The real stimulus

California can be more like Texas too and away we go. This is better than the debt stimulus we tried in 2009. It has the virtue of being real and actually producing wealth. A true gift.

Inexpensive energy can bring us out of the Obama doldrums. It requires no extraordinary expenditures. We don't have to pass sweeping new laws. In fact, we don't have to do very much at all. We just have to allow it. Link.

This is another great example of American initiative. Other countries have shale and gas. We did it because we have (or at least had) a better climate for innovation. You know, in many countries the people who own the land don't own the minerals. They are owned by government. No wonder nobody bothers to create wealth if their only reward is a lot of trouble.

I just love this shale gas and oil revolution, and it truly is a revolution. The use of gas has allowed the U.S. to drop its CO2 levels. We will actually hit those Kyoto targets w/o even having to sign the paper or take those hard measures. We can tell those despots in the Middle East and Russia to jump in their lakes of oil. The whole geopolitical equation has changed. Our economy will prosper much more and manufacturing can return. Already home owners have on heating costs. The list goes on. This is the biggest and most positive development since the fall of communism. And like the fall of communism, almost nobody saw it coming. Experts told us we would run out of gas. They talked about peak oil. Ha.

The pessimist are like Charlie Brown trying to kick their depressing football. Just as they are about the lay into it, some innovators remove the ball.

Posted by Christine & John at July 31, 2013 8:29 PM
Comment #369089

Texas, home of the GOP. AEI, GOP think-tank. A gal of gas is basically the same now as in 08. Where is the big bang to recover from the Obama doldrums?

Now, in Saudi Arabia, where a gal is about 45 cents for the local folks and their export product is going for around $5/6 a gal in Europe, I can see the big bang for them.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 31, 2013 9:22 PM
Comment #369090


Gas and oil from these unconventional sources created 1.7 million jobs. Sorry if you are still paying more than you think you should at the pump.

Posted by: CJ at July 31, 2013 9:36 PM
Comment #369091

Mostly P/T and temps as I can tell.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 31, 2013 9:39 PM
Comment #369092


So we get 2,500 to 20,000 “temporary” jobs. That keeps people employed for a few years on a project that costs taxpayers nothing, in fact one that puts more money in that it costs. Not bad. Better than the 2009 stimulus.

But the Keystone pipeline is not part of the massive stimulus yet, since it is in the future.

Posted by: CJ at July 31, 2013 9:43 PM
Comment #369093

Tesla is revolutionizing the automotive industry. Right now. Even as we speak. Innovation is for real, but not merely a matter of making outmoded and dangerous fossil fuels more efficient to extract. They still contribute a great deal to climate change. A recent study shows most of the decrease in CO2 emissions comes from conservation and energy efficiency. Green technology. It has little to do with oil and natural gas.

Change is coming, but it won’t involve more oil and natural gas. Read about Tesla. Test drive one. (Unless you live in Texas, which forbids its citizens to test drive Teslas). The electric car is here, and it makes Porsches and Ferraris look like, mmm, nice cars, but nothing special. Hopped up Hondas, really.

Someone tell Texas not to let the door hit it in the butt when it secedes. Bye, Texas! Now shoo!

Posted by: phx8 at July 31, 2013 9:49 PM
Comment #369094

C&J, citing a dude in the Bloomberg url: ““Common sense tells you that when you have more and more supply coming into a market it does have competitive pressure on prices,” Howard said in an interview.”

Well, NO, not in a globalised economy.

Cost taxpayers nothing? I would think the whole project will be written off corporate taxes over a 1-3 year period. And, I’ve not doubt, there will be a ton of grant money from DOE and similar as ususal.

C&J, IMO, its going to take some serious change to break the back of the Obama doldrums. The $85B being printed monthly, while able to hold the stock market up, has no trickle down effect to relive the doldrums.

Better that we start digging for gold, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 31, 2013 9:56 PM
Comment #369095


I think I saw that study you are talking about. They complained that natural gas was responsible for “ONLY” about 25% of the reduction. Most other studies credit it with much more, but let’s stipulate that it is only responsible for 25%. That is still a really big number. According to the study, much of the rest of the drop was because of lower demand and the bad economy. I suppose we should credit that to Obama.

