I just sent my comments in, and have included excerpts from them below for structure and ideas. If you have not done it yet, get your comments in. I did mine via email. Some excerpts from my commentary are listed below. You can send public comments here: ghg–endangerment-docket@epa.gov
To submit a comment, identify them with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 and submit them online, by email, by facsimile, by mail or by hand delivery.
The docket # is Re: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2009–0171 Be sure to include that number in email
They must be received by EPA by June 23. TODAY
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, by one of the following methods:
– Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
– E-mail: ghg-endangerment-docket@epa.gov
– Fax: (202) 566-1741.
– Postal Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. TOO LATE
– Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Air Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Some examples:
This Climate Audit post can also be useful for ideas.
As a guide for doing this, WUWT reader Roger Sowell has some useful guidelines that I find helpful:
This is an excellent opportunity to be heard by the EPA.
I want to share some thoughts about making public comments, as I attend many public hearings on various issues before agencies and commissions, listen to the comments, observe the commenters, and read many of the written comments that are submitted. I also make comments from time to time. I meet with various commissioners and members of public agencies, and get their views and feedback on comments and those who make the comments.
One of my public comments on California’s Global Warming law is here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/scopingpln08/1554-arb_letter_sowell_12-9-08.pdf
Comments are made in all forms and styles. Some are more effective than others. For those who want to view some comments on other issues, for style and content, please have a look at the link below. Some comments are one or two sentences, and others extend for several pages. Length does not matter, but content does.
For the most effect, it is a good idea to consider the following format for a comment:
Use letterhead. When the letter is complete, scan it and attach the digital file to your comment.
Identify yourself and / or your organization, describe what you do or your experience. It is a good idea to thank the EPA for the opportunity to make comments. (They like reading this, even though they are required by law to accept comments). If you work for an employer who does not support your view, it is important to state that your views are your own and do not represent anyone else.
Organize your comments into paragraphs.
Use a form letter only if you must. It is far more effective to write a comment using your own words.
However, if someone else’s comment states what you wanted to say, it is fine to write and refer to the earlier comment, by name and date, and state your agreement with what was written. The agency appreciates that, as it reduces the number of words they must read.
It is important to know that the agency staff reads the comments, categorizes them, and keeps a total of how many comments were made in each category. So, the number of comments do count. Encourage your friends to make comments, too.
Make your statement/point in the paragraph, refer to actual data where possible, and give the citation or link. Tell them why you hold your view. Try to maintain a positive, reasonable tone, and if criticizing the EPA, tread gently. Point out the inconsistencies of their view compared to other respected publications, or to accepted methodologies.
It is a good idea to describe how you are affected, or will be affected, by this proposed rule.
Close by thanking the EPA for considering your view.
Sign your name (comments get much more serious consideration when signed).
The link to public comments on U.S. government issues:
I urge all readers to make teir opinions known to the EPA, some excerpts from my submission, sans photos are listed below.
=========================================
To: ghg–endangerment-docket@epa.gov
From: Anthony Watts
[address]
Re: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2009–0171
Please find the following comments related to EPA’s April 24, 2009 Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (EF).
These comments also address issues in the April 17, 2009 Technical Support Document (TSD) that includes many of the detailed references to science, data, and models used to justify comments in the Endangerment Finding.
Issue Summary
The official record of temperatures in the continental United States comes from a network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality of the measurement environment of those stations.
During the past few years a team of more than 650 volunteers visually inspected and photographically documented more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found. We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
For example, here is a climate station of record located in a parking lot, at the University of Tucson, operated by the Atmospheric Sciences Department.
Above: official USHCN weather station, Atmospheric Science Dept. University of Arizona, Tucson. more on that station here. Photo: Warren Meyer
It follows that if Atmospheric Scientists at an institution of higher learning cannot measure temperature correctly, then there is little expectation that it will be elsewhere. In fact, that is what I found.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.
Note that the graph above shows NOAA’s own adjustments to temperature over time.
Reference URL for the above graph from Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif
Below are my findings of the state of quality for the USHCN network of Stations:
The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7C (about 1.2F) during the twentieth century.
My report is available in full as this PDF document here:
I request that it also be entered into the official record as well, as part of this document.
Consequently, this record should not be by the Administrator as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
The many problems with the surface temperature record that have been demonstrated both photographically and by a national census suggest that the supposed linkage between carbon dioxide levels and surface temperature is likely not correlated by global climate models that use the surface temperature record as data input or as a means of calibration.
