Of the 20 years or so that I’ve been observing climate change policy, global developments over the past year have been the most hopeful I can remember, particularly as regards electricity generation
* The Paris Conference was a big success, at least relative to expectations
* Coal-fired power stations are shutting down around the world
* China has reduced its coal use for two years in a row
* India has increased its coal tax, and greatly expanded use of renewables
Whether emissions reductions will be big enough and fast enough remains to be seen, but at least we are going in the right direction.
As far as climate science is concerned, the string of temperature records broken recently has killed any idea that we are in a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. Even the favorite source of deniers, the satellite data from UAH, is now showing a new record. The only remaining issue is the second-order debate over whether there was a pause or perhaps slowdown at some point in the first decade of the 2000s.
At the same time, following the US election, I’ve been paying more attention than usual to rightwing blogs, most of which run climate denialist pieces fairly regularly. Given that nearly all the major US coal companies are now bankrupt, and that coal-fired electricity is declining rapidly, I’d have expected a lot of “wrecking ball” pieces on the supposed damage to the economy (in reality, the effects are small and mostly offset by the expansion of renewables) now that mitigation policies of various kinds are taking effect.
But I don’t see anything like that. Rather, most of the articles I’m reading are claims of victory in the debate over both science and policy. Here’s a fairly typical example, with the title “Is the Climate Crusade Stalling?”
We really do live in parallel universes.
John Quiggin 
Oh and here is a reference
http://www.vox.com/2014/12/16/7401705/oil-prices-falling
Look at the graphs.
On the two cultures from SMH
Reminds me of Stephen Schneider’s book on science as a debating topic for the ignorant – see for example- Stephen H. Schneider, Tim Flannery introduction (2009) Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth’s Climate. National Geographic Society (November 3, 2009) ISBN 978-1-4262-0540-8.
Seems to fit perfectly with cognitive dissonance which puzzles our host.
@BilB
But BilB, that is like saying a man who can’t swim and is drowning in 3 meters of water will soon be better off because the current is carrying him to a place 4 meters deep rather than 5 meters deep. Most models indicate that we are already too late. We should have started dropping the Keeling Curve two decades ago at least. We need outright emergency action now, on the slim chance we might still save ourselves. The most benign models of climate forcing and sensitivity have just a small chance of being correct so we have still a small chance of saving ourselves. But emergency statist and international action is needed now and it must reject all “markets will do it” arguments. The markets haven’t done it in time in relation to all but the most optimistic models. The evidence is already in on that.
@John Hine
Back when I was an undergrad I read a book called The Rise and Decline of Nations by Mancur Olson. I can’t claim to know much about his economic or political leanings (or credibility), but it was useful for me when thinking about lobby groups and coalitions influencing economic policies (and particularly subsidies) in my, then, State of WA. They were clearly established to “block change and protect current businesses”. These coalitions would include the LNP and ALP at different times.
@BilB
Remember – each barrel of oil is around 110 kg carbon or 400 kg CO2 and the Keeling curve is rising at around 2 ppm+ per year.
See here: Keeling Curve
This discloses no benefit from anything China and other states have done.
Over 90 million barrels is equal to 9.9 X 10^9 kg. ie 10 GT when all our natural sinks are occupied with natural emissions.
Due to the failure of every inter-governmental meeting, this trend will continue well past 2020.
@BilB
Remember – each barrel of oil is around 110 kg carbon or 400 kg CO2 and the Keeling curve is rising at around 2 ppm+ per year.
See here: Keeling Curve
This discloses no benefit from anything China and other states have done.
Over 90 million barrels is equal to 9.9 X 10^9 kg. ie 10 GT when all our natural sinks are occupied with natural emissions.
Due to the failure of every inter-governmental meeting, this trend will continue well past 2020.
@Ikonoclast
Indeed, and in fact I did not infer that you agreed with Hansen on nuclear power. I was trying to get a handle on why you quoted Hansen’s opinion on the Paris agreement. It seemed that you were quoting him as an authority, i.e. that his view on the Paris agreement should be taken seriously because he’s an eminent climate scientist. That struck me as odd, because Hansen’s main idee fixe when it comes climate policy (only nuclear can save us), wasn’t something I thought you’d agree with.
