Today, we present a guest post written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. A shorter version appeared at Project Syndicate.
A two-decade drought in the western United States, the worst in more than 1,000 years, has pushed chronic water shortages to a critical point, notwithstanding above-average precipitation this past winter. Similar water shortages afflict Europe and some parts of Africa, Asia, Australia, and Latin America.
Forty million people in western US states get much of their water from the Colorado River. On May 22, their representatives reached a supposedly historic agreement to solve their conflicting claims for the time being. California, Arizona and Nevada managed to negotiate how to allocate reductions of 14% by 2026, in water drawn from the river.
Can there be any problem to which economists believe so strongly that they have the answer, and yet where their logic is so little included in policy deliberations, as the problem of water scarcity?
It’s not advanced economic theory. Introductory textbooks explain that if public policy keeps the price of a resource artificially below its fundamental value, demand for the resource will be high, supply will be low, and the result will be shortage. The solution to the shortage of water in the western states is to raise the price of water, which could be done by market pricing. A higher price would encourage conservation, especially where the water is now lavished on wasteful or inefficient uses. A large majority of residents would benefit from such a reform, relative to the alternative of running out of water.
Why has the price mechanism been so little used? The reality, of course, is status quo politics. The few who would stand to lose from the change care far more about the issue than those who would win, and they are prepared to base their votes and campaign contributions on the single issue. As Mancur Olson in 1971 pointed out, it is much harder to inform and organize a large diffuse interest group, such as consumers, than a small concentrated interest group, such as producers benefiting from government protection. This political economy underlies many distortionary government practices.
In cases where reform does not address a problem that society is even aware that it has, it is particularly difficult in political debate to overcome the opposition of those who benefit from the status quo. A classic example is trade policy.
It is surprising that the economists’ solution is not even considered in this case, in that everyone is well aware that there is a water crisis. It will only get worse in the long-term future, due to increasing population in the Southwest and, especially, to global climate change. Deciding how to allocate Colorado River water among three states does little to address the long-term problem, which is that demand exceeds supply.
The excess demand for H2O shows up as depletion of aquifers and draw-down of reservoirs. In Lake Mead, the largest American reservoir, water levels have fallen to record lows over the last year and threaten at some point to turn to “dead pool.” That means that the water would be too low to reach the intake valves on Hoover Dam and the Colorado River would stop flowing, which would cut off the water supply downstream altogether. Clearly the shortfall must be eliminated, one way or another, preferably before the disaster scenario does the job.
How exactly is the water currently used? Guess which of these uses the most:
- The City of Los Angeles
- The City of Phoenix
- The City of Las Vegas
- The alfalfa crop
- The cotton crop
- The almond and pistachio crops
Alfalfa, a crop used to feed cattle, uses the most (37%). Alfalfa, grass hay, and other livestock feed together use 70 % of the water taken from the Colorado River. Cotton comes next. Then wheat, corn and barley, in that order. Followed by almonds, rice, and other crops. Altogether 79 % is used for crop irrigation. Similar statistics apply to other sources of water in the western states. Total urban water uses — including residential and business uses — account for only 11 % of water consumption in the West. To underline the point: the populations of Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and all the other cities of the southwest combined, use less water than alfalfa alone.
Farmers point out that, without access to relatively cheap water to grow alfalfa and other crops used to feed livestock, beef and dairy products would be more expensive. True. But why should the American public subsidize beef and dairy? The gap between current water prices and the market-clearing price is indeed a subsidy. Recall that government money built and maintains Hoover Dam and the rest of the western water system. If farmers don’t think of it as a subsidy, that is only because they have been getting it for so long that it has become part of the landscape.
There would be good arguments for taxing beef or alfalfa or water. Taxation would be a more effective way to achieve important health and environmental goals than current efforts by doctors and environmentalists to persuade American consumers to cut back on their high beef consumption voluntarily. A libertarian would oppose such taxation, of course. But what justification is there for subsidizing water usage, which is what the government does when it keeps prices below the market-clearing level? What sense does it make to grow thirsty crops, even a monsoon crop like rice, in arid lands?
It would be advisable to compensate those groups who would otherwise lose out from raising water prices. These groups include farmers and low-income consumers. In the plans of which the May 22 three-state agreement is a component, the federal government is to compensate water conservers by $1.2 billion. But far more funds than this could be generated to pay compensation if the price were raised, without the adverse effect on the federal budget.
Implementation of the general strategy of using the price mechanism to deal with water shortages runs into all sorts of practical complications, political roadblocks, and historical constraints. There is scope for clever ways to go about it. Pilot progams could test consumers’ willingness to conserve water. Market mechanisms, whereby city or state governments buy farmers’ water rights or pay them to reduce their water intake (by switching crops or improving irrigation techniques), could be regularized and expanded.
An acute crisis such as the shortage that the American West is facing ought to be enough to overcome the political inertia of the status quo and to enable public discussion of a radical solution like allowing price to equilibrate supply and demand.
This post written by Jeffrey Frankel.
“Farmers point out that, without access to relatively cheap water to grow alfalfa and other crops used to feed livestock, beef and dairy products would be more expensive. True. But why should the American public subsidize beef and dairy? The gap between current water prices and the market-clearing price is indeed a subsidy. Recall that government money built and maintains Hoover Dam and the rest of the western water system. If farmers don’t think of it as a subsidy, that is only because they have been getting it for so long that it has become part of the landscape.
There would be good arguments for taxing beef or alfalfa or water. Taxation would be a more effective way to achieve important health and environmental goals than current efforts by doctors and environmentalists to persuade American consumers to cut back on their high beef consumption voluntarily. A libertarian would oppose such taxation, of course. But what justification is there for subsidizing water usage, which is what the government does when it keeps prices below the market-clearing level? What sense does it make to grow thirsty crops, even a monsoon crop like rice, in arid lands?”
Excellent points but something tells me that we are about to a barrage of overly heated BS from CoRev and Bruce Hall.
From Dr. Frankel’s link:
Focus on irrigation
Still, agriculture uses far more water than lawns and golf courses. In 2017, U.S. farmers irrigated about 58 million acres (23 million hectares) of cropland, almost two-thirds of it in the West. In recent decades western farmers have significantly changed their irrigation practices. Many have switched from flood systems, which literally flood fields, to pressurized systems. Typically these are center pivots that apply water from sprinklers connected to a large arm that slowly moves around a core, creating those large, usually green circles that airplane passengers can see across the West. This shift reduces water losses from evaporation, percolation into the soil and runoff. In 2012, U.S. farmers used pressurized systems on 72% of their fields, up from 37% in 1984. That still leaves 28%, or 20 million acres (8 million hectares), that are flood irrigated.
The discussion continues. Interesting that there are better forms of irrigation for these last 20 million acres, which an end to the water subsidy is enacted.
Off topic, Putin’s excuse for invading Ukraine –
Ian Bremmer has finally gotten around to addressing Putin’s excuse for invading Ukraine – that NATO Secretary General Woerner (or James Baker) had promised that NATO would never expand eastward. Bremmer’s response here is prompted by Jeffrey Sachs decision to repeat Putin’s claim of justification:
https://www.gzeromedia.com/by-Ian-bremmer/?utm_source=GZERO+Daily&utm_campaign=f5df85ee42-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_05_31_08_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e605619869-f5df85ee42-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D
Bremmer concludes that Russia was not provoked in the way that Putin claims. For fun, I chased down some of the documentation Bremmer relies on in his argument. Let’s start with Putin’s first assertion that NATO had promised no eastern expansion:
Putin’s Prepared Remarks at 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy
Courtesy Munich Conference on Security Policy
Monday, February 12, 2007;
“I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html
Here is the source from which Putin misquoted:
The Atlantic Alliance and European Security in the 1990s
Address by Secretary General, Manfred Wörner to the Bremer Tabaks Collegium
“This will also be true of a united Germany in NATO. The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.”
https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
See the difference? Looks like Woerner meant no NATO troops in East Germany, not all of Eastern Europe. In fact, his comment is also limited to the period when Soviet troops remained in East Getmany, not longer.
And here’s Paragraph 1, Article Five, of the Treaty on Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, as evidence:
“Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces for the territory of
the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of
the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the
alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are
assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During
that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of
other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity
there.”
Available here: https://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/290.html
The NATO allies promised not to send troops into the territory of the soon-to-be-former East Germany until after the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops. Nothing about Ukraine or Finland or Poland. Not forever. No such promise was ever made.
Don’t believe the actual texts? Think that something has been left out which would prove Putin’s assertion correct? Here’s what Mikhail Gorbachev said when an interviewer took Putin’s claim at face value after the Crimea invasion in 2014:
“The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.”
