The Brutal Logic of Climate Change

Because of the limited rainfall in my country climate changes greatly affects us. The government try hard to get people to save water and it even take drastic measures during droughts . 90% of the sewage water is also recycled for agriculture . We did have some risk of salting our our water sources and we also supply water to other countries and non country entities.

The problem in the Middle East is that we are not the only country with a water problems. Desalination plants can help get fresh water but the problem with them is their energy cost. I once heard on the radio that someone said that desalination is a way to convert oil to water. Israel imports most of its oil and only found a large source of natural gas recently.

Combining the two problems of dwindling fresh water sources and a diminishing supply of fossil fuels makes conservation of energy and water very important. This is why Israel is spending a lot of research in alternative fuels and water technologies. If our problems are going to become global problems so I guess it's a good investment . In terms of climate changes we had a fairly rainy year so we are but I've read in a local article we still need 2 billion m^3 to replenish our water reserves which means we need 3 more rainy years.

I heard the Nile river basin is "drying up" (googled this article) which may cause a huge humanitarian crisis in countries who live along it.

This basically sums up our climate problem - we need rain and with the building of desalination plants we'll make up for it using fossil fuels. Israel is so tiny it can hardly affect carbon emissions so we are stuck with what the world serve to us.

Thanks for all the links and references. Wikipedia is always iffy to me for fact finding. Then again, it is a good (reliable) source of information most of the time.
Did a bit of reading up and I guess things are heading a direction that isn't so great for humanity.

My biggest fear is, that it seems that most governments are failing in every way, shape and form. As they are in bed with the bigger companies, stock markets and heavily influenced by lobbyists. And I am just talking about the modern westernized governments right now. The proof is basically in everything that has happened so far in relation to the economical crises in all these countries. In my opinion the way we practice democracy at this moment, is failing. Then how can we turn things around, except for doing your own little thing for the better?

Sparhawk wrote:

. Then how can we turn things around, except for doing your own little thing for the better?

I think things will change for the better with regards to climate change and its human source in the near future as the world finance machine screeches to a halt. The growth-based world economy simply won't work anymore. There will be a drive towards conservation and system efficiency as opposed to the growth of these systems.

Yes, but if you're adding more water to the total amount then it stands to reason that the mass of water will bulge most at the equator as well and so you might observe larger sea level rise in those areas.

I would think that the land mass at the equator would also bulge in a corresponding ratio to the water. So that can be factored out and any remainder would be due to climate change.

I'd argue with them myself, but I just don't have the scientific knowledge or endurance to do so.

Unless you know them really well, and they'll listen to you, don't bother. They usually are quite convinced that their sources are either better scientists, or know better than the scientists. (Although it is fun listening to people spew out contradictory theories in response to questions. That's quite typical as the sites that put out this stuff don't bother to hew to one hypothesis or theory. So you'll see people argue that the warming data from proxies and direct measurments is all faked and flawed, and then argue that the cause of the warming is "natural cycles", based on data from... direct measurements and proxies...)

It's enough to make your head spin.

Shrinking Carbon Emissions in the United States:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/the_incredible_shrinking_carbo_1.html

At least that is good news. And it will only continue to decrease as the economy continues to contract. It is just sad that it had to happen this way.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

Shrinking Carbon Emissions in the United States:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/the_incredible_shrinking_carbo_1.html

At least that is good news. And it will only continue to decrease as the economy continues to contract. It is just sad that it had to happen this way.

Not quite. The graph does show a decrease in energy related CO2 output in recent years. That was likely tied to the dramatic drop in road miles traveled associated with both the economic downturn and the spikes in gas prices.

All the projection lines show that our CO2 will continue to decrease largely because of the increased CAFE standards that were implemented by the Obama administration and the potential of more energy efficient appliances and tighter regulation of power plants, especially coal-fired plants.

Also, as expected, the report based its projections on three different levels of economic growth, not contraction. Based on historical data the report's assumption is that our our economy will to continue to grow at a minimum of 2% a year through 2035.

OG_slinger wrote:

Also, as expected, the report based its projections on three different levels of economic growth, not contraction. Based on historical data the report's assumption is that our our economy will to continue to grow at a minimum of 2% a year through 2035.

