Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 9, 2018
A Very Grim Forecast
Diane Burko: Grinnell Mt. Gould #1, #2, #3, #4, 2009; based on USGS photos of Grinnell Glacier at Glacier National Park, Montana, between 1938 and 2006. Burko’s work is on view in ‘Endangered: From Glaciers to Reefs,’ at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., until January 31, 2019. The accompanying book is published by KMW Studio.
Though it was published at the beginning of October, Global Warming of 1.5°C, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is a document with its origins in another era, one not so distant from ours but politically an age apart. To read it makes you weep not just for our future but for our present.
The report was prepared at the request of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the end of the Paris climate talks in December 2015. The agreement reached in Paris pledged the signatories to
holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
The mention of 1.5 degrees Celsius was unexpected; that number had first surfaced six years earlier at the unsuccessful Copenhagen climate talks, when representatives of low-lying island and coastal nations began using the slogan “1.5 to Stay Alive,” arguing that the long-standing red line of a two-degree increase in temperature likely doomed them to disappear under rising seas. Other highly vulnerable nations made the same case about droughts and floods and storms, because it was becoming clear that scientists had been underestimating how broad and deadly the effects of climate change would be. (So far we’ve raised the global average temperature just one degree, which has already brought about changes now readily observable.)
The pledges made by nations at the Paris conference were not enough to meet even the two-degree target. If every nation fulfills those pledges, the global temperature will still rise by about 3.5 degrees Celsius, which everyone acknowledged goes far beyond any definition of safety. But the hope was that the focus and goodwill resulting from the Paris agreement would help get the transition to alternative energy sources underway, and that once nations began installing solar panels and wind turbines they’d find it easier and cheaper than they had expected. They could then make stronger pledges as the process continued. “Impossible isn’t a fact; it’s an attitude,” said Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican diplomat who deserves much of the credit for putting together the agreement. “Ideally,” said Philip A. Wallach, a Brookings Institution fellow, the Paris agreement would create “a virtuous cycle of ambitious commitments, honestly reported progress to match, and further commitments following on those successes.”
To some extent this is precisely what has happened. The engineers have continued to make remarkable advances, and the price of a kilowatt generated by the sun or wind has continued to plunge—so much so that these are now the cheapest sources of power across much of the globe. Battery storage technology has progressed too; the fact that the sun goes down at night is no longer the obstacle to solar power many once presumed. And so vast quantities of renewable technology have been deployed, most notably in China and India. Representatives of cities and states from around the world gathered in San Francisco in September for a miniature version of the Paris summit and made their own pledges: California, the planet’s fifth-largest economy, promised to be carbon-neutral by 2045. Electric cars are now being produced in significant numbers, and the Chinese have deployed a vast fleet of electric buses.
But those are bright spots against a very dark background. In retrospect, Paris in December 2015 may represent a high-water mark for the idea of an interconnected human civilization. Within nine weeks of the conference Donald Trump had won his first primary; within seven months the UK had voted for Brexit, both weakening and distracting the EU, which has been the most consistent global champion of climate action. Since then the US, the largest carbon emitter since the start of the Industrial Revolution, has withdrawn from the Paris agreement, and the president’s cabinet members are busy trying to revive the coal industry and eliminate effective oversight and regulation of the oil and gas business. The prime minister of Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, is now Scott Morrison, a man famous for bringing a chunk of anthracite into Parliament and passing it around so everyone could marvel at its greatness. Canada—though led by a progressive prime minister, Justin Trudeau, who was crucial in getting the 1.5-degree target included in the Paris agreement—has nationalized a pipeline in an effort to spur more production from its extremely polluting Alberta oil sands. Brazil seems set to elect a man who has promised not only to withdraw from the Paris agreement but to remove protections from the Amazon and open the rainforest to cattle ranchers. It is no wonder that the planet’s carbon emissions, which had seemed to plateau in mid-decade, are again on the rise: preliminary figures indicate that a new record will be set in 2018.
This is the backdrop against which the IPCC report arrives, written by ninety-one scientists from forty countries. It is a long and technical document—five hundred pages, drawing on six thousand studies—and as badly written as all the other IPCC grand summaries over the years, thanks in no small part to the required vetting of each sentence of the executive summary by representatives of the participating countries. (Saudi Arabia apparently tried to block some of the most important passages at the last moment during a review meeting, particularly, according to reports, the statement emphasizing “the need for sharp reductions in the use of fossil fuels.” The rest of the conclave threatened to record the objection in a footnote; “it was a game of chicken, and the Saudis blinked first,” one participant said.) For most readers, the thirty-page “Summary for Policymakers” will be sufficiently dense and informative.