Natural gas produces about half as much CO2 as the coal it replaces. Green technologies have grown but they started so small that their impact is small. Renewable energy in the U.S. still comes mostly from hydro power, as it always has. Renewable increased by around 2% since Obama became president.

Electric cars are fine, but electricity in the U.S. is still often generated by coal. That means an electric car essentially is a coal fueled vehicle. It would be much better for the environment when that coal is replaced by clean burning natural gas.

Posted by: CJ at July 31, 2013 10:04 PM
Comment #369096


Indeed, the Obama doldrums are bad, but economies eventually recover and the gas and oil will help. It cannot hurt to have that much new wealth. And it is great if we can get fuel from America and not the Middle East or Russia.

Posted by: CJ at July 31, 2013 10:07 PM
Comment #369098

Natural gas is preferable to coal, no doubt. Electricity does, in fact, still mostly come from coal. We have been transitioning to natural gas, but the next transition to renewables has really just begun.

Just as the Tesla has revolutionized the electric car, the same kind of innovation will eventually revolutionize energy production; whether it will come through wind power, tidal power, solar, or something unforeseen remains to be determined.

Tesla will make gasoline-powered vehicles obsolete. This will dramatically reduce the need for gasoline and oil, with all their attendant problems.

CJ, I don’t think you understand just how amazing this new vehicle is. It gets 215 miles per charge and can take as little as 15 minutes. BMW just came out with a new electric. It costs half as much, but it takes three hours to charge, and can only go 100 miles on that charge.

There has quite literally never been anything like the Tesla in our lifetime. It is the Car and Driver Car of the Year, Motor Trend Car of the Year, and it received a perfect score from Consumer Reports. It incorporates 250 new patents. The styling is simply beautiful. (Someone called the new electric BMW a ‘port-a-potty on wheels’). The Tesla’s performance competes with the top luxury German sedans- and remember, we are talking about an electric car.

It has been called the best car ever made. Ever.

This is a development that rivals the rise of Apple, social media and Facebook, and Microsoft’s Excel. It is an innovation every bit as important, if not more, as the technologies for extending the lives of fossil fuel usages.
And it is here, right now.

Posted by: phx8 at July 31, 2013 11:57 PM
Comment #369099

Yep phx8 it’s a beautiful car with a base price of $70,000.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 1, 2013 12:16 AM
Comment #369100

It is intended to compete with high-end sedans like Porsche, Jaguar, and Ferrari. Personally, I think that is smart marketing. It gives the car a special aura. The mid-range priced vehicle is being developed, and these vehicles will be sold both nationally and internationally.

The innovativeness that went into this vehicle is just amazing. Far more than fracking or other fossil fuel technologies, this new tech will change the world, and change it for the better.

Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 12:47 AM
Comment #369101

I’m a communist and hate America. There, I admit it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 12:50 AM
Comment #369106


Posted by: Weary Willie at August 1, 2013 3:25 AM
Comment #369107


Re the electric car - I am fine with that. Innovation is responsible for almost all our prosperity.

The question is fuel. Electricity is produced from mostly conventional sources. I welcome new innovations in solar, wind etc. I expect that someday they will replace fossil fuel. But not today. Today and tomorrow we need fossil fuels. Among the fossil fuels, gas is the best. As we use more gas and less coal, our CO2 emissions drop. And gas makes very little pollution (CO2 isn’t really pollution, BTW). It is the bridge the future.

Posted by: CJ at August 1, 2013 7:03 AM
Comment #369108

The intent of the pipeline is to fetch hire prices on world markets. Your stimulus, like most such policy stimuli of yours, will simply put another added burden on families.

I also distinctly recall the collapse of the economy undermining gasoline prices. As the recovery took hold, prices rose, and they’re back to where they were before the crisis. One important thing to consider was that the Tar Sands operations were in serious trouble when those gas prices went down. Cheap oil means they can’t cover production costs, even if the oil is plentiful.

