A New World Energy Map is Emerging. Exhibit A: Natural Gas Glut in America Fuels An Export Debate
Natural gas futures contracts for February closed at $2.67 (per million BTUs) in trading Friday on the NYMEX (see chart above). That's the lowest closing price since March of 2002, almost ten years ago, and that's not adjusted for inflation. In real terms, it's the lowest price since 1999. As VangeIV and some others have pointed out in the comments section, $2.67 is likely far below the actual cost of producing natural gas for most companies.
As this Houston Chronicle article points out, natural gas is selling for as much as $12 per million BTUs in Europe (see chart) and as high as $18 in some Asian markets (that's "off the chart" above!). Andrew Ware, a spokesman for Houston-based Cheniere Energy, is quoted in the article saying "We have so much natural gas coming up that we don't know what to do with it."
Well, it seems like a natural solution to our "glut" would be to export America's cheap, abundant American natural gas to Europe and Asia and allow U.S. companies to take advantage of the huge price difference, but that's generating some controversy as the article points out:
"Debate is brewing over whether to keep the nation's glut of natural gas at home for cheap energy or export it at five times the price, possibly creating jobs and boosting the domestic economy. Businesses that purchase natural gas for industrial and residential use have rallied against proposals to liquefy and export the fossil fuel to Asian and European nations willing to pay much higher prices.
Nine companies have sought federal approval to export about 10 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day, which would boost prices for U.S. customers. Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG plant in Louisiana already has won approval to ship out more than 2 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas a day.
There's little doubt that exports will cause the price of natural gas to rise. The debate is whether the rise in gross domestic product and gas field employment might offset the negative effects of higher domestic energy prices."
MP: It's quite an interesting development that the U.S. now has such an abundant supply of domestic natural gas thanks to the shale revolution that we're now having a debate on whether American companies should be allowed to export gas.
The debate over natural gas exports is more evidence that a new world energy map is emerging, and it is centered not on the Middle East but on the Western Hemisphere as Daniel Yergin pointed out recently in the Washington Post.
Very few people predicted the historic "game-changing" domestic energy developments that have emerged in 2010 and 2011. And Yergin provides some insight on why that is - "The transformation is happening not as part of some grand design or major policy effort, but almost accidentally. This shift was not planned — it is a product of a series of unrelated initiatives and technological breakthroughs."
HT: Jim Curtis
As this Houston Chronicle article points out, natural gas is selling for as much as $12 per million BTUs in Europe (see chart) and as high as $18 in some Asian markets (that's "off the chart" above!). Andrew Ware, a spokesman for Houston-based Cheniere Energy, is quoted in the article saying "We have so much natural gas coming up that we don't know what to do with it."
Well, it seems like a natural solution to our "glut" would be to export America's cheap, abundant American natural gas to Europe and Asia and allow U.S. companies to take advantage of the huge price difference, but that's generating some controversy as the article points out:
"Debate is brewing over whether to keep the nation's glut of natural gas at home for cheap energy or export it at five times the price, possibly creating jobs and boosting the domestic economy. Businesses that purchase natural gas for industrial and residential use have rallied against proposals to liquefy and export the fossil fuel to Asian and European nations willing to pay much higher prices.
Nine companies have sought federal approval to export about 10 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day, which would boost prices for U.S. customers. Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG plant in Louisiana already has won approval to ship out more than 2 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas a day.
There's little doubt that exports will cause the price of natural gas to rise. The debate is whether the rise in gross domestic product and gas field employment might offset the negative effects of higher domestic energy prices."
MP: It's quite an interesting development that the U.S. now has such an abundant supply of domestic natural gas thanks to the shale revolution that we're now having a debate on whether American companies should be allowed to export gas.
The debate over natural gas exports is more evidence that a new world energy map is emerging, and it is centered not on the Middle East but on the Western Hemisphere as Daniel Yergin pointed out recently in the Washington Post.
Very few people predicted the historic "game-changing" domestic energy developments that have emerged in 2010 and 2011. And Yergin provides some insight on why that is - "The transformation is happening not as part of some grand design or major policy effort, but almost accidentally. This shift was not planned — it is a product of a series of unrelated initiatives and technological breakthroughs."
