Weekly Indicators of Economic Activity through September 3rd

Year-on-year, activity still seems to be increasing. Shown below are the Lewis-Mertens-Stock (NY Fed) WEI, and the Woloszko (OECD) Weekly Tracker, and the Baumeister-Leiva-Leon-Sims Weekly Economic Conditions Index for the US, for data up to a week ago (September 3rd):


Figure 1: Lewis-Mertens-Stock (NY Fed) Weekly Economic Index (blue), Woloszko (OECD) Weekly Tracker (tan), Baumeister-Leiva-Leon-Sims Weekly Economic Conditions Index for US plus 2% trend (green) Lilac shading denotes a hypothetical H1 recession dates. Source: NY Fed via FREDOECDWECI, and author’s calculations.

The WEI reading for the week ending 9/3 of 3.2 is interpretable as a y/y quarter growth of 3.2% if the 3.2 reading were to persist for an entire quarter. The OECD Weekly Tracker reading of 4.2 is interpretable as a y/y growth rate of 4.2% for year ending 9.3. The Baumeister et al. reading of 1.4% is interpreted as a 1.4% growth rate in excess of long term trend growth rate. Average growth of US GDP over the 2000-19 period is about 2%, so this implies a 3.4% growth rate for the year ending 9/3.

Since these are year-on-year growth rates, it’s possible we were in a recession in H1 as one observer suggested a couple weeks ago (the period is highlighted by the lilac shading), but it seems unlikely.


136 thoughts on “Weekly Indicators of Economic Activity through September 3rd

  1. Macroduck

    Governments in Europe and Asia are relying on price limits to deal with high energy prices, despite the well-known problems created by such limits: muted supply and demand adjustments and prolonged market imbalance; fiscal burdens leading to constraints on government policy and higher borrowing rates, and so on.

    Daniel Gros, of the Centre for European Policy Studies recommends an alternative policy – subsidization of conservation measures:


    Conservation measures tend to pay for themselves over time. Conservation also serves the goal of reducing, rather than subsiding, the burning of greenhouse-gas-producing fuels.

    Gros also offers a fallback policy – capping energy prices on a limited amount of energy consumption, allowing households to heat their homes affordable without subsidizing energy consumption beyond necessities.

    1. Gregory Bott

      Except the high prices themselves are artificial. The looming overproduction of gas especially is going to crater said markets after Putin is removed and the prices crash ugly. I could see natural gas down to 1$ by 2023.

      1. Ivan

        Agree. Current hydrocarbon prices are useful collateral damage from Russias invasion of Ukraine. It’s accelerating a move towards sustainable energy and EVs. When Russia is let back into the western energy markets they will be desperate to sell and, therefore, crash the energy markets.

        Russia has set itself up for an economic depression that could last for decades. Russias building of military might in the past decade was financed by hydrocarbon revenue. I doubt they can rebuild their military without serious discontent. The young professional class would vote with its feet and move out of the country.

    2. Bruce Hall

      Interesting article about how Germany is “dealing with” high energy prices.
      (Reprinted from The Economist)

      In a book from 1945 entitled “Germany Is Our Problem”, Henry Morgenthau, America’s treasury secretary, presented a proposal to strip post-war Germany of its industry and turn it into an agricultural economy. Though his radical proposal had some influence on Allied plans for the occupation of Germany after Hitler’s defeat, it was never implemented.

      Almost 80 years later Vladimir Putin might achieve some of what Morgenthau, whose parents were both born in Germany, had in mind. By weaponising the natural gas on which Germany’s mighty industrial base relies, the Russian president is eating away at the world’s fourth-biggest economy and its third-biggest exporter of goods. It doesn’t help that at the same time, Germany’s largest trading partner, China, which bought €100bn of Germany goods last year, including cars, medical equipment and chemicals, is in the midst of a severe slowdown, too. A national business model built in part on cheap energy from one autocracy and abundant demand from another faces a severe test.

      The consequences could be dire for Deutschland ag: German blue chips have suffered more amid this year’s market turmoil than counterparts elsewhere, dropping 27% year to date in dollar terms, almost twice the fall in Britain’s ftse 100 or America’s s&p 500 index. “The substance of our industry is under threat,” warned Siegfried Russwurm, boss of the bdi, the association of German industry, last month. The situation was looking “toxic” for many businesses, he said. And through globalised supply chains the poison could spread to the rest of the industrialised world, which relies heavily on German manufacturers.

      German industry’s biggest problem is the spiralling cost of energy. The electricity price for next year has already increased 15-fold, and the price of gas ten-fold, says the bdi. In July industry consumed 21% less gas than in the same month last year. That is not because companies used energy more efficiently. Rather, the fall was due to a “dramatic” reduction in output. Since June the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a think-tank, has revised down its forecast of gdp growth in 2022 by 0.7 percentage points, to 1.4%. It now expects the economy to contract in 2023 and inflation to exceed this year’s with 8.7%.

  2. Macroduck

    The federal child tax credit, passed as a Covid-recession economic measure, reduced child poverty and malnutrition profoundly – until it expired. Joe Manchin and every Senate Republican opposed extending the credit. Family values, ya know.

    Democrats are reportedly having one last go at it, using expired business tax credits as a quid pro quo – ya know, ’cause business profits are suffering just as much as poor children. Such is politics.


    1. AndrewG

      Manchin and some Republicans wanted it to be tied to work. Is that reasonable? Not really. Is it reason enough to kill any chance of it passing, as Congressional “progressives” did? Absolutely not. America’s poor kids could have been benefiting from this tax credit this whole time if it weren’t for lefty strategery.

  3. Macroduck

    Off topic, China’s lending abroad –

    China’s rapid expansion of overseas lending, particularly in emerging markets, has led to a growing pile of troubled loans. As it turns out, China’s approach is much like that of other creditors, other than China’s foreign policy motive.

    As the pile of bad loans mounts, Chinese lenders have adopted an “extend and pretend” approach to managing those loans:


    We tend to notice things that go badly more than things that go well; I have no idea how often rolling over loans has succeeded in curing troubled loans. By reputation though, “extend and pretend ” merely delays, and often worsens, failure.

    China does not adhere to accepted restructuring standards, complicating and slowing restructuring of
    emerging market debt by other lenders.

    One thing left unmentioned in the WSJ piece is the increment of bad debt represented by overseas lending in China’s already large pile of bad loans. Bad loans represent risk for the borrower and the lender.

  4. Macroduck

    At last, someone else has noticed that Democrats are leading in “generic candidate” polling:


    What’s missing fom the Newsweek article is any mention of the margin in generic polling necessary to predict a majority of House seats for either party. We can’t know whether, given the latest gerrymander, Democrats or Republicans are more likely to win a majority given a 2 ppt lead for Democrats in generic candidate polling. What we do know is that voter preference is shifting gradually in favor of Democrats.

  5. pgl

    Remember when Trump told us all those documents he illegally took to Maro Lago had been declassified? Well, his lawyers have not made this questionable claim. I wonder why?


    Of course legal master mind Rick Stryker wants to take over Trump’s defense. Maybe he can made this dishonest argument before the courts. Of course that would cost a real lawyer their license to practice but Ricky boy isn’t a real lawyer so hey!

    1. Rick Stryker


      Very simple. Trump’s lawyers haven’t made the claim that the documents were de-classified because it wouldn’t help to recover any documents under a 43(g) motion. The warrant was very broad and specified that both classified and unclassified documents could be seized. Even if the judge agreed that the classified documents were actually declassified, the warrant still would have entitled the government to keep possession of them.

      1. pgl

        That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said. I guess you have not followed what the DOJ is asking for. They mainly want the classified documents. Now if you are still saying these documents are his personal properties – then you are dumber than a rock.

        Look I get you fancy yourself to be some top notched lawyer but your refusal to even remotely engage in what is actually happening here shows you are drunker than even Rudy G.

        1. Rick Stryker


          You didn’t read the warrant. They wanted all documents that could have been covered under the PRA (that includes classified and unclassified docs) and documents with “classified markings.” Asserting that documents were unclassified in the original filing would not help under a 41(g) motion because the warrant entitled the DOJ to seize them. You really should read the relevant docs before commenting.

          Trump’s lawyers were being appropriately cautious, asserting just what they need to assert and nothing more. There will no doubt come a time when Trump’s team will start to make the argument that the documents were declassified.

          1. pgl

            What a load of rubbish. But at least you finally figured out it was not a section 43(g) motion.