Especially if it’s plentiful. See, we’re talking effective supply here, not just raw supply, what’s in the ground. We’re talking what it costs to get it out of the ground. We’re talking the fact that you actually have to burn a ****load of natural gas in order to get that asphalt out of the tar sands.

But lets say we avoid reliance on the Tar Sands. If there’s one thing I know as a Texan, it’s that what goes up must come down. What we’ve already reached the peak of and declined on is easily reachable, simple to pump oil. What we’re getting into is fracking to get at shale oil.

Don’t depend on the supply to be plentiful forever. For every boom is a bust. You have tied your economy to the supply of a limited, eventually unsustainable resource. At best, you have a few decades of relative prosperity, and then your fortunes go the way of our fortunes in the seventies.

Folks in your party are using this supply as an excuse not to make critical transitions, not to insist on fuel economy and efficiency. This is a mistake. It’s a mistake that cost us right before the great recession, and could have been a precipitating factor in our economic decline. It’s a mistake that cost us in the 1970s.

What I would say, so that my point of view is not distorted here is that:

1) The Tar Sands Oils are too energy intensive, too reliant on high oil prices to be something we want to encourage. They’re also crap for the environment, especially since we’re wasting clean natural gas to pump the thickest, most sour kind of oil out of the Athabasca watershed.

2) It has been a considerable blessing on carbon emissions to be burning more natural gas, but the fracking process has to be monitored closely and the process of putting together the wells regulated such that these wells aren’t leaking methane into the atmosphere to increase global warming.

3) Shale Oil is a significant resource, and if we can frack it safely, we should do so. However, it should not be treated as a panacea, nor should any other kind of oil resources, because in the long term, production WILL decline on these wells, as they do on all such wells, and perhaps faster, due to the nature of fracked wells.

4) It is better in my opinion, over the long run, to make changes now, while the petrochemical training wheels are still on, and the supplies not threatening the economy with their scarcity, than to wait until necessity requires the transition, because we will have more time to refine technology, more economic resources to invest in new technologies, and finally, more time to work out what the unforeseen consequences will be. I know the instinct is to simply stay with what’s relatively cheap and easy, but ultimately, all booms have their bust, and we shouldn’t be caught with our pants down on this matter when the boom finally ends.

There are no miracles in energy. The stuff we’re getting now costs more, accounting for inflation, than what we’ve been getting. We’re paying more for less oil. We also don’t necessarily get the best oil anymore, especially if we’re melting it out of tar sands. We get the more sulfur-polluted, longer-chained molecule resources, because much of the lighter stuff evaporated long ago. Or, we have to go for oil in such extreme environments, or with such complex technology like fracking or directional drilling, that the price goes up from the classic soda straw well.

If we’re going to put this much work into getting a declining resource, we should make now the time that we find our independence. The boom will end, the question is, will it end on our terms, with energy still thrumming through the economy, or will we wait too long, like we’ve done a couple times before on the advice of oil men, and leave ourselves in crap economic shape?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2013 8:01 AM
Comment #369115

The same kind of innovation that has led to the Tesla can lead to better forms of energy than coal, oil, & natural gas. Right now, they are still dominant. With the development of the Tesla battery and drivetrain, the same kind of inventiveness can lead to more efficient batteries, solar power, or perhaps even other kinds that we are not considering today. My point is, rather than overcommitting to known resources with proven downsides, it makes far more sense to have faith in ourselves, and commit to R & D in new directions. The Tesla is proof that we can still do it as well as anyone has ever done, anywhere.

CO2 is a pollutant. Unfortunately, that relies on the scientific use of the word ‘pollutant,’ and most people do not get that. People are challenged enough by scientific terms without confusing them even further. Probably better to not even go there.

Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 11:57 AM
Comment #369116

Yea, we’re stupid. No point in trying to explain yourself. Stupid people just get confused when you blow smoke up their ass and tell them they’re destroying the atmosphere by breathing.

Posted by: Weary Willie at August 1, 2013 2:53 PM
Comment #369119


“We can tell those despots in the Middle East and Russia to jump in their lakes of oil.”

