Obama Whitehouse: GDP has been Decoupled from CO2 Emissions

Manufacturing Jobs USA (source Wikipedia). Note the original graph showed jobs since 1940

Manufacturing Jobs USA (source Wikipedia). Note the original graph showed jobs since 1940

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

President Obama’s administration thinks CO2 emissions have been decoupled from GDP. The reality is many of the manufacturing jobs, and the CO2 emissions which went with them, have simply been exported.

Climate Change is Costly; Serious Climate Policy is a Bargain

JANUARY 12, 2017 AT 10:00 AM ET BY BRIAN DEESE, JASON FURMAN

Summary: As the climate changes, global economic output will fall, but most of those economic damages can be avoided with smart policy.

As the President wrote this week in the journal Science, the last eight years demonstrate that carbon emissions can decline while the economy is growing. This is in contrast to centuries old reality that increased economic output entailed increased carbon emissions. Emissions did, in fact, drop during the Great Recession. But due to trends in the energy system and policies pursued by President Obama, carbon pollution has continued to fall while our economy has recovered from that shock. From 2008-2015, U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5 percent while the economy grew more than 10 percent.

GDP and Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Dioxide Emissions 2000 - 2015

GDP and Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Dioxide Emissions 2000 – 2015, source Whitehous

The decoupling of carbon pollution and economic growth in the United States is underway, and recent data from the International Energy Agency suggests that this trend is going global, as emissions have stayed flat in 2014 and 2015 while the global economy grew. When the Paris Agreement took effect in December 2015, the world took an important step toward avoiding the most dangerous impacts of climate change. But Paris alone is not enough to avoid average global surface temperature increases that climate scientists say are very risky — additional policies that reduce CO2 emissions are needed, in the United States and elsewhere, to ensure that these damages are avoided.

Moreover, as we consider the interaction of climate change mitigation policies and the economy, it is important to remember that the counterfactual to serious mitigation is not free – the absence (or even delay of effective climate policy can be very costly over time. The figure below graphs estimates of the annual economic damages from climate change, expressed as a fraction of global gross domestic product (GDP), from mid- to late-century, under different climate policy scenarios. We can think of this as a “climate damage cost” that world nations will pay each year as the climate changes, in terms of lost economic output. This cost includes impacts of increased temperature on agricultural productivity, sea level rise, and deaths and illnesses related to heat, pollution and tropical diseases. In the reference curve (in blue), no action is taken to address climate change. Each of the other curves incorporate different assumptions about how much emissions mitigation the world will achieve, and how quickly. If countries meet their individual nationally-determined contributions (INDCs) agreed to in Paris and go no further, moving the world from the blue to the purple curve, we can avoid significant economic damages. To move to the red curve, countries must meet the Paris INDCs and continue to decarbonize beyond 2030 at about the same rate represented in the INDCs. If we achieve net-zero global GHG emissions in 2080, we can reduce climate damage impacts on the level of global GDP from more than 4 percent to less than 1 percent by 2100.

Climate Change Impacts as a Fraction of Global Economic Output, 2050 - 2100.

Climate Change Impacts as a Fraction of Global Economic Output, 2050 – 2100. Source Whitehouse

Failing to make investments in climate change mitigation could leave the global economy, and the U.S. economy, worse off in the future. And the estimates graphed above are uncertain and may be conservative; they do not account for damages that are difficult to monetize (such as increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather), or for the possibility that we may cross critical greenhouse gas concentration thresholds that cause catastrophic damages (such as the melting of Greenland ice sheets and associated sea-level rise), or for the chance that climate change will reduce the rate of economic growth in some countries, rather than just the level of output.

We may have become used to reading about the predicted physical impacts of climate change, like inundated coasts and lower crop production. But the economic impacts, and their fiscal consequences, will be severe, as well. For example, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget recently estimated that a reduction in annual global economic output of 4 percent—well within the range of what economic models suggest could happen by 2100 without further climate action—could translate to lost U.S. federal tax revenue of $340 to $690 billion per year (about 0.5 percent of expected U.S. GDP in 2100).

In deciding how much to reduce carbon pollution, and how quickly to act, countries must weigh the costs of policy action against estimates of avoided climate damages. But we should be clear-eyed about the fact that effective action is possible, and that the economic and fiscal costs of inaction are steep.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/01/11/climate-change-costly-serious-climate-policy-bargain

Why do I think manufacturing jobs have been exported? The following paper published by the US government in 2012 claims such a link.

The Surprisingly Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment Justin R. Pierce and Peter K. Schott

NBER Working Paper No. 18655
December 2012
JEL No. E0,F1,J0

ABSTRACT

This paper finds a link between the sharp drop in U.S. manufacturing employment after 2001 and the elimination of trade policy uncertainty resulting from the U.S. granting of permanent normal trade relations to China in late 2000. We find that industries where the threat of tariff hikes declines the most experience greater employment loss due to suppressed job creation, exaggerated job destruction and a substitution away from low-skill workers. We show that these policy-related employment losses coincide with a relative acceleration of U.S. imports from China, the number of U.S. firms importing from China, the number of Chinese firms exporting to the U.S., and the number of U.S.-China importer-exporter pairs.

Justin R. Pierce
Federal Reserve Board 20th and C ST NW Washington, DC 20551
justin.r.pierce@frb.gov

Peter K. Schott
Yale School of Management
135 Prospect Street
New Haven, CT 06520-8200 and NBER peter.schott@yale.edu

Read more: https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/documents/Pierce%20and%20Schott%20-%20The%20Surprisingly%20Swift%20Decline%20of%20U.S.%20Manufacturing%20Employment_0.pdf

I have read other analysis claiming the real issue is robotics, artificial intelligence and automation. As a software expert I have no doubt automation has had a substantial impact, and will continue to impact employment. Many skilled metal working jobs have been displaced over the last few decades by robot CNC machines. The automobile manufacturing industry has embraced robot assembly lines for a long time.

There is also evidence that US manufacturing productivity, output per job, and production as a whole has grown substantially – though it seems likely those estimates include a substantial increase in the proportion of unfinished components imported from overseas, components which used to be manufactured in America.

WUWT recently reported how Apple Corp evaded an attempt to have offshore supply chain CO2 emissions included in their emissions reduction plans and claims. I would be surprised if Apple was the only image obsessed US company which seems to see offshore manufacturing as a convenient way to deflect attention from the true magnitude of their supply chain CO2 emissions.

