when the Trump administration proposed dramatically reducing the EPA’s budget and eliminating its recycling program, this about face is notable.”

‘I Get Attacked from People on Both Sides of the Issue’

‘One would think that the practice of science would be objective. I once believed this, too.’


Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In a recent post on his blog he wrote:

One would think that the practice of science would be objective. I once believed this, too. As a fresh post-doc at the University of Wisconsin, when I discovered something new in satellite data, I was surprised to encounter NASA employees who tried to keep my work from being published because they feared it would interfere with a new satellite mission they were working toward. I eventually got it published as a cover article in the prestigious journal, Nature.

But the subject I was dealing with did not have the profound financial, political, policy, and even religious import that climate change would end up having. Furthermore, 35 years ago things were different than today. People were less tribal. There is an old saying that one should not discuss politics or religion in polite company, but it turns out that social media is far from polite company.

From a practical standpoint, what we do (or don’t do) about human-caused climate change supports either (1) a statist, top-down governmental control over human affairs that involves a more socialist political framework, or (2) an unconstrained individual-freedom framework where capitalism reigns supreme. So, one could easily be a believer (or non-believer) in the ‘climate emergency’ based upon their political leanings.

Spencer refers to a recent essay by Alan Jacobs:

He [Jacobs] mentions a recent novel in which a high-tech billionaire, fed up with the disinformation he sees on the Web, concocts an elaborate online story that Moab, Utah has been obliterated by a nuclear explosion. He has CGI video, actors, witnesses, and an elaborate (but fake) social media presence to support the story.

The plan is to then show the world how easily they were duped, so that people would become less credulous when digesting information.

But instead, people cling to their belief. Even after many years, the ‘Moab truthers’ claim that anyone who disputes that Moab was destroyed are trolls or paid shills. People could actually travel to Moab to see for themselves, but virtually no one does.

In the climate wars, I see this behavior from both skeptics and alarmists. The alarmists point to increasing storms, heat waves, wildfires, etc. as evidence that humans are making weather worse. When they are shown evidence from a century of more of data that, no, things are not getting worse, these ‘storm truthers’ still bitterly cling to their beliefs while calling us skeptics “deniers.”

On the flip side, I routinely engage skeptics who claim that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and that it is physically impossible for the cold atmosphere to make the surface warmer by increasing its CO2 content, anyway. No matter how many different ways I try to show how they are wrong, they never change their stance.

As a result, despite being a skeptic on the subject of humans having a serious effect on global climate, I’ve had to block more fellow skeptics from commenting on my blog than I have blocked alarmists. So, I get attacked from people on both sides of the issue.

Chance of Zero Emissions Is Zero

Cambridge professor of engineering says fossil fuels can’t be completely replaced.


It’s futile to hope for zero carbon dioxide emissions, the former Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge told  the Global Warming Policy Foundation on November 10. Michael Kelly, a specialist in new semiconductor physics and technology and the manufacturability of semiconductor structures at the nanoscale, spoke on “Energy Utopias and Engineering Reality.” Some excerpts:

The main message is that our present energy infrastructure is vast and has evolved over 200 years. So the chances of revolutionizing it in short order on the scale envisaged by the net-zero target of Parliament is pretty close to zero; zero being exactly the chance of the meeting Extinction Rebellion’s demands.

Energy is the essential driver of modern civilisation. World GDP this year is estimatedat $88 trillion, growing to $108 trillion by 2023, with the energy sector then being of order$10 trillion. But renewables have played, and will continue to play, a peripheral role in this growth. Industrialisation was accompanied by a steady and almost complete reduction in the use of renewables.

Modern renewables remain an insignificant share of the energy supply. Indeed MIT analysts suggest the transition away from fossil fuel energies will take 400years at the current rate of progress.

In order to keep global temperatures to within 1.5◦Cof pre-industrial levels, we intend to eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) by replacing all the energy developments since about 1880 with zero-carbon alternatives. This is to be achieved by2050.

Even reaching the old target of an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would be miraculous; this is a level of emissions not seen since 1880. I assert that a herd of unicorns will be needed to deliver this target, let alone full decarbonisation. I also point out the utter nonsense of Extinction Rebellion’s demands to complete the task by 2025.

We have not had an ‘energy transition’: fossil fuels have continued to grow steadily at a rate about 7–8 times that of renewable technologies over the last 20 years. The energy demand of the major developed countries has been static or in small decline over that period. Most of the increase has come from growth in the global middle class, which in-creased by 1.5 billion people in the 20 years to 2015. The World Bank is anticipating a further increase of 2.5 billion by 2035, much of it the result of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and BP [British Petroleiu] estimate a further 40% growth in global energy demand by then.

We use twice as much energy in the UK for transport as we do for electricity. Little progress  has been made in converting the fuel energy to electricity, as there are few electric vehicles and no ships or aircraft that are battery powered. Note that if such a conversion of transport fuel to electricity were to take place, the grid capacity would have to treble from what we have today. [Emphasis added.]

There’s much more.