The takeaway messages are simple enough: to keep warming under 1.5 degrees, global carbon dioxide emissions will have to fall by 45 percent by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. We should do our best to meet this challenge, the report warns, because allowing the temperature to rise two degrees (much less than the 3.5 we’re currently on pace for) would cause far more damage than 1.5. At the lower number, for instance, we’d lose 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs. Half a degree higher and that loss rises to 99 percent. The burden of climate change falls first and heaviest on the poorest nations, who of course have done the least to cause the crisis. At two degrees, the report contends, there will be a “disproportionately rapid evacuation” of people from the tropics. As one of its authors told The New York Times, “in some parts of the world, national borders will become irrelevant. You can set up a wall to try to contain 10,000 and 20,000 and one million people, but not 10 million.”
The report provides few truly new insights for those who have been paying attention to the issue. In fact, because the IPCC is such a slave to consensus, and because its slow process means that the most recent science is never included in its reports, this one almost certainly understates the extent of the problem. Its estimates of sea-level rise are on the low end—researchers are increasingly convinced that melting in Greenland and the Antarctic is proceeding much faster than expected—and it downplays fears, bolstered by recent research, that the system of currents bringing warm water to the North Atlantic has begun to break down.* As the chemist Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel Prize in 1995 for discovering the threat posed by chlorofluorocarbon gases to the ozone layer, put it, “the IPCC understates a key risk: that self-reinforcing feedback loops could push the climate system into chaos before we have time to tame our energy system.”
All in all, though, the world continues to owe the IPCC a great debt: scientists have once again shown that they can agree on a broad and workable summary of our peril and deliver it in language that, while clunky, is clear enough that headline writers can make sense of it. (Those who try, anyway. An analysis of the fifty biggest US newspapers showed that only twenty-two of them bothered to put a story about the report on the homepages of their websites.)
The problem is that action never follows: the scientists do their job, but even the politicians not controlled by the fossil fuel industry tend to punt or to propose small-bore changes too slow and cautious to make much difference. By far the most important change between this and the last big IPCC report, in 2014, is simply that four years have passed, meaning that the curve we’d need to follow to cut our emissions sufficiently has grown considerably steeper. Instead of the relatively gentle trajectory that would have been required if we had paid attention in 1995, the first time the IPCC warned us that global warming was real and dangerous, we’re at the point where even an all-out effort would probably be too slow. As the new report concedes, there is “no documented historical precedent” for change at the speed that the science requires.
There’s one paramount reason we didn’t heed those earlier warnings, and that’s the power of the fossil fuel industry. Since the last IPCC report, a series of newspaper exposés has made it clear that the big oil companies knew all about climate change even before it became a public issue in the late 1980s, and that, instead of owning up to that knowledge, they sponsored an enormously expensive campaign to obfuscate the science. That campaign is increasingly untenable. In a world where floods, fires, and storms set new records almost weekly, the industry now concentrates on trying to slow the inevitable move to renewable energy and preserve its current business model as long as possible.
After the release of the IPCC report, for instance, Exxon pledged $1 million to work toward a carbon tax. That’s risible—Exxon made $280 billion in the last decade, and it has donated huge sums to elect a Congress that won’t pass a carbon tax anytime soon; oil companies are spending many millions of dollars to defeat a carbon tax on the ballot in Washington State and to beat back bans on fracking in Colorado. Even if a carbon tax somehow made it past the GOP, the amount Exxon says it wants—$40 a ton—is tiny compared to what the IPCC’s analysts say would be required to make a real dent in the problem. And in return the proposed legislation would relieve the oil companies of all liability for the havoc they’ve caused. A bargain that might have made sense a generation ago no longer counts for much.
Given the grim science, it’s a fair question whether anything can be done to slow the planet’s rapid warming. (One Washington Post columnist went further, asking, “Why bother to bear children in a world wracked by climate change?”) The phrase used most since the report’s release was “political will,” usually invoked earnestly as the missing ingredient that must somehow be conjured up. Summoning sufficient political will to blunt the power of Exxon and Shell seems unlikely. As the energy analyst David Roberts predicted recently on Twitter, “the increasing severity of climate impacts will not serve as impetus to international cooperation, but the opposite. It will empower nationalists, isolationists, & reactionaries.” Anyone wondering what he’s talking about need merely look at the Western reaction to the wave of Syrian refugees fleeing a civil war sparked in part by the worst drought ever measured in that region.
