Back in February, the White House passed its stimulus plan with the promise of tax breaks for people who purchase electric cars. However, the latest study from the Government Accountability Office says that electric cars will not by itself decrease any greenhouse gas emissions.
The reason is obvious ... it takes power to plug-in and charge an electric vehicle, and where does much of our country get its power? Coal. The study shows that "if plug-in hybrids reached 56 percent of the cars on the road by 2030, they would require an increased electricity production, much of which would likely come from additional coal plants."
Actually ... they have it wrong. Any ObamaBot can tell you that the power to charge up the batteries in electric cars will come from those windmills the government is going to put on the roof of your houses. If you have houses.....
California is in big budget trouble budget wise. It may run out of money by July 28th. So when in doubt, propose new taxes. This time, California regulators want to impose a statewide carbon fee. The fee would be paid on utilities, oil refineries and other industries that produce pollution. Naturally, this would raise millions of dollars for the state, but it says the money would go toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions and fighting global warming.
It's a scam, folks. It's not about the environment .. it's about money and power. Hey .. how about you folks stop all that spending on illegal aliens in California? That would be a start.
Osmund dissembles...Speaking of spurious. Your entire argument regarding relative world costs is itself spurious.
Sailaway, so much sarcasm... I'll hopefully get to your other points, but first:
Now, let me see… Running cars that consume more fuel is good for the economy?
It means building more fuel depots, freighting more fuel across the country, more gas stations, more work time lost refueling, greater volumes arriving by ship, more dependence on foreign sources, less investment in alternatives: cycle paths (not my own hobby horse, but I mention it), and public transport. At the same time, encouraged car use leads to more land used for car parks, roads, traffic systems and in the final analysis, traffic police. There is more, when you begin to add it up. I shouldn’t be so bold as to hint that excessive car use facilitates obesity, but… isn’t that a giant boost to productivity?
This enormous infrastructure, then, is more efficient economics? It reminds me of a famous quote from economics: GNP is measured as the sum total of “invoices” in an economy. There is no evaluation of “benefit” or what was produced – charge a dollar extra for a haircut and GNP goes up by that amount. Thus, in a year when India suffered its worst hunger crisis and grain was shipped in from overseas, and then trucked to the starving across the country, Indian GNP rose. All those trucks, fuel and truckies’ wages grew the money figure and pointed to great strides. Is that how we want USA to count its progress?
Okay. Let me get this straight. We're going to reduce fuel and energy consumption. We're going to do this by spending tax money on alternative energy sources. Alternative energy sources that are not capable now, or anytime in my projected lifetime, of providing other than a small percentage of the energy we need. Oh, we're going to trash the US economy for the foreseeable future as well, but this administration was already well down that path so we'll leave that part out. And we're going to do all of this rather than drilling for our own oil or building nuclear power plants. I think I've got it. Dare I say, you wouldn't let your teenage child out the door with that economic plan.
Glad you chose India. Probably the reason that India's GNP rose, and not from cooking the books, is that India is one of the world's least productive producers of grain, preferring to either let animals eat it or feeding it to animals. They've never come close to realizing in return the caloric output they make by feeding their grain to animals; animals they largely don't eat.
And any logistics specialist can tell you that transportation makes up maybe 5% of the cost of goods delivered. It's how you can ship a Volkswagen to the States and make a profit. And grain is far cheaper to ship. And in a free market, there are not many countries that can produce grain for as little as we can including shipping. Oh yeah, we use those big energy consuming tools called tractors and combines; they do a thousand acres in the time it takes to do one in the lesser developed portions of the world and France.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
We're not dumping carbon into the oceans. The oceans are doing their job of absorption and off-gassing as they've always done.
This is precisely what scientists claim they are not any longer.
Quote:
All the evidenc shows that the earth is a vastly resilient eco-system.
Certainly. It too, behaves like a market, if you like, promoting this, rejecting that, according to circumstances. Does that mean that the earth works with our benefit in mind? It has from time to time balanced forces by wiping out entire species. Would it care if oceans turn to algae soup? I am impressed that anyone can attribute such God-like powers to nature that it will protect Florida just because nice people live there. To me, the “equilibrium” argument is the most dangerous we could ever entertain.
Quote:
Our thinking that we are having that large an impact globally is just hubris. We're not that important.
Agreed – and not. Through history, we’ve done magnificently well at destroying the environments we depended on; empires have fallen on simple resource grounds. We don’t need Greenpeace to explain some of the local devastations we’ve caused through history, but it may take some imagination to see a global effect.