I can get a real kick out of that pix. Putin in his shirtless profile and doing a belly flop into a lake of oil. Beautiful. Love it.

215 on a charge is not so great. Where I live it is easily a couple of hundred miles to go from here to many places. That means I must stop every couple of hundred miles to charge the car. Now if I were running the interstate that means stopping to charge the car at least twice while crossing a given state. Going from Flagstaff to Phoenix means I will have to stop and charge the car before I reach my destination. You can get excited all you please, but there are stepping stones to get to Tesla and behond. My friend has a hybrid. He can run on electric and when the charge is down he can switch to fossil fuel until the charge is up and he can switch back.

Now back to the origin of the post. Gas is a great way to do great things. Today LNG is used by many cities in mass transportation. Cabs are using it more and more. These are some of the stepping stones to get to what many refer to the green age. You can use some of those bundles of cash you made in the bull market to buy one of those Tesla’s. But I bet you will not do that. You will continue to drive a fossil fuel vehicle.

Posted by: tom humes at August 1, 2013 5:02 PM
Comment #369120

tom humes,
I understand what you mean about distances in AZ. I lived on the very southwestern edge of Phoenix for two years, and really enjoyed it. As for the Tesla, the nationwide network of charging stations is still being deployed, so driving from Phoenix to Flagstaff would not work. By this fall it would work, and by winter, it will be possible to drive coast to coast, with charges requiring at least 15 minutes, and possibly more.

As of today, using a gasoline or hybrid vehicle to drive long distances makes more sense. Next year, that may not be the case. And while it takes some time to recharge, there is no cost. Paying for gas would cost significantly more.

We are buying into an existing business, so right now a Tesla for me is not in the cards. But one of these days, maybe next year, I hope to do so.

Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 5:15 PM
Comment #369121

Once again the “special rights” group of liberals want a carve-out to change the rules for sales of the Tesla. Most states ban automakers from selling directly to consumers. Tesla wants obama to force states to change their laws. Why? Tesla will only sell a vehicle for MSRP…that’s why.

I would ask my liberal friends a simple question. If all the auto dealers in the US were unionized, would they see all those unions jobs disappearing as something desirable?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2013 5:21 PM
Comment #369123


“CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2013 6:14 PM
Comment #369124

Royal Flush,
Benghazi was a CIA outpost. That is no secret. CIA outposts are populated with CIA agents. Benghazi was a very dangerous place. Still is. No one, and I mean no one, knew that better than Ambassador Stevens. Khaddafi went down with our covert help, and you can bet the Ambassador was involved up to his eyeballs that rebellion and overthrow. A lot of Khaddafi’s people wanted revenge. Others too.

The Senate conducted closed sessions to discuss the classified aspects of Benghazi. Republican Senators left the meetings “completely satisfied.”

Re Tesla: are you seriously arguing states banning direct sales of autos to consumers is a good thing? Why? Do you really think auto dealerships are necessary as middle men? Why? I have purchased many cars, from other private sellers and from dealerships, and I cannot think of a single reason why the dealership was a necessary requirement.

Did you know that, in Texas, you can buy a Tesla online? However, Tesla employees cannot sell you one, let you test drive one, or even tell you how much it costs!

Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 6:30 PM
Comment #369125

phx8, I merely posted the CNN story without comment. Immediately you go into defensive mode. Why is that?

He writes; “Did you know that, in Texas, you can buy a Tesla online?”

Duh…I have read many websites arguing both sides of the issue…why don’t you? It will answer most of your questions.

Now…will you answer my Union Question, or not?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2013 6:38 PM
Comment #369126


Your problem is self-regulating. If indeed this oil is too expensive, nobody will want it. In which case, the building of the pipeline will just be a private stimulus that will create 20,000 temporary jobs, thereby doing as well as Obama did with bigger money.


Electic cars may be good. I hope they are. If they are as good as you say, they will soon become cheaper and better. That will create a greater demand for electricity. What good fortune that most of that new demand will be satisfied by natural gas generation instead of coal.

When new and better innovation come along to replace gas, I will be happy. Until we reach that bright happy region, however, I prefer gas to coal.

