Only 18 percent of survey respondents strongly believe that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful.
Yes you read that correctly, it is all in this article on the Nature Conservancy webpage. And that goes along with what was discovered in June this year by the newspapers UK Guardian and Observer, which reported that:
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans – and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem…
The Nature Conservancy story citing 18 percent, is citing the American Climate Values Survey (ACVS), conducted by the consulting group EcoAmerica It also found that political party affiliation is the single largest indicator as to whether people see climate change as a threat.
It seems it is all political, as there are some other fascinating tidbits. For example:
- Convinced it’s happening: 54 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats.
- Think that weather has gotten more severe: 44 percent of Republicans; 77 percent of Democrats.
- Noticed the climate changing: 54 percent of Republicans; 84 percent of Democrats.
- Trust Al Gore when he talks about global warming: 22 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
- Trust environmentalists who talk about global warming: 38 percent of Republicans; 71 percent of Democrats.
- Trust anyone who talks about global warming: 39 percent of Republicans; 75 percent of Democrats.
h/t to Tom Nelson
David Mills, I wonder who is truly clueless? I also have a small business and it is taxes and government regulation that burdens small businesses. It is regulation and taxes that make it harder for the little guy and the start up company to compete with the established large businesses. Just take a look at the lobbyists in D.C. They are forever pressing politicians to pass new laws which will give their company an advantage over their competition, sometimes outright making the competion’s product illegal. General Electric and the mandate that we all switch over to compact flourescent bulbs is one that comes to mind. T. Boone Pickens and his wind farm/natural gas boondoggle is another. Heck, I would love it if the government required my product in every household.
Minimum wage laws and mandated employee benefits hurt the smallest businesses the most. Large companies have no problem meeting those mandates, small companies struggle just to pay the light bill, let alone pay more in order to assuage the guilt of the public. If I can strike a bargain with someone who is freely willing to work for $2.00 per hour, why is it anyone elses business?
I don’t know if anyone has suggested this but wouldn’t it be a nice control to have driven for a similar distance outside of Reno in the desert at the same elevation while logging temperature data for that stretch of road. See if (a) the temperature was indeed lower and (b) there was less excursion than between the in-town logged minimum and maximum temperatures.
Sorry. I meant this question for the “UHI is real, in Reno at least” thread.
Dee Norris (11:00:36) :
“Coal, Nuke and Oil fired plants need to keep the boiler hot regardless if the steam-driven turbine is spinning (it takes 9-12 hrs to fire up a boiler), so when the wind turbines spin up in a breeze, the boiler-based plants don’t just stop using fuel.”
Just a clarification. Nukes have reactors not boilers and when I worked in power production we developed fast starts at our coal fired plants where older less efficient plants were operating and we could put a unit on-line in 2 or 3 hours as I recall. The old units operating at minimum load such as over night had a high incremental cost so there were considerable savings by shutting them down over night and using fast startups.
edcon: “Nukes have reactors not boilers ”
Could you expand on this. I was always under the impression, apparently incorrectly, that nuclear power plants still used steam and just used the heat from the reactor core as the way to heat the boilers.
edcon (14:28:05) :
“Just a clarification. Nukes have reactors not boilers.”
Huh? I never worked at a power plant, though my father designed some of the first computerized control systems for them.
Check out Pressurized Water Reactors at http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/pwr.htm where the reactor heats the Reactor Coolant which transfers heat in the secondary system to boil water, making steam that turns a steam turbine. This is an extra stage compared to coal/oil/gas boilers and provides an extra level of separation between RCS coolant which can pick up some radioisotopes, and the secondary system which is primarily outside of the containment structure.
Check out Boiling Water Reactors at http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/bwr.htm which have a single stage cycle more like fossil fueled plants.
Nuke operators like to keep things running in part to reduce thermal cycling and the stress it can cause to expensive components. Failures cause loss of operating time, hassles with many parties, and keeping radioactive atoms in the plant, see http://www.nucleartourist.com/events/sg_tube.htm
davidgmills:
While I agree with some of what you say, I can not agree that Republicans are in any way worse than Democrats. In fact, they’re much more sympathetic to business, while Democrats are much more sympathetic to labor. [FYI, I’m neither an R or a D.]
I too was a small business owner for more than 35 years before I retired. I had no trouble competing. But I do agree with you here: “…what I don’t like is when the government gives the big boys all the breaks, gives them the no-bid government contracts…”
No-bid contracts are wrong. One recent example that comes to mind is Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-Corrupt], who as chairperson of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into her husband’s company in no-bid contracts.