Quote:
Your understanding of the American auto industry appears limited at best. The entire world automotive industry strives to produce just the types of vehicles that the American auto industry produces. They have this odd idea that they'd like sell vehicles at a profit within North America. Since no one either drives as much, or needs to, than Americans this makes some sense. And a cursory examination of the mix of vehicles sold will reveal that the profit made by the imports, and the transplants, is in just those vehicles our European betters decry. M-B bought Chrysler for an entre into the truck and SUV market. Toyota has yet to earn a dime on the Prius and wouldn't have been able to develop it if they hadn't been making pick up trucks and SUV's at high profit margins. Of course you can fund a socialist state with high gas taxes, if your citizenry does not have to drive very much. What makes sense for Europe does not necessarily make sense for the US. What has hurt the US auto industry is not gas-guzzling product as much as it is a poor business model. In Europe the State takes care of the retirees, in the US the auto industry is burdened with huge legacy costs due to past labor agreements regarding pensions that no longer fit the world we live in. "Self-delusional umbrella"? Show me the Euro car that can compete with the Chevy Corvette that does not cost twice what the Chevy does. Show me a minivan made in Europe that can compete with the Chrysler Town & Country. Oops, that's not fair, you guys don't need minivans; you don't have kids.
This tirade was quite funny. “The entire world automotive industry strives to produce just the types of vehicles that the American auto industry produces.” Dream on. They do for the American market, because it is so lax. “Strive” is hardly the word – it isn’t too hard to manufacture the agricultural antiques this market accepts. You have obviously not listened to “Top Gear” or other foreign verdicts on US vehicles – and yes, the Chevy Corvette came as a huge and pleasant surprise. Unions and legacy costs? I didn’t no that European states “take care of” retirees – it tends to be a superannuation scheme that workers contribute to – which in turn increases labor costs – which in turn makes the end cost of labor pretty level with the US, if not higher.
Quote:
No, we don't need a lecture about triple pane windows, nor mercury-laden light bulbs. Of course, you're aware that actual energy consumption increases when those household improvements are made, are you not?
Suit yourself. Triple pane is a comfort bonus, never mind consumption. Why would I not have it? You can quote human nature till you’re blue, but raw consumption figures country by country are blatant evidence that preferences matter and can be influenced.
Quote:
Yeah, all the studies show that when people buy a car that get's better gas mileage, they drive more.
No, “all the studies” don’t. The answer is that simple. And you may only know “toxic” low-energy light bulbs, pity for you.
Quote:
The part that seems to appeal to you is the State imposition of standards and practices, all of which the market can do better.
And you seem to believe in efficient markets in the Adam Smith sense. The first time that illusion was debunked must have been, let’s see, ten years after he wrote it? Today’s markets are anything but free and rational, and it isn’t only governments that cause the distortions. The fact is, we do regulate markets in all manner of ways to good effect, none of which are “socialism.” Seat belts were not market-driven, and some Chinese-made toys were banned for their lead content without the “market” lifting a finger. To specify a fuel consumption target is not the end of the world as we know it.
Quote:
One of the signal accomplishments of the market is to continuously compare relative costs.
Indeed – and one of the chief tools of Western nations in their quest for competitiveness now is to enforce pollution controls, safety standards and worker rights including child labour bans across the Asian and African regions, which will lift their costs more into line and improve conditions at the same time. The irony of arguments like yours is that you pamper to the low-cost nations and flush a US advantage down the drain.
Quote:
For everyone in this world there is a cost-benefit analysis to be done for every action, with the exception of the State.
Precisely – though you’d have to be blind to think the State is excepted. In our country, for example, not a single measure, especially taxes, is undertaken without reference to its impact on competitiveness and exports. OECD and other bodies give ample feedback on national competitiveness, and woe the country that ignores the figure.
Quote:
Just for the record, how's that Kyoto thing working out for ya? I see that Norway's emissions have increased by 12%, the US emissions by 16%, and Canada's by 22%; the former and the latter being signatories.
True, and pressure in this country is to pull ourselves together and match the Swedes. The % is misleading, however – caused by the oil sector exporting for – you guessed it – US consumption. As the world’s third largest exporter of oil, our domestic consumption is negligible.
From what I've seen, the carbon in ocean observation is not projected, but observed already in some of the most fragile locations. ....To believe we can continue to dump carbons into the sea is, to put it cautiously, somewhat brave?
To paraphrase you: the argument about cost is debilitating and spurious. For a start, the thing that matters is relative cost in a world trading context, and the proposed US legislation is way behind that already in place elsewhere, China etc. excepted.
Osmund...a couple of points
1. I am unaware of ANY studies showing actual damage to "fragile locations" from CO2 absorbtion by the ocean lowering the PH. I am aware of damage to fragile reefs from other human activities...real pollution, bleaching, dynamite fishing etc. AND from natural events such as hurricanes, typhoons, changes in salinity due to shifts in currents, invasive species etc. If you have some science to point to that say man made warming or CO2 uptake is responsible for damage...please point me in the right direction. Everything I have read is speculation.
2. I completely disagree with your notions about cost and international competitiveness. First...there is NO problem...to spend our treasure on non-problems when so many problems are facing us is pure folly. Second, the notion that wind and solar are THE answer and that we are ignoring opportunities in order to do things in the old ways is specious. Capital will flow to good ideas that make sense UNLESS government gets in the way.
