Photo: (not part of original article) bread lines of the great depression – coming again?
Climate change: Less CO2, less jobs. It’s that simple.
03-16-2009 NIGEL HANNAFORD
If you want to know what an economy that pumps out less carbon dioxide is like, look at Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Factories closed, growing numbers of jobless, people driving less because they have nowhere to go, government deficits.
As it happens, it’s the U.S. debt crisis that’s done it to us. When the air comes out of the tires of your biggest trading, look out.
However, it’s also what a well-meaning climate-change lobby felt was pain worth risking for the sake of the planet, when it recommended a regimen of emission caps and/or carbon taxes to reduce C02 emissions in Canada.
How do you like it so far?
Not so much, at this desk.
This is not the whole story as it doesn’t include coal and natural gas, but there are some provocative specifics in a recent Statistics Canada document. The Supply and Disposition of Refined Petroleum Products in Canada, was published in November 2008, coincidentally a good month to review because it’s both the latest month for which figures are available and also the month when Canadians watching the American meltdown first noticed they might have a problem of their own. For, it was in November 2008 that retail fell off a cliff – especially car sales – joblessness started to climb, and the federal government was forced to revisit its economic forecasts. No more chat about balanced budgets, and so forth.
So, what do these numbers show?
Well, in Canada as a whole, domestic sales of all refined petroleum products were down five per cent in November 2008, over November 2007.
Refined petroleum products is a statistical category that includes gasoline, diesel, butane, petro-chemical feedstocks, asphalt, av-gas and a number of other things too numerous to detail. It’s not a perfect marker for industrial activity, because some industry runs off nuclear and hydro power, especially in central Canada. However, it’s good enough to indicate a trend: If there is less diesel being used, for example, there are probably less trucks on the road, because there is less reason for them to be there.
So, for Ontario and Quebec, it’s not good news that its fuel use is down slightly more than the national average in November, at 5.5 and 5.6 per cent reductions year over year respectively.
And it is especially not good news for Alberta, which is down more than seven per cent.
Ontario and Quebec are down because their manufacturing industries are in trouble.
But, what’s Alberta’s excuse? In some ways it would be a relief to spot some dramatic decline in a line item, thereby isolating the problem. Unfortunately though, the decline is across the board, suggesting a general slowing of the Alberta economy. Ouch.
All this is good news however, if you are part of the super-active climate-change lobby promoting the idea that human activity is generating so much carbon dioxide that the atmosphere is warming. (With the likely consequence of polar melting, rising sea levels and the widespread distress caused by human dislocation, etc.) A rough and dirty calculation of Canada using 445,000 cubic metres of various refined petroleum products less in November 2008, over 2007, is a reduction in CO2 emissions of 1.6 million tonnes. Annualize that kind of a reduction in fuel use and you’re looking at something like 20 million tonnes less C02 in 2009, if the recession doesn’t turn.
However, don’t cheer too quickly. In 2006, (Environment Canada’s most recent published figures,) Canadian emissions were 721 million tonnes of greenhouse gas equivalent. Take this hard-won 20 million tonnes of CO2 off the total, and it’s still just over 700 million tonnes. Meanwhile Al Gore’s true believers want to take it all the way down to Canada’s Kyoto target of 558.4 Mt.
We have a long way to go, then.
Point: If this is what an economy producing 20 million tonnes less of CO2 looks like, how prosperous will one be that contracts enough to shed a further 141.6 Mt.?
Happily governments of both parties have quietly acknowledged the suicidal nature of CO2 restrictions that actually produce significantly less CO2, (as opposed to simply making business pay carbon levies for the privilege of carrying on business-as-usual.) They have also acknowledged in their budgetary allocations, that so-called green industries are no compensation. One has to manufacture an awful lot of windmills to nudge the gross domestic product.
For that at least we can be thankful. The pity of it all however, is that when the history books of 2109 are published, their writers will express amazement that men ever thought their capacity to initiate climate change was greater than the natural forces that in the last 30,000 years first covered this continent with ice two kilometres thick, saw it recede, and allowed sea levels to fluctuate 100 metres.
