<p>You caught me just in time. I had already started to burn old tires in my backyard, doing my part to contribute to global warming. I don’t have much belief in the effect of CO2, but I thought the soot might help.</p>
<p>I guess we read things with different eyes. You see some disaster. I see some speculation about possible changes in rainfall in different parts of the world.</p>
<p>Well, edad, let me fill you in on the effect on my backyard, the place where most of your food was probably grown - California. The economy of the state which is home to 1 out of every 8 people in the country is primarily limited by one thing - water. Always has been. The economy of this state - agriculture, industry, and the sheer ability to live in most of the southern part of the state, is entirely reliant upon the delivery of water from the Sierra Nevada mountains. We’ve been blessed with a terrific built in storage mechanism - water falls as snow on the mountains in our wet winter, then is released as snow melt throughout the rest of the year in manageable quantities. With a little help from some humongous reservoirs (which also provide us with clean and cheap hydroelectric power) and a massive canal system hundreds of miles long, we’re able to be the largest food producing state in the nation, among other things.</p>
<p>But guess what happens with global warming? Less water falls as snow to be stored for summer as the snow line gets higher and higher. Worse yet, warm early spring storms drop rain on the snowbanks, melting them, and the resultant massive runoff causes floods and runs out to sea all at once. Come summer, we run dry. Global warming will screw up California’s water system, and as the water goes, so goes the state. Sure, we can turn to desalinization - energy intense, and limited to coastal areas - but what do you suppose the cash cost of global warming will be to California? Care to add that into your calculation?</p>
<p>I don’t recall where you live, but if it’s in the South - you get drought and more heat. Mmmmmm. Care to “speculate” about how well you’d like that?</p>
<p>Barrons, it’s true that it’s impossible to be sure about what would have happened if different things had been done. But it is possible to observe that the national debt has steadily declined since WWII - a valid reason for running a deficit - except for during the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations, which now account for virtually all of the national debt, and during whose administrations no valid reason on the lines of WWII existed. Facts are facts, and accountability is accountability - except for republicans, apparently.</p>
<p>Checkout the stock market since Reagan (around 1,000 to over 13000) 10% compounded growth. Many are very happy with the economy as it is.</p>
<p>I look forward to Wisconsin becoming filled with palm tress and growing fine fruits and grapes. And selling them to California. And we’ll take back our cows too. They don’t like the heat.</p>
<p>There you go again, more disaster scenarios. If global warming continues and becomes very significant with several degrees of temperature increase, then we can expect changes in precipitation that will lead to gradual changes in agriculture. I understand that increased temperatures will mean more, not less precipitation. Overall, agricultural output in the world will increase, but not necessarily in the areas that are currently most productive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who use the debt is not a large percentage of GNP and is therefore no problem argument tend to forget several issues. The debt has happened in the context of really high twin deficits, i.e., current account as well as budget deficits. The basic situation is therefore that the debt we hold is owed to non-American nationals. At the same time, they hold incredible amounts of our money in their central banks. Now, in the case that these central banks decide being so exposed to the US dollar is a really bad thing – a fear which gets bandied about in the world press increasingly and a fear that apparently led Warren Buffet to start betting against the dollar in his investments – there could be a run on the dollar. </p>
<p>A run on the dollar may never be allowed to happen because so many people have a stake in it not happening. But if it does, the shock to our economy in the short- to medium-term would be horrible. Who’s responsible for the current account deficit situation? Not really the president or his party so tremendously, though the budget deficits do beget larger CA deficits generally. Who is to blame is aactually more Alan Greenspan who kept interest rates remarkably low during the housing bubble and kept active the market for Americans borrowing against their homes to purchase goods from foreign countries. </p>
<p>Oh, the same Greenspan who said that government budget deficits are very irresponsible, but argued that tax cuts for the rich are okay because it would lead to the imposition of responsible behavior on Congress. Oh, but wait, the Republicans changed from the deficit hawks to the borrow and spend because deficits don’t matter party, so basically we are borrowing money to fund tax cuts for the rich.</p>
<p>But I digress. </p>
<p>The general principle of countries, as well as people, households, or firms, is that it’s good to borrow money that increases your productive capacity and that it’s bad to borrow money for other purposes. Enhanced productive capacity leads to enhanced returns that outsize, one hopes, the returns you have to pay your creditors. </p>
<p>So the question for the deficits-don’t-matter-anymore-Republicans, which you are apparently, Barron, is what productive capacity are our deficits being put to? Funding Iraq? Paying for tax cuts for the rich? Education? Investment in the health of our citizens? Or debt payments to China and our other creditors?</p>
<p>Increasingly it’s the last thing I said. If you think this is not a problem or is responsible behavior, I’d like to see you counsel a niece, a daughter, a friend that it’s okay for her/him to use expanding credit card debt to pay off other credit cards. Or to tell the folks who took on crushing housing debt via a variable interest rate loan and who are now getting evicted from their homes that they were doing the right thing because, on average, the projected rates of returns for their properties justified it.</p>
<p>Irresponsibility is irresponsibility. I used to admire some of the straight talk of Republicans, and have a strong independent streak as a voter. But now, generally, Republicans come across as victims and liars without a sense of responsibility, and they spend all their time covering a**es that shouldn’t be covered.</p>
<p>The rich are very busy investing. Look at the rise in Hedge Funds and all sorts of private investment vehicles. Some of these profits are going to the larger educational foundations such as Harvard, Yale, Virginia etc who have made a pile over the last few years.
