Sundance Festival Acclaimed Documentary Starring Al Gore?

[Gecko]

can you link me to those projections G? I haven't seen any such thing.

The economic reports I get daily are not allowed to be disseminated to the public. You wouldn't imagine how heavily regulated we are when it comes to non-NASD approved materials. You might want to see if googling brings up something on Future budget deficit projections".

If I get time this weekend, which is doubtful since me and the fam are headed to out place up north, I might be willing to paraphrase the article I referenced.

A quick google brought this up. (notice how deficits and surpluses graph mimics the stock market performance. Funny how you never hear about something that appears so positive. I guess it's better to just discuss the negative.


The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) new baseline projections indicate that if current laws and policies did not change, the federal budget would run a deficit of $368 billion in 2005 and a smaller deficit, $295 billion, next year. After that, annual deficits would gradually decline, turning into a small surplus by 2012, assuming that various tax increases occurred as scheduled. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit would equal 3.0 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) this year and 2.3 percent of GDP in 2006. By 2015, the end of CBO's 10-year projection period, the baseline surplus would equal 0.7 percent of GDP (see Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1. The Total Deficit or Surplus as a Percentage of GDP, 1967 to 2015
(Percent)

[Gecko]

Junk bonds was not the reason for the dot-com bubble or the fiber optic boom in teleco's

There's a (part of an) Internet economics talk by Hal Varian:

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/

that I can't find on his site called "How Michael Milken invented the Internet". He gave the at/around the time that Gore's remarks were prominent and back when he was in Michigan, but that doesn't narrow it down enough and I don't have time. He succinctly traced how Milken's activities in particular directed $ toward "risky" tech stuff that led to key infrastructure for today's Internet and telco services. It was easily the memorable part of a deadly-dull talk. I went away with "Damn, he's right, just follow the money".

Googling around, someone else wrote something about this:

http://www.richmondfed.org/education...dfs/milken.pdf

Milliken happened before the tech boom of the late 90's which resulted for other reasons. Most of the dot.com companies never offered junk bonds but I guess one could say that Milliken helped in some way contribute to the boom albeit much earlier and in a not so obvious direct way.

The reasons for the dot com bubble.
1.) Venture capital ( which somewhere in the chain the capital from junk bonds would be found).
2.) Low interest rates
3.) Y2k spending
4.) Advent of internet and terms like "New Economy"
5.) most important human emotion run out of control namely Greed.


I think your main thesis of easy money was more point on.

[Uncle Mxy]

At the time I heard the talk about Michael Milken inventing the Internet, it was either before or just at the very start of the dot-com era, and no, he certainly wasn't -directly- responsible for that. But, it was amazing just how much tech investment reflecting in the Internet tracked back to him. I always think of him when I think Gore. Oh, and it's Milken, not Milliken... been thinking about our governor in the 70s, by chance? I miss the age of Milliken Republicans.

Viewing debt as a function of GDP can get problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a complex beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet.

[Hermy]

Ah, I misinterpreted "paid down" as "paid off".

[Gecko]

Ah, I misinterpreted "paid down" as "paid off".

No, there both correct. See that chart 2 posts above, it has this line that starts to head North at 2006 and crosses the 0 line around the year 2012 and then crosses into + territory. In my book this would be defined as both paid down and paid off.

See this quote too from the CBO:
"turning into a small surplus by 2012"

[Gecko]

Viewing debt as a function of GDP can get problematic. As the GDP grows, is it doing so -because- of the added debt or in spite of it, and to what extent does that GDP growth end up mapping back to real increased revenues coming in? If the GDP doesn't grow as much as the debt incurred "should" make it grow -- not exactly the easiest thing to divine -- what then? What does that GDP mean? It's a complex beast relative to a "income in, expenses out" balance sheet.

I have other stuff that shows the debt shrinking in nominal terms and not against GDP. Something to think about too. The debt should shrink even faster than that chart shows due to the recent slide in the dollar. THE CBO assumed those figures against a much higher dolllar so if the dollar remains weak we may have a surplus much sooner than the 2012 prediction the CBO is making.

Just roll with it Mxy. Optimism baby! Things are great.

[Black Dynamite]

hmmm global warming?

[Gecko]

hmmm global warming?

Questions for Al GoreFont Size: By Dr. Roy Spencer : BIO| 25 May 2006 Discuss This Story! (23) Email | Print | Bookmark | Save

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.


As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.


1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?


3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?


5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?


6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?


7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view?



Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.


I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.


Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer
(aka 'Phil Jones')

[Gecko]

Nothing isn't what it used to be.


Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby recently reviewed Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." He argued that President Bush "refused to let his administration do anything about climate." And last month New York Times columnist Paul Krugman made the same claim: "most governments have done little to curb greenhouse gases, and the Bush administration has done nothing ..."