If this recession does nothing else, it should bring home to all Canadians the supreme importance of not letting alarmists have their way with the economy.
This is what it would be like.
But, worse.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Man made CO2 driven global warming has been falsified repeatedly in many, many different ways. It is the Rasputin of hoaxes. It just won’t die.
When Rasputin’s body was retrieved two days after being dumped in a river, it appeared as if he had tried to claw is way out from the ice. He finally died from drowning after being unsuccessfully poisoned, shot three times and beaten. He was buried in secret to avoid desecration. Thus ended Grigory Yefrimovich Rasputin.
I think we need a public burial for the AGW sting.
By the way, the picture that leads this article is not actually from a bread line of out-of-work people from the Great Depression, as the caption implies. It is a 30’s era picture, true, but the people were queueing to get assistance after a flood in Memphis, Tennessee. Although the photo is often used for ironical effect, to imply that these poor down-and-out people were excluded from the American Way, this is not true. Actually the nation had enough wealth, even in the middle of the Great Depression, to extend a helping hand to those in distress from a natural disaster.
Dale McIntyre (19:04:22) :
Thank you for that insight.
Henry
Oliver, I don’t think that has been proven. I think they’re still looking for the cool spot.
AlGoreithm
– noun. A set of rules for solving the money problem in a finite number of steps, by raising fear and guilt, and selling carbon credits to the greatest common multiple.
Not a new game. Chaucer (c. 1343 – 1400) wrote in The Canterbury Tales of the Pardoner, who sold “Pardons, Hot from Rome” to gullible imbeciles.
You Sin, you buy a Pardon, all is forgiven. Have another go, luv?
At least the purchase of Pardons was optional to the buyer – Gore and Obama want to make Cap and Trade the Law of the Land.
That means you may soon be obligated buy “CO2 Pardons, Hot from DC”.
An Obamanation! But McCain was just as wrong about AGW! Some choice you US voters had!
Perhaps you could counter-argue on Constitutional grounds – for example, the Separation of Church and State.
Global Warming is obviously a Religion – it has no basis in Science.
If this were not so costly and tragic, it would be really funny – kind of like the Inquisition.
“Recant, Accursed Climate Heretic, or Burn in Hellfire!”
Every generation or two seems to have its roving bands of raving lunatics.
We got the GreenShirts – another gang of power-hungry thugs out to control the world. Better than the BrownShirts, I guess, maybe… ?
Plus ca change, plus ca change pas. 🙂
************************************
I suppose this is old news to Anthony, but I thought I’d post this anyway, just in case :
“Record numbers expected to switch off lights for Earth Hour 2009+”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97087KO1&show_article=1&catnum=0
This is at the BBC web site. Odd place to see it :
“Cold Reality of Global Warming Efforts”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7929174.stm
2fer Tuesday
guilt for both your and your children’s carbon
“Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4V8FFCG-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=411a4bfd17ad84a0d2fd4c0a9061c717
Tom in Texas,
I used to think the cool spot was here on the west coast of Canada, and it’s been extra cool this winter. However, I’m having second thoughts on that since I read that the Ontario government is proposing legislation that would give inspectors the power to enter and search businesses and/or residences that they suspect of harboring inefficient electrical appliances. Fines up to $25,000. Warrants required for home searches. If this were to spread across the country, which they’re hoping it will, then Texas, and a whole lot of other places, could wind up being cooler than Canada.
Earth hour, yes, all the hype here in Sydney. I actually keep my power consumption down to quite low levels normally anyway, I rather keep more money for me than a power companys’ shareholders. According to my last quarterly power bill, I consumed 575.1Kw over 91 days, emitting 0.61 tonnes of CO2, AU$1.50 perday.
Last “Earth Hour” I powered on as much as I could in protest at this rediculous example of tokensim.
PS. I forgot, with “cap and trade” and carbon taxes, I won’t have a choice (To pay “shareholders” like Al Gore).
