Here's my summary of the key news ovenight in 90 seconds at 9 am, including news about American QE.
Ben Bernanke caused a rally in risk assets following his statement to the US Congress today. The Fed boss warned that a premature tightening risked “slowing or ending the economic recovery and causing inflation to fall further”.
These comments and the overall tone of the statement were interpreted as dovish, though it is questionable whether he said anything markedly different.
He also reiterated his concerns about the low interest rate environment causing some investors to "reach for yield".
A short time later the Fed released its minutes of its last meeting. These moved the market in the other direction because they showed the extent of the discussion about winding down QE and how many members want to do that earlier than Bernanke thinks is wise.
Some think the wind-back should start as early as next month. But without Bernanke's support that is unlikely to happen.
Markets gave up those early gains from the Bernanke testimony after the minutes were released. In mid-day trade the Dow was down, and gold and oil fell. The markets are on the drug of QE and it doesn't like any thought of cold-turkey.
In Britain, the IMF said that despite recent improvements in some indicators of economic growth, the economy is still a long way from a sustainable recovery. After five years of relatively weak growth, investment is low and youth unemployment is high, and the IMF says it is concerned about the risk of permanent damage. Borrow and spend more, it says.
In Australia, with mounting deficits, they are back in the government bond market with a record A$4 bln issue. And with it is a rise in yield to 3.47% following rises in benchmark rates. Aussie sovereigns are rated AAA; NZ sovereigns are rated a notch lower at AA+ and our last bond auction was at 3.35%.
The NZ dollar starts today at 80.6 USc down a whole cent on the day and almost at its lowest level since September last year, 83.3 AUc, and our TWI now stands at 76.4.
No chart with that title exists.
66 Comments
In one area? hardly a big issue.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10885541
Im sure at some stage there will be new notes issued, hence ppl might just consider precious metals as a work around. Such an event I would expect to be post gold bubble and once we have seriously deflated ie been in a depression for 3~5 years....so some years off.
regards
Apple's tax dodges,
Apple, the most profitable company of its kind in the United States, has been dodging taxes in a somewhat interesting way — by declaring subsidiary companies that are “stateless” and saying that they don’t have to pay taxes to any country. While their scheme is, in actuality, much more complicated than that, it demonstrates the basic premise of their tax avoidance setup
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/21/the-extremely-bold-tax-evasion-technique-apple-doesnt-want-you-to-know-they-use/#ixzz2U3pH06pQ
Some counterpoints;
1. Apple is the largest single tax payer in the USA and paid US$6 Billion in taxes last year, on track to pay US$7 Billion this year - that's 2.5% of all tax collected. The idea they "don't pay tax" is simple wrong.
2. Tax avoidance is not new; 47% of all american workers pay no net tax and I am sure the situation is similar here.
3. Apple is using a long accepted tax structure that has been in operation for over a decade and used by everyone from Dell to Microsoft. The suggestion Apple have created a nefarious way to avoid tax is not historically accurate.
4. If Ireland ask for 12.5% tax and the USA asks for 35% tax - which would you choose. It is not illegal to choose Ireland as a country to do business in.
The international tax system is broken, of that there is no doubt. Beating up on those who didn't create the rules will not fix the rules.
Actually when corporates sponsor such tax rules, then yes, a beat up is fair. Now sure it may well be that Apple is exploiting a hole that another corporate paid a pollie off for.
The Q is I guess do we as voters and tax payers continue to allow such activity, or do we say uh no and accept the consquences of that (for instance Apple may decide not sell its products in NZ anymore as an example). Im all for such an open debate.
There is quite a lot of comment in the UK at least that voters/consumers should boycot such companies...just as they can boycot say palm oil products.
regards
This is just misplaced emotion; "corporates sponsor such rules" and "exploiting a hole".
Anyone here ever use an accountant to sort their tax affairs?
Anyone here have any kind of family trust?
Anyone here ever take advantage of a tax deduction because it was within the rules?