HT: Jim Curtis
142 Comments:
well the original argument was that we are short on energy and dependent on foreign sources because we won't allow domestic production.
Now it turns out that we actually do allow domestic production but instead of helping to reduce our dependence on it or protect us from the higher price of energy - they want to sell it to the highest bidder.
So it appears to me if we allow more offshore drilling at some risk or we sell leases in national parks and other Federal Lands that it will be not for domestic use but instead to sell to the highest bidder.
so we justify more domestic production and the risks associated with it - like fracking or oil spills, etc because we "need it" but then we sell it overseas to the highest bidder.
I call this the WTF Energy Policy.
Peak Oil is forcing more resources into energy production:
Foreign firms invest big in U.S. energy boom
January 11, 2012
Foreign firms, hungry to cash in on the American energy boom, have invested nearly $6 billion in U.S. gas and oil drilling in the last few weeks.
Energy giants from China, France and Spain have snapped up stakes in fields in Ohio, Mississippi, Colorado and Michigan.
These investments will likely add to the recent boom in U.S. natural gas production, pushing already low natural gas prices even lower.
Low domestic prices could drive natural gas producers to seek out European and Asian markets, according to analysts, where the fuel commands three or four times the price.
There are strict rules governing the export of oil and gas from the United States, and the government must approve of any project.
When the USA engages in trade, we print money and foreigners work hard to give us products and services in exchange for the paper money. That is because they accept the US dollar. This strikes me as a great deal, and also greatly boosts the supply side of the economy. Almost impossible to have much inflation when you source globally.
I am not sure I want to work hard in order to get slips of paper back from foreigners.
they want to sell it to the highest bidder
Well, of course they do. There's no reason to produce anything other than to sell it to the highest bidder.
Now, given the price, the domestic market for natural gas will expand quickly. I think the talk of a natural gas glut will be short-lived.
But we mustn't begrudge the people who've gone to the expense of bringing it out of the ground a return on their investment. After all, they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts -- nor should they have.
And, don't forget. We're not giving it away -- we're selling it -- for money.
but there are obvious inconsistencies in the narrative about it.
we're told that Obama is restricting the extraction of fossil fuels when prices are going up and we are buying oil from "unfriendly countries".
so.. it appears that if there are restrictions they certainly are not restricting the extraction and sale of these fuels....
and they are not helping to reduce energy prices in this country nor reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
All I'm saying here is that we're getting not only different narratives about it but conflicting narratives.
If we open up more offshore drilling and more Federal Lands to fossil fuel extraction - will it benefit our claimed strategic domestic needs - lower prices/less dependence or will it just benefit investors who sell it to the highest bidder?
"I call this the WTF Energy Policy."
I call this Larry,not understanding markets, oil, energy, or economics.
jeeze ROn.. you are such a meanie.
;-)
"We have so much natural gas coming up that we don't know what to do with it."
Some know what to do with it:
Glut Hits Natural-Gas Prices
JANUARY 12, 2012
Goodrich Petroleum Corp. is flaring gas from an oil well on a ranch in South Texas because a nearby pipeline is already full.
Natural gas is often a byproduct of oil drilling, and some companies are opting to burn off the gas they find because they don't have a way to transport it.
Oil production isn't the only factor boosting natural-gas supplies.
Some gas fields produce so much ethane, a valuable liquid used to make plastics, that companies will drill regardless of gas prices.
In addition, some companies need to continue drilling so they don't violate terms of leases on millions of acres of land—deals struck when gas prices were high.
Peak: "Natural gas is often a byproduct of oil drilling, and some companies are opting to burn off the gas they find because they don't have a way to transport it."
Don't the global warmers get all freaked out when they do that?
Energy giants from China, France and Spain have snapped up stakes in fields in Ohio, Mississippi, Colorado and Michigan.
The more reason to have export controls or at least a subsidy that gives back to the US citizens. At the very least, either measure would cut the middleman for US end customers.
I'd be interested in what foreign countries are digging into Ohio soil and attempting to gain influence in that state.
Energy giants from China, France and Spain have snapped up stakes in fields in Ohio, Mississippi, Colorado and Michigan.