Maybe slightly OT but reading these comments about “inspectors” and fines etc for non-complaiance, reminds me of “The Bottom Inspectors” scetch from a UK comic (GREAT comic BTW IMO) called Viz.
All this effort to control CO2 (Population actually and eventually) is so anal.
Sort of on thread
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25198437-5013678,00.html
From the web:
Scientists have found a new threat to the planet: Canadian beer drinkers.
The government-commissioned study says the old, inefficient “beer fridges” that one in three Canadian households use to store their Molson and Labatt’s contribute significantly to global warming by guzzling gas- and coal-fired electricity.
“People need to understand the impact of their lifestyles,” British environmental consultant Joanna Yarrow tells New Scientist magazine. “Clearly the environmental implications of having a frivolous luxury like a beer fridge are not hitting home. This research helps inform people — let’s hope it has an effect.”
*****************************
Ontario considers banning old-style light bulbs
Ontario is considering becoming the first province in Canada to follow Australia’s lead in banning old-fashioned, energy-sucking light bulbs.
******************************
Ontario launches new energy saving programs
Clearing your kitchen of an old fridge will become much easier thanks to a new energy conservation program introduced by the Ontario government on Friday.
Under the “beer fridge bounty” program, the province will accept old, inefficient appliances for free pickup and recycling, saving the consumer a normal disposal fee of about $110.
*****************************************
Comment:
So Canadians will soon mutate to become a bunch of pale people drinking warm beer under ugly ultra-white light.
Kind of like the Brits, but with better teeth!
Oh Canada! 🙂
*****************************************
Note:
Given Canada’s anti-hate crime laws and draconian human rights commissions, it is prudent to state that the above comment is deemed satire and is not intended to demean or cause hatred towards any identifiable group, race, or creed.
Everyone likes to poke fun at the Brits (and especially the French – why is it that French Army tanks have only one forward gear but five reverse?).
Dropping energy prices indicate less demand and consumption, hence less production of CO2. And yet the CO2 numbers continue to climb, doesn’t that falsify the AGW theory?
Smokey:
“And the fault can be laid almost entirely at the feet of this new confiscatory government.”
And more importantly, can be laid at the feet of those that elected them.
Learn people! Don’t repeat the same mistakes over and over, even for the most altruistic motives! California is losing residents at an alarming rate due to the high cost of living and taxes. Yet those same ex-Californians will move to a new state and vote for the same kind of idiots that ruined California.
Investigate the past actions of people who are running for office. If their history is far left or far right, that is what they will be when in office, regardless of the moderate song and dance they do during the election. Vote using logic, and not feelings, or for a pretty face.
This also applies to the crap sandwich of a candidate that the early Republican primaries left for the rest of the country to swallow.
Vote ’em all out and start fresh!
Just heard on CNBC that some administration not-so-bright has stated that they want a tariff on Chinese goods carbon content unless the Chinese enact a carbon tax or cap & tirade scheme like the one the Obama regime is pushing.
The Chinese, as they are wont to do, have played the economic blackmail card of “Maybe we don’t need quite so many U.S. Treasuries…”
All the Chinese need to do to spike this administration is stop buying U.S. Treasuries. The Chinese are the cash flow engine presently supporting the U.S. Debt, and they are nervous about it anyway; but to summarily stop buying would have been, to their mind, an aggressive act likely to trigger retribution. Now we’ve given them a ‘casus belli’ to do whatever they want. We insulted first. (And the Chinese are extraordinarily sensitive to any whiff of neocolonialists telling them what they must do…)
Do we have no one in the government (under either party) who has a clue how international economics and geopolitics work? If I were the Chinese Premier, right now I’d be telling my aparatchik mandarins to start a gradual “death of 1000 cuts” on U.S. Treasury purchases. Slowly sell down what they hold starting with longest maturities and turn all new purchases into very short durations. Keep a slightly reduced U.S. Treasury buy rate (so no one can say you have stopped) but pull the maturities in to 1 or 2 years. Then all you need to do is wait a year to be ‘sold out’ via maturation. Basically, change the 1st and 2nd derivative of the treasury accumulation rate.
