This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.8 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Saturday 28 February 2009
CO2 EMISSION CONTROLS KILLING CALIFORNIA'S JOBS
This report explains the details. Clearly this is contributing to the dire financial situation in the state. See earlier report by scrolling down to Wednesday's reports.
This demonstrates typical one dimensional thinking on the issue of jobs. Instead of looking at the economy as a whole, it assumes every job is valuable, isolates particularly troublesome parts, and extrapolates a conclusion for the economy in general (note the headline). Think about it holistically instead. The US has the greatest amount of retail space [1], and a sprawling road network (at least 6.2 million km) that consumes more energy [2], per capita, than any other nation. It has some 18.6 million unoccupied houses [3], and yet 1% of Americans are homeless [4]! All that needs to be maintained, adding further costs and threatening lives when it is not [5]. The demand for cement is idiotic and unsustainable. Instead of purchasing expensive scrubbing systems and maintaining production levels, resources must be allocated sensibly, and alternatives found where needed. This may be by city form, transport systems, and constraint on construction. The US is now entering at least a recession, more likely collapse, with excess infrastructure. Employment is not necessarily correlated with productive activity. Was it worth wasting all those resources for a handful of jobs? Furthermore, the purchase of all those resources required taking on debt, the collapse of which is causing far more job losses than an orderly reorganisation would.
So, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting the USA needs a complete change to its economy involving closing much of its road network and its retail facilities and its industry. I am expected to believe that this can be done in an orderly manner by creating the equivalent amount of new green jobs.
Even Obama isn't going to go that far. In fact I expect that he will decide to postpone and dilute any CO2 emissions policy that will further hurt the economy. The suggestions that you make would be certain to lead to his defeat at the next election, and that is what any elected politician puts at the forefront of his mind. That is the reason why even though politicians talk the talk about "saving the planet", in practice they are much more concerned with saving their jobs - thank goodness - because in this case, as you know, I believe the whole theory to be based on a false premise.
Yes, the US needs to completely change its economy. Almost every country does, for that matter. If it is not done voluntarily it will be done chaotically as it is now. It is unfortunate that the whole mess needs to collapse before this is widely understood. Note that seed companies are doing very well [1], bicycle sales are exploding [2], and nuclear power plants plans are being shelved [3]. What I believe should be done (by government) is not what I believe will be done. One reason is exactly as you describe, another is people like you childishly cling to old arrangements and cannot be convinced that they have no future.
What false premise? Do you actually believe the ridiculous amount of retail space and road network is necessary or valuable? Do you not believe that most of it was constructed with resources that are limited in quantity, can't be recovered, and could have better uses? Do you believe that these developments, motivated by short term profits, are not misallocations now that mall after mall is being vacated, auto sales and miles driven is plummeting? So far the market disagrees with you despite the best efforts of government, and it's not clear how it will turn around if we are indeed past peak oil.
When I said it was based on a false premise, I was referring to the CO2 based global warming theory, on which all the costly CO2 emission control policies are based.
I am delighted to learn that bicycles are selling well, and seeds too (does that include GM seeds?) Cigarettes are also doing very well (I have shares and they paid out a very good dividend)
Having just visited the USA, I do agree that there are too many shopping malls and some will close, but They will not stop driving as the distances are just too large for cycling to be viable. The market does not necessarily agree with either of us, but it will remain nervous in the short term until confidence returns, which it will in a year or two and things will return to normal.
"They will not stop driving as the distances are just too large for cycling to be viable"
Sure they will stop driving, to the degree that they can't afford it, have alternatives, or higher priorities. You have a strange belief that human want alone can power anything. The US imports about 70% of its oil, and if international trade or distribution were disrupted, or severe underinvestment or depletion crippled production you will find out in a hurry that people can stop driving. They may lose their jobs and starve, but hunger doesn't power cars and trucks.
"it will remain nervous in the short term until confidence returns, which it will in a year or two and things will return to normal"
How do you figure what 'normal' is? If we take a long view (say millennia), then normal is no cars, no internet, no tractors, no artificial fertiliser and much fewer people. The 'normal' growth of the last century has not had much of a track record, and was amazingly well correlated with growth in production of many limited resources.
I'm curious as to what you think the significance of cigarettes doing well is. I'm only saying that the unsustainable will end. That's what unsustainable means. If cigarettes are unsustainable then they will decline at some stage too, but I suspect that people will be able to grow tobacco and marijuana far into the future.
I mention cigarettes as an example of a market that seems to be beating the recession. Whether something is sustainable is a matter of considerable debate. See my post on "green jobs". The article referred to in that makes some very pertinent points. Even bicycles, for example, require the consumption of energy and resources, not to mention transporting them to market.