You say you don’t understand why Hansen pushes the nuclear nonsense, as you put it. Perhaps it’s because, as Prof Q pointed out, Hansen is completely clueless when it comes to climate policy, notwithstanding his chops as a scientist?
You’re quite right about the diversity of opinion on the Paris agreement of course, but you could have gone further to illustrate it. For example, both Andrew Bolt and Bjorn Lomborg are of one mind with James Hansen in believing that the Paris agreement was a fraud. Christopher Monckton, on the other hand, regards it as a grave threat to freedom and the sovereignty of the world’s peoples. 😉
@Tim Macknay
I could say a lot more but I better not. I’ve already had enough rants on this thread. 😉
@Ivor
“Yes, degrowth – for some economies – is the only way out now.”
I’m not so sure. Watching this bloke, Tony Seba, is a bit refreshing.
He may be over-egging the pudding a bit, but I’m not so sure that it’s by a huge amount. That example of a mere 13 years between not being able to see the one and only car in the Easter Parade to not being able to spot the sole, single, one and only horse in the parade (or at least this photo of it) is worth bearing in mind. It’s pretty startling. But so is the steep decline in prices of solar panels over the last couple of decades.
I might have been primed to take this guy more seriously after reading a RMI piece, an extract from Reinventing Fire – http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire
Just as whale-oil suppliers ran out of customers in the 1850s before they ran out of whales, oil and coal are becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before they become unavailable even at high prices.
Try Tony Seba anyway if you’re feeling a bit down in the mouth about prospects for getting rid of coal and oil.
1. Biofuels, hydro renewable? desirable? (+ other topics) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uApxOjZzUdU
2. Transport (among other things) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_NmWB-D7-Y
@Newtownian
Read Stephen Schneider’s book a few years back, and enjoyed it, in spite of some of the unfortunate incidents he recounts. The early episode where he was subjected to being quoted incompletely, and out of context, is a salutary reminder of how dirty the political process is. Scientists can of course brawl in an unseemly manner with each other, and it does happen, but the political process is one where most facts are left at the door. Politics is a whole new level of grime.
On a slightly different note: there is a third parallel world, one where politicians acknowledge that climate is changing, but are deeply sceptical of IPCC processes, because they hold the ideals of the rugged individualist (of the fictionalised wild west) and refuse to submit to the advice or whims of a global body (like the UN). In this parallel universe, if they provide “solutions” at all, they are quite ironically ones that involve large scale interference in atmosphere and oceans, iron filings, sulphur smog and particulates to cause temporary cooling, mega carbon-capture and storage from the atmosphere itself, gigantic orbiting shade cloths, etc. It seems to have passed them by that any large scale interference in climate is, by the nature of a bounded and interdependent Earth system, something that will affect nations other than just the ones utilising these technologies. You can’t just stick a big shade cloth up in the sky and not expect other countries to be a tad annoyed at being collateral damage, for example. The rugged individualism of the big fix is an imposter, a poseur, hoping to prolong the coal project and the oil project, even while claiming technology (owned by a few) will save the day anyway, should the day need saving.
Even the science mags aren’t immune from the big fix.
Donald, your third parallel world is still based on this valid syllogism with an untrue premise and conclusion:
1) If AGW is a problem it is fixable by government action
2) There is no problem fixable by government action
3) Therefore AGW is not a problem. QED
All the many twists and turns of denialism follow from their subscription to premise (2).
In the US parallel universes are colliding; Bernie Sanders has responded to climate change and it looks like he could be the next president.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/
@rog
It’s a pity Bernie Sanders uses this language. “The debate is over, and the scientific jury is in…”
It’s not a debate, it’s a scientific investigation. The “jury” is not in, the evidence is in. Such imprecise use of language clouds what must happen. The scientific investigation occurs (and continues). The data is collected and analysed. Models are constructed and scientific predictions (with allowances for uncertainty) are made. Then the debate begins. Then we say, “Okay this is the evidence, these are the likelihoods of various outcomes. Now, what do we do about it?”
