Asthmatics, use that inhaler whenever - those climate change emissions are trivial

The latest alarm over climate change is that inhalers used by asthmatics - you know, to stop them dying? - produce the sort of emissions which contribute to that climate change. And sure enough they do, as do near all the other things we do to stay alive.

The important question here is always, well, how much? And what is the cost of those emissions and what the benefit?

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) has issued new guidance urging sufferers, where possible, to avoid using the most popular type of inhaler, known as a metered dose inhaler (MDI).

Making up around 70 per cent of inhaler prescriptions - approximately 26 million a year - MDIs contain propellants known as hydrofluorocarbons, which are powerful greenhouse gasses.

The first time Nice has assessed the carbon footprint of a recommended device, the body calculated that five doses from a MDI have the same carbon emissions as a nine-mile trip in a typical car.

Fortunately we’re given the numbers here to be able to work out what that cost is. Using the numbers the Stern Review gave us, the social cost of emissions is $80 per tonne Co2-e. And yes, that’s using Stern’s “I’m going to assume worse than the IPCC does” and also his heterodox ideas about discount rates.

One source tells us that the average (new) car does 52 mpg which we’ll take as that average. 9 miles is thus roughly one sixth (17%) of a gallon. A gallon produces some 9 kg of CO2. We’ve thus $80 x 1/6 x 0.009 which is about 12 cents or perhaps 10 pence. We do hope we’ve got the right number of zeroes there etc.

The benefit is that someone doesn’t choke to death on their own airways, or suffer the experience of thinking they’re about to. Yes, that’s worth 10 pence of damage to the planet in some century or so hence, tough luck Flipper. Go ahead and use your inhalers as you wish therefore. Maybe not pop them off just for fun and the lulz but otherwise don’t even worry about it.

Of course, if we had the only climate change policy that makes sense - assuming that we need one at all - that carbon tax then this would already be incorporated into everyone’s incentives as to what actions they take. We wouldn’t need boards of worthies to tell us about this, we’d already know.

Titanic sets sail

On April 10th, 1912, the RMS Titanic set sail on her ill-fated and only voyage. She struck an iceberg near Newfoundland and sank with the loss of 1,523 of her 2,200 passengers and crew. The Titanic is widely hailed as an example of hubris, with many relating (incorrectly) that she was deemed “unsinkable.” The story of her voyage has made the ship something of a totem for human tragedy, and has earned her a place in legend. Since the wreck was finally located in 1985, many exploratory visits have been made to explore it and salvage items scattered beside it. I myself booked a place on such a descent, but had it cancelled when the Russians withdrew the submersible for work in the Baltic ten days before my trip down was scheduled.

In 1898, fourteen years before the Titanic sailed, a writer named Morgan Robertson published a novella about the world’s biggest liner sailing the Atlantic and hitting an iceberg off Newfoundland on its maiden voyage with great loss of life. His ship was roughly the same size and displacement of the Titanic, and like her, had not enough lifeboats to take all of the passengers. There were other similarities, such as its speed and propulsion, and in the fictional version the ship was called “Titan.”

At first blush it looks uncanny, but the reality is less remarkable. People were building bigger and bigger ships, and the largest would obviously have to ply the lucrative Atlantic route. Robertson needed an accident to make his story, and had a choice of three realistic ones. It could have been a collision with another ship in the fog and dark, a catastrophic boiler explosion, perhaps, or maybe an iceberg. He chose the last of these.

The biggest ship has to have a name reflecting its size. It could have been Atlas, maybe, or Hercules, but he chose Titan. When America built its biggest missiles, it called one Atlas and the other Titan. What looked like precognition of events that were to happen fourteen years later is seen to be just intelligent anticipation. Robertson himself said that the similarities were explained by his extensive knowledge of shipbuilding and maritime trends.

The future is impossible to predict accurately; it wouldn’t be the future if it were. But it is possible to project trends forward. I find the best method is to look at what people want to do, and work out ways in which resources and human ingenuity can achieve those goals. The results are often surprising, but then so is human progress. The doom-mongers, from Malthus to Erlich and today’s environmental alarmists, are confounded by human determination and creativity. We see a problem and we solve it. That’s what people do.

