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

Parados, that has to be one of your dumbest interpretations of someone's post you have made here.

The total number of people employed in America in 2008 that produce goods and services for people in America were more than 145 million. Of those less than 13 million are members of unions.

13/145 = less than 9%.

I alleged that the total number of people in America that benefit from what those 13 million unionized workers produce is a relatively small percentage of Americans compared to the total number of people in America that benefit from what oil company employees produce.

One can rationally argue that if they wish, but one cannot rationally argue that I alleged that people in America DO NOT BENEFIT FROM WHAT THE UNION MEMBERS PRODUCE.

How many GM and Ford vehicles sold in the US are not made by union workers ican?
How much of the present vehicle fleet in the US is made by GM and Ford? Hint - They combined for almost 50% of sales of light trucks and cars in 2005.

There is no denying that many people who belong to unions have produced goods and services that have benefitted America. But the unions themselves collect dues, negotiate hours, duties, wages and benefits, mediate disputes, file lots of suits, grease the palms of politicians and bureaucrats who are favorable to union leadership, and lobby Congress.

There is also no denying that many people who belong to non-union shops have also produced goods and services that have benefitted America and they usually do it as competently, more efficiently, and for considerably less cost. And that would include non-union people who build cars and roads and deliver gasoline to gas stations.

http://www.uaw.org/
http://www.teamster.org/content/tankhaul-division
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_d78rrl

I am unclear why you think union dues mean that unions don't benefit the same people that oil companies do. After all unions provide products just like the oil company.

I am unlear how you derived that ridiculous notion from anything that I said.

Unions provide no products or services of any kind to the customer. People who belong to unions do provide products and services as well as do people who don't belong to unions. Nobody contracts with the UAW or SEIU to deliver X number of Cadillacs or to staff a nursing home. They contract with manufacturer or the staffing service. Shell Oil or ExxonMobile or ConocoPhillips all have workers who belong to various unions such as the United Steel Workers union (construction), Transport and General Workers Union (drivers), and a number of others, but nobody contracts with these unions for X million gallons of premium fuel or whatever. And don't assume that all auto makers or all construction workers or all drivers or all healthcare workers are unionized because many if not most are not. And if all the unions went out of business tonight, you would still find people working in all those industries just as they did before.

Are lobbyists supposed to be illegal? I don't think so, Herr Hinteler! Not as long as the press in the USA remains free. I do not hope that the USA falls into the same trap under BO as the German people were forced to live with under the Third Reich.

At that time, Max Amann, head of the Eher Verlag, the party's publishing firm, became the financial dictator of the German Press. Amann had the legal right to suppress any publication he pleased and the consequent power to buy it up for a song.

Herr Hinteler might profit from reading the Wall Street Journal's assessment of OB's fight for climate change below:


Obama Aims for a Global Consensus Article


By STEPHEN POWER
The Obama administration takes a crack at forging consensus on how to fight climate change, when the State Department hosts the "Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate" this week in Washington.

The meeting, called for by President Barack Obama last month, seeks to reinvigorate a process that began under George W. Bush but that was seen by much of the world as lacking credibility because of Mr. Bush's refusal to support economy-wide curbs on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

The clock is ticking on Mr. Obama to show he can produce results. In December, governments from around the world meet in Denmark to forge a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement that established legally binding commitments by participating nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.


Getty ImagesMr. Obama, as a presidential candidate, said his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." But in recent weeks, some members of his party have balked at the leading proposal in Congress to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Friday, the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), called the proposal "a tax, and...a great big one."

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's aides are trying to manage the world's expectations of what he can deliver. In an interview last week, Todd Stern, the top U.S. negotiator of international climate-change agreements, pointed to the recent economic-stimulus package, which contained tens of billions of dollars for low-carbon energy, and moves by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles, as evidence that the new administration is moving swiftly to combat climate change.

At the same time, Mr. Stern, who will be leading this week's talks, said he is telling fellow diplomats that "what the U.S. is going to do in terms of commitments to reducing greenhouse gases is going to fundamentally be framed by what Congress does." This week's talks aren't likely to produce any breakthroughs, he said, but rather a chance for governments to engage one another in a more informal, intimate way than is possible during the larger, noisier proceedings organized by the United Nations.