            Trump’s lawyers were being appropriately cautious choosing not to lie for their client. But being honest has never been a constraint for you.

      2. pgl

        “wouldn’t help to recover any documents under a 43(g) motion.”

        Maybe you meant to write rule 41(g). Rule 43(g) is something very different and unrelated.

        Dude – get a subscription to Westlaw as you suck at this.

        1. Rick Stryker


          You are at Menzie’s level of legal analysis. He points out spelling mistakes and you point out typos. I guess that’s all you can do when you resort to linking to literature major’s legal views.

    2. Rick Stryker


      On the other hand, if the DOJ makes an obstruction charge, Trump’s lawyers will definitely make the argument that he declassified the documents.

      1. pgl

        They will? I do not think they will risk their licenses to practice law. Hey Rick – take over for them as we know you do not mind lying 24/7. And you do not have a law license at risk.

        1. Rick Stryker


          Of course they will. As President, Trump had the absolute power to declassify documents at will. See the 1978 case Navy v Egan. The article you cited above is ridiculous. The whole premise of the DOJ/media case is absurd. No president needs to “steal” classified documents since as a matter of constitutional law any President has the absolute power to declassify anything he wants. And in doing so, the President is not bound by any procedure made up by the intelligence community or previous executive orders.

          Trump’s lawyers haven’t brought this point up yet, since they haven’t had to. But they will get to it for sure, maybe even before an obstruction charge, since the DOJ is threatening to appeal the ruling and wants to partition out classified docs from the special master’s review.

          If the DOJ does get to an obstruction case, the case will turn completely on legal arguments. The DOJ will argue that a President must follow some procedure to declassify docs. Trump will argue no, correctly. The DOJ will argue that classification status doesn’t matter anyway since the previous subpoena asked for all documents with “classified markings.” Trump’s team will argue that the statement they signed assumed “classified markings” means currently classified. Etc, etc.

          1. pgl

            Navy v, .Egan was decided in 1988 not 1978. You sure are stupid. And yea – you are misrepresenting what this case stood for. Even if Trump were President which he has not been for almost 20 months – your spin on this case is disputed here:

            Executive officials and scholars often cite the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), to claim broad and even unchecked constitutional powers by the President over foreign policy, national security, and access to classified documents. However, the case was originally one of statutory construction: what was the intent of Congress when the executive branch grants and revokes security clearances? The Court’s decision strayed from that core issue and discussed presidential powers under Article II, creating misconceptions in
            the lower courts. Often missing in those rulings is Egan’s policy that whatever scope exists for presidential authority, that range depends on what Congress has enacted into law (“unless Congress specifically has
            provided otherwise”)


            Dude – pay for a subscription to Westlaw because your amateur lawyer skills suck.

          2. pgl

            The article I noted is a must read as the facts are quite different from the situation involving Trump. Now there was one justice who thought the President had broad powers but note what this article noted about his dissent:

            Dissenting in this case, Chief Judge Markey insisted that the “authority to grant or deny a security clearance is committed to the sound discretion of executive agency heads. See Exec. Order 10450 . . .”19 He objected that the majority’s decision “will dilute the responsibility the President placed on” the armed services and executive agencies and ran “clearly contrary to well-established principles of deference owed national security determinations of executive agencies.”20 To him, the protection of classified information “is an executive responsibility flowing from the President’s constitutional mandate to provide for the national defense. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2.”21 Section 2 of Article II does not vest all of national defense in the President. Important powers and duties are expressly reserved to Congress under Article I. One problem with a national security case like Egan is that the Justice Department is always present to defend and promote executive power but the attorney representing the private party is in no position, either through capacity or incentive, to defend and promote congressional power.

            The attorneys representing Trump are a lot like the attorney representing Egan. Trump is a private citizen and President Biden as well as the DOJ are the executives here. Trump is endangering national security and the current Executive Branch has a duty to protect.

            Now I suspect Rick is not as incredibly dumb as he is coming across here but we do know this troll is about as dishonest as it gets so he misrepresents Egan v. Navy (as well as getting the date entirely wrong).

          3. Rick Stryker


            That article is just making the point that the President’s powers under Article II can get judicial review in the case in which Congress has specifically passed legislation. That does not mean the congressional view would prevail; it merely means the court could get involved rather than deferring to the executive branch. However, I don’t see any congressional statutes at issue here on classification that might have constrained Trump; so this article does not appear to be relevant. The review of case law in the article just strengthens my point that Trump had the power to declassify everything he took with him to Mara Lago before he left office. He needn’t have followed any particular procedure to have done so.

            I must say though that it’s progress that you actually did some research and linked to some evidence. If you keep it up, I might have to lose the pg13 moniker.

          4. pgl

            Rick Stryker
            September 13, 2022 at 12:31 pm

            You skipped the facts in this case as well as the implications of the decision. But I guess that is what you think a real lawyer representing Trump the mob boss does – lie about everything.

  6. pgl

    Oh dear – some sad news for our resident Putin poodles:


    Russia’s defense ministry on Saturday admitted its forces had retreated from key towns in northeastern Ukraine after a stunning advance by Ukrainian troops. The Defense Ministry said it had pulled forces out of the village of Balakliya and the strategically crucial city of Izyum in the Kharkiv region, after a decision to “regroup” and transfer them to Donetsk in the south.” The retreat represents one of the biggest setbacks for Russia since President Vladimir V. Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February.

  7. pgl


    West Coast technology officially came together Friday with Midwest manufacturing prowess to create the Silicon Heartland. Under a sun-splashed late summer day, President Joe Biden joined Ohio political, educational, union and business leaders to break ground on Intel’s $20 billion project in Licking County to create the world’s most advanced semiconductor factories. It is the state’s largest economic development prize. Friday’s groundbreaking also served as a celebration of the recently enacted CHIPS and Science Act that is meant to restore U.S. production of the tiny devices that power everything from cellphones to computers to cars to military equipment that has been largely shipped overseas. Biden signed the legislation into law last month, and Intel has said the legislation will play a meaningful role in how it develops the site in Ohio. Shortages of the chips have plagued the economy since the pandemic and have contributed to the rising cost of cars and other products.

    Most people would see this as good news. Yea I know Know Nothing troll JohnH is under the illusion that semiconductors are only made in Taiwan. But his continuing idiocy is not as pathetic as the BS from uber troll Bruce Hall who wants our semiconductor sector to fail so he can infest this comment box with his usual Biden is a socialist failure garbage.

    1. Ivan

      Finally a competent President who can make things happen rather than just talk about it. What we actually need is a huge tariff on all strategic supplies to make it more likely that we keep their production here at home. But the cries of “tax increase” from the GOP right wing unfortunately carries enough political cloud that democrats may not be able to get their own ducks in a row, for something like that. Well chips are a good beginning.

        1. AndrewG

          I’m with JohnH here. There is zero chance a bill passed a few weeks ago led to these new factories. In fact, the factories were coming to the US without any subsidies required. Samsung and TSMC too — and Nvidia IIRC.

          I’m all for gov’t money for R&D, but the public policy case for this kind of corporate incentive for relocation is pretty shaky. Especially for an industry rolling in cash like no one’s business, and one that is almost completely dominated by US firms already. Firms locate due to their own strategic, infrastructure and labor market considerations, and not necessarily in that order. For example, it was easy to predict Amazon would build their new HQ in NYC or the DC area – and that’s exactly what they did. (NYC was canceled of course.)

          Now, *opposing* a major corporate wanting to locate in your city? That’s a whole other kettle of stupid. Newark could have been transformed – and yes, for the better.

          1. baffling

            The companies were lobbying for quite some time on this bill. they had plenty of time to prepare for two contingencies, one with and one without the bill. they had already said that new infrastructure was coming. the magnitude would be determined by the passage or failure of the bill.

            I think the recent economic impacts of the chip shortage is enough for us to justify investment in domestic production, even of run of the mill semiconductors. the future economy is all digital, and at this time semi’s are critical. ask Russia about this issue in a few more months.

    2. JohnH

      It seems that some people never learn. After Scott Walker’s FoxConn con, you would think that politicians would be wary of subsidising big corporate investments. Pgl, who lives in NYC, should at least remember The bidding war for an Amazon corporate headquarters. The citizens of NY were able to block NYC’s lavish inducements to Amazon, even though pgl apparently thinks that such corporate giveaways are stupendous.

