Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Walter Hinteler wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
No, no, in constant dollar, it's much cheaper now.

Well, okay - but: we (Germans) have to work 4.8 minutes for a liter petrol, an US-American 1.8 minutes.
(In 1980 it was in Germany something like 12 minutes.)

Taxes matter in the final prices. In France, we even have a fluctuating tax embedded in the "TIPP" to shave out prices spikes. People pay high but (relatively) stable prices and are happy Laughing

http://www.opec.org/home/PowerPoint/Taxation/images/Slide14.gif

0 Replies

I don't know from where you got that graphic, but in 2006 in Germany taxes on petrol were 65% and you couldn't find a single station selling petrol for the price noted there .... and none in Germany either (though petrol is more expensive in the UK than in Germany, a lot more).

(Even if the price were in and not $.)

It could be, however, that it's the price for fuel oil? I could drive that ...

0 Replies

Cyc, in '98 you lived in Houston. Now you live in California. That accounts for about a buck of the difference! ;p (Yeah, we're still under $3.)

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

Cyc, in '98 you lived in Houston. Now you live in California. That accounts for about a buck of the difference! ;p (Yeah, we're still under $3.)

Okay, so, it's up by Triple instead of Quadruple. lol

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

minitax wrote :

Quote:

So before giving grand advice, ask yourself a simple question: if you have a kid, would you entice him to specialize in a field related to the environment for his professionnal future?

it's been my experience that children should not base their education upon the wishes or advice of their parents .
by the time one has finished basic education - say around age 25 - things have often changed so much that the advice given ten years earlier doesn't carry much weight any more .

in today's economy "flexibility" is a must . all i have to do is look at my own life experience : i started out as an apprentice working for the hamburg port authority , married and left for canada , worked for a short while in construction and for the local electric utility , started working for an insurance company and retired as the company audit chief .
my parents advice was : whatever you do , do the best you can and it was the best and really only advice they could offer .

talking specifically about jobs in the "environmental field" , i can tell you that environmental engineers are much in demand in canada's oil-industry , in exploration , drilling and refining . of course , one has to be willing to go where the jobs are and keep one's qualifications up-to-date .
resting on one's laurels certainly does not work in canada .
canada's energy companies have actually started to slow down both exploration and drilling because of a general labour shortage - and i'm not just talking about manual labourer but riggers , engineers , administrative personnel - you name it they need it .
one of the canadian giants in the field , SYNCRUDE , is right now looking for 1,000 people just to replace staff coming up to retirement - and they are looking for more to be able to expand production .

at the same time ARAMCO has a recruiting team in alberta trying to hire 250 of the best people in the oil-business to work in saudi-arabia (at about double the money they make in alberta - which is about $100,000 for junior rigger or junior tradesman - should give you some idea of the money that can be made by good workers that are flexible ) .

so my advice to any young person would be : find out what you enjoy doing and find out if you can make a good living in your chosen profession and never forget to keep your qualifications up-to-date .
AND ENJOY LIFE - you are on this earth only once , i believe !
hbg

0 Replies

Part of the problem there is that companies are kind of in a cleft stick when it comes to providing training for workers. On the one hand, if you post all your job openings with "must have 10 years of experience using the exact model of widget that we're currently operating", you will have precious few applicants. On the other hand, if you take total rookies and train them up, you've put in a significant investment in skills in those workers - meaning that they can take your training and go to the competition, or at least that you're more or less obligated to hold on to them until the training expense breaks even. (Not obligated to the employee - I mean to the company you work for. If you just spent 30k bringing Joe Blow up to speed, you can hardly can him the day after 'cause he showed up five minutes late... or if you do, you're just gonna have to lay out another 30k to train up Jim Blow instead.)

As far as the idea of "jumping on the environmental-economic-boom-to-come" goes, please, pull the other one. Classic example of the broken window. Sure, if you break a window, it's going to generate output in the form of work for the glazier and for the installer. However, it's NOT a net economic gain, because you have to count the destruction of the current asset.