The more reason to have export controls or at least a subsidy that gives back to the US citizens. At the very least, either measure would cut the middleman for US end customers.
I'd be interested in what foreign countries are digging into Ohio soil and attempting to gain influence in that state.
Ron says: "Don't the global warmers get all freaked out when they do that?"
The solar panels, electric cars, windmills, fluorescent bulbs, etc. didn't work out.
Maybe, they're focusing on making us so poor, we'll be riding bicycles, living in small apartments, and consuming less of everything, except sweaters, in a few years, like in Europe.
Of course it was planned, but not by the Government.
That's why it worked.
Actually, all that stuff is working out, Peak. Worldwide, the investment in Clean Energy was $260 Billion, last year ($55 Billion in the U.S.)
That's probably one reason nat gas is staying so cheap.
this seems interesting:
Cheap zinc air battery promises beefier power grid
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57358783-54/cheap-zinc-air-battery-promises-beefier-power-grid/
in terms of wind/solar or even flared gas, this might be a technology that allows storing it until needed.
but I thought flaring gas was fairly typical anyone the gas could not be captured and transported - offshore rigs for instance?
the funny thing is that anywhere you flare the gas - it could be used to generate electric power on site, even feed the excess back to the power grid, if they are on grid.
but business has really never been about efficiencies and dumping excess materials anyhow unless it affected their bottom line.
This is how the EPA got into business, eh?
Debate is brewing over whether to keep the nation's glut of natural gas at home for cheap energy or export it at five times the price, possibly creating jobs and boosting the domestic economy.
It is not that simple. First, a third of all of the energy is lost during the conversion process and that is a cost that has to be accounted for. Second, we need to pay for the infrastructure used to gather, transport, and convert the gas to liquid. Third, the construction of any facility requires cheap long term contracts and stable supply. But shale gas is neither cheap nor stable. With depletion rates being as high as they are there will never be the ability to produce the gas to the delivery points over a long period of time.
This whole game is one of accounting and futures market manipulation. Eventually there will be serious failures to deliver or an outright rout on the short side because there is no way that shale producers can continue to stay in business selling a product that costs them $7 for less than $3. To suggest otherwise is to show an ignorance of economics or the way that markets work.
Businesses that purchase natural gas for industrial and residential use have rallied against proposals to liquefy and export the fossil fuel to Asian and European nations willing to pay much higher prices.
It is not their call. But they should not worry about that because the US gas glut is not the result of a free market. Sadly for them, prices are about to head a lot higher as the marginal producers are forced out of the gas production game.
the justification for fracking even though it may have some risks and offshore drilling even though it has obvious risks is that it will help the US become less dependent on foreign oil from unfriendly nations as well as keep our energy prices low so that jobs are not killed.
there's an obvious contradiction between the reasons given for extraction and the risks associated with it - and the actual use of the energy.
not to mention - that these are finite resources - currently on our soil and if not exported - even more valuable to us in the future if world supplies further tighten.
At the end of the day, this is not about energy independent or keeping energy prices in the US from rising (and killing jobs) - it is simply about profit-seeking enterprises who want less restrictions on their activities so they depict their activities as
"patriotic".
Note this is the exact approach used for the Keystone Pipeline which proposes to essentially refine and export the tar sand oil that have been touted as our energy ace-in-the-hole... for freeing us from depending on "unfriendly" countries supplying us oil.
so.. apparently "drill drill drill" was never about energy independence but rather about " money money money".
Rufus II says: "Actually, all that stuff is working out..."
Through regulations and subsidies.
Larry says: "drill drill drill" was never about energy independence but rather about " money money money".
Yes, a higher standard of living.
" Yes, a higher standard of living"
how can that be when the price of domestic energy is going UP not down?
Larry says: "business has really never been about efficiencies..."
Even when all the costs are accounted for, e.g. negative externalities, the competitive free market creates the greatest value at the lowest cost.
When government imposes unnecessary costs, then living standards are lower.
Larry says: "how can that be when the price of domestic energy is going UP not down?"
Would a shortage raise your standard of living?