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
Putin lied. Sachs fell for the lie. Johnny could be said to have fallen for Putin’s lies, but Johnny doesn’t really seem to care. Putin says it, Johnny repeats it. No questions. Putin’s claim of provocation is a tissue of lies, an excuse, just like always.
if you feel strongly fly to Kiev and join up
Or, hear me out, ’cause this may sound crazy…I could just keep pointing out Russian lies.
first they lied about …..
do something!
or they lie themselves to dunkirk
“if you feel strongly fly to Kiev and join up”
if we join up, we will bring the battle across the border to russian territory. is that what you want?
go for it, this is going existential!
one side or the other pushed too far and it is nukes.
in my misspent youth, i worked/lived on a sac alert base i felt a big comfort knowing i would not need to suffer the ‘day after…”
no apt downtown for me!
Anonymous I suspect the Ukrainians would rather I stay here and pay more in taxes in order to support their self-defense efforts with US arms and ammunition. I’m pretty sure I would be a battlefield liability for the Ukrainians.
Certainly, water management is an important practice in the semi-arid West. As Dr. Frankel indicated, it can be forced through taxation, pricing, and regulation or it can be voluntary when the benefits become obvious.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-farmers-flood-fields-boost-groundwater-basin-98172778
The population growth in the western states has far surpassed the local/regional water sources to serve using conventional water management. California has been reluctantly moving toward desalination to supply urban areas with water, but that is way behind the demand curve in years with little rainfall. Arizona is a mess. People moving into Phoenix where 100+º is common during the summer and early fall with meager rain have created an unsustainable situation and desalination is not an option unless California can come up with surplus water to pipe in.
And that’s it in a nutshell for much of the world where population has increased but regional fresh water replenishment hasn’t. I had a series of long phone calls with a friend in Georgia who arbitrated the Georgia-Florida water use agreement a few decades ago and remains very interested in the subject. I had sent him a link to an article in Eureka Alert that discussed falling global freshwater levels (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/989378).
I offered up these observations:
*****
The subject article, fails under several counts:
1. By referring to “human consumption” it infers freshwater used for irrigation and drinking.
2. It refers to “climate change” as the driving factor when, in fact, the largest reservoir, the Great Lakes, has been unaffected.
3. The Caspian Sea is, in fact, a saline body of water
4. The Salton Sea was artificially created by a spill and the water going into it has been shut off
5. The Aral Sea has been drained by diversion.
Apparently, the authors of the article were more interested in being published as “peer reviewed” under the aegis of climate change than publishing an unbiased, scientific paper.
I don’t see any of these lakes in this article:
10 Largest Fresh Water Lakes
Lake Superior – 82,103 sq.km
Lake Victoria – 59,947 sq.km
Lake Huron – 59,588 sq. km
Lake Michigan – 58,030 sq. km
Lake Tanganyika – 32,900 sq. km
Lake Baikal – 31,722 sq. km
Great Bear Lake – 31,153 sq. km
Lake Malawi -29,600 sq.km
Great Slave Lake – 27,200 sq. km
Lake Erie – 25,667 sq.km
Table of 25 Largest Fresh Water including Area and Volume
The Caspian Sea is diluted saltwater, not freshwater.
In 1905, the Salton Sea was accidentally created when water from the Colorado River spilled out of an ill-constructed California Development Company irrigation system. Over the duration of several years, the lake expanded until people put a stop to the flow. By that time, a 400-square-mile body of water formed on the basin in SoCal, creating the Salton Sink.
Aral Sea, Large salt lake between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. It once covered some 26,300 sq mi (68,000 sq km) and was the fourth largest inland body of water in the world, but diversion of the waters of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers for irrigation has led to an overall reduction of its surface area by more than half since 1960. Its volume has been reduced drastically, which has led to an increase in salinity. The soil of the dried-up lake bed has been found to contain salts and other toxic substances.
*****
I did not try to dispute their fairly complex methodology to measure the change in water levels, although I did point out that the Great Lakes (more than 20% of the world’s fresh water) levels have vacillated around a fairly steady average for a long time and even now the levels are above average when less than a decade ago there were all sorts of studies claiming climate change was going to be the end of those lakes. Perhaps that is because of very modest population growth (decline?) in Canada’s watershed, and northern tier states east of the Rockies.
https://www.science.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1126%2Fscience.abo2812&file=science.abo2812_sm.pdf
My argument was fairly direct: overpopulation in restricted water resources is the major contribution to loss of fresh water in lakes and aquifers.
Incidentally, the EPA projects increased precipitation for most of the US except the southwest as a result of potential future warming. The counter to that is higher rates of evaporation to offset the greater precipitation.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation
———
All of that is by way of getting to the point I made to my friend in Georgia: we should be adopting the Israeli approach to water management for our semi-arid regions.
https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/israel-s-sustainable-water-management-plans-d81db5f5/
Some of that will include Dr. Frankel’s economic sticks. But it is the willingness to use technology despite offending some who see only the negatives (such as local changes to the saltwater sources for desalination) that will be needed to address the problems created by growing populations in water-poor regions…
or we can do nothing and people will voluntarily leave those areas in water crisis.
This i, of course, bad-faith argumentation. Brucey assigns a motivation – one based on the right-wing claim that climate science is a conspiracy – without offering evidence.
He also offers had writing. I can’t tell whether “the subject article” (followed by a superfluous comma) is Frankel’s, the ABC News link or the Eureka link. And I don’t care. “I don’t see (fill in the blank) so the article isn’t valid” is either bad or bad-faith argumentation. What is it about the absence you cite that you think matters. What’s your point?
I will repeat a point I’ve made before. There’s a debating trick which, as far as I can tell, started among anti-evolution types. It goes like this:
1) There is a gap in the fossil record between two fossils suggesting evolutionary progress, so there is no evidence of evolution.
2) A new fossil is found which provides evidence of an intermediate stage between the two fossils,
3) Ah, now there are TWO gaps in the fossil record.
I can’t tell what Brucey’s point is, but I get the impression that’s what the “What about this lake? What about that lake?” is the same kind of argument as the anti-evolution folks used.
But maybe Brucey can clear that up, maybe without repeating the Koch-brothers’ bought-and-paid-for climate-change-conspiracy slime.
I stopped reading Brucie’s BS here:
‘or it can be voluntary when the benefits become obvious’
A free markets solution to externalities? Even uber libertarian Milton Friedman knows this is just stupid economics. Of course Brucie has been wearing his MAGA hat so long he actually thinks this is brilliant.
“I can’t tell what Brucey’s point is, but I get the impression that’s what the “What about this lake? What about that lake?””
Brucie must think we can use water in one part of the world to irrigate farms thousands of miles away. Transportation costs are zero in Brucie’s little world? Seriously?
But do not encourage Brucie to clear up his mess. We have had enough of really stupid comments.
McQuack provides us another irrelevant, poorly written and illogical response which has no point except to flail another writer. Who incidentally seemed to just add more evidence to the original authors premise.
Why is it that you liberals are so threatened by additional supporting information? Why is it you must go off on tangents irrelevant to the subject?
The insecure liberal mind is an amazement.
And your contribution to the discussion? Oh yea – little CoRev is whining as his diaper needs changing.
CoRev Frankel’s article was about using standard market economics to ameliorate the water crisis in the West. What part of that did you not understand? Macroduck’s comments simply tried to steer the discussion back to the main points and away from Bruce’s irrelevant distraction. The uneducated conservative mind amazes me.
2slugs, you are easily amazed. 😉
” steer the discussion back to the main points and away from Bruce’s irrelevant distraction”.
Yep but notice how Brucie gets all upset when we do that?
Macro (note that I am not using the insulting “Duckie”), how much wine did you drink before writing that comment?
But for the impaired:
1) The study is fine except for the forced attribution of climate change as a major factor in the decline of freshwater resources
2) The primary causes of depleted freshwater reserves is overpopulation and mismanagement of water resources in arid/semi-arid regions
3) The Great Lakes have been highlighted as evidence that global warming (aka climate change) is a major factor for dwindling fresh water reserves; however, the Great Lakes, which comprise more than 20% of the global fresh water supply, have consistently vacillated around their long term levels and are above those averages currently. 20% is not a “what about”; it demonstrates that climate change is not a primary driver of water scarcity but rather overpopulation (you can look up world population growth over the past few centuries to understand that concept). Additionally, the EPA suggests that precipitation and evaporation as factors will offset in a warmer climate.
4) The ABC News link was an example of voluntary action to address water shortages and the connection should have been obvious if you read the article
5) Israel has demonstrated how technology can turn water scarcity into water surplus and should be considered a model for US arid/semi-arid regions, but there will have to be compromises with eco-extremists to do that.
“how much wine did you drink before writing that comment?”
Now Brucie – we have asked you to act like an adult but I guess you are incapable of having an honest conversation.
we have asked you to act like an adult but I guess you are incapable of having an honest conversation
That’s rich coming from the #1 troll on this site.
Bruce Hall
June 2, 2023 at 3:43 pm
I think we hurt little Brucie’s feelings! Awwwww!
None of the garbage you just wrote makes any sense unless you are telling us that the West and the Great Lakes have the same seasons. Now we know little Brucie is dumber than rocks but DAMN!
