Climate Change

Obama: Clean Energy Future Is Irreversible and Will Outlast Trump

Still, it is always good to have some idea of what tradeoffs proposed policies would impose.

|

ObamaSolarPanelsWhitehousegov
Whitehouse.gov

President Barack Obama declared that "one of the reasons I ran for this office was to make America a leader in this mission" to address the problem of man-made climate change. He made this claim to a legacy last October when the Paris Agreement on climate change achieved enough signatories to come into effect. Also in his statement hailing the Paris Agreement, Obama noted that "the skeptics said these actions would kill jobs." Yet, he noted that even as U.S. carbon dioxide levels fell to their lowest levels in two decades, more jobs were created.

Now, as a parting shot, President Obama writes an article today, "The irreversible momentum of clean energy," in the journal Science. In his article, President Obama apparently believes that the irreversible momentum of clean energy is all gain and no pain. First, he correctly notes the decoupling over the past 8 years of energy and carbon emissions from economic growth in the U.S. economy. He writes:

Since 2008, the United States has experienced the first sustained period of rapid GHG emissions reductions and simultaneous economic growth on record. Specifically, CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the economy grew by more than 10%. In this same period, the amount of energy consumed per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 11%, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed declined by 8%, and CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP declined by 18%.

These figures are from the Economic Report of the President 2017, but comparing them with the preceding 8 years (2000 to 2007) shows a somewhat less rosy picture. For example, according to St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank U.S. real GDP grew by 15 percent between 2000 and 2007 and by 13.5 percent between 2008 and 2015. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) energy use per dollar of real GDP declined by around 15 percent between 2000 and 2007 while falling by only 13 percent between 2008 and 2015.

Also according the EIA, CO2 emitted per dollar did fall slightly faster (18 percent) than it did in the preceding period (14 percent between 2000 and 2007); most likely as the result of the recent switch from coal to cheap fracked natural gas and more wind power production to generate electricity. Interestingly, the president's article notes that lower CO2 emissions occurred as power plants switched from coal to natural gas which was "brought about primarily by increased availability of lower-cost gas due to new production techniques." Just couldn't bring himself to mention the f-word, fracking.

Given the economic chaos generated by the financial crisis, it would be hard to draw any firm conclusions from comparing U.S. job creation between 2000-2007 period and the 2008-2015 period. Nevertheless, just as background, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that employment rose by 6.5 million in the first period and by 2.2 million in the second period. To be fair, U.S. employment rose from its 2010 nadir by 10.8 million by 2015.

In his Science article, the president cites various studies that suggest in an increase of 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 would lower global GDP by as much as 5 percent below what it would otherwise have been without any man-made warming. To get some idea of what that would mean consider what would happen if current U.S. GDP of $16 trillion were to grow at the 2 percent per year rate experienced during the Obama administration from 2015 until 2100 in the absence of warming. By then U.S. GDP would exceed $86 trillion dollars. If global warming were to lower GDP by 5 percent that would mean that GDP in 2100 would be a little more than $4 trillon dollars lower at $82 trillion.

Now if the U.S. economy were to grow at the historical average of 3 percent per year, GDP in 2100 would stand at $197 trillion and a 5 percent climate change penalty would reduce that to only $187 trillion. That $10 trillion reduction in 2100 is equivalent to lowering the economic growth rate between now and then from 3 percent to 2.93 percent. For comparison, the U.N. has estimated that the additional investment and financial flows needed in 2030 to address climate would have to rise to between 0.3 and 0.5 percent of global GDP.

It is always good to have some idea of what tradeoffs proposed policies would impose.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

97 responses to “Obama: Clean Energy Future Is Irreversible and Will Outlast Trump

  1. “Obama: Clean Energy Future Is Irreversible and Will Outlast Trump”

    He’s correct in that we all act in our own interest and as energy with less pollution becomes cheap enough to use, we will.
    He can stuff his Gaia-worship up his butt.

    1. If it’s irreversible, then quit subsidizing it.

      1. Indeed. And the idea that Trump (or anyone) is against “clean energy” is just rhetoric. Everybody wants clean, it’s just that there are trade-offs.

        1. Nuke plants are closing because gas is cheeper. They must not have gotten the memo.

        2. Talking about trade-offs is Sullum’s way of pretending he’s not a statist.

  2. Obama: Clean Energy Future Is Irreversible and Will Outlast Trump

    If that’s the case then i doesn’t matter what the president does/doesn’t do.

