tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post455792653390152877..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman's toxic environmentalismWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-23434067045442706922011-12-29T08:15:39.588-05:002011-12-29T08:15:39.588-05:00Sam: All of your examples results in displacing cu...<b>Sam</b>: <i>All of your examples results in displacing current or future consumer spending. </i><br /><br />It reduces future spending, of course. Overall wealth is reduced due to the storm, of course, even though there is more immediate economic activity in the present. <br /><br /><b>Tel</b>: <i>It's not about acid rain, it is about sulphate particulate emissions (which may then perhaps go on to create acid rain). </i><br /><br />Yes, it's about sulphate emissions. Acid in lakes doesn't generally kill people directly. Here's Anderson's original claim. <br /><br /><b>William L. Anderson</b>: <i>In 1991, I was doing research for a paper on the EPA and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and came across a claim by the EPA that acid rain was killing more than 100,000 Americans each year, so that the proposed legislation would then effectively save more than 100,000 lives annually. </i><br /><br />Anderson doesn't provide a citation to the supposed EPA claim. It's seems clear they were referring to sulfate pollution, and probably to the study cited above. Anderson probably mangled the EPA statement, but we parsed it the best we could. <br /><br />However, if Anderson would provide a citation to the EPA claim he is concerned about, then we could check to make sure we have answered his position appropriately. If the EPA is saying that acid rain is melting thousands of people in the streets, then we will reconsider our previous comments.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-20880979847958034592011-12-29T02:58:51.416-05:002011-12-29T02:58:51.416-05:00Also, a quick google search on the article that yo...Also, a quick google search on the article that you wrongly cited above demonstrates that the correct title is:<br /><br />"Analysis of Health Effects Resulting from Population Exposures to Acid Precipitation <b>Precursors</b>."<br /><br />H Ozkaynak and J D Spengler<br /><br /><br />I've emphasized the important word that you neatly removed, thus restoring the article title to its original meaning. It's not about acid rain, it is about sulphate particulate emissions (which may then perhaps go on to create acid rain). Even within that context, the article points out that these studies have their difficulties.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-87619813555492152122011-12-28T23:42:30.791-05:002011-12-28T23:42:30.791-05:00"It won't displace consumer spending, whi..."It won't displace consumer spending, which is already reduced.<br /><br />"If your roof blows off during a storm, you either borrow (shift money from the future) or spend savings (shift money from the past) to replace the roof. The loss in wealth wasn't from buying the new roof, which protects your home and its contents, but from the storm."<br /><br />All of your examples results in displacing current or future consumer spending.Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10305237780328999212011-12-28T21:03:39.777-05:002011-12-28T21:03:39.777-05:00Tel: It's downright dishonest to claim this re...<b>Tel</b>: <i>It's downright dishonest to claim this represents "expansion" in the Japanese economy though isn't it? </i><br /><br />That's exactly what it is. Whether it can sustained depends on a number of factors. <br /><br />“Japan’s economic growth will remain elevated, mainly on domestic demand,” said Masaaki Kanno, chief Japan economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) in Tokyo and a former Bank of Japan official. “Especially from the first quarter, we expect reconstruction work in the Tohoku region to support the economy,” he said, referring to the northeast region struck by the temblor.<br /><br /><b>Tel</b>: <i>What Anderson said was: "acid rain was not killing anyone, nor was it even responsible for acid lakes" </i><br /><br />Anderson said, "No one had done any such research; the numbers were created from whole cloth," and "Acid rain was one of the Big Lies told by environmentalists."<br /><br />There *was* research concerning acid rain and deaths. And acid rain due to human emissions *is* well-supported in the scientific literature. <br /><br /><b>Tel</b>: <i>If reconstruction spending merely displaces consumer spending (as would be the expected outcome) then it effectively makes people poorer not wealthier. </i><br /><br />It won't displace consumer spending, which is already reduced.<br /><br />If your roof blows off during a storm, you either borrow (shift money from the future) or spend savings (shift money from the past) to replace the roof. The loss in wealth wasn't from buying the new roof, which protects your home and its contents, but from the storm. <br /><br /><b>Tel</b>: <i>The very basic stuff is that a disaster is bad for a nation. </i><br /><br />Of course it is. Leaving aside the human toll, it reduces a nation's wealth. However, it can spur economic activity. It can also lead to better designs, designs that account for <i>soteigai</i>.