[mikemike]

Lastly, you left this out altogether: Quote: Overall, the balance in the medium term is expected to be positive. (note: positive here means "good")
... if it turns out that new technologies will be more carbon-efficient in the future, that might even leverage age structure effects for the good of the climate. This could be the case, for instance, if electricity, of which the old use a lot, could be generated and distributed with fewer emissions.

There is a huge IF there, old people need to buy into it and adopt the new technologies.

The AARP and old kodgers won't even be bothered to change there behavior as the rest of us do in response to price signals. Case in point, the opposition to switching to the chained CPI for SS cost of living adjustments. All the chained CPI does is assume that if the cost of something you normally buy, like apples, goes up but an alternative product, like oranges, does not you will buy fewer apples and more oranges. If old people can't bother to make that small step do you think they will start to change their behavior for heating, cooling, electrical generation, lighting, transportation, and other big changes that are needed?

Just as the recession has devoured the nest eggs of many older Americans, Congress is considering tweaks to Social Security that could limit future payments.

Alarms have been set off among lawmakers and AARP and other powerful interest groups by the mere possibility that the supercommittee charged with cutting the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade might propose savings by changing the way Social Security calculates inflation.

Projections show that retirees and other recipients would get smaller increases under the modified, “chained” version of the consumer price index that is meant to reflect changes in consumer behavior.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66825.html

---

Last edited by mikemike; 11-10-2011 at 01:42 PM.

[jeffkrol]

There is a huge IF there, old people need to buy into it and adopt the new technologies.

The AARP and old kodgers won't even be bothered to change there behavior as the rest of us do in response to price signals. Case in point, the opposition to switching to the chained CPI for SS cost of living adjustments. All the chained CPI does is assume that if the cost of something you normally buy, like apples, goes up but an alternative product, like oranges, does not you will buy fewer apples and more oranges. If old people can't bother to make that small step do you think they will start to change their behavior for heating, cooling, electrical generation, lighting, transportation, and other big changes that are needed?


Social Security CPI formula change opposed by most, poll finds - Josh Boak - POLITICO.com

Maybe if you spent more time convincing them instead of pushing them onto an ice flow YOU could change that.. but as you stated probably too much work....

Of course you could make conversions a gov. program.. for FREE... opp's nobody profits right? Since when did anyone make a profit on gov. spending..........

Democrats lost the 65-and-older vote by 8 percentage points in the 2008 election, a figure that increased to 21 percentage points in 2010, according to national exit polls.

Because of the investment losses stemming from the financial crisis, Social Security has become even more of a lifeline for many older Americans.

From 1999 to 2009, their incomes from financial assets fell by 25 percent to 50 percent, according to research by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66825.html#ixzz1dLEehU3J

Time to get them back........

Some retirees have responded to their declining investments by working jobs to make up for their losses, an option the data show is much more difficult for those older than 75.

Does it make you proud to be an American????

Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are recommending the supercommittee “not change the real value of benefits for current retirees or those close to retirement.”

Clarifying the recommendations, a GOP aide said it meant that any alterations to the CPI should be justified as being a more accurate measure of inflation rather than a way to generate savings.

Looking to 2012, pollster Lake said Obama could close the Democrats’ support gap among senior citizens by taking a clear stance against chained CPI.

“He can lose the senior vote, but he can’t lose it by as much as we lost it in 2010,” she said. “People think it’s a technical issue that voters don’t understand. It isn’t that technical. They totally understand it. And they oppose it.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66825_Page2.html#ixzz1dLFRfTFD

[redrockcoulee]

Actually, it is the reverse in general poorer people have larger carbon footprints because they live further out, have little control over choosing mechanical systems like A/C and appliances which usually means their landlord has the cheapest (and least efficient) stuff installed, they are more likely to drive an older and larger vehicle like a truck or SUV which gets poorer mileage and emissions. On the extremes you have high direct correlation to income where the poorest 5% who don't have cars or afford heat have extremely low emissions and the super rich .5% who have private jets have extremely high emissions. In the middle though, you have an inverse correlation to income for the reasons I explained.


I saw a research paper on this before and it was in a system which required special access, if you go to your university library and look you might be able to find it in their databases.

The policy approaches of incentives for efficiency and punitive carbon taxes are extremely regressive BTW. For example one of the reasons I plan to do solar panels soon is b/c there is an 30% refundable tax federal credit and a 50% refundable state tax credit bringing the effective cost of the system down to 20% of the actual cost, the catch is that you need to be able to wait for your tax refund to recoup your money and need to have plenty of capital which you don't mind tying up (in my case I am budgeting for a $30K system). After it is installed the net metering works such that I will sell my extra KWHs to my neighbors (who might not be able to afford solar PV) at the price of peek demand electricity and I get my nighttime KWHs from the grid at the price of low demand electricity. Same thing with cash for clunkers, the only people who could afford to take advantage of it were people who could afford a new car.