    If obama things “clean energy” is the future, why all govt needs to do is get out of the way.

    1. What he actually meant to say is that us warmists are gonna keep the scam going and we’re gonna make trillions, regardless of Trump and the rest of you deniers. He can never just be honest.

    2. true and why do they need to keep repeating it is the future?

      1. Because it sure as hell ain’t the present, at least not without 90% subsidies.

    3. If obama things “clean energy” is the future, why all govt needs to do is get out of the way.

      An idea as alien to him as the “the government is us” is to libertarians. The government is the voice of the people, the will of the people. As long as it’s properly stewarded by the righteous, it not only should lead the way, it’s the only institution that even can lead the way. They don’t even begin to understand the concept that individual people will act of their own accord and don’t necessarily have to get a legislative permission slip first.

      1. They don’t even begin to understand the concept that individual people will act of their own accord

        … except insofar as they exploit the masses. The individual is the villain, the government is the savior.

        1. “the government is us” is to libertarians.”

          So long as we limit ourselves to that which is bounded by individual liberty, and what is truly necessary and proper. Exceed those bound and we likewise become the tyranny of a mob.

  3. Yet, he noted that even as U.S. carbon dioxide levels fell to their lowest levels in two decades, more jobs were created.

    If only coal country had voted Hillary, he might have something of a legacy.

    1. Yet, he noted that even as U.S. carbon dioxide levels fell to their lowest levels in two decades, more jobs were created.

      We need to parse 6th grader who think’s he’s a lawyer speak here.

      More jobs were created than what?

      Show me in the U6 Labor Force Participation numbers where any more jobs were “created” by the end of your stay than when you started.

      1. Didn’t Alan Krueger conlcude that 90% of the jobs created were low paying restaurant and retail (temporary) or was that fake news?

        1. McJobs.

          If even 2 jobs happened (not created) then that’s more jobs.

  4. Fuck Science for both this politically motivated BS, and their requirement that all submissions be in Microsoft Word. That is all.

    1. LOL. What journal doesn’t want articles submitted in MS Word using their particular template?

      1. LaTeX or bust. I’m learning Microsoft Equation Editor when hell freezes over.

          1. I have no idea why that link surprised me.

        1. I’m learning Microsoft Equation Editor when hell freezes over.

          Well that’s good because it hasn’t been relevant for almost a decade now. The current equation editor in Office is a lot better and even “speaks” (La)TeX to an extent (e.g. type \sum and you will get the summation operator, type _1^n after that and you will get bounds on the summation, etc.). It’s far from perfect but is about as good as you can get with WYSIWYG.

          There are also ways to convert (La)TeX to MathML which can be pasted directly into a Word document.

          All that having been said, LaTeX is the superior tool.

  5. Ostradamus….who fucking knew.

  6. Gotta give Obama props for the reference though.

    1. It sounds like if I ever saw that movie, I’d want to go back in reverse chronological order to a time before I saw the movie.

      1. Reversed rape. So out-in not in-out?

  7. “Obama: Clean Energy Future Is Irreversible and Will Outlast Trump”

    So, what if it will, Obama? What is your point? Is anyone making the argument that it shouldn’t? Perhaps Obama is incapable of discerning skepticism about when these ‘clean energy’ sources will be viable on a large scale (if ever) and people being against this clean energy, just because, or because we’re all shills for big oil. Obama is a petulant child who very frequently makes meaningless statements.

    1. No one wants to make money selling clean energy. That would would be stupid and shit.

      If solar and wind were as fucking awesome as he says they are, the technologies wouldn’t require massive wealth transfers to be cost competitive.

      1. This. If this is what the market wants, why all the subsidies?

  8. This, from the same man who bragged about a $100,000,000 solar facility at a military base, that would pay for itself, via energy cost reductions, in a mere 100 years.

    I’m sure all the sciencefication he has here is just as sound.

  9. Tremendous alt text, sir.

  10. Instead of going around giving speeches about how wonderful he is (he can spend his whole retirement doing that), he could be signing more pardons, the one thing where he’s actually doing some good.