      So how is Intel doing? Not great in developing leading edge technology: Intel “did try their best to be competitive with all the problems hounding them, by maximising the potential out of both 14 nm and their marketing strategy departments, but it is clear that Intel’s CPUs have been under great scrutiny and reasonable criticism, and it is about time Intel comes up with enough of a justification for why they are the best CPU makers in the world, as that title seems to be under challenge by AMD at present.”

      And Intel’s stock price has tanked as a result, even with all the largesse that Biden lavished on them. Heck, Intel even had to resort to buying leading edge semiconductors from TSMC, the dominant, leading edge fabricator that pgl derides and dismisses as nothing special. He even thinks that it would be brilliant strategically to take TSMC out if China got too uppity! But without TSMC, how would high tech US companies manage? Pgl can’t answer that! (But he sure does try to bamboozle readers of the comment section with BS!)

      1. pgl

        Let’s take the very 1st sentence in a story you do not even remotely understand:

        CPU design is an extremely complex science and a complicated business.

        Yes Intel does designing. Contract manufacturers like your vaunted TSMC do not. The story I linked to was about a contract manufacturing facility – not the product R&D division.

        Tell you what Mr. Know Nothing. Figure out these basics and then maybe you have the right to comment.

      2. pgl

        On the financial fortunes of Intel – I guess Johnny boy has still not learn how to read a 10-K. Permit me for Mr. Know Nothing. For their latest year, operating profits were a mere $22 billion on $79 billion in sales. Gee an operating margin in excess of 27% is certainly better than the 1% operating margin for that unnamed Fortune 200 company that JohnH claims he worked for. Maybe he won’t name it because he helped bankrupt his company.

        1. AndrewG

          Intel is doing well in absolute terms, but their growth is massively lagging the competition, both designers and foundries. IIRC Samsung is soon to be the #1 chip designer and fab in the world.

          In any case, hard to see why Intel would need incentives to build in the US. Seems that was their plan all along. Both for logistics and proximity to market reasons – putting aside the usual concerns of infrastructure and labor markets. Not a chip expert here, but new plants don’t just pop into thin air – for the reasons you mentioned (it’s a super-complex business) – and the planning must take a long time.

      3. pgl

        “And Intel’s stock price has tanked as a result”

        This from the troll pushing TSMC? Its stock has also declined since the beginning of the year. Are you too dumb to have noticed or just too dishonest to admit that all semiconductor stocks have been hit by basic macroeconomic events such as higher interest rates and slowing aggregate demand?

        Check out most investment advisors and they will tell you that Intel will likely recover from a temporary decline in earnings. Any one but the lying Know Nothing JohnH.

      4. pgl

        “Pgl, who lives in NYC, should at least remember The bidding war for an Amazon corporate headquarters. The citizens of NY were able to block NYC’s lavish inducements to Amazon, even though pgl apparently thinks that such corporate giveaways are stupendous.”

        My pathetic and dishonest personal attacks. Hey liar – I opposed NYC trying to suck up to Amazon because Queens has more than enough business activity without an Amazon corporate HQ. But wait – Amazon is not part of the semiconductor sector and corporate HQ is not the same thing as a manufacturing facility. So how effing stupid of you to equate the two!

      5. pgl

        “Intel even had to resort to buying leading edge semiconductors from TSMC, the dominant, leading edge fabricator

        Oh my! A company that specializes in designing new products actually relied on a contract manufacturer? How awful. Of course if the Village Idiot JohnH bothered to read any industry analysis – he would know this had been Intel’s approach for decades. Of course TSMC is nothing more than a contract manufacturer as it does not design new products like Intel does. Note also how JohnH links to some weird discussion from two years ago. It is really funny that he thinks design issues led to a stock price decline since Intel’s stock ROSE for the rest of the year. Yea – it has fallen of late but so has the stock price for TSMC.

        Could have JohnH bothered to read the latest 10-K filing for Intel on its manufacturing approach? Of course this Know Nothing did not bother so permit me to show what Intel told its shareholders about its diversified approach to manufacturing:

        In March 2021, we introduced IDM 2.0, the next evolution and expansion of our IDM model. IDM 2.0 is a differentiated strategy that combines three capabilities:
        Internal factory network. Our global, internal factory network has been foundational to our success, enabling product optimization, improved economics, and supply resilience. We intend to remain a leading developer of process technology and a major manufacturer of semiconductors and will continue to build the majority of our products in our factories.
        Strategic use of foundry capacity. We expect to expand our use of third-party foundry manufacturing capacity, which will provide us with increased flexibility and scale to optimize our product roadmaps for cost, performance, schedule, and supply. Our use of foundry capacity will include manufacturing for a range of modular tiles on advanced process technologies.
        Foundry services. We intend to build a world-class foundry business to meet the growing global demand for semiconductors. We plan to differentiate our foundry offerings from those of others through a combination of leading-edge packaging and process technology, committed capacity in the US and Europe available for customers globally, and a world-class IP portfolio that will include x86 cores, as well as other ecosystem IP.
        We believe our IDM 2.0 strategy will enable us to deliver leading process technology and products to meet growing demand, while providing superior capacity and supply resilience and an advantageous cost structure.

      6. Ivan

        Yes Scott Walker and Trump failed miserably where Biden is succeeding. Competence matters. Don’t elect government leaders who think government cannot do anything right – they have a conflict of interest.

        1. pgl

          Maybe Walker and Trump got designing a product confused with the manufacturing of products. JohnH certainly does not know the difference.

      7. pgl

        Let’s see – JohnH’s story comes down to Applied Micro Devices (AMD) competing with Intel on designs of new products. Yes AMD is a design company with none of its own contract manufacturers. Oh wait – AMD has to rely on third party production whereas Intel has both third party contract manufacturers as well as in house production. And AMD does not compete with TSMC because TSMC does not do designing at all. So much our Know Nothing does not know but he thinks Intel stock is falling because AMD is wining out. Well guess what else the world’s dumbest troll does not know. AMD stock has declined a lot too!


        Now I did check out the latest 10-Q of Intel which notes sales of late are lower than they were a year ago. Why? No mention of design problems. No mention on having to rely in part on contract manufactures. They did mention higher interest rates and other macroeconomic issues.

        Simply put – JohnH’s latest rant shows he does not know a single thing about this sector. But we knew that already.


        1. Barkley Rosser


          How come you did not point out that JohnH’a link on Intel is over two years old? Just ridiculous that he is linking to such stuff.

          1. pgl

            I did note that in

            September 11, 2022 at 3:52 am

            But yea – I pointed out so many incredibly stupid things JohnH said versus the real world I can see how you missed this.

      8. Macroduck

        Hey Johnny? Johnny? You remember a couple of weeks ago, when you said (quoting here) “ZZZZZZ” with respect to Ukraine’s counterattack against Russian invaders? You told us to wake you up when something happened? Remember, Johnny?

        I ask if you remember because I tried to wake you up, but you didn’t respond. You haven’t said bupkiss. Is this like when kids avoid stuff by pretending to be sleeping? ‘Cause Johnny, Ukraine’s military planners really did good! They tricked Russia into weakening its position in the East, and then took a bunch of territory, including critical logistics facilities, in the East. Putin has cancelled meetings with military officials and kinda disappeared from public view.

        Johnny, you’ve gone silent about Russia’s attack on Ukraine, too. Is this because your masters are circling the wagons and haven’t had time to tell you what to say? Are you too embarrassed to mention the whole Russia-attacks-Ukraine thing? Oh, lord! Are you Pooty-Poot? Is that why you stopped talking about the war at just the time Pooty cancelled all his meetings?

    3. Bruce Hall

      But his continuing idiocy is not as pathetic as the BS from uber troll Bruce Hall who wants our semiconductor sector to fail so he can infest this comment box with his usual Biden is a socialist failure garbage.

      Are you a Biden speech writer … making things up as you go along?

      I would, however, like to know who gets the $50 billion and if that is a loan and when/how it is repaid. Or will it be like the money given to the pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines and then money the government spent to buy the vaccines they paid to have developed?

      I’d like to think that there might be some clear understanding about the money that is supposed to “bring the chips home”.

      1. baffling

        I don’t care where the money went for the vaccines. we got them in our arms in record time. you would still rather we were an unvaccinated nation, bruce? whatever the payout, it was worth it.

    1. Ivan

      There is a reason Trump seem completely unable to find competent lawyers. He doesn’t listen to them, he lies to them, then push them to step over the line. No matter how much money he promises (but never actually pay) you – it would take an idiot to make the career destroying move and represent that man. Many big companies have actually banned their partners from having anything to do with Trump.