Here even though we have hot summers few of the old houses that are cheap to reant have a/c at all whereas the large homes all have, plus the cost of the snow blower and ride on lawn mowers, the power boats etc. I would love to see the study. I do not disagree that poor people use less effecient units but I still have yet to see an a/c unit that could cool a 4000 sq foot house use less power than a window shaker. And even an old furnace that is 66% will cost less to heat a 700 sq foot house than a dc furnace at 94% for those large homes. You see a lot less RVs and power boats and those you do see are a lot smaller in my neighbourhood than on Riverside or 1st street where the more costly homes are. And have you seen the SUVs and pick ups driven by dentists and lawyers etc. Not usually a RAV or Sportage but perhaps a Naviagator or whatever the Lexus model is called.

And in most cities I have been to the centre of the city is where the poorer people live, middle class are out in the suburbs and the upper middle class have many of the acreages. And I know of few poor people with a vacation home. If you are talking about the poorer of the middle class it might be different but these people are also more likely to be able to take care of themselves in their golden years than what we used to call working class.

I do not have an university but can check to see if the college has it, if interlibrary loans or access I might be able to get it as well.

[jeffkrol]

Actually, it is the reverse in general poorer people have larger carbon footprints because they live further out, have little control over choosing mechanical systems like A/C and appliances which usually means their landlord has the cheapest (and least efficient) stuff installed, they are more likely to drive an older and larger vehicle like a truck or SUV which gets poorer mileage and emissions. On the extremes you have high direct correlation to income where the poorest 5% who don't have cars or afford heat have extremely low emissions and the super rich .5% who have private jets have extremely high emissions. In the middle though, you have an inverse correlation to income for the reasons I explained.

Blame the landlords..... you know the lords of the land.......

For example one of the reasons I plan to do solar panels soon is b/c there is an 30% refundable tax federal credit and a 50% refundable state tax credit bringing the effective cost of the system down to 20% of the actual cost, the catch is that you need to be able to wait for your tax refund to recoup your money and need to have plenty of capital which you don't mind tying up (in my case I am budgeting for a $30K system). After it is installed the net metering works such that I will sell my extra KWHs to my neighbors (who might not be able to afford solar PV) at the price of peek demand electricity and I get my nighttime KWHs from the grid at the price of low demand electricity. Same thing with cash for clunkers, the only people who could afford to take advantage of it were people who could afford a new car.

Freeloader, looks to me you are part of the problem..........maybe after you finally rid yourself of the self justification and the pats on the back for being "shrewd" you might just see it...Sorry couldn't resist.

As to cash for clunkers.. yep took the cheap, energy consuming cars out of reach of the poor who can ONLY afford a cheap car....."affordable used vehicles" non-existent.... But see the catch is the poor need to get to their jobs, and those without them, have little money extra for gas...

You boil problems down to whats good for you..........Not to mention obsessing on the trees (differences in carbon uses between classes) and as usual miss the forest..

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-10-2011 at 03:56 PM.

[Nesster]

Cash for clunkers no doubt was a middle-upper-middle class boon; but then the other half of it has to do with the car makers and economy this was hoping to stimulate. And unfortunately car makers don't see the US market as having much similarity to the Indian one; i.e. new cars are a middle-upper-middle class game.

But the solar panel thing, and other energy efficiency tax credits do seem to be an OK form of social engineering and govt market intervention.

The price on carbon doesn't meet some criterion, however? Even though it is modeled on a program that worked very well indeed, letting market forces shape how things got done: the acid rain program.

[mikemike]

This study was looking at the US where you deal with A/C in many states as much as you do with heat.

Like I said, go research the distribution of carbon dioxide emissions and you might find it. You also need to consider the impact on jobs and economies. If you plot per capita state income vs per capita state emmissions you will see the trend of lower income means higher emissions and also that you have some very low income states like WV that are reliant on carbon intensive industries and electricity.

Attachment 108743

Attachment 108744

[magmotif]

A lighthearted perspective...

++++++++++++++
The Green Thing

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment. The woman apologized and explained, “We didn’t have this green thing back in my earlier days.” The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.” She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts — wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right. We didn’t have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the green thing back then?

[fisheye freak]