I would expect that within 2 years max, 1 year if they really hustled, they could hold no paper longer than 2 years maturity and with an average maturity of 1 year. It would be hard to get it shorter than that (folks notice if you churn from bonds to bills – the swap from a 20 year bond to a 10 year bond or from a 5 to a 2 is not noticed much, swap to a 90 day T-bill from a 20 year bond, it stands out…). It would not be hard to sell $100 million of mixed 20 and 10 year bonds in one agency while buying a mix of 10s and 5s in another and hide the swap down from 20s to 5s.
Ack! A google turned up that it was Mr. Chu (who ought to know better).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123733297926563315.html
Why does this matter? Protectionism and tariff wars were part of what caused The Great Depression to become so deep and prolonged. The last thing we need right now is a trade war with China (which we would lose) forcing them into internal stimulus (which would only make them stronger) and us into hyperinflation (which is where we will be with ‘spending as proposed’ along with our present nonexistent production of wealth; if not sterilized by bond sales. Oh, and with darned near every manufactured thing you buy bumped up by 10% to 20% via a tariff. Try, just try to find physical goods in the store not marked “made in China”…)
And just what would happen to the U.S. Treasury when a $Trillion of bonds matured and the money was not ‘rolled over’… They would have no choice but to print money, and stoke inflation ( I don’t see any other “sucker” ready to step up in size to fund the credit card…) It would not be pretty.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration being zealots on the carbon issue will find that non-negotiable. The economic reality of a China, unfettered in its coal use as our economic competition, being guaranteed “a win” will at some point set in (it looks like it is happening now). Rather than taking the rational decision to avoid the crippling carbon taxes, the only choice the administration will find acceptable is to strong arm the Chinese – and that will be a disaster.
DJ (11:16:28) :
The article simply shows the “sceptics” grasp of economics is worse than their grasp of climate. The published economic literature is very clear that the costs of mitigation are small and much less that buisness as usual (unless of course you hide behind discount rates).
Actually, DJ, it would be more accurate to state that the AGW adherents’ grasp of economics is as shaky as their grasp of science. That includes your own. I have read several of these “analyses” demonstrating the minimal economic impacts of reducing GHG. When I read one written by a REAL economist, discussing the economic impact from the perspective of effect of induced, mandated and regulated scarcity on the Value Chains of all human economic activity, I’ll pay attention. Until then, the “economists” you rely on are just as dishonest and fraudulent in their analyses as the AGW adherents.
To take a simple example: bread.
It requires energy to harvest the wheat, energy to transport from farm to granary, energy to transport from granary to mill, energy to process into flour, energy to transport flour to bakery, energy to transform into bread, energy to transport from bakery to grocery store, energy to manage the climate in the store. (I’ll neglect the energy of you peddling however many miles to the store and back when you buy – except that you will need to eat more to get the energy for all that bicycling.)
The total contribution of energy across the entire Value Chain to the price of the loaf of bread is (if I recall correctly) around 25%. If you quadruple the cost of energy, what will that do to the cost of a loaf of bread? Now figure it out for every single thing you buy – food, clothing, shelter, etc. Next, realize that as all these prices increase dranmatically, wages will have to increase to keep pace. The likely result is called “hyperinflation.” And these “economists” claim the impact on the economy is “small and much less that buisness as usual” [sic]?!?
I realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, that different perspectives can yield different analytic results. But words have meaning, and when these guys use them they have to be able to tell the story of that meaning. When the story being told doesn’t match the word used, it’s called a “lie.”
All,
re qualified Economists’ view of costs/benefits of Global Warming mitigation efforts, in light of California’s AB 32 Scoping Plan.