Anders Nilsen: Rootball (Last Remnant), 2012
The stakes are so high, though, that we must still try to do what we can to change those odds. And it’s not an entirely impossible task. Nature is a good organizer: the relentless floods and storms and fires have gotten Americans’ attention, and the percentage of voters who acknowledge that global warming is a threat is higher than ever before, and the support for solutions is remarkably nonpartisan: 93 percent of Democrats want more solar farms; so do 84 percent of Republicans. The next Democratic primary season might allow a real climate champion to emerge who would back what the rising progressive star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called a “Green New Deal”; in turn a revitalized America could theoretically help lead the planet back to sanity. But for any of that to happen, we need a major shift in our thinking, strong enough to make the climate crisis a center of our political life rather than a peripheral question easily avoided. (There were no questions at all about climate change in the 2016 presidential debates.)
The past year has offered a few signs that such large-scale changes are coming. In October, the attorney general for New York State filed suit against ExxonMobil, claiming the company defrauded shareholders by downplaying the risks of climate change. In January New York City joined the growing fossil fuel divestment campaign, pledging to sell off the oil and gas shares in its huge pension portfolio; Mayor Bill de Blasio is working with London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, to convince their colleagues around the world to do likewise. In July Ireland became the first nation to join the campaign, helping to take the total funds involved to over $6 trillion. This kind of pressure on investors needs to continue: as the IPCC report says, if the current flows of capital into fossil fuel projects were diverted to solar and wind power, we’d be closing in on the sums required to transform the world’s energy systems.
It’s natural following devastating reports like this one to turn to our political leaders for a response. But in an era when politics seems at least temporarily broken, and with a crisis that has a time limit, civil society may need to pressure the business community at least as heavily to divest their oil company shares, to stop underwriting and insuring new fossil fuel projects, and to dramatically increase the money available for clean energy. We’re running out of options, and we’re running out of decades. Over and over we’ve gotten scientific wake-up calls, and over and over we’ve hit the snooze button. If we keep doing that, climate change will no longer be a problem, because calling something a problem implies there’s still a solution.
—October 25, 2018
83 Comments on "A Very Grim Forecast"
TIKIMAN on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:31 pm
My vagina hurts
onlooker on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 3:53 pm
Welcome to reality.
makati1 on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 5:16 pm
It’s ALL about $$$$! Survival be damned!
makati1 on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 5:47 pm
Another day in 3rd world America. Snowflakes being coddled by universities. California on fire again/still. Another school shooting. More families made homeless. The political freak sideshow. and on and on. Slip slidin…
I AM THE MOB on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 6:04 pm
President Trump likely committed several crimes by paying off Stormy Daniels, ethics experts say
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-trump-crimes-stormy-daniels-20181109-story.html
Davy on Fri, 9th Nov 2018 8:19 pm
“California Looks To Stationary Energy Storage As A Solution To Peaker Plants”
https://tinyurl.com/y8qorbrx
“Central California electric utility Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is planning to replace three aging natural gas power plants in its network with stationary energy storage installations from Tesla.”
“The effort to transition utilities away from natural gas plants and to stationary energy storage supports the broader state-wide push to source 100% of its electricity from zero-emission sources by 2045, which includes adding 1.3 gigawatts of energy storage to the state’s grid by 2020.”
“Vistra is excited for this opportunity to work with PG&E, and the State of California, to develop a world-class battery project on our Moss Landing site, while building industry-leading expertise in the development and commercialization of battery storage assets,” said Curt Morgan, Vistra’s president and chief executive officer. “The Moss Landing battery project will be the largest of its kind in the world and will position Vistra as a market leader in utility-scale battery development.”
Hello on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 6:45 am
>> Another day in 3rd world America
Look mak, right in front of your apartment:
https://www.coffeewithasliceoflife.com/2015/01/23/the-slums-of-manila-philippines/
Do you visit often?
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 6:51 am
Hello, he has moved out of Manilla and now as best I can tell lives around here:
Infanta
https://tinyurl.com/ybby453o
makati1 on Tue, 27th Mar 2018 6:56 pm BTW: It is a beautiful morning here in Quezon Province.
Hello on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 6:58 am
>> Infanta
Wow, now that’s a real step up. I like what I see on google maps. Good job Mak.
All paid by your US social security?