If you don't like the tax laws talk to your local MP. And if you want to boycott, a short list of IT companies alone to show the scale of your intent:
Cisco, Dell, Apple, Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Google, Dropbox, LinkedIn, EMC, Logitech, IBM, Microsoft, Symantec, Paypal, Twitter, SAP, Oracle etc.
I wonder what kind of PC you'll be running to post on this blog ...?
No, not emotion, you just have to read some of the research on US tax rules for the copious evidence where an amemdment gets tacked onto some other often un-connected law that gives some corporate somehwere a loop hole. Sure in NZ this isnt the case, at least not as obviously.
Cisco, Dell etc, oh yes I agree, they are all at it...the Q is as things get tougher and tougher just how long it willbe before pollies see getting taxes paid as a survival necessity for them.
PC, depends, mostly home made, but Im sure Intel and AMD are in that list...not to mention seagate, WD etc.
regards
IBM don't really belong on the list. It is generally known that if countries government's contracts favoured organisations that paid taxes, IBM would get a lot more work. My impression is that in NZ they are a bit like the banks- NZ service industry division of an Australian parent, rather than a company whose primary model is cross border sales.
A quick google finds some figures from the other day for IBM NZ. Pre-tax profit also grew, up 13 percent to $50.8 million. After-tax profit was $36.8 million compared to $32.3 million in 2011. Which suggests they have been paying some taxes.
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/ibm-nz-grows-revenue-by-six-pe…
The international tax system is broken, of that there is no doubt. Beating up on those who didn't create the rules will not fix the rules.
It was the FIRE industry that created the rules in Ireland with large political and financial support from Germany and France - I worked at a large US prop trading bank that needed llttle motivation to re-locate it's back office facilities from Bournemouth in the UK to Ireland.
Unlike our Northern Hemisphere counterparts we tend to practice tax avoidance amongst ourselves - no cross border clients like Apple paying to avoid tax here - certain privileged citizens inflict the avoidance costs upon the rest of us - shades of the lunatic asylum.
Recent publicised examples can be read about here, here and here - I am sure more exist, but they are probably ignored out of unwarranted politeness exercised by the victims.
Ralph - Good post and that last paragraph says it all. I think it is important that people read and understand the memorandum that the Senate is investigating. The Sentate was looking at how business could structure its affairs to minimise tax obligations.
Countries with poor tax rules are the problem but so often people get on the band-wagon, blaming the business, when it fact the business was being responsible for its affairs.
Looks to me like the Irish are being highly competitive in the Company tax rates applied.
FAKE NOTES IN AUCKLAND...This is terrble news . Ask Gareth Morgan about his experiences with fake notes in Africa during his epic trans-african journey. Its a scourge worse than drugs.
The law must crack down early , this is something that we need to nip in the bud before its reaches epidemic proportions .
This is economic sabotage , and the courts must set a severe example, now that there has been an arrest.
Firstly , no bail on this charge, use flight risk etc as justification to detain this criminal , secondly the court should be encouraged to issue the maximum penalty , no option of a fine , but a jail term in an isolation cell with hard labour preferably is the worst prison in the country
We could end up like some tin pot ThirdWorld country if we dont vigorously sort this out . We could be the laughing stock in the OECD if we dont act.
Nah, he wasn't concerned with distributing the folding stuff to the masses - I think the idea was to add a few noughts to the Treasury spreadsheet and hire the contractors using those noughts to fix the roads, footpaths and the sections of the neighbourhoods in chch who still can't get out of their gumboots.
Some might call it QE for the deserving;
http://www.tv3.co.nz/tabid/3692/MCat/2908/Default.aspx
Others, like you, might not want to admit these type of situations actually exist in our "fair" land.
Its a scourge worse than drugs.
Isn't the gravity of the crime inversely proportional to the scale of the dilution of the monetary base?- witness the rousing support for the Large-Scale Asset Purchase Programs executed by the US Federal Reserve - rising asset values etc, etc.
In related news Apple open a manufacturing plant to make Macs in Texas. Why Texas you ask - because it has lower taxes.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/the-industry-standard/apple-build-macs-in-lo…
NZ's next Prime Minister?
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/258101/all-society-effort-needed
Shows up some commonpotaters here, methinks.