BTW since you are criticizing a news release – here is the actual paper you have decided to trash before actually READING it:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo2812
Climate change and human activities increasingly threaten lakes that store 87% of Earth’s liquid surface fresh water. Yet, recent trends and drivers of lake volume change remain largely unknown globally. Here, we analyze the 1972 largest global lakes using three decades of satellite observations, climate data, and hydrologic models, finding statistically significant storage declines for 53% of these water bodies over the period 1992–2020. The net volume loss in natural lakes is largely attributable to climate warming, increasing evaporative demand, and human water consumption, whereas sedimentation dominates storage losses in reservoirs. We estimate that roughly one-quarter of the world’s population resides in a basin of a drying lake, underscoring the necessity of incorporating climate change and sedimentation impacts into sustainable water resources management.
Brucie – given you are the dumbest troll ever, maybe just maybe you might try reading the scientific material your own links provide. I mean DAMN.
“Israel has demonstrated how technology can turn water scarcity into water surplus and should be considered a model for US arid/semi-arid regions”
Of course Brucie can’t provide a link to this success story so permit me:
https://www.thetower.org/article/how-israel-is-solving-the-global-water-crisis/
“Probably the most advanced system is employed by Hagihon, the public company that runs Jerusalem’s water system.”
Interested readers should read on and in fact the entire story. But we know Brucie never READS. Even if he did he would never admit it was a PUBLIC company that drove this success story. No little Brucie is trying to tell us the private sector can do this “voluntarily”. Yea Brucie once again wastes our time with one lie after another.
Another story on how it was public led investment that helped Israel with water issues:
https://blogs.worldbank.org/water/israel-how-meeting-water-challenges-spurred-dynamic-export-industry
But Israel’s water technology sector isn’t solely the product of state-led investment. It’s also sustained by the country’s progressive approach to water pricing, which aims to promote water conservation while also ensuring that investments in water supply and delivery are sustainable, with operation and maintenance expenses financed by tariffs paid by water users. This tariff, currently set at US$2.55 per cubic meter for most water users, includes only a 4.5% subsidy[3] This relatively high water tariff creates a dependable revenue for Israel’s utilities, and a strong profit motive for companies whose technology and processes can further reduce water use.
Perhaps even more important than these favorable economics, however, is the institutional support that the Israeli government provides for entrepreneurs and researchers in the water sector. Israel’s government-funded Innovation Authority and Export Institute have both identified water as a strategic growth opportunity, and provide water technology companies with startup financing, export assurances, and assistance in promoting products abroad. A sectoral growth strategy produced by Deloitte on behalf of the Manufacturers Association of Israel has been embraced by the government, including holding a major industry conference – WATEC– every two years.
The kind of government involvement Dr. Frankel advocated. But little free market Brucie boy thinks this will take care of itself via the free market. Come Brucie – if you actually read the literature before spouting off your idiotic nonsense, you might not embarrass your family so often.
OK, let’s assume that Brucey had in mind the Eureka article. The Eureka article is a press release, not the original research. If the press release is missing wome things Brucey thinks should be in the article, so what? Now, “so what?” is also the appropriate response if Brucey read the actual research and it, too, is missing some things Bricey wants to see – Brucey doesn’t claim to understand the research methodology, so his opinions are just bar-stool stuff.
But let’s look a little further at Brucey’s “counts, just in case he has tripped over something useful:
1. By referring to “human consumption” it infers freshwater used for irrigation and drinking.
Brucey doesn’t tell us why this definition is a problem. And since “human consumption” isn’t a central point of the lake-level research, it’s definition, infered or otherwise, isn’t really a concern.
2. It refers to “climate change” as the driving factor when, in fact, the largest reservoir, the Great Lakes, has been unaffected.
This is perhaps he dumbest of Brucey’s “counts”. Apparently, unless everything everywhere is affected in the same way, climate change cannot be the cause. And by he way, the water level in the Great Lakes has risen, according to the authors. Which could easily be the result of climate change.
3. The Caspian Sea is, in fact, a saline body of water
OK, maybe this is the dumbest. How does salinity negate the decline in water level? Or the association with climate change? It doesn’t. This is a complete red herring.
4. The Salton Sea was artificially created by a spill and the water going into it has been shut off
Not actually shut off. More efficient irrigation techniques have reduced run-off into the Salton, but that’s irrelevant. The study covers 1,972 lakes and Brucey has found THAT ONE LAKE which is shrinking due to reduced run-off. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it doesn’t change the conclusions of the study. And you know what’s funny? The authors actually include run-off among their list of intermediate causes for changes in lake level. So Brucey tries to play “gotcha” and loses! Should have read the background material.
5. The Aral Sea has been drained by diversion.
Yep. The Soviet Union caused what has been described as one of the greatest man-made climate disasters in history by draining the Aral Sea for irrigation. Again, the study covers 1,972 lakes, so one lake doesn’t change the results much. In fact, one lake doesn’t change the results at all, since the authors include irrigation among the causes of change in lake level. So how does Brucey’s 5th “count” in any way represent bias? It doesn’t. Nor do the other four. Brucey is a climate-change-denier, so any excuse to claim bias is as good as any other.
Brucey doesn’t see any of the ten largest freshwater lakes mentioned in the article, by which he means the press release? Did Brucey check the map representing the results of the authors data collection? No, Brucey did not. Again, Brucey should have checked the background material.
Brucey wrote all those words, and every one of them was either dishonest or ignorant. What a puffed up ego. What a dope.
“The subject article, fails under several counts”
Frankel’s discussion was excellent. That it failed to include your idiotic right wing babbling is a virtue not a short coming. But of course Brucie boy has to catch up with CoRev and JohnH for 2023 troll of the year.
Your attributed criticism that to the wrong article. It referenced the Eureka Alert article.
I know you will do anything to try to discredit my comments, but really….
I was generally agreeing with Dr. Frankel and pointing out that the real culprit to the crisis of fresh water shortages is overpopulation in areas without sufficient water resources or inputs, along with general mismanagement. Do you disagree? I also pointed out that the Israelis have a workable solution if government regulatory agencies don’t get in the way. Do you disagree?
Will you accept Stanford U regarding overpopulation as the primary cause of water shortages?
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/overpopulation-and-water-scarcity-leading-to-world-future-food-crisis/
If not, then don’t bother me with your nonsense ad hominems and rear end opinions.
“I was generally agreeing with Dr. Frankel”
If you think your free market excuses were in agreement with what Dr. Frankel wrote then you have a serious reading comprehension problem.
Brucie reads the title and forgets to read the entire discussion – AGAIN:
Overpopulation increases uncontrolled urbanization and expansion of cities leading to more infrastructure and using up of resources. At the same time, this increases carbon dioxide emission Into the atmosphere resulting in more climate change. It is imperative to reduce fossil fuel, adopt alternative renewable energy and nuclear power.
Hey Brucie – read that last sentence over and over. It is what Macroduck said – as well as Dr. Frankel. Your link Bruce – READ it.
‘California farmers flood fields to boost groundwater basin
With water gushing through California’s rivers, some farmers have started devoting a portion of their land to capture these flows and let them seep into the ground’
Well yea they did this modest measure ‘voluntarily’ but if this is your evidence that a laisse faire approach solves all issues then you are beyond the dumbest troll ever.
Come on Brucie – stop posting trash and READ what Dr. Frankel wrote.
A common objection to using market prices (or Pigouviam taxes) to solve resource problems is that the poor suffer most from such policies. The poor spend more of their income on natural-resource-heavy necessities than richer folk, so are hurt most when subsidies are removed or Pigouvian taxes applied.
Yeah, but, what about all the money made available by taes or reduced subsidies? Couldn’t we make it up to the poor? Tacit in this objection to the removal of subsidies or application of Pigouvian taxes is that our society doesn’t care for its poor and would instead compensate the rich.
Andrew Yang, you out there?
Kosovo’s border with Serbia turned just a bit uglier today. After ethnic Serbs in that reg>n attacked NATO troops, NATO is adding 700 moresoldiees to the 4000 already there. Servia’s president has ordered military units to the border. Russia’s defense minister said Russia backs Serbia without reservation and warned of a “Maidan” event, code for a popular uprising that deposed a Russia-backed leader, as happened in Ukraine.
“Maidan” is also code for “and we won’t allow it”. It’s not clear that there is any threat to Serbia’s government, not is it clear Russia has the resources to do much about it.
If this is a tacit threat against Kosovo’s territorial integrity, then it’s a threat against NATO. Not good, and not credible.
