Question: When is a Muslim Ban not a Muslim Ban?
Answer: When it involves only a limited number of states.*
Consider: The ban exempts Christians and other minority religious groups.
Question: What are the major religions of the affected countries?
Answer: Well there are Muslims, and ah Muslims, and ...did I say Muslims?
Come on guys get real. No matter what a court decides, it is a Muslim Ban. It is one of those things that if you have to explain it, you might as well not bother. Certainly Muslims will consider it a Muslim Ban.
I recall the "Secret bombing of Cambodia."** Who was the secret for? Americans. Surely the Cambodians knew they were being bombed so it was no secret to them.
* http://fortune.com/2017/01/31/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration-terrorism-discrimination/
** http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/reporter-breaks-the-news-of-secret-bombing-in-cambodia
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
IT'S US VERSUS THEM!
The concept of IT'S US vs. THEM is a basic feeling in human nature. It may well be hardwired in our brains and only overcome by much education, but, under the surface, it may be still there.
Also think of a corollary that when one of THEM joins US, we accept THEM and the new US start to worry about the former THEM. Think of your favorite football team. If one of the stars of the hated THEM joins us, THEM might be accepted. If you are a Redskins fan, the THEM might be a star from Dallas who joins US. We may even cheer the new arrival and they become loyal to US. But this acceptance involves small numbers.
Not surprisingly this US vs. THEM effect has been studied.*
However, we don't always accept THEM, particularly if THEM is a large number as in immigration. Today we see this not only in the U.S. but Europe as well. In Britain it appeared as Brexit. The continued affect may be seen in elections of other countries like France and Germany as 2017 develops.
In U.S. history US (American citizens) have usually not been immediately accepting of THEM It goes way back. For example, when the potato famine in Ireland led to a large migration of THEM to US (the U.S.), they were not immediately accepted. In fact, there were stores looking for employees that said Irish need not to apply. To some extent, the Irish literally fought their way into being US through boxing. Eventually WE did accept them, some time after the massive migration stopped. The same could be said about Italians. For signs, see: https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVjvD3JBY9pwAbBsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNzJ2NW0xBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjI2MThfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Irish+Need+Not+Apply&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
There was a time when migration of Chinese were not allowed to join US (America). It was called the Chinese Exclusion Act,** not suspended until 1943! It was the first law applying to a specific ethnic group.
Then we shouldn't forget that Black Mark on our history of interning Japanese-Americans into special camps during WW-II. Some financial compensation along with an apology was given to more than 100,000 of these by President Reagan in 1988.***
Lesser known was the registration of ethnic Germans in WW-I and internment of ethnic Germans and some Italians-Americans (mainly non-citizens but also some German-Americans) also during WW-II.*** (See my biographical piece What Nationality Are We Anyway: http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-nationality-are-we-anyway-biography.html)
So we should not be surprised if today the issue of THEM is Muslims in view of a small fraction of them being Terrorists. It is proposed that Muslims coming into the U.S. should be registered.**** Curiously, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW-II is given as a precedent for this although the interred Japanese were eventually given compensation with a small amount of money and an apology by Republican President Ronald Reagan! I wonder if the proposer knew this?
I find it interesting that death by certain causes is accepted as a daily occurrence but death by a Muslim Terrorist is considered a disaster. Consider that around 30,000 people are killed by automobile accidents per year so in 15 yrs after 9/11, about 450,000 people have been killed by automobile accidents. The figures for death by gunshot (murders and accidental plus suicide) are similar. Neither of these bother US and are accepted, whereas deaths from THEM, Muslim terrorists, don't total 100 people (94 though 2016*****) over the same 15 yrs and many of US are scared to death.
Panic is not necessarily always from murders but can also be induced by disease, for example, the Ebola scare of 2014. Many did not believe that Ebola cannot be transmitted through the air but direct contact with an infected person was needed. There were those scientists that said "Ah, but it can mutate!"(though it didn't) There were demands that people who had been in the infected countries, i.e. THEM, not be allowed back in the U.S. or at least should be held in isolation (quarantined) or self quarantined. Then as now Politicians and pundits called for the immediate cessation of flights from the affected countries in order to “keep America safe.” *****
.................................................................