The French appear to be rediscovering Colbert

France might have discovered an interesting truth here. That it is possible for taxation as a whole to be too high for the society to willingly carry.

France must slash taxes, fast.

That, according to the French prime minister, is the main message from an unprecedented three-month “great debate” in the wake of anti-government “yellow vest” protests.

Unveiling the findings from two million online contributions and 10,000 hours of town hall debates around the country, Edouard Philippe said on Monday that “huge exasperation” over the level of taxation was a prime concern.

"The debate clearly shows us in which direction we need to go: we need to lower taxes and lower them faster," Mr Philippe said in a speech in the Grand Palace in Paris.

Well, yes, when you’ve some hundreds of thousands repeatedly shouting in the streets over the level of taxation perhaps that’s true.

Mr Philippe said the findings suggested the Macron government had made the right diagnosis but had not been fast or “clear” enough in hacking at the taxation rate, which at 46.2 per cent of GDP is the highest in the world, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

As the OECD notes. Sweden taxes 44% of GDP, Iceland 38%, Switzerland 28%. It’s difficult to argue that any one of those three is worse run than France, suffers from a lack of government worse than France. They all are paying a smaller portion of everything for that government that they don’t lack.

Perhaps that great truth has been uncovered therefore. That taxation can be too high? The location of that discovery being interesting as it’s from the same source as the observation that sometimes the geese do indeed hiss about being plucked.

The wurst is yet to come...

It seems that ever since the Greggs vegan roll had the honour of being spat out by Piers Morgan on national television, Britain has been gripped by meat substitutes.

Now the EU has caught on to this centuries-old phenomenon by attempting to ban ‘meat-like’ names for vegetarian or vegan products.

Veggie burger on the menu? Ha, fools! We could never expect halfwits such as yourself to realise that veggie burgers are vegetarian and achieve this God-tier grasp of the English language. This is why we ought to use the word ‘disc’ to describe what everyone else accepts as a meat-free burger.

Under Article 17 of EU food consumer regulation, names currently used for meat products and meat preparations will be reserved exclusively for products containing meat. In normal people-speak, this means veggie burgers are to be called the more unpalatable name ‘veggie disc’. The measures will now be voted on by the European Parliament after May’s European elections, before being put to member states and the European Commission.

Proponents argue for this regulation under the pretence of clarity. Not only is this measure unnecessary in principle, but it is also patronising. They claim consumers will be ‘misled’. But the history of meat substitutes dates back to 595 BC where the Chinese discovered Seitan - wheat gluten, meat-like in texture. And when the Chinese discovered tofu in 965 we have been on an absolute (bacon) roll ever since.

The proposal is also hilariously ironic. I wouldn’t be surprised if vegans insisted the rest of us meat eaters were banned from using misleading names such as ‘beef’ or ‘milk’ and instead were forced to use labels such as ‘dead cow flesh’ or ‘bovine mammary secretion’.

What’s more, this also bears the mark  of rent-seeking from the meat industry lobbying politicians. While French socialist MEP Éric Andrieu claims that  “the meat lobby is not involved in this,” it certainly has their fingerprints on it. Andrieu, who is responsible for overseeing the legislation, may denounce the affiliation with the meat lobby all he wants but in effect, it is obvious that those with a ‘steak’ in the meat industry will benefit from this crony capitalist move. So, to everyone’s surprise, the ban introduced in France this time last year was by entirely neutral farmer and MP, Jean-Baptiste Moreau.

This measure will also hinder the worldwide trend toward meat substitutes for ethical, environmental and economic reasons. Molly Scott Cato, Green MEP, hopes the ban could lead to food producers giving up on trying to emulate the meat-eating world, but as previously mentioned, meat substitutes have been enjoyed for millennia.

Cato says “I think this could unlock a lot of creativity. My personal favourite is ‘nomato’ soup, which is a tomato-tasting soup made of peppers.” Regardless of the absurdity in substituting tomatoes for peppers (as if the tomato is some endangered animal), real creativity is evident in the alternative meat industry. Meat-free innovations like the ‘Impossible burger’ have the potential to revolutionise how we view the tradeoff between meat consumption and the environment, making meat healthier and more widely available.

It seems that the EU has caught a case of Jamie-Oliver-itis and can’t keep their big state mitts off our grub. There is a cure however, if the UK is outside the EU by the time the labelling rule is applied, we ought not to follow Brussels’ lead.