As a Wisconsinite – I always wonder why not let a state that has a great competitive advantage for dairy, do dairy – WI can readily grow alfalfa for hay or corn for silage – but I guess the milk shipping costs would offset that? Anyway – the one that always blows me away is farmers in AZ and NM growing hay for export! https://hayandforage.com/article-3388-thank-china-for-record-alfalfa-hay-exports.html
Another factor to keep in mind – farmers in these areas can do 8 or 9 hay cuttings a year compared to 4 in WI – but they are using a lot of water to do so https://www.azfb.org/Article/Arizona-Agricultures-Amazing-Alfalfa
ADP reports 278,000 new private sector jobs in May. The South shed 204,000 jobs, he third month in a row of losses. ADP only recently began reportig regional changes, so it’s hard to tell if this is a big deal. Other regions have mostly all gained jobs in the past three months.
One more point ahead of the BLS jobs report –
Both new jobless claims and JOLTS layoffs and separations are rising, though neither is yet at a scary level:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=15J7v
I’ve used y/y change because that makes the rise obvious. Change the settings to levels if you want to do historical comparisons. jOLTS data haven’t ben published long enough to do much with leads and lags and such, but they do help confirm what’s going on in other data series.
One very simple helpful approach is to cover all irrigation canals with solar panels. It helps reduce evaporation and provides free lands for solar energy collection.
Is the Kremlin totally incompetent or is there some corruption here?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/russia-doesn-t-know-what-to-do-with-the-1-billion-in-rupees-it-is-amassing-in-india-each-month/ar-AA1bYuz2?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ca776167bcde4bc4bb73c256b3cf42ab&ei=6
Business Insider
Business Insider
Russia doesn’t know what to do with the $1 billion in rupees it is amassing in India each month
Story by htan@insider.com (Huileng Tan) • 5h ago
MARKETS TODAY
DJI
▲ +0.09%
INX
▲ +0.42%
COMP
▲ +0.52%
Russia’s struggling to find uses for the $1 billion in rupees it amasses in India each month. Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images
Russia’s struggling to find uses for the $1 billion in rupees it amasses in India each month. Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images
© Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images
Russia’s amassing $1 billion worth of Indian rupees each month that it’s struggling to use.
India has been buying Russian oil using rupees as Moscow has been shut out of the USD-denominated global payments system.
But Russia now has problems using the rupees and repatriating the currency.
Russia’s oil trade with India is booming — but Moscow doesn’t know how to fully reap the benefits of that trade.
Even since Russia was cut off from the US dollar-dominated global payments systems following sweeping sanctions off the Ukraine war, the two countries have used the Indian rupee for trade. However, Russia’s now having issues with trading in the rupee because there’s more Indian demand for Russian goods than the other way around — meaning Russia has been saddled up to $1 billion worth of rupees each month that’s stuck in Indian banks, according to Bloomberg calculations on Thursday.
This is an interesting little case study. India typically, though not consistently, runs a current account deficit:
https://tradingeconomics.com/india/current-account
Some of that deficit is due to a bilateral deficit with Russia, but the agreement to pay in rupees and Russia’s inability to convert rupee balances into other currencies means the payment remains in India. Russia is piling up reserves.
Sanction against Russia have apparently created a situation in which bilateral trade balances become important. India imports military equipment from Russia, so there is a way to maintain bilateral balance, but Russian military output is mostly dedicated to Russia’s effort to grab Ukrainian territory. Even if there is a “double coincidence of wants”, it can’t be expressed in exchange.
Under such circumstances, countertrade sometimes comes up, with the odd feature here that, rather than India suffering a lack of hard currency, sanctions have created a situation in which India can insist on paying in rupees. India has Russia over a barrel.
India could provide exports to Iran or North Korea on Russia’s behalf to pay for weapons and ammunition; whether this would be in India’s interest is another question. Anyhow, this is the sort of clumsy, expensive arrangement that multilateral elaborations of countertrade entail. Which is perhaps why Russia is simply piling up funds in Indian banks.
I have an idea of how to set little CoRev off. Provide this lying worthless troll with the UN on Climate Change:
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change
What Is Climate Change?
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures. The main greenhouse gases that are causing climate change include carbon dioxide and methane. These come from using gasoline for driving a car or coal for heating a building, for example. Clearing land and cutting down forests can also release carbon dioxide. Agriculture, oil and gas operations are major sources of methane emissions. Energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and land use are among the main sectors causing greenhouse gases.
If this has not started this troll to go off barking madly, let the UN continue:
Humans are responsible for global warming
Climate scientists have showed that humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. Human activities like the ones mentioned above are causing greenhouse gases that are warming the world faster than at any time in at least the last two thousand years. The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is now about 1.1°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s (before the industrial revolution) and warmer than at any time in the last 100,000 years. The last decade (2011-2020) was the warmest on record, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than any previous decade since 1850. Many people think climate change mainly means warmer temperatures. But temperature rise is only the beginning of the story. Because the Earth is a system, where everything is connected, changes in one area can influence changes in all others. The consequences of climate change now include, among others, intense droughts, water scarcity, severe fires, rising sea levels, flooding, melting polar ice, catastrophic storms and declining biodiversity.
OK my apologies to the neighbors as the dumb dog CoRev is going to bark the rest of the damn day!
Ole Bark, bark finally provided a definition for Climate Change. Why was that so difficult? Impacts are limited in the first sentence: “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.” and the sources of these changes are: ” Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. ” Then comes the BUT “But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. And the physics of this statement is is ludicrously WRONG: “Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures.Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures.”
You believe the UN? and they say: “Energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture and land use are among the main sectors causing greenhouse gases.” But to believe this you have to also believe NATURE has suspended climate impact, even though the UN does give credit to nature for earlier change. If nature is no longer a major factor then the past 5 years should show a temperature increase: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2018.5/plot/gistemp/from:2018.5/trend Why no, MR CoRev, we don’t see a rise but a drop in temperatures.
Or we should see a drop in Co2 during this same 5 year period: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2018.5 Why no, MR CoRev, we don’t see a drop in atmospheric Co2. How can that Co2 be the control switch for temperature? It isn’t. It isn’t a blanket. Nor is it a trap for the Sun’s heat. It does slow the release of photon for microseconds. There is a trap, but it’s not associated with man kind, and purely nature. For 3 of those 5 years we’ve had consecutive la Nina, another totally natural event, which cools the Pacific Ocean’s surface.
So not only is the UN wrong with it’s blanket analogy it’s wrong historically, especially short term. Wat part of that temperature drop in the past 5 years due to nature?
The unscientific and gullible liberal mind is an amazement.
This is why no one plays your stupid games. All you do is chirp and lie. Total waste of time.
“And the physics of this statement is is ludicrously WRONG”
Let’s stop there. You make a hyberbolic statement with no source, no context, and no support. Physics? What makes this wrong? Oh wait – you flunked physics too.
Now this is the same little CoRev who dishonestly told us that LCOE ignores capital costs and operating costs. The EIA says otherwise.
Yea I trust the EIA and the UN. I do not trust CoRev as we have seen the depths of CoRev’s misrepresentations.
Ole Bark, bark, I know this is way above your scientific capabilities, but I explained later in the comment: “How can that Co2 be the control switch for temperature? It isn’t. It isn’t a blanket. Nor is it a trap for the Sun’s heat.<b? It does slow the release of photon for microseconds. ”
If you read the ?scientific? literature you will find examples of residence time (how long it is trapped), weasel words like “for some time” or totally ignored. It takes some detailed research an knowledge of physics to find the residence time answer.
I challenge you to do so.
The unscientific liberal mind is an amazement.
Where did you get this latest garbage? Dude – provide us with reliable sources aka links to the basis for your stupid taunts and maybe someone other than Bruce Hall will take your seriously?
See baffling’s comment and do RE-READ this:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by “greenhouse gases.” These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and water vapor. (Water vapor, which responds physically or chemically to changes in temperature, is called a “feedback.”) Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide’s warming effect helps stabilize Earth’s atmosphere. Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33°C (59°F) cooler.
Oh wait – this is referring to scientists. Little CoRev does not trust scientists as he is bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers.
woodfortrees.org?
Now that is a reliable source – NOT. Of course we have seen how you have blatantly misrepresented what they have provided.
Look CoRev – we get you lie about everything. Take a vacation and enjoy a beer for a change as your barking here is just pathetic.
Ole Bark, bark why do you trust these organizations?
Also why do you distrust the data? Woodfortrees is just a data aggregator which provides some tools for visualizations. Y’ano, just like this organization https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools. The tools are different, but the data is identical with minor temporal differences.
Same data different tools.
Of course someone so deeply ingrained into the Climate Religion would already know this. Oh that’s right you’re so clueless to not recognize the Woodfortrees ORIGINAL sources. Nor do you know why I chose to show NOAA.
Look Ole Bark, bark – we get you lie about and are threatened by everything. Your insecurities are getting worse when facts are presented.
The immature and insecure liberal mind is an amazement.
we have discussed the physics of the greenhouse effect. if you still cannot wrap your mind around the process, what is the point in continuing to discuss something you simply deny? it is like arguing with somebody who does not believe in gravity. or believes that the earth is flat. why even discuss with an idiot who will never accept the truth.
my guess is you are also a gold bug, and bought gold from peter schiff.
‘Ole Bark, bark why do you trust these organizations?’