Is that what you were talking about?
“davidgmills (11:14:59) :
Jim B.
Have you ever even had a small business? Because you are clueless. I have had my own for twenty-five years. If small businesses are going out of business, it is not because they are being taxed too much; it’s because the economy sucks and they don’t have any business. ”
Well david…sorry to disappoint and throw the wheels off your wagon, but yes, I have been a small business owner. A successful small business owner, in fact.
My business employed up to 12 people at it’s peak, so I think by any measure, that’s small?
I merged my small business with another larger, small business, and eventually left the newly formed company to go after other lines of work that interested me.
After that, I was partner in another small business. So yes, I have experience.
That you lay all of the financial ills of the world at the feet of the republicans, quite frankly points to you being a bit ill-informed, or narrow minded, take your pick, as there’s plenty of blame to go around.
but rest assured, whatever your political alignments are, the economy is going to get worse before it gets better.
Once carbon cap/trade is introduced?…forget it. Price of energy will go through the roof. Already is by many counts, but it’s going to get worse.
Simple supply and demand…demand for energy is going up, measurably, as a product/requirement of economic growth, but limits will make what energy IS available even more expensive.
Jim
I am probably in agreement with many here that minimum wage regulations are a major cause of inflation and a major killer to small businesses. However, a tax break for income earners in the middle class and below would jumpstart the economy without leading to sustained inflation. Supply and demand prices would flex naturally based on the time demand for goods shot up and then was satisfied. After that the cost of goods would decrease as demand softened. It then tends to continue on a slow simmering level. Regular infusions of cash in the pocket leads to a perking pot of coffee. While there are good arguments on both sides of the “trickle” theories, a paycheck that is a bit richer than before has a much greater chance of revving up the economy far quicker than an encumbered large business going through the process of dealing with what to do with their tax break or responding to increased demand. The best solution lies in the middle class and small business, but that doesn’t make the other solution wrong. Can the other side say as much about my solution? Is it possible for you to believe that while your solution is better, that does not make my solution wrong?
“However, a tax break for income earners in the middle class and below would jumpstart the economy without leading to sustained inflation.”
First, for anyone to comment one way or the other on this, you HAVE to define “middle class”. What group of wage earners are you referring to?
I’ve already posted the tax data for you that shows that statistically, %86 of ALL income taxes are paid by the top %25 of workers. The bottom %50 pay %3.
So who would you give the tax break to? People that make how much money?
Jim
“However, a tax break for income earners in the middle class and below would jumpstart the economy without leading to sustained inflation.”
AND…isn’t this what happened this past spring, when the gummint sent people a check? My son received a check for $300, which was pretty funny, because he only paid about $100 in taxes. Me, on the other hand, received a check for $0, nip, nadda, zippo, nuttin. How did a “rebate” that ended up being more than some people even PAID in taxes to begin with work in terms of stimulation?
Jim
Nothing wrong with a tax cut for the middle class (that part of the MC that pays taxes in the first place, that is).
There should be a tax cut across the board, definitely NOT excluding th rich.
Remember, Pamela, when Bush “cut taxes for the rich”, the result was:
A.) The rich paid MORE taxes.
B.) The rich paid a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of taxes than before the tax cut!
Anyone who would be against that is (intentionally or not)–by definition–in favor of Class Warfare.
Anyone who thinks a tax cut has to be “paid for” doesn’t understand that the economy grows more (or, in bad times, shrinks less) when taxes are cut. The economy is NOT a fixed pie. It can grow. And it can also SHRINK.
Currently our top tax rate is so high it is not only harming production, it is even harming revenue itself! Look at how Eastern Europe succeeded after the tax cuts of the 90s. And how revenue grew. Look at how the Reagan tax cuts reduced tax level by over one half, and yet there was MORE revenue.
Don’t shrink the pie, Pamela! Just because someone else gets more does NOT mean you get less.
If more people understood this, we would ALL be better off. Especially the poor!
For me to be against tax cuts for the rich, someone has to show me how making the rich poorer will make the poor richer. Ain’t gonna happen. I have already (partially) listed the historical examples.
So sure, Pamela, cut MC taxes. Cut ALL taxes!
Part of why I want to point all this out to you, Pamela, is that you are a TEACHER. I want you to be conveying correct and constructive economic information, not disastrously incorrect information that is terribly damaging to the poor and middle class.