  8. Macroduck

    A member of the the local troll choir has insisted that conservationists don’t do cost/benefit analysis when advocating for less a carbon intensive energy mix. Funny thi g is, that particular troll doesn’t offer cost/benefit analysis, either.

    Of course, the evidence of recent developments is that the costs are much higher than previously estimated – drought is more severe, temperatures swings greater and more prolonged, glacial melting faster than had been predicted. And there’s all that jiggering with discount rates to make sure profits aren’t threatened.

    Well, a new bit of research , based on evidence gathered in recent year provides new cost estimates, three times higher than the 2017 estimate conventionally used. If our troll does get around to putting his efforts where his mouth is, he now has a conservative, updated out estimate to use:


    1. pgl

      A member of the local troll choir. I think you mean CoRev and not necessarily Bruce Hall. At least CoRev relied on Richard Tol who is somewhat respected even if his research has clear flaws. And of course CoRev misrepresents what Tol has written.

      Bruce Hall on the other hand pulls out blog posts and the like from absolute nut cases. And of course he grossly misrepresents what these nut cases happened to have claimed.

      Thanks for something useful and reliable as it beats the intellectual garbage we routinely see from the local troll choir.

      1. Bruce Hall

        … absolute nut cases….; i.e., anyone who has a position different than pgl’s

        Note that Sir Knowsalot never references material to back up his ideological-driven pablum.

        Oh, another of pgl’s inflation is not a problem cases:

        Darn, that’s Europe, not the US.

        But, but, but gasoline prices have fallen!

        pgl… https://genius.com/Wet-leg-too-late-now-lyrics

    2. pgl

      ‘a 2017 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 (NASEM) highlighted that current SC-CO2 estimates no longer reflect the latest research.’

      I think CoRev mentioned this report before he suggested the authors were clueless. Of course Bruce Hall thinks a short paper written in 2007 is the latest research on this issue even as the metric in this short paper had more to do with land use that SC-CO2 emissions.

      Sorry dude – as dumb and dishonest as CoRev is – Bruce Hall is far worse.

    3. CoRev

      MD & Bark, bark, claim newer science has upped the estimate of Social Cost of CO2 impacts on GDP. The scientific article MD cited said this: “Our preferred mean SC-CO2 estimate is $185 per tonne of CO2 ($44-413/t-CO2: 5-95% range, 2020 US dollars) at a near-term risk-free discount rate of 2 percent, a value 3.6-times higher than the US government’s current value of $51/t-CO2. ” How does this new estimate campare with the historical record?

      The abstract shows an increase by a factor of 3.6? Without any discussion of at what temperature? Without a discussion of any historical/empirical comparison. Why ignore history? This is what US GDP history has looked like: http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/RealGDPperCapita-650×450.png
      This is what the temperature history has looked like: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/trend
      This is what grain prices have done throughout most of this same period: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.newmandala.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2Frice2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1 This graph is provided as a proxy for how climate affected key weather/climate impacted commodity prices.

      Yup! Both show upward trends, and grain prices went lower. Quite a negative historical impact, eh???? Any discussion of future impacts without showing historical trends/impacts is pure unsupported speculation. Why do you ignore the obvious positive externalities/benefits of warming?

      Your belief in fairy tales based upon unicorn farts over history shows the need to believe ideology over facts. Why do you work so hard to deny the economic and social benefits of fossil fueled energy versus the negative impacts of renewables?
      We’re living and/or seeing it every day with this administration and those in the EU.

      Enjoy that cup ideology.

      1. pgl

        This is from the lying troll who misrepresented what his own guru Richard Tol wrote? Of course Tol had to admit a bunch of errors in his already discredited research dated in 2009 blaming them on Gremlins.
        Fess up CoRev – unless the dumbest troll ever, then you know you were lying to us. So which is it? Your IQ is in the single digits or you are a serial liar.

        1. CoRev

          Bark, bark, when did I cite a 2009 Tol paper? Calling others liars is your shtick, while you are often the actual liar. Show us my cite.

          Tol has written extensively on this subject, with many of his papers revised due to questions from the previous version. Dunno, but in my world that is quite common for ONGOING scientific analysis.

          Why have you failed to answer my query: ” Why do you ignore the obvious positive externalities/benefits of warming?”

          Here’s another. How does Carbon, an element from the periodic table, have a social cost? How much is Oxygen’s social cost, or Fe, Iron have? Do they have to be declared a pollutant by the EPA to qualify?

          I don’t know how more ignorant your commentary can become.

          I hop you enjoy that cup of ideology.

          1. pgl

            You did cite Tol. Now maybe you cited one of his writings before 2009. At least I tried to take a look at all of his writings and not some earlier discredited reports.

            If you are now denying you cited Tol – then you have made Macroduck’s point even stronger than I have. Tol has a little respect unlike most of the garbage you cite.

            Now if you want to deny you ever cited anyone with any credibility – GREAT!

          2. Barkley Rosser


            He can ignore the “positive externalities of warming” because THERE ARE NO POSITIVE EXTERNALITIES OF GLOBAL WARMONG. Tol certainly makes no such claim, not does any other remotely credible scholar on this matter.

            Maybe there is some mutcase blogger making such a claim, I mean somebody besides you, CoRev. But I suggest you provide some substantial source to support your vacuous claim before you repeate it yet again with your increasingly embarrassing demands for people to reply to your worthless nonsense.

            I suggest you start demanding that people explain why they are not agreeing tha 2+2=5. It makes about as much sense.

            Of course, it has been repeatedly noted and explained by numerous people here that you have no idea what an externality is, either positive or negative, but that has not slowed you down from plunging deeper and deeper into an intellectual sinkhole of ignorance and stupidity.

            Bottom line: either provide a serious source supporting your claim of positive externalities associated with global warming or STFU about it.

            BTW, please stop calling pgl “Bark, bark” that is too close to my name, with in fact a lot of people calling me “Bark” at times. Heck, maybe I shall take to calling you Muses Hairzong, just for kicks.

          3. CoRev

            Bark, bark, how many times have you been called out for lying about what some one has commented? I can remember several in the past month or so just with me.

            Hint: next time you are challenge to show a comment just do it, instead proving you lied. “Bark, bark, when did I cite a 2009 Tol paper? Calling others liars is your shtick, while you are often the actual liar. Show us my cite.”

            Your lying response: “You did cite Tol. Now maybe you cited one of his writings before 2009. At least I tried to take a look at all of his writings and not some earlier discredited reports.” I seriously doubt you read any of Tol’s several papers. Just another lie.

          4. CoRev

            Barkley believes there are NO POSITIVE EXTERNALITIES to climate change/global warming, but few thinking people vs ideologues actually believe that: “Yes, there will probably be some short-term and long-term benefits from global warming. For example, the flip side of increased mortality from heat waves may be decreased mortality from cold waves….” https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-there-positive-benefits-global-warming

            Is decreased mortality from FEWER cold waves included considered in costs, an externality?

            I dunno. When ideologues ignore facts and ask: “either provide a serious source supporting your claim of positive externalities associated with global warming or STFU about it.” That Climate .gov is a serious source. As is, BTW, Tol, who is one of the few doing long term studies.

            A simple definition of externalities is: “An externality is a cost orbenefit that is thrust upon a group that did not choose or cause it. ” A list of the55 positive externalities is here: https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/positive-externalities-co2/ you have to read the source article’s supporting evidence to determine details.

            I’m still waiting for a list of negative externalities.

          5. Barkley Rosser


            For once I was wrong about something and you have managed to say something correct after saying a lot of incorrect thins related to this matter. My excuse for my mistake is that I have returned from my first trip to Europe in three years and suffering jet lag.

            So indeed there are some positive externalities to global warming, and they include reduced deaths due to fewer cold waves, as well as improved agricultural and other economic activity in regions nearer poles.

            What they do not include is things you frequrently tried to claim were external;ities but were not, such as things people do with their cars and the growth of suburbs and so on. All those were internal benefits. In those discussions you confused consumer’s surplus, the net benefit people get from consuming something and paying less for it than those benefits, which happens with pretty much everything people choose to buy.

            As for negative externalities, it includes the items you listed as positive, but when they go the other way. So, higher deaths due to heat and reduced agricultural activity and so on. The Nature article provides higher estimates of those costs.