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 7:42 am
That’s right Hello. I’m paying for Billy’s retirement, and by the time I retire the U.S. will have collapsed. I guess that makes billy pretty smart and me a dumbass. If I had half a brain I’d get the hell out of this shithole country too.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 7:52 am
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 7:42 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 7:56 am
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 7:52 am
Darrell Cloud on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 7:57 am
I am sure some mastermind is scheming to save the planet by offing 7 billion people. The hubris of that is that he will not live long enough to know whether his plan worked or not.
The rest of us are caught in the trend of things. We cannot save the world. We can attempt to save our selves. Look to your own people. Look to their security and provisions.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 8:02 am
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 7:56 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 8:13 am
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT (WOW YOU ARE ONE SICK FUCK)
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 8:02 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 8:33 am
Dirty Juan, is this why you are so sick:
JuanP on Tue, 22nd Dec 2015 6:57 am Rockman “Which means that we may not only be at global PO but the longer it takes for oil prices to significantly increase we may never again approach current production levels as depletion continues to take its toll.” This is such an important point that it can’t be repeated enough, and I couldn’t agree more. It is exactly for comments like that one by Rock that I come here almost every day. I would have quoted the whole comment again because it was sooo good. Thank you very much for your contributions, Rock. They make me smile and happy and give me a brief respite from my cronic and acute depression.
JuanP on Fri, 20th Jul 2018 4:49 pm I just read Davy’s bullshit above. For the record, I have said that I have struggled with depression, not suicide. And I also said that I contemplated the idea of killing myself when I was young, which is not the same as having a “life long struggle with suicide”. I am a thinker and I always consider every possibility. For me, to not consider the idea of suicide as a way to die would be like being biased in my thought. Davy is very good at lying, moving goalposts, telling falsehoods, and distorting and denying the truth. A slippery, pathetic sad fuck is what he is.
Sissyfuss on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 8:47 am
Various NGOs and science organizations give us the conditions and statistics of our increasingly abnormal planet and rile up and motivate great numbers of individuals to actually take action against the the coming horrors. But when they realize the amount of sacrifice demanded, especially in the area of lowered standards of living required, they reimbrace their comfy lifestyle and become once again voyeurs of the ongoing trajedies.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 10:36 am
Worth repeating
“Davy is very good at lying, moving goalposts, telling falsehoods, and distorting and denying the truth. A slippery, pathetic sad fuck is what he is.”
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 10:45 am
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 10:36 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:17 am
Back on topic.
I find the first comment “My vagina hurts” to be highly offensive. I prefer to call mine a pussy. It sounds much more politically correct to me. Kinder and gentler.
MEOW!
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:30 am
“Within nine weeks of the conference Donald Trump had won his first primary; within seven months the UK had voted for Brexit, both weakening and distracting the EU, which has been the most consistent global champion of climate action. Since then the US, the largest carbon emitter since the start of the Industrial Revolution, has withdrawn from the Paris agreement, and the president’s cabinet members are busy trying to revive the coal industry and eliminate effective oversight and regulation of the oil and gas business.”
Blaming Trump for this is just plain wrong. Trump is a wonderful man. I blame the U.S. ZOG and the dumbed down American sheep.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:42 am
I have two sons and I’m very worried about their futures. I’ve come to the conclusion that playing goat farmer isn’t going to help them. I think I’ll become an activist like James Hansen. We need to take the evil empire down and soon.
JuanP on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:47 am
I’m a wetback.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:48 am
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:17 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:30 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:42 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:50 am
I’m a racist, as well as a flaming hypocrite. That’s why I voted for Trump.
JuanP on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:51 am
What to do if you don’t have a compass?
Take a wetback with you instead. They always know were north is.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:56 am
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 11:50 am
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 12:00 pm
Good one Juan! I’ll try to remember that for the next time someone visits.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 12:04 pm
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 12:00 pm
Not JuanP on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 12:59 pm
Ha ha ha. I got the last word Davy. LOL
JuanP on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 1:35 pm
This is insane. I haven’t been here since yesterday! ROFLMFAO! My throat is sore from laughing too much! I had to show this to my wife. I hope the person doing this is getting paid for it, but I would recommend finding something more useful to do.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:09 pm
LYING DIRTY JUAN FOOL
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:14 pm
Fool, instead of playing your stupid games contribute something so we can debate each other. When is the last time you contributed an idea?