However, since people blogging on this site love psephological analysis but dislike political economy analysis, I will make my predictions for the US presidential election.
(1) Donald Trump will most likely win the REP nomination.
(2) Hillary Clinton will most likely win the DEM nomination.
(3) Hillary Clinton will most likely win the presidency.
And now slip in a political economy prediction…
(4) Whoever wins the US presidency, US policy will still be dictated by the plutocrats. The president (and Congress) are largely powerless except to do the bidding of the 0.01 per cent of rich people. This is the way the US system is set up. The US will continue to attack weak countries overseas, it will continue drone strikes, it will continue killing black people at home, it will continue increasing wealth inequality. It will continue privatising and wrecking its own education system. It will continue incarcerating people in world record numbers. It will continue doing all these things. This is the way the US system is set up. Nothing will change unless the people rise up and and change the system entirely. Until that day, if that day ever arrives, nothing substantive will ever change. Indeed, things will get much worse as the US slides further and further into corporate fascism.
Democrat nomination determined by delegates, whoever they may be. Super delegate support of Clinton seems overwhelming- how democratic is that?
If we don’t get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.
The pessimistic frame writes itself. As does the optimistic frame (which I tend to follow). The truth is somewhere inbetween, and the truth is much harder to discern, because there is no one philosophical or political perspective which fully describes the truth.
@rog
The USA is not a democracy. It is set up as a republic which strongly circumscribes democratic influence on governance. It was expressly set up this way in its constitution. The idea is that the rich and influential people, or those supported by the rich, are highly favored as candidates. The primaries system and the electoral college system are expressly designed to block the popular will. The founding fathers never wanted a democracy, they wanted an oligarchy and their constitution brilliantly delivers exactly what they intended.
Returning to JQ’s original puzzlement at the lack of wrecking ball pieces, maybe (says the evergreen optimist) the inhabitants of the parallel universe have actually acknowledged that the argument has been comprehensively lost. Their dearly beloved talking points and “debate” against scientists are dead. I’m think this is shock and disbelief we’re seeing. Denial, then bargaining will be when the wrecking ball pieces are written. Roll on, acceptance.
> Super delegate support of Clinton seems overwhelming- how democratic is that?
The Democratic Party is a private organisation governed by privately-determined rules; demanding “democracy” in its internal processes is inappropriate, it’s not a state organisation and not bound by the obligations of same. If the democrats want to be “democratic” in their internal processes they can, if they don’t want to be they don’t have to.
[except, of course, that the two main parties in the US are state organs in all but name, given the degree to which they’re formally recognised and entrenched. But demanding “democracy” in an organisation that shouldn’t even exist in the shape it’s in is kind of missing the point.]
Maybe there are enough Sanders kids and they wont sell out as they get older ,and maybe the Baby Boomers will die off and get out of the way before the planet expires ….
Here’s one for ikon.
@Tim Macknay
I’d like to know their prediction method. The article is not particularly clear on that point. It seems they were simply doing an energy analysis and then assuming increased use plus much the same energy mix as now. But that is just a guess on my part.
I also wonder, wouldn’t most of the potential rise to 2030 already be “baked in” in the sense that the current CO2 level’s forcing effect and even current absorbed heat (in oceans especially) already will be driving heating until 2030? In other words, if we raise CO2 levels more from now until 2030 (say) won’t much of that forcing be even further down the track, say 2030 to 2050?
But a couple of things makes sense. I absolutely agree with;
“The researchers suggested switching $500bn in subsidies for fossil fuels worldwide to renewables as a “cost neutral” way to fast-track the energy transition.”
Also, this is a real concern;
“Hankamer said the fact that about 80% of the world’s energy was for fuel, and only 20% for electricity, meant “we don’t have any easy solutions”.”
