Category Archives: Economics

History of the Global Warming Theory

Posted on by

The history of how we have arrived at the current “consensus” that man-made carbon dioxide is causing or will cause catastrophic climate change is interesting. The idea isn’t new.  A Time Magazine article published in 1972 describes how, “As they review the  bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”  The conditions that caused concern included a six year drought in Africa, record rains in the U.S., Pakistan, and Japan, a poor wheat harvest in Canada, dry conditions in Britain, and bitter winters in some areas while other parts of the globe where having the mildest winters in anyone’s recollection. Those words could come from the headlines today about the certainty that we are in a period of global warming. However, read on in the article. It says that meteorologists “…find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing…the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” (emphasis added) We still have a “consensus” that there will be climate change, but the certainty of global cooling has somehow transitioned into global warming.

There was a politician credited with the transition from believing that global cooling was a certainty to the current belief that global warming is a certainty, and that politician was Margaret Thatcher. I’m certain many readers thought they were going to read Al Gore’s name, but he came late to the party. Ms Thatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979, and she believed coal miner strikes were crippling the English economy.  She wanted to promote nuclear power as a replacement for coal, and began committing large amounts of government money to researchers charged with investigating climate change caused by the carbon dioxide that is emitted when coal is burned. Temperatures began to creep up, and researchers who had advocated global cooling adjusted their computer models or created new ones to arrive at the conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions were going to cause global warming.

Scientists have been debating the effect of carbon dioxide on climate since the late 1800s. Savante Arrheius, a Swedish scientist, is credited by some as being the first to theorize in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion would eventually result in global warming. The theory lay more or less dormant until the flood of government grant money began by Margaret Thatcher and then made available to researchers in the U.S. created opportunity for those who found a connection between carbon dioxide and temperatures.  Of course the research might not even involve that direct relationship.  It might involve the effect of increased carbon dioxide on the growth rate of hickory trees, and rapid increases in squirrel populations because there were more hickory nuts (as an example that I just invented).  However, studies that came to a dire prediction followed by the consistent conclusion “that more study is needed,” were more likely to be given news coverage followed by more government grant money. The Environmental Protection Agency has joined the party by finding that carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant, but that is the subject of another posting.

The Climate is Changing

Posted on by

Over it’s historical record, in January, Northern Hemisphere snow cover averages 47 million square kilometers (18.1 million square miles), and in February it averages 46 million square kilometers (17.8 square miles)—approximately 45 to 46 percent of the land area in the region. While sea ice extent was below average for January 2011, this month had the sixth-largest snow cover extent since the record started in 1966, at 49 million square kilometers (18.9 million square miles). Snow was unusually widespread over the mid-western and eastern United States, eastern Europe, and western China. Snow cover in February remained above average at 47.4 million square kilometers (18.3 million square miles), with more snow than usual in the western and central U.S., eastern Europe, Tibet and northeastern China.

Reduced sea ice extent and extensive snow cover are not contradictory, and are both linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (see our January 5, 2011 post). A strongly negative AO favors outbreaks of cold Arctic air over northern Europe and the U.S., as many people experienced first-hand these last two winters. Whether this is a trend, or in any way linked to ongoing climate warming in the Arctic, remains to be seen.

Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue.

Mrs. Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.

 

Obama’s Challenge, America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative President

Posted on by

The most remarkable aspect of the book by Robert Kutner (available new from Amazon for $1.96 at the link), and to the credit of the author, is that it was published well before the 2008 election. It was written with certainty that Mr. Obama was going to win. I agreed with that prediction, but wouldn’t have written a book depending on that outcome. The author writes of his admiration of Presidents Lincoln, FDR, and Johnson, and discusses how Mr. Obama could also become a transformative president. The roadmap presented is to solve the economic crisis by overcoming deregulation and reckless use of military power. I appreciated that he didn’t take the simple approach of blaming Bush for everything. In fact he writes, “Three decades of economic negligence by…elites…weakened the United States…” He even blames Clinton, saying that the economy thrived on his watch “…though some of the prosperity was built on unsustainable bubbles.”

The author presents his ideas of using Progressive approaches to governing, believing that regulation and government involvement results in a stronger economy. He also advocates that all workers should be unionized. I didn’t agree with any of that, but I do agree his assessment that senior citizens are reaping the benefits from Social Security and Medicare (apparently not considered Progressive government programs) at the detriment of the young and middle-aged. I was surprised that the book counseled Mr. Obama to go slow on implementing universal health care, and that he should put his early energies into the economy. Mr. Obama apparently did not read the book. Continue reading →

Where are New Jobs Created from “Green” Energy Investments?

Posted on by

I recall speeches by politicians describing how investments in “green” energy technology would create jobs. I was mistaken when I thought the jobs would be created in the United States. A company named Evergreen Solar had received $43million from Massachusetts to begin its business, and had grown to become the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States. The New York Times reports the company is now, “…closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China.” Solar power experts “say that after many years of relying on…the Middle East for oil, the United States now looks likely to rely on China to tap energy from the sun.”

If that story doesn’t outrage you, try this one. The Associated Press  reported, “General Motors is investing $540 million to build fuel efficient engines at its plant in central Mexico. Labor Secretary Javier Lozano says the plant in the city of Toluca …will provide 500 new jobs.” The United States bailed out GM with many billions of dollars, and I thought that was done to save jobs in this country.

Hans Rosling’s 200 Countries, 200 Years

Posted on by

This post provides a link to a four minute You Tube presentation about the connection between life expectancy and income.  I originally didn’t think of adding this post to the blog, and then I realized it could be a light companion to the video about nuclear explosions. 

From the description I received, “Hans Rosling’s famous lectures combine enormous quantities of public data with a sport’s commentator’s style to reveal the story of the world’s past, present and future development. Now he explores stats in a way he has never done before – using augmented reality animation. In this spectacular section of ‘The Joy of Stats’ he tells the story of the world in 200 countries over 200 years using 120,000 numbers – in just four minutes. Plotting life expectancy against income for every country since 1810, Hans shows how the world we live in is radically different from the world most of us imagine.”

I don’t know how famous Hans Rosling is, but his video will challenge those who have the opinion math can never be fun.

What tax rates are fair, and who decides?

Posted on by

News reports are filled with politicians debating whether cuts in tax rates passed in the Bush era should be extended, or whether rates for people making the most money should have their rates increased.  Would you be surprised to hear that the share of the tax burden paid by the highest income earners increased after the Bush tax cuts were fully in effect, according to the data in the Tax Foundation report?  The top 0.1% of earners paid 15.68% of all taxes in 2003 and 18.47% of the total in 2008. The top 1% of earners paid 34.27 % of total taxes in 2003 and 38.02% in 2008.   On the other end of the spectrum, the bottom 50% of earners paid 3.46% of the total tax burden in 2003, and that percentage has dropped every year since to 2.70% in 2008.

What tax rate is fair? The Freeman Online has a quote that, “Under Roosevelt, the top rate was…raised—first to 79 percent and later to 90 percent. In 1941, in fact, Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. ‘Why not?’ he said when an adviser questioned him.”   I would hope most people wouldn’t think that to be either good policy or fair.  I believe we have a powerful economy and country in large part because there are incentives to succeed through energetic efforts and willingness to take risks.  Those who have their risks rewarded gain wealth for themselves and employ others.  Some politicians encourage us to resent those who have succeeded financially, and promise they will take more from the wealthy and dole out services to those deemed worthy by massive, inefficient bureaucracies.  Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” (The quote is included in Mike Rosen’s column on page 11B of the Denver Post, December 10, 2010.)