Because they do not lie. But that is all you ever do.
‘Also why do you distrust the data?’
The “data” you dredge up you mean? Because you have a perfect record of always lying about everything.
“Woodfortrees is just a data aggregator which provides some tools for visualizations.”
An aggregator of stuff CoRev found on the dark web or during a meeting between Team Trump and the Koch Brothers.
CoRev It’s interesting that you pointed us to your “woodfortrees” link to show that global temperatures haven’t risen over the last five years and then in the very next paragraph you said this: For 3 of those 5 years we’ve had consecutive la Nina, another totally natural event, which cools the Pacific Ocean’s surface. I’ll just let you ponder that juxtaposition for a few moments.
As to your “woodfortrees” link, the issue isn’t with the site owner’s data amalgamation; the issue is the hopelessly naive “analysis” tools he offers. You don’t have any formal training in data analysis, so I’m not surprised that you are awed and amazed by the toylike graphics, but for the rest of us it’s about what I would expect from an introductory stat course at the high school level. Even your naive attempt to correlate CO2 emissions with temperature change is a joke. Serious analysts argue about stationarity and possible cointegrating relationships. For example, James Stock (a great econometrician) and others wrote a paper entitled “Does temperature contain a stochastic trend? Evaluating conflicting statistical results.” From that paper the authors said this:
Results indicate that the in-sample temperature forecast generated by a cointegrating relationship between temperature and radiative forcing is more accurate than the in-sample forecast generated by a trend stationary model with a one-time permanent shock. Furthermore, temperature data generated by Monte Carlo simulations of the cointegration/error correction model generate the same trend-stationary-with-a-break result described byGay et al. (2009). Conversely, it is not possible to represent the time series for radiative forcing as a trend stationary process with a one-time permanent shock. Based on these results, we conclude that statistical models of surface temperature that are based on the notion of cointegration are superior because they can be used to test hypotheses about the physical mechanisms by which anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and sulfur affect climate in ways that a trend stationary model with a one-time permanent shock cannot.
If you don’t understand what that paragraph says, then you really need to keep silent about climate change. And stay away from toy statistical tools at some random website.
2slugs, you grasp of the obvious does amaze. Context is important. Prior to this I said: “If nature is no longer a major factor then the past 5 years should show a temperature increase: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2018.5/plot/gistemp/from:2018.5/trend Why no, MR CoRev, we don’t see a rise but a drop in temperatures.
Or we should see a drop in Co2 during this same 5 year period: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2018.5 Why no, MR CoRev, we don’t see a drop in atmospheric Co2. ”
So saying: “For 3 of those 5 years we’ve had consecutive la Nina, another totally natural event, which cools the Pacific Ocean’s surface.” adds weight to the “If nature is no longer a major factor” assertion of the UN’s definition of Climate Change.
It’s sad I have to highlight the key points in a discussion, but it is obviously needed for the liberal minds here. We’ve already discussed the Stock. IIRC Menzie even wrote a whole article on it. It kinda reminds of that recent article which showed, using the LCOE cost model, that Windmills costs were going down, when the impetus for the article was evidence that the LCOE was incomplete and its results flawed.
After many, many comments the substance of that claim was never actually discussed and in fact more items were identified as missing from the LCOE model.
The liberal mind that can’t follow a discussion is an amazement.
“Context is important.” Yep – and the context of your babble is that you are bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers.
“items were identified as missing from the LCOE model”
Such as capital costs and operating costs are you first claimed. Oh wait – now that the EIA has shown this claim to be one of your patented LIES, you now deny you made this claim.
Careful CoRev – the Koch Brothers may decide they need a better liar and you might just get fired.
CoRev tries to capture long-term trends by some graph he drew over the past five years.
Now we get you are a lying joke – but DAMN!
CoRev You’re invoking a strawman argument to try and avoid having to admit that you were caught contradicting yourself. No one has ever said that natural forces don’t affect weather. Clearly el Nino and la Nina events affect weather patterns. Variation in the sun’s energy also affects temperatures here on planet Earth. But as you like to point out, five years of weather data is not climate. So once again you contradict yourself when you keep referring to the experience of the last five years rather than the last thirty years. But the key point is that if it’s all just natural events, then over the last few years we should have seen lower temperatures than we saw over previous years. And that is clearly not the case. The issue is not (repeat NOT) why temperatures haven’t increased significantly between 2018 and 2023, but rather why those temperatures haven’t actually fallen to levels below years prior to the last five (i.e., between 2013 and 2018) . If manmade global warming isn’t a thing, then the most recent five year period should have been cooler than the previous five year period since virtually all of the “natural” forces have tended to lower global temperatures.
As to the Stock paper, it’s pretty clear that you didn’t understand a word of it. Once again, you’re just trying to BS your way out of an embarrassing lack of knowledge. Save it for your clueless MAGA friends down at the local watering hole.
Recent data shows the upper atmosphere is continuing to cool, while the lower atmosphere continues to warm. As predicted by greenhouse models, which covid continues to dispute without scientific evidence.
2slugs asserts: ” No one has ever said that natural forces don’t affect ?weather?. ” but Ole Bark, bark’s UN definition says: “But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.” https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change (Ole Bark, bark’s reference) Perhaps the two facts that temperatures went DOWN, CO2 continued to go UP during that period, and the past 5 years is in the period since 1880, is too difficult for your Climate Change religious beliefs. and that the UN definition is at worst disproved or at best questionable.
BTW switching from Climate change to WEATHER is just another debating trick. You’re invoking a strawman argument to try and avoid having to admit that you were caught contradicting yourself. Another example of this penchant for your strawman argumentation is this twofer: “(1)But the key point is that if it’s all just natural events, (manmade GHGs) then over the last few years we should have seen lower temperatures than we saw over previous years. (But Mr 2slugs that’s exactly what the Woodfortrees graphs using the official data shows. ) And that is clearly not the case. The issue is not (repeat NOT) why temperatures haven’t increased significantly between 2018 and 2023, but rather why those temperatures haven’t actually fallen to levels below years prior to the last five (i.e., between 2013 and 2018) . (2) If manmade global warming isn’t a thing,…” (no one has said this, especially not me) (Indicates my fixes to your ignorant strawman interpretations.)
As to the Stock paper, it is just another strawman argument unrelated to the weakness of the UN (liberal/progressive) definition of climate change. You clearly can not understand and will not admit the implications of the Woodfortrees graphs using the official data, and how they undermine the UN definition.
The Climate Change religion driven, strawman argumenting liberal minds are an amazement.
Baffled, another of the climate religion cultists, notes that the stratosphere is cooling. No more information is necessary for the cultist.
It will probably come as a surprise to this cultist that we have collecting stratospheric temperature data since ~1892 with weather balloons. The modern satellite collection era starts ~1978. Somethings are intuitively obvious if data analysis is done on these long datasets. Simple things like surface temperatures are going up, upper atmospheric temperatures are going down, and they may be coupled, plus upper atmospheric temperatures are closely related to ozone and water (at these altitudes ic) content, and they may be coupled. Please note ozone is NOT a Green House gas.
Strangely, these coupled conditions may be further associated and/or with man’s influence. Wow!
The desperate climate cultist mind is an amazement.
‘the issue isn’t with the site owner’s data amalgamation; the issue is the hopelessly naive “analysis” tools he offers.’
Exactly. GIGO to most people refers to Garbage In Garbage Out.
CoRev? Garbage In = Gospel Out.
Ole Bark, bark, explain the meaning of those naive “analysis” tools in context of the naive and childishly incomplete/wrong UN definition you provided. While you’re at that definition find where I actually said the LCOE covers the COMPLETE O&M costs, as your repeated LYING claims implies.
The need to continuously lie is an amazement of the liberal mind. Yours in particular.
Ole Bark, bark has missed his tree, the one he barks up< again. This is what Gavin Schmidt, https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/ said in a new realclimate article. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/turning-a-new-pages/
"Dashboards that allow for more flexibility (like WoodForTrees) are useful, but aren’t as visually appealing as they could be. ”
Or you might be interested in Gavin’s chart re: temperature and SCALED CO2: https://www.realclimate.org/images/co2_temp_scaled-600×444.png Your cultist blinders will probably miss the (con.. Errr) divergence of the the two at the ends of the graphs. You might particularly note that divergence in the most recent history.
Gavin does not use terms like naive, or not the actual data, he just thinks his visualizations are better. Much like you think your lies are truths.
The desperation of the ignorant, immature, cultist liberal mind is an amazement.
I was looking for that hiatus covid swears by. could not find it anywhere. what happened? must be a flaw in the data!
if anybody is really interested in the impact of climate change, look no further than ocean energy content
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
this is the type of thing deniers such as covid and bruce have been spouting for decades. now some of them claim to not be deniers, and come up with many reasons for to explain temperature increases. but this has occurred AFTER they both denied rising temperature for years. the first step in recovery, gentlemen, is to admit you were wrong and that global temperatures are indeed rising. it is not too late to repent, even for you two sinners.