Given the current trajectory of the economy I doubt that is going to be feasible. I imagine the economy will continue its decline for a long time to come.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

Given the current trajectory of the economy I doubt that is going to be feasible. I imagine the economy will continue its decline for a long time to come.

And the current trajectory of the US economy is slow growth (sub 3% a year).

The Great Recession was essentially five quarters of negative growth. Our economy contracted slightly in Q1 2008, went to positive growth in Q2 2008, went negative in a big way in Q3 and Q4 2008, rebounded a bit in Q1 2009 and essentially got back to zero growth by Q2 2009. That was it. The yearly numbers were that our economy shrank by 0.34% in 2008 and 3.5% in 2009.

Every quarter since then our economy has expanded. Our economy grew by a hair over 3% in 2010, 1.7% in 2011, is on track for a little over 2% this year, and a little stronger than that in 2013.

I'm really not sure where you're getting your information from when you claim that our economy is contracting as the numbers don't show that at all.

Yes, there's a big difference between "growing slowly" and "contracting".

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm really not sure where you're getting your information from when you claim that our economy is contracting as the numbers don't show that at all.

Perhaps I was wrong to say it was contracting, but it is experiencing very slow growth. And all of that growth is hinged upon debt creation. That debt bubble is going to pop sooner or later and it will properly contract and likely by an amount larger than the Great Depression.

That doesn't really follow, Zane -- even if we do have a debt deflation, that doesn't automatically mean that carbon emissions will drop that much, at least not for more than a year or two. High-emission technologies are cheap, and people really, really like cheap stuff in a deflation. You might see, for instance, a lot more wood and charcoal getting burned. So I expect you'd see a dip for a year or two, and then as people started to understand the new reality of things, carbon emissions would get much worse.

The more likely path, it seems to me, is slow grinding inflation, leading eventually to a hyperinflation at endgame. And I have no bloody idea what that would do to carbon emissions. Because things would superficially look normal for quite a while, I suspect that carbon emissions would keep doing what they've been doing.

Inflation causes the feeling of false prosperity, so it might even lead to tighter carbon standards being imposed than could otherwise pass.

Malor wrote:

That doesn't really follow, Zane -- even if we do have a debt deflation, that doesn't automatically mean that carbon emissions will drop that much, at least not for more than a year or two. High-emission technologies are cheap, and people really, really like cheap stuff in a deflation.

I just don't see that happening, sir. We are experiencing considerable inflation in commodities year-on-year with housing being the reason the inflation rate seems to remain at a low, steady amount. And as that inflation takes an even greater toll on people, it will lead them to consume less in all areas. Less AC, less driving, less food, less everything. And fossil fuels aren't that cheap even in this environment and will rise even further. Less consumption and more efficiency will likely cause a long-term decline in emissions all-around. And this is before the EPA's new regulations take effect. Of course, this pertains to the USA and not to China; however, China cannot keep up its growth much longer. I have been reading stories that things are really starting to slow down there. And with the USA and Eurozone about to fall into 'another recession,' prospects do not look good for them.

Malor wrote:

You might see, for instance, a lot more wood and charcoal getting burned.

I was recently surprised to read that burning wood is considered carbon neutral. Wood stoves emit more particles than an efficient oil furnace, but global-warming wise what I see on the net is positive. However, I don't think we'd have enough wood to replace all the other fuel sources.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

Perhaps I was wrong to say it was contracting, but it is experiencing very slow growth. And all of that growth is hinged upon debt creation. That debt bubble is going to pop sooner or later and it will properly contract and likely by an amount larger than the Great Depression.

Again, I have to ask where you are getting your information from?

Both US consumers and corporations have been busy deleveraging themselves ever since the financial crisis hit.

Consumers have slashed their debt levels from 114.76% of their personal income, a peak they hit in June 2009, and are expected to hit 101.1% by the end of this year. As a whole, US households have eliminated about 4% of the debt they held pre-crisis. It's still high, but consumers have retired a sh*t load of debt in just a few years and are expected to hit a sustainable level of 90% within two years.

Corporations deleveraged at the first sign of the financial crisis (as witnessed by the two trillion in cash they're sitting on now). Financial companies slashed their debt to levels they hadn't seen since 2001 and non-financial companies have also cut their debt levels significantly, partly in response to the recession and partly because it's simply harder to get loans these days.