While incubating the virus, Duncan [first infected person to return to the U.S.] had contact with 43 people, including close family members, who were monitored for symptoms for 21 days. In that time, he was with his fiancée, sharing a bed, for almost a week. At the hospital, a total of 76 other people were involved in Duncan’s care and likewise monitored for three weeks. Other than the nurses Pham and Vinson, who cared for Duncan while he was at the height of his illness, no one else developed Ebola.*****
I find it discouraging that there has been no evolution on the issue of US vs. THEM fears over the decades. We often can find a THEM to be fearful of. I am not immune to this myself. When I lived in Southwest Washington D,C., I would become very alert to my surroundings as I walked through a rather poor part of Southeast Washington, D.C. to a favorite restaurant. African Americans would be sitting on their front porches or stoops. Passing through my mind was the thought of some African American yelling "Get Him!" It was a thought that fortunately never developed into reality.
I asked my minister once if he knew of any evolution towards the teachings of Christ in the 80+ generations since his death (a female generation is considered to be 25.5 yrs). I'm not sure if he ever responded.
* http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/28/14425658/fear-of-refugees-explained
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
*** http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/09/210138278/japanese-internment-redress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_German_Americans
**** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/17/japanese-internment-is-precedent-for-national-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/?utm_term=.204d570b8eff
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/18/kelly_file_debate_trump_surrogate_carl_higbie_vs_cair_leader_hassan_shibly_on_muslim_registry.html
***** https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/10/ebola_panic_anniversary_predictions_of_a_u_s_epidemic_didn_t_come_true.html
Also think of a corollary that when one of THEM joins US, we accept THEM and the new US start to worry about the former THEM. Think of your favorite football team. If one of the stars of the hated THEM joins us, THEM might be accepted. If you are a Redskins fan, the THEM might be a star from Dallas who joins US. We may even cheer the new arrival and they become loyal to US. But this acceptance involves small numbers.
Not surprisingly this US vs. THEM effect has been studied.*
However, we don't always accept THEM, particularly if THEM is a large number as in immigration. Today we see this not only in the U.S. but Europe as well. In Britain it appeared as Brexit. The continued affect may be seen in elections of other countries like France and Germany as 2017 develops.
In U.S. history US (American citizens) have usually not been immediately accepting of THEM It goes way back. For example, when the potato famine in Ireland led to a large migration of THEM to US (the U.S.), they were not immediately accepted. In fact, there were stores looking for employees that said Irish need not to apply. To some extent, the Irish literally fought their way into being US through boxing. Eventually WE did accept them, some time after the massive migration stopped. The same could be said about Italians. For signs, see: https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVjvD3JBY9pwAbBsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEyNzJ2NW0xBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjI2MThfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=Irish+Need+Not+Apply&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002
There was a time when migration of Chinese were not allowed to join US (America). It was called the Chinese Exclusion Act,** not suspended until 1943! It was the first law applying to a specific ethnic group.
Then we shouldn't forget that Black Mark on our history of interning Japanese-Americans into special camps during WW-II. Some financial compensation along with an apology was given to more than 100,000 of these by President Reagan in 1988.***
Lesser known was the registration of ethnic Germans in WW-I and internment of ethnic Germans and some Italians-Americans (mainly non-citizens but also some German-Americans) also during WW-II.*** (See my biographical piece What Nationality Are We Anyway: http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-nationality-are-we-anyway-biography.html)
So we should not be surprised if today the issue of THEM is Muslims in view of a small fraction of them being Terrorists. It is proposed that Muslims coming into the U.S. should be registered.**** Curiously, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW-II is given as a precedent for this although the interred Japanese were eventually given compensation with a small amount of money and an apology by Republican President Ronald Reagan! I wonder if the proposer knew this?
