SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday November 16 2016, @08:39PM
from the heavy-use-continues-but-increase-leveled-off dept.
from the heavy-use-continues-but-increase-leveled-off dept.
Declining consumption of coal in the US last year played a significant role in keeping down global emissions of carbon dioxide, according to a new report.
The Global Carbon Project annual analysis shows that CO2 emissions were almost flat for the third year in a row, despite a rise in economic growth.
The slowdown in the Chinese economy since 2012 has also been a key factor limiting carbon.
Experts believe it is too early to say if global CO2 emissions have peaked.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Global Carbon Growth Stalls as US Coal Continues to Slump
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift.
-- Shelley
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16 2016, @11:00PM
I have been telling everyone I know pretty much what you just said.
The material markets and shipping markets usually show what is up first. They are not looking good. Also tech jobs in my area pretty much dried up. Another good sign companies are scaling back. Stocks are pretty much last to go. As the 'value' they hold is value from the previous quarter with some speculation.
This is a good video that shows we pretty much have cycles and why. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0 [youtube.com]
The next one will not be as bad as 2008. But it will sting. Whoever was the next president (Trump in this case) was going to have to deal with it. The fed has no more interest rates to burn to make it work. They will have to rack up more debt. Trump is going to get a lesson in monetary policy. He is well versed in lending policy.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 16 2016, @11:22PM
Oh yeah, I've been so wary of that. If the government had been doing a strong Keynesian approach to fiscal policy, we'd be ready with modest interest rates right now.
Instead the policy was "cut domestic spending and let the fed sort it out" and here we are. It's going to be "fun".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16 2016, @11:43PM
Care to expand on any recommendations?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 17 2016, @12:26AM
If the government had been doing a strong Keynesian approach to fiscal policy, we'd be ready with modest interest rates right now.
Can you show an situation where a strong Keynesian approach actually worked?
I'll note that Keynesian economists have a habit of a) claiming credit for things that would have happened anyway (such as the end of recessions), b) confuse goals with means or symptoms (such as deciding that a higher GDP society is an economically better society rather than the reverse), and c) providing a pretext for elevated levels of uncritical and unaccountable public spending at any time. On that last part, it is funny how so many parties are Keynesian in times of recession or slow growth and not at all (when spending is to be curtailed) in times of above average economic growth.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 17 2016, @12:35AM
Uh, sure. It worked in: Germany 2007-8, The US in 1993-4, the US 1958, the US new deal 1930s(your ideology is going to disagree with that, so what), China 2000, until they way overshot and weren't ready for 2008
Counterpoints where financial austerity during each recession and made things substantially worse:
UK 2007-2008, Japan 1993-1994, (I don't have a match for 1958), Germany 1930s, Brazil 2000
But by all means, please regurgitate a reason magazine article that explains how each and every recession, regardless of whether Keynesian economics were applied, are the fault of government cyclic response. Be sure to include information about crowding out when it's deficit spending, and other hyperaustrian nonsense. I love me some pseudoscience in the evening.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 17 2016, @04:10AM
Uh, sure. It worked in: Germany 2007-8, The US in 1993-4, the US 1958, the US new deal 1930s(your ideology is going to disagree with that, so what), China 2000, until they way overshot and weren't ready for 2008
Counterpoints where financial austerity during each recession and made things substantially worse: UK 2007-2008, Japan 1993-1994, (I don't have a match for 1958), Germany 1930s, Brazil 2000
Exactly (UK should be 2010 BTW and China of 2008 wasn't significantly weakened at the time by the global real estate crisis). Notice that your successful cases are all countries with low debt to GDP ratios and your failures are all countries with high debt to GDP ratios. That's even stronger a correlation than your allegedly Keynesian spending behavior.
Also, I wouldn't count 1958 or of course, the 1930s recessions of the US as an example of Keynesian economics in action. The former didn't have significant spending and the later failed pretty hard despite said spending - including a second recession in the latter part of the 1930s and high unemployment throughout the era til the beginning of the Second World War for the US.
I'll note that there have been numerous recessions in the US prior to the Great Depression and they resolved themselves without notable Keynesian spending.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @01:10AM
Almost all economic theories could work. The all ignore the rouge actors messing things up and gaming the system. They all assume everyone acts the same.
(Score: 3, Funny) by gawdonblue on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:43AM
Bloody communists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @03:30AM
FYI: The inflation adjusted weekly income of the typical full-time American worker hit an all-time high in the third quarter of 2016.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7Qz6 [stlouisfed.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:27AM
Labor participation is as low as 1977, and has been for 3 years straight. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [bls.gov]
People who make 0 or are underemployed are not counted in your statistic. The Fed has changed the rules of the game many times. My economics teachers told me to basically ignore anything the fed comes up with other than real totals. Any sort of number they create like GDP, inflation, or unemployment are made up and usually political in nature.
3 to 5% of the employment work force has been wiped out since 1998. Yet the population of the united states has grown by ~50 million in that time.