All models that use this flawed data for validation must be rejected by the Administrator as non-compliant with the Federal Information Quality Act.
Specific Errors in the EF/TSD
EF.18898. column 3-18899.column 1
“Like global mean temperatures, U.S. air temperatures have warmed during the 20th and into the 21st century. According to official data from NOAA’s
National Climatic Data Center:
• U.S average annual temperatures are now approximately 1.25 °F (0.69 °C) warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years The rate of warming for the entire period of record (1895–2008) is 0.13 °F/decade while the rate of warming increased to 0.58 °F/decade (0.32 °C/decade) for the period from 1979–2008.
• 2005–2007 were exceptionally warm years (among the top 10 warmest on record), while 2008 was slightly warmer than average (the 39th warmest year on record), 0.2 °F (0.1 °C) above the 20th century (1901–2000) mean.
• The last ten 5-year periods (2004– 2008, 2003–2007, 2002–2006, 2001–2005, 2000–2004, 1999–2003, 1998– 2002, 1997–2001, 1996–2000, and 1995– 1999), were the warmest 5-year periods in the 114 years of national records, demonstrating the anomalous warmth of the last 15 years.
TSD Executive Summary
“[OE 3] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C (1.3ºF) (±0.18°C) over the last 100 years. Eight of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.
“[OE 4] Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. Climate model simulations suggest natural forcing alone (e.g., changes in solar irradiance) cannot explain the observed warming.
“[OE 5] U.S. temperatures also warmed during the 20th and into the 21st century; temperatures are now approximately 0.7°C (1.3°F) warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Both the IPCC and CCSP reports attributed recent North American warming to elevated GHG concentrations. In the CCSP (2008g) report the authors find that for North America, “more than half of this warming [for the period 1951-2006] is likely the result of human-caused greenhouse gas forcing of climate change.”
TSD.22-23
“Global Surface Temperatures
Surface temperature is calculated by processing data from thousands of world-wide observation sites on land and sea. Parts of the globe have no data, although data coverage has improved with time. The long-term mean temperatures are calculated by interpolating within areas with no measurements using the collected data available. Biases may exist in surface temperatures due to changes in station exposure and instrumentation over land, or changes in measurement techniques by ships and buoys in the ocean. It is likely that these biases are largely random and therefore cancel out over large regions such as the globe or tropics (Wigley et al., 2006). Likewise, urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the large-scale trends (Trenberth et al., 2007).
The following trends in global surface temperatures have been observed, according to the IPCC (Trenberth et al., 2007):
• Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ±0.18°C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906–2005) as shown by the magenta line in Figure 4.2. The warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperatures are 1998 and 2005, with 1998 ranking first in one estimate, but with 2005 slightly higher in the other two estimates. 2002 to 2004 are the 3rd, 4th and 5th warmest years in the series since 1850. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) – the exception being 1996 – rank among the 12 warmest years on record since 1850. Temperatures in 2006 were similar to the average of the past 5 years.
• The warming has not been steady, as shown in Figure 4.2. Two periods of warming stand out: an increase of 0.35°C occurred from the 1910s to the 1940s and then a warming of about 0.55°C from the 1970s up to the end of 2006. The remainder of the past 150 years has included short periods of both cooling and warming. The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).
Comments
Supporting peer reviewed papers for my analysis of errors in the siting of USHCN climate monitoring stations include:
Yilmaz et al (PDF 2008 ) which cites temperature differentials of up to 11.79C between asphalt/concrete and grass. Grass is the preferred surface over which temperature should be measured according to World Meteological Organization (WMO) standards.
http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/atm/Vol21-2/ATM002100202.pdf
See the Climate Reference Network Site Handbook (National Climatic Data Center PDF 2002) including explanation of the CRN 1-5 rating system used by surfacestations.org
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
An online database of the weather stations comprising the U.S. Historical Climatoilogy Network that have been surveyed thus far is available online at http://gallery.surfacestations.org
“stevsadlov”
“The war plus the failing food supply results in the deaths of some 2 to 3 billion souls”
Now all we have to do is make sure that it’s the 2-3 billion AGW/veggie/anal retentive souls that depart and that just leaves the 57 billion normal/skeptic/realists to rule the earth. Now what was that “B” Ark for exactly. They could be the ‘pioneers’ instead of departing from life. (As we know it Jim)
Attached is a except from my letter to EPA. Perhaps this aspect of “modeling error” could be the subject of investigation by you or one of your esteemed contributors.