Our oil dependence is much greater than our coal dependence. Getting coal out of electricity generation is the much easier task, relatively speaking. Getting oil and gas out of our economy will be tougher. Getting rid of private petrol automobiles should be a huge gain for the environment. We should also plan to have far fewer private cars overall even if they are electric.
An Australian government with any vision would immediately announce;
(1) A Zero Emissions stationary energy plan with full implementation by 2030.
(2) Cessation of all fossil fuel subsidies and transfer of these to renewable energy.
(3) A carbon tax.
(4) Planned phase out of all coal power stations (linked to point 1).
(5) Planned closing of all thermal coal mines.
(6) Submarine funds diverted to create national infrastructure like the point 7.
(7) Electric underground metros for all capital cities.
(8) High speed electric interstate train system.
(9) Full NBN cable roll-out.
(10) Full Job Guarantee as envisioned by MMT policy.
And that’s just a start. Pay for it with a carbon tax, rich tax, defence savings and no involvement in Middle East wars which are none of our business. The economy would boom, in a good way, from these sorts of infrastructure stimuli. Unemployment would be banished apart from some frictional and some voluntary to a real level of maybe 2.5%. Don’t sweat it, there will always be some people who don’t want to work. Who cares when there are machines to do the unskilled work that people don’t want?
I like to be optimistic but the inertia in the world energy markets that feed the world economy is always being underestimated. I fear, and sooner rather than later, it will become obvious that Paris was not the turning point we hoped it would be.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/10/dangerous-global-warming-will-happen-sooner-than-thought-study
@Ikonoclast
I found that claim odd, because it doesn’t gel with most of the energy statistics I’ve seen. It’s a little ambiguous what he means by “fuel”. If he’s talking about transport fuel, then I’m quite dubious about the accuracy of the claim. Virtually all transport fuel is oil, and oil only makes up about 40% of global primary energy, according to the EIA. It’s possible his figure includes non-transport uses of fuel (e.g. heating and industrial uses), but then those kinds of fuel uses are presumably easier to replace with renewable energy than transport uses. Also the subsequent quotes do suggest he is talking about transport fuels. Strange.
World coal production in 2015 was about 7.7 billion tonnes.
World oil production, including unconventional oil, in 2015 was about 4.7 billion tonnes.
World CO2 emissions from coal in 2015 were twice those from oil.
Sometimes figures for coal are given in tonnes of oil equivalent, and this may result in confusion by giving the impression that the amount of coal mined was much less than it was.
Prediction is tricky, but Bloomberg thinks that electric cars will expand exponentially over the next decade, and cause another oil crash. They also think that this will have no substantial impact on supplies of lithium and other raw material necessary for EV manufacture.
Unfortunately it is not realistic to expect electric car production to grow fast enough to offset the current depletion of existing oil fields and prevent oil prices rising again. However, once that price rise occurs it will further spur electric car adoption and then we’ll have another oil crash. And no, I can’t make you rich by telling you when oil prices will rise and fall.
An interesting thing about the article on electric cars Tim linked to is it makes no mention of the effect of self-driving cars. If cars can drive themselves and serve as autonomous taxis, then electric vehicle production will never have to come close to that of internal combustion engine cars to wipe them out, as one electric taxi could provide the transportation services of 10 or more privately owned cars. Eliminating drivers from taxis lowers costs and frees up a seat. In addition, electric cars will have lower operating costs. This means the cost of using taxi services will be less. This means more people will use self-driving taxis resulting in their being more of them which will result in waiting times being less and so more people will use them in a virtuous circle. I’m not saying that private cars will disappear or need to disappear, but if taxis get a lot cheaper and a lot more convenient, then many families will do without a private car, or will make do with one instead of two or more.
@Ronald Brak
Try this piece on transport, batteries and self-driving cars. Covers a lot of what you’re talking about. I’m really impressed with his ideas – though pretty doubtful about the details of the calculations – about the space we will free up from reducing the area currently occupied by highways, roads and, in particular, parking. (I suspect my doubts arise from living in a strictly suburban environment with a mere square mile of city centre rather than in a large city.)