Baffled, why is it necessary for liberals to continuously lie? ” but this has occurred AFTER they both denied rising temperature for years. the first step in recovery, gentlemen, is to admit you were wrong and that global temperatures are indeed rising.”
Other than making absurd claims, show us how those Woodfortrees graphs I presented are wrong. Better still explain for us how those graphs support the UN definition: “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas….” https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change
For some reason this part of the definition is forgotten and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, and replaced with due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas while also forgetting the qualifier primarily. Cults and cultist do that. Science and scientists should not, but apparently may.
Cultists also do this: “I was looking for that hiatus covid swears by. could not find it anywhere. what happened? must be a flaw in the data!” Here’s the current pause: https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/image-8.png?ssl=1 and the associated article: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/03/the-new-pause-feels-the-influence-of-the-coming-el-nino/ Here’s the old pause and in which datasets it appeared: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/03/the-new-pause-feels-the-influence-of-the-coming-el-nino/
Cultists can not accept what the data said/says because the data may add doubt.
The cultist liberal mind is an amazement.
so covid still wants to stand by his assertion that we have a hiatus, and that global warming is not occurring. I thought we got past this, but it just proves you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. you are what we call a denialist, covid. wishywashy, perhaps, but denialist nevertheless. you just could not bring yourself to admit there was no hiatus, and global warming is occurring. you simply deny it, because to admit otherwise is to admit you are wrong. which is most of the time.
Baffled, the data says what it naively says.
The desperate, data denying liberal mind is an amazement.
Good news for corporate borrowers in general, junk borrowers in particular. They refinanced outstanding debt pretty aggressively during the Covid-induced period of low borrowing costs, reducing the need to roll over debt in the current period of higher borrowing costs:
https://www.ft.com/content/2ed6fbda-760a-47ee-8b65-32849e44fa00
CoRev writes all sorts of BS and misdirection with his favorite LIE being how Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is allegedly a misleading measure as CoRev alleges it ignores “operating costs” and it ignores the “cost of capital”. Yea I get that CoRev is using words this little moron never understood (CoRev understands absolutely nothing with respect to economics after all) but maybe we should trust the EIA on this:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
‘Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) refers to the estimated revenue required to build and operate a generator over a specified cost recovery period.’
I seriously doubt anyone would forget to measure operating costs here. And when people talk about a specified cost recovery period they specifically consider the capital costs from using the generator.
Now here is what I don’t know. CoRev latest claim is clearly false but is this troll LYING again or is he just babbling about things he is too stupid to understand?
Ole bark, bark why do you insist on lying? Show us where I said what you claim.
Moreover, you really should read your own references:
“Levelized avoided cost of electricity
LCOE and LCOS by themselves do not capture all of the factors (my claims were incomplete and flawed) that contribute to actual investment
decisions, making direct comparisons of LCOE and LCOS across technologies problematic and misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives. Figure 1 illustrates the limitations of using LCOE alone. In AEO2022, solar LCOE, on average, is lower than natural gas-fired combined-cycle (CC) LCOE in 2027. However, more CC generating capacity is installed than solar PV between 2025 and 2027. We project more CC capacity to be installed than solar PV capacity because the relative value of adding CC to the system is greater than for solar PV, which LCOE does not capture.”
And my biggest complaint about LCOE is shown in Tables 1. LCOE shows Stand alone solar is the cheapest source when the Sun shines, but even they only provide battery storage for 4 hours. That leaves a whopping ~8 hours PLUS per day where it is not producing nor backed up
Where does the electricity come from for those periods Where are those costs covered in the LCOE model?
Please stop and think before running your lying mouth. The inability to think of the liberal mind is an amazement.
“Show us where I said what you claim.”
You do this a lot. Make one dishonest or stupid claim after another and when caught doing so, you can all deny, deny, deny.
Thanks for confirmed that even you do not take your serial BS seriously.
EIA later notes:
Key inputs to calculating LCOE and LCOS include capital costs, fixed operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, variable costs that include O&M and fuel costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.
Just in case our Village Moron CoRev missed this.
https://english.news.cn/20220519/539a44fc40c14f549efe97ae667b317d/c.html
May 19, 2022
Chinese scientists find new gene to improve wheat yield
BEIJING — Chinese scientists have found a new gene that can boost the yield of wheat by improving the crop’s drought tolerance and nitrogen-use efficacy, according to the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS).
Drought and nitrogen deficiency are the major limiting factors affecting the global wheat yield, according to Ma Youzhi from the CAAS.
Genetically enhancing drought tolerance and nutrient use efficacy enables sustainable and stable wheat production in areas exposed to water shortages and low soil fertility due to global warming and declining natural resources, Ma said.
Researchers from the CAAS cloned GmTDN1, a gene encoding a DREB-like transcription factor, from a stress-resistant soybean variety and introduced it into two modern winter wheat varieties. The wheat varieties showed significant improvements in drought and low-nitrogen tolerance.
The findings have the potential to contribute to global food security by improving the drought tolerance and nitrogen-use efficacy of cereal crops, per the study * recently published in the journal Plant Biotechnology Journal.
* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pbi.13836
An actual contribution to an economist blog. I had to say that because I think we have all had it with CoRev’s lying. And we thought CoRev care about farmers. OK, here is what FRED is reporting for wheat prices. Falling over the last 12 months but increased production would be a good thing.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PWHEAMTUSDM
http://www.worldagriculturalproduction.com/crops/wheat.aspx#:~:text=Wheat%20Production%20by%20Country%20%28Values%20in%20Metric%20Tons%29,134%2C300%2C000%20India%3A%20103%2C000%2C000%20Russia%3A%2091%2C000%2C000%20United%20States%3A%2044%2C902%2C000
Wheat Production by Country
(Values in Metric Tons)
China: 138,000,000
European Union: 134,300,000
India: 103,000,000
Russia: 91,000,000
United States: 44,902,000
Australia: 36,600,000
Canada: 33,824,000
China and the EU produce a lot of wheat but they consume more so they are net importers. The US produces a fair amount of wheat as does Russia but both nations export a lot as their consumption is less than production.
https://english.news.cn/20230324/2919ddac063b414cbe3bc862dae9e8cb/c.html
March 24, 2023
Alkaline-tolerance gene identified to improve crop yields on sodic land
BEIJING — A collaborative research team in China found a key gene in a crop that might, via genetic engineering, substantially improve crop yields in alkaline soil.
The study, * published on Friday in the journal Science, described the breakthrough in agriculture that could increase the production of crops, including rice and maize, by at least 250 million tonnes should the newly-identified gene be applied to 20 percent of global under-utilized saline and alkaline soil.
More than 1 billion hectares of saline and alkaline areas globally are cultivation-unfriendly. What is worse, global arable land is expected to become saltier owing to climate change, declines in freshwater availability, and the use of chemical fertilizers.
To cope with the challenge, agriculturalists have made progress in examining plants that could tolerate salty soil with a neutral pH value.
But plant tolerance in alkaline soils with higher pH levels and dominated by sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate salts are less known. The alkalinity in soil inhibits a plant’s ability to take in nutrients and manage salt stress.
The researchers, led by those from the Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Agricultural University, and Huazhong Agricultural University, investigated the sorghum originally grown in barren African soil instead of the Arabidopsis thaliana, a frequently-used model plant grown in non-alkaline areas.
Sorghum has evolved greater tolerance to multiple abiotic stresses, and can even survive in a sodic soil with a pH of up to 10.0, according to the researchers.
They performed a genome-wide association study in a diverse sorghum panel and identified a vital genetic locus called Alkaline tolerance 1 (AT1), linked with the plant’s sensitivity to alkaline soils.
The gene can encode a guanine nucleotide-binding protein’s subunit and thus controls alkaline tolerance, said the study….
* https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade8416
https://english.news.cn/20221002/30a8fbee7db94256a79bf55c41671e98/c.html
October 2, 2022
Water-saving rice helps farmers secure bumper harvest amid drought
HEFEI — Though having been undergoing prolonged heat and drought since this summer, Chen Lei’s rice field in Changfeng County, east China’s Anhui Province, is still expected to reap a bumper harvest at the end of October.
Unlike common rice grown in paddy fields, the water-saving and drought-resistant rice varieties grown by Chen were sowed on dry land, while their output is about the same as common rice.
Around 20 km away in Hefei City, capital of Anhui, a seminar held in late September gathered experts countrywide to discuss these new rice varieties.
“Agricultural water consumption accounts for over 70 percent of the total water consumption in China, and rice irrigation accounts for over 70 percent of the agricultural water consumption,” said Luo Lijun, chief scientist of the Shanghai Agrobiological Gene Center.
After years of research, Luo and his team combined the good qualities of traditional rice with the drought resistance of upland rice to cultivate the new varieties, which can save about 50 percent of water and 30 percent of fertilizer usage.