He would have done better to focus only on the environmental effects of fossil fuel use; bringing in "peak oil" only weakens and confuses his case.
If fossil fuels are about to run out, won't the global warming problem solve itself?
What does it matter that others have already used most of the fossil fuel reserves, if he doesn't want to use them anyway?
Anyway, the solution is right there in his article. He correctly identifies that problems have come about because the external costs of fossil fuel use have not been internalised. So internalise them. Can be done through a carbon trading scheme or a carbon tax.
MdM - he is probably one of the smartest, clearest-thinking young folk in the country. Make that just 'folk in the country'.
So it's 'you would have done better, not he. You fail the understanding at the starting-gate. My question is whether you really are that cranially-impaired, or whether you are ideologically-blinkered, or purposely obfuscating. And if the latter, why?
Clearly, if we have 400 ppm now, and the accepted 2deg number is 350, then we are already in CO2 overshoot. How can anyone be so ungrasping of that, as to write your second sentence?
You can't trade the carbon - there isn't the physical sink on the planet. Nor can your fiscal system cope with 'trading' it, or attempting to drive the sinking/sequestration, because it needs growth to continue. The irony is that it can't have the growth anyway, beyond the peak supply-rate.
A tax? Comes to the same thing - fiscal system effed, just harder and faster. The only valid thing is absolute limits, and quota's. Read the Carbon Diaries. Think.
Spare me - and while you're at it, how about sparing his generation too?
You were in overdrive on the attack there, I think.
You said; Clearly, if we have 400 ppm now, and the accepted 2deg number is 350, then we are already in CO2 overshoot. How can anyone be so ungrasping of that, as to write your second sentence?
Has the planet warmed by 2deg - I thought one of the more recent issues the IPCC was grapling with in this next round of science was that the exponential temperature rises that were predicted 20 years ago weren't happening - yet.
I can see that ecosystems are in bad shape - and my point is that this tends to worry me more than the dwindling supply of fossil fuels or an overshoot of atmospheric CO2. I tend to agree with MdM that environmental/ecosystem health is likely to improve in a carbon constrained world.
When the facts contradict the models clearly the facts need to be questioned (this is sarcasm -- just in case).
Nice graph showing 44 of the latest models versus reality for the lower atmosphere;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
Just as in the day of Galileo the facts will eventually win over the philosophy.
Referencing graphs that only show the UAH and strongly related RSS data is a pretty non-representative definition of "reality" of lower atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
No, for the simple reason this graph cannot be replicated. I have no idea what the "44 climate models" actually are- is this graph comparing models of the entire planet temperature with the lower troposphere or are these climate models that are specifically modelling the effect on the lower troposphere. No one expects climate change to warm the planet evenly- for example in the past decade the oceans have been taking the main hit (hence the increasing acidification of the oceans, which in my opinion is even more serious danger than the temperature issues but get a lot less attention), meaning that if you only look at atmospheric readings increase has been slower but if you look at the entire planet the increases are pretty much unchanged. So I can't replicate this graph if I don't know if it is the equivalent of saying here are 44 models of New Zealand climate compared to the weather in Nightcaps and Otautau.
Now, we do actually live in the lower troposphere, but all life is pretty much in the lower 25% of it (though those currently on the summit of Mount Everest are more towards 50%. If you are talking about global surface temperatures then the temperature increase is taking a very different pattern, and one much closer to climate modelling predictions.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/509796main_GISS_annual_…
Now, even surface temperature is towards the low end of predictions at the moment, and you will have seen those similar graphs (but much less dramatic than the graph Ralph chose). What people who are making a big deal out of this ignore is that actual temperature has moved both above and below the trend line over time, and a decade or so ago the observed readings were even further below models than they have been recently, but they went back above the trend line then have oscillated back down.
I did check out the rest of the site very briefly. I think the 44 models refer to 44 of the different IPCC scenarios as presented by them over time (but I'm not sure as I didn't read the accompanying article).