Every few weeks we see some group coming out with the big "we have to act now" scaremongering. Geological records show that the earth has had considerably higher CO2 levels in the past and was warmer and wetter. The earth flourished under these conditions. There was no runaway greenhouse scenario- the earth could not have remained habitable for so long if this were possible.Use your brains. Real science can never be settled, especially in the relatively new science of climate .The term "the science is settled" is an unscientific statement of itself. REAL science is NEVER settled. Almost all theories develop flaws with time. The insane sacrifices some vested interests expect in the vain hope that a difference will be made in the climate by severely curtailing or even destroying human activity is senseless. In relatively recent geological time there is ample proof that when the world is warmer, humanity, agriculture and life in general flourishes. In colder conditions, depopulation and famine occurs. Records of what crops were grown where and when is well documented from Roman times. Part of the reason the Roman empire flourished was the due to the Roman warm period. Then followed the Dark ages when things were cooler and humanity took a backward step. The Medieval warm period allowed more food production. The surplus labour allowed the construction of the great edifices(and now tourist attractions) of the great cathedrals of Europe. There followed the mini ice age- once again famine and misery. At present, we are getting out of the mini ice age. The warmth is a good thing.It is pure politically motivated scaremongering to say it is bad when relatively recent history shows this is anything but the case. Humans and animals can survive in up to 20,000 ppm CO2.We are currently just under 400ppm. Below 150ppm, plant photosynthesis stalls. Studies have shown that many plants use considerably less water in higher concentrations of CO2. Just think, higher yields in more arid conditions. Don't you get just the least bit suspicious that this side of the argument is censored out of the media? Time to stop being a sheep and question the BS that is being shoved down our throats. Question the motives of why opposing views are shouted down and branded heretical. THINK

[wizofoz]

Earth Shoed, Subaru driving, latte drinking bunch of dilettante hypocrite

love this phrase

[wizofoz]

yeah Fisheye, good point. THINK.

Just exactly how many internal combustion engines did the Romans use during that warmer period? How much coal did they burn? Oil? How many air conditioners did the Emperor install in his palace? What, exactly, was the population of the planet during those halcyon days? I could be wrong, but I think those times were a little different in a couple of 'minor' ways.

Of course you, being the eminent climatoligist that you are, know all about this stuff and you say we don't need to worry. Whew thats a relief. Why aren't you running the planet with all this clear thinking?

I can only imagine how much better its going to be in the coming warm period when population flourishes, cause gawd knows there are far too few pople on the planet now. I can hardly wait to live on a planet 50 times more polluted. We need to consume more, use more resourcses. That will be the cure for everything. Speed up the process. How have I never seen this so clearly till now? Thank you Mr FE for pointing this out to us.

[normhead]

People have always believed the end of the world was imminent, sooner or later they'll be right. Hey when I was young we had all kinds of campaigns trying to get people to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. I cut my own wood for heat, I'm a boomer, and I still do. I lived off grid for two years, until my second was born and the diaper washing got a little onerous. We grew our own food as much as possible, got our milk from the farmer down the road. WHen it was time to get power, I went to the bank to get a loan for a windmill. The bank said, "if they're so good , why doesn't GE make them?" Now GE does make them. A lot of us boomers went through a lot to try and keep things copasetic. Now ya young whipper snapper, what exactly is your contribution to trying to convince people to slow down. You been to any demonstrations, written any congressmen? Cooked up any science and sent it around to all the politicians, held an "teach ins"? Joined and low carbon communities? Created any eco-friendly technology?

Didn't think so, cause the generations after the boomers were all bitch and no action. And guys like me, we're just too old to take this on now. I don't see the legions of x gens and moving back gens taken up the cause. All I see is people Occupying Space, as if that ever accomplished anything. But there's lots of us who worked the phones digging up support for the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, and lots of green movements. We have skills that go so far beyond what I see being used out there today. I don't see a bunch of young people knocking on our doors asking how we might get this or that done.

As far as I can tell the youngsters are pretty complacent about their lives and what they've been handed. But all they do is bitch and whine. The don't take any action, and they certainly don't put their bodies on the line.

I'll quit the grandpa bitching and go back to sleep now.

[fisheye freak]

The Romans were not burning masses of fossil fuel, yet temperatures were higher then than now. Could it be that it is the sun that drives temperatures, not human CO2 emissions? The same applies to the Medieval warming period- human impact was not that great. Do note, the "hockey stick" model concocted by Mann conveniently ignores the medieval warming period and the fact that we are still climbing out of the mini ice age.The "hockey stick" has been debunked, but the alarmists still seem to believe it and jump up and down claiming imminent destruction is nigh. Oil may be a resource that is going to be scarcer to find in the medium term, but coal is still plentiful. Right under my feet lies one of the biggest coal deposits on the planet- enough it is said to keep us out of mischief for 200 years. The deposit I talk of is the Sydney basin which extends roughly 60 miles around Sydney, about 200 metres below the surface and is mined around the peripheries where it lies at the surface. Perhaps "greenie" trees jumped up and down during the Carboniferous Era complaining about the alarming amount of CO2 being sucked out of the atmosphere to be buried beneath the surface. Could it be that the role of humans is to recycle the carbon buried beneath the earth during the Carboniferous Era?

[wizofoz]

Could it be that it is the sun that drives temperatures, not human CO2 emissions?

Yeah it could be. Lets stop the emissions and find out. Whaddya think?

[magmotif]

Lets stop the emissions and find out.

The servers that this forum reside on are emitting... Perhaps we should stop using the forum to save the planet.

[wildman]

The world population is not sustainable.

we are long past the point of no return.

The above pretty well sums it up.

Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs thinking.