I find it interesting that death by certain causes is accepted as a daily occurrence but death by a Muslim Terrorist is considered a disaster. Consider that around 30,000 people are killed by automobile accidents per year so in 15 yrs after 9/11, about 450,000 people have been killed by automobile accidents. The figures for death by gunshot (murders and accidental plus suicide) are similar. Neither of these bother US and are accepted, whereas deaths from THEM, Muslim terrorists, don't total 100 people (94 though 2016*****) over the same 15 yrs and many of US are scared to death.
Panic is not necessarily always from murders but can also be induced by disease, for example, the Ebola scare of 2014. Many did not believe that Ebola cannot be transmitted through the air but direct contact with an infected person was needed. There were those scientists that said "Ah, but it can mutate!"(though it didn't) There were demands that people who had been in the infected countries, i.e. THEM, not be allowed back in the U.S. or at least should be held in isolation (quarantined) or self quarantined. Then as now Politicians and pundits called for the immediate cessation of flights from the affected countries in order to “keep America safe.” *****
.................................................................
While incubating the virus, Duncan [first infected person to return to the U.S.] had contact with 43 people, including close family members, who were monitored for symptoms for 21 days. In that time, he was with his fiancée, sharing a bed, for almost a week. At the hospital, a total of 76 other people were involved in Duncan’s care and likewise monitored for three weeks. Other than the nurses Pham and Vinson, who cared for Duncan while he was at the height of his illness, no one else developed Ebola.*****
I find it discouraging that there has been no evolution on the issue of US vs. THEM fears over the decades. We often can find a THEM to be fearful of. I am not immune to this myself. When I lived in Southwest Washington D,C., I would become very alert to my surroundings as I walked through a rather poor part of Southeast Washington, D.C. to a favorite restaurant. African Americans would be sitting on their front porches or stoops. Passing through my mind was the thought of some African American yelling "Get Him!" It was a thought that fortunately never developed into reality.
I asked my minister once if he knew of any evolution towards the teachings of Christ in the 80+ generations since his death (a female generation is considered to be 25.5 yrs). I'm not sure if he ever responded.
* http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/28/14425658/fear-of-refugees-explained
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
*** http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/08/09/210138278/japanese-internment-redress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_German_Americans
**** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/17/japanese-internment-is-precedent-for-national-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/?utm_term=.204d570b8eff
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/18/kelly_file_debate_trump_surrogate_carl_higbie_vs_cair_leader_hassan_shibly_on_muslim_registry.html
***** https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/10/ebola_panic_anniversary_predictions_of_a_u_s_epidemic_didn_t_come_true.html
Saturday, January 28, 2017
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST WEEK
Well, how did President Donald (the Bully) Trumps' first week go? As for me, at best it was embarrassing and at worst it was a disaster. Admittedly my view is not held by all. I heard a group of three Trump supporters who viewed his first week as a grade of A by two and A- by the third.
Trump tried to bully the president of Mexico, Enrique Pena Nieto, about paying for The Great Wall of Trump and the Mexican President said NO and canceled a meeting with our president. This prompted a long telephone call between the two presidents to sort of patch things up, after which they issued joint messages. It turns out that Nieto is unpopular with the people of Mexico, and Trump probably inadvertently raised Nieto's pole standings by Nieto's standing up to bullying. Trump seemed genuinely surprised by Nieto's response. Not surprisingly, President Trump has continued his campaign of trying to the American media into submission.
Other countries are advising Trump not to build the wall, such as the Mayor of Berlin.