The idea that the economy will benefit from an increase in environmental spending, fueled by tighter regulation, is the same way. Sure, individual firms do stand to profit. However, the economic activity that's displaced by the regulations is going to outweigh the amount generated by the environmental firms. (If it was the other way around, they'd do it NOW - there's no need for a regulation telling firms to go make money!)

Finally, as far as gasoline prices go, they're highly influenced by the price of oil, and demand for oil is mostly inelastic and highly priced at the margin. That is to say, a change in the supply or demand for oil of only a few percent has a much greater influence on the price of oil than, say, a similar change in the price of a beer. We've had both - a small decrease in the available supply (Iraq, plus reductions in output from other countries due to this and that) and an increase in demand (China and India industrializing), so the marginal barrel of oil is in significantly higher demand these days, and sells for a higher price.

0 Replies

Quote:

As far as the idea of "jumping on the environmental-economic-boom-to-come" goes, please, pull the other one. Classic example of the broken window. Sure, if you break a window, it's going to generate output in the form of work for the glazier and for the installer. However, it's NOT a net economic gain, because you have to count the destruction of the current asset.

The new product is arguably superior, however. Your example posits replacing windows with the exact same windows, for no gain.

We're looking for a net environmental gain, and you're right, this will cut into profits. Tough titty.

Quote:

Finally, as far as gasoline prices go, they're highly influenced by the price of oil, and demand for oil is mostly inelastic and highly priced at the margin. That is to say, a change in the supply or demand for oil of only a few percent has a much greater influence on the price of oil than, say, a similar change in the price of a beer. We've had both - a small decrease in the available supply (Iraq, plus reductions in output from other countries due to this and that) and an increase in demand (China and India industrializing), so the marginal barrel of oil is in significantly higher demand these days, and sells for a higher price.

Much of the credit for the rising prices of gasoline comes from problems with the refineries, not any shortage or huge increase in the price of oil at the moment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
As far as the idea of "jumping on the environmental-economic-boom-to-come" goes, please, pull the other one. Classic example of the broken window. Sure, if you break a window, it's going to generate output in the form of work for the glazier and for the installer. However, it's NOT a net economic gain, because you have to count the destruction of the current asset.

The new product is arguably superior, however. Your example posits replacing windows with the exact same windows, for no gain.

We're looking for a net environmental gain, and you're right, this will cut into profits. Tough titty.

I don't see gain in using vast amounts of land to grow biofuels instead of giving them back to the wilderness. I don't see gain in deforesting the Amazon to plant sugar canes to make ethanol or Indonesia to make biodiesel from palm oil. I don't see gain in burning wood in inefficient stoves for home heating. I don't see gain in the Kyoto protocol which is in any case derailing miserably while costing European taxpayers a fortune. Not all green regulations are de facto fine, you know. Call it unintended consequences and wasteful ahead of time acts.

BTW, it's funny Avatar is evoking the broken window metaphor, first said more than 100 years ago by Bastiat, a French libertarian theorist living in the same village than one of my grand-mother in Les Landes.
Hire an army of window breakers. You'll give job to youngsters without qualification, job to glazier and installers who in turn will inject money into the economy. And people will have an occasion to replace their old windows by better, more insulated ones... All fine except if you include the notion stated by Bastiat: lost opportunity.
It seems the statists don't want to hear what has been said more than one century ago which has been proved right many times.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't see gain in using vast amounts of land to grow biofuels instead of giving them back to the wilderness. I don't see gain in deforesting the Amazon to plant sugar canes to make ethanol or Indonesia to make biodiesel from palm oil. I don't see gain in burning wood in inefficient stoves for home heating. I don't see gain in the Kyoto protocol which is in any case derailing miserably while costing European taxpayers a fortune. Not all green regulations are de facto fine, you know. Call it unintended consequences and wasteful ahead of time acts.