Victor Gollancz, an architect of the Left

Sir Victor Gollancz was born on April 9th, 1893. Although he never taught at a university, and never entered Parliament, he was one of the UK Left’s most influential figures. He became a teacher and a publisher, and a leading left-wing activist of the inter-war years.

He flirted between humanitarianism, liberalism and communism, but his sympathies were mainly with communism, even though he never joined the party. His eponymous publishing house promoted socialist and pacifist works, but his greatest achievement was the founding of the Left Book Club. It was the UK’s first book club, and lasted from 1936 to 1948. It published six million books, and prior to World War II it had 57,000 members, each guaranteed a new book a month for 2s 6d, published in lurid covers, orange for paperback (later yellow) and red for hardback.

He was a fellow traveller, one of Lenin’s “useful idiots.” He made Stalin his man of the year in 1937. Paul Foot described him as “completely captive to the Communist Party,” and who “conceded almost everything to them.” Of the Left Book Club’s first 15 choices, 12 were vetted and approved by the Communist Party, and described by Foot as “quite unreadable.”

The Book Club was immensely influential in giving intellectual weight to the Left, and is thought to have paved the way to the postwar Labour landslide. Today it is more famous for the books it didn’t publish than for the ones it did. Gollancz, who had published Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier,” declined to publish his “Homage to Catalonia” because of its criticism of the Communists in the Spanish Civil War. Orwell took it to Secker and Warburg, who went on to publish his “Animal Farm” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” two of the most powerful anti-Communist books ever written. Orwell wrote that "Gollancz is of course part of the Communism-racket."

Gollancz broke with Communism at the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939, but never renounced his hard-left ideas. His contribution rather reminds us today of the gullible idealists who latch onto and laud every regime that proclaims itself Socialist, turning a blind eye to the repressions, the political imprisonments and murders, and the cronyism of leaders who live in luxury while the common people starve. Orwell would have seen Venezuela for what it is, through the cold eyes of realism, but Gollancz, like his latter-day descendants, would only have seen it through rosy pink spectacles that admit the light of idealism, but not that of harsh reality.

Social workers on agency rates - we need to abolish national pay scales

The Guardian tells us that local councils just can’t find the staff these days. Social workers are being hired through agencies, on locum conditions, rather than being directly employed by the correct social services. We don’t doubt their data but they do seem remarkably uninterested in the reason why this is occurring, that essential precondition to being able to design an answer:

Local authorities are having to spend millions of pounds on social work agencies as they struggle to recruit permanent staff, with some authorities employing nearly half of their children’s social workers through private companies, a Guardian investigation has found.

Data obtained through freedom of information requests shows that many English councils are routinely spending tens of millions of pounds – a total of at least £335m in 2017/18 – hiring agency social workers.

Experts said the difficulty experienced by councils in attracting permanent staff meant vulnerable children and families were often seeing multiple social workers in a single year, making it harder for them to engage with services.

They said the large-scale use of agency social workers was a poor use of dwindling local authority funds, as locums received a higher hourly rate than permanent staff, on top of the fee paid to the company they were employed through.

As of September last year, 26 local authorities got more than 30% of their children’s social work staff from agencies.

The important word in all of that is “some”. Well, which? Even a casual eyeballing of their data shows that it is expensive areas - rich if you prefer - in the South, SE and London that do.

This reminds of that study of nursing wages - national pay scales kill:

In many sectors, pay is regulated to be equal across heterogeneous geographical labor markets. When the competitive outside wage is higher than the regulated wage, there are likely to be falls in quality. We exploit panel data from the population of English hospitals in which regulated pay for nurses is essentially flat across the country. Higher outside wages significantly worsen hospital quality as measured by hospital deaths for emergency heart attacks. A 10 percent increase in the outside wage is associated with a 7 percent increase in death rates. Furthermore, the regulation increases aggregate death rates in the public health care system.

To invent numbers just as examples, if the national pay for a senior nurse is £30,000 a year and we’ve two different labour markets, one where pay is, on average, £40,000 a year, the other £20,000, then we’re going to have a different labour supply of nurses in the two areas. One will find it easy enough to gain the staff required to run a hospital, the other won’t. Which is indeed what we do find. Hospitals in higher pay areas - aka richer areas - tend to be understaffed and use more agency workers than those in lower pay - aka poorer - areas.