Re pollution - CO2 is a beneficial and necessary substance that might be made too common in the air. We would never want to and would be unable to reduce CO2 to zero. If we define CO2 per-se as pollution, there is no substance on earth that is not pollution. Too much CO2 can be harmful, as can too much of anything. Most of the carbon involved in carbon cycles has nothing to do with people. I think it is misleading to call it pollution w/o significant qualification.

Posted by: CJ at August 1, 2013 7:15 PM
Comment #369128

Royal Flush,
Auto dealers are not unionized. If they provided good, high-paying jobs with retirement benefits and medical coverage, then I would not want to see them go away, regardless of whether they were unionized or not. However, auto dealerships are the bottom of the bucket for most jobs they provide, and their reputation for sleazy sales techniques is legendary.

In Texas, the car dealerships own the politicians and love to impose totally unnecessary regulations on consumers. It is so extreme, consumers are not even allowed to test drive the most innovative vehicle in modern history. The state is devoted to preventing innovation in green energy technologies and transportation. Sucks to be Texas.

Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 7:45 PM
Comment #369129

From, the scientific definition of ‘pollution’:

The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms. Pollution can occur naturally, for example through volcanic eruptions, or as the result of human activities, such as the spilling of oil or disposal of industrial waste.
♦ Light from cities and towns at night that interferes with astronomical observations is known as light pollution. It can also disturb natural rhythms of growth in plants and other organisms.
♦ Continuous noise that is loud enough to be annoying or physically harmful is known as noise pollution.
♦ Heat from hot water that is discharged from a factory into a river or lake, where it can kill or endanger aquatic life, is known as thermal pollution.

Light, heat, oil, sulfur dioxide, and yes, even carbon dioxide, can all be forms of pollution.

Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 8:05 PM
Comment #369130

Sucks to be Texas.
Posted by: phx8 at August 1, 2013 7:45 PM

Please stay out…thanks!

PS. Most states ban automakers from selling directly to consumers.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2013 8:06 PM
Comment #369131


Yes, everything can be pollution. When a definition included everything, it defines nothing.

Posted by: CJ at August 1, 2013 8:11 PM
Comment #369132

Hydrogen has a higher energy density than petroleum-based fuels. It supplies more energy per unit volume than gasoline, diesel, or kerosene. Hydrogen is extremely abundant, thus eliminating U.S. dependence on foreign sources of supply. Research and development projects have demonstrated that using compressed hydrogen or liquid hydrogen as a fuel for ICE’s, gas turbine engines, or fuel cells is feasible today. Further research is needed to increase the power outputs from the ICE’s and gas turbine engines. Despite a few remaining limitations, liquid hydrogen shows much promise for the future.

Onboard Fuel Storage. Hydrogen contains much less energy than gasoline or diesel on a per-volume basis, making it difficult for hydrogen vehicles to go as far as gasoline vehicles between fillups—about 300 miles. Technology is improving, but the onboard hydrogen storage systems do not yet meet size, weight, and cost goals for commercialization


Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 1, 2013 8:47 PM
Comment #369134

The prices isn’t the only important thing here. The classic definition of energy is the ability to do work, and in a real sense that’s why energy prices matter. If we’re still dependent on oil when the next crunch hits, then we could be dealing with an economic downturn in addition to everything else.

I don’t want our ability to do work to be locked to a resources we can’t necessarily be sure will be continuously available into the far future. We need to develop true energy independence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2013 10:34 PM
Comment #369135

We could generally say that pollution is adding something to the environment that disrupts the ecosystem. Whether it’s scalding hot water, a toxic substance in the water, excess carbon emissions in the air, or lights that drown out stars or prove unfortunately attractive to certain animals, pollution is man making a negative impact on the environment.

We can pretend that it’s just an annoyance, or realize that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you want streams you can fish, lakes you can swim in, scenery uncompromised by industry, at least in some places, coastal cities and things like that, then you can’t just do anything you want. You have to make choices.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2013 10:46 PM
Comment #369140


There is no way to avoid “the next crunch”. Thing prosper and then they fade. We have never really had an energy shortage in the sense of really not having access; we have had problems with distribution, prices and preferences.