You seem to be forecasting this recession to be still here in two years. You may be right, but I don't expect it to result in such dramatic changes to our lifestyles as you do.
My point is that now people have expreienced the "luxuries" of modern life they will not be willing to give them up. Politicians know this and so they will not bring in policies which will be likely to let this happen.
Th economy is the number one priority of any democratic government, quite rightly, and everything else, other than fighting a war, comes second. With the climate failing to warm up as predicted, any expensive policy relating to it will go on to the back burner.
In a downturn there are plenty of sectors that receive a boost, but it's at the cost of some other sector. People revert to lower cost products to enjoy themselves and relieve their stress; cigarettes and lipstick instead of holidays overseas. It doesn't mean that these sectors are resilient indefinitely.
I agree that it is hard to identify exactly what is sustainable since not everything is accounted for. For this reason we must err on the side of caution. I don't advocate building giant wind farms or solar arrays for example. Never-the-less, it is not so hard to identify relative advantages. For example, a bicycle is more sustainable than a car - it is the most efficient form of transport invented. With good maintenance a bicycle can operate for a long time, but a car is useless as soon as fuel is unavailable, or a vital part can't be replaced or repaired. Growing food in our backyards is more sustainable than industrial agriculture. Not using as much electricity is more sustainable than building a nuclear power station or solar panel. In general, the trend is toward simpler mechanisms to satisfy needs. This is what collapse is; a reduction in complexity.
People may not be willing to give up luxuries, but reality has the final word. If they do not behave in a way conducive to survival then they are likely to be removed from the gene pool.
You give politicians too much credit. Look at their vain attempts to reverse the "recession". They are making matters worse! Why do you have any confidence in them, especially when they pursue silly policies such as emissions trading schemes?
I am very sceptical of politicians, though there are some decent ones among them. Completely agree about Emission Trading Schemes - they are of no use at all, other than to make some rich at the expense of the rest. A tax on carbon is little better. Mind you, I see no need to reduce CO2 at all.
You said "Politicians know this and so they will not bring in policies which will be likely to let this happen."
Then you go on about how the market will 'sort itself out'. The only thing governments can do is interfere with the market, so you have to believe that governments are not in a position to prevent collapse from happening and the best thing they can do is nothing.
Whether the market can prevent it either is another question. You're already convinced of the result - that things will look pretty much like they did before - but the market may be unable to provide that, since it is bound by the laws of physics, human intellect, emotion and organisation. But hey, don't bother making any preparations if you're so confident.
Let's be clear, politicians will try to avert the worst of the crisis, but the market is impossible to control fully. Government response is limited and it is a blunt instrument. Some firms will collapse. There will be some differences after this is over. We can only make limited preparations for this, by avoiding taking on too much debt and making investments as securely as we can. It is not an exact science.
Some people will lose a lot, while others will come through unscathed.
What governments cannot do is spend massive sums in a vain attempt to stop climate change, when faced with the very serious economic problems.
The only thing you've made clear is that you have little understanding of the crisis. The fractional reserve banking system, with interest payable on debt, requires growth to function. The economy will naturally reach a limit because we exist in a world of finite dimensions and resources, and at that point the financial system will break down. Efforts by government do nothing to address this fundamental flaw, and have the effects of:
1) Transferring wealth and future earnings from people who didn't necessarily gain from the giant Ponzi scheme (could be you!) to people who did (corporations and bankers) 2) Preventing the market from finding true value by distorting the money supply, arbitrarily changing regulations, fudging statistics and hiding relevant information 3) Pushing proper resolution into the future by maintaining a false and superficial sense of normalcy
So government is not "averting the worst of the crisis", they are making the crisis worse!
"We can only make limited preparations for this". You don't even understand the crisis, so how can you know what we can do to prepare for it?
We are dealing with the consequences of our unsustainable way of life. Government may be ineffective in dealing with climate change because it can't resolve the dichotomy of respecting the Earth and economic growth, which it equates to prosperity. We don't have to suffer under the same false choice. Needless and meaningless economic growth can only lead to ruin. Living within the limits of the planet will allow the climate to operate naturally and give us true prosperity. The question is how do we dump the old, corrupt system and transition to a sustainable one.