This is exactly what we’re seeing with social workers. For note what isn’t being claimed - that there’s a national shortage. Only that certain locations cannot, at current national (yes, we know there’s a London weighting but it’s small) pay rates gain the staff they desire. The solution is thus obvious, abolish the national pay scale and make wages whatever they need to be to gain the required staff in the desired location.

Government figures show there were 5,810 children’s social worker vacancies in England in September last year, with rates ranging from 6% in Yorkshire and Humber to 26% in London.

Quite. Localise wages then.

All freedom-loving people should oppose the online harms white paper

Today we were presented with the Online Harms White Paper, a document which proposes to add a new bill to the existing cornucopia of laws – ss. 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, ss. 1(a)(1) and 1(b) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, s. 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, s. 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and ss. 1-2 of the Terrorism Act 2006, among others – that regulate political speech in the United Kingdom which is legal in much of the rest of the English-speaking world, particularly in the United States.

As the digital space increasingly supplants physical space as the preferred venue for the exchange of ideas, smaller jurisdictions – in particular, the Commonwealth jurisdictions – have begun to consider and in some cases enact draconian speech controls that would have seemed very alien to our grandfathers who stormed the beaches at Normandy, and very familiar to the soldiers attempting to repel our campaign.

Existing British laws that criminalize speech have failed, so far, to turn the Internet into a civil and gentle place. The Internet, of course, isn’t the problem; speech online is nasty because people are nasty. So the Government now wants to enlist tech platforms as de facto morality police to achieve with algorithms what the Government could not achieve with legislation: controlling thought on the Internet.

The Government proposes to do so by borrowing a concept from tort law, the “duty of care,” and saying that social media platforms owe such a duty to their customers.

Of course, the duty of care in tort usually means that there are “such close and direct relations” between the victim of harm and the person inflicting it – teacher-pupil, road users, client-solicitor, doctor-patient – "that the act complained of directly affects a person whom the person alleged to be bound to take care would know would be directly affected by his careless act."

Where such a proximate relationship exists, if a failure to discharge the duty would cause harm which is reasonably foreseeable, and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the service provider, a duty of care may be said to exist. Caparo v. Dickman, 1990 UKHL 2. Where such a breach is committed, damage is caused, and the breach is a proximate cause of the damage, the law recognizes a private cause of action in negligence in favour of the damaged party against the tortfeasor.

That’s not what the government proposes here. In the Online Harms White Paper, the phrase “Duty of Care” is used as a pleasant-sounding, but legally hollow, punch line rather than as a description of a 90-year-old bedrock principle of English law.

The proposed bill would require any company “that provide(s) services or tools that allow, enable, or facilitate users to share or discover user-generated content, or interact with each other online,” i.e. any company that operates an interactive application, to “keep their users safe and tackle illegal and harmful activity on their services.” Proposed penalties would be up to 4% of the offending company’s worldwide turnover.

But what does this mean? “Illegal” of course, has a certain definition and can be understood. “Harmful” is a wider term which encompasses prima facie lawful activity, under which the government includes “cyberbullying and trolling,” i.e., discourse.

What about the term “safe?” Recalling the playground proverb that “sticks and stones may break my bones; but words will never hurt me,” the Government appears to believe that exposure to harmful ideas is itself harmful. Maybe it is, to a political agenda. But it certainly isn’t in terms of any category of civil wrong recognized by English law up to today.

Furthermore, if we were looking at the traditional "duty of care," it would be worth noting that the law of negligence which creates the duty of care tells us that knowing and voluntary assumption of risk is an absolute defense to a negligence action. Users who log on to the Internet are not helpless lemmings. They know what they’re getting themselves into. They consent to being there. They can log off at any time. Nobody is forcing them to read this content.

This shows us that the Online Harms White Paper really isn’t about a “duty of care” at all, because no duty of care actually exists and even if it did, social media companies have an absolute defense. This proposal is about preventing Internet users from engaging in knowing and voluntary speech, and it's about recruiting vast armies of private sector policemen to patrol their thoughts, even if those thoughts are perfectly legal.