    1. OBAMA: “OK, got my coffee, got my pen and phone, I can finally get around to these pardon applications. Maybe I shouldn’t have put this off until the last minute. Let’s see…Aaron Aaronson, convicted of cocaine trafficking in 1986, seeking a commutation of his life sentence…”

      MICHELLE: “Come on, honey, it’s 11:58 PM and Trump’s inauguration is tomorrow, come to bed.”

      OBAMA: “Wait a minute…Christopher Albert, convicted of marijuana trafficking in 1997…dang, it’s midnight already.”

      1. OBAMA: “And wait, I almost forgot to de-schedule weed and close Gitmo! I’ll get right on that!”

      2. (PS – I made up the name Christopher Albert at random, but I see from Google that there’s a couple real people with that name, so let me just say I was just trying to create a random name beginning with “A,” and I didn’t know the name was attached to you.

        (Likewise if there are any actual Aaron Aaronsons out there)

  11. So much of the economic analysis around this crap has a certain element of the broken window fallacy, though. The notion that clean energy is going to create jobs, for example. Well, yeah, tearing down old dirty power plants and replacing them with new clean ones creates job in the exact same way paying somebody to heave bricks through windows and then paying somebody else to replace the windows does. But what’s the net payoff? How much would the economy have grown if we took the money we were spending on cleaner smokestacks for our existing factories and spent it on building new factories with dirty smokestacks?

    1. The problem is, “we” shouldn’t be building anything. If something were economically viable, the people willing to invest in the venture would be building it.

      Price inputs are signals as to the viability of a thing.

  12. Now, as a parting shot, President Obama writes an article today, “The irreversible momentum of clean energy,” in the journal Science.

    I sincerely hope this was ghostwritten. Obama is not a damn expert on climate change. Even if it was ghostwritten, thats authorship misattribution which journals like Science tend to… frown upon. I realize it’s just an editorial. Still.

    In his Science article, the president cites various studies that suggest in an increase of 4 degrees Celsius by 2100

    I’m not up on the models, but isn’t that on the high side? We’ve gained 0.8C in the last 140 years and we expect to pick up 4C in the next 85?

    Now if the U.S. economy were to grow at the historical average of 3 percent per year, GDP in 2100 would stand at $197 trillion and a 5 percent climate change penalty would reduce that to only $187 trillion. That $10 trillion reduction in 2100 is equivalent to lowering the economic growth rate between now and then from 3 percent to 2.93 percent. For comparison, the U.N. has estimated that the additional investment and financial flows needed in 2030 to address climate would have to rise to between 0.3 and 0.5 percent of global GDP.

    That UN estimate is almost certainly intentionally lowballed by at least an order of magnitude from what they really want. Combine that with the probably-too-high temperature increase estimate and “fighting global warming” becomes an economic loser.

    1. Obama is not a damn expert on climate change. Even if it was ghostwritten, thats authorship misattribution which journals like Science tend to… frown upon. I realize it’s just an editorial. Still.

      Science aside, it’s a bit of the lamest lame duck. Editing Wired, editorial in Science… it’s like he just quit being President. Go play golf somewhere remote so at least the press has to do some work to catch up to you. Jeez.

      Also… politicians ghostwriting climate science pieces? Fake news!

  13. First of all who trusts projections by the UN on costs and benefits?

    Second of all…the reduction is due to natural gas which isnt considered “clean energy”. Is nuclear included in “clean”?

    Third of all…the goals in the paris agreement are arbitrary and wouldn’t actually do much of anything imo. The governments around the world are twiddling around the edges, do something to do something…i suspect they wont even come close to their goals unless there is a new method for energy and a bigger nuclear push.

    Fourth…wind and solar won’t cut it…they are nice supplemental forms on small scale but aren’t big players.

    It is how can we get the congregation to tithe so the clergy can dine on gold plating. Only pushing wind and solar raises big red flags

    Will this be the year solar finally makes it over the 1% of the grid line per eia.gov?! Nat gas: 2014 at 29%, 2015 at 33%. Solar 2014: 0.4%, 2015: 0.6%

    1. Solar 2014: 0.4%, 2015: 0.6%

      See? It increased by 50% in only one year! At this rate, but 2025 we’ll get 180% of our energy from solar! Woot!