"I'm not actually making promises that are unaligned with what's going on" on Capitol Hill, Mr. Stern says. Referring to Kyoto -- a pact he helped fashion as a member of the Clinton administration but that President Bill Clinton never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification -- Mr. Stern says, "International action unaligned with our domestic congressional action environment is a route we've tried before, and it didn't work."
*******************************

Herr Hinteler will note that a senior and influential House member indicated that the proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions was " a tax, and....a great big one."

With an economy that has an ever worsening Unemployment Rate of 8.9% rapidly heading for elections in 2010, it may be political suicide for OB's minions to press for anything but cosmetic legislation on the climate at this time.

Perhaps Herr Hinteler does not realize that the questionable science offered by the rabid environmentalists is often checkmated by very real political and economic concerns.

Herr Hinteler does not seem to realize that even the rabid backers of "climate control eventually face political and economic reality. Note:

MAY 12, 2009 Carbon Reality, Again
Australia's prime minister discovers how much an emissions trading policy will cost.Article

It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reversal, or "backflip," has caused Mr. Rudd much embarrassment. He may still push ahead with legislation in some form, as he promised when running in the 2007 election. But it's becoming clear the proposal won't be a shoo-in despite all the votes Mr. Rudd won when he campaigned as an anti-carbon apostle.

This is yet another example of politicians elsewhere cashing in politically on the current anti-carbon enthusiasm, only to discover that support diminishes as the real-world costs become clear.
*********************************************************************

It is clear that paradox has never belonged to a Labor Union. If Paradox is familiar with a Dictionary, he can find the definition of a Labor Union--CAPS MINE

"An organization of employees for MUTUAL AID AND PROTECTION."

Unions DO NOT PROVIDE PRODUCTS UNLESS THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION ARE THE ONLY PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE ENTERPRISE.
They are e m p l o y e e s and as such benefit only the people targeted by the industry. It may be that the cigar manufacturers BENEFIT some of the people that oil companies do, but that is strictly a secondary and accidental function.

Unions exist to bargain with their employers--no more, no less.

When reality meets pie in the skyisms, reality will win.

Anyone who is not ignorant about Economics and the function of Unions like Parados knows that the Union Movement in the USA has committed suicide.

Only about 8% of US workers in INDUSTRY are unionized. Unions refused to adapt to the new world--the globalized world and now face extinction.

Okie- Rudd in Australia was one of the most avid "global warming enthusiasts when he ran for office. Now, he backs off. But, you must focus on the coming meeting in December where the countries of the world will decide what they will do about the alleged problem of "climate change".

When China and India declare themselves to be developing countries and agree only to make cosmetic changes, the gathering will fail.

I really believe that Parados either does not remember the massive failure of the Kyoto Protocol or refuses to recall that fiasco in which almost no country met thier goals and most were far far behind.

Okie- Rudd in Australia was one of the most avid "global warming enthusiasts when he ran for office. Now, he backs off. But, you must focus on the coming meeting in December where the countries of the world will decide what they will do about the alleged problem of "climate change".

When China and India declare themselves to be developing countries and agree only to make cosmetic changes, the gathering will fail.

I really believe that Parados either does not remember the massive failure of the Kyoto Protocol or refuses to recall that fiasco in which almost no country met thier goals and most were far far behind.


NOTE: THE FAILURE OF KYOTO-



Russia: Down 29% in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990.

Romania: A 43% reduction.

Latvia: A resounding 60% drop.

Reductions such as those across Eastern Europe were the main reason the United Nations was recently able to report a 12% drop in emissions from the accord's industrialized countries over the 1990-2005 period.

It was an illusion.

The progress wasn't due to a global embrace of green power, but rather to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, which shut down smoke-belching factories across the region.

"Their emissions dropped before Kyoto even existed," said Michael Gillenwater, a climate policy researcher at Princeton University.

Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure in the hard, expensive work of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Its restrictions have been so gerrymandered that only 36 countries are required to limit their pollution. Just over a third of those -- members of the former Eastern bloc -- can pollute at will because their limits were set so far above their actual emissions.

China and India, whose fast-rising emissions easily cancel out any cuts elsewhere, are allowed to keep polluting.