This demonstrates typical one dimensional thinking on the issue of jobs. Instead of looking at the economy as a whole, it assumes every job is valuable, isolates particularly troublesome parts, and extrapolates a conclusion for the economy in general (note the headline). Think about it holistically instead. The US has the greatest amount of retail space [1], and a sprawling road network (at least 6.2 million km) that consumes more energy [2], per capita, than any other nation. It has some 18.6 million unoccupied houses [3], and yet 1% of Americans are homeless [4]! All that needs to be maintained, adding further costs and threatening lives when it is not [5]. The demand for cement is idiotic and unsustainable. Instead of purchasing expensive scrubbing systems and maintaining production levels, resources must be allocated sensibly, and alternatives found where needed. This may be by city form, transport systems, and constraint on construction. The US is now entering at least a recession, more likely collapse, with excess infrastructure. Employment is not necessarily correlated with productive activity. Was it worth wasting all those resources for a handful of jobs? Furthermore, the purchase of all those resources required taking on debt, the collapse of which is causing far more job losses than an orderly reorganisation would.
ReplyDelete[1] http://transmetweb.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mags_diary21_retail_graph_21.jpg
[2] http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/chart-diagramme/stg2/c_13_67_2_8_eng.png?20081211190347301
[3] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/186-million-empty-houses.php
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States
[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559344/Mississippi-bridge-collapse-survivors-speak.html
So, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting the USA needs a complete change to its economy involving closing much of its road network and its retail facilities and its industry. I am expected to believe that this can be done in an orderly manner by creating the equivalent amount of new green jobs.
ReplyDeleteEven Obama isn't going to go that far. In fact I expect that he will decide to postpone and dilute any CO2 emissions policy that will further hurt the economy. The suggestions that you make would be certain to lead to his defeat at the next election, and that is what any elected politician puts at the forefront of his mind. That is the reason why even though politicians talk the talk about "saving the planet", in practice they are much more concerned with saving their jobs - thank goodness - because in this case, as you know, I believe the whole theory to be based on a false premise.
Yes, the US needs to completely change its economy. Almost every country does, for that matter. If it is not done voluntarily it will be done chaotically as it is now. It is unfortunate that the whole mess needs to collapse before this is widely understood. Note that seed companies are doing very well [1], bicycle sales are exploding [2], and nuclear power plants plans are being shelved [3]. What I believe should be done (by government) is not what I believe will be done. One reason is exactly as you describe, another is people like you childishly cling to old arrangements and cannot be convinced that they have no future.
ReplyDeleteWhat false premise? Do you actually believe the ridiculous amount of retail space and road network is necessary or valuable? Do you not believe that most of it was constructed with resources that are limited in quantity, can't be recovered, and could have better uses? Do you believe that these developments, motivated by short term profits, are not misallocations now that mall after mall is being vacated, auto sales and miles driven is plummeting? So far the market disagrees with you despite the best efforts of government, and it's not clear how it will turn around if we are indeed past peak oil.
[1] http://www.theolympian.com/181/story/729448.html
[2] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/bicycle_sales_a.php
[3] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122888424618894233.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace
When I said it was based on a false premise, I was referring to the CO2 based global warming theory, on which all the costly CO2 emission control policies are based.
ReplyDeleteI am delighted to learn that bicycles are selling well, and seeds too (does that include GM seeds?) Cigarettes are also doing very well (I have shares and they paid out a very good dividend)
Having just visited the USA, I do agree that there are too many shopping malls and some will close, but They will not stop driving as the distances are just too large for cycling to be viable. The market does not necessarily agree with either of us, but it will remain nervous in the short term until confidence returns, which it will in a year or two and things will return to normal.
"They will not stop driving as the distances are just too large for cycling to be viable"
ReplyDeleteSure they will stop driving, to the degree that they can't afford it, have alternatives, or higher priorities. You have a strange belief that human want alone can power anything. The US imports about 70% of its oil, and if international trade or distribution were disrupted, or severe underinvestment or depletion crippled production you will find out in a hurry that people can stop driving. They may lose their jobs and starve, but hunger doesn't power cars and trucks.
"it will remain nervous in the short term until confidence returns, which it will in a year or two and things will return to normal"
I see, so it will be the same as every other recession we've had then? You've obviously put a lot of thought and research into it. This is just a blip on the ever upward path of human progress? If you are still here in a couple of years time I'll try to drop in and see how your blasé prediction turned out.
How do you figure what 'normal' is? If we take a long view (say millennia), then normal is no cars, no internet, no tractors, no artificial fertiliser and much fewer people. The 'normal' growth of the last century has not had much of a track record, and was amazingly well correlated with growth in production of many limited resources.
I'm curious as to what you think the significance of cigarettes doing well is. I'm only saying that the unsustainable will end. That's what unsustainable means. If cigarettes are unsustainable then they will decline at some stage too, but I suspect that people will be able to grow tobacco and marijuana far into the future.