A rise in the domestic US increase in use of gas, and a policy driven decline in coal use, has also likely contributed to a reduction in US GHG emissions.

But the claim that US GDP has been decoupled from CO2 emissions seems very weak, given that the US government’s own research shows that many of those jobs, and the CO2 emissions which go with them, have simply been exported.

Advertisements

149 thoughts on “Obama Whitehouse: GDP has been Decoupled from CO2 Emissions

  1. Mr. Obama your the one who is uncoupled from reality = 95+ Million People have dropped out of the labor force thanks on large part to your Omanomics failure! – You back a loser and guess what the loser comes in last!!!

      • “…or for the chance that climate change will reduce the rate of economic growth in some countries, rather than just the level of output.”

        Unless I’m mistaken, the guy who wrote this speech is clueless. Reducing the rate of economic growth means that the rate still is positive, as opposed to “just the level of output” which means economic growth is going down. He has the relationship exactly backwards. I’d say that the writer – as well as the speaker – should stick to what they understand.

    • That statistic is incorrect and was debunked a long time ago. 95M includes all retirees as well as teens.

      • Poor Chris, still trying to defend the indefensible.
        First off, the number has not been debunked. If what you say is correct, it might be misused, but the number itself is accurate.
        Beyond that, the number of people who have decided to retire early has increased dramatically in recent years. Secondly, it couldn’t include teens, since they were never in the work force to begin with.

    • You meant “Obamanomics”, I’m sure. (typo?)

      “GDP Decoupled From CO2 Emissions” … I can hardly get past that phrase, let alone discuss any salient points of the post.

      I could think of another useful phrase for another article … Fragmented From Reality … seemingly a modern syndrome that overshadows many areas of human endeavor today.

    • There has been no decoupling of GDP and CO2, but Obama would never admit it. The driving force behind GDP increase is the hidden inflation that is not counted. When you subtract the inflation, the GDP is in decline along with the CO2, and basically for the same reasons that is suggested – an actual decrease in energy made possible by manufacturing jobs leaving the country. Too bad that didn’t have a useful meaning, like the climate was going to magically act the way we wanted it to, but all it really means is that more people live at a lower standard of living now than 8 years ago. Thousands and thousands lost their homes, but that was offset by the fact the president was able to buy a couple of mansions. A reasonable trade.

  2. Shale gas production has been rising precipitously since 2008, exactly when Figure 2 above shows CO2 emissions begin decreasing with GDP.

    It seems to me possible that the entire “decoupling” from CO2 emission really just reflects the switch to natural gas for energy production. Less CO2 per BTU = lower CO2 production for the same economic output.

  3. Unhinged, Let’s look at the real situation:

    Population is increasing 1% per year.

    CO2 is increasing 2PPM (Nett) a year,

    At 200PPM there is productive stasis in C3 plants (Zero nett growth) , at 400PPM we have 100% of todays growth so for every 2PPM plant productivity increases 1% –

    So right now the food yield increases due to CO2 exactly offset population growth 2PPM P/A = 1% PA food yield growth.

    If we were to achieve CO2 stasis, then population would outgrow the food supply by 1% per year and we would be in famine by 2030. That’s what I call Climate DAMAGE!

    • Since increased CO2 is quite desirable and has not down side because even slightly warmer temperatures are a huge benefit, Apple was perfectly right to avoid the stupid restrictions and regulations regarding their emissions. We need more CO2 to maintain our food supply while the climate cools. Period

  4. The fact that “carbon emissions” have fallen matters not one iota. Some of that is purely circumstantial, having nothing to do with “climate policy”. What does matter is the multi-$billions wasted on said “climate policy”, which merely acts like a dead weight on our economy.

    • “From 2008-2015, U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5 percent while the economy grew more than 10 percent.”

      In eight years the economy has grown by more than 10%. That equals a GDP average growth of just over 1.25% per year. Obama thinks this is progress. In fact, this is the worst recovery from a recession in recent history. Economists believe we need about a 3% annual growth rate to maintain and defend our country. A 3% average growth rate would have resulted in a 24% increase in GDP. So, a 10% growth rate is anemic.

      Maybe if our economy had grown at a more robust rate CO2 emissions would not have decreased. This is especially true of our manufacturing economy which has actually decreased in the last eight years. The Service economy doesn’t require as much energy.

      The Obama statement is simply “lipstick on a pig”.

  5. Eric, another elephant in the room is conversion to natural gas from coal fired electrical. Probably recessional conditions also reduce automobile truck and train use, too.

  6. Quote: … recent data from the International Energy Agency suggests that this trend is going global, as emissions have stayed flat in 2014 and 2015 while the global economy grew …

    So the Mauna Loa figures should be showing quite a change in trend by now.

    But of course they aren’t. But then again the Mauna Loa figures haven’t been adjusted yet. Or maybe human emissions haven’t been what has been affecting the Mauna Loa figures. Or maybe the IEA should check its work more carefully.

    I’d say that you couldn’t make this stuff up but the evidence is otherwise.

  7. The fairy tale as outlined above is just additional proof that Obama and his followers need to be removed from any further involvement in the governing process of the USA.

  8. Looks like instead of GDP lies and fabrications, we can look at CO2 emissions to get the best judgement of the overall economy. Let me see, declining since 1980. Yup.

  9. President Obama’s administration thinks CO2 emissions have been decoupled from GDP….

    President Obama decoupled our GSP…and sent it overseas

  10. The biggest drag on the economy, in general, is federal reserve inflation policy. If it does turn out that climate change becomes a drag on the economy, the fed will help it along by keeping interest rates low. We will always have the same economies going forward as the fed “creates” them according to it’s policy. (so regardless of any drags upon the economy, the fed will leverage interest rates to obtain the same outcome)…

      • “Why Are Wal-Mart, Boeing, & Lowe’s Laying Off Workers If The U.S. Economy Is In Such Great Shape?”

        What has been propping up the U.S. economy is the low gasoline and energy prices.

        Trump’s election will serve as a further stimulus to the economy. His coming cutting of taxes and regulations is already making American businesses think twice about moving to other countries. Instead, they are starting to invest in the U.S. and create jobs here.