Peer review comments from:
Dallas Burtraw, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future
Mathew E. Kahn, Ph.D., Professor, University of California, Los Angeles
Robert N. Stavins, Ph.D., Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Gary W. Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Wesleyan University
Janet Peace, Ph.D. and Liwayway G. Adkins, Ph.D., Pew Center on Global Climate Change
A key conclusion from the peer reviewers is:
” ARB underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits of the individual measures that were a key input to the economic modeling. Additionally, reviewers questioned why in some cases the costs and savings of various individual measures were omitted from the analysis. (Stavins, Kahn, Pew)” (emphasis added)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/economics-sp/peer-review/peer_review_comments_arb_responses.pdf
John W. (09:35:13) :
Since discount rates are fundamental to the determination of net present value of any and all investments and revenue streams</b. is it essential to use them, and to do so correctly. The value of a stock, bond, or any other investment instrument, is the net present value of the expected future income stream which is calculated with, yes, the discount rate.
Actually, DJ, it would be more accurate to state that the AGW adherents’ grasp of economics is as shaky as their grasp of science. That includes your own. I have read several of these “analyses” demonstrating the minimal economic impacts of reducing GHG. When I read one written by a REAL economist, discussing the economic impact from the perspective of effect of induced, mandated and regulated scarcity on the Value Chains of all human economic activity, I’ll pay attention.
Well, I am an economist so here’s my “analysis”. There is an existence proof of what happens when energy supply is constrained and prices rise (several, actually, always with the same result…). It is the early 1970’s Arab Oil Embargo. It was an unmitigated disaster for anyone and everyone dependent on energy (which is just about everyone and everything). We had rampant inflation in a stagnant to recessionary economy (resulting in the coining of the word “stagflation”).
You could make the same statement about both world wars, though that is complicated by the downstream pickup in economic growth from massive government spending for war goods. Not a bad effect if coming out of The Great Depression, but hugh inflationary pressures are not so good if you are not in a great depression (and despite the bellyaching about this minor recession, it’s no where near a depression – great or otherwise.) The only thing constraining price inflation then was The Gold Standard, which we left behind long ago, and even with that there was inflation.
I have participated in a large number of “economic justifications” for some capital goods purchase, or facilities expansions, or other expenditures. They are generally more fantasy than anything else. The proposer puts in every possible assumption that is good for their case and leaves out all the ones that are bad for their case. As an executive level manager you get pretty good at spotting the B.S. The AGW argument for near zero cost is full of BS (Bad Science? was that what someone christened this?).
A final note: Markets are one of the best ways known to find true value and optimal decisions. (No, they are not perfect, but this is not the place for a freshman discussion of market dislocations and inefficiencies. But they are substantially better than the alternatives in almost all circumstances.) The markets clearly have not chosen the “green solutions” when they made no sense. To force feed them to people pretty much demonstrates that they are not the best economic choice. And sub-par economic choice increases costs and decreases utility available to the economy (economist speak for “It stinks, costs more, and doesn’t make as much money”). An example? Wind turbines are now being installed since they make economic sense. Even with subsidies, most folks realize that solar photovoltaic has a ways to go (though they might get there in just a couple of years).
FWIW: I am a staunch supporter of alternative energy sources. I’ve been up to my eyeballs in it since before the oil embargo. I could write a couple of books in the technologies and economics of it. Despite my fervent advocacy of it, you can’t force a bad idea on an economy with out having some kind of bad reaction. Yes, I have compact fluorescents everywhere, I’ve made an ersatz biomass gasifier, I’ve made my own biodiesel and I’ve made methane digesters. Oh, and I have a couple of solar panels laying around. No wind turbine, though. I live in a near zero wind zone… but I own stock in a wind fund “FAN” along with several other alternative energy companies including wave and algae power sources. I did sell my GEX solar fund a while back, but will buy in again when it looks right. See: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/holdings/ for a complete list. Oh, and I was running cars and lawnmowers on alcohol starting in about 1968 on through the 1980’s or so. I want alternative energy solutions, but not enough to compromise my adherence to truth. The only fiddling with the market that we ought to be doing is putting a “countervailing tariff” on OPEC source oil to offset the power of OPEC. I would use a tariff such that OPEC oil had a price floor of $80 / bbl (i.e. no tariff at $80+ OPEC price. OPEC at $50, tariff of $30 on OPEC oil only) This would let the alternatives go forward as directed by the market, with no fear that OPEC would put them out of business by opening the oil faucet. The idea of the government picking winners is just broken in so many ways that I’ll leave it for another day…
Pierre Gosselin (09:27:10) : Right now there is simply no steady altenative supply of energy. Wind and solar are sporadic, expesnive and require natural gas backup 1 to 1. Biodiesel and ethanol are pie in the sky. […] The whole thing would be as successful as the experiment in communism. It’s utter lunacy.