Oh lawks. I didnt expect that to embed like that.
The parallel universe Denialist thing, which is a globally coordinated effort, is about befuddling gullible people into being a voting body for manipulation by fossil fuel elites. It really is a global conspiracy. The irony is that those who seem to be most susceptible to being manipulated in this way are Libertarian conspiracy theorists and the red necks in our society. The red necks buy the story because it is against their interests to limit fossil fuel as these are the gas guzzling, tyre burnout, gun toting angry macho types who worship waste. The Libertarians buy it because they believe that they are against big government regulation of any kind, and because they see themselves as a persecuted minority so then they easily relate to the “outcast” clutch of religious zealot climate change denying scientists.
It is a very sick mix of vested interests manipulating the gullible. The primary weapon of such ideological corruptions is the “big lie”. In the case of the parallel universe there are a huge number of these, but the key ones are that “all scientists are money obsessed schemers”, “climate change action is a global conspiracy to bleed the public”, and “there is no global warming”.
There will come a time when the deliberate corruption of climate science for personal gain will become a crime against humanity, at which point the proceeds of such crime will be confiscatable.
For instance, from the “GWPF” denial coordination hub via our very own science miscommunicator
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/strangled-science-govt-asks-dumb-questions-scientists-lie-to-get-grants/
I am surprised at how slow change is. So many pundits jabber on about how fast change is in our society. I don’t see that. I see a society really slow to change. For decades we have known we need to change. Yet we have vastly more internal combustion engines than ever before. Most of our electricity still comes from coal. Only a small minority of houses have solar panels. Our (Australia’s) national broadband rollout won’t use efficient cable to house and it will be finished when? 2100? It must the slowest rollout ever.
There are a few spots where things are a bit different. South Australia has made real advances on the wind power front. But in the main, we have hardly changed in decades. The pace of change is glacial (wrong metaphor I know) when it needs to move like a bushfire. This system is so slow to change, so slow to adapt. It doesn’t stand a chance of making changes in time. In fact, it’s already missed the necessary change window.
Apart from computers and a few token solar panels, I am living in the same society I lived in when I was 20. I mean with respect to energy technologies which need to be changed. We have made almost no progress on the things that matter. Technical progress there is yes but I mean real progress on the ground in terms of installed and applied infrastructure and machinery. Of the latter, there is still only a tiny amount of what we need. It’s a sclerotic system which can’t change itself nearly fast enough.
Ikon said:
I agree. Private cars should only be allowed for ‘important people’. Like in the Soviet Union – or something.
@Ronald Brak
Theoretically it is entirely
It just needs a government program.
If this does not materialise – then this is a clear indicator that the government is not serious about climate change or reducing fossil fuels to the extent required.
The required level is the amount of carbon emissions that will result in a horizontal (or downward sloping) Keeling Curve.
Nothing else is relevant.
@Joe Blow
The scenario you paint (special goods and services for the privileged) is actually more prevalent under oligarchic capitalism. Who gets all the private jets, helicopters and first class airline seats? Who gets the luxury cars while the ordinary people get the clunkers? Yes, it’s the rich people who get these privileges. Elite privilege is a problem not yet solved by any modern system; not by the oligarchic capitalism of the West and not by the state capitalism of the Soviet Union.
There are other real possibilities. Self-driving, shared vehicles would mean that one vehicle would service the needs of say ten people on average. Then there is the possibility of much improved public transport. It’s revealing that the ultimate system to you is a system that delivers a private car. Bugger the environment and everything else eh? Who cares about that? So long as you can blow pollutants out your tailpipe, all is well with the world. Given your obsession with Soviet state capitalism and cars, I’d say your thinking remains in the 1950s.
@Ivor
Ronald’s reply epitomises the thinking of “let’s wait for the market to solve the problem”. This sort of thinking is all too prevalent on this social democratic blog. One would have expected a little more understanding here, at least, that radical political economy changes are the only way to deliver real change. This system (capitalism) will not and does not change fast enough and there are systemic reasons why it cannot deliver the radical and rapid changes necessary. The market has very demonstrably failed completely and utterly over the last four decades to deliver the renewable and sustainable changes we need IN TIME.