As heat and drought swept many regions of China this year, the new rice varieties have helped many farmers secure production.
According to Luo, over 3 million mu (200,000 hectares) of these varieties have been grown in China as of now, including around half of them in Anhui.
“Despite persistent heat, I only watered the field twice this year, and the rice still grows well,” said Chen, who expanded his rice field from 300 mu last year to 1,000 mu.
He also spent less on electricity for irrigation, as well as pesticide and herbicide thanks to the new varieties.
Meanwhile, the water-saving and drought-resistant rice can reduce about 90 percent of the emission of methane, a greenhouse gas, compared with common varieties, said Zhou Sheng, deputy director of the Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Low-carbon Agriculture, at the seminar….
“The almond and pistachio crops…”
Importantly much of the production of almond and pistachio nuts in California is controlled by a single family, Stewart and Lynda Resnick, and with this control and ownership comes subsidized water rights. The Resnicks are essentially water tycoons.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2021/09/20/amid-drought-billionaires-control-a-critical-california-water-bank/?sh=44092ae92e7a
September 20, 2021
Amid Drought, Billionaires Control A Critical California Water Bank
By Chloe Sorvino
Water prices are soaring in California’s Central Valley, where a quarter of the nation’s food is grown. As the West Coast’s megadrought worsens, one farming company has long been scrutinized for its outsize role in the arid region’s water supply.
Wonderful, the closely held company owned by billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick, can buy up huge amounts of water whenever it needs more. Most of the Resnicks’ water comes from long-term contracts and other water from land rights they have from the farms they own. Around 9% of the total water used by Wonderful is bought out on the open water market. While that’s not a huge amount of the water it uses, the company can outspend pretty much every other farmer in the region, which can influence water prices….
“The water that the Resnicks use gets stored underground initially before the water is delivered to the roots of the Resnicks’ pistachios, almonds and pomegranate orchards. Specifically, it is stored in the Kern Water Bank, the most valuable water resource in a region critical to America’s fresh food supply. The water bank, which is a public-private partnership in which the Resnicks own a 57% stake, is a 32-square-mile recharge basin—which looks like flood lands from the street that essentially stores up to 1.5 million acre-feet of water (or 500 billion gallons) underground. The Resnicks’ storage arrangement is controversial. “They have been banking water by using public and private dollars to corral a public resource. Because of their water rights and their wealth, they are insulating themselves from the drought,” says Char Miller, the director of environmental analysis at Pomona College. “Private capital has no problem with the drought, while the rest of us do. That’s one of the deep social divides.”
Gee – the free market in action. This does seem unfair but it is quite consistent with what the likes of Bruce Hall would applaud.
https://truthout.org/articles/the-resnicks-manipulate-water-policy-with-big-campaign-contributions/
The Resnicks Manipulate Water Policy With Big Campaign Contributions
Stewart Resnick, the Beverly Hills agribusiness tycoon who owns 115,000 acres of farmland in Kern County, appears to be putting his bets on Jerry Brown as the winner of the gubernatorial race in the November election – even though Brown hasn’t officially declared himself as a candidate. On November 11, 2009, Resnick and his wife, Lynda, co-owners of the giant Paramount Farms and Roll Corporation, wrote four checks totalling $50,000 for the Brown campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/climate/arizona-phoenix-permits-housing-water.html
June 1, 2023
Arizona Limits Construction Around Phoenix as Its Water Supply Dwindles
In what could be a glimpse of the future as climate change batters the West, officials ruled there’s not enough groundwater for projects already approved.
By Christopher Flavelle and Jack Healy
Water conservancy is a priority in China, with urban and rural water infrastructure spending ranging from $100 to $140 billion yearly, and ranging through Africa as well:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-11-04/China-makes-significant-progress-in-wetlands-conservation-1eGeNG7ePtK/index.html
November 4, 2022
China makes significant progress in wetlands conservation
The 14th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands is scheduled to open on November 5 in both Wuhan, China, and Geneva, Switzerland.
China continues to invest in protecting the wetland ecology and has established 602 wetland nature reserves, more than 1,600 wetland parks and wetland protection areas, with a wetland protection rate of 52.65 percent….
Good news on food prices:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/world-food-prices-fall-to-two-year-low-in-may-un-food-agency/ar-AA1c1sCp?ocid=00000000&pc=U531&cvid=5152055833c34697b1cada3d8389fcad&ei=49
PARIS (Reuters) – The United Nations food agency’s world price index fell in May to its lowest in two years, as sharp falls in prices of vegetable oils, cereals and dairy outweighed increases for sugar and meat.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/senate-labors-to-stave-off-us-default-wrap-up-biden-mccarthy-debt-ceiling-deal/4386528/
Senate passes bill to avoid debt crisis.
The U.S. added 339,000 jobs in May, according to employers, and shed 310,000 jobs, according to households. The household survey determines the jobless rate, so it rose to 3.7% from April’s 3.4%.
The 3-month average pace of payroll job gain rose, overall and private jobs, which is kind of impressive.
Average hourly earnings up 0.3%. Weekly hours fell again, offsetting most of the gain in hourly earnings for individual workers. Nearly all of the gain in household spending power in May comes from new jobs, rather than bigger paychecks.
BLS releases the May jobs report and I go WTF?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — MAY 2023
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 339,000 in May, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 3.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
The Household Survey told us employment fell by 310 thousand. Now we get little Princeton Stevie will read this in one of his patented stupid ways but some insight from someone who actually gets this stuff would be welcomed.
https://english.news.cn/20221212/05cd2cd85b884fa4a85a5d750514ba14/c.html
December 12, 2022
Saline agriculture helps boost farmers’ income in coastal county
JINAN — It has been a prosperous year for the largest grass farm, spanning nearly 6,000 mu (400 hectares), in Liupu Township of east China’s Shandong Province.
One mu of alfalfa grass could yield one tonne of hay, which is worth 2,500 yuan (about 359.25 U.S. dollars), said Cui Lihua, general manager of Shandong Lvfeng Agriculture Group Co., Ltd., which runs the farm in Liupu, Wudi County.
“The 3,000 mu of alfalfa on the farm have been harvested five times, and when combined with the output of another 3,000 mu of oat grass, I’d say we’ve had quite good returns this year,” Cui said.
The primary source of income for farmers in Wudi has been crop cultivation. However, the highly saline soil in the coastal county has compelled them to be selective with the crops they cultivate.
Of the more than 1.2 million mu of farmland in the county, there are 700,000 mu of mild to moderate saline land.
Food crops including corn and wheat, if grown on saline soils, may not produce high yield, but salt-tolerant pasture grasses like alfalfa are a suitable choice, said Zhang Jian, a Communist Party of China official of Liupu Township.
Alfalfa, which is well-known for its high yield and high-quality forage, has been utilized extensively as cattle feed. These pastures can also help improve saline soils, Zhang added.
To better utilize the land and boost the income of farmers, county and village authorities have led local farmers to partner up with enterprises and built large-scale grass farms through joint efforts….
Is Nvidia overvalued?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/dean-of-valuation-aswath-damodaran-cashed-in-his-nvidia-stake-after-the-chipmaker-s-scorching-stock-rally/ar-AA1c1Xln?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=b4f1b80e9527416c93dbff8f15f42532&ei=7
Aswath Damodaran has sold his stake in chipmaker Nvidia after its blistering rally to a $1 trillion valuation because of his commitment to value investing. Damodaran is a NYU finance professor dubbed the ‘Dean of Valuation’ for his focus on estimating the value of assets. He told CNBC that as someone who specializes in spotting stocks that trade below their intrinsic value, he couldn’t justify keeping hold of Nvidia. “The run up has been just so astonishing that I cannot in good conscience hold on to it and call myself a value investor,” the Stern School of Business professor told the network.
Nvidia stock has soared by about 170% this year, making it the best performer in the S&P 500. It touched a $1 trillion valuation for the first time this week as part of the AI-fueled stock surge. While the chipmaker saw its biggest one-day fall in four months on Wednesday, it gained 5% on Thursday.
May 31 at 1:33 PM wrote this dishonest garbage (mixed with a lot of his other utter BS):
‘LCOE only measures the cost of a marginal MWh of wind or solar power and typically does not
include any of these other capital or operating costs. That’s why I generally ignore it, and I’m amazed at how
many people still don’t realize that LCOE is a misleading basis for estimating total system costs to governments,
electricity consumers and taxpayers.’
So I point out how the EIA does note LCOE includes operating costs and capital costs. And now little CoRev denies he ever claimed anything to the contrary. Yea – CoRev lies about everything including his previous lies.
Ole Bark, bark now claims this is my quote, but nnooo. It is from the JPM article: https://assets.jpmprivatebank.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/campaign/energy-paper-13/growing-pains-renewable-transition-in-adolescence.pdf presented by mp123 , and which he panned with this ignorant and meaningless comment: ”
Growing Pains: The Renewable Transition in Adolescence
Interesting title. I guess renewables are about 12 years older than little CoRev!”