3) Models are very susceptible to the biases of the individuals who develop the models. Models must contain various assumptions and estimates because not all information is factually known. It is quite common for professionals to agree that these assumptions should fall within a “range of reasonableness”. However because many of these variables interact, they can be highly sensitive to the magnification effect (resulting forecast error) that can happen when even slight biases occur within each of these ranges of reasonableness. Thus a model can profess to be reasonable and none of the individual variables may appear to be extreme, and yet oftentimes the outcomes are not reasonable and are in fact extreme.
Clearly monetary reward most likely influenced the model assumptions that were used by investment banks to assess the risks related to financial products. I suggest that environmental scientists are also likely influenced by their sincere desire to protect the environment. Regardless of how noble this desire is, the consequences are that their forecast models can and likely do magnify their biases, thereby resulting in inaccurate projections and outcomes.”
In a “real life example”, I negotiated with a major company the costs of infrastructure improvements, including an offset from toll revenues generated by traffic to the company’s facilities. Our modelers and their modelers prepared independent forecasts of traffic and revenue. While each model used the same professional standards, the results were wildly different based on biases and the compounding effects of small differences in assumptions regarding interdependent variables. While I wouldn’t know a climate model if you put one in front of my face, I do understand human behavior and general modeling concepts and I suspect the same types of modeling bias exists. This is one of the primary reasons I am skeptical of the climate model results. This and the fact that I have NEVER witnessed a model that could forecast any aspect of the future with any degree of certainty.
This is a battle between the new internet information era and old fashion government spin. Can’t wait to see which side will wins this fight. 🙁 not hopeful unless there is some kind of major back lash against Obama.
The endangerment finding is coming, it is the last leverage to pass the cap and trade nonsense and timing is everything. IT is a game of regulatory chicken with a beefed up EPA with a an extra 10 Billion over two years in the bank 7.2B of it courtesy of the Stimzilla package (hey how did that get in there? Maybe we should have read it first?).
You do not arm your stormtroopers and then leave them at home.
If the Cap and Trade freezes on the vine ala Grapes in Brazil the EPA will be there with the Clean Air Act in hand because they do not require any Congressional approvals to levy fines and shut down companies. So the hacks on the Hill will pass the Cap and Trade bill on the delusional basis that then they will be able to control the legislation and the implementation if they pass the legislation.
Unfortunately that will not be true because the EPA will be enforcing the Cap and Trade reporting and will still have the CAA in their back pocket in case some people try and fight back or a future Administration wants to undo the damage.
These enviros have the best politicians and lawyers that money can buy on their side and they played this one perfectly, via the courts and using the regulatory framework that was in place and they are only two moves away from checkmate.
I cannot see a way out of this one …
Looking at historical global CO2 emissions estimates over the last 50 years, and comparing this to the Mauna Loa Chart, why isn’t there a larger acceleration?
These are the changes that I get from 1959 for each decade
8, 12, 17, 15, 19(14.6 for 2007)
while the CO2 megaton emissions for the decades are
29500, 45200, 54200, 63000, 72900(thru 2006)
So 1959-1969 increase is proportional when compared to 69-79 increase
8/12 = 29500/45200
but then there is a 41% increase while emissions only rose 20%,
a 12% decrease while emissions rose 17%, and a similar mismatch for the last decade. We can estimate about 90000 thru 2008, so that would be a 40% increase , with only a 20% increase in the rate of change.
Congratulations Anthony!. It is a most valuable effort trying to convince with sound scientific arguments those who are deaf and blind.
History will recognize this endeavour.
These enviros have the best politicians and lawyers that money can buy on their side and they played this one perfectly, via the courts and using the regulatory framework that was in place and they are only two moves away from checkmate.
I cannot see a way out of this one
Yep, write in all you want, it may make you feel better, but the fix is in.
RE: “I cannot see a way out of this one …”
Don’t worry, nature bats last. Within a few years none of this will matter any more.
“Steven Hill (12:40:25) :
People in Government better take a look at Iran…it could happen here next.”
Where is here?
Are you talking about the riots or the fixed elections. Here in the uk we are on the edge of this. We have the most unpopular (unelected) prime minister (ever… probably) who wants to change the voting system before the next election (allegedly) to try to stay in power.
So now we have: Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Gordon Brown.
Sad world we live in.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Thanks, juan for the link: http://capwiz.com/americansforprosperity/issues/alert/?alertid=11825801&type=CU
I used the boilerplate letter, and added my own comments at the bottom. Quick, easy, painless.