Anonymouse on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:15 pm
The exceptionalturd is one making all the fake posts. He then turns around, and blames, well, everyone he doesn’t like for making them (which is pretty much everyone with a few notable exceptions).
One of those notable exceptions, is I AM THE DAVYTURD. He never blames ‘him’ for any alleged ‘identity theft’. Mmmm wonder why that is……
No, the delusonalturds latest hobby horse is making fake posts, and them blaming Juan for it. Once he tires of that, I am sure he’ll go back to blaming Mak, or China, or Putin, hell find someone or something to blame his nutter-ness on.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:18 pm
“The “Nightmare Scenario” For Beijing: 50 Million Chinese Apartments Are Empty”
https://tinyurl.com/y9j2ady5
“Back in 2017, we explained why the “fate of the world economy is in the hands of China’s housing bubble.” The answer was simple: for the Chinese population, and growing middle class, to keep spending vibrant and borrowing elevated, it had to feel comfortable and confident that its wealth would keep rising. However, unlike the US where the stock market is the ultimate barometer of the confidence boosting “wealth effect”, in China it has always been about housing as three quarters of Chinese household assets are parked in real estate, compared to only 28% in the US, with the remainder invested financial assets.”
“How long China will be able to avoid a sharp price decline remains to be seen, but in the meantime another problem faces China’s housing market: in addition to being the primary source of household net worth – and therefore stable and growing consumption – it has also been a key driver behind China’s economic growth, with infrastructure spending and capital investment long among the biggest components of the country’s goalseeked GDP. One result has been China’s infamous ghost cities, built only for the sake of Keynesian spending to hit a predetermined GDP number that would make Beijing happy.”
“According to Bloomberg, soon-to-be-published research will show that roughly 22% of China’s urban housing stock is unoccupied, according to Professor Gan Li, who runs the main nationwide study. That amounts to more than 50 million empty homes. The reason for the massive empty inventory glut: to keep supply low and prices artificially elevated by taking out as much inventory off the market as possible. This, however, works both ways, and while it helps boost prices on the way up as the economy grow and speculators flood the housing market with easy money, the moment the trend flips the spike in supply as empty units are offloaded will lead to a panic liquidation of homes, resulting in what may be the biggest housing market crash ever observed, and putting the US home bubble of 2006 to shame. Indeed, as Bloomberg notes, the “nightmare scenario” for Chinese authorities is that owners of unoccupied dwellings rush to sell when cracks start appearing in the property market, causing a self-reinforcing downward price spiral.”
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:22 pm
AnonymousE, fool, you are just as bad as dirty Juan. When is the last time you put out an idea? You stupid asswipe can only play a sock cop detective. You are completely impotent in a debate.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:29 pm
“America’s Hidden Tribes”
https://tinyurl.com/y8xd9ker
“America has never felt so divided. Bitter debates that were once confined to Congressional hearings and cable TV have now found their way into every part of our lives, from our Facebook feeds to the family dinner table. ”
“Our research concludes that we have become a set of tribes, with different codes, values, and even facts. In our public debates, it seems that we no longer just disagree. We reject each other’s premises and doubt each other’s motives. We question each other’s character. We block our ears to diverse perspectives. At home, polarization is souring personal relationships, ruining Thanksgiving dinners, and driving families apart.”
“We are experiencing these divisions in our workplaces, neighborhood groups, even our places of worship. In the media, pundits score points, mock opponents, and talk over each other. On the Internet, social media has become a hotbed of outrage, takedowns, and cruelty – often targeting total strangers.”
“Being able to discuss our genuine disagreements remains important. At the root of those disagreements are differences in core beliefs―the underlying psychological architecture that governs what we value and how we see the world.”
“While our differences are often rooted in divergent views, that does not mean we cannot find common ground.”
“By acknowledging and respecting the values that animate our beliefs, we can begin to restore a sense of respect and unity.”
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:37 pm
“On the Internet, social media has become a hotbed of outrage, takedowns, and cruelty – often targeting total strangers.”
DEPORT JUANP!
I AM THE MOB on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:41 pm
Ice Cube Taunts Trump With Explicit New Track ‘Arrest The President’
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ice-cube-donald-trump-arrest-the-president_us_5be6a68be4b0769d24cd9862
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:41 pm
“We block our ears to diverse perspectives.”
My perspective is the only right perspective. Dumbasses
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:42 pm
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:29 pm
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:37 pm
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:45 pm
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:41 pm
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:45 pm
“Being able to discuss our genuine disagreements remains important. ”
What a load of crap. Anyone that disagrees with me will be neutered. That’s a promise.