        This is already starting to have a snowball effect. Just like the voters got on board the Trump Train, the businesses of the world will be climbing on board as we move forward. Low energy costs, low taxes, and minimum regulations. What’s not to like?

        One more week, and then the shackles start coming off the U.S. economy.

      • TA, i hate to say it, but the shackles are being put ON the economy, not off… by the federal reserve. Concurrently (and coincidentally) with the election of trump the fed has begun raising interest rates. Our next recession will soon be under way. UNLESS trump does something about it. Janet Yellen’s term as fed chair is up in about a year. If trump replaces her with one who will allow for a high growth economy, then he’s (we’ve) gotta chance. Keep an eye on the duel between trump and the fed in 2017. (and keep yer fingers crossed)…

      • Interests rates have been held too low for too long.
        They have to come back up eventually.
        The longer they stay low, the more damage will be done to the economy.

      • Mark, they raise interest rates precisely TO damage the economy… By raising rates, they slow down the economy, eventually stop the economy (at about 4% unemployment), and eventually kill the economy when a large enough drag happens along to create a recession (as it inevitably shall). There’s an old addage: THE FEDERAL RESERVE, CREATING RECESSIONS SINCE 1913…

        The reason they do this is two fold. Primarily they are concerned with “demand” inflation. With a boom economy people make more money, spend more money and that drives prices up. So in essence, by keeping people poor (too poor to afford even cheaper prices) they keep demand inflation in check. Without going into it here, this is an arguably dubious thing for the fed to be doing. (and people have argued that) Secondly, the fed is concerned about economic stability. The bigger the economies are, the harder they will fall. So the idea is to keep the economy less than red hot so that when the inevitable recession comes it won’t be as steep. While evidence is scant for this going back to the great depression, there may be some merit to this argument. These days the economies are so large that perhaps what the fed does isn’t quite enough. Again, not a whole lot of evidence for it yet. But, it’s something that the fed will be mindful of heading forward, especially in light of the collapse in ’08. At any rate, the fed is in no mood for trump and his vision of 6% growth at this point. Interest rates are a powerful tool in shutting down the economy. (you might say they trump Trump) The party is pretty much over before it has even begun. Wait, watch and see. The next couple years should be very interesting indeed; trump vs. the fed…

  11. This a whimper to sway Donald Trump (is that your best shot Chief? ) . How fast was the Science paper published? If Hillary had got in it wouldn’t have been necessary, so it wasn’t submitted long ago.

    A thought on other fake news: why would the Russians take such a risk to ensure Trump got in when all the polls gave him no chance? Russia like NYT, LAT etc saw Hillary as a shoo in. The second layer is that if the dnc and H hadn’t been ethically so sleazy and downright ugly manipulators there would have been nothing helpful to release. Apparently they hacked the RNC it was too boring to be newsworthy.

    There is going to be a crescendo of this kind of lame legacy stuff, and bleats from the AGW crowd. Ironically this is the scairdest this group has ever been about climate stuff (sarc).

    • What risk did the Russians take? They have done whatever they want in Syria and Ukraine and the response from the West has largely been inconsequential to Putin. What response could the US have had to Russian meddling that would have frightened them off? Perhaps the US could have called in the Russian ambassador for a stern lecture. Ooooh, scary business.

  12. “From 2008-2015, U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5 percent while the economy grew more than 10 percent.”

    Sounds like a shell game–looking at GDP as output, while only considering CO2 emissions from the energy sector. What about emissions from other sectors of the economy, especially transportation? Since manufacturing declined in this period, energy sector emissions associated with manufacturing would as well. But if the overall economy grew, it seems likely to me that transportation and services sector emissions grew even more than energy sector emissions declined.

  13. Robots and automation of work are not going to have any substantial effect on CO2 emissions, as they are all machines that are powered by electricity.

  14. The only “decoupling” under Obama was from reality…

    GDP growth under Obama was the weakest since the 1940’s, and was artificially caused by: stock market, bond and real estate bubbles resulting from the M1 money supply increasing from $800 billion to almost $4 TRILLION in just 8 years (the largest M1 spike in US history), QE money printing, insane zero-interest rate monetary policies, collapsing oil prices caused by: fracking and Saudi Arabia artificially dumping 1 million bbl/day of excess oil into the market to hurt the US fracking industry (which the Saudis ended a month ago).

    The US industrial sector has been destroyed by: $2 TRILLION/yr in regulation compliance costs, insane labor and union laws, excessive environmental/CO2 sequestration laws, the highest corporate tax rate in the world, Obamacare costs/uncertainties, minimum wage laws, etc.

    All these gigantic problems created by Obama will be addressed by Trump over the next 8 years.

    Drain the Swamp/Make America Great Again.

    • SAMURAI, yellen held a presser in december right after raising rates and indicated that she would be opposing trump every step of the way. Depending on just how well trump does, she’s prepared to raise interest rates fast and furiously. Her term ends in 2018 and if trump doesn’t replace her with a fed chair who is more compatible with his economic vision, then he’s going to have a tough time making america great again…

      • Unfortunately, we’ll have to pop the stock market, real estate and bond bubbles by increasing interest rates…

        If Trump was smart, he’d do what Reagan did and appoint a Fed Chairman like Volcker who would rapidly increase interest rates to pop all the market bubbles. The longer we wait, the larger the economic collapse will be.

        Yes, this will cause a very deep recession, but it’s necessary to clean up the mess we’re in.

        Leftist government hacks LOVE economic bubbles because they create the illusion of economic growth, when in fact they are utterly destroying the currency and the economy by causing $trillions of land/labor/capital to be misallocated.

        The low interest rates also make it easier to finance the $20 Trillion we have of national debt…

        Only when there are floating interest rates determined by free-market principles can real economic growth and efficient use of land/labor/capital be assured.

        I doubt Trump will do this….

      • It was Carter who appointed Volker in 1979 (and we know how it turned out for him!) If Trump does that, then say hello to President HRC in 2020 so he’d better “lock her up” now…
        It should be interesting to see how this all plays out. It’s one thing to have ‘business sense’ as Trump has; quite another to have ‘economic sense’ which i don’t know if he has. (and add an ‘economic sense’ coupled to a necessary added ‘political sense’ which Carter definitely did NOT have)…

      • Mark, i wonder about that… i wonder if he can just yank her now or does he have to wait until her term is up. From what i (scantly) understand she anticipates leaving when her term is up in about a year. (not sure if she’s thinking of leaving by her own volition or what)…

    • “GDP growth under Obama was the weakest since the 1940’s …”.
      =========================
      Historically weak:

      The logic in the article is flawed, GDP has recovered weakly despite Obama’s policies, not because of them.