Intentionally choosing the worst arguments from the opposing side is hardly sporting. While calling for greater environmental restrictions, I support none of the things you have mentioned; and I doubt many others do either.

Kyoto is a good idea, but it's like the Alpha version of a piece of software. You don't buy it until it's ready. But it's a good idea nonetheless.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

avatar wrote :

Quote:

Part of the problem there is that companies are kind of in a cleft stick when it comes to providing training for workers. On the one hand, if you post all your job openings with "must have 10 years of experience using the exact model of widget that we're currently operating", you will have precious few applicants. On the other hand, if you take total rookies and train them up, you've put in a significant investment in skills in those workers - meaning that they can take your training and go to the competition, or at least that you're more or less obligated to hold on to them until the training expense breaks even. (Not obligated to the employee - I mean to the company you work for. If you just spent 30k bringing Joe Blow up to speed, you can hardly can him the day after 'cause he showed up five minutes late... or if you do, you're just gonna have to lay out another 30k to train up Jim Blow instead.)

SYNCRUDE and other compnies are providing a substantial BONUS for workers willing to sign a three-year contract , so another employer would have to pay substantially higher wages to attract those workers .

ARAMCO , of course , is in a unique position of being able to simply double what others are paying - but not everyone wants to work in saudi-arabia .

this is no doubt a wage -spiral but at least many workers can benefit from it .
in fort mcmurray/alberta , even burgerking and similar employers have to pay much higher wages than they would pay anywhere else - it's called FREE MARKET and many workers are benefitting from it .

what's the old saying : "make hay while the sun is shining !" .
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

ARAMCO , of course , is in a unique position of being able to simply double what others are paying - but not everyone wants to work in saudi-arabia .

There's a real question as to how long anyone will be doing oil work in Saudi Arabia at all, these days:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2470

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/reserves_ads_combo.png

Declining oil reserves in SA's largest field

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cyclo wrote :

Quote:

There's a real question as to how long anyone will be doing oil work in Saudi Arabia at all, these days:

i imagine the saudis will pump until the wells run dry - the sheiks have no doubt stashed away enough money .

i've spoken to some engineers who have worked on contract in saudi-arabia . they said that working for 5 years in saudi-arabia would net them enough money to start a business in canada or take a lower paying job here .
sure , there is some risk involved but when one is young enough , taking a "reasonable" risk does not seem like a deterrent . when we came to canada , i didn't have a job lined up (and had given up a safe government job in germany , as did my wife) , but we felt sure we could make a go of it - and we are certainly satisfied with the results .
i realize of course that not everyone is willing to take such risks .
hbg

0 Replies

Kyoto is more like selling someone a car, and neglecting to tell them that they will also need an engine, a transmission, tires, and an interior to operate it. ;p

Seriously, what does Kyoto fix? It won't serve to cap emissions on China or India, because they have no such obligation under Kyoto. (Nor are they gonna sign anything that makes them have such an obligation. Ever.) Since it doesn't cap those countries, or other third-world countries where we stand to lose (even more) manufacturing to, the US is not gonna sign it; it was rejected unanimously by the Senate, long before Bush was ever voted into office. Even the countries that DID sign it aren't meeting their emissions reduction goals, because it turns out that it's a lot easier to sign the treaty than it is to make meaningful emissions cuts.

The only advantage Kyoto has is that, theoretically, once everybody gets on board, then somebody will pull out the real numbers for how deep the actual cuts will have to be, and theoretically at that point people won't get to argue about whether they really want to do it or not. This is not a net positive from the US perspective, man.

Minitax, how's that funny? What, you thought I evolved it independently or something? ;p Of course I'm cribbing from Bastiat.

Cyc, even if the "new product" is superior, it's obviously inferior in the sense that the cost of replacing the window does not yield the utility for the window-owner that said owner could have realized in other expenditures. If it did, you wouldn't have to break the window! He'd just go replace it on his own. Sure, he might have a nicer window when it's all over, but he still loses.