" When government imposes unnecessary costs, then living standards are lower"
not so simple.
dumping a deadly poison into a river may provide cheap products and a better standard of living to a lot of people - not without costs to others....
the argument is often about who pays and who should pay.
" Larry says: "how can that be when the price of domestic energy is going UP not down?"
Would a shortage raise your standard of living? "
define how a shortage affects your SOL... isn't it higher prices?
so if selling domestic oil overseas to the highest bidder results in higher energy prices domestically, how is that raising the SOL?
Hey - I'm not opposed to the free market, making a profit, or the laws of supply and demand.
But I think I'm asking a legitimate question about depicting domestic energy extraction as a "benefit" to people's standard of living is selective to some while harmful to others...
in other words.. not exactly what the promoters are saying it is.
"not so simple.
dumping a deadly poison into a river may provide cheap products and a better standard of living to a lot of people - not without costs to others...."
Peak addressed that point when he said: "Even when all the costs are accounted for, e.g. negative externalities, the competitive free market creates the greatest value at the lowest cost."
"define how a shortage affects your SOL... isn't it higher prices?"
Wait! Please read the title of this post before continuing on that detour.
"so if selling domestic oil overseas to the highest bidder results in higher energy prices domestically, how is that raising the SOL?"
You must have missed this recent post, just as you have forgotten the subject of this one.
ALL commodities including oil and gas are sold to the highest bidder in global markets. It's not *either* domestic *or* overseas buyers. This post is about a glut of gas produced domestically, so domestic buyers are bidding low. Supply and demand - remember?
"Hey - I'm not opposed to the free market, making a profit, or the laws of supply and demand."
No, it's just that you don't understand them.
"Maybe, they're focusing on making us so poor, we'll be riding bicycles, living in small apartments, and consuming less of everything, except sweaters, in a few years, like in Europe."
Hmmm. Note to self: Check prices of sweater manufacturers when market opens on Tuesday.
"But I think I'm asking a legitimate question about depicting domestic energy extraction as a "benefit" to people's standard of living is selective to some while harmful to others... "
Look. Nat gas prices are at all time lows, as there is a plentiful supply at this time. That is a benefit to everyone who uses energy. It raises their standard of living.
Who do you think is being harmed?
"not so simple.
dumping a deadly poison into a river may provide cheap products and a better standard of living to a lot of people - not without costs to others...."
Peak addressed that point when he said: "Even when all the costs are accounted for, e.g. negative externalities, the competitive free market creates the greatest value at the lowest cost."
apparently not.. because there is still strong disagreement on the tradeoffs.
"define how a shortage affects your SOL... isn't it higher prices?"
Wait! Please read the title of this post before continuing on that detour."
WAIT! if prices for energy goes up.. it not only hurts SOL but it costs jobs.
that's a fact.
"so if selling domestic oil overseas to the highest bidder results in higher energy prices domestically, how is that raising the SOL?"
You must have missed this recent post, just as you have forgotten the subject of this one."
I don't think so... higher energy prices depresses SOL and costs jobs.
"ALL commodities including oil and gas are sold to the highest bidder in global markets. It's not *either* domestic *or* overseas buyers. This post is about a glut of gas produced domestically, so domestic buyers are bidding low. Supply and demand - remember?"
but the are PROMOTING the extraction of domestic resources and the risks associated with that extraction as "worth it" because it will lower prices and reduce our dependence on foreign sources.
the problem is this is not true when you sell to highest bidder.
"Hey - I'm not opposed to the free market, making a profit, or the laws of supply and demand."
No, it's just that you don't understand them."
Oh I certainly do and I also understand bogus arguments for developing domestic resources.
for every new job created by domestic resources.. are we also losing jobs when energy prices go up by selling to highest bidder?
what are we gaining by selling our domestic resources to highest bidder other than profits to the companies doing it?
we're not gaining net jobs if we lose jobs due to higher prices, right?
" Look. Nat gas prices are at all time lows, as there is a plentiful supply at this time. That is a benefit to everyone who uses energy. It raises their standard of living.
Who do you think is being harmed? "
On nat gas - as opposed to oil - SO FAR - there appears to be a benefit but not a substantial lowering of prices - at least not where I live.