    • Saudi dumping had as much to do with international politics as it did with US/Canadian oil sands (not fraccing).
      The Saudi’s were also doing it to hurt Iran and Russia.

  15. As Steve MacIntyre warns, keep your eye on the pea.
    For the uninformed “smart policy” translates into an assumption that a shift from fossil fuel to renewables caused the decrease in emissions, with the benefit of “green” jobs which raised the GDP. That slight of hand is typical of Obama and the gullibility of his followers.
    An increase from 2 to 4 % renewable contribution to our energy supply is a rounding error.
    The turbines and solar panels are made in China (whose use of coal accelerates); installation jobs are negligible and don’t offset the loss of jobs in just the coal industry.
    The rest of the piece is “blather” or to use a newly popular term “Fake News” regarding the threat of more frequent hurricanes (the frequency has lessened) and sea level rise (it was ALWAYS rising, the claim was acceleration of the rise – which has not occurred.)

    • In my day, “fake news” used to be called “lies” but sensitive souls don’t seem to like it anymore. Oddly, the British Parliament has also long had a rule forbidding the use of the L-word.

    • Very well stated, George:
      Global weather related damage as a percentage of GDP had dropped by 25% over the past 22 years. (Source: Munich Re. Source of GDP data: United Nations.)

      Hurricane and tropical storm frequency has, at worst, remained unchanged over the past 45 years. (Source: After Maue, R. N. (2011), Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity. , Geophys. Res. Letts. 38:L14803, doi:10.1029/2011GL047711.)

      Wild fires and forest fire count in the US has remained unchanged over the past 50 years. (Source: National Interagency Fire Center https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm)

      Areal fraction of land in the US under drought or flood conditions has shown no changes in the past 120 years. (Source: NOAA/NCEI)

      Global areal extent of drought has either remained unchanged or shown a slightly negative slope over the past 30+ years. (Source: Hao et al. 2014)

      And from “Green-Jobs-Rhetoric_Lyman.pdf – can be found on the Friends of Science web site):
      • For every “green” job created, between 2.2 to 6.9 jobs are lost in standard industries due to the cost associated with “green” jobs;
      • A great deal of the “green” jobs are temporary – once the facilities are installed the jobs disappear;
      • Corruption reign supreme in the renewable sector – the Italian Mafia are a prime example of fraudulently skimming millions of euros from both the Italian government and the EU;
      o Ditto Mr. Al Gore and his carbon trading scheme (okay, I added that);
      • And in Germany, the conclusion was that: “We should regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.”

  16. If we converted to more nuclear power we could say Mr. Obama has been, for the first time, honest. The alleged decrease is due to the private sector holding off the misanthropic friends of the President who seek to shut down fracking as well as coal.

  17. I have not read all the comments so this may be a repeat of a point raised by someone else.

    Colour me sceptical on the claim. All the plot shows is the consequence and benefit of fracking. The economy is still being powered by fossil fuels, but the switch to gas replacing coal powered generation is in itself decarbonisation.

    Gas has a far higher calorific value comparfed to coal such that less gas is used for each kWh of energy produced. With coal all the energy is obtained from burning carbon producing CO2, whereas with gas energy is also produced from burning hydrogen producing CO2 plus H20

    Although the US did not ratify Kyoto, and was much derided for not having done so, out of all the developed nations it has reduced its CO2 emissions the most and has achieved this because it has plenty of fracked gas reserves that it has tapped. Other countries may also have large reserves of frackable gas but due to the GREEN BLOB they have not yet tapped these reserves. For example, the UK comes to mind.

    It is amazing that the GREEN BLOB which claims to be concerned about CO2 emissions is so opposed to both nuclear and to fracking, which technologies are proven to reduce CO2 emissions.

    The news is not all good since this planet could do with more CO2 which is greening the biosphere to the benefit of life in general, and is helping us to achieve ever bumper yields of crops which is needed fro the growing population.

      • richard verney
        January 12, 2017 at 7:07 pm

        It is amazing that the GREEN BLOB which claims to be concerned about CO2 emissions is so opposed to both nuclear and to fracking, which technologies are proven to reduce CO2 emissions.

        The news is not all good since this planet could do with more CO2 which is greening the biosphere to the benefit of life in general, and is helping us to achieve ever bumper yields of crops which is needed fro the growing population.

        afonzarelli
        January 13, 2017 at 12:22 am

        Richard, the GREEN BLOB has yet to learn the law of unintended consequences…

        THE GREEN BLOB is not concerned with CO2 whatsoever, it’s just an excuse. The BLOB’s one over-riding goal is the destruction of the western economy, and with it, the way of life that the people enjoy.
        The GREEN BLOB is an ideological movement driven by hate and envy. That is why they are against any solution which could reduce CO2 (nuclear,hydro,gas etc.). CO2 was built up as an excuse for their destructive policies without much thinking through (typical of greens) and shows up in their inconsistencies.

        Call it collectivism,communism,socialism,radical isla.mism or any other ism, it is just destructive.

        SteveT

  18. I guess the irony really lies in the fact that CO2 has failed to produce the modeled results, so obviously there are other forcings which supercede it.
    What I see from progressivism is an agenda to dismantle national economies and create a globally governed socioeconomic paradigm where there is no middle-class and only the properly indoctrinated are employed at all.

    • John,
      The usual deliberate muddle between correlation and causation.
      FIFY.

      These off-spring of not-legally wed mothers are, indeed, out to get us.

      Auto

  19. “… recent data from the International Energy Agency suggests that this trend is going global, as emissions have stayed flat in 2014 and 2015 …”
    ================================
    If human emissions were responsible for most of the CO2 concentration increase, I would expect to see a ‘flattening’ here:

    • The report was for the US, this chart is for the world as a whole.
      The increases in India and China are easily large enough to cover for any drop in the US.

  20. And in other news, the Obama White House announced that water had been decoupled from life, and that the White House isn’t actually white if you look hard enough.