You can say "lower profits, tough titty" when you've got a compelling case for the necessity of collective action on the issue. However, you don't. There are major deficiencies in the science behind the issue. There is an almost complete lack of serious economic analysis. There is no, let's put this bluntly, no analysis of the political action involved beyond "durrr, Bushitler!" Fix that and come back, then you can tell us "tough".

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyc, even if the "new product" is superior, it's obviously inferior in the sense that the cost of replacing the window does not yield the utility for the window-owner that said owner could have realized in other expenditures. If it did, you wouldn't have to break the window! He'd just go replace it on his own. Sure, he might have a nicer window when it's all over, but he still loses.

Well, instead of 'breaking windows,' as you put it, why not grandfather old windows in and mandate better windows be sold in the future? Then noone is out of the money for replacing anything.

Why is it that every argument towards cleaning up the environment is taken to its' logical extreme by the opponents? C'mon.

Quote:

You can say "lower profits, tough titty" when you've got a compelling case for the necessity of collective action on the issue. However, you don't. There are major deficiencies in the science behind the issue. There is an almost complete lack of serious economic analysis. There is no, let's put this bluntly, no analysis of the political action involved beyond "durrr, Bushitler!" Fix that and come back, then you can tell us "tough".

Forget about AGW, lowering emissions (NOT CO2, christ, just focus on planting more trees people!!!!) and pollutants can and will have a dramatic effect on the quality of life for all people. There really isn't much question that pumping these things into our environment is bad. It isn't a lack of science, but a question of 'how much is allowable?'

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cleaning as you go is easier than cleaning up the problems later. More time consuming for the people creating the messes, which means more expensive for them, but as I said, tough titty. Sure, it's cheap to move a product to market and stay competitive when you aren't responsible for the waste products created by your factories. But those days are pretty much done, and the companies who jump on top of new technologies for dealing with the new reality will profit, while those who don't, won't.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

But Kyoto is not a "lower emissions in general" treaty. It has nothing to do with non-CO2 emissions. It is a treaty dealing with CO2 emissions and only CO2 emissions. Endorsing Kyoto does precisely bupkus about non-CO2 emissions, save to the extent of which meeting Kyoto requirements also requires other things which have other emissions not to be done.

In fact, if you're worried about reducing pollutants in general, then the Kyoto treaty is almost certainly -bad-. With CO2 emissions caps in developed first-world countries, and no caps in developing third-world countries, if you're about to open a big dirty nasty industrial plant, you're going to have a lot more incentive to do so in the latter - or rather, you may not even have a choice in the matter. But the latter will also have a much less rigorous environmental regime in every respect, so you're perfectly free to emit all the noxious crap into the atmosphere that you like, whereas if your plant had been built in the US or Europe, it would have to meet certain environmental requirements regardless of our take on CO2 emissions.

If we're going to extend the window analogy, why mandate new windows -at all-? If people are happy with current windows, evidenced by their purchasing of current windows instead of the more-expensive alternatives that you'd like to mandate, then forcing them to take the more-expensive alternative is bad; not only is there the opportunity cost of the added expense not being spent on whatever they would have wanted to spend it on, but some people will simply choose not to put in the windows at the more-expensive price at all - they'll just make a big wall instead.

Now keep in mind that the window is only a metaphor here. What we're really talking about is -jobs-. Specifically, we're talking about manufacturing-sector jobs that tend to be more union-friendly, that can employ people without an IQ like their height in centimeters, that have traditionally formed the backbone of the "middle class" in the US. To the extent that Kyoto makes those jobs more expensive, especially when compared to foreign alternatives, those jobs will not be generated.

0 Replies

First, forget about Kyoto.