Capitalism does not get the costings right. It cannot get the costings right because it values only and seeks only to increase the accumulation of capital. It seeks nothing else and it values nothing else. Other systems of decision making, like democratic decision making, are largely constrained, perverted, bought and suborned by capitalist ownership power. This system cannot make the changes necessary. It is intrinsically, systemically incapable of doing so. It cannot be placated, reformed or negotiated with.
Come on Ikon, most of that rant is just plain rubbish. We are just in the process of buying a new car – a Corolla. It is almost exactly the same price in real dollars as 20 years ago and it is a far better car. Even basic cars now have luxuries that were unheard of 20 or 30 years ago. Millions of people around the world can now afford a car due to the relentless cost cutting and innovations of the free enterprise system. Your rant about private helicopters, jets and first class travel just exposes your ideology is based on envy, not love of your fellow pleb.
Given that Capitalism is the term used for free enterprise and a market system, your use of the word for the system of the Soviet Union is also typical of the left – change the meaning of words so that people can no longer think straight and start believing that the ‘planned’ slavery you espouse is really freedom.
The only thing I can remotely agree with you is self driving cars. These however, in case you haven’t noticed, are being designed and built by the very enterprises that you love to hate. They may well cause the partial demise of privately owned cars but not because of your much vaunted ‘planning’. It will be because it is cheaper or more convenient.
Footnote: The really concerning parallel universe of unreality is the one in the moderate left where they think capitalism is okay and can still save us from AGW.
@Joe Blow
Cool mate. Believe what you want. 🙂
@Joe Blow
So could you afford a new car if workers producing it received Australian wages?
How much carbon will you now send into the atmosphere?
Capitalism is not the term used for free enterprise and a market system – it is the term used for expropriation of workers value by Capital.
Ivor, the cost of labour is not the issue with car prices. How many man hours does it take to build a car?
“Article from Quality Digest : Are Union Shops More Productive? lists the average time to build a new car for the major auto makers:
Toyota: 19.46 hours
Honda: 20.62 hours
GM: 23.09 hours
Ford: 24.48 hours
DaimlerChrysler: 25.17 hours
The Japanese auto makers are better on average. Toyota is 23% faster than Chrysler.”
Killing the Australian car industry was a huge mistake, and exposes the LNP for the “good economic manager” frauds that they are.
Maybe cars are intrinsically socialist…
@Ronald Brak
Well, Bloomberg’s analysts differ from you on that point, evidently. But, like I said, prediction is tricky. As likely as not you could both be wrong.
I am confident oil prices will increase at some point from 0 seconds to 3 years from now. I expect it to happen sooner rather than later. Was the recent price increase the start of this, or just a blip? I don’t know.
It is not realistic to expect new electric car production to reduce demand enough to offset the depletion of oil fields within zero seconds. It is also not realistic to expect it to happen within 3 years.
Technically it is possible to produce enough electric cars to offset the depletion of oil fields and prevent oil prices from rising within 3 years. Also, it is technically possible to drive all newly produced internal combustion engine cars off a cliff. But greatly increasing electric car production within a short period of time would be very expensive on account of how current electric car production facilities are limited. Lithium-ion and other battery chemistry production facilities are limited. Expertise in building electric cars and electric car batteries and battery packs is limited. The number of electric car models currently in production are limited.
As scarcity is a real constraint (you may have noticed this) it is extremely likely that we would be better off devoting the resources required to eliminating coal use instead. For the current $5,500 US price of a Nissan Leaf battery pack, enough wind power capacity could be built to eliminate roughly 400 tonnes of CO2 emissions over its lifespan in a country like Australia. The battery pack in a vehicle is only likely to eliminate about 54 tonnes of CO2 emissions or less over its lifespan.