There is the temporary 4 mo. ban (possibly to be extended) on Muslim refugees from seven Arab countries from coming to the U.S. to "protect" us from terrorists (Christians and other minority religions are excluded from the ban). It turns out, however, that none of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. , including 9/11, involved citizens from these seven countries! Still this view of terrorists coming to the U.S. from these seven countries in spite of the facts is also held by some other Republicans. There is resistance by Republicans to the fact that the current vetting process has been pretty good. At any rate, this has prompted law suits from people who have valid visas to come to America and a big reaction from countries like Germany. This one is yet to be settled though some damage has been already done in any event.**
Then there are a group of gag orders for scientists in EPA, Agriculture,* and other agencies doing research. The gag order in Agriculture has now been rescinded. Though the gag order for EPA remains in place, the freeze on grants has been lifted. I presume the gag order on EPA will also soon be rescinded. I don't recall any instance of gag orders on my science during my 34 yrs as a Federal government researcher but some others report having experienced it before.
There seems to be a general resistance to facts by Republicans whom seem to prefer to rely on feelings, not facts. Kellyanne Conway once even claimed there are no such things as facts. This was also seen in the Bush-43 White House that politicized scientific committees by insisting that a representative be included who followed the biblical origin of life (Creationism).
Perhaps the worst orders during the first week involved the firing of four senior officials of the State Department before there is even a Secretary of State (who is expected to be approved next week); however, Rex Tillerson at least knew about the request for resignations and maybe has some ideas for replacement.
They [fired] include Patrick Kennedy, who had been the undersecretary of management since the George W. Bush administration, as well as Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond, and Gentry Smith, who directed the Office of Foreign Missions.***
These people were fired without replacements, presumably to be replaced eventually with neophytes. While these members are so-called Schedule C appointments, who serve at the pleasure of the President, one would expect an orderly transition, but that is not to be.
Note one of the dismissed is Patrick Kennedy, 63, who was a Bush-43 appointee. He has 43 yrs of government experience in a variety of positions,***
Ambassador Joyce Anne Barr, 66, has 38 years of experience in the government in a variety of positions.***
Ambassador Michele Thoren Bond, 63, with 39 yrs of experience in various position beginning with the foreign service. She has been in her current position for only about a year.***
Gentry Smith, 58, may be the most serious loss as he had 39 yrs in the State Department so a lot of institutional knowledge is being lost. He was appointed to his present position by President Obama.***
All these are eligible for retirement so the loss is ours and not theirs. Long ago, I too was "invited" to retire from the government. In time I have grown to feel it was all for the best as I was no longer a political football.
Perhaps you recall the hullabaloo when the Clinton Administration fired the Schedule C travel office for the White House, a far, far less serious matter, but at least they had a replacement in mind.
I can't see how all this ends well.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/24/usda-science-researchers-ordered-to-stop-publishing-news-releases-other-documents/?utm_term=.d68618fd176d
** http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ Reince Priebus has said that President Obama did a 6 mo. pause on people coming from Iraq; however, that pause was quite different in that the fingerprints of some terrorists who came to the U.S. were found on devices in Iraq. The pause was to allow a stiffening of the immigration policy
*** https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/state-department-resignations/514550/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_F._Kennedy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Anne_Barr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Thoren_Bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentry_O._Smith
Trump tried to bully the president of Mexico, Enrique Pena Nieto, about paying for The Great Wall of Trump and the Mexican President said NO and canceled a meeting with our president. This prompted a long telephone call between the two presidents to sort of patch things up, after which they issued joint messages. It turns out that Nieto is unpopular with the people of Mexico, and Trump probably inadvertently raised Nieto's pole standings by Nieto's standing up to bullying. Trump seemed genuinely surprised by Nieto's response. Not surprisingly, President Trump has continued his campaign of trying to the American media into submission.
Other countries are advising Trump not to build the wall, such as the Mayor of Berlin.
There is the temporary 4 mo. ban (possibly to be extended) on Muslim refugees from seven Arab countries from coming to the U.S. to "protect" us from terrorists (Christians and other minority religions are excluded from the ban). It turns out, however, that none of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. , including 9/11, involved citizens from these seven countries! Still this view of terrorists coming to the U.S. from these seven countries in spite of the facts is also held by some other Republicans. There is resistance by Republicans to the fact that the current vetting process has been pretty good. At any rate, this has prompted law suits from people who have valid visas to come to America and a big reaction from countries like Germany. This one is yet to be settled though some damage has been already done in any event.**
Then there are a group of gag orders for scientists in EPA, Agriculture,* and other agencies doing research. The gag order in Agriculture has now been rescinded. Though the gag order for EPA remains in place, the freeze on grants has been lifted. I presume the gag order on EPA will also soon be rescinded. I don't recall any instance of gag orders on my science during my 34 yrs as a Federal government researcher but some others report having experienced it before.