      1. What’s funny is coal was 39% in 14 and has dropped to 34%……almost the same as the change in natural gas…hmm

  14. Also if “clean energy” is irreversible (like climate change is apparently but yet they insist we can do something!), why do they keep having to say it has all this momentum? Why were they shitting their pants at trump wanting to pull out of agreement? Afterall they claim it is being market driven.

  15. Clean energy will certainly outlast Trump if it can stand on its own two feet from a cost perspective and the best way to facilitate that is to get government out of the way. Until that day I’ll continue to gas up my car and use electricity generated by fossil fuel at fifty percent of the green energy cost per kWh, thank you very much.

  16. Deficits Matter Again

    Not long ago prominent Republicans like Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, liked to warn in apocalyptic terms about the dangers of budget deficits, declaring that a Greek-style crisis was just around the corner. But now, suddenly, those very same politicians are perfectly happy with the prospect of deficits swollen by tax cuts; the budget resolution they’re considering would, according to their own estimates, add $9 trillion in debt over the next decade. Hey, no problem.

    This sudden turnaround comes as a huge shock to absolutely nobody ? at least nobody with any sense. All that posturing about the deficit was obvious flimflam, whose purpose was to hobble a Democratic president, and it was completely predictable that the pretense of being fiscally responsible would be dropped as soon as the G.O.P. regained the White House.

    What wasn’t quite so predictable, however, was that Republicans would stop pretending to care about deficits at almost precisely the moment that deficits were starting to matter again.

    Guess which Nobel Prize winning economist has suddenly decided that up is down and un-self-awarely slammed the GOP for suddenly deciding that down is up? The answer will come as a huge shock to absolutely nobody.

    1. His self awareness or lack thereof is amazing to me. Did i see him concerned about the deficits when Hillary looked to be president and was calling for all this massive spending?

    2. The same one whose columns will never recover?

      1. Lol. Krugman has to know he is a partisan hack and is in it for the dollars. Wonder what he thinks regarding his followers?

        1. It’s funny how a man who got a Nobel writing about comparative advantage spends his days writing about things he neither is qualified to talk about nor has any real expertise in!

  17. Of course, one of the great advantages of our system of government is that each president is able to chart his or her own policy course. And President-elect Donald Trump will have the opportunity to do so. The latest science and economics provide a helpful guide for what the future may bring, in many cases independent of near-term policy choices, when it comes to combatting climate change and transitioning to a clean-energy economy.

    From the article. This is almost subtle. But not quite.

    1. Why do we have to transition to a clean energy economy?

        1. *”Well, it’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it.”*

          *** gets coffee ***

      1. Giving Bailey the benefit of the doubt, it’s inevitable. Unless someone’s got a hypothesis about oil production, we will run out of fuel eventually and, presumably, any energy we migrate to will be clean(er in some aspect).

        1. Well sure but what is considered clean energy? i can’t take seriously those who want wind and solar.

        2. The amount of oil that’s left when a field is abandoned is substantial, often near 50%, as it ceases to be economical to go after the rest. But I anticipate innovative recovery techniques will outpace clean energy, and we’ll still have plenty of oil for generations. No, it’s not infinite, but I doubt even our great grandchildren will face oil scarcity

          1. Point being Bailey, who’s advocated nuclear, selective geothermal, and generally recognizes the lack of viability offered by wind/solar probably means “as we produce energy more efficiently and transition to new energy sources into the future” as opposed to what he actually typed.

            1. Yea this makes sense to me

  18. I like how an irreversible legacy, especially one that cuts CO2 emissions, is automatically a good thing. That Torquemada was the man.

    1. A quick Google search will obtain atmospheric CO2 in parts per million from 1850-2010. Another Google search will obtain the percentage of humanity living in abject poverty (less than $2/day in 1985 constant $) during that period.

      A quick regression of poverty on the y-axis versus CO2 concentration on the x-axis will obtain a negative slope and an r2 of about 0.96. Very few statistical analyses in the social sciences are this strong. None of the climate models are this strong. They are not even close.

      I know that correlation isn’t causality, but one needs a very good argument to do the opposite of something that is so strongly correlated with a good thing. The CAGW alarmist Gaia worshippers never address this.

      Sources: NASA for CO2 and Bourguignon and Morrison, World Bank, 1999 and subsequent World Bank reports for abject poverty data. I wish I could post the chart here, but you can replicate it with data from these sources.

