Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (892771)	10/9/2015 4:06:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576977

Anyone Have a Good Joke About Volkswagons? Sep 22nd, 2015 by wintercow20 Suppose World Total GDP, which now stands at apx. $70 trillion, grows at about only 2% per year (ignoring population for a moment). This means that over the next 100 years, GDP will double approximately three times (use the rule of 69.3!). If you think total growth will be 3%, not at all unlikely, it will double four times over this period. Therefore, by 2115, total world GDP may be something like $560 trillion in real 2015 dollars. That’s a lot. Demographers disagree on what world population would be by then, but I’ve seen estimates that it can peak at 9 billion by midcentury, or take longer to peak and hit 11 billion by the end of the century. Take the conservative 11 billion number. If that is the case, then average World GDP per capita in 2115 might be expected to be something like $51,000 – which means that the typical person around the world would enjoy a living standard similar what a current American enjoys (and note too that this clearly is an understatement, because that person in 2115 would get to consume $51,000 worth of 2115 stuff, and not the old-fashioned stuff we “suffer” with here in 2015). Now, one point we’ve made in the past is worth remembering as we go through this exercise. It’s that we probably can’t get massive economically costly global warming unless global output grows a great deal. However, if global output grows a great deal, then dealing with even very serious problems 100 years out when world output is creeping up on a *quadrillion dollars* (inflation adjusted folks, that is equivalent to having quadrillion dollars today) is really not going to be a big deal (cue the threats to burn down my house and flood my backyard …). I will post a paper shortly about the models and estimates dealing with the expected economic costs of global warming, but for now I wanted to simply summarize one of the main “known” results. That if the globe warms by 2.5 degrees centigrade over the next 100 years (i.e. an additional 1.7 degrees above what we’ve gotten already), then GDP 100 years from now is going to be smaller than it otherwise would have been. How much smaller? Somewhere between 1% and 2%. Let’s focus on the 2%. What has been the REAL growth rate of the world economy, by year, in recent history? This is an average growth rate of 3.66% for the last 15 years. Check out the per capita estimates too. What does this result mean? It means that if we get the global warming we expect, and we do not make major advances to do anything about it, then the TOTAL GDP in the year 2115 would be 2% smaller than it would have otherwise been. How much is that? Well, I could scare you and report something like, “If the world doesn’t act strongly now, global warming can cost $11.2 trillion by the end of the century.” That sounds scary. But put that in perspective. Instead of total world GDP being $560 trillion in 2115, it would “only” be $548.8 trillion in 2115. In per capita terms, instead of the typical income of a world citizen being $51,000, it would be $49,891. The expected losses due to global warming are equivalent to the world economy sacrificing a total of 8 months of economic growth over the next 1,200 months (i.e. growth at *zero percent* for those 8 months). As a comparison in 2009, the world economy did not only not grow, but it shrunk. For 12 months. By 0.7%. As we’ve argued before, the distribution of benefits (yes) and costs of global warming will be uneven, and the majority of costs are expected to fall on poor countries and/or those located in the tropics. Of course, it is those very countries that would stand to see their resilience to global warming increase most rapidly as incomes grow. Further, making this point does not mean “do nothing”, it merely gives a sense for the expected/known damages. For fun, you might want to consider two thoughts: How would this analysis change if we made more aggressive assumptions about the peaking of population and the likely rate of economic growth as future technologies come online (e.g. automatic transportation, massive expansion in sharing economy, denser-cheaper fuels, development of 3D printing, nonotechnology, advances in medicine, etc)? How does this cost rank among other known and unknown costs? Well, to take one well-known example, the annual economic cost of implementing and complying with federal government regulations alone is thought to be in excess of 2% of GDP … per year … every year. The known losses in economic activity due to the poor structuring of our tax code likely exceeds $1 trillion in lost economic activity … per year … every year. Or how about the impact of not permitting transgenic crops to be grown in Africa? Or the lack of energy development in Africa? Or the impact of poor financial institutions on growth in Africa (e.g. financial repression)? Feel free to toss in your favorites. What is most striking is that what is written up here should be completely independent of what you think of climate science and the possibility of future warming. This merely takes what the “consensus” is telling us about likely rates of warming and physical impacts of that warming and applies what we know from economics to evaluate it. In other words, if you were serious about discussing global warming and dealing with the problem, there should not be a high correlation between what your belief is about the science (i.e. more skeptical or more alarmist) and your acceptance of the forgoing information. However, I suspect that the reaction to the above would split along “party lines” here too, which is utterly depressing. So call me a name if you wish, but I simply cannot see that global warming poses any particular problem for humanity, especially since we seem to not only tolerate, but support actively, far more serious burdens to our lives on a daily basis today, when we are considerably poorer than we will be way out into the future. And yes, I understand that there is a small chance of a really, bad thing happening. That’s for another post for another day – but the gist is to treat that like any other existential risk we face, like death from total nuclear war, AI gone mad, massive viral outbreaks, etc. theunbrokenwindow.com