            We can note, going back to Tol, that effectively there is a more or less east-west line in the Norhern Hemisphere north of which warming provides positive net external benefits while south of it warming provides negative net benefits. As warming proceeds, that line moves north so that more and more of the earth’s surface is in areas where the external costs outweith the extenal benefits. Until recently in the US that line ran more or less across the middle of the country, so northern part still net gaining from warming and southern part net losing, which is ironic given the South tends to oppose doing anything about global warming while the North is for it. But I think with the Nature article it looks that the line is further north now, although the article did not pinpoint that precise issue.

          6. CoRev

            Barkley, glad I could help with your understanding. I think you’re just making things up from ignorance: “We can note, going back to Tol, that effectively there is a more or less east-west line in the Norhern Hemisphere north of which warming provides positive net external benefits while south of it warming provides negative net benefits. As warming proceeds, that line moves north so that more and more of the earth’s surface is in areas where the external costs outweith the extenal benefits….”? East/West line? North South of that line?? From Tol? Your going to show me quotes to support your contention. You might also show me a list of social costs with references for warming in the southern states.

          7. Moses Herzog

            What’s more of the anomaly here~~CoRev correcting Barkley or Barkley admitting he was wrong?? This is better than watching 1988 Ronald Reagan get into a fist fight with 2019 Donald Trump. Each one with one hand covering their face and the other trying to yank the other girl’s hair.

          8. Barkley Rosser

            Nice try, CoRev. I made one goof thanks to jet lag, but you make them all the time and do not admit them. Sorry, but I have been studying this stuff since back when you were pretending to be part of the Apollo program. I do not make stuff up “out of ignorance,” at least not very often. You keep forgetting that I have a decades long record of publishing on these matters, including even coauthoring nearly half a century ago with one of the leading so-called “global climate skeptics,” the now late Patrick Michaels.

            You really are in way over your head, and the fact that you were just asking for a list of negative externalities after providing a list of positive ones shows just how seriously out of it you are. Obviously, some of those things are positive some of the time, improved life expectancy due to fewer “cold waves” become negative when they damage life expectancy, such as the expected increase in heat deaths reported in the Nature article. But somehow you just plain missed this.

            BTW, that book you linked to is about positive externalities of CO2, not of global warming. You still have trouble figuring out what is what with all this, big time.

          9. CoRev

            Barkley says: “BTW, that book you linked to is about positive externalities of CO2, not of global warming. You still have trouble figuring out what is what with all this, big time.” And here I thought all that Net Zero policy implementation was to limit the affect of CO2, as it was the CONTROL KNOB for climate change/global warming/climate crises/… (If you guys can settle on a name for it?)

            A little consistency might help with the climate sciencey discussions.

      2. pgl

        Gee CoRev shows that the relative price of certain foods grown in the US have fallen. Now maybe this lying troll missed the modernization of American farms using more capital intensive production methods and herbicides to increase yields per acre.

        But if CoRev thinks warming temperatures caused these relative price effects – then he has to be the dumbest person God ever created!

        1. CoRev

          Bark, bark without even realizing it , has made my point about positive externalities, while he cites modern farming practices, he forgets that graphs started well before the modern era. BTW, his list of farming practices are the latest attack by the rabid environmentalists. Sri Lanka, the Netherlands are attacking these methods to save the planet from climate change. BTW, these modern methods rely upon fossil fuels.

          Those ole positive externalities/benefits just can not be recognized. let alone admit they exceed social costs.

          1. CoRev

            Bark, bark just can not read and understand science issues. you should not comment on subjects you are so sorely unable to understand: “So warmer temperatures are the reason yields have risen? How stupid are you? Seriously!”

            NO, ignorant one. Climate science says that increasing temperatures will lower yields. Except they haven’t since 1880, when we started the temp increase coming out of the little ice age. That’s what I showed in the graph. Just another positive externality/benefit not accepted by the climate ignoranti.

      3. pgl

        Real income per capita has grown over the past two centuries? Damn CoRev – no one ever knew that! Now I guess you think the only thing that affects real income per capita happens to be temperatures. Yea – you are THAT STUPID!

      4. Macroduck

        It is amazing – amusing? – to see the poverty of understanding in CoVid’s response(s). The critical tension in environmental issues is that over-exploitation of resources now will lead to bad consequences in the future. So what does CoVid insist that we do? Ignore the future. Look only at past benefit while ignoring future costs. This is from the guy who insists, without evidence, that environmentalists don’t understand cost/benefit analysis.

        CoVid has written a lot if high-falutin’ nonsense in the past. This one may be his crowning achievement. Complete intellectual bankruptcy.

        1. Macroduck

          By the way, CoVid’s attempt at making an argument is the exemplar of “fake science” propagandizing. He spews glib, phoney arguments that aim to raise doubt about scientific findings without actually addressing the science.

          1. pgl

            Now, now. Richard Tol used to be a respected economist. Until his 2009 work CoRev cited as the most recent credible research was shown to have lots of errors which of course were the fault of gremlins. Seriously – this is the closest CoRev ever got to actual science or economics.

          2. CoRev

            MD, Tsk, tsk, as the as the moderator for argument/debate techniques, certainly you can do better than a false argument tactic. Since when has citing science papers not citing science?

        2. pgl

          So true. CoRev cannot even get his new BFF Bruce Hall’s latest stupid slogan right:

          “Enjoy that cup ideology”.

          Of course Brucie wrote ‘cup of ideology’ whatever the eff that is supposed to mean.

          I guess ‘cup ideology’ is what CoRev wears when playing soccer.

        3. Macroduck

          I think our troll choir needs more rehearsal. They can’t even agree which tune to sing. Here’s CoVid singing “ignore the future,- foxus on the past”. Just a few days ago, Anonymous (the one who uss upper case) saw hings rather differently:

          September 7, 2022 at 6:11 pm

          data is record of past.

          the future is mostly independent of the past.

          It’s so confusing – “Ignore the past!” “Ignore the future!” But then I remember the troll choir doesn’t care about coherence. They just want to obscure the truth. All politics, no principles.

      5. pgl


        ‘These tools could in theory be used for any time series but the main rationale for their existence is for analysis of historical climate data.’

        Ah CoRev has a new toy which will allow this lying troll to manipulate the data. But wait – the graph even this lying troll produced for us shows us global warming over time.

        Now CoRev – please try harder. We know you are paid a lot to deny global warming so do not disappoint your political masters!

        1. CoRev

          Bark, bark, a new tool???? How many times and decades of citing this tool here make you think it is new?

          As I’ve claimed in the past you do not read nor comprehend well.

          1. pgl

            I assumed it was a new tool for you since you cannot seem to make it misrepresent the data that your spin needs. OK – you have used it in the past which only proves you are as incompetent as you are dishonest.

      6. Rick Stryker

        Hi Corev,

        Thanks for explaining the health issue. I’m really happy to hear that you are doing O.K.

        1. baffling

          “Is decreased mortality from FEWER cold waves included considered in costs, an externality?”
          you mean the heart attack he had from his decades of poor eating and fitness choices? I tell him frequently, he should rest and not over exert himself. it is poor for his health. he tends to ignore my advice, to his peril.

    4. Rick Stryker


      Most of the increase in the social cost of carbon reported in that paper–74% of the increase in fact–comes from reducing the standard 3% discount assumption used in Nordhaus’s DICE model and official government estimates to 2%. It’s not like they went out and discovered much more damage from climate change based on more recent evidence. Most of the increase in their estimate resulted from just changing a simple assumption that has nothing to do with climate change, on the alleged grounds that interest rates are now permanently lower.


      1. pgl

        Well that leaves the other 26% doesn’t it. I trust you know CoRev’s guru is Richard Tol (he denies it now but this is the only person with any creds he cites) whose research made lots of glaring evidence. Yea – take you own advice and follow the research.

        BTW a 3% discount rate is incredibly high. But hey – assume an infinite discount rate so we do not have to worry about the next generation. Bruce Hall certainly takes that view as does his BFF CoRev.

        I would wonder why you would want to defend these trolls but then again you fancy yourself as Trump’s defense attorney so you would defend anything on the bottom of the barrel.

        1. Rick Stryker


          Not sure why you are constantly commenting about subjects you know nothing about. It was Nordhaus who originally used Tol in the specification of the damage function in DICE in the 2013 version of the model and it was Nordhaus (and Andrew Moffet) who corrected some of Tol’s data in the 2016 version of DICE. Once some of Tol’s data was corrected in the 2016 DICE damage function, it actually reduced the effect of climate damage.