And I love those Chinese made clothes and furniture I can buy now at 1980 prices. Freed up money to buy that great made in USA (almost) Toyota.</p>
<p>And in the words of the immortal Sam Kinison talking about drought and famine plagued Ethiopia–don’t send them food, send them U-Hauls–they are living in a DESERT. Nothing grows there. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH</p>
<p>Edad, I’m just trying to quantify the local cost. You’re claiming that lowering CO2 will cost $1000 per person per year. I’m saying that specifically identifiable expenses directly caused by the predicted climate change will cost far more than that. However, I understand the appeal of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “i’mnotlisteningyoucan’tmakemeidon’twanttochangeanythinggoaway” as an alternative to planning for the future based on the best available information, particularly when effective planning for the future involves some degree of refraining from current indulgence.</p>
<p>Barrons, the S & P 500 has averaged over 12% since 1976 - long before Reaganomics. However, the inflation adjusted stock market has never strayed far from about a 2% (real) increase over time; the recent runup during the Clinton Administration being an exception, and we haven’t fallen back to that baseline quite yet. There was no “magical” improvement in the economy under Reagan - but we still have his debt, and as I pointed out above, the requirement of paying off that debt prevents us from doing other things with the money - fixing Social Security, lowering greenhouse gas, etc.</p>
<p>From 1976-1981 the Dow and the SP 500 grew only about 3.4% annually. Inflation during that period was much higher at around 10% per year. Thanks for the meaningless additional data and bringing back the Carter years…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha, Barron, at least you’re consistent. You care about the big guys, the hedge fund investors and the rich school endowments. And as for the little people: send the stupid sand people U-Hauls. Q: What do you call an Ethopian who takes a p**p? A: Show off.</p>
<p>Point of information: a run on our dollar would mean your cheap Chinese furniture would stop being so cheap. Since our productive capacity in furniture has largely gone away, it’d be very hard times for folks who need to buy furniture, at least in the short- to medium-term. It wouldn’t be a problem for hedge fund investors, though.</p>
<p>kluge, </p>
<p>The $1000 per capita figure is not mine. It was calculated from the quoted data. The figures I have seen indicate that it would take much, much more to make any significant difference in atmospheric CO2. From the previous numbers we discussed it would take vast amounts of space and astronomical amounts of money to convert any significant portion of our energy use to clean energy such as solar or wind. Water and CO2 are the products of combustion. There is no way to somehow scrub out or dispose of the vast quantities the world is producing through the use of fossil fuels. I believe global warming will continue regardless of the CO2 content of the atmosphere. </p>
<p>I do believe we need to plan for the future, but those plans should be something more and different than trying to somehow set the clock back to the year 2000. Civilization is progressing, or at least changing, at a rapid rate. Our plans for the future need to be more than trying to recreate the past or planning for a future which is largely like the present. Planning for an unpredictable future can be more than difficult. Maybe in a few generations there won’t be enough snow pack in the Western mountains to produce a steady flow of water. I can’t imagine a larger waste of water than pouring rivers of water onto the Arizona desert to grow cotton. Maybe that and some similar practices will need to be changed. One thing we can predict with certainty is that we will need more energy in the future. Our energy use does all kinds of things like allowing us to progress beyond subsistence farming, allowing us to communicate via the internet, allowing us to go visit aunt Martha, or being able to develop and manufacture complex pharmaceuticals. Sure there is a place for conservation and reduction of waste and maybe solar and wind power have some limited feasible uses. These steps are clearly insufficient. Trying to put a cap on energy use or cap CO2 production is worse than insufficient. We need something more than reactionary measures. We - and the emerging 3rd world - deserve something more. In the midst of these uncertainties, we also know that the world is consuming tens of millions of barrels of petroleum a day. We know that this cannot continue and better exploration and petroleum retrieve techniques will only delay the inevitable. Adding up the facts, I only see one solution and that is nuclear energy. No, I don’t want one of today’s reactors in my backyard. No, I have no connection, except for being a consumer, to any energy company or the nuclear power industry. I just don’t see any other solution with any significant impact. Limitations, conservation, solar, wind, hydro and geo just seem to be insignificant, although they do sound nice and politically safe.</p>
<p>Since the world began people have been moving across the lands in search of better places–at least the more industrious ones. There is absolutely no reason not to consider that as a reasonable adjustment to changing circumstances today and tomorrow. I have moved across this country several times in search of better opportunities and selected my future retirement location partially on economic considerations.</p>
<p>
Given the gloom and doom some are professing and the idea that we’re likely limited in what we can do to effectively address it (i.e. developing countries would be less likely to abide by rules imposed upon them from the ‘rich’ countries), if it really comes about that there’ll be some fairly impactful climate changes, then having humans adjust to the changes over time makes sense and may be all that’s really needed. There are already people living in inhospitable climates now and there probably will be a hundred years from now as well. They’ll then, as now, have to either move to a more hospitable location, solve the location’s issues with technology (i.e. refrigeration in Phoenix, water piped to LA, etc.), or suffer it.</p>