There seems to be a general resistance to facts by Republicans whom seem to prefer to rely on feelings, not facts. Kellyanne Conway once even claimed there are no such things as facts. This was also seen in the Bush-43 White House that politicized scientific committees by insisting that a representative be included who followed the biblical origin of life (Creationism).
Perhaps the worst orders during the first week involved the firing of four senior officials of the State Department before there is even a Secretary of State (who is expected to be approved next week); however, Rex Tillerson at least knew about the request for resignations and maybe has some ideas for replacement.
They [fired] include Patrick Kennedy, who had been the undersecretary of management since the George W. Bush administration, as well as Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond, and Gentry Smith, who directed the Office of Foreign Missions.***
These people were fired without replacements, presumably to be replaced eventually with neophytes. While these members are so-called Schedule C appointments, who serve at the pleasure of the President, one would expect an orderly transition, but that is not to be.
Note one of the dismissed is Patrick Kennedy, 63, who was a Bush-43 appointee. He has 43 yrs of government experience in a variety of positions,***
Ambassador Joyce Anne Barr, 66, has 38 years of experience in the government in a variety of positions.***
Ambassador Michele Thoren Bond, 63, with 39 yrs of experience in various position beginning with the foreign service. She has been in her current position for only about a year.***
Gentry Smith, 58, may be the most serious loss as he had 39 yrs in the State Department so a lot of institutional knowledge is being lost. He was appointed to his present position by President Obama.***
All these are eligible for retirement so the loss is ours and not theirs. Long ago, I too was "invited" to retire from the government. In time I have grown to feel it was all for the best as I was no longer a political football.
Perhaps you recall the hullabaloo when the Clinton Administration fired the Schedule C travel office for the White House, a far, far less serious matter, but at least they had a replacement in mind.
I can't see how all this ends well.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/24/usda-science-researchers-ordered-to-stop-publishing-news-releases-other-documents/?utm_term=.d68618fd176d
** http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/ Reince Priebus has said that President Obama did a 6 mo. pause on people coming from Iraq; however, that pause was quite different in that the fingerprints of some terrorists who came to the U.S. were found on devices in Iraq. The pause was to allow a stiffening of the immigration policy
*** https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/state-department-resignations/514550/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_F._Kennedy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Anne_Barr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Thoren_Bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentry_O._Smith
Friday, January 27, 2017
BULLY IN THE CHINA SHOP
NAFTA: I will have a short discussion about the much maligned NAFTA. Initiated by former President George H.W. Bush and signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1994, NAFTA has helped boost U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico, the nation's largest and 3rd largest trading partners. not including the Europe Union as a whole. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement).
"Goods exports totaled $236 billion; goods imports totaled $295 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $58 billion in 2015. "
........................................................................
"The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2015 were: vehicles ($74 billion), electrical machinery ($63 billion), machinery ($49 billion), mineral fuels ($14 billion), and optical and medical instruments ($12 billion)"*
President Trump has succeeded in raising the hackles of the Mexicans by trying to bully them into directly paying for the Great Wall of Trump. Not surprisingly Mexico confronted the bully and said hell No. If the U.S.had problems with Mexico before, now they seem to be a disaster.
There is a proposal to put a border tax of 20% on Mexican exports to the U.S. Please note that the only government owned operation in the above list of imports is the mineral fuels so all the border tax would be paid by private industry, often U.S. companies. So with a border tax, it will be the U.S. consumer who pays the tax because of increased pricing, everything else considered equal. However, everything else is not equal and the value of the dollar index is expected to rise. If the dollar index were to rise by 20% (which might happen if the border tax applies to all countries), then I think (but do not know) that the whole thing is a wash.