Nuclear for example is a proven and safe and cost effective alternative to coal and oil unlike wind and solar yet we haven't uilt a nuke plant in 20 years because of the government. Solar and wind are not cost effective. They will become more so over time as oil supplies dwindle and (hopefully) technological advances lead to greater production efficiencies. Then they will make better sense.
What we have just done has NO environmental effect, and will cost the USA jobs, make China stronger, make a bunch of sleazeballs richer and make the rest of us poorer.
I'm sure you addressed my point somewhere in there, but I don't see it.
Quote:
We're going to reduce fuel and energy consumption. We're going to do this by spending tax money on alternative energy sources.
I never argued for this. I spoke solely of accepting lower fuel consumption targets. There may or may not be a sensible way for government to throw money at alternative energy - others can defend that if they wish.
Quote:
Glad you chose India.
Yes, and? We agree about the sad state of Indian farming.
Quote:
And any logistics specialist can tell you that transportation makes up maybe 5% of the cost of goods delivered.
Yes, and? We're speaking of energy consumption, not money figures. BTW, transportation cost is hidden also in every other input from marketing to labour.
Quote:
And in a free market, there are not many countries that can produce grain for as little as we can including shipping. Oh yeah, we use those big energy consuming tools called tractors and combines; they do a thousand acres in the time it takes to do one in the lesser developed portions of the world and France.
Sure, and? Combines don't do so well on Tibetan or Chilean hillsides. It is not news that every region has its own unique advantages - as the Great Plains or Australian outback do when it comes to some produce. There is another argument you might do well to consider regarding US interests: low transport costs encourage e.g. imports from China and relocation of US factories to remote corners of the world. It is efficient but I hear some voices bemoaning this dismantling of US industry?
1. I am unaware of ANY studies showing actual damage to "fragile locations" from CO2 absorbtion by the ocean lowering the PH.... If you have some science to point to that say man made warming or CO2 uptake is responsible for damage...please point me in the right direction.
Cam, I am embarassed. Only two days ago I saw a documentary covering precisely this - I believe it was BBC - but I'll have to get back to you. Where am I today, the best I could do would be Google :-)
Quote:
2. I completely disagree with your notions about cost and international competitiveness
.
Perhaps you don't disagree. The thing is, I share your views on wind, solar and such - fine fields for development but hardly a major contribution in the near future. I don't argue for them. I see substantial gains being possible in the reduction of energy use by numerous less exotic means.
I also like nuclear energy, for all its risks and dubious past (We live too close to Chernobyl to be entirely relaxed about it). On balance, it seems to be a more mature technology with greater scope for early improvement than the wind/solar sector.
And I entirely agree about sleazeballs. Ironically, the Obama administration appears to throw way more money at pie-in-the sky sectors -sorry, I mean "technologies of the future" and "historic investments" - than the countries that are normally bashed in these forums for their "socialist" ways. In my country we're struggling to get a few windmill parks established, with none-too generous state cooperation. I'd be glad to keep it that way for now.
Os...I will wait for further enlightenment! Of course...the BBC connection worries me...so try to get some names/studies whatever that I can review on line...
I do agree on energy savings and think there is plenty of opportunity for that in many areas and the impetus for people to do that will continue to increase as our cost of not doing so continues to rise...and as our economy tanks making every unnecessary cost, one to be eliminated. Many of us had parents/grandparents who lived through the great depression...and even when oil was $2 a barrel they were always turning out the lights when they left a room! I expect to see more wash lines and less electric clothes dryers in our future too. Perhaps this would be a good topic for a different thread.
"Ways to save $$ in a Great Depression"
Last month was a particularly heavy month for US consumption of Norwegian crude oil. We imported just over 12,000 tons of Norwegian crude. Which is about one tankful on an average sized crude oil tanker, assuming the common 24 tank configuration on such vessels.
And yeah, it's cheaper for India to buy grain from us than it is to grow it themselves, and more energy efficient as well since we yield more grain per gallon of fuel used, including shipping.
And yes, the free market still does work. Which is why you'll probably find more Norwegian girls on the beaches of Majorca right about now than the shores of the Oslofjord! (g)
Look. Nobody is exactly in favor of squandering energy, least of all the businessman paying for it. and that businessman is far better equipped to determine if his needs can be met by smaller vehicles, slower vehicles, less capable vehicles, but more energy efficient vehicles. Many find that to be the case. And that free market decision allows them to use the vehicle which best suite their's and their customer's needs. If we wanted to save energy we could have bought the US Postal Service bicycles and been none the worse. But I don't see that plan working out for FedEx, a company by it's very existence has saved thousands of lives while making the transport of packages far more efficient.
Government choosing arbitrary mandates has always produced a loss of productivity greater than any monies saved, or energy for that matter. The unwillingness of the US government to do what is real and achievable in today's terms to reduce our dependence on foreign, especially petroleum based, energy is unconscionable. If electric cars arrived tomorrow the US does not have enough electricity to charge them, including the vast quantities it imports from Canada.
Consumption will drop under the administration's program, along with economic activity. Btw, we tried all this back in the 1970's to disastrous results.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
