America prepares to put final nail in economic coffin - Climate Change Buffonery

[shira]

This economic hell is purely because of the fuckstain in office.

Prove it.

 

[shira]

Complete and utter lunacy. A CATASTROPHIC day in American history. The "cure" turns out to be orders of magnitude worse than the "disease".

Show us your evidence.

 

[BoberFett]

This is economically nonsensical. Increased minimum wage is about giving the poor a larger slice of the same economic pie, not about increasing overall consumption.

Additionally, green initiatives are not necessarily tied to lowering consumption in any way. For example, recently the NYT released a chart of carbon emissions generated per megawatt of electricity. (It has gone down a lot). Even with increased consumption greener generation methods would have led to major declines.

So what you're saying is that you think people should make more money, but not so they can buy more stuff?

Where do you think stuff is made?

 

[fskimospy]

So what you're saying is that you think people should make more money, but not so they can buy more stuff?

Where do you think stuff is made?

No, I'm saying that the minimum wage exists for certain people to make more money so they can buy more stuff. Since the effects of the minimum wage on GDP growth are mixed in the economics literature (usually a small net positive effect), where are you getting the idea that this would lead to a consumption increase on the whole if GDP is unchanged?

 

[BoberFett]

Your opinion seems to defy current propaganda which says the economy as a whole grows faster if we reduce inequality by forcing the wealthy to pay higher wages. That economic growth is consumption.

From another current topic:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nick-hanauer-seattle-minimum-wage-20140530-story.html#page=1

It’s not rooted in reality. Rich people don’t generate growth. It’s a fundamental law – when people have more money, businesses make more money and have need for employees.

The truth is that jobs are created by a feedback loop between mostly middle-class consumers and business, and that’s why a thriving middle class is the source of prosperity. It’s not the consequence of prosperity. That’s why a policy focus on the middle class, like raising minimum wages, is the thing that creates growth and prosperity in capitalist societies.

 

[fskimospy]

Your opinion seems to defy current propaganda which says the economy as a whole grows faster if we reduce inequality by forcing the wealthy to pay higher wages. That economic growth is consumption.

No, it's that the portion of the country that is affected by the minimum wage is relatively small, so it has a small economic impact. You're attempting to equate two things that are vastly disproportionate in size, so you get an answer that confuses you.

EDIT: Not to mention that increases in consumption are not directly tied to greenhouse gas emissions and that most people advocating for action against climate change are advocating for GDP growth that limits carbon emissions, not a reduction of them regardless. This was the second part of my post that you cut out.

 

[bshole]

If we are going to talk about climate change buffoonery, we should focus more on the long term damage which we have done and are already doing.

Buffoonery is having mountains of hard data and ignoring it in favor of fantasy.

Yea what exactly is that long term damage? Crop fertility has never been better and life expectancy has never been longer. I have been told about dire consequences for decades now while I have not experiencing any.

 

[fskimospy]

Yea what exactly is that long term damage? Crop fertility has never been better and life expectancy has never been longer. I have been told about dire consequences for decades now while I have not experiencing any.

Do you think that more than one thing affects crop fertility and life expectancy?

 

[bshole]

As I suspected, it is all about the money. This has fuckall to do with combatting "climate change" and everything to do with monied interests finding a new path to generate wealth for themselves at the expense of society.

Gotta laugh at Big Oil being behind this latest Obama move, it is plain hilarious. This is just ADM pushing Ethanol on everybody all over again, another behemoth getting an even bigger slice of the pie.

Already, corporate behemoths like General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, and others have come together to form the United States Climate Action Partnership.

Even oil juggernauts like Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips have joined this coalition, which calls itself "an expanding alliance of major businesses and leading climate and environmental groups that have come together to call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

According to a recent New York Times article, carbon trading is one of the "fastest-growing specialties in financial services." And companies are scrambling to get a slice of a market now worth well over 100 billion and that could grow to $1 trillion within a decade.

The article, "In London's Financial World, Carbon Trading Is the New Big Thing," goes on: "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market over all."

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/report/carbon-trading-the-worlds-next-biggest-market/107

 

[BoberFett]

No, it's that the portion of the country that is affected by the minimum wage is relatively small, so it has a small economic impact. You're attempting to equate two things that are vastly disproportionate in size, so you get an answer that confuses you.

EDIT: Not to mention that increases in consumption are not directly tied to greenhouse gas emissions and that most people advocating for action against climate change are advocating for GDP growth that limits carbon emissions, not a reduction of them regardless. This was the second part of my post that you cut out.

Don't tell me. Tell the people who are spreading the "With higher minimum wage we all win" propaganda.

As to your second point, wake me up when that's reality and not projection based on some future technology that we're just sure will be invented someday to increase solar efficiency. The pressure to reduce fossil fuel use means renewables will need to not just keep up with growth, but replace any decommissioned fossil based sources. Either we'll have to continue with fossil fuels at the same to meet demand, or energy prices will rise and negate growth. (Which on the other topic will chew up large chunks of any increase to minimum wage)

Of course you're free to disagree. I just see current energy policy and wage policy working against one another.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't tell me. Tell the people who are spreading the "With higher minimum wage we all win" propaganda.