Yes, I had understood surface temps were at that low end of the projections (IPCC don't refer to most of their outputs as "predictions" - rather much of their work is "projections" - it is an important distinction, as they do not attach probabilities to their projections or scenarios) - see their definitions here;
I've tried to figure out what is going on with that graph, including downloading the UAH data and graphing it myself this evening, and I am unable to make the same graph. All mine show a steeper temperature increase for the troposphere.
I think what is going on is to do with the satellite data issues. There are a variety of different satellites with different sensors, and when people compare the readings taken from the indirect satellite measurements to actual weather balloons there at the time, the satellite's read lower temperatures than the thermometers in the weather balloons. A few years ago corrections were worked out so that the satellite adjustments were calculated so they were based off the actual thermometers in the weather balloons. However Spencer, author of the graph, has been criticised for not using these corrections. The problem is outlined here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposph…
When I look a IPCC projections, they don't seem too far out of the satellite readings when you use the adjustments to actually match the weather balloons. The 1990 ones are a bit out, but the 1997 projections still look pretty accurate (as do the more recent)
I suggest you check out the rest of his site, the data set is pretty hard to explain away. Although I do hear that 9 out of ten dentists voted for the "heat is hiding in the ocean theory" - so that's pretty amazing.
The only thing that might convince people more would be a good song about it.
Come on Ralph - it's over two years since I first pointed out the ocean sink. It's probably that long since I also pointed out that even if it was just a case of the jury being out, the inertia in the sysstem means that the only valid approach is to be precautionary.
Every last drop of oil will still be there, itf it turned out to be OK.
Which means that folk like you are arguing to be able to use it themselves, rather than folk in the future. Some times honesty-with-self is a good way to go.
Facts, well,
"In fact, as Dessler emailed me, Spencer’s “paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times).”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-de…
"“I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
Ok so lets play spot the political bias.
or lets look at the critiq of this rubbish,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-gra…
regards
Why address facts or difficult questions when you can simply attack messengers?
They have forgetten the very essence of the scientific method to pursue multiple theories for the best explanation and therefore our explanations of things do change and have changed as more facts and better theories comes to light. As our understanding grows. How can anyone who calls themselves a scientist in good conscience seek to (or actively) shut down alternate lines of enquiry?
Considering climate science is not of the type where experiments can be repeated and for a planet many thousands of years old the amount of data we hold is extremely limited you would think there is much yet to be learned. The idea nothing more useful will be learned and all base assumptions will be perfect forever isn't in any way a scientific position, it's a statement of dogma. Little wonder those scientists who proposess alternate theory or challenge base model assumptions are attacked personally and rigorously. As a non scientists watching from the sidelines I am left to ponder what motivates such behaviour.
It has not entirely escaped the notice of some regular people that the climate debate is now more about politics than science. As a lover of science and it's method it saddens me to see scientists becoming politicians and suspect as an experiment it will end badly. As the facts continue to drift further from the "models of truth" I predict those who placed their reputation on the line will become;
1. less tolerant of any kind of debate, scientific or otherwise, and
2. louder and more abusive of people instead of addressing scientific questions that get harder to answer.
Even debate on this blog is severely limited by personal attack. Response to skeptics is either accusations of idiocy or a blizzard of URL links that don't actually answer questions. What is conspicously absent is clear and rational explanation from climate alarmists using their own words. Is it they do not understand the detail of what they are alarmist about or is it they are too dogmatic to see past their own pre judgements?
It is my opinion the tin hat climate brigade hung their hat on incomplete science and that history will likely hang them for it. What collateral damage that does to the credibility of the rest of the scientific community remains to be seen.
For the record;
I do not question the temperature has risen, that's simple fact of measure.
I do question key model assumptions like climate sensitivity that lead to the alarmist results that are trumpeted about.
I do not think for a moment climate science is "over" or "in" and nothing new or useful will be found out about how the planetary weather system works.
I believe that when facts contradict man made models and theories it is not the facts that need to change.
I do not believe taxing a cow for farting will save the planet.