Institution of the border tax would, of course, scrap NAFTA. the proposal is to use that money gained from the border tax to pay for the Great Wall of Trump. At any rate, I am sure that it is the U.S. consumer that pays the tax thus the Great Wall of Trump.
Under consideration by the Republicans is to make the border tax universal, e.g. apply to all countries. I hope the Republicans think this whole thing through, something they are not known to do. ** In addition to the complexity of the dollar index, Mexico is almost certain to institute a border tax of their own. It was NAFTA that got Mexico to do away with their import taxes and exports from the U.S. to Mexico rose greatly as a result. So our border tax plus Mexico's new border tax probably ends up costing U.S. jobs.
U.S. goods exports to Mexico in 2015 were $236 billion, down 1.6% ($3.9 billion) from 2014 but up 97% from 2005. U.S. exports to Mexico are up 468% from 1993 (pre-NAFTA). U.S. exports to Mexico account for 15.7% of overall U.S. exports in 2015.**
I hope present day politics doesn't screw NAFTA up.
There is some modification of NAFTA in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) (a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru,Singapore, the United States and Vietnam
It is hard for me to see how all this ends well.
* https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico
** For example, Republicans were all for the President having a line item veto, apparently never thinking that there might be a Democratic President; however President Clinton was elected. When he used the line item veto, Republicans howled and took it to the Supreme Court that said it was unconstitutional. Some Republicans still want the line item veto.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
CARBON DIOXIDE/METHANE EMISSIONS- 2016
A recent article on CNBC claims that the energy sector will hold North America together not matter what else happens.* A lot of progress has been made in reducing the carbon emissions from power plants:
The U.S. electric power sector consumes more energy than the transportation sector, which includes automobiles, planes and trains. Still, carbon emissions from power plants have managed to fall below those from transportation because carbon intensity from electric power generation has fallen faster.**
.................................................................
Natural gas facilities are also cheaper to build and operate, according to Robert Godby, director of the Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at the University of Wyoming. New rules that require plants to install expensive technology to mitigate emissions, as well as the uncertainty of future regulations, have also dissuaded utilities from building new coal-fired plants, he told CNBC in an interview in December.**
(Click on figure to enlarge)
What we need is an evaluation of how much natural gas is emitted into the atmosphere in the extraction and transmission of the gas to the power plants. The loss in extraction is methane that has 72 times the effect of carbon dioxide*** Leakage at least used to be substantial enough to make use of natural gas a negative saving on greenhouse gases and the break even value on leakage is estimated to be only 2.8%.*** Usable natural gas is usually processed to remove carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen sulfide. These inert compounds are commercial valuable in the form of dry ice (from carbon dioxide) and commercially used gases that eventually get released into the atmosphere. The hydrogen sulfide, however, gets converted to sulfuric acide aerosols by a photo chemical reaction that generally cools the atmosphere.
Currently it is estimated that 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions come from the country's natural gas industry. In 2006, the natural gas industry operated over 38,000 miles of natural gas pipelines that were made of cast iron, the leakiest of all types of gas piping. In 2009, 4,000 miles of new pipes were laid.[15] Further studies of methane gas loss rates need to be completed to access the situation globally. Assessing these loss rates will help reduce methane leaks from natural gas distribution in the United States.[16]
Current USEPA estimates place global leakage of methane at 3 trillion cubic feet annually[15], or 3.2% of global production[17]. Direct emissions of methane represented 14.3% of all global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004
......................................................................
In an April 2013 report the EPA lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production. It was reported that "tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That's about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice."***
* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/energy-holds-north-america-together-no-matter-what-happens-with-trump.html
** http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/us-power-plants-emitting-less-carbon-dioxide-than-transportation.html
*** http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Natural_gas_transmission_leakage_rates
The U.S. electric power sector consumes more energy than the transportation sector, which includes automobiles, planes and trains. Still, carbon emissions from power plants have managed to fall below those from transportation because carbon intensity from electric power generation has fallen faster.**
.................................................................