As to your second point, wake me up when that's reality and not projection based on some future technology that we're just sure will be invented someday to increase solar efficiency. The pressure to reduce fossil fuel use means renewables will need to not just keep up with growth, but replace any decommissioned fossil based sources. Either we'll have to continue with fossil fuels at the same to meet demand, or energy prices will rise and negate growth. (Which on the other topic will chew up large chunks of any increase to minimum wage)

Of course you're free to disagree. I just see current energy policy and wage policy working against one another.

Good news for you then, efficiency and energy policy have already made a major impact into US carbon emissions.

 

[BoberFett]

Take natural gas out of that, because the same people fighting fossil fuels are fighting fracking.

As for air travel and miles driven, wouldn't those go up as a greater percentage of the population (even if it's only 5%) has more disposable income?

Just to show you I'm fair, I'll give you energy efficiency, fuel economy and wind power as good things.

 

[Zorba]

Take natural gas out of that, because the same people fighting fossil fuels are fighting fracking.

As for air travel and miles driven, wouldn't those go up as a greater percentage of the population (even if it's only 5%) has more disposable income?

Just to show you I'm fair, I'll give you energy efficiency, fuel economy and wind power as good things.

Aircraft fleets are far more efficient today than they were a decade ago and becoming much more so quickly.

 

[schmuckley]

Carbon emissions have gone down because people are poorer in general.No more RV trips in the summer,no boating,no dirtbikes to ride...etc...etc..

How is that good for the economy?

 

[JulesMaximus]

First its coal, then its natural gas, the seeds of anti coal have started with the anti fracking movement. The man made global warming movement wont stop until America is destroyed.

Don't look now but the sky is falling...

 

[BoberFett]

Aircraft fleets are far more efficient today than they were a decade ago and becoming much more so quickly.

I haven't dug too deep for alternate studies but this article, while a few years old, indicates otherwise.

http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=684

Isn't it just possible people are flying a lot less in the last 5 to 10 years?

 

[moonbogg]

Cosmos TV show is now complete. Welcome to our doorway into the halls of extinction.

 

[K1052]

I haven't dug too deep for alternate studies but this article, while a few years old, indicates otherwise.

http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=684

Isn't it just possible people are flying a lot less in the last 5 to 10 years?

No, except for a dip in the recession people are flying about the same now as in 2005/6 domestically at least. While more fuel efficient planes have become available and more are in the pipeline it has to be considered that there are a lot of external factors to when airlines decide to replace planes (9/11 and the recession certainly put a delay on a bunch of capital expenditures) so lower efficiency planes lingered in some fleets longer than would have otherwise probably been the case.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yea what exactly is that long term damage? Crop fertility has never been better and life expectancy has never been longer. I have been told about dire consequences for decades now while I have not experiencing any.

Fortunately the scientific community has pretty much moved on to "how will we fix the problem and what are the consequences" versus "is this really happening?".

That debate is over.

 

[davmat787]

According to the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a liberal institution, reduction of US emissions by 40% (a full third larger than this!) would cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP per year. Considering the overwhelming scientific case for AGW and the consequences of it, 0.2% of GDP seems like a pretty fabulously cheap price to pay!

I'm sure this information makes you really happy. Maybe you're just mad that if the world shifted away from fossil fuels as a whole that this would limit Russia's financial ability to invade its neighbors? You were really a big fan of that.

If you could make the decision, do you think that .02% of GDP would be better spent reducing current output by 40% as you mentioned, or use that money for dedicated alternative energy research?

I'd put it towards research. Besides, how long would the world's increasing output erase our reductions', while research could benefit the globe?

 

[Zorba]

I haven't dug too deep for alternate studies but this article, while a few years old, indicates otherwise.

http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=684

Isn't it just possible people are flying a lot less in the last 5 to 10 years?

Your article is old, basically. In 2005 American Airlines was operating over 350 MD-80s, this year that will drop below 200 and they will be gone all together in a few more years. The current generation 737-800 is about 20% more fuel efficient than an MD-80 and carries an extra 10 people (in current configuration, was 20 more). They are also retiring the 757s and replacing with 737s/A320s/787 all which are much more efficient.

Airlines did not invest in fleet replacements from 2001 to about 2009. American had been taking 737s to replace older aircraft, but suspending the fleet replacement after 9/11.

There was a large dip in new aircraft designs during the 90s/early 2000s as well. Basically Boeing gave us the 737NG which was an improvement over the classic, but not earth shattering and the 777 which was a massive improvement over the 747. Airbus gave the A330, which was about the same as a 767, and the A340, which is a dog.