There are other measures – improving free speech protections to permit data sharing with the United States, or banning under-13s from use of social media – which would be more effective in preventing serious crime, more proportional to the stated aims of the white paper, and directed at actual, physical, actionable “harm” that could possibly arise from social media, without affecting one whit the ability of adult Britons to engage in legitimate political discourse.

The Online Harms White Paper is, at its core, illiberal, and incompatible with English ideas of harm and of freedom. As presently conceived, it would give the Government – not only this Government, but also any Government that might succeed it in the near or distant future – almost unlimited power to use large tech companies as proxies to control expression online, anywhere in the world. Existing controls on speech and enforcement mechanisms are more than adequate; indeed, if anything, Britain’s speech laws are too restrictive and many should be repealed or reformed.

All freedom-loving people should oppose this proposal.

Lady Thatcher died six years ago

Lady Thatcher died on April 8th, 2013. I was at lunch with friends in the Old Monk Exchange in Westminster, when a news flash appeared on the (silent) TV screen. In some ways it was a relief, in that she had suffered poor health and memory loss in her later years. On April 27th she was honoured with a ceremonial (public) funeral. To untrained eyes this looks like the pomp and ceremony of a state funeral, but the hearse was drawn by horses instead of troops, and there was no riderless horse with boots revered in stirrups. The late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, had been similarly honoured, unlike Churchill, who had received a full state funeral.

The funeral was described by Owen Jones as “a £10m party political broadcast for the Conservative Party,” but it cost only £3.6m, of which £3.1m was for security. This was thought necessary because the Left had demonized her into a hate figure, though the moment the Queen announced she would attend the service in St Paul’s, the prospect of anti-Thatcher demonstrations diminished. In the event, a tiny number of people turned their backs as the cortege passed, and were angrily harangued by the huge crowds of supporters.

Ordinary people, whose lives had been uplifted by her policies, gathered in their thousands to pay their respects and say farewell. Some had bought their own homes, thanks to her right-to-buy. Others had seen much-needed improvements in now-privatized but previously ailing state industries and utilities. Some had become first-time share buyers during her privatization issues. Many more were simply there to say thanks for the pride she had given them once again in their nation. She had turned around a desperate and bankrupt nation and enabled it to walk proudly again on the world stage.

The Left made her a hate figure because she helped kill off Socialism for a generation, not only in the UK, but on a global scale. Those who had dreamed that one day Socialism would encompass the world found their future taken away from them, and they hated her for it.

They claimed she “destroyed manufacturing,” but in fact manufacturing increased during her terms. They say she destroyed the coal-mining industry, but in fact more pits closed under Harold Wilson than under her. UK coal-mining had been in long-term decline because it was uncompetitive. They claim she increased poverty and cut welfare pending, but in fact living standards rose dramatically over her terms, and welfare spending increased. And far from “laying waste public services,“ they all improved after they were privatized.

The fact is that she was a successful Prime Minister. one who turned her country around and left it improved beyond recognition. The hundreds of thousands of well-wishers who turned out to pay their respects knew that, and cheered as she passed on her final journey.

Well done to the unions, entirely missing the point of contracting out

The complaint here is that NHS pay is at one level. Because, you know, Our Angels in Blue and all that. But those who are cleaners and washers up in the NHS doesn’t get these rates of pay because they’re contracted out. Yes, this is the point of the contracting out:

Tens of thousands of NHS workers are struggling to get by on the minimum wage because their private sector employers are failing to match public sector pay rises.

The estimated 100,000 low-paid cleaners, porters, security guards and catering staff who work for private contractors in hospitals across England are being treated as “second-class employees”, thanks to a growing pay divide between public and private sector workers, according to the country’s leading health union.

...

The union wants everyone employed within the NHS to be on at least £9.03 an hour. Currently, Unison says, many staff employed by private contractors are on the minimum wage, which is £8.21, equating to an annual salary of £16,052, or £1,600 a year less than what the lowest-paid worker in the public sector is paid.

“All hospital workers are part of the NHS team and should be paid fairly for the important jobs they do,” said Sara Gorton, Unison’s head of health. “The days of treating them as second-class employees must end.”