Big Government relies on voter apathy, and uses the media to instill a sense of powerlessness and futility. Take hold of your own destiny and combine forces to resist dishonesty and greed in it’s attempt to subvert the constitution of your country!
Follow Anthony’s example and give it your best Endeavour. This is the beginning, not the end.
chillybean (16:01:51) :
Are you talking about the riots or the fixed elections. Here in the uk we are on
the edge of this. We have the most unpopular (unelected) prime minister (ever… probably) who wants to change the voting system before the next election (allegedly) to try to stay in power.
So now we have: Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Gordon Brown.
Don’t forget Kevin07, Ahmadinejad could have won the last Australian election against Howard. We have no choice and yet somehow our governments actually think they have some moral authority over nations like Iran.
It’s pretty clear to me that these governments have been bestowed upon us to complete an objective as can be seen by this report by the ABC’s lateline. The Obama administration is hell bent on a “sweeping emissions trading scheme”.
The video attached is worth a look because It’s pretty funny, they even have the water vapor from power station cooling towers disaster footage in there.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/world/
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2601255.htm?layout=popup
Dang it. I keep forgetting to write up a riff on this. Thanks for the reminder, Anthony. I have to think hard about what exactly I’m gonna try and get across…
maz2 (12:57:42) :
I hope the identity of the appraiser will be disclosed. If he decides to let his political (yes, political) ideology get into his way of serving clients, be my guest. I, for one, will refuse to use his service. And I hope many will do the same.
Thankfully so far the more important professionals, such as medical doctors, have not shown this type of ridiculous antic. Not that I have heard of, at least.
We in Canada are on the cusp of implementing a cap and trade program. My hope is that the people will band together and refuse to pay the huge price tag associated with this. Tallbloke mentioned voter apathy as a tool of the government (paraphrasing). The people still have a voice, but they need to use it. Most people that I know are so sick to death of being lied to and misled that they do not even pay attention to politics They do not even watch the news (too depressing) and are unaware of world events of any kind. The fear instilled by the government and the MSM has driven most people into a cocoon like existence. We must encourage those around us to grab this thing by the nads. Let them know that the world is what we make of it. That we still have a choice in all this. I will not lie down. Whatever tomorrow brings. There must be no collective fetal position.
On a lighter note, had to go for the dreaded digital exam today. Felt more like analog to me, ………. :^o
Politicians didn’t listen when 93% of Americans didn’t want the Banks Bailout. They didn’t listen when people didn’t want the trillion dollar President Obama proposal in January. They aren’t listening to the record cold and snow that should be stopping them from cap n trade and carbon regulations. They wouldn’t let Monckton talk before them for fear (IMO) of the public seeing him on C-SPAN.
To sum up :
They aren’t going to pay attention to any email I send telling them co2 is good for the earth. I think they’ll just use it behind the scenes it to formulate rebuttals to the things I say.
But maybe I’m jaded.
Hmm, Rachel Howe, and Frank Hill explain the missing sunspots.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm?list1065474
Says they’ll be back, shortly. Any thoughts? Anyone? Leif? Bueller?
I hope I don’t get too politically-oriented… but what will you do if the congress passes the Waxman-Markley bill, despite all the evidences against AGW?
TomLama (09:26:13) : I let the EPA know that we know that it is impossible to tax the temperature of the planet down. I let them know that this is a fraudulent attempt for government mandated gas price gouging.
Well, never underestimate the stupidity of a bureaucrat or their ability to tax anything that moves and some things that don’t.
I once got a tax bill for dead people. Really.
When I inherited the house in which I lived as a child, after a few years, there appeared a “special district tax” added for “cemetery costs” for a local cemetery. I was being taxed for dead people. Never mind that the cemetery was paid to burry the dead people and was supposed to invest the payment so as to pay for lawn mowing in perpetuity…
California is presently debating a “balls tax”. If you would like your pet to retain it’s balls you will be required to pay a special tax. Failure to comply will result in severe penalties (one presumes for both the tax payor and the balls). This is NOT a joke… There will also be (though no doubt named differently) “balls police” who will be inspecting ANY outdoor animal for compliance with the special tax… One can only hope this fails, since if it passes one can only wonder how long before the scope is expanded…
(The incredibly stupid part of this is that, as an economist, I was required to study population dynamics. ALL that matters is fertile females. One male or 10 makes little difference. You get the same total population increase with 10 fertile females and one very happy male as with 10 fertile females and 10 males fighting with each other… But the reality is not in compliance with the political need to hold males responsible.)