          You keep insinuating without any evidence or knowledge that the errors in Tol’s data resulting in an underestimation of climate damage but it actually resulted in an overestimate, at least relative to Nordhaus’s correction.

          Corev is being conservative by citing Tol.

          1. pgl

            “Not sure why you are constantly commenting about subjects you know nothing about.”

            You certainly comment on things you know nothing about – such as legal matters and of course economics.

            ‘It was Nordhaus who originally used Tol in the specification of the damage function in DICE in the 2013 version of the model and it was Nordhaus (and Andrew Moffet) who corrected some of Tol’s data in the 2016 version of DICE.’

            Gee Gilligan – I noted the Nordhaus paper a while back. Do try to stay current – DAMN!

      2. Macroduck

        Nice try, Rickie. Discount rates are the heart of cost/benefit analysis. “Nothing to see here, it’s only the discount rate” is evidence you either don’t understand what you’re talking about, or you are trying to deceive. And even Risk admits that there are more factors at work than the discount rate. Factors other than he discount rate account for 26% of the increase. The increase is 200% of he original estimate. Even ignoring he discount rate, which Rickie seems to think we should, there is a 52% increase in the new cost estimate over the old one. “Nothing to see here!” Rit

        And Rickie, claiming that I haven’t read the paper? That’s just dishonest.

        For bystanders to this comments section, here’s what’s going on. Rick Stryker and CoRev misuse the language of science and of analysis to attack climate science. They attack the knowledge of anyone who tries to discuss climate science objectively. This is not an isolated case. They do this all the time. Both routinely pose as better informed than other commenters here, but that pretense is based on abuse of logic or on dishonest assertions about others knowledge (“You didn’t read the paper!” “Environmentalists don’t do cost/benefit analysis!”)

        This is all orchestrated, meant to prevent honest discussion of climate change. If you doubt that this sort of bought-and-paid-for propaganda exists, read here:


        CoRev and Rick (and one of our anonymous commenters) always work to undermine climate science. It’s who they are. They will lie, insult, pose and misdirect without compunction to cast doubt on real science and those who support it.

        1. Rick Stryker


          You are trying to divert attention from your original false statement, which was, to quote: “Well, a new bit of research , based on evidence gathered in recent year provides new cost estimates, three times higher than the 2017 estimate conventionally used.”

          If you’d actually read the paper, you’d know that statement is false. There is no new climate research from that paper that raised the cost estimates 3 times, since 74% of that three-times increase resulted from lowering the discount rate. The discount rate has nothing to do with with climate science.

          You accuse me and Corev of pretending to knowledge but it is you who just read a paper’s abstract and then dramatically misreport the results. If you actually did read the paper as you now claim, then you must have been being deliberately dishonest in your statement. Unlike you and pg13, I don’t automatically assume people are lying though. Hence, I assumed you just didn’t read the paper.

          1. pgl

            Wow – that had to be the best twisting of a discussion in the history of mankind. You and CoRev are wasting your time here – Trump needs lawyers that will serially lie for him. Go for it but do not expect to be paid.

          2. baffling

            “There is no new climate research…” stated by rick.
            ““Well, a new bit of research …” stated by macro.
            rick, you want to make an argument about a technicality of climate research. I don’t think that is what macro said. you seem to be putting specific words into his mouth.

        2. pgl

          “They will lie, insult, pose and misdirect without compunction to cast doubt on real science and those who support it.”

          Ricky boy pretends he is some great lawyers so lying is what he do.

        3. CoRev

          MD, advance of science is the result of being skeptical of current scientific views. BLINDLY ACCEPTING CURRENT SCIENTIFIC VIEWS IS IDEOLOGY/RELIGION You exhibit ideological/religious fervor of climate science, not logic. Remember follow the science is ot – do not question liberal views.. It’s sad really

      3. Barkley Rosser


        First of all, the case fo 2% rather than 3% is pretty strong, but even if you want to insist on 3%, the other 25% amounts to increasing the estimated social cost of carbon from $51 per ton to about $84 per ton, which is pretty substantial, certainly enough to seriously alter Tol’s near term estimates of some economic gains in some regions for at least a small amount of further warming.

        The main areas of those 26% are apparently new estimates on the impacts on mortality as well as negative impacts on agriculture, with what has been going on in recent summers in nations like the US that are supposed to see gains from small near term warming highlighting the reasonableness of modifying the old estimates.

        I also note that while they found only small increases in costs from sea level rise, they admitted to not including any estimates based on possibly “discontinuous” effects of major ice cover collapses in Antarctica or Greenland that might well happen, those fat tails sorts of things Weitzman warned about. So, in fact, there is some serious conservatism in these estimates that may push the other way, even if you want to insist without much of an argument that 3% is more reliable than 2% for the appropriate discount rate.

        1. Rick Stryker


          How is the case for a lower discount rate strong? It’s been understood for quite some time that the social cost of carbon is highly dependent on the discount rate. Modelers like Nordhaus and others could have changed it at any time and obtained dramatically different results. But they didn’t. What changed recently to justify a lowering of the discount rate by 100 bps?

          The other 26% is not just advances in climate science either. It’s mostly changes in assumptions. Changes in per capita growth rate assumptions, for example, and changes in the definition of damage. They count values of statistical lives killed by excessive temperature as damage, which is not consistent with modelers who just try to project GDP changes as conventionally measured. So, it’s apples to oranges.

          Moreover, their analysis of temperature on mortality is suspect. They don’t subtract the effects of less cold weather. Cold weather kills more people than warm weather, so there is a countervailing effect that fewer people will die from cold weather. Also, they ignore some evidence that the temperature-mortality relationship has broken down. Overall, not a very compelling 26%.

          1. pgl

            “What changed recently to justify a lowering of the discount rate by 100 bps?”

            3% to 2% is now ONE HUNDRED basis points. You do have a flair for the dramatic! This reminds me of when Cheney tried to dismiss the Halliburton accounting fraud which took 2% of revenue and increased it to 3% of revenue – a mere 1% of revenue he told dumbass Tim Russert. Of course the SEC filing noted this fraud increased reported profits by 50%.

            Yes Dick Cheney lied and cheated but he was a lot more honorable than you could ever be.

          2. pgl

            “Cold weather kills more people than warm weather, so there is a countervailing effect that fewer people will die from cold weather.”

            This is up there with CoRev’s positive externality BS. Of course anyone who gets these issues realizes variability is part of the climate change science. But do lie about this issue too as your BFF CoRev routinely does.

          3. Barkley Rosser


            They use actual interest rates to make their adustment. I would think a business economist like you would approve of that.

            They do seem to be looking at net changes in mortality. You are just wrong on that one. The evidence is that death rates due to heat are higher than previously estimated.

            I note that in general for fighting all kinds of air pollution, by far the biggest benefits have been for improved human health and longevity.

  9. ltr


    September 9, 2022

    Scientists develop direct hydrogen-from-air tech

    Hydrogen, a form of clean energy, can be directly produced from the air with electrolysis technology powered by renewable energy, according to a study * published in the journal Nature Communications on Tuesday.

    The newly-developed technology makes it possible to convert solar or wind energy into fuel through electrolysis of water, even in areas with water shortages.

    A group of scientists from Ganjiang Innovation Academy under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the University of Manchester and the University of Melbourne jointly developed an electrolytic cell prototype. It can in situ absorb moisture in the air, instead of using liquid water, and produce hydrogen via electrolysis.

    Powered by solar or wind energy, the prototype operated for 12 consecutive days producing stable performance, the paper said.

    It can work in a dry environment with only 4 percent humidity and produce green hydrogen sustainably with minimal impact on the environment, indicating that remote arid and semi-arid areas can expect to be powered by clean energy through use of this technology, according to the paper.

    * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32652-y

    1. ltr


      September 6, 2022

      Hydrogen production from the air
      By Jining Guo, Yuecheng Zhang, Ali Zavabeti, Kaifei Chen, Yalou Guo, Guoping Hu, Xiaolei Fan & Gang Kevin Li


      Green hydrogen produced by water splitting using renewable energy is the most promising energy carrier of the low-carbon economy. However, the geographic mismatch between renewables distribution and freshwater availability poses a significant challenge to its production. Here, we demonstrate a method of direct hydrogen production from the air, namely, in situ capture of freshwater from the atmosphere using hygroscopic electrolyte and electrolysis powered by solar or wind with a current density up to 574 mA cm−2. A prototype of such has been established and operated for 12 consecutive days with a stable performance at a Faradaic efficiency around 95%. This so-called direct air electrolysis (DAE) module can work under a bone-dry environment with a relative humidity of 4%, overcoming water supply issues and producing green hydrogen sustainably with minimal impact to the environment. The DAE modules can be easily scaled to provide hydrogen to remote, (semi-) arid, and scattered areas.