The only sector of the US economy that has seen and increase in debt is the government, but that's kind of expected during a recession. Debt for all sectors of our economy--households, companies, and government--as a percentage of our GDP has dropped 16% since 2009.

That means there's less debt today (about $2.4 trillion) than there was just a few years ago and that the slow economic growth we've been seeing lately most definitely isn't hinged on debt creation.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

I just don't see that happening, sir. We are experiencing considerable inflation in commodities year-on-year with housing being the reason the inflation rate seems to remain at a low, steady amount. And as that inflation takes an even greater toll on people, it will lead them to consume less in all areas. Less AC, less driving, less food, less everything. And fossil fuels aren't that cheap even in this environment and will rise even further. Less consumption and more efficiency will likely cause a long-term decline in emissions all-around. And this is before the EPA's new regulations take effect. Of course, this pertains to the USA and not to China; however, China cannot keep up its growth much longer. I have been reading stories that things are really starting to slow down there. And with the USA and Eurozone about to fall into 'another recession,' prospects do not look good for them.

We haven't really seen considerable inflation. Our core inflation rate (less food and energy) has been under two percent since 2008 (and under three percent for the entire decade). When you factor in food and energy the inflation rate has swung wildly from 6% to -2%, but right now it's less than our core inflation rate and trending down fast because of falling energy prices. To put things in perspective, even the peak inflation we saw back in 2008 thanks to high fuel prices was just a fraction of what we've experienced historically (14% during the early 80s).

And housing hasn't made things seem better than they are because housing has actually gotten more expensive, even as our economy tanked. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics housing costs have increased 5.3% since 2007 (and 8.4% since 2006).

As I said before, the report behind the chart you linked to has already factored in economic growth to its projections of what our CO2 emissions are likely to be in the coming years. Our CO2 emissions will go down even as our economy grows, largely thanks to tougher efficiency standards. Our consumption levels aren't going to take a sudden dump unless there's a dramatic change, such as a spike in oil prices where gas prices pass the magical price of $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon. If that happens we'll see a repeat of 2008 where there was a dramatic decrease in the number of miles driven.

Does anyone have an easy to digest (pun), up to date chart on the price changes of primary food items - milk, eggs, beef, flour, specifically - that I could look at?

Anecdotally, the only thing that seems to have increased in price since 2007 has been romaine lettuce and broccolli. Most everything else seems cheaper now than ever.

Seth wrote:

Does anyone have an easy to digest (pun), up to date chart on the price changes of primary food items - milk, eggs, beef, flour, specifically - that I could look at?

Anecdotally, the only thing that seems to have increased in price since 2007 has been romaine lettuce and broccolli. Most everything else seems cheaper now than ever.

Consumer Price Index?

Just had a quick look at it myself, and it might not give you the granularity you want for individual items....

Here is an alternative to CPI called BBP. It comes out of MIT and trawls the internet for price changes.

http://bpp.mit.edu/usa/

It is kind of opposite of what Seth is asking for.

BPP = Billion Price Project.

I don't know if it's accurate, but there's this list put together by somebody.

Seth wrote:

Does anyone have an easy to digest (pun), up to date chart on the price changes of primary food items - milk, eggs, beef, flour, specifically - that I could look at?

Anecdotally, the only thing that seems to have increased in price since 2007 has been romaine lettuce and broccolli. Most everything else seems cheaper now than ever.

A single chart? No. But the BLS does have a nifty database query tool that you can look up the historic prices for any item in the basket of goods they track for the Consumer Price Index.

Here are the average US city prices for the foods you mentioned:

All Purpose Flour, White
2007: $0.36 per pound
2008: $0.51
2009: $0.50
2010: $0.48
2011: $0.52

Whole Wheat Bread
2007: $1.71 per pound
2008: $1.94
2009: $1.88
2010: $1.78
2011: $1.96

Ground Beef
2007: $2.30 per pound
2008: $2.34
2009: $2.22
2010: $2.37
2011: $2.77

Milk, Whole
2007: $3.50 per gallon
2008: $3.80
2009: $3.11
2010: $3.26
2011: $3.57

Eggs, Grade A, Large
2007: $1.68 per dozen
2008: $1.97
2009: $1.66
2010: $1.66
2011: $1.77

Brocolli
2007: $1.59 per pound
2008: $1.67
2009: $1.60
2010: $1.58
2011: $1.70

Romaine Lettuce
2007: $1.57 per pound
2008: $1.71
2009: $1.76
2010: $1.79
2011: $1.78

OG_slinger wrote:
Seth wrote:

Does anyone have an easy to digest (pun), up to date chart on the price changes of primary food items - milk, eggs, beef, flour, specifically - that I could look at?