Has the planet warmed by 2deg
No, what the theory around this says is that it will. The final temperature change is whats called a climate equilibrium. Unfortunately when we release some tones of carbon into the atmosphere it has the effect of changing the ecology (due to the immediate change in temperature) and this releases further carbon. That means if we stopped releasing any more man made CO2 into the atmosphere tomorrow, the temperature would still continue to rise, but eventually would platau with a climate at the equilibrium temperature.
Yes, 350ppm was expected to top out at 2 degrees. We can expect more than 2 degrees temperature change eventually starting from 400ppm. The temperature change so far is close to 1 degree. We would expect to see a climate which hovers around equilibrium temperature at equilibrium, maybe similar to some of the paleo climate charts. Its an estimate of course, but there are a lot of lines of evidence which all point to similar values.
My point is that maintaining that we are about to run out of fossil fuels anyway is neither necessary or helpful to make the argument (which I support) that we should be taking measures that will reduce the use of fossil fuels in order to address the issue of climate change. In fact, it weakens the argument, which is why I object to it.
As for what those measures should be, I can't respond to your arguments about carbon trading or carbon taxation without a clearer understanding of your proposed alternative approach.
How exactly do you see "absolute limits" working?
What is it you want to put a limit or a quota on - fossil fuels, or carbon emissions?
Does it apply per person, per country, per unit of production?
Is that per year, or do they each get a fixed amount of fossil fuels which they can use up as quickly or as slowly as they like?
Or is your proposal for a fixed date beyond which nobody is to be allowed to burn any fossil fuels?
How would individual quotas be determined?
Should people be allowed to sell quota to each other?
And how would you envisage enforcing it?
That's better, but still not there. Your final questions are goodies, but you miss the energy problem in spades.
He gets it. Our current system relies on the fossil energy, so it is doomed to negative growth. That means the growth-based fiscal system will not continue; yet it's the only trading system in town. More pertinent than that - and I've mentioned it many times here - is that we have to use our existing infrastructure (all of which uses fossil fuels) to build the new. History tells us that folk eat today, even if it it is eating next-season's herd. Run that globally, and we're history. He wants us to address the change, before fiscal chaos and energy-deficit put us in the situation of eating next-seasons herd.
We are already using all we pump, and (as Andyh has pointed out on another thread) going backwards. What can/will we triage to set up the renewable infrastructure (it's feedstock too, remember, although a percentage of that is recyclable) while in permanent recession, unrepayable debt even at 0%, while in habitat overshoot as a species?
Only vast amounts of energy do vast amounts of work - there's vast amounts needed, and we're late, still obfuscating and/or in denial. And voting wolves into the chicken-house.
Your final questions uncannily track a piece I'm putting together for posting here, shortly. Given the Tragedy of the Commons, it has to be by command, and global. It has to have a descending cap, measured in tonnage. It won't happen - we are fighting a la outrance already; there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was oil, and an empire requiring it.
Watch this space for the piece.
It's clearly not going to be a piece which proposes practical and implementable solutions allowing for human nature, geopolitical and economic reality or the limitations on politicians' power, then.
Anybody can show how much better the world would be if only they had complete power over everybody, and all the resources, in it. That's easy. I am intrigued to know why, and on what terms, PDK gets to use column space on interest.co.nz to indulge in his own version of that particular armchair fantasy.
straw man....
So what PDK says isnt practical so we'll ignore it. Nature and the laws of thermodynamics etc dont care about "human nature, geopolitical and economic reality or the limitations on politicians' power, then.' They simply are and are non-negoitiable.
Now if you want to look at an example of a country that has survived peak oil, there is one, Cuba. So when all is said and done I'd rather be like cuba and in fairly good shape v the probable far worse alternatives taht the do nothing free marketeers advocate.
Or maybe you have never heard of NZ Civil defence and the powers they have? ie take anything they want at the point of a gun if need be?
regards
I repeat;
"My question is whether you really are that cranially-impaired, or whether you are ideologically-blinkered, or purposely obfuscating. And if the latter, why?"
I suggest the Dow represents collective armchair fantasies. I suggest Nick Smith talking of 'riches' while letting-go an energy source is Jack-and-the-Beanstalk fantasy. Economic growth forever is a fantasy. The idea that money could make money, forever, was a fantasy. The idea that investment returns, interest charged, profit charged, could all go on forever without increasingly squashing-out some other sphere, was fantasy. The assumption that capital made things happen, not energy, was a fantasy.