ReplyDeleteI mention cigarettes as an example of a market that seems to be beating the recession. Whether something is sustainable is a matter of considerable debate. See my post on "green jobs". The article referred to in that makes some very pertinent points. Even bicycles, for example, require the consumption of energy and resources, not to mention transporting them to market.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be forecasting this recession to be still here in two years. You may be right, but I don't expect it to result in such dramatic changes to our lifestyles as you do.
My point is that now people have expreienced the "luxuries" of modern life they will not be willing to give them up. Politicians know this and so they will not bring in policies which will be likely to let this happen.
Th economy is the number one priority of any democratic government, quite rightly, and everything else, other than fighting a war, comes second. With the climate failing to warm up as predicted, any expensive policy relating to it will go on to the back burner.
In a downturn there are plenty of sectors that receive a boost, but it's at the cost of some other sector. People revert to lower cost products to enjoy themselves and relieve their stress; cigarettes and lipstick instead of holidays overseas. It doesn't mean that these sectors are resilient indefinitely.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is hard to identify exactly what is sustainable since not everything is accounted for. For this reason we must err on the side of caution. I don't advocate building giant wind farms or solar arrays for example. Never-the-less, it is not so hard to identify relative advantages. For example, a bicycle is more sustainable than a car - it is the most efficient form of transport invented. With good maintenance a bicycle can operate for a long time, but a car is useless as soon as fuel is unavailable, or a vital part can't be replaced or repaired. Growing food in our backyards is more sustainable than industrial agriculture. Not using as much electricity is more sustainable than building a nuclear power station or solar panel. In general, the trend is toward simpler mechanisms to satisfy needs. This is what collapse is; a reduction in complexity.
People may not be willing to give up luxuries, but reality has the final word. If they do not behave in a way conducive to survival then they are likely to be removed from the gene pool.
You give politicians too much credit. Look at their vain attempts to reverse the "recession". They are making matters worse! Why do you have any confidence in them, especially when they pursue silly policies such as emissions trading schemes?
I am very sceptical of politicians, though there are some decent ones among them. Completely agree about Emission Trading Schemes - they are of no use at all, other than to make some rich at the expense of the rest. A tax on carbon is little better. Mind you, I see no need to reduce CO2 at all.
ReplyDeleteWell mate, put two and two together: politicians are not going to avert collapse!
ReplyDeleteThe market is bigger than politicians and it will eventually sort itself out - rather like evolution. Some will survive while others become extinct.
ReplyDeleteGet your story straight!
ReplyDeleteYou said "Politicians know this and so they will not bring in policies which will be likely to let this happen."
Then you go on about how the market will 'sort itself out'. The only thing governments can do is interfere with the market, so you have to believe that governments are not in a position to prevent collapse from happening and the best thing they can do is nothing.
Whether the market can prevent it either is another question. You're already convinced of the result - that things will look pretty much like they did before - but the market may be unable to provide that, since it is bound by the laws of physics, human intellect, emotion and organisation. But hey, don't bother making any preparations if you're so confident.
Let's be clear, politicians will try to avert the worst of the crisis, but the market is impossible to control fully. Government response is limited and it is a blunt instrument. Some firms will collapse. There will be some differences after this is over. We can only make limited preparations for this, by avoiding taking on too much debt and making investments as securely as we can. It is not an exact science.
ReplyDeleteSome people will lose a lot, while others will come through unscathed.
What governments cannot do is spend massive sums in a vain attempt to stop climate change, when faced with the very serious economic problems.
The only thing you've made clear is that you have little understanding of the crisis. The fractional reserve banking system, with interest payable on debt, requires growth to function. The economy will naturally reach a limit because we exist in a world of finite dimensions and resources, and at that point the financial system will break down. Efforts by government do nothing to address this fundamental flaw, and have the effects of:
ReplyDelete1) Transferring wealth and future earnings from people who didn't necessarily gain from the giant Ponzi scheme (could be you!) to people who did (corporations and bankers)
2) Preventing the market from finding true value by distorting the money supply, arbitrarily changing regulations, fudging statistics and hiding relevant information
3) Pushing proper resolution into the future by maintaining a false and superficial sense of normalcy
So government is not "averting the worst of the crisis", they are making the crisis worse!
"We can only make limited preparations for this".
You don't even understand the crisis, so how can you know what we can do to prepare for it?
We are dealing with the consequences of our unsustainable way of life. Government may be ineffective in dealing with climate change because it can't resolve the dichotomy of respecting the Earth and economic growth, which it equates to prosperity. We don't have to suffer under the same false choice. Needless and meaningless economic growth can only lead to ruin. Living within the limits of the planet will allow the climate to operate naturally and give us true prosperity. The question is how do we dump the old, corrupt system and transition to a sustainable one.