The 787 gets 20% improvement over the 767, 737Max and A320NEO will get a 12-15% increase over current gen aircraft. The A350 will get 20% better than the A330 (IIRC) and the 777Max will get 10-15% over the current 777s.

Also I am not sure about your source, seems that an agency pushing for cap and trade on airlines is probably manipulating the data to help their cause. Such as looking at every fleet at their max range, which is a very small percentage of flying and hides a lot of the efficiency gains, since efficiency gains can be traded for longer range. It also completely hides operational changes than have reduced fuel consumption, like using ground power/air at gates instead of APUs, single engine taxis and use of high speed tugs. It ignores engine cleanings, etc.

Here is an ATA article from 2009 Link

Similarly, fuel efficiency (measured by revenue ton miles per gallon) has more than doubled since 1978; stated differently, for every mile flown, today we carry more than twice as many passengers and cargo per gallon than we did in 1978.

As for passenger traffic, in revenue seat miles, we are basically at the same level as 2007, and has been climbing since 2009. Here is a link you can play with, pretty cool site.

 

[fskimospy]

If you could make the decision, do you think that .02% of GDP would be better spent reducing current output by 40% as you mentioned, or use that money for dedicated alternative energy research?

I'd put it towards research. Besides, how long would the world's increasing output erase our reductions', while research could benefit the globe?

The results of that research will also cost money to implement, meaning that a few years down the line you would be asking yourself the same question and giving the same answer.

We have the capability to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions for a modest price. That's a good deal and we should take it.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The research is happening regardless, so its a moot point.

When you factor in the consequences of climate change, 0.2% seems like a pittance.

 

[BoberFett]

Your article is old, basically. In 2005 American Airlines was operating over 350 MD-80s, this year that will drop below 200 and they will be gone all together in a few more years. The current generation 737-800 is about 20% more fuel efficient than an MD-80 and carries an extra 10 people (in current configuration, was 20 more). They are also retiring the 757s and replacing with 737s/A320s/787 all which are much more efficient.



Airlines did not invest in fleet replacements from 2001 to about 2009. American had been taking 737s to replace older aircraft, but suspending the fleet replacement after 9/11.



There was a large dip in new aircraft designs during the 90s/early 2000s as well. Basically Boeing gave us the 737NG which was an improvement over the classic, but not earth shattering and the 777 which was a massive improvement over the 747. Airbus gave the A330, which was about the same as a 767, and the A340, which is a dog.



The 787 gets 20% improvement over the 767, 737Max and A320NEO will get a 12-15% increase over current gen aircraft. The A350 will get 20% better than the A330 (IIRC) and the 777Max will get 10-15% over the current 777s.



Also I am not sure about your source, seems that an agency pushing for cap and trade on airlines is probably manipulating the data to help their cause. Such as looking at every fleet at their max range, which is a very small percentage of flying and hides a lot of the efficiency gains, since efficiency gains can be traded for longer range. It also completely hides operational changes than have reduced fuel consumption, like using ground power/air at gates instead of APUs, single engine taxis and use of high speed tugs. It ignores engine cleanings, etc.



Here is an ATA article from 2009 Link





As for passenger traffic, in revenue seat miles, we are basically at the same level as 2007, and has been climbing since 2009. Here is a link you can play with, pretty cool site.

Thanks for the info I'll check it out.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your article is old, basically. In 2005 American Airlines was operating over 350 MD-80s, this year that will drop below 200 and they will be gone all together in a few more years. The current generation 737-800 is about 20% more fuel efficient than an MD-80 and carries an extra 10 people (in current configuration, was 20 more). They are also retiring the 757s and replacing with 737s/A320s/787 all which are much more efficient.

Airlines did not invest in fleet replacements from 2001 to about 2009. American had been taking 737s to replace older aircraft, but suspending the fleet replacement after 9/11.

There was a large dip in new aircraft designs during the 90s/early 2000s as well. Basically Boeing gave us the 737NG which was an improvement over the classic, but not earth shattering and the 777 which was a massive improvement over the 747. Airbus gave the A330, which was about the same as a 767, and the A340, which is a dog.

The 787 gets 20% improvement over the 767, 737Max and A320NEO will get a 12-15% increase over current gen aircraft. The A350 will get 20% better than the A330 (IIRC) and the 777Max will get 10-15% over the current 777s.

Also I am not sure about your source, seems that an agency pushing for cap and trade on airlines is probably manipulating the data to help their cause. Such as looking at every fleet at their max range, which is a very small percentage of flying and hides a lot of the efficiency gains, since efficiency gains can be traded for longer range. It also completely hides operational changes than have reduced fuel consumption, like using ground power/air at gates instead of APUs, single engine taxis and use of high speed tugs. It ignores engine cleanings, etc.

Here is an ATA article from 2009 Link


As for passenger traffic, in revenue seat miles, we are basically at the same level as 2007, and has been climbing since 2009. Here is a link you can play with, pretty cool site.

:thumbsup: Excellent information and well reasoned! I wish we had more posts like this on this forum. Thanks.