<p>I think the idea of the reaction to severe climate change is interesting to discuss. Regardless of whether or not there will actually be a severe change in a short term (a few hundred years) or if that change is caused by mankind, what are the true repercussions if there were one? Does it mean that the earth on the whole will have more capacity to produce food? Will it mean that there’ll somehow be famine? Does it mean a fairly minor shift of climate zones by a hundred miles or so with some adjustment required of mankind (something that already happens per “barron’s” points)?</p>
<p>so barrons, now that Condi and the administration in on the band wagon, or at least joggin next to it, what do you say?</p>
<p>Still not worried. Ever heard of politics? What happened to that BIG hurricane season we were getting this year. Pfffft. They can’t even predict something relatively simple three months out.</p>
<p>so, gee the administration is playing politics when ti comes to global warming, hmmmm</p>
<p>thought they had science behind them…guess they don’t really care much about THEIR science</p>
<p>The problem is people’s arrogance. So many people are so arrogant to believe that we as humans are soooooo powerful. They don’t want to believe in a God, or at least in “Mother Nature”. They think that we have such impact and control over the global environment. We can’t even develop a single living cell. We can destroy, but we can’t create. Yet with all the evolutions of species on the planet. With Volcanoes creating certain byproducts that we couldn’t do in a hundred years if we tried. We weather patterns changing around us constantly. We have the balls to believe that we somehow caused it or can have a significant affect on it. Such arrogance and naivety.</p>
<p>If places like California is so worried about water shortages, then invest all those high tax dollars you love so much into desalinization. You’ve got an entire ocean that you can turn into drinkable water for the people and the farms. Plus, if you think the global warming is such a big issue, then you’ll actually be lowering the ocean levels which you believe are rising because of the melting ice shelf in Greenland and Antarctica. Then it’s a win-win situation.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I believe that there is global warming happening. I just don’t believe that we caused it or can fix it. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t reduce pollution; especially in the air. It would make it healthier to breath and our water healthier to drink. I just want it to be for the right reason and not some scare tactic from some politically motivated special interest group. </p>
<p>Mother Nature, has, can, and will continue to kick our butts and there’s not a damn thing we can do about that. We had mini Ice-Ages just a few hundred years ago. That was before any of our CFC. Sulfur, automobiles, factories, etc… It is Nature doing it’s thing. Including the Sun and the other planets and the interaction they all have on each other. I suppose we are suppose to try and fix the solar flares on the sun too. The continents are shifting, the ice is melting, water will rise, arid lands will become tropical, farmlands will become deserts, and the list continues. We’ve had plagues that even make AIDS seem insignificant. This has all happened before in the past and it will happen again. We didn’t cause it and we can’t change it. Such arrogance to believe we had or can have any part of it. </p>
<p>We can stop the use of all fossil fuels today and it won’t affect global warming. It will affect the air we breath and the water we drink. That is a good thing. But it’s not going to change the earth from evolving. The earth will continue with it’s evolution. And if Mother Nature wants to kick our butt and make us extinct from within or some asteroid from the heavens, then that’s life. This isn’t Hollywood where you can drill to the earth’s core and change the outcome. Then again, in that movie mankind supposed caused the problem also. Also which was inaccurate. </p>
<p>Anyway, we should be concentrating on alternative energies because it’s healthier for us, it’s cheaper, because eventually we will run out of fossil fuels, and because it will be more efficient. So yes, we need to do these things. Not however because if we don’t the world will come to an end. If the world is going to end because of nature and environmental reasons, then there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it. We didn’t cause it and we can’t fix it. Even my arrogance isn’t that high to believe that we have such control. When we can create 1 living cell from nothing, then I’ll believe that we can have such impact on the planet. When we can do even 1/10 of 1% of what we see around us and take for granted when it comes to the climate, ecology, living organisms, the oceans, or even watching how Mount St. Helens did it’s thing which everyone believe was pure destruction, yet has rebuilt itself to such a beautiful area. Then we can talk about our effect on the planet. Even a simple forest fire that seems to destroy is actually giving new birth. Sorry, but we are so insignificant when it comes to Mother Nature.</p>
<p>Christcorp:
Regarding desalination for California -
</p>
<p>After 6 years of denying Man’s impact on the climate, C. Rice acknowledge the we can alter our role in climate change. Who is in charge here W or Rice?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/09/92662.htm[/url]”>http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/09/92662.htm</a></p>
<p>Cereal and cereal based food products are increasing in price, while we are now facing a fuel alcohol glut with continued US government tariffs on imported alcohol and price support for US produced alcohol. (WSJ, 10/01/2007) </p>
<p>As a Republican, I am ticked at price supports, farm subsidy, although a Republican program, tariffs, and government interference.</p>
<p>Personally I don’t really care what the “government” says or not says, I am more concerned what the insurance company says about what they will insure. The Atlantic and Gulf Coast homeowners and money lenders are probably thinking the same thing.</p>