What can be taxed, and on what pretext? There is no limit to how low they can go, really… 6 feet under or…
wws (10:49:33) : a “heat based currency” will become reality about the same time the entire human race begins speaking Esperanto. When does the “anticipation map” book that one into our future?
A google of: “anticipation map” future
returns exactly 108 hits, high on the list being this posting in this blog. Whatever “it” is, it does not have much of a following…
BTW, esperanto is so 1960’s… having been replaced by “Ido” that drops the obligatory accusative case and eliminates the requirement for agreement with adjectives and nouns. Much better. The accusative always tripped me up in Esperanto.
Though my favorite is Interlingua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlingua
which I can read just fine having never studied it at all… it has a common base with many indo-european languages…
I could almost get behind it as a standard artificial language we could all share, since it took almost no effort on my part to learn anything…
FWIW, ANY currency will need a central banker and international recognition. I don’t see any political constituency for such a thing. Besides, how does one deal with all the heat available for monetization in the Sahara as compared to, say, Siberia ?
theBuckWheat (13:17:37) : Money spontaneously arose in human economic interaction based on inherantly obvious needs. Anytime we allow government the power to create money out of thin air, we only invite government to print all it wants, and in the process steal our collective wealth through dilution.
Money actually arose through barter. It started as things of inherent value, then moved to things of symbolic value. The large stone doughnuts of one culture were particularly amusing when we were studying ‘money’. They had their own inflation problem since anyone could make a stone into a doughnut with a bit of work. FWIW, the mandate that the USA ought to have only gold and silver as legal money was for precisely the reason you present: to prevent printing and dilution.
Unfortunately, the ‘gold standard’ also has issues, not the least of which is that during the 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union was a major gold producer and in a very real sense we had handed the value of our money supply over to an arch enemy. While I don’t like the “solution” I can understand the reasons…
Climate Heretic (15:19:17) : If the Cap and Trade freezes on the vine ala Grapes in Brazil the EPA will be there with the Clean Air Act in hand because they do not require any Congressional approvals to levy fines and shut down companies. […]
These enviros have the best politicians and lawyers that money can buy on their side and they played this one perfectly, via the courts and using the regulatory framework that was in place and they are only two moves away from checkmate.
I cannot see a way out of this one …
That is because you are focused on the physicality of where you live. Your money needs no passport to relocate.
Look, it takes about 10 seconds to move your wealth to a different place. Does it really matter where your body lives? I sent my money largely “Out Of The U. S.”, or OOTUS, some time ago. Each day I assess the place that has the best advantages and the best momentum. One click, and a few seconds and it flies to a new country.
At this point I hold ONE U.S. Bank security. That is a “preferred stock” with a double digit yield that I may sell in the next few weeks. I hold mostly non-US assets. A lot of it is in BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India, China. Along with a bit of Israel, Turkey, some Bermuda, a bit of Chile and Peru, some Canada and Australia. Most of my “currency” exposure is to the Brazilian Real, the Aussey and the Canadian dollar. A bit of Japanese yen and some British Pounds (though the company in question, Vodaphone, is doing a lot of bussiness outside of the UK, so earnings are in another mixed bag of currencies).
The point? The way “out of this” is one mouse click away in your self directed investment account. Find the country that is going to win and put your money there. Click Click DONE!
A bit of India, a bit of China ( I own EPE and FXI in both) a bit of Brazil (I own a lot of EWZ in Brazil) some shippers (mostly in Greece and Bermuda) etc.
Frankly, one of my key investment drivers is “OOTUS” and another is “Not what Obama and the Democrats are screwing around with”. You just don’t need to be there: Click Click DONE!
So my home is in the USA. Fine. Inflation will make my mortgage (fixed, 30 year) a fond memory that I can pay off with a credit card in a few years. I’m “good with that”. Food and oil going up? I own the food tickers and oil trusts that will pay out more each year of my life. New cars going to cost $50,000 from Gov.Motors? No problem. I have a fine old 1982 Mercedes that I will be driving until I die. Why do I care? Socialized Medicine? Buy TEVA (an Israeli generic drug maker) and short U.S. hospitals.