The gas situation is very instructive. In 2000, many experts predicted we had about 10 years worth of gas left in the U.S. In those days, environmentalists said they loved gas, but we couldn’t have it for long. The Russians were working on a cartel to screw us to the wall with prices. LNG ports were being build to receive the stuff. Today we have more than 200 years of gas. We will never again be a net importer of gas.

Let me address the issue of “planning”. In energy, we employ the best planning mechanism known to man. We depend on market signals and innovation coupled with reasonable regulation and support of research. It works really well, compared with the alternatives.

The price of alternatives are coming down. Some day they will mostly replace fossil fuels. We will make that transition easily, although all the pessimist will be crying about it long before and after.

Natural gas is much cheaper today in real dollars than it was when I was your age. But there is a more important way to look at it. Our machines are much more efficient and we are much richer as a country today than when I was your age. You talk about the ability to do work. YOU have to work much less to buy the same amount of work that the gas will do for you. My parent’ gas bill was much bigger % of their income than mine is.

Re pollution - I understand the definition. It is just that something as ubiquitous as CO2 doesn’t really fit into it. Presumably, you would not want to add scalding hot water or toxic substances in general. Carbon is something we very much need.

I think the way we used to talk about the stuff, i.e. “excess emissions” is probably a better formulation.

Posted by: CJ at August 2, 2013 6:02 AM
Comment #369143

We did have an energy crunch. Things got more expensive to move, folks didn’t have the fuel to go on trips, plane trips got more expensive, and the pressures on transportation companies increased, etc. You can abstract it to distribution, prices and preferences, but there was a real slowing effect on what people could do with the budgets they had.

I remember feeling the effects of this, of filling a tank requiring sixty dollars or so on a big SUV, and all that for about two hundred miles worth of travel. In non-compact Harris County, where the nearest bus station is seven miles away… well, you do the math. It’s the main reason I got the car I got when I had the opportunity to buy a new one.

But before I had that opportunity, there was a punishing period where I really couldn’t go anywhere by car. If you look at the news from that period, you see reductions in tourism and travel, you see higher prices on goods. That has a real effect, and because of opportunity cost, while those oil company folks are happy as pigs in ****, other businesses and other folks people are paying are getting short-sheeted.

Folks will adapt to pressures, but the result won’t necessary be the best outcome. We can pretend that we should only do nothing, or only free up more of this market pressure to fall on the average person, but in the end, there’s a point where you’re really just letting one particular group or one particular set of interests prosper at everybody else’s expense.

Re: Carbon? Like doctors say, the dose makes the poison. There’s traces of cyanide in almonds and apples, if I’m not mistaken. Oxygen is vital for life, as is water. We need calcium and sodium and potassium for life. Iron, too.

Cyanide, of course, is a virulent poison. We use chemicals from that family to kill death row inmates in the Gas Chamber. Too much oxygen at enough pressure can kill. Pure oxygen also makes it a lot easier to start a fire. Too much calcium can cause your soft tissues to calcify, damage your kidneys and give you kidney stones. Sodium is a necessary nutrient, just like calcium, but too much of it can elevate blood pressure, cause renal problems and other disruptions. Potassium, in excess, can cause heart problems, among other things.

Although an iron deficiency can leave you anemic, too much iron can tire you out as well, causing heart, liver, and abdominal problems. In fact, kids can get iron poisoning if they take too many supplement pills.

These are all common elements. Cyanide is nothing more than a carbon and a nitrogen together. Iron is everywhere. Calcium is one of the most common elements, found in chalk, limestone. Sodium is one part of salt, Potassium is found in just about every living thing, an electrolyte we couldn’t live without.

Carbon Dioxide, of course, is necessary for plants, but too much of it, and we suffocated. Too much of it in an atmosphere, and its heat scattering properties can turn a planet into Venus, or at the very least make it warmer than is comfortable.