Same deal goes for climate science. You are in a position to affect the thinking of many minds for many years. That makes you a valuable fighting man in a key position. So do good. (And do no harm!)
Miss Gray said (22:11:58) :
“Lets go back prior to Carter. The settlement of the west: Gold rush time. Miners had cold hard cash in their pockets. Not a lot. But enough. And they worked pretty damned hard at getting it. But then they needed to buy stuff in order to keep working pretty damned hard to get more cash. Demand for stuff went up. Shops were opened. Shops couldn’t keep inventory on the shelf. More inventory was ordered. Stores were expanded and more clerks were employed. Money flowed. Wealth was created. Trickle up. ”
I do so hate to disagree with you Miss Gray, but the example you gave is classic trickle down not trickle up.
The miners produced something new. They created new wealth by bringing into the economy a product that was previously just a lump of rock. From their initial creation of new wealth they caused other businesses to either start or expand so as to put that new wealth to maximum use.
Trickle down / trickle up is not about where someone stands in the social strata it is about whether they create new wealth or benefit from the distribution of that wealth.
The miner finds a good seam and needs help to exploit it so he employs other people to help him and pays them a wage. Between them they create wealth but THE creator is the miner who had the initiative and took the chance.
davidgmills (10:41:50) :
“Hey Fatbigot. While you complain about the cost of government subsidies of windmills and windfarms costing a trivial few billion dollars/pounds (now that the two currencies are about to reach parity) I think you totally miss the external costs of an oil based economy. A few billion is peanuts compared to the two to three trillion dollars/pounds Paul Craig Roberts (Reagan’s Assistant Treasury) claims that our wars for oil cost us (not including those other trivial things like human lives).”
The difference between you and me, Mr Mills, is that you seem to think you can turn back the clock whereas I know we can’t. We are where we are. The question is not whether something should have been done differently in the past but what we should do now.
evanjones (20:05:37) :
I think your arguments would be valid in a non-global economy. The way things happen now is that if a company/individual gets a tax break, they invest abroad and close factories at home ( this is happening in Greece too and all the EU). By doing this they evade through loopholes a lot of tax paying all over the place ( off shores come to mind) and contribut to turning the white collar workers into blue collar ones.
Feudalism, in a different guise, where the lords live high and all over the place and the serfs are stuck on the land is once again at our doors.
There are no checks and balances in this global economy. Maybe this global crisis will help in creating crucial ones.
Until then, I agree with Pamela that to revive an economy it is better to put money in the hands of the lower percentile where needs are great and the money will be consumed and not stashed overseas.
I think the money to shore up the banks should have been apportioned directly to mortgage holders, for example, turning the mortgage into a government longer term and lower interest mortgage, and the money given to the bank according to the contract it holds. This way, the bank would not lose but still have a steady income and there would be money left over for the mortgage holder to go and buy that new heater or airconditioner or whatever.
If I can strike a bargain with someone who is freely willing to work for $2.00 per hour, why is it anyone elses business?
While one can conjure up arguments in favor of minimum wage, it has one huge problem: It eliminated all those dollar-an-hour after-school jobs sweeping out the back of the candy store. (A dollar bought more then than it does now.)
Those jobs were never intended to provide a living wage. They provided very beneficial training and acclimation for a kid just entering the workforce. That is (mostly) gone now, and we pay for it indirectly every day.
annav: That’s the point, isn’t it? Businesses go where the tax is the lowest. All the more reason to cut taxes.
I can’t speak for Greece, but as for the US, we get more jobs shipped in than we ship out. And the jobs we ship out consist largely of mindlessly banging things together.
And social mobility in the US is simply staggering. 80% of poor people today will be middle class (or better) in ten years. “Individual income” is ‘way up.
It would be even better if we had a sensible tax rate as in much of Eastern Europe. And look at the awesome growth rates in those countries!
As for Western Europe, the workforce is so much better educated than its American counterpart that if it had sensible tax rates, it would be blowing us away economically.
Perhaps you are right about the bank bailouts. That was an artificially created crisis (banks forced by politicians to make stupido loans), and I’m not sure how to solve it.