Natural gas facilities are also cheaper to build and operate, according to Robert Godby, director of the Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at the University of Wyoming. New rules that require plants to install expensive technology to mitigate emissions, as well as the uncertainty of future regulations, have also dissuaded utilities from building new coal-fired plants, he told CNBC in an interview in December.**
What we need is an evaluation of how much natural gas is emitted into the atmosphere in the extraction and transmission of the gas to the power plants. The loss in extraction is methane that has 72 times the effect of carbon dioxide*** Leakage at least used to be substantial enough to make use of natural gas a negative saving on greenhouse gases and the break even value on leakage is estimated to be only 2.8%.*** Usable natural gas is usually processed to remove carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen sulfide. These inert compounds are commercial valuable in the form of dry ice (from carbon dioxide) and commercially used gases that eventually get released into the atmosphere. The hydrogen sulfide, however, gets converted to sulfuric acide aerosols by a photo chemical reaction that generally cools the atmosphere.
Currently it is estimated that 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions come from the country's natural gas industry. In 2006, the natural gas industry operated over 38,000 miles of natural gas pipelines that were made of cast iron, the leakiest of all types of gas piping. In 2009, 4,000 miles of new pipes were laid.[15] Further studies of methane gas loss rates need to be completed to access the situation globally. Assessing these loss rates will help reduce methane leaks from natural gas distribution in the United States.[16]
Current USEPA estimates place global leakage of methane at 3 trillion cubic feet annually[15], or 3.2% of global production[17]. Direct emissions of methane represented 14.3% of all global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004
......................................................................
In an April 2013 report the EPA lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production. It was reported that "tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That's about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice."***
* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/energy-holds-north-america-together-no-matter-what-happens-with-trump.html
** http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/us-power-plants-emitting-less-carbon-dioxide-than-transportation.html
*** http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Natural_gas_transmission_leakage_rates
Saturday, January 21, 2017
AFFORABLE CARE ACT AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
There are those who tirelessly claim that the ACA (Obamacare) is hurting small business, but the reverse may well be true as small businesses are increasingly signing up with the ACA.* Quotes from the reference are in italics
One out of every 5 Obamacare customers — 1.4 million people — was a small-business owner, self-employed or both, in 2014, the first year Affordable Care Act plans were available, a government report issued Thursday revealed
The same Treasury Department report also found that workers whose incomes were not primarily from wages were almost three times more likely to buy health insurance coverage from an Obamacare exchange than wage earners in 2014.
....................................................................
"These data show that the Affordable Care Act (ACA's) Health Insurance Marketplaces are playing an especially crucial role in providing health coverage to entrepreneurs and other independent workers," the duo wrote.* (The duo is two officials at the Treasury and the Health and Human Services Department in a blog post detailing the report.)
.....................................................................
California had more than 480,000 small-business owners and self-employed/sole proprietors covered through those plans, while Florida had almost 290,000 such people covered. States with small populations such as Vermont, Idaho, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island were among those with a high share of small-business owners relying on Obamacare plans.
.....................................................................
[Noah]Lang,[CEO of Stride Health, a California-based insurance broker], whose clients include Uber, Etsy, TaskRabbit and other gig-based companies,** said he expected participation in Obamacare plans to increase this year among small-business owners and the self-employed.
Note The ACA is not applicable to me as I am in a work related plan and I am not really familiar with the ACA.
* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/small-business-owners-self-employed-bought-many-obamacare-plans.html
** GIG Economy: A way of working that is based on people based on temorary jobs or doing separate pieces of work, each paid separately, rather than working for an employer.
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gig-economy)
One out of every 5 Obamacare customers — 1.4 million people — was a small-business owner, self-employed or both, in 2014, the first year Affordable Care Act plans were available, a government report issued Thursday revealed
The same Treasury Department report also found that workers whose incomes were not primarily from wages were almost three times more likely to buy health insurance coverage from an Obamacare exchange than wage earners in 2014.