In his zeal to mock he completely lost the point. He really, really should read the articles before commenting.
The over zealous and ignorant mind is an amazement. His is a particularly peculiar example.
You are now blaming others for your lies. Yea – little CoRev never grew up.
“LCOE does not properly take account of:
(a) the need for backup power, storage and reserve margins to maintain system reliability” blah, blah, blah
Well yea but that is not the same thing as LCOE totally ignoring all operating costs and capital costs. So little CoRev once again cherry picks and misrepresents his own sources. Damn dude – you excel at that.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf#:~:text=Levelized%20cost%20of%20electricity%20%28LCOE%29%20and%20levelized%20cost,during%20an%20assumed%20financial%20life%20and%20duty%20cycle.
A little reminder what the EIA said about LCOE. It seems they did include the issue of battery storage. It seems your JPMorgan dude is not reading the literature any better than little CoRev.
pgl Unfortunately the EIA analysis does not include the cost of carbon and methane, which is kind of a big oversight on their part. Afterall, reducing greenhouse gases is the main reason moving to renewable “green” energy sources.
Thanks for this note. I have tried to tell CoRev that most of what he cites also fails to include the cost from negative externalities. CoRev and his minnie me Bruce Hall usually fires back that carbon and methane have positive externalities, which of course is just absurd.
https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/
June 2, 2023
FAO Food Price Index
The FAO Food Price Index (FFPI) is a measure of the monthly change in international prices of a basket of food commodities. It consists of the average of five commodity group price indices (cereal, vegetable oil, dairy, meat, sugar) weighted by the average export shares of each of the groups over 2014-2016.
Monthly release dates for 2023: 6 January, 3 February, 3 March, 7 April, 5 May, 2 June, 7 July, 4 August, 8 September, 6 October, 3 November, 8 December.
The FAO Food Price Index back to its downward trend in May
The FAO Food Price Index* (FFPI) averaged 124.3 points in May 2023, down 3.4 points (2.6 percent) from April and as much as 35.4 points (22.1 percent) from the all-time high it reached in March 2022. The decline in May was underpinned by significant drops in the price indices for vegetable oils, cereals and dairy, which were partly counterbalanced by increases in the sugar and meat indices.
Kevin Drum reports on the BLS report and has confused his readers:
https://jabberwocking.com/chart-of-the-day-net-new-jobs-in-may-3/#comments
‘The American economy gained 339,000 jobs last month. … The number of employed people dropped 300,000 while the number of unemployed increased 400,000. Nearly 50,000 people dropped out of the labor force altogether.’
Yea – one figure is the payroll survey and the other information is from the household survey. Maybe Kevin needs a little help sorting this stuff out.
Drum occasionally gets things mixed up. The other day he said “Hourly compensation is a key component of productivity.”
No, it is not. Hourly compensation is a key component of unit labor cost, not productivity. Compensation and productivity have opposite effects on unit labor cost.
China has developed a production mechanism for hydrogen production from seawater by electrolysis. We have now an industrial mechanism for green hydrogen production, which strikes me as especially important. Here is the introductory study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05379-5
November 30, 2022
A membrane-based seawater electrolyser for hydrogen generation
By Heping Xie, Zhiyu Zhao, Tao Liu, Yifan Wu, Cheng Lan, Wenchuan Jiang, Liangyu Zhu, Yunpeng Wang, Dongsheng Yang & Zongping Shao
Abstract
Electrochemical saline water electrolysis using renewable energy as input is a highly desirable and sustainable method for the mass production of green hydrogen; however, its practical viability is seriously challenged by insufficient durability because of the electrode side reactions and corrosion issues arising from the complex components of seawater. Although catalyst engineering using polyanion coatings to suppress corrosion by chloride ions or creating highly selective electrocatalysts has been extensively exploited with modest success, it is still far from satisfactory for practical applications. Indirect seawater splitting by using a pre-desalination process can avoid side-reaction and corrosion problems, but it requires additional energy input, making it economically less attractive. In addition, the independent bulky desalination system makes seawater electrolysis systems less flexible in terms of size. Here we propose a direct seawater electrolysis method for hydrogen production that radically addresses the side-reaction and corrosion problems. A demonstration system was stably operated at a current density of 250 milliamperes per square centimetre for over 3,200 hours under practical application conditions without failure. This strategy realizes efficient, size-flexible and scalable direct seawater electrolysis in a way similar to freshwater splitting without a notable increase in operation cost, and has high potential for practical application. Importantly, this configuration and mechanism promises further applications in simultaneous water-based effluent treatment and resource recovery and hydrogen generation in one step.
“We have now…”
Interesting. Who exactly is the “we” you are referring to? You seem to claim to be on American soil, but want to be part of a different nation. Who is the “we” that you are a part of, ltr?
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-06-02/China-produces-hydrogen-by-direct-seawater-electrolysis-1kjxYMpo2I0/index.html
June 2, 2023
China produces hydrogen by direct seawater electrolysis
By Liu Tianwen
China tested its hydrogen production technology at sea with a direct seawater electrolysis method * on Friday at the Xinghua Bay offshore wind farm, east China’s Fujian Province.
The test was verified by a team of experts from Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE).
A floating offshore platform for hydrogen production, Dongfu No. 1, was used in the test.
The platform, jointly developed by a team led by Xie Heping, CAE’s academician, and Dongfang Electric Corporation, integrated in multiple systems, including in situ hydrogen production, intelligent energy conversion management, and safety detection and control systems.
It is the world’s first platform combined with renewable energy, said the Sichuan-based enterprise, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of power-generating equipment.
It has been stable for more than 240 hours after enduring the test of force eight wind speeds, one-meter high waves and rainstorm.
Oceans are the largest source of hydrogen gas. However, the complex composition of seawater, which contains more than 90 chemical elements and a large number of microorganisms and suspended particles, brings corrosion and toxicity issues, catalyst inactivation, low electrolytic efficiency and other technical bottlenecks and challenges.
Indirect seawater splitting relies on large-scale desalination equipment, making the process complicated and occupies land resources, and increasing the cost of hydrogen production.
As for hydrogen production by direct electrolysis of seawater, there hasn’t been any breakthrough in avoiding the impact of complex components of seawater on the electrolytic hydrogen production system in nearly half a century.
Currently, water electrolysis technologies rely on ultrapure freshwater. Academician Xie said that the method they used can separate the influence of more than 90 complex elements and microorganisms in seawater, breaking the common methods for hydrogen production.
Xie said the direct seawater electrolysis strategy, combined with offshore wind power, could change the way the world develops energy in the future.
* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05379-5
Making the production of green hydrogen by seawater electrolysis especially promising, is that China has developed highly efficient offshore wind power production facilities:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1282241.shtml
December 20, 2022
World’s first 3,200-ton self-elevating vessel for wind turbine installation sets sail
The world’s first 3,200-ton self-elevating and self-propelled vessel designed for the installation of wind turbines was delivered and set sailing on Tuesday at a terminal in Qidong, East China’s Jiangsu Province, China Media Group reported.
According to the report, the vessel named N966 ordered by a client in Belgium has a main crane lifting capacity of over 3,200 tons, which is by far the largest lifting tonnage of the type of vessel….
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202211/1280270.shtml
November 23, 2022
China produces world’s largest 16-megawatt wind turbine
By Ma Jingjing
China’s home-developed 16-megawatt offshore wind turbine rolled off the production line in East China’s Fujian Province on Wednesday. The turbine boasts the world’s largest single-unit capacity and biggest impeller, marking a breakthrough in high-end research and manufacturing to reach world-class levels….
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277184.shtml
October 15, 2022
China rolls off home-developed 13.6MW offshore wind turbine; No.1 globally in propeller diameter
China’s home-developed 13.6-megawatt offshore wind turbine has rolled off the production line in East China’s Fujian Province recently, marking the country’s breakthrough in the research and manufacturing of the high-end equipment in the sector….
Fitch on global demand – not good –
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/world-trade-slowing-sharply-due-to-weak-consumer-demand-fitch/2912337
Speaking of water problems, Afghanistan and Iran have added a water dispute to their list of reasons to shoot at each other:
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2023/06/01/water-wars-drought-disputes-and-deadly-skirmishes-between-iran-and-the-taliban/
A perhaps little-remembered details of U.S. diplomatic history – Prior to Shrub’s “axis of evil” speech, the U.S. was facilitating negotiations of water rights among a handful of Middle East countries, including Iran. This “honest broker” behavior on the part of the U.S. was an eye-opener for Iranian officials, and was improving the position of Iranian moderates. There was a path to improving U.S. relations in the region. After the speech, the U.S. lost its role as facilitator and Iran began building centrifuges.
All because Shrub needed a rhetorical flourish in a speech aimed at justifying and unjustifiable war.
No one mentioned Chinatown (1974) which was inspired by the California water wars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjSshSvQWQA
The closing scene of this classic was excellent acting. Forget it Jake – it’s Chinatown.