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-68888243861139815482011-12-28T19:30:59.808-05:002011-12-28T19:30:59.808-05:00Zachriel: Sure you can point out some sulphates, b...Zachriel: Sure you can point out some sulphates, big deal that doesn't actually address the point. What Anderson said was: <i>"acid rain was not killing anyone, nor was it even responsible for acid lakes"</i> and the fact that sulphates are measurable says nothing about whether they have a significant effect.<br /><br />Show me an actual example of an actual lake that has become less acid between 1990 and 2010 (as your diagram shows the sulphate levels went down).<br /><br />When you say: <i>"Reconstruction from the disaster will be an important factor in demand for the near term,"</i> that's just your assertion. Means nothing. If reconstruction spending merely displaces consumer spending (as would be the expected outcome) then it effectively makes people poorer not wealthier.<br /><br />The very basic stuff is that a disaster is bad for a nation. Strange that it is so difficult to make people understand this.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77247044448463184842011-12-28T18:48:53.531-05:002011-12-28T18:48:53.531-05:00morse79: Yeah I see what you did there with the bl...morse79: Yeah I see what you did there with the bloomberg article. Since Japanese exports slowed right down immediately following the disaster and then recovered back to normal levels over the next few months after that, you can make up a big growth figure by taking that brief recovery period on an <b>annualized</b> basis. It's downright dishonest to claim this represents "expansion" in the Japanese economy though isn't it?<br /><br />Is that the basic Keynesian principle you are trying to teach me? Dishonesty? Don't worry I already know about that one.<br /><br />As for the <i>"size of the reaction to the earthquake that matters"</i>... well you are welcome to make your predictions about events <b>after</b> they happen, but Krugman quite clearly made a prediction <b>before</b> he knew what the reaction was going to be. That is to say, Krugman presumably understands a few of these Keynesian principles that you mention, and he used these to attempt to understand what was happening in the world -- and he got it wrong. Simple as that.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-70401849730280608172011-12-28T11:24:36.780-05:002011-12-28T11:24:36.780-05:00Here was a critique of the mercury rules in the WS...Here was a critique of the mercury rules in the WSJ:<br /><br />http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329420414284558.html<br />"Mercury has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment. A 2009 study found mercury deposits in Antarctic ice across 650,000 years. Mercury is found in air, water, rocks, soil and trees, which absorb it from the environment. This is why our bodies evolved with proteins and antioxidants that help protect us from this and other potential contaminants. <br />Another defense comes from selenium, which is found in fish and animals. Its strong attraction to mercury molecules protects fish and people against buildups of methylmercury, mercury’s biologically active and more toxic form. Even so, the 200,000,000 tons of mercury naturally present in seawater have never posed a danger to any living being. <br />How do America’s coal-burning power plants fit into the picture? They emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. But U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons; Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year. <br />All these emissions enter the global atmospheric system and become part of the U.S. air mass. Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere. <br />According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for U.S. women and children decreased steadily from 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively safe level established by the EPA. A 17-year evaluation of mercury risk to babies and children by the Seychelles Children Development Study found “no measurable cognitive or behavioral effects” in children who eat several servings of ocean fish every week, much more than most Americans do. <br />The World Health Organization and U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury-risk standards that are two to three times less restrictive than the EPA’s. <br />The EPA ignored these findings. " <br /><br />More details by the author of that piece:<br /><br />http://www.affordablepoweralliance.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zNQ_CWaG5a0%3d&tabid=40<br />"A Scientific Critique of the Environmental Protection Agency’s... Proposed Rule (March 16, 2011) Focusing on the Mercury Emission Issues <br />By Willie Soon, PhD"RealityEngineernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-26705272781669358542011-12-28T09:31:10.019-05:002011-12-28T09:31:10.019-05:00Tel: @So there's the outcome for you: Japanese...