The only good thing about the Kyoto treaty is institutionalizing the idea that Terraforming is something that we need to start thinking about. That's it. It's a good idea, but bad in practice.

There. Whew.

Now.

Quote:

If we're going to extend the window analogy, why mandate new windows -at all-? If people are happy with current windows, evidenced by their purchasing of current windows instead of the more-expensive alternatives that you'd like to mandate, then forcing them to take the more-expensive alternative is bad; not only is there the opportunity cost of the added expense not being spent on whatever they would have wanted to spend it on, but some people will simply choose not to put in the windows at the more-expensive price at all - they'll just make a big wall instead.

Wow, the metaphors are getting mixed.

People are only happy with the current products because they ignore the consequences and waste caused by their creation. They aren't forced to deal with the effects, because for the majority of consumers (and affluence does affect this) the waste is far enough away that they can ignore it. But that doesn't mean that the waste doesn't exist, that it doesn't effect people, or that someone doesn't have to pay to clean it up.

Stricter regulations take all of these factors and place the burden of cleaning up the mess caused by the company creating the product on said company, instead of on some nebulous 'other.' And there's nothing wrong with this at all. As I said, it will make products more expensive, and that's too damn bad for consumers and producers. The illusion that waste, emissions and pollution don't matter is shattered.

Quote:

Now keep in mind that the window is only a metaphor here. What we're really talking about is -jobs-. Specifically, we're talking about manufacturing-sector jobs that tend to be more union-friendly, that can employ people without an IQ like their height in centimeters, that have traditionally formed the backbone of the "middle class" in the US. To the extent that Kyoto makes those jobs more expensive, especially when compared to foreign alternatives, those jobs will not be generated.

Sure they will, because we have an easy solution to balancing domestic costs with foreign ones, one so fundamental that I don't even have to explain it to you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

First, forget about Kyoto.

Sorry, it's easier for you at Berkely to forget than for we Europeans who have to pay for the mess.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Declining oil reserves in SA's largest field

No CH, that's not declining oil reserves in SA. That's just computerised images from The Oil Drum, a peak oil website notorious for its ridiculous predictions (just look at their archived posts). Big difference.

0 Replies

from the Oil Drum, the much disparaged website quoted above

Quote:

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Foxfyre
Have you noticed how quickly the price at the pump is raised when the cost of a barrel of oil rises. The explanation being it is raised to compensate for the cost of replacement oil. However, it would seem based upon the reluctance or slowness to lower the price at the pump the same does not hold true when the price of the replacement oil retreats.

When oil prices drop so do gasoline prices. And if the price of oil drops significantly as it has over the last year, the Democrats blame George Bush for 'decimating the oil industry and crashing the market' and so it goes. The fact is that our current refining capacity is signifcantly less than the oil producing capacity and with an ever increasing population, the demand is not decreasing.

The cost of a barrel of oil was pretty low--under $20 if I'm remembering right--in the Carter administration but that was high enough then to be significant. Carter tried to put price controls on gasoline to compensate for the high cost of oil and voila! The resulting gasoline shortage had us wasting billions of gallons of gasoline idling our engines while lined up at gas pumps waiting for our turn to buy a limited amount of gasoline. Further an already weak economy tanked amidst the double digit inflation and double digit interest rates we were dealing with at the time.

The cost of a gallon of gasoline now is still proportionately less than a gallon of gasoline 40 or 50 years ago and the inflation rate has significantly slowed this spring in the midst of unusually high gasoline prices. This is not the catastrophe many would pretend.

Part of the current increase now is due to turn arounds at the refineries as they have to reformulate their fuel to meet different summer standards mandated in many locations. (In New Mexico for instance, it is mandated that gasoline contain a certain percentage of ethanol in the summer that is not required in the winter. Ethanol producers are also having a tough time keeping up and their costs to the oil companies reflect that too.)

We need fewer rules and regulations re gasoline and more refineries. Make those two things happen and you'll be much happier at the pump.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know