Now, we're talking about liquifying nat gas and selling to highest bidder.
My question is, if we do this, and it ultimately results in higher prices for domestic nat gas - who benefits?
Look. Nat gas prices are at all time lows, as there is a plentiful supply at this time. That is a benefit to everyone who uses energy. It raises their standard of living.
Who do you think is being harmed?
Our friend is a fool who does not understand the markets or economics.
That said, while he is wrong your question, "Who do you think is being harmed," has an answer.
I would argue that the people being harmed are investors in producers who are borrowing money to sell product at a loss. And let us not forget the suckers who believe that the outcome is the result of a free market and do not see how the liquidity injections into the system and regulations that allow companies to misrepresent their reserves and the value of those reserves have created another bubble. And future consumers who will have to pay much higher prices because the distortions have prevented entrepreneurs from looking at viable solutions or have never looked into making changes that will allow them to comfortably survive the transition in a post peak world.
The US and the world have some serious issues that need to be addressed. Distorting the markets to avoid dealing with those issues while depletion is doing its work 24/7 does not help anyone but the speculators who are taking advantage of the actions of central banks and the ignorance of the general population.
Larry, a shortage means you can't buy the good at any price.
Also, when you're able to export a good at a higher price, then your income rises, or you can exchange a high-priced good for a relatively low-priced good.
Larry, your statement about "dumping a deadly poison into a river" has nothing to do with my statement about unnecessary costs.
" Larry, a shortage means you can't buy the good at any price.
Also, when you're able to export a good at a higher price, then your income rises, or you can exchange a high-priced good for a relatively low-priced good. "
while I'm not in violent disagreement with your basic premise, I'd point out that anything other than zero availability bids the price up.
separately, if energy prices go up (forget for the time being why)... if energy prices go up - it lowers your standard of living and it does costs jobs.
Isn't that the exact argument that is used for increases in taxes on fuels?
so all I'm saying here is that if domestic supplies are developed and sold on the world market - and the world market price itself is trending up - that domestic buyers of that energy will pay more ..lower their standard of living.. and those industries that are influenced by the price of energy.. perhaps lose jobs.
So.. just developing oil/gas domestically does not result in a net benefit to citizens if the extracted resource is sold to the highest world market bidders.
the only way that I can see that domestic energy extraction actually HELPs US citizens is in it is sold only to US citizens at prices lower than what it fetches on the world market/highest bidder.
and the only point I'm really making is that the JUSTIFICATION for allowing more extraction of domestic energy sources has been proclaimed to be beneficial to US citizens and that's simply not true.
wrong?
" Larry, your statement about "dumping a deadly poison into a river" has nothing to do with my statement about unnecessary costs. "
I used "deadly" to make a point about trade-offs.
Certainly if an effluent is "deadly" then there are bright-line tradeoffs between those who benefit and those who are affected by the deadly - but localized - effluent.
The tradeoff calculation for our own EPA is based on what is quantifiable harm to humans.
For instance, mercury or dioxin or kepone are said to cause harm but usually not death.
how do you put a value on that?
how do you, for instance, say that mercury in a river that causes harm to mental development of children is not "worth" the benefits of the products made and the byproduct mercury dumped?
that essentially forms the basis for most arguments/disagreements about the tradeoffs unless I'm off on a tangent here to your original premise (if so bring the discussion back to your premise).
Larry, a rise in natural gas prices will increase income and employment, and production will increase to lower prices.
The cost of negative externalities can be measured. Living standards are reduced when the cost exceeds the negative externality, e.g. through overregulation and/or overtaxation.
"The solar panels, electric cars, windmills, fluorescent bulbs, etc. didn't work out"...
Have no fear pt because 'venture socialism & crony capitalism' is still alive with the present day administration...
From Real Clear Politics this CBS new/video clip: CBS News: 11 More Solyndras In Obama Energy Program
Hey! A few billion here, a few billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money...
" Hey! A few billion here, a few billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money..."
HEY! If Republican Farmers can have ethanol and other crop subsidies why not let the green weenies get their share?
You would not want to discriminate would you?
:-)
"wrong?"
Yes.
DANG!
"HEY! If Republican Farmers can have ethanol and other crop subsidies why not let the green weenies get their share?"...