      1. But lower co2 makes people feel good. Even poor people!

        1. Sacrifice the body to save the soul.

  19. What the hell is a clean energy economy? Solar and wind take up massive amounts of land, need resources to make and maintain…..and need to be backed up by primary sources

    1. Clean energy is what we tell you is clean energy, you right wing nutjob.

      1. It’s only “clean” if your primary interest is in reducing carbon emissions. But nobody calls nuclear “clean” even though by that same metric it’s one of, if not, the cleanest.

    2. Don’t forget they also require huge amounts of rare earth metals, which require massive amounts of toxic chemicals to refine.

  20. In his Science article, the president cites various studies that suggest in an increase of 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 would lower global GDP by as much as 5 percent below what it would otherwise have been without any man-made warming.

    Wow, a whole 5% lower in a mere 83 years?

    I don’t think this stat proves what he seems to think it proves. A 5% reduction in US GDP has happened no less than 7 times since 1950. It ain’t the end of the world.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.co…..gdp-growth

    1. Seems like a win. I thought it was only supposed to be 2 degrees?

    2. Given that the current trend is on the order of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade, why are they talking about a 4-degree rise by 2100? Do they think it’s exponential?

      1. That’s weird, given the IPCC numbers generally have ranges centered around 2.5/3 Celsius. 4 Celsius is outside the range for most models, or at the very edge of predictions.

        It’s like people are saying the science is settled, and skewing what the scientists say for political expediency.

        1. Haha, sounds like somebody doesn’t understand what “SCIENCE” is.

        2. Eh, according to your link, +4?C is actually below the midpoint of their A1FI scenario which “predicts” warming between 2.4?C and 6.4?C by 2099. But the warming that has actually been observed by the satellite record in the last 16 years is already below the lower bound of that scenario and is only barely within the bounds of the model that predicts the least warming (as far as I can tell from their shitty graph, anyway, which is heavily condensed to emphasize the prophesied warming).

          I find it a little hilarious that none of the models they selected cover the ground between the “constant assumption” model and the B1 scenario (the one that predicts the least warming). That hubris on their part means that, of the selected models, the “constant assumption” model has had the best predictive power so far despite them presenting it only as baseline to “prove” how dire the problem is.

        3. It’s especially cute because those IPCC numbers are themselves pretty much made up out of whole cloth (well, squinting at estimates based on estimates of Ice Age changes).

          The actual observed industrial-era instrumental record shows an increase of about 1.1 degree per doubling of carbon dioxide, which is in close accordance with the pure-physics models where a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration increases temperatures about 1 degree. Accordingly, three doublings — an eight-fold increase over current levels — would increase temperatures by 3 to 3.3 degrees.

          It would take some truly heroic effort to increase carbon dioxide levels from the current 400-or-so ppm to 3,200 ppm, equal to fourteen times the total ice age-to-today increase so far . . . and that would still cap out at less than a 5% reduction in GWP, apparently.

    3. “In his Science article, the president cites various studies that suggest in an increase of 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 would lower global GDP by as much as 5 percent below what it would otherwise have been without any man-made warming.”

      And his proposed ‘solutions’ would affect the GDP in what manner and by what amount?
      Without that information, the first comment is worthless.

  21. Obama is spinning the propeller on his beanie hard.

    1. ^This^

      It’s time for this moron to fuck off.

      What I have heard from at least a dozen people: “I hope they get it on video so I can watch it over and over again”

  22. This man (?) is so full of himself and so arrogant and self-righteous I have to check myself from time to time. As an old psychotherapist I’ve seen my share of arrogant, self-righteous people with personality disorders. This boob is in a class by himself. You have to give him this, though: he has rationally and carefully constructed a past that while investigated and cracked hasn’t been reported adequately. Despite the evidence that he was born in Kenya, that his Hawaiian certificate of live birth is counterfeit and was photo-shopped, that other records show he enrolled in college as a foreign student, that the Obama “daughters” have no records for their birth, that pictures of the Obama parents and baby daughters also have been photo-shopped, that their real parents have been identified, that his college transcripts have all been locked away, and that the homosexual communities in Chicago and elsewhere know him well and laugh about him, that he is clearly a Muslim, and more—despite all this he has been treated as though he wore an earned halo and the wings of an angel. How can this happen in the 21st Century in America in a time of instant information and communication?