To: TimF who wrote (892771)

10/9/2015 4:23:23 PM

From: Wharf Rat

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576977

"Because California has to a large extent moved away from heavy energy intensive industries"
There are always excuses, but, in the end, they are just excuses.

"Californians are paying more for energy then in most other states"

Our electric bills are lower, cuz, while it costs more, we use a lot less, thanks to 40 years of efficiency standards.

Since the 1970s, efficiency has saved nearly $90 billion on customers' energy bills and avoided at least 30 power plants. Eleven more plants are expected to be avoided over the next decade;

Efficiency also helped keep per capita electricity use flat while the rest of the country increased by 50 percent since the 1970s;

Since 2003, energy-cutting programs, building codes, and appliance standards have saved enough electricity to power more than half of California's homes for one year and enough natural gas to serve 2 million homes annually. Together, these efficiency savings have slashed 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution, equal to the emissions of 6 million cars;

Annual low-income efficiency program savings have doubled since 2003, serving nearly 3 million households;

Appliance standards have saved more than 10,000 GWh since 2003 (enough to power more than 2 million homes) and homeowners are expected to save $6,000 over 30 years for a house constructed in accordance with the 2013 building energy efficiency code compared with homes built to the previous code; and

Public investment in nearly 20 research, development, and demonstration projects is expected to yield almost $10 billion in savings between 2005 and 2025, which is nearly $450 for every $1 invested.

Thanks in part to efficiency, California spends less of its gross domestic product on electricity to power its homes and businesses than other states with comparable populations and economies, and is nearly twice as productive per unit of electricity consumed. In fact, if the state were as inefficient as Texas, Californians would be spending $9.5 billion more on electricity each year and $24 billion more if the state were as inefficient as Florida. Meanwhile, efficiency employment grew by 15 percent from 2002 to 2012 and more than 300,000 positions, or nearly 70 percent of California's green economy jobs, are related to improving energy efficiency in buildings alone.

nrdc.org

Over all, 46 states spend more for energy than we do. This is a bit old.

Rankings: Total Energy Expenditures per Capita, 2013

Rank State Total Energy Expenditures per Capita
($)

1	North Dakota	10,540
2	Alaska	9,596
3	Wyoming	9,358
4	Louisiana	8,545
5	Texas	6,114
6	Maine	5,606
7	Iowa	5,583
8	South Dakota	5,569
9	Nebraska	5,508
10	Montana	5,452
11	Hawaii	5,350
12	Mississippi	5,268
13	Kansas	5,267
14	Vermont	5,196
15	Kentucky	5,097
16	Indiana	5,079
17	Oklahoma	5,073
18	Alabama	4,997
19	West Virginia	4,794
20	Arkansas	4,732
21	New Hampshire	4,600
22	Minnesota	4,554
23	South Carolina	4,553
24	Tennessee	4,452
25	Missouri	4,421
26	New Jersey	4,404
27	New Mexico	4,387
28	Ohio	4,334
29	Idaho	4,317
30	Wisconsin	4,304
31	Connecticut	4,260
32	Pennsylvania	4,230
33	Delaware	4,165
34	Massachusetts	4,149
35	Virginia	4,145
36	Michigan	4,107
37	Georgia	4,004
38	Maryland	3,868
39	Illinois	3,824
40	Washington	3,801
41	Utah	3,791
42	North Carolina	3,790
43	Oregon	3,788
44	Colorado	3,737
45	Rhode Island	3,715
46	Nevada	3,646
47	California	3,563
48	Arizona	3,434
49	District of Columbia	3,378
50	Florida	3,375
51	New York	3,350

eia.gov