  10. ltr


    September 10, 2022

    Xinjiang foreign trade up 49.6 pct in Jan.-Aug.

    URUMQI — Foreign trade levels of northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region soared 49.6 percent year on year to nearly 145.6 billion yuan (about 21 billion U.S. dollars) from January to August this year.

    Urumqi Customs said that during this period, Xinjiang exports reached over 120.9 billion yuan, up 58.2 percent year on year, while its imports grew by 18 percent year on year to 24.6 billion yuan.

    The increase in foreign trade in the region is attributed to a series of steps taken to ensure stability in employment, the financial sector, foreign trade, foreign investment, and domestic investment, according to Urumqi Customs.

    Urumqi Customs also noted that thanks to streamlined customs clearance measures, the operation of China-Europe freight train services in Xinjiang had been continuously improved….

    1. Macroduck

      China based its economic development on low labor cost and a weak currency. Now, China has higher wages and no longer accumulated reserves to weaken its currency. How, then, is the Uyghur “Autonomous” Region boosting its exports? Slave labor and a weak economy. Slave labor keeps production costs down and a weak economy restrains demand.

      The rapid rise in Xinjiang exports is a sign of weakness and of evil, not something to brag about.

  11. pgl

    Kevin Drum documents how corrupt Republican judges have become:


    Remember last week that Michigan Republicans were refusing to put an abortion-rights initiative on the ballot because of supposed problems with “formatting and spacing”? This was as ridiculous as it sounds, little more than a fuck you to liberals. Well, the Michigan Supreme Court has put the initiative on the ballot by a vote of 5-2.

    Good news but 4 of the 5 sensible judges were Democrats and the sensible Republican is Elizabeth Clement who is getting booed out of the party. The comment section of Kevin’s blog notes how absurd the two dissents were.

  12. pgl

    Judge Ailleen Cannon’s decision on appointing a special master may be threatening national security:


    ‘Yeah I mean, just as important as what they found is what they didn’t find and the question is of where is it,” he replied. “Because as you said, they’ve got 40-some odd empty folders marked classified and you’ve got to figure out whether that simply means that the documents were taken out of those folders and intermingled amongst personal belongings and other records, or whether they were truly, truly missing.”

    “And, again, that is linked to the risk review and the criminal case and even — very kind of tantalizing — the DOJ says in their, filing ‘look, judge, your ruling is actually stopping us, impeding us is the word they used, from finding documents, other classified documents. which could be out there, even in other places.'”

    “So this raises the possibility that they suspect those empty folders, those contents, might have ended up somewhere else,” he elaborated. “And the question of somewhere else is why they need to get the investigation back up and running.”

    Of course this bimbo of a judge likely does not care because THE DONALD gave her this position and THE DONALD does not give a damn about our national security. MAGA!

  13. pgl

    Alas the EU is turning to coal given how it is difficult to purchase sufficient natural gas:


    Coal is making a comeback as Europe races to find alternatives to Russian natural gas.
    The price of coal is 5 times higher than normal as countries try to secure energy supply for winter.
    Surging natural gas prices and a hydropower crunch are other factors, 2 top energy analysts explain.
    Coal is re-emerging as a key source of energy for European countries racing to replace increasingly scarce natural gas as Moscow shuts off key pipeline flows.
    Europe is caught in a worsening energy crisis as Russia uses its energy exports to retaliate against sanctions. So countries like Germany are turning to coal to secure energy supplies before winter hits. Power generation using coal has shot up over 20% in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the UK together since last year, Rystad Energy data shows. European countries have increased coal consumption this year. “Coal is definitely making a comeback, with skyrocketing natural gas prices and drought,” Ole Hvalbye, an analyst at Swedish bank SEB, told Insider. “Now it is all about surviving the winter.” Here, analysts lay out the factors shaping the appetite and market for coal — and whether they mean soaring prices for the fossil fuel will keep climbing.

    Soaring natural gas prices

    Moscow’s drumbeat of disruptions to flows has sent European natural gas prices up 300% this year, and to record highs in August. That has prompted power companies in Austria, the Netherlands and Italy to eye the use of coal again. German utility giant Uniper has revived a mothballed coal-fueled plant until April 2023. “Coal has been the cheaper option for power generation for most of 2022 and has also been given a boost by the tight supply situation for gas in Europe,” Rystad Energy analyst Fabian Rønningen told Insider. Given current prices, coal is expected to be the more competitive option for the next two-and-a-half years, he added. Global coal prices hit their highest level since 2008 as the energy crisis worsened last week, and European coal prices alone have risen about 150% since the start of the year.

    Global price of Coal, Australia

    This series suggests coal prices are twice what they were in 2008.

    1. pgl


      This was the link in that story to how current prices are the highest since 2008. But wait the link notes:

      Global coal prices have jumped to a record high as an international energy crisis sends buyers scrambling for fuel. Coal for delivery at the Newcastle terminal in Australia next month closed at $457.80 per ton on Monday, according to Bloomberg data, the highest level in the data set going back to 2008.

      So the current price was higher than it was in 2008 per the same index used by FRED. BTW the FRED data goes back to 1990 v. the Bloomberg reporting which I guess skips the 1990 to 2007 period. Score this as a nod to FRED reporting!

  14. ltr

    Slave labor keeps production costs down and a weak economy restrains demand.
    Slave labor keeps production costs down and a weak economy restrains demand.
    Slave labor keeps production costs down and a weak economy restrains demand.

    [ This is false and definitive racism. This is an effort to destroy a civilization. ]

    1. Macroduck

      It is absolutely true that China practices slavery. The UN says so:


      ltr keeps lying about it, because that’s what she’s paid to lie. She also keeps lying about racism. It is not just Uyghers who are forced to work as slaves, but they are the ones most commonly held as slaves. That is the result of racism. Pointing out racism is not racist. ltr keeps lying about that, too.

      1. Macroduck

        It’s interesting that ltr sees the truth about slavery in China as a threat to Chinese civilization. I agree that a stong dose of truth would be devastating for China’s current government, but I am surprised Xi’s mouthpiece has let her fear of the truth slip out.

    2. pgl

      His statements are basic economics. Calling these comments racist is just pathetic. And no one is trying to destroy anything.

    3. Ivan

      So 12 little words can “destroy a civilization”. I knew you were a delicate little flower – but the whole Chinese civilization can be destroyed by a puff of 12 words????

      Y’all start talking until Winnie the Pooh gets his head stuck in a honey jar!!!

  15. ltr


    September 11, 2022

    China’s Xinjiang sees foreign trade surge 49.6% in Jan.-Aug.

    Foreign trade levels of northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region soared 49.6 percent year on year to nearly 145.6 billion yuan ($21 billion) from January to August this year, local customs data showed.

    According to Urumqi Customs, Xinjiang exports reached over 120.9 billion yuan in the first eight months of 2022, up 58.2 percent year on year, while its imports grew by 18 percent to 24.6 billion yuan.

    Connecting East and West, Xinjiang is an important gateway for international trade, cultural exchange and regional cooperation.

    The increase in foreign trade in the region is attributed to a series of steps taken to ensure stability in employment, the financial sector, foreign trade, foreign investment, and domestic investment, according to Urumqi Customs.

    It also noted that thanks to streamlined customs clearance measures, the operation of China-Europe freight train services in Xinjiang had been continuously improved.

    From January to August, Alataw Pass and Horgos Port, both major rail ports in Xinjiang, achieved a record high in handling 8,701 China-Europe freight trains, up 6.5 percent compared to the previous year.

    The China-Europe rail freight link reached the landmark 10,000th train on Friday. The train has played an important role in injecting vitality into global recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

    1. ltr


      August 28, 2022

      Xinjiang region sees expanding ‘friends circle’, witnesses booming development in past decade

      Northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has witnessed an expanding “friends circle” over recent years, a local official told a press conference held over the weekend, noting that the region has strengthened economic and trade exchanges with economies along the “Belt and Road” routes, signed 21 cooperation agreements with 25 countries and international organizations, and established economic and trade relations with 176 countries and regions.

      In the first half of this year, the region’s trade increased by 39.1 percent year-on-year, and the actual utilization of foreign capital increased by 291 percent year-on-year, the official said….