So Murray you do believe that energy is the basis of the economy. That because non renewable energy supplies will be depleted it is ok to take 'command' of energy in order to dictate what is good for everyone. Sounds like a green version of facism to me. You are the most arrogant man I know.
Not sure which planet you reside on but all forms of energy are currently highly regulated. What I understand PDK to believe is the ecological impact and sustainabilty needs to be considered in this regulation, he is hardly alone in this belief. Your comment labeling him arrogant and fascist does little but advertise your ignorance of both the man and the dictionary
Brendon - too weak for words. Try again.
There is no 'believe' about it. Without energy, no work gets done. Forget 'the economy', it's a red herring.
Me, I choose to live with a light tread, in extreme (but comfortable) energy frugality, to not earn/consume, and most of what I do is voluntary community/helping people. I choose to demonstrate what is possible, and having done that, I am bringing the debate to the wider mass. Someone was always going to do that - as per the ODT op/ed I referenced.
I'd have said that those who leave their future pollution to others, offload their current pollution to others, take advantage of repression of others, and attempt to shoot messengers rather than face those realities, might just be the arrogant ones.
Just a thought. :)
goes badly wrong here, "If we are going to achieve this vision of a New Zealand beyond fossil fuels, we need the wisdom that comes from experience and the power that comes with age."
While power does seem to concentrate in the older generation(s) you just have to look at the likes of Key and simialr denailists in labour and every other party to realsie there isnt much evidence of power and wisdom with age. In fact they might be mutually exclusive....ie those with wisdom are not stupid enough to want to go through the ringer to get elected.
I see another flat earth person is running for Welligton major......what can you say if he gets elected? we did it to our selves? not much else to say is there.
regards
with due respect - watching the inability/unwillingness of some folk to get the message, I can understand what he's done; just extrapolated the inaction to date, and the lack of acknowledgement. Just look at this Govt, and ask WHY?
You have to assume that the game is to stall for time, and (think of the Titanic) the question is still 'WHY'?
You have to assume that the game is to stall for time
Isn't everyone's "game" to somehow protect themselves from the potential fallout - the changing nature of our ecological and social relations? You've readied yourself, pdk, by building wisely and trying to self-sustain .. whereas others plan to 'future proof' through over-accummulation of capital/fiat or whatever .. whereas others have armed themselves and/or built fortresses (gated communities).
Fact is, sociology, the ability to predict human behaviour has never really worked - Comte's great positivist dream has fallen flat on it's face - and Kuhn pretty much proved that even his 'normal science' (physics was his area of expertise and the discipline in which he presented his case) we experience paradigm shifts - new knowledges are often incommensurate with the 'old' paradigm.
We need to get back to arguing the morality of our decisions, as opposed to the 'science'.
I wont go with idiot, blinkered might be a better description, dunno.
"hopeless" probably, I see no evidence that any civilisation before this one survived such a test...nada.
Im actually interested in how well JM does...he's promising yet more growth and is highly pro-car. How well will he do will be interesting, especially after we voted on a Green Major replacing the last rather right winger.
"thier point of view" I assume you still dont get it, nature doesnt listen, or care, the laws of thermodynamics are not negoitiable.
regards
Hah!. You, steven, calling anyone "blinkered", is truly hilarious.
Watch the top right hand side of this post to see how many agree with me.
While you Chicken Littles spend all day (on the bosses' coin) on message boards saying "it can't be done", others of us are out there actually doing it. There will be plenty of fossil fuels left when we reach the time we don't need fossil fuels. You should go back to preparing to save the world from the Y2K bug.
So we have several other ppl who either highly agree with you or disagree with me so much they'd click on anything...
Hardly a useful poll is it.
You really are totally ignorant, and happy to be so....
Most entertaining....sort of.