We want to pay cleaners what it is necessary to pay people to come and clean. We want to pay pot washers what it is that will gain us an adequate supply of pot washers. That’s simply how labour allocation and wages work in a market economy.

One of the points about contracting out was precisely to be able to distinguish between those hard to find skills necessary for the NHS to function and those that can be found out just in the general economy at whatever pay rates.

To claim that non-medical staff are paid the general economy rate, not the NHS one, because they are contracted out is to miss the very point of having contracting out in the first place. We’re trying to make that distinction, that’s the justification of the idea in the first place.

Venezuela Campaign: Chavez' enrichment was for the few, not the many

There is a myth that Chavez reduced poverty in Venezuela. That he helped the poorest at the expense of the rich. It is untrue. Venezuela has, under his and his successor’s policies now become the most unequal society in the Americas, with income inequality even worse than Haiti’s. 91% of Venezuelans live in poverty, with 61% living in extreme poverty (less than $1.9 per day).

A tiny Chavista elite, who have made fortunes from rampant corruption, dominate the rest of the population, 90% of whom don’t have enough money to meet their nutritional needs. A recent survey on poverty carried out by UCAB University showed that more than 8 million Venezuelans don’t get enough to eat. Meanwhile, Venezuela is seventh in the world in numbers of quantity of private jets, just behind the UK, with the Chavista elite jet setting around the world to visit their various luxury homes.

Against the fact of Venezuela’s failed economy today, some claim that when he was President Hugo Chavez made advances against poverty. But this is not true. Although there was a splurge of state spending in the early years of Chavez’s rule, no sustainable reduction in poverty ever occurred.

In itself, reducing poverty was never an objective for Chavez.  His aim was to use state spending to secure loyalty to his regime.

Direct cash transfers and subsidies were used to buy short-term political support from the poor and middle class.  No effort was made to address the structural conditions that were actually causing poverty. When the cash transfers and the subsidies ceased, the situation of the poor became much worse as the surrounding economy had been destroyed by Chavista economic policies.

Most of Chavez’s public spending initiatives took the form of so-called “missions,” programmes that were quite separate from public sector institutions such as state schools or public hospitals. The funding of these institutions took second place to “missions” and “campaigns.” As many of these missions were largely staffed by Cubans they could not build the capacity of Venezuelan public sector staff. The missions gave Chavez a rationale to transfer huge sums to the Cuban regime in return for what he truly desired – their military and intelligence support.

The health programme, Barrio Adentro, was delivered by imported Cuban staff in separate facilities that were built wastefully, with billions lost to corruption.  It went into immediate decline, from reaching 11.7 million people in 2005 to 6.7 million in 2011, to virtually zero today. Throughout this period, Venezuela’s public hospitals were neglected and today they have so little equipment and available medicines that they can barely function at all. Even when it was operating, over 90% of the people who received support from the Cuban-run Barrio Adentro health programme were not poor.  Loyalty to the regime dictated whether you would be treated or not.

The picture regarding the educational missions, such as Mission Robinson, is similar. Even back in 2013 traditional education covered 99.4% of students, with missions benefiting only 0.6% of students.  According to a 2011 Central Bank study, traditional Venezuelan poverty reduction programmes that were put into place long before Chavez came to power – such as subsidised school meals and transport, scholarships and vaccinations – were much more effective than Chavez’s missions, which have now collapsed.

The missions were supplemented by programmes which directly transferred goods and cash to government supporters, with recipients were selected by regime officials with the intention of securing their loyalty. Such spending increased in election years with, for example, a 74% increase in these transfers prior to the 2012 election. Now that the economy has collapsed and there are shortages of food and essentials, it is easier for the regime to buy loyalty, even though it has fewer resources available.  While Chavez used to hand out flat-screen TVs to supporters, the regime has since 2016 been handing out toilet paper to loyal soldiers.

It is simply a fact that Chavez’s so-called ‘efforts’ to reduce poverty ended up hugely increasing poverty. Chavez instead enriched a tiny elite. State spending in Chavez and Maduro’s Venezuela was always designed to buy support for a corrupt, dictatorial and ineffective regime, one that has that has created more poverty more quickly than any other country in Latin American history. The short termism and corruption of the Chavistas should never be praised or considered as any type of model for lifting nations out of poverty.

More information on the Venezuela Campaign can be found on their website.