But just because it makes more sense at the moment to use resources to eliminate coal use than to increase electric car production to reduce oil demand enough to offset the depletion of oil fields within zero seconds to three years, does not mean nothing should be done to promote the use of zero and low emission vehicles. If support is provided electric vehicle production could increase to a level sufficient to reduce oil demand enough to offset depletion of oil fields within a more realistic time period of 4-5 years.
For example, I strongly suggest Australia introduce strict fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles with inefficient new vehicles taxed more than enough at the time of sale to eliminate the CO2 they are expected to emit over their lifetimes.
I also recommend health externalities from vehicle pollution be priced into vehicle purchase prices.
I recommend a carbon price of $50 a tonne be introduced in Australia immediately and raised $5 a year until it matches the cost of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it. At this point any petrol bought would then have the CO2 released from its use completely offset. And this could cost less than 10 cents a liter.
Because of the potential self-driving electric cars have to rapidly eliminate internal combustion engine cars, I recommend Australia aim to have low emission self driving cars operating in at least one part of the country within one year provided there is a company that is up to it, and there is good evidence that the safety risk would be equal to or less than the use of human driven taxis.
Tim, Bloomberg’s analysts quite evidently agree with me that it is not realistic to expect electric car production to grow fast enough to offset the current depletion of existing oil fields and prevent oil prices rising again. They don’t predict electric cars reducing demand enough to offset depletion in oil fields until around 2022. Six years from now. While I can’t be certain that oil prices won’t rise for 5+ years, that does not seem realistic to me.
I think the problem here is I did not write what you think I wrote.
@Ronald Brak
Certainly, now that you’ve clarified that you were talking about a three year time frame, it’s clear that Bloomberg doesn’t disagree with you. Your earlier comment (intentionally or otherwise) created the impression that you disagreed with the Bloomberg analysis.
Whoever turns out being right, the time to invest in lithium mines was last September onwards 🙂
Ivor, just as BilB said, wages play a small part in the cost of a car. Capitalisms’ relentless ability to reduce costs by eliminating waste ( which is a cost ) and optimising production processes is why cars and other consumer goods are safer, more reliable and more affordable than ever.
And, no, Capitalism is not ‘expropriation of workers value by Capital’. That has been thoroughly debunked and it is kind of funny hearing the odd person still saying it. It’s like the 70’s all over again. Most people have moved on and have come to realize ( despite a bunch of die hards trying to muddy the waters by changing the meaning of words ) that the only way to prosperity is via private enterprise.
The reduction in absolute poverty since the 1970s, has been unprecedented. This is in large part to increasingly larger parts of the world dumping the idea of the revolutionary socialism.
Well, I think it was pretty clear since I specifically wrote, “…and prevent oil prices rising again.” But, humans don’t do clear very well so I am not at all perturbed by you not understanding me. I could have made my point more clearly, but I find that the more pedantic I become in an attempt to avoid being misunderstood, the more people hate me. So I generally just don’t try too hard these days except to sometimes try to clarify when confusion arises.
However, when it seems clear to me that unconfusing someone is not a realistic possibility, I often do nothing. So if I attempt to clarify a point it’s a compliment. But I have learned that some people simply don’t pay attention to clarifications and so there is no point in trying. Sometimes I see if it is possible to get someone who has made an incorrect statement about physical reality to admit that it was wrong, and sometimes I try to get someone who has made mutually incompatible statements to reconcile them, but both those activities probably just indicate that I have sociopathic tendencies.
@BilB
As you know, if
was the cost of a car – the selling price would be around $1,946 if wages were $100 per hour.
If you had provided the source for your information people would have read the actual report which indicated that this timing was the period taken by a number of workers.
For example your digest says:
Cars from Canada do not cost anywhere near $1,585.
The time is the operating time for the plant. The number of “workers” is not stated. If you did into the actual source document you will find that the data relates to “assembly plants”.
With robots and advanced machinery I can well understand that a plant can be built that will assemble vehicles by consuming a relatively small amount of last stage labour.
Labour costs for the car industry output as a whole are not this.
@Ronald Brak
Seriously Ronald, I’m not that wound up about it. People misinterpret each other all the time. No biggie. 🙂