  16. ltr


    August 27, 2022

    Xinjiang witnesses booming development in past decade; numbers serve as counterstrike to defy Western slander
    By Zhao Yusha

    In the past decade, Northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region witnessed booming development with regional GDP climbing to 1.6 trillion yuan ($0.23 trillion) last year, which doubled the figure of 2012, and the people’s sense of public security has been elevated to 99.14 percent compared with 87.58 percent 10 years ago. An expert said such numbers serve as an iron counterstrike against rumors and slanders against the region coming from Western countries, especially the US.

    The Xinjiang govt held a press conference on Saturday telling the public the region’s achievements in the past decade. During this time, 3.06 million population were lifted out of poverty, and absolute poverty was solved in the region.

    The region’s GDP in 2021 reached 1.6 trillion yuan, double the figure of 2021, which was 0.74 trillion. Xinjiang also created 4.99 million jobs in the past 10 years. Basically, all people with the ability to work have been employed, according to the conference….

  17. ltr


    July 5, 2022

    Booming tourism tells of a flourishing, stable, open Xinjiang

    Covering an area of 1.66 million square kilometers, Xinjiang boasts rich natural resources, marvelous landscapes, a variety of ethnic customs and cultural heritage, making tourism one of the fastest-growing industries in the region.

    Tourists used to be bothered by the fact that many attractions are often hundreds of kilometers apart. But the development of transportation has greatly facilitated the travel of tourists.

    Over the past 10 years, the number of civil airports in Xinjiang has increased from 0.96 to 1.51 per 100,000 square km. With 24 civil airports in total, Xinjiang has the largest number of airports among all provincial-level regions.

    According to the regional transport department, from 2016 to 2020, Xinjiang’s fixed-asset investment in transportation exceeded the total of the previous 60 years.

    According to official data, Xinjiang received a total of 4,026,400 tourists, with tourism revenue of 2.48 billion yuan (around 371 million U.S. dollars) during the six-day Labor Day and Eid al-Fitr holiday.

    1. ltr


      December 9, 2021

      Xinjiang’s tourism revenue up 17 pct in Jan-Oct

      URUMQI — China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region received 170 million tourists from January to October this year, with its tourism revenue hitting 129.4 billion yuan (about 20.4 billion U.S. dollars) during the period.

      The revenue from tourism increased 16.8 percent year on year in the period, according to the regional culture and tourism department.

      During this period, a total of 127 government-funded cultural and tourism infrastructure projects were carried out, with a total investment of approximately 9.7 billion yuan….

      1. Barkley Rosser


        And what has clearly attracted so many more tourists has been building transportation infrastructure right to the doors of the reeducation camps so that the tourists can experience the great pleasure of visiting them and discovering for themselves what paradisical locations they are and how all those whiny Uyghurs should just change their tunes and be grateful that such wonderful reeducation is being made available to them, and for free even!!!!

  18. pgl

    Maybe the first sign of sanity from the Kremlin:


    More and more Russian officials are urging Vladimir Putin to get the hell out of the Kremlin as Moscow suffered another series of humiliating defeats in Ukraine this weekend. Just one day after several municipal deputies in Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg called on the State Duma to try the Russian leader for treason, their colleagues in Moscow joined in and demanded he step down because his views are “hopelessly outdated.”

    Putin the war criminal is not only destroying the lives of Ukrainians but he is also causing incredible damage to Russians. He should go. Of course the Putin poodles here (JohnH, Bruce Hall, etc.) will lose their precious positions as Putin’s poodles.

    1. Ivan

      ISW reported:

      “Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that Putin has postponed all his meetings with the leadership of the Russian MoD and representatives of the Russian defense industry in Sochi—a bizarre decision in the face of the military operational and defense industrial crisis facing Russia”

      Indeed very bizarre to stop talking with leaders of the military and defense industry at this moment of a crisis. Something is fishy or someone is talking to the fishes.

    1. AndrewG

      The implication of the review is that China doesn’t have what it takes to successfully invade and hold Taiwan.
      The implication of the review is that China doesn’t have what it takes to successfully invade and hold Taiwan.
      The implication of the review is that China doesn’t have what it takes to successfully invade and hold Taiwan.
      The implication of the review is that China doesn’t have what it takes to successfully invade and hold Taiwan.

      [ceaseless malicious slander against an entire peaceful people]

      The implication of the review is that China doesn’t have what it takes to successfully invade and hold Taiwan.

      [sorry, that last one was a mistake]

  19. pgl


    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Joe Biden will sign orders on Monday to push more government dollars to the U.S. biotechnology industry, aimed at reducing dependence on China for materials to generate clean energy, weave new fabrics and inoculate populations against the COVID-19 pandemic. The executive order allows the federal government to direct funding for the use of microbes and other biologically derived resources to make new foods, fertilizers and seeds, as well as making mining operations more efficient, administration officials said.

    An interesting idea. Now if one thought two of our uber trolls – Bruce Hall and JohnH – seriously when they rant against the US buying various goods from China rather producing goods here, one might think they would praise this idea. Of course, both of these clowns flip flop faster than a iHOP pancake chef so expect them to criticize Biden for this idea. That is what they do 24/7.

  20. Moses Herzog

    What American politician raised in Oklahoma and currently residing in Massachusetts does this story remind me of?? I can see her face, blonde hair, and dressed like the perfect Stepford wife, but what is her name?? She got a job at Harvard a lot of academics (Blacks, real Native Americans) would give their left arm for. Damned if I can remember now. Elizabeth….. something?? Elizabeth something.

  21. pgl


    EU natural gas prices back to the level last observed 5 weeks ago.

    “TTF natural gas futures, the European benchmark, were trading below €200 per megawatt hour, a level not seen in a month, amid efforts from European governments to curb prices, including gas-price caps and a suspension of power derivates trade. On top of that, recent data has shown that natural gas storage sites were being filled faster than expected ahead of the peak demand winter season. Still, prices are poised to remain elevated amid tightening supplies as Russia’s Gazprom has reversed its plan to resume flows through the Nord Stream pipeline and shut it indefinitely, citing maintenance requirements.”

    1. CoRev

      Wow! A five week pull back after spending nearly 10 times last years cost to fill the gas storage facilities. Yeah really, really good news. NOT!!!! Here’s a bale, grab another straw.

    2. Bruce Hall

      Ideology once again defies reality… and loses.

      In New York and the rest of the Northeast, there is another challenge that pushes prices extra high. The limited number of gas pipelines serving the region adds to the transportation cost and creates the potential for price spikes when demand increases due to cold winter weather or other factors, Alvarado said.

      Last year things were bad in the Northeast. This year you may have to find your love to keep your warm… if you can find it.

      Where’s global warming when you need it? Oh, wait, can’t call it that anymore; climate change.

  22. Macroduck

    From the New York Fed’s latest Survey of Consumer Expectations:

    “Median one- and three-year-ahead inflation expectations both posted steep declines in August, from 6.2 percent and 3.2 percent in July to 5.7 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. Median five-year-ahead inflation expectations…also declined to 2.0 percent from 2.3 percent. Expectations about year-ahead price increases for gas also continued to decline, with households now expecting gas prices to be roughly unchanged a year from now.”


    The question of whether inflation expectations had become unanchored has been raised repeatedly since the supply shocks of covid and Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine. For now, at least, the answer is “no”. Even so, markets are pricing in 90% odds of a 75 basis point Fed rate hike this month.

  23. Macroduck

    As of yesterday, money markets priced in 90% odds of a 75 basis point Fed hike next week, 10% odds of a 50 bp hike. Mid-day today, it’s 78% odds of a 75 bp hike, with 22% odds of a full 1% hike. I find that odd. Moses will probably find it worst than odd.

    Not quite half-way through September, mid-grade gasoline is down 6.5% from a month ago. After seasonal adjustment, that should represent a considerable drag on consumer inflation in September.

    The New York Fed’s latest Survey of Consumer Expectations finds expectations of inflation over five years to have fallen to 2.0% from 2.3%.

    Quantitative tightening accelerated this month.

    So we have a cooling trend in inflation, reason to expect September headline inflation to be tame, inflation expectations right where the Fed wants them and an increase in tightening through the Fed portfolio, but one month’s upside surprise in measured inflation is enough to boost rate hike expectations substantially. Please, let it be machine trading. I don’t want to think humans spook that easily. I know Jay and Lael have been talking tough, but that’s so they DON’T have to go crazy with rates.

Comments are closed.