  21. It’s a shame the US doesn’t make anything nowadays but relies on cheap products from China and other low income countries.

  22. The increase in energy efficiency and reduction in CO2 emissions is because of the new Combined Cycle Natural Gas power plants.

    The newest versions of these plants are more efficient than the earliest ones and most importantly, they are more reliable. Some of the turbine arrangements in the first and second generations broke down a lot but now they are more reliable. In combined cycle, they recover the heat generated in the first phase to generate another round of power. And natural gas is both cheap and provides lower CO2 emissions than coal for example. In addition, these plants can be built to almost any size now. Small back-ups, to full city-sized facilities.

    That is why CO2 emissions are lower and energy efficiency has gone up.

    Natural Gas became Number 1 in the US in 2016.

  23. Obama has done an amazing job. He killed Osama Bin Laden. He saved the automakers. He tripled the stock market. He lowered unemployment to under five percent. He ended two unpopular wars overseas. He disarmed Iran. The dollar is strong. Gasoline is under 2.50 a gallon. He brought the world together to sign the Paris climate agreement. He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents ever!

      • Everything I listed was a fact. Its hard to spin numbers isn’t it? Supply side economics is want Trump and the GOP believe in. And once again we will all watch it fail miserably. And in eight years when things are rough again. The voters will long for the Obama days again.

      • How am I delusional? Everything I listed were facts. Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6% if he was elected. Obama brought it down under 5%. Keynesian economics worked once again. Just like it did when it brought us out of the great depression. Supply side economics is a flawed and debunked strategy. Wake up!

      • It is not Keynesian Economics. Period. Keynes advocate SHORT term deficit spending followed by surpluses to pay for them Obama ran up $10t in deficits. There were no surpluses.

        Second, the Stockmarket did not triple. It was just under 8k when he took office. it is not 24k now. Not even close.

        Third, the Unemployment rate is bogus as every credible person will tell you. That is because of the 95 million MarkW told you about. While some are normally NOT in the labor force, the labor participation rate is the lowest many years. The difference added to the currently reported U3 is a truer rate – 7%. Hardly anything to crow about.

        Fourth, the stock market has nothing to do with Obama as it has more to do with the Trillions the Fed injected into the market to prop it up. It also does not reflect the economic performance of the past 8 years, which works out to an annual growth rate of 1.2% BEFORE inflation.

        Fifth, while the “reported” inflation rate has remained low, it is still above 1.2% over the past 8 years. So the actual growth rate is negative.

        Sixth – Obama failed to achieve a growth rate in excess of 3% for ANY quarter of his regime, a record not shared by any other president in history.

        I would suggest doing research and stop using talking points.

      • The spin is that you are trying to claim that your facts either matter, or that Obama was responsible for them.

        Killiing Bin Laden. Meaningless act, Bin Laden hadn’t had any authority in Al Queda in over a decade prior to his death. Beyond that Al Queda had become a backwater in terms of their ability to commit terrorist acts.

        He did not save the auto companies. It’s possible that one of them might have gone bankrupt, the rest would have survived. Ford for one didn’t take any government help. Regardless, the factories would not have disappeared, they would have been bought by someone and production would have continued.
        What Obama did do was steal 10’s of millions from investors in order to reward his union supporters.

        He did not lower unemployment, his 10% GDP growth over 8 years isn’t even enough to keep up with growth in the working age population. What brought the unemployment rate down was 95 million people giving up and no longer looking for work. Labor rate participation today is lower than it was at the depths of the Depression.

        He ended the war by unilaterally withdrawing. He cut and ran and as a result lost two wars that had already been won. Most of today’s resurgence in terrorism can be traced to those two monumentally stupid acts.

        Disarmed Iran? By giving them everything they wanted? Only the totally delusional believes that Iran has given up it’s quest for the bomb. If anything Obama has made their goal easier.

        The dollar is strong, only compared to other countries that are in even worse shape economically.

        Gasoline under $2.50 a gallon. Only because Obama wasn’t able to stop exploration and production on private lands. He did everything in his power to block it on government owned lands. You can also thank Saudi Arabia which had the twin goals of slowing down oil/tar sands revolution and defunding Iran and Russia. Again, nothing to do with Obama.

        Obama single handedly brought the world together in Paris? Once again, you give Obama credit for things that would have happened anyway. Beyond that, the Paris agreement is a toothless tiger, it has no concrete goals and no enforcement methods. Finally, he didn’t even bother to submit it to the Senate. Until the Senate ratifies it, it remains a worthless piece of paper.

        Obama has been a disaster in every way imaginable, the only question remaining is if he is the worst president ever, or merely one of the 3 worst.

      • You simply don’t understand how Obama works, do you? It’s ‘just get to the targeted number.’ And if it’s not true, just change the unit of measure. It’s more about filling in lines on a checklist than any actual accomplishment. It’s virtual reality and PR.

      • Your claim that the US unemployment rate is not a valid statistic is pure nonsense. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Obama took it to 4.7%. Give the man some credit. Leave your echo chamber once an awhile and get some fresh air!

      • No, I said the rate is deceptive. And it is. for the reasons I explained. It does not matter what Romney said – he is not president and never will be! What is your problem? Tired of blaming Boosh 8 years after Obama took over? Do liberals ever accept responsibility? Or are they always victims?

        Get a clue. Obama has been president for 8 years. Not Bush. not Romney. OBAMA. And he failed.

      • I notice that the troll can’t even be bothered to defend his talking points. He just repeats them shouting louder.

      • Hey, Cliffhanger, if you change the unit of measurement, statistics become meaningless. If you can’t see that simple, obvious mechanism – which is the go-to methodology of this president – well, I think you not trying to.

        My God, look who’s talking about an echo chamber.

      • Saying 90% or whatever has left the job force due to lack of opportunity is simply not true. There was a study done that showed it was over 80% were retiree’s who dropped out of the labor force., Also woman saw a slight downward trend in working. And there was a large increase in more college educated citizens who have choose not to work. So to count this number as your statistic is cherry picking at its finest. The US unemployment rate is the greatest statistic we have for judging employment. Its been that way for a long time. If you would have done any research you would have came to the same conclusion. For example you would have learned we actually know what the labor participation rate will be up till 2050. It doesn’t matter who is president.
        http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/ .