It doesn’t matter to fish, who swim in water, that the water coming from a power plant is chemically identical as a substance to what they depend upon for life. The fact is simply that the water is too damn hot! Or maybe we put heavy metals in that water, or something that takes the oxygen out of the water.

One way or another, we have our effect. If we’re not careful, these systems that existed for millions of years, and which we evolved as a species to depend upon, will collapse. I don’t trust we are at a point where we can let that happen and prosper. We are smart enough to avoid making certain mistakes, but not smart enough to fix all of them once they are made.

I find the talking points that fossil fuel companies put forward particularly atrocious, because I know enough science to know that they’re not telling people some very critical information that puts their statements in context. Yes, natural variability does occur. It does not mutually exclude artificial variability, either, any more than the natural recession of a forest or the falling of trees keep humans from either planting a forest or felling it wholesale.

I think its to a person’s benefit to know more than just what is required, to have an idea of what is in the six other directions from a given fact. We can’t make good judgments without having as complete a knowledge of things as we can get.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 2, 2013 10:56 AM
Comment #369160


Things got more expensive. Yes. Shit happens. We will never be free of such “crunches”. We just need to be robust enough to overcome them, which we are.

In fact, the vast natural gas potential is a solution to a recent crunch.

RE “here was a punishing period where I really couldn’t go anywhere by car” - you paid a price. So what?

RE “We can pretend that we should only do nothing, or only free up more of this market pressure to fall on the average person” - I never say to do nothing. I do point out that today’s problems are yesterday’s solutions. The best method we have for deciding is heavily market based. The central planners always come to grief in a bigger way.

Re carbon called pollution - it is a matter of terms. When you have a flood, you tend not to call it a problem of water pollution, although by your definition is certainly is that.

Referring to carbon as pollution just confuses the issue. It makes people think of carbon as they might a toxic substance.

You know that we didn’t call it “carbon pollution” until a few months ago. The former term, “emissions” was more on target.

Posted by: CJ at August 2, 2013 5:31 PM
Comment #369341

アディダスで2009年と2010年間の低迷成長の勢いは、確かに大量にドラッグ在庫。在庫一掃のためにタイムリーに、アクティブにキャッシュフロー、ディーラーらに製品を大きく割引をしただけでなく、移動アディダスのハイエンドブランドイメージ、そして、多くの損失をもたらし、店舗の状態、「双負け」局面、会社とディーラー関係緊張度。在庫になった解消危機全公司の共同任務が、主に変動者は、元々はアディダスヨーロッパ仕事、2007年にアディダス大中華圏の博済勇。この名法国籍マネージャーは在庫問題の最も深い2009年ごとの家を訪ねてみディーラー、図解開関係の真結び。いくつかの表層問題がすぐに見つかり、例えば、古い在庫出清ないからこそ、ディーラーたくない購入新品、こうして、販売末端ブースト力不足、オーバースットク、 悪循環を形成。安売り見た目は唯一の道が、 博済勇希望実施てすべてより整然としている。彼が設立されたEPR制度、厳しく定めにじっとしているだけ30日後、製品が8がけで売る。90日後、割引に変えることができる7折れ。もしどうしても出清できない、アディダスはこれらの製品を買ってきて、自分の工場の割引の店の販売。事実上、危機に見舞われて困っているナイキ期間も在庫は、開工場の割引の店の形式で消化在庫。そのため、アディダスも多くの工場の割引の店をオープンして、既存の総数48家。もっと重要なのは一挙に、博済勇ヨーロッパ市場導入からかつて彼は多くの利益を得る方法:会社内で売る商品、ディーラーと呼ばれる「Sell-in」で、ディーラーが小売店の担当で、真に売却されるお客様の品には、定義は「Sell-through」。スポーツ用品業界、ディーラーの注文や製品発売の時間差8前後から9ヶ月、この会をディーラーに間違って市場の見通しのリスク評価。過去には、すべてのブランド「商都Sell-in」の販売の任務の完成が宣告大吉、一体どれだけの「売れてSell-through」やシリーズ全ディーラーから滞货リスクを引き受ける。

Posted by: at August 8, 2013 11:17 PM
Post a comment