....................................................................
"These data show that the Affordable Care Act (ACA's) Health Insurance Marketplaces are playing an especially crucial role in providing health coverage to entrepreneurs and other independent workers," the duo wrote.* (The duo is two officials at the Treasury and the Health and Human Services Department in a blog post detailing the report.)
.....................................................................
California had more than 480,000 small-business owners and self-employed/sole proprietors covered through those plans, while Florida had almost 290,000 such people covered. States with small populations such as Vermont, Idaho, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island were among those with a high share of small-business owners relying on Obamacare plans.
.....................................................................
[Noah]Lang,[CEO of Stride Health, a California-based insurance broker], whose clients include Uber, Etsy, TaskRabbit and other gig-based companies,** said he expected participation in Obamacare plans to increase this year among small-business owners and the self-employed.
Note The ACA is not applicable to me as I am in a work related plan and I am not really familiar with the ACA.
* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/small-business-owners-self-employed-bought-many-obamacare-plans.html
** GIG Economy: A way of working that is based on people based on temorary jobs or doing separate pieces of work, each paid separately, rather than working for an employer.
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gig-economy)
Thursday, January 19, 2017
GRINCH THAT STOLE THE SANTA KLAUS RALLY
As the so-called Trump Rally went on for the stock markets, I began to wonder if the Trump Rally was simply borrowing the Santa Klaus Rally? Well that seems to be the case. The Santa Klaus Rally wasn't negative but it was barely positive (see figure).
Traditionally the Santa Klaus Rally is the last three trading days of the old year and the first two trading days of the new year. On this basis, the S and P 500 started the Rally period at 2268.88 on December 27, 2016, and ended it at 2270.75 on January 4, 2017 or an increase of +0.082%. The figures for other indices are: +0.19% for both the DJIA and the NASDAQ Composite, +0.58% for the NASDAQ 100, and +0.74% for the Russell 2000.
(Click on figuire to enlarge)
Another piece of Wall Street lore is that the first five trading days of the new year show you how the year will go on stocks: if positive, the year will be positive and, if negative, the year will be negative. So how did it do. I'm pleased to say it did pretty good. The S and P 500 gained 1.34%. The DJIA gained 0.63%. The NASDAQ Composite gained 2.76%, The NASDAQ 100 gained 3.31%; however the Russell 2000 gained only 0.02%.
Though this indicator is positive for 2017, we need to remember that 2016 started as the worst ever period for stocks although the year ended up quite good. Also consider that most years are positive for the stock market so you would on average do well if you just stayed in the market year after year, called "long-term buy and hold."
* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18/narrowest-dow-range.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18/business-euphoria-over-trump-gives-way-to-caution-confusion.html
Traditionally the Santa Klaus Rally is the last three trading days of the old year and the first two trading days of the new year. On this basis, the S and P 500 started the Rally period at 2268.88 on December 27, 2016, and ended it at 2270.75 on January 4, 2017 or an increase of +0.082%. The figures for other indices are: +0.19% for both the DJIA and the NASDAQ Composite, +0.58% for the NASDAQ 100, and +0.74% for the Russell 2000.
Another piece of Wall Street lore is that the first five trading days of the new year show you how the year will go on stocks: if positive, the year will be positive and, if negative, the year will be negative. So how did it do. I'm pleased to say it did pretty good. The S and P 500 gained 1.34%. The DJIA gained 0.63%. The NASDAQ Composite gained 2.76%, The NASDAQ 100 gained 3.31%; however the Russell 2000 gained only 0.02%.
Though this indicator is positive for 2017, we need to remember that 2016 started as the worst ever period for stocks although the year ended up quite good. Also consider that most years are positive for the stock market so you would on average do well if you just stayed in the market year after year, called "long-term buy and hold."
* http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18/narrowest-dow-range.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18/business-euphoria-over-trump-gives-way-to-caution-confusion.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