Kyoto was a joke, and is a joke. Even if global warming was the dire threat that the notorious non-scientist, Al Gore, claims it was or is, the idea that you can wave a magic wand and reduce CO2 in such a way to avoid their projected disaster is truly a mind-boggling unrealism to the N'th degree. This is a case of imaginations run amok, totally disconnected from reality. If they truly believed the disaster would happen, the only way to avert it would be to destroy all the economies of the world, bring commerce to a standstill, which would of course cause war and mass starvation, unprecedented in world history.

Exactly OKIE,but even if we examine the output of the main scientific efforts to predict global warming--the IPCC...Even if we examine their output( which, of course, is a highly questionable attempt to predict the future) we find that the median scenario concerning the rise in sea level( which was supposed to be the factor which would end the world as we know it) predicted that the sea level rise would be about ONE FOOT by 2100.

Given the fact that the sea level in the world has risen about ONE FOOT since the middle of the nineteenth century with no real damage to the world, the Goreistas seem to be nothing more than irrational hysterics.

Which applies to Obama's plan to use geothermal, wind, and solar to wean us off of OPEC oil in 10 years, as he promised. The clock is ticking and I have not heard much out of these people in this regard. As of 2006, geothermal, wind, and solar made up a grand total of about 7/10ths of one percent of our energy demand. Even if he was able to increase that by 5 times during his administration, which I seriously doubt, it would still make up only a measly 3.5%. Then, given the very possible increase in demand, it would make no dent, whatsoever. Of course, if the recession lingers, perhaps demand will as well, which would not bode well for the country. Energy is the life blood of the economy.

Conclusion, Obama lives in a an incompetent dream world, disconnected from reality, and cannot even do simple math.

What exactly are you proving okie by using 2006 numbers?

Should we use 1850 numbers to prove that cars can never overtake horses as a means of transportation?

US wind capacity 2006 11,603 MW
US wind capacity 2007 16,818 MW
US wind capacity 2008 25,170 megawatts

http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Wind_Power_Capacity_012307.html
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_Market_Release_q4_011708.html
http://www.greenrightnow.com/kgo/2009/05/08/wind-power-installations-grew-by-nearly-one-third-in-2008-us-leads-world-in-wind-capacity/

If wind power continues its trend and doubles every 2 years it will be 800,000 MWs in 10 years. Current MW production in the US is 1,000,000 MWs.


http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hepg/Papers/2009/AnbaricTransmission_Integrating200000MWs_February2009.pdf


It is interesting how the mandate is stated differently by academics from your statement, isn't it okie? Perhaps you don't know what the mandate is. Can you post a link to Obama stating what you claimed he said? Or are you just blowing smoke out your ass as usual?

Great post, Parados, you compare 2006 to 1850, LOL. Fine, so using your numbers for 2008, wind is now to the impressive a little over one half of 1 percent of our energy needs in the U.S. Double a half percent every 2 years for 10 years, which I think is highly unrealistic, and you still end up with less than 20%. The reason that is unrealistic is because wind is limited by current storage capacity technology, and the wind only blows part of the time. Also, the doubling effect in the last couple of years was attainable because the wind installations were so limited, so that the surge of building wind turbines gave that apparent increase, which was done without Obama by the way. There is no evidence I have seen that doubling the wind capability every two years is even close to attainable, for 5 times over, over a stretch of 10 years.

Even in Denmark where the wind blows almost constantly off the North Sea, wind provides a minority of their electrical generation, which of course is only part of the energy demand. To suggest that wind power could provide close to 80% of the electrical generation in this country in 10 years is utter nonsense, Parados.

As usual, Parados, you have no credible evidence to say Obama's plan is even close to reality, because there is none.

One other very very important point, Parados, generating capacity does not equal actual generation of power. Wind is typically much lower in output vs capacity than other plants, such as nuclear, natural gas, and coal, because it is so variable. I think it is in the range of only 20 to 40%, so whatever your capacity is, the actual output is only a fraction of that, much worse than other types of plants.

All of this information is available to Obama if he would look into it.

I certainly admit - the data are online as well - that Denmark is in Europe only the third country (after Germany and Spain) in the amount of wind capacity.

Wind energy makes about 25% in Denmark.

When you say that the wind blows there constantly from the North Sea, okie - when did you make these experiences? Is that the reason why most Danish windturbines are install along the Baltic Sea's coastline and on the islands in the Baltic Sea?