Proves my point on blinkered I think.
regards
Anyone... Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a big part of carbon emissions and global warming be solved with the eventual (probably inevitable) move to electric cars and solar panels? Are cars the main carbon emitters? I understand that solar panel technology has a long way to go but it should get there eventually. And I regularly drive a electric car (Nissan Leaf), the only draw back I see is the limited mileage. With the ever increasing cost of fossil fuels (not just inflation but lowest hanging fruit), surely these re-new able options will become not just environmentally friendly but economical too.
Not criticizing anyone, just curious.
You are wrong.
;]
The issues are lack of alternatives, scale and time.
So how will solar panels and EVs help with food production for 7 billion or more? How much energy/carbon go into solar panels? Its not likely tractors, lorries and fertilizer will be solar powered/provided. So our food output is going to decline severly.
Solar panels are a complex, clean room technology and needs a certain level of technology which needs a certian level of civilisation, which needs a certian level of population.
Therefore as fossil fuel/feedstock availability declines so will population, so will the complex technologies...
Hence something like a peltic wheel is a long term energy source unlike solar panels...the latter might last a generation, peltic 10+.
How many ppl do you think can afford a Nissan leaf BTW? I couldnt even afford a new petrol version of a MiEV at $20k (v 65k for the MiEV) . They have a writeoff of 12 years...normal car 18+....ie at the 12 year mark they will need a new battery pack of $20k....installing one wouldnt be economic on a car worth at most 2k....
regards
Solar panels are a complex, clean room technology
Not so sure of that any more steven
http://www.solarpanelinfo.com/solar-panels/what-are-solar-panels.php
....The newest solar panels function on the molecular or quantum level, and represent an exciting new technology coming into play. These solar panels are created by implanting carbon nanotubes or quantum dots into a treated plastic. Unlike silicon-based solar panels, these solar panels do not have to be constructed in a clean room, and therefore production costs are somewhat dimished...
No, the biggest emitters are probably coal-fired power stations. We are a long way away from "peak coal".
Energy
– Electricity & heat (24.9%)
– Industry (14.7%)
– Transportation (14.3%)
– Other fuel combustion (8.6%)
– Fugitive emissions (4%)
Agriculture (13.8%)
Land use change (12.2%)
Industrial processes (4.3%)
Waste (3.2%)
Some say earlier.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-05-13/peak-coal-year
But the consensus seems to be around 2027. Not far away. The problem with predicting is that every time the planet goes into a depression dive, the use will take a dive too - extending the time-frame.
"The London-based World Coal Institute, an industry group including the largest international coal producers, says "the use of coal will rise 60 percent over the next 20 years," and that "coal will last us for at least 119 years.""
119 years, so exact...
Kind of interesting just how bad some of this output is....I guess ppl just accept the face value and move on.
regards
Even if you take the 119 years of the Coal Industry mouthpiece as an actual fact, there are some huge issues with that statement. For instance by year 119 we'd be outputting how much coal? even by year 80....and Im assuming a symmetrical hubbert curve and that is overly optimistic. Or that oil will be gone by 2050, so coal will be the subsitute, hence the demand will be significantly more...
Now if you are say 70+ a decade or 2 away might strike you as nothing to worry about...if you dont have or care about your kids and grandchildren anyway.
Realistically though Peak coal is probably this decade ie pre-2020 or pre-2030 at best.
regards
Murray you were the one who started the abuse of MdM with the cranially impaired comment. You have repeatedly attacked my suggestions that we need better institutions/more politically pluristic politics to deal with our problems in the public sphere. You seem to think we just need better leaders. So I am suggesting do you mean a green version of Hitler. At times in previous posts you have suggested that democracy is preventing 'us' from solving the crisis that you perceive with peak energy and overshoot.
Well I await your suggested solutions. Maybe you have learnt that there is more than just physics and energy to consider.
I was an elected member of a County Council, and on a United Council (morphed into Regional) back in the 80's. Well aware of democracy, it's pluses and minuses. The plus is that you can vote inappropriate people out. The minus is that Tragedy of the Commons thing, and the ultimate limitation is the knowledge - or lack of it - held by the voting public.
So I attempt to raise awareness. With no apologies. It's the only way I can look the Generation Zero youngsters in the eye.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.