I’ve noticed that many folks have a problem getting an intuitive grasp of numbers. ( I do find “seeing numbers” so it took me a while to figure out that others did not…) These folks often benefit from seeing a pre-made picture:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
Shows the total energy flows in the U.S. economy. Notice the small lines? No, I mean the really small lines. Yes, those, the ones you almost can’t see. Those are the “alternative energy” contribution to our power system… Notice the big fat lines? Coal, Oil, Natural gas. That’s what the AGW crowd thinks can be replaced by the nearly invisible little lines…
SIdebar: Comes From and Goes To
Notice that coal is largely used for electricity (and electricity is almost entirely dependent on coal with a bit of nuclear and a very small part of natural gas). Kill coal and the lights go out while the factories grind to a halt, computers and networks stop, the HVAC (heat ventilation air condition) shuts off, traffic & street lights go out, refrigeration ends and the grocery store can’t check you out.
Now notice that oil is almost entirely used for transportation and transportation is almost entirely dependent on oil. Kill oil and all transport stops (with the minor exception of some electric light rail). No trains, ships, planes, cars or trucks delivering goods. No farm tractors or harvesters. Now you could replace every single transportation system in America (and Canada, and Australia, and…) but it will cost an astounding quantity of money and take 20+ years. (Ships & Trains don’t get replaced every couple of years…). Heck, I know folks still using 30+ year old harvesters and 40+ year old tractors!
Finally, Natural gas. It gets split with electric generation up front, but most of it goes to heating homes & businesses with some used for industrial (most of that being chemicals… much of what we call “petro”chemicals in fact comes from natural gas. That change happened in the 1970’s Arab Oil Embargo years). Cut off the gas and we freeze. We also lose most of the plastic goods and things like anti-freeze. (Yes, there are biological alternatives, but it takes time to convert…)
There is no way that graph can be changed to have all those outputs made without those inputs of carbon based fuels. The entire energy infrastructure of the nation would require uprooting (just think of the environmental impact reports and the disposal costs, if nothing else!) and replaced with an ill defined “something else”. While I support producing as much wind, wave, solar, biofuels, et. al. as we can: I fully realize that it’s a 20 to 50 year process to convert about 1/2 our energy use and that many uses ought best be served with coal, oil, and natural gas for at least 100 years.
sod (12:26:57) : this is a pretty stupid approach. you can t use the petroleum use as an economic indicator, to contradict green ideas. that simply doesn t make any sense.
Um, in reality: Oil is an excellent indicator of economic activity. It directly tracks production and transportation. I usually use price, rather than volume, since as a relatively price inelastic product the price move more than the volume, but that’s really just a scaling factor on the charts. But it is volume that is reported on the inventory reports, then price moves.
Oil underpins economic production and if you don’t understand that you will get killed trading stocks or oil. It is one of the key indicators I look at: at least weekly, on Wednesday when oil inventory and consumption volume are announced on every single financial show and in every single financial newspaper around. The stock market and bonds markets usually jump one way or the other (except in the unusual case where the predictions exactly matched the reality). There is a reason stock and bond prices move based on oil volume: Oil is an indicator of economic activity.
you decided NOT to use per capita numbers. and yes, Kyoto allows some countries to catch up. this is a horrible analysis!
Sorry, but the “capitas” didn’t change much during that time. Europe has a depopulation problem in may countries. The U.S. has a large immigration rate (especially compared to places like China). The “per capita” delta is even greater than that static analysis.