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:49 pm
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 2:45 pm
Not JuanP on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 3:05 pm
The person who gets the last word wins the debate Davy.
I WIN! LMFAO!
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 3:34 pm
“Why Chinese Authorities Are Freaking Out”
https://tinyurl.com/ydbbz9sy
“In the last week, things have gone from bad to worse but all in the future tense. Right now, there isn’t any sign China’s economy is on the verge of collapse or even contraction. But the number of negative factors which could push it that far are piling up; mostly in the monetary therefore financial system.”
“Remember, most Chinese debt, dollar debt, too, was underwritten under very different conditions. It was universally believed that one of two things would ever happen: China’s economy would get back to its precrisis growth level, or, if it didn’t, the state would make sure it did by doing everything in its power to make it so. If you as a bank lender (China or eurodollar) suddenly realize the Chinese economy isn’t recovering like you thought and further that maybe it isn’t within the government’s reach to change the baseline, risk explodes. So much debt created the last decade, how much of it might really be at risk of default, or at least very difficult rolling over?”
“The economy is stuck, which means markets and financial agents are going to realize that, if this is as good as it gets, the “stimulus” panic in early 2016 didn’t actually create the economy everyone was looking for – and underwriting debt in anticipation of. Thus, not only is the economy trapped, what can authorities really do to get everyone out of it? Nothing. And now everyone knows it. It’s not really difficult to appreciate why Chinese authorities are so openly freaking.”
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 3:58 pm
Sorry. Wrong link again.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-10/why-chinese-authorities-are-freaking-out
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 4:04 pm
“9/11 Wars In Iraq, Afghanistan, And Pakistan Killed 500,000 People: Brown University Study”
https://tinyurl.com/y9qq7jpb
“A shocking new study produced by Brown University finds that between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed during America’s Post-9/11 Wars. The study examined the three “war on terror” conflicts of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan — the latter an extension of the Afghan war and focus of US drone attacks.”
“Full accounting of an accurate total death toll has been “inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution and progress,” according to the report.”
“Essentially this is the Brown report acknowledging Washington’s massive and consistent propaganda efforts throughout close to two decades of the so-called “war on terror”. ”
“Some estimates in the past compiled by independent watchdog groups and polling organizations have put the death toll in Iraq alone at over one million people.”
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 4:36 pm
DIRTY JUAN IDENTITY THEFT
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 4:04 pm
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 3:58 pm
Davy on Sat, 10th Nov 2018 4:48 pm
“Solar Enables More Homes to Participate in Demand Response”
https://tinyurl.com/ycsaab5f
“As more households and businesses install rooftop solar and begin tracking their energy production, an increasing number of solar hosts are diving into a variety demand response opportunities —some at the behest of the utilities — to reduce their electricity bills. Whether the demand response activities involve air conditioning use or EV charging management, the potential is now enormous for customer management of how and when to use electricity. Over 58 gigawatts of solar capacity is already installed in the country, enough to power more than 11 million homes, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). A new study by the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA), Navigant, and Peak Load Management Alliance (PLMA) shows that a new record of 18.3 gigawatts of electricity use was avoided, deferred, or otherwise managed through demand response activities last year, involving 155 utilities across the country. The study, “The 2018 Utility Demand Response Market Snapshot,” captured demand response among a respondent universe of close to 90 million customers.”
“Air conditioning management represented the greatest functional use of demand response during 2017, with a cumulative energy avoidance, if not savings, of 3.4 GW last year, the report indicates. Air conditioner switch programs allow a grid operator to shed air conditioning load by using a control switch that can remotely interrupt or cycle AC compressors. The use of smart thermostats to help manage heating and cooling more efficiently is one key way that demand response is being integrated into US households, and in businesses and industry. The cumulative impact of smart thermostat control during 2017 amounted to 1.2 GW of energy savings, according to the study. Much of the progress is being driven by utility programs that encourage customer participation.”
“Smart home energy management systems are making a major dent in appliance energy use, automatically controlling when washing machines go on, how much air conditioning is used during the day when no one is home, and when EV charging is done to take advantage of the lowest rates of electricity over a 24-hour period.”
“Not surprisingly, businesses involved in demand response curtailed a total of 7.2 GW of electricity last year, managing their production timing, process planning, lighting, heating and air conditioning controls, and pump usages the report indicates. This represented about two-thirds of all US demand response activity, with residential activity representing one-third.”