  23. I can’t believe no one else has spotted it.

    “His article”… “he writes”…

    Yeah, right. He didn’t write that. His speech writer/s wrote that.

    He just skimmed it afterwards to make sure it sounded good.

    The guy’s a poser, taking credit for things for which he did no work.

    “Interception”. Indeed.

  24. According to the last temperature update we were given, the trend since 1978 was .12 degrees C/decade. That would mean the temperature has risen roughly .5 degrees C in that time. This would mean the temperature would have to rise closer to .41 degrees C per decade to hit the target of 4 degrees C by the end of the century.

    Are we still applying the hockey stick theory to climate change? It would seem as though his projections are a little on the alarmist side. Or am I missing something?

    1. I think they argue that we are close to reaching a cliff, after which we will see rapidly accelerating temperature increases. I feel like this was argued to me once at least.

      For a while I tried reading the literature, but realized that it was not a worthwhile usage of my life.

  25. With uncharacteristically due respect (seriously!) to the office of President of the United States of America, I am surprised to see this essay in Science. Having some experience writing for scientific journals myself, and many, many years of providing technical support for (physical, as opposed to social) scientific endeavors, I find it rather unseemly that Deese, Holdren, Murray, and Hornung (who almost certainly wrote the article) are not listed as co-authors as opposed to simply being acknowledged. Further, and with rather less respect for the current holder of the title of POTUS, and the editors at Science, it is distressing to see such a blatantly political essay being presented as anything other than an editorial opinion (citations alone do not make for a research paper or review article). I’d be interested to see what, if any, review process this went through; a FOIA inquiry for the correspondence with the editors at Science would be most interesting.

    If there was any doubt before, it is now completely obvious that AAAS has lost all claim to being a dispassionate messenger of science.

    1. Um..you called Science a scientific journal.

      Hahaha!!

      1. Most of the time it is, and one of the most prestigious at that (the other leader of the pack would almost certainly be Nature). Getting a paper into Science is a very nice feather in the cap of any researcher, and looks very good on one’s cv.

        … which makes it all just a bit more odd that BO’s comments found a home there.

        1. It is VERY political, even in my field (chemistry)

  26. “Since 2008, the United States has experienced the first sustained period of rapid GHG emissions reductions and simultaneous economic growth on record” in spite of my policies trying to limit fracking that is completely responsible for this!

  27. Ron: can you change a tire?

  28. Clean energy also outlasted Obama because it never needed or benefited from government action. So don’t let Obama take credit for it. And let’s hope Trump won’t spend on it.

  29. I do not believe Trump or many, many others are opposed to REAL progress in developing cleaner energy. Soon to be Mr. & Mrs. Obama may curtail their use of ‘dirtier’ energy anytime they choose. Just do it, turn off the A/C and Heating, just do it.. Grounding Air Force 1 and its accompanying massive pollution by curtailing $70 or $80 million in vacation travel would have been great. Millions to Solyndra (sp?) failed but got how much publicity and how many votes?

  30. “The mounting economic and scientific evidence leave me confident that trends toward a clean-energy economy that have emerged during my presidency will continue and that the economic opportunity for our country to harness that trend will only grow.” – President Obama
    .
    I share the President’s confidence. Thank you for your leadership Mr President.

    One small step for a renewable energy geek.
    One Giant Leap for Mankind.

    Scottish Scientist
    Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland
    https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/

    1. What progress might that be? Solar and wind make up 5 percent combined

    2. Ine small step for a renewable energy geek.
      One Giant Leap for fleecing of Mankind.

  31. “the amount of energy consumed per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 11%, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed declined by 8%, and CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP declined by 18%.”

    Isn’t off-shored manufacturing responsible for this? At least partially. If China now emits the gases that Americans once emitted, we can pat ourselves on the back, but it’s a global problem and as far as the atmosphere is concerned, Chinese and American emissions are interchangeable.

    1. I do not know what portion of Chinese production is driven by American consumption, but it’s a lot less than 100%. At least some of it is for domestic consumption, and there’s consumption by Europe, the rest of Asia, and Africa as well.

    2. You’re partially right. High us corp taxes sends mfg to higher polluting places. Another reason to cut Corp tax rates.

      1. Cut taxes so that US increases its emissions?

  32. By then [2100] U.S. GDP would exceed $86 trillion dollars.

    But how much will a bowl of rice cost?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.