Evan:
I have to say that I’m not really liking your tone of voice with the wording and punctuation you are using, but I have to agree with your above comment. In the state of Oregon at least, it is commonly understood that every time the minimum wage goes up, the cost of “essentials” goes up. Of course, “essentials” are the McNuggets that too many low income people pack in each day at absurd prices for no nutrition. Minimum wage in Oregon is now one of the highest in the country at 8.40!!! starting jan 1! I’m currently in Africa with Peace Corps, but I tremble at the thought of prices when I return in December.
Although inflation is probably only correlated with rising minimum wage and not proved to be caused by rising minimum wage. But with laws in several states now automatically increasing the minimum wage each year by inflation (including Oregon), it’s hard not see that employers can now build into their pricing structures automatic increases as well. And actually, because of taxes and other deductions, it is likely that automatically tagging minimum wage to inflation could drive inflation into an increasing spiral because the employer will have to pay more social security tax and medicaid(?). Thus, the real cost to the employer has risen not just the rate of inflation, but even higher. Those prices at the local Safeway will have to rise correspondingly. So the ironic thing is that even though the employee got an inflation adjusted wage, they will be able to afford to buy even LESS groceries than before!
Pam,
Do you really want Uncle Sam to cut you a check? When you pay a company to do something for you, it is pretty straight forward. You get a few bids and the bid with the best bang for the buck is usually chosen. When you pay our dear old Uncle Sam to do something, however, it is a whole different story.
First you set up commissions. Then you have to write all the laws that will perpetuate this new monstrosity forever. OK, all these new government workers need buildings all across this great land of ours. Now, typically, the government desn’t build the big tilt concrete boxes that a business would erect, no, marble is the building material of choice. After all, the new bureaucrats are all “earning” very good salaries, they can’t have tiny cubicles. When this entire apparatus is in place, guess what? We underestimated the amount of money this would take. No problem, the government doesn’t need any change orders, they will just take more money from the people.
But will the government get the job done? Maybe, but probably not. Instead we will have a bunch of new marble buildings, a bunch of new dependents, and a bunch of new pensions we must pay forever.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”
Mike:
Your indictment of the government is only partly true. I think it is far more of a mythical generalization than it is fact. Most government entities can be fairly efficient when the employeees and the management of the government truely care about good government. When government fails it seems to be that the primary reason for failure is that the government officials are elected by big business to “drown the government in the bathtub” so that big business can be unrestrained to monopolize the economy.
When your goal as an elected official is to do away with government and to subvert it at every turn, you will not have good government.
And as for your last quote, I would say that it is the selfishness and greed of a few, who intentionally poison the government for their own ends, who are the reason for most ultimate government failures. It is corruption by a greedy self interested few that destroys most governments; not the complacency or apathy of the general populace that does most governments in. Sadly, the parasitic greedy few have got their roots firmly implanted in ours, and like most parasites, are killing off its host while the parasite momentarily thrives.
The only real solution for the parasitic few who corrupt the entire system is the French solution. So to defeat that sort of corrupt economic power, overcoming complacency or apathy is not enough; it takes the willingness to take out those corrupt few who ruin it for everybody else.
There are quite a few odd ideas floating around here so I’ll just add my own:
Fast start-ups and shutdowns are fine if you realize you are considerably shortening the life of the power station and increasing maintenance costs. There’s a good reason why it’s not common to do that. Yes that juice is wasted at night – which makes it a good time to charge up the batteries for your future town/commute car – almost free energy.
Windmills are obviously better as a top up system. After it’s when the wind blows that it gets cool and people use more power. As for solar – it has legs; I’m confident the huge progress currently being made will continue but we’ll see no improvements whatsoever if we stop funding it. Geothermal is potentially the best of the lot, especially as it can save you money now. At some point in the future all new houses will likely have a geothermal system pre-installed.
From what I’ve seen the minimum wage is completely irrelevant as long as the going market rate is higher. So far that’s always been the case. The junk food restaurants are the main users of minimum wage because they expect a high turnover of staff anyway. But those companies never seem to count the additional cost of all that continuous retraining. Short term thinking? Maybe if they paid a bit more the staff might stay and eliminate that cost.
Since we’re stealing our children’s money we should ask them what to spend it on. Would they prefer us to spend it on wars and bailing out fat-cat bankers or to spend it on finding clean sustainable energy. I bet even if we don’t achieve that clean energy they’d still think it was worth the effort.
Guess not.
“davidgmills (05:46:54) :
Mike:
Your indictment of the government is only partly true.”
Wrong… it’s all true. The less government the better.
I dunno. I see the stupidity that are football matches and I’m forced to disagree.