      • Cliff – no one but you said 90%. We gave you the facts and figures. Clearly you are not capable of handling them. And as others have pointed out, factcheck is 2 lies in one. They have no facts and they do not check. It is a fake news site for the fake news sites of the MSM. Proven wrong continually.

        I said, and will restate it, that while more people are retired, as a PERCENT of the population, the percentage has not changed much (due to immigration and births). Ergo a RATE that has gone UP is showing a greater percentage out of the labor force. I did not say the number, I said the RATE.

        As MarkW clearly pointed out, your talking points are failing you. You have no response to the FACT that Obama is the only president with a net zero increase in the labor force during a term of his regime. Even Carter, during stagflation, could at least point to SOME job creation. Obama could not.

        And the irony is that while the fake news sites whined about the jobs created under Bush as being “burger flippers”, the reality is the few jobs that Obama “created” in his second term WHERE burger flippers! Part time jobs that were taken by former full time workers because the companies could not afford Obamacare.

        Now run along and get some more talking points that have nothing to do with my comment so you can post another non sequitur.

      • Cliffy, you really do cling to your delusions, don’t you.
        Yes a big portion is retiree’s, but many of those weren’t voluntary retirements.
        If there is this huge group of people who have simply chosen not to work, ans your fantasy insists, then there should be lots and lots available jobs for those who want to work but can’t find any.
        Yes, a lot of women have given up trying to find work and are relying on their husband’s income to support the family. But that is not necessarily a good thing.
        PS, I notice you are completely ignoring the spanking I gave you above.

    • Gosh, to me, it looks like Obama lit the world on fire, ran up more debt than all the other presidents combined, crippled as many industries as he could, destroyed the healthcare system, set Americans at each other’s throats over every issue possible, discredited major institutions, corrupted the press beyond repair, demolished and demoralized the military, alienated our allies, propped-up and invigorated our enemies. We’ve never been in a more precarious place since before World War II – all this while downsizing our military and telling us everything’s fine, nothing to see here.

      And your statement that he ‘disarmed Iran’ is simple self-serving stupidity. For your comments about ‘echo-chambers’, it seems you just simply suck up Obama’s own version of events without the slightest critique.

      Gasoline prices are in spite of him – almost entirely due to fracking and price war outside his control – and don’t forget they held at sub-four-bucks a gallon for nearly his entire first term.

      The stock market was simply crony capitalists, in league with government at the expense of small business, and the employment rate was achieved by changing the unit of measure (gosh, where have we heard THAT before?)

      We’re still in Afghanistan – with increased troop deaths (funny how the press’s ‘troop-death count’ disappeared once Obama started ramping up the numbers) – we’re back in Iraq because of impossibly irresponsible policies – and I don’t know HOW many other countries.

      And funny that I’ve never seen a photograph of Bin Laden’s corpse – I’ve seen pictures of nearly every other dead-guy of note.

      Greatest president ever? Wow. Talk about trying to get there. I was no fan of George Bush, but Obama was absolutely the worst possible guy to follow him.

      But you just keep repeating your talking points – the only one you’re really trying to convince is yourself.

      • You make up conspiracy theories to support your beliefs. Like saying “government is in bed with the market and crony capitalism. LOL I hope you have a source to that delusion. And I am not sure what you mean by “Ive never seen pictures of Bin Laden”. I am guessing you are saying there is a conspiracy involved again!. He enabled 30 million people to gain health insurance. As a result the US is at all time lows in percentage of citizens with health insurance. I am not sure how that exactly is destroying the whole system? And you claimed the “Press troop death count disappeared once Obama started ramping up the numbers?”. I hope you have a good credible source to back up another conspiracy theory you believe in.

    • Cliffhanger January 13, 2017 at 5:49 am wrote: “Obama has done an amazing job.”

      That’s funny. It is amazing to me that anyone could even say that seriously. How blind do you have to be to not see the blemishes on Obama?

      Cliffhanger: “He killed Osama Bin Laden.”

      Navy Seals killed bin Laden. Whoever had been president when they spotted bin Laden, would have killed him (with the exception of Joe Biden).

      Cliffhanger: “He saved the automakers.”

      Obama screwed the GM bond holders and gave all the money to the unions. The automakers would have been bailed out with, or without, Obama.

      Cliffhanger: “He tripled the stock market.”

      The American economy and low energy prices are what stimulated the stock market. And that is despite Obama, not because of him. Obama’s regulations and policies have stifled the U.S. economy. That it has done so good in the face of such restrictions is a testatment to the strength of the economy, which is moving ahead despite Obama’s rediculous regulations and Obamacare (a huge job killer).

      Cliffhanger: “He lowered unemployment to under five percent.”

      A bogus figure. When people give up looking for a job, Obama doesn’t count them as unemployed. He doesn’t count them at all. There are now about 95 million able-bodied Americans who could work if they had work, but they don’t, and none of these 95 million unemployed are counted in the 5 percent figure.

      Cliffhanger: “He ended two unpopular wars overseas.”

      The only thing Obama ended was Amrican participation. A war only ends when both sides say it has ended. The Islamic fanatics are still at war with the U.S. Obama turned Iraq from a success story into a horrendous nightmare with his failure to protect the hardwon peace George W. Bush handed him. And the Taliban in Afghanistan now control more territory than they did when the war began, all due to Obama’s neglect. Obama’s idiocy had destablized the entire Middle East and Western Europe.

      Cliffhanger: “He disarmed Iran.”

      Ridiculous. Obama made it possible for Iran to get nuclear weapons, and has given the Mad Mullahs of Iran billions of dollars to finance their continued terrorist activities around the world. Obama is the greatest enabler of radical Islam since Mohammed.

      Cliffhanger: “The dollar is strong.”

      Obama had nothing to do with it.

      Cliffhanger: “Gasoline is under 2.50 a gallon.”

      That is despite Obama, not because of him. If it were up to Obama, gasoline would cost $5 per gallon. Obama had nothing to do with lowering gasoline prices, although he is happy to lie about it and claim he did.

      Cliffhanger: “He brought the world together to sign the Paris climate agreement.”

      Some people consider that a bad thing, not a good thing.

      Cliffhanger: “He will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents ever!”