The way out is easy. Whenever “The Minstry of Stupidity Speaks”, move your money to the place that will win. I don’t really care where my laundry dries or where my body sleeps… ( In fact, I used that to get a government subsidy for about $20,000 / year for something; but I’ll say no more lest it cause “issues”…) So you can be upset at their stupidity or you can make money off of it. The stupidity will be there in either case, “You cain’t fix stupid”…
At this point, with my assets largely in tax sheltered retirement accounts and my “liabilities” exposed to government stupidity, I just don’t see where I care what “Obama and The Dees” does. Then again, I’m one form away from a second passport that lets me go anywhere in the E.U. and the British Commonwealth; should I choose to fill it out, and that may bias my thinking. It’s easier to be calm when you have an “out’…
gt (21:21:42) : I hope I don’t get too politically-oriented… but what will you do if the congress passes the Waxman-Markley bill, despite all the evidences against AGW?
I’ve already done it. I don’t care what Waxman-Malarkey does. It can only help my investments elsewhere. I’ve cut my “income” back to near nothing (building wealth inside IRA type accounts instead) and I have no significant payments for anything. I’ll move my money where the winners are and OOTUS as long as the USA is brain dead. That looks to be a long while….
The more they “do stupid” the more I make money where folks do not do stupid things. What could be better?
E.M.Smith (22:28:41) :
wws (10:49:33) : a “heat based currency” will become reality about the same time the entire human race begins speaking Esperanto. When does the “anticipation map” book that one into our future?
FWIW, ANY currency will need a central banker and international recognition. I don’t see any political constituency for such a thing. Besides, how does one deal with all the heat available for monetization in the Sahara as compared to, say, Siberia ?
Simple, they are already taxing us additional fuel duty to fly, they will simply up that tax in proportion to any positive difference between the average temperatures of the points of departure and destination. They’ll get you one way or the other…
I wrote this extra verse Monty Python’s ‘Galaxy song’ a while ago
http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/d&g/astro/music/Galaxy_Song.html
Well the planet’s getting hot, “It’s co2!” – or maybe not,
It’s got the Hacks and Greens in such a spin.
We’re taxed into the ground, for driving cars around,
And jetting off to Spain is such a sin.
But don’t believe it yet, keep your cool and hedge your bet,
The temperature is dropping every day.
The ocean cooling down, will stop the gulf stream rolling round,
And the glacier from the north is on the way.
🙂
Coldest June untill now since first recordings: 12 and 7 degree below normal!
http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/tom-skilling-blog/2009/06/chilly-junes-2009-open-one-for-2.html
Kudos to Anthony for an excellent comment and letter/document. TALLBLOKE comment is right on. Do not despair, give it you best effort in responding back to the EPA. The postings especially those that reference peer review can be used in court to challenge any proposed regulations or rulings. There is every reason to believe using the same tactics of the left, we can defeat or at the very least delay any damaging EPA actions for years, allowing nature to show whose boss. SteveSadlov is correct “…nature bats last”.
As for Waxman Markey, there are a lot of rural democrats who feel the coastal “damn the red states” democrats are ignoring their concerns. Waxman and Markey will try and buy them out. You need to contact your local reps/senators and tell them to follow their instincts and vote no on Cap-n-Tax or they lose your vote in 2010 or 2012.
Senator Inhofe believes it will fail in the senate, but I fear the same thing will happen with attempts to buy the votes. There is a lot of money out there pushing these efforts. Anytime you see firms like Goldman Sachs and GE pushing an effort hard, you can be sure it isn’t because they care about polar bears. They see huge potential profits. Ultimately the bubble will burst and our economy and consumers will suffer, but some people will have been made very rich (at the expense of all the rest of us). And of course, our government will bail the companies out if carbon trading fails again at our expense. Another black hole.
Please take action. Posting is easy but you are mainly speaking to the choir, we need you to do more. Tell everyone you know about the real story. Only 24% of Americans in a recent survey knew that cap-n-trade had anything to do with energy and the environment. Many though it had to do with health care. Many think it brings only benefits and no costs. That is what Waxman and Markey and the state climate plan teams all claim. Studies have shown it will cost an average of $1600 to $4200 per year in energy and other cost increases for goods and services for an average American family. There will be millions of lost jobs. Ignore the nonsense about green jobs. Spain’s experience has been for every green job created, 2 real jobs are lost as manufacturing moves overseas (China and India) where they don’t have onerous taxes. And only 1 in 10 green jobs are permanent. Encourage others to call their representatives or attend town hall meetings.
I have been a conservationist and environmentalists (old sense) all my life, but this is not about the environment (and most of my life a democrat or independent). This is a political and economic tsunami that cares little about science or real data or for that matter the planet. It sees this issue as any opportunty to develop a new world order and exert more control over us and everything we do. It will take a huge effort from all of us to defeat it.