<b>Tel</b>: <i>@So there's the outcome for you: Japanese household spending down 3.2% from last year.</i><br /><br />Of course, consumer spending dropped. There's a global economic crisis, and the people of Japan just suffered a huge shock and are retrenching. Reconstruction from the disaster will be an important factor in demand for the near term. <br /><br />This is very basic stuff.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-64145891024656973062011-12-28T08:43:30.828-05:002011-12-28T08:43:30.828-05:00@Tel You clearly do not understand basic Keynesian...@Tel You clearly do not understand basic Keynesian principles (sound familiar Roddis?). It is not the size of the earthquake but the size of the reaction to the earthquake that matters and whether it can see Japan through the slump due to the earthquake as well as the global crisis. <br /><br />http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-13/japan-economy-emerges-from-post-quake-slump-on-exports-expands-at-6-pace.htmlmorse79noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10906964336043154822011-12-28T02:16:36.083-05:002011-12-28T02:16:36.083-05:00A bit off topic, but remember how after the Japan ...A bit off topic, but remember how after the Japan earthquake, <i>"And yes, this does mean that the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary, if not for Japan then at least for the world as a whole."</i> (check his NYT blog March 15, 2011), and then Carlos Guterol did the fake Krugman, claiming the quake wasn't big enough... remember all that? How could we forget?<br /><br />http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/27/japan-economy-spending-idUST9E7N606Q20111227<br /><br />So there's the outcome for you: Japanese household spending down 3.2% from last year. Let me guess, Krugman is going to explain this by saying the quake would have been "expansionary" if only it had been a bit bigger?<br /><br />What are the going odds on Krugman admitting he was completely wrong back in March, and the Austrians were right?Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-63610287790044121192011-12-27T17:14:52.594-05:002011-12-27T17:14:52.594-05:00Bill,
I am very sorry to hear about the loss of y...Bill,<br /><br />I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. I hope that your recent time with her was filled with fond memories that you will cherish for a lifetime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-9389740093570268232011-12-27T13:42:27.911-05:002011-12-27T13:42:27.911-05:00William L. Anderson: And did those statistics pan ...<b>William L. Anderson</b>: <i>And did those statistics pan out after 1990? No, because "acid rain" was not killing anyone, nor was it even responsible for acid lakes. </i><br /><br />One claim at a time. You had said there were no such studies, and used that to cast aspersions on environmentalists. It only took a few minutes to find one such citation. <br /><br /><b>William L. Anderson</b>: <i>Acid rain was one of the Big Lies told by environmentalists. </i><br /><br />http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/ARP09_3/Annual-Mean-Wet-Sulfate-Deposition.gifZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-15740468193592313212011-12-27T13:21:11.990-05:002011-12-27T13:21:11.990-05:00And did those statistics pan out after 1990? No, b...And did those statistics pan out after 1990? No, because "acid rain" was not killing anyone, nor was it even responsible for acid lakes.<br /><br />Scientists from Scandinavia and the USA already had determined that lake acidity was highly correlated with soil acidity and land-use patterns. Acid rain was one of the Big Lies told by environmentalists.William L. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-70098708764322655062011-12-27T12:35:43.714-05:002011-12-27T12:35:43.714-05:00"Any statistics that the Environmental Protec..."Any statistics that the Environmental Protection Agency gives us regarding costs and benefits of new environmental regulations always are true, at least when Democrats control the White House"<br /><br />...Yes, that is why NOAA and likes of Hansen have had to correct data multipe times over the past few years when caught red handed.<br /><br />"All fossil fuels are evil and burning them always gives us net costs. There can be no exceptions to this viewpoint"<br /><br />...Yes, that is why we need wind and solar that are subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars.<br /><br />EPA and warmists as a group are the most destructive forces unleased on our society. It is without a question the scam of the millenia.American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84614036848037260752011-12-27T12:21:52.308-05:002011-12-27T12:21:52.308-05:00William L. Anderson: No one had done any such rese...<b>William L. Anderson</b>: <i>No one had done any such research; the numbers were created from whole cloth </i><br /><br />Um ...<br /><br />Ozkaynak & Spengler, Analysis of Health Effects Resulting from Population Exposure to Acid Precipitation, Environmental Health Perspective, 1985.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.com