      I don’t think so. In my book, he is by far, the worst president the U.S. has ever had. We will be dealing with the damage he has caused us for many years to come. A total failure. Unless his objective was to screw everything he touched up royally, then he is a huge success.

      • Don’t forget, TA, that the Government recently sold the remaining 6% shares in Chrysler for $560 million which represents a $1.3 Billion dollar LOSS on the nearly $2 Billion in taxpayer bailout they received. Chrysler is now a foreign owned company and the Government touted the $560 million selloff as a major accomplishment.

        When it comes to government numbers, figures lie and liars figure and under-educated Public School students, such as Cliffhanger, eat it up like breakfast cereal. Life is so much simpler when you believe what you want to believe. HOPE, CHANGE, BELIEVE.

  24. The only reason why CO2 emissions are declining is because of the switchover from coal to gas for power plants.
    Once the switchover is complete, CO2 emissions will more closely match GDP again. Until economics dictates that we switch from gas back to coal.

  25. Real manufacturing output is back to where it was in 2008. But fewer employees are required to produce it. Seems to suggest technology has been substituted for labor.

    https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/05/manufacturing-up-down/

    They are right that the economy is decoupling from CO2 but they are wrong that government deserves the credit. Jesse Ausubel did a study several years ago showing that the U.S. economy has been “decarbonizing” per unit of GDP since the Civil War. He concluded that is the “natural” evolution economies takes as they develop and mature. First people use wood and dung for energy. Then coal. Then oil. Then natural gas. Then ultimately nuclear. There is a natural evolution in which hydrogen gradually displaces carbon. Here’s the New York Times reporting on Ausubel’s study in 1999. I used to have the actual paper but can’t find it now and I don’t have time to search. But it is online if you are interested.

    • Businesses that waste money don’t stay in business.
      All businesses are constantly looking for ways to save money, and that includes money spent on utilities.
      It’s quite natural that as time progresses, businesses will find ways to make more stuff using less resources.

  26. You can say the exact same thing of travel being decoupled from CO2 emissions.

    Chart distance travelled to CO2 emissions.

    Now increase efficiency of the Internal Combustion Engine and you will show that you can move further with the same CO2 emissions.

    Efficiency also includes weight as well of course.

  27. Isn’t building a wall along the border with Mexico just a perfect example of Keynesian economics?

  28. philjourdan – The labor participation rate includes retirees and college students. We have seen an increase in more college students who are not working and we have the baby boomers now retiring which means this number is only going to get larger over time. So to discredit the unemployment rate statistic is bogus. You just can’t give Obama any credit. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Look it up! So nice try but facts do matter.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

    • College students not working is a big problem, they still need to pay off those college loans.
      The question remains, why are so many more college students not working?
      As to retirees, you are correct. Millions of older people have given up looking for work and gone on Social Security. Yet another reason why the SS trust fund is rapidly being depleted. Much faster than actuaries predicted just 10 years ago.
      FactCheck is little more than a DNC affiliate.

      • You didn’t leave any sources to support your claims about SS and evidence that Factcheck.org is biased or misleading? You are just attacking the messengers credibility without providing any evidence. The unemployment rate is the best indicator we have. Period. Stop trying to cherry pick data to fit your confirmation bias. Maybe you should rethink your potions on Obama. History will judge him kindly.

      • Do I need to provide evidence that water is wet?
        Regardless, you have proven impervious to evidence in the past, so why bother this time.
        Really now, the unemployment indicator is the the best indicator, or is it merely the only one that shows what you want to believe.
        Do you even know the many ways in how the unemployment numbers are calculated have changed in recent decades?
        As to cherry picking, you really should invest in a mirror.

    • Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation is a large funder of PBS programming, and has been branching out to fund projects in environmental stewardship, social justice, and animal welfare. Factcheck.org is operated by former journalists and academics.

      No bias there.

      • Its easy to understand why the labor participation rate is used by the right. The answer is that its very misleading since most people are unaware that it counts college students, and retired people. So it sounds very high and is used as fear mongering. Under careful consideration and critical analysis. The truth of the statistic is easy shown. The Factcheck.org article that I posted links directly to the Government study done on this subject. And since you and others here are so quick to bring up the labor participation rate WITHOUT properly explaining it clearly. Is very misleading. And no right wing pundit that spouts this figure EVER explains what the guts of the metric really are. We know the labor participation rate is going up and is going to keep going up for another fifty years. But I guess its true what Twain said “It’s easier to fool someone than convince them they have been fooled”.

      • Wrong again. The LPR has ALWAYS been used. And it CLEARLY states what it is. You should rephrase your statement to say YOU do not know what it entails. But then talking points do not explain it either.

        Factcheck is deceiving the same way you are. They are trying to hand wave a “rate” away by using whole numbers. Just as you are. But a “rate” is a percentage, and while there are more retired, there are also a lot more people. So the RATE is still applicable and a better indication than whole numbers.

        Thank you for proving that factcheck is lying.

      • I love the way trolls just declare that only their facts are facts.
        It reminds me of Griff going on and on about how a small drop in arctic ice is proof positive that CO2 is going to kill us all.

    • People are retiring for sure. That doesn’t mean they don’t want to work. You try living on Social Security only. Quite honestly, because Obama’s bankruptcy judge gave away most of my savings in the GM bankruptcy, I’ll be working forever plus collecting SS. The government’s own statistics on people not having enough savings for retirement means the claim that people are retiring and not wanting to work makes no sense!

      • I would like to add that the judge in question completely ignored the law in order to steal money from investors so that the unions wouldn’t have to suffer any.

    • Sorry cliff – the LPR contained those 50 years ago too. And the ration from 50 years ago is the same as it is today – so that does not affect the rate. While there are more retired and more in college, there is alos a lot more people. That is why we use the RATE and not the absolute number.

      The simple fact is that more people are OUT of the labor force due to loss of jobs. That is not debatable. If you do not like it, scream at the BLS.

      It is also a fact, that I did not put down in the first post, that Obama’s first term was the only presidential term since WWII that had NO (not small, not minimal, NO) Job Growth. More people were working during Bush than at the end of Obama’s first term.

      But that is hardly surprising. The only thing that really went up during Obama’s regime was the regulatory paperwork.

      As I said, you need to do some research. You have no clue about labor statistics. you have no clue about Keynesian (or any) economics and you have no clue about earning a living. I cannot get you a job, but I can get you to read some books that will aid in your education. You have but to chose to learn.