One is tempted to ask whether they are being Clintonesque, with nothing depending upon their definitions of nothing. But assuming they were being honest, one can only wonder where they gathered their evidence that the Bush administration was doing nothing.


Obviously it was not from reading Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic, who in February last year, wrote: "[T]he notion that Bush has done nothing at all about greenhouse gases can only be sustained if you ignore what he has done."


What has that been? Easterbrook was writing about a program called Methane to Markets, which the Bush administration negotiated among several countries in 2004. He noted that most news outlets didn't report a thing about it. Yet, the program promises a reduction in methane -- a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than the carbon dioxide that is the focus of most news reporting -- equal to the reductions in greenhouse gases from the more heralded Kyoto Protocol.


One of the fruits of the methane to markets program came last week. China, a chief emitter of methane from its coal mines, has signed an agreement to buy 60 methane generators from Caterpillar Inc. for $58 million. The generators will take in the methane from its largest coal mine, reducing explosions and improving safety and health in the mines while providing 120 megawatts of electricity with reduced greenhouse gas emissions.


Neither the Post nor the Times thought that worthy of reporting, nor did most other mainstream media outside of the business press. After all it's a "good news" story -- a kind of win-win-win-win scenario for health, safety, economics and the environment that the mainstream media are loath to report.


And besides, how can you write about the fruit of a program that you've barely acknowledged exists? The Post provided but one brief story about it on its inside pages back in November of 2004, and then gave it mention in a little science brief about a Princeton study that found "reducing emissions of methane ... by 20% from current levels would prevent an estimated 370,000 premature deaths worldwide between 2010 and 2030." And that's nothing compared to The New York Times reporting, which about methane to markets amounted to nothing googleable at all.


All of which may explain the frustration of James Connaughton, President Bush's chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality at a presentation at the American Enterprise Institute the day Mallaby's column appeared. He said he felt like asking the administration's critics such as Mallaby: "What part of 'yes' don't you understand?"


He said there is no longer any debate going on in the administration about the science of climate change nor that there is human contribution to warming. He said there is even consensus among policymakers here and abroad on the scope of action and places where it's needed and the type of arrangements required to help limit that contribution.


Connaughton pointed to 60 federal programs "designed to help reduce emissions by 500 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent (greenhouse gases) through 2012;" voluntary programs, such as Climate VISION, that aim to reduce carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon emissions for a given amount of economic activity -- by 18% by 2012; and federal spending on climate change programs of $26 billion since Bush came into office, about half of which has gone to researching new technology.

Where the administration runs afoul of its critics' demands -- and is considered to be doing nothing -- is in the promotion of caps on carbon emissions. The critics want to force carbon-emitting industries to cap emissions and then allow those who reduce their emissions below their cap to sell credits to those who fail to meet them. But such cap and trade schemes would do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without China and India participating, costly carbon caps will prompt the movement of industrial emissions abroad -- where they will likely be spewed out in greater amounts through dirtier technology.

That is something that the Mallabys and Krugmans and most

environmentalists overlook -- you can't force these countries to do what you want. You have to understand their economic and moral need to lift millions of people out of poverty quickly. They will put this goal ahead of reducing greenhouse emissions any day. And who can blame them? Further, from a political standpoint, you aren't going to get far with significant carbon curbs if they hurt your own economy, a fact that helps to explain why the Clinton administration did less than the Bush administration on climate change, if you look at the record.

What can do something to influence what is going on in China and India? As Connaughton pointed out, you can make a deal with them to provide them cleaner, better, safer, healthier, more advanced technology -- if they agree to protect the intellectual property of those who invent that technology. And you can seek to ensure that you don't wipe out incentives here for the development of the kind of clean technology they might buy -- in particular clean coal. You want coal cleaned up as a source of electricity, so as to pass on the technology to coal-dependent nations such as China and India. But it is unlikely these clean-coal technologies will develop if carbon caps force utilities to switch to natural gas.

What's
more, recent real-world experience with carbon caps undercuts the arguments of the administration's critics. Canada has indicated it won't meet its caps under Kyoto, and Europe is heading toward failure as well.

Meanwhile, Bush's sweet nothings of Methane to Markets, his Asian Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate Change (AP6), and his promotion of investment in technological development here and its spread through free trade and intellectual property protection abroad are producing measurable gains already with the China-Caterpillar deal.

Of course, don't expect to hear about those gains from Mallaby or Krugman or the rest of mainstream major media. Much like Sergeant Schulz, the guard in Hogan's Heroes who turned a blind eye to the POW's shenanigans, saying, "I know nothing! Nothing!" so he didn't have to report them to Colonel Klink, so they maintain a willful ignorance of the administration's climate activities so as not to complicate their case that the administration is doing nothing -- see nothing positive, hear nothing positive, report nothing positive.

[Hermy]

I say Al could answer those questions in....um, 100 words. Very poorly done as I can answer most.