Anecdotally, the only thing that seems to have increased in price since 2007 has been romaine lettuce and broccolli. Most everything else seems cheaper now than ever.

A single chart? No. But the BLS does have a nifty database query tool that you can look up the historic prices for any item in the basket of goods they track for the Consumer Price Index.

Here are the average US city prices for the foods you mentioned:

All Purpose Flour, White
2007: $0.36 per pound
2008: $0.51
2009: $0.50
2010: $0.48
2011: $0.52

Whole Wheat Bread
2007: $1.71 per pound
2008: $1.94
2009: $1.88
2010: $1.78
2011: $1.96

Ground Beef
2007: $2.30 per pound
2008: $2.34
2009: $2.22
2010: $2.37
2011: $2.77

Milk, Whole
2007: $3.50 per gallon
2008: $3.80
2009: $3.11
2010: $3.26
2011: $3.57

Eggs, Grade A, Large
2007: $1.68 per dozen
2008: $1.97
2009: $1.66
2010: $1.66
2011: $1.77

Brocolli
2007: $1.59 per pound
2008: $1.67
2009: $1.60
2010: $1.58
2011: $1.70

Romaine Lettuce
2007: $1.57 per pound
2008: $1.71
2009: $1.76
2010: $1.79
2011: $1.78

Feeding a family is becoming increasingly difficult.

MacBrave wrote:

Feeding a family is becoming increasingly difficult.

Food prices track pretty well with the price of oil since 1) agriculture has been extensively mechanized, 2) petrochemicals are used for fertilizers, and 3) the average bit of food travels between 1,500 and 2,500 miles before it hits your plate.

Cool, thanks OG. Looks like my memory was wrong, prices have increased on pretty much everything I consider staples.

I knew Milk dropped in price... since I have been buying it weekly for 9 years now.

IMAGE(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/APU0000709112_182295_1342041817820.gif)

Coffee... on the other hand...

IMAGE(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/APU0000717311_182403_1342041978269.gif)

The big point, that OG is pointing to is that when the de-leveraging ends, (which at the rate it's been going is definitely within the next 3 years), there is going to be a flood of capital hitting the market.

bandit0013 wrote:

The big point, that OG is pointing to is that when the de-leveraging ends, (which at the rate it's been going is definitely within the next 3 years), there is going to be a flood of capital hitting the market.

I don't see the connection of OG inflation stats deleveraging and "capital hitting the market". Could you expand?

bandit0013 wrote:

The big point, that OG is pointing to is that when the de-leveraging ends, (which at the rate it's been going is definitely within the next 3 years), there is going to be a flood of capital hitting the market.

Actually a lot of economists are saying that our deleveraging has only really just begun. Collectively, our public sector, private sector, and household debt is equal to 279% of our GDP.

goman wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

The big point, that OG is pointing to is that when the de-leveraging ends, (which at the rate it's been going is definitely within the next 3 years), there is going to be a flood of capital hitting the market.

I don't see the connection of OG inflation stats deleveraging and "capital hitting the market". Could you expand?

Because companies will be under pressure to invest the capital they have sitting on the sidelines. Because households are going without things like new vehicles, etc, but that sort of thing can't last forever. Eventually they will return to the market and the positive feedback cycle will begin. We need to get through the election and get our house in order though, there's too much uncertainty right now.

Policy and conservation have also played a large role in the CO2 emissions drop. We're approaching what a commitment to Kyoto would have had us do (and no, *that* hasn't destroyed the economy like we were told it would...)

Robear wrote:

Policy and conservation have also played a large role in the CO2 emissions drop. We're approaching what a commitment to Kyoto would have had us do (and no, *that* hasn't destroyed the economy like we were told it would...)

I've seen conservatives do this often, fight like mad against a law to do something they are doing anyway. Often these issues are fought on a matter of principle.