      • No you did not post a link to a government study. You posted a link to a fake news site. Proven so. Why do you fabricate what you have done when it is still there?

        Apparently because you have no clue what facts are. Now, do you want to discuss the issue again in a logical and factual manner? Or are you going to continue to spam this forum with your fabrications?

      • You make all these big claims but provide no sources to confirm anything you say. I have provided solid evidence of everything I have stated. And you have nothing but put downs about my education and employment levels. “Both of which you are wrong about”. But whatever helps with your cognitive dissonance!

      • I gave you the source. I cannot make you drink from it. Once again, the source is BLS.GOV.

        Want to argue with them? Go right ahead. But then they will laugh at you just as we are.

  29. MarkW – There are tons of jobs available. Under President Obama’s leadership, the economy has added 15.5 million private sector jobs over the last 81 months. And 75 consecutive months of uninterrupted private-sector job. https://blog.dol.gov/tag/jobs-report/. Once again I have proven my point beyond a shadow of any doubt. Obama did a great job creating jobs in this country coming out of the great recession. The source I shared already linked to the US governments own study that concluded 80% of the growth in lack of labor participation was linked to retirement of the baby boomers. Its a very misleading statistic because its not properly explained. But I can’t do anything for you if you don’t believe in facts.

    • No he did a terrible job. During his leadership, unemployment was stuck at 9.5% for years.

      It’s not until Congress took policy away from him, cancelled the crushing waste, ended the crowding out of stimulus handouts to “favoured” groups and enabled the cheap energy revolution did jobs return. Obama OPPOSED cheap energy. He OPPOSED the sequester. He claimed budget repair would cost 1m jobs and result in a recession – instead, it generated over 10m jobs.

      So before giving him the credit, I suggest you bring up a chart of the unemployment rate and look up June 30, 2011 on it.

    • About the only thing a president can do to help the U.S. economy is to cut taxes and regulations and get out of the way of business. Anything else a president does usually hinders the economy.

      President Obama did neither tax cuts or regulation reductions. Instead, he raised taxes and increased regulations, which stifled job creation.

      Face it, Obama is a bystander to the U.S. economy, as are most presidents. Trump might be a little less of a bystander than most.

      When Trump gets in Office he will cut taxes and regulations and *then* we can make a claim that a president did something which benefited the nation’s economy. And not before then.

      Since Obama raised taxes and increased regulations, please describe how these actions of Obama caused 15 million jobs to be created.

      The fact is if not for Obama’s tax increases and increased regulations there would be millions more jobs that would have been created during this time period.

    • Obama took office 2 years before the start date of that report. All you have proven is that MarkW is correct. and you cherry picked it. DOL is run by Obama, so of course they are going to twerk the report to look favorable on him! But BLS has to report ACTUAL numbers. And that shows a different story.

      Notice also how the DOL report does not quantify PT vs FT jobs. Another lie of omission. Yes, you are a good little sycophant. But not too bright on the uptake. And Clinton had a longer and better run than Obama has had! I guess that is why Obama sabotaged Hillary’s campaign.

  30. MarkW – The unemployment rate is the best measurement we have. Its been that way for over one hundred years. Yes its not perfect and is only one of many statistics economist use to determine the health of an economy. That being said its still the best statistic we have to measure unemployment in America. To disregard it and ignore it on purpose shows willfully ignorance. And to use the labor participation rate “On purpose” without properly explaining it. And incorrectly linking it to the health of our economy is flat wrong. The labor participation rate will continue to lower under Trump and will for the next fifty years. Romney promised he would lower it to 6%. Obama lowered it to 4.7.%. So the point goes to Obama FTW!

  31. “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago’s public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation.
    CAC Board of Directors
    Barack Obama, civil rights attorney at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland; lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School; member of the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation and the Woods Fund of Chicago; winner, Crain’s Chicago Business 40 Under 40 award, 1993; former president of the Harvard Law Review (1990–1991); former executive director of the Developing Communities Project (June 1985–May 1988); current President of the United States[24][40][41][42]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

    FactCheck.org is funded and controlled by the Annenberg Foundation.
    http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/political-communication/factcheck-org/

    Obama, the Annenberg Foundation, and FactCheck.org are all parts of the same entity.

    • You are proposing a conspiracy theory that Obama is connected to Factcheck.org. That is complete nonsense. Unless you have a credible source to confirm. Ill be waiting… And btw can you point out even ONE article or Fact they have got wrong ever? Just one single fact?

      • No one except YOU is proposing that! Are you saying that Obama is connected to CBS? CNN? NBC? Wapo? Get real! You are going unhinged!

        However, as the podesta emails proved, they are colluding with the democrats. And as my links proved, Fact Check is devoid of facts and checking.

        Take your straw man back to the corn field. And get some real facts.

    • Don’t put words in my mouth.. or try to change the topic. I did not ‘propose’ anything. I provided fact based information (with links to sources) for your and all readers edification. Is that what you consider “complete nonsense”? Do you dispute the information provided? If so, please provide your sources.

      I’ll be waiting……

  32. The best way for Kyoto signatories to comply has been to have China make all the world’s steel and aluminium. It’s almost pure energy, all baseload. Everybody is happy, and there is zero or positive effect on global CO2 output. So when Trump666 says it’s a Chinese scam, he’s simplifying but that’s what the outcome has been.

    • Was it the word scam that sent my post to moderation?

      [Likely. There are a number of “key words and tricky phrases” that trip the moderation queue automatically. .mod]

    • +1 And that’s been the plan all along. People are accused of being “conspiracy theorists” for believing this but simple logic and fact checking proves it correct.

  33. This reminds me of the shell game where the grifter plays hide the pea and bilks you out of all your pocket money. Let’s see how else to they play it: hide the inflation, hide the unemployment, hide the captive terroists…”now you see it now you don’t.”

  34. Yes, me too “would be surprised if Apple was the only image obsessed US company which seems to see offshore manufacturing as a convenient way to deflect attention from the true magnitude of their supply chain CO2 emissions.”

    +

    “A rise in the domestic US increase in use of gas, and a policy driven decline in coal use, has also likely contributed to a reduction in US GHG emissions.”

    Cheers – Hans

Comments are closed.