The fact that you are hiding from is that market economies (old U.S.A.) worked really well at cutting consumption of an expensive product and socialist / communist economies did not. Sadly, now that we (the U.S.A.) are a Lang Type Socialism government, we too will have a less efficient economy.
Finally: “Catch up”. So if we were talking about any other ‘evil thing’ would we allow catching up? Can I “catch up” with my murderous neighbor? Can I “catch up” with the fraud level of Madoff? Can I “catch up” with the M.J. consumption of the local pusher or the “tricks” level of the local street walker? Exactly which “evil things” are allowed a “catching up” provision? Theft? (I could use a new car… I’d only steal a Honda, and not even a very new one… do I get a pass? 😎 No, the reality is that CO2 is not an “evil thing” or there would not be an allowance for anyone to “catch up”. The reality is that this is a back door form of communism; a way to “spread the wealth” and punish the rich as though breaking on person’s rice bowl would feed someone else… It is raw hate and envy packaged as a fraud.
Ah yes, earth hour. The hour where I leave my save money ideals and make sure every light in the house is turned on and I’m running my dryer. Just switched to a gas stove so can’t run my electric stove like last year. It’s still out back, maybe I’ll plug it in for the hour. Dang gas stove is covering the 220 plug and it is stinkin’ heavy.
Headline: “White House Admits Cap-And-Trade Tax Costs Triple Their Official Estimate”
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/17/kerpen_cap_and_trade_triple_cost/
Here’s most of the article:
By Phil Kerpen
…. Now, amazingly, the White House is telling something closer to the truth about this tax hike, admitting that the official budget estimate of $646 billion over 8 years—already a mighty steep price to pay—is far, far lower than the real cost.
The deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, Jason Furman, is giving us a glimpse at the real number, telling Senate staff the energy tax scheme would actually raise “two-to-three times” the budget’s official $646 billion revenue estimate. Dow Jones reports that 5 people at the meeting confirmed the statement—we can be pretty sure he said it.
………………….
If Furman is right that the real tax hike would be two or three times the official budget estimate—and it’s likely still a lowball—that would mean the actual tax hike would run well into the trillions, roughly between $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019 by Furman’s own estimate.
…………….
Remember that these staggering costs of $1.3 to $1.9 trillion are for just the first 8 years of a 40 year program that gets much more expensive over time. This would be the final knock-out blow for a wobbly U.S. economy, and we can only hope that as people learn the facts they’ll oppose it strongly enough to force Congress and the White House back to the drawing board.”
E.M.Smith, re petrochemicals:
“…much of what we call “petro”chemicals in fact comes from natural gas.”
Technically true, but a bit misleading. Here is what happens.
Raw natural gas from a well is separated in a gas plant into pipeline quality natural gas (mostly methane with a bit of ethane), and separate streams of ethane, propane, mixed butanes, and natural gasoline.
The petrochemical plant, and I refer here to a steam-cracking plant, receives the ethane, and sometimes propane, and cracks them into ethylene and propylene. The chemical process is dehydrogenation at high temperature in the presence of steam. (C2H6 —> C2H4 + H2). The cracking process is not perfect, and some ethane is cracked into methane (C2H6 + H2 —> 2CH4)
The ethylene and propylene become the building blocks for the petrochemicals, of which an example is poly-ethylene (trash bags).
Natural gas is used as a fuel in the petrochemical plant, as the processes there require a lot of energy.
You are absolutely correct about the energy flows, although in the U.S. natural gas and nuclear are about dead even at 20 percent. Hydroelectric will not grow much, if any over the years, as the dams are largely in place already. Replacing coal with nuclear is not a good idea for many reasons, not the least of which is cost per kwh generated (30 cents for nuclear vs 5 cents for coal).
Replacing coal with natural gas is the most economic choice, if (when) the cap-and-traders prevail. That one change will reduce CO2 emissions by a factor of about 4, compared to coal-based power plants. Such conversions will generate huge traffic in carbon credit trading. In the U.S., we will require substantial LNG imports and enhanced natural gas distribution systems. We are already constrained along the east coast in the winter months. That fact may suggest some investing ideas to you!
Roger