Hey larry g who says the farmers are Republicans?
Now if you want to talk farm subsidies check out this race hustle scam that both political parties are contributing to using our extorted tax dollars...
you mean Farmers are not small businessmen who hate Obama?
"I would argue that the people being harmed are investors in producers who are borrowing money to sell product at a loss."
You're right. I hadn't considered that some people appear to be punching themselves in the face. :)
Somehow, I don't think that's what our friend had in mind.
"The tradeoff calculation for our own EPA is based on what is quantifiable harm to humans."
The tradeoff calculation for our own EPA is based on what is quantifiable harm to mice.
"The tradeoff calculation for our own EPA is based on what is quantifiable harm to mice"...
Hey ron h this should be right in your wheel house of interests when it comes to the EPA...
EPA to rig ‘independent’ review of fracking report
" But EPA’s testing methods have faced heavy criticism from industry groups and other _____ advocates that call the report badly flawed."
hey... isn't that what the fools that produced dioxin, kepone, PCBs, etc said also?
"how do you, for instance, say that mercury in a river that causes harm to mental development of children is not "worth" the benefits of the products made and the byproduct mercury dumped?"
Such value judgements are made all the time. For instance, the benefit of driving instead of some other mode of transport like walking, is worth 30k lives a year. Most of those could be prevented by a strictly enforced nationwide speed limit of 20mph.
And when smallpox vaccination was almost universal, 1 in 1000 children developed serious complications, and 2 of every million receiving the vaccine died.
The CDC indicates that in the US, drowning is the leading cause of accidental death among children age 1-4, and most of these drownings occur in residential swimming pools. That I'm aware of, there's no movement to ban swimming pools, so they must be worth the price in lives lost.
" That I'm aware of, there's no movement to ban swimming pools, so they must be worth the price in lives lost. "
nope. agree.
but a polluted environment leaves no such choice to those affected by it especially if they are unaware of the risks.
you know.... this is about property rights - also.
people have the right to not have someone else put stuff in the environment that causes harm to them.
the EPA is the agency that came into being when it became clear that some people would pollute the environment, cause harm to others, then declare bankruptcy leaving harmed people with no recourse for compensation.
juandos: "EPA to rig ‘independent’ review of fracking report"
Gee, who would have suspected such a thing from the EPA? :) thanks for the link. By the way, I own both of those Steve Milloy books. Good reading.
is that the same guy that took money from Exxon and Cigarette companies and did not disclose it?
same guy who was registered as a lobbyist?
same guy who questions evolution and the ozone hole?
I'm glad you guys gravitate towards these unimpeachable sources to rebut the EPA.
Lordy.
"not to mention - that these are finite resources - currently on our soil and if not exported - even more valuable to us in the future if world supplies further tighten."
Again, there's that lack of understanding of markets and economics. Your argument is that these resources shouldn't be produced until the need is greater, and the price higher. Who would make that call? The ever benevolent and wise central planners?
BHO has already done a great job of driving investment and resources offshore.
" Your argument is that these resources shouldn't be produced until the need is greater, and the price higher. Who would make that call? The ever benevolent and wise central planners?"
only if the folks say we should extract them are saying that in doing so it will "help" US consumers.
When you sell to the higher world bidder.. it's not "helping" the US to reduce foreign dependence nor is it lowering prices for US Consumers.
I'm not saying they should not only that they're saying that restrictions should be removed so they can extract because it will "help" the US and that's not really true.
" BHO has already done a great job of driving investment and resources offshore"
uh huh.. more right wing echo chamber blather?
yup.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seems similar that gasoline is pennies a gallon in Saudi Arabia, yet $3.60 here. The Arabs dont seem to suffer by shipping their excess abroad for a nice profit.
You're right. I hadn't considered that some people appear to be punching themselves in the face. :)
Somehow, I don't think that's what our friend had in mind.
No, I suppose that it is not what our ignorant friend has in mind. But when governments and central banks distort markets and create bubbles investors are harmed. While I have little sympathy for people who gambled based on ignorance it is still hard to turn a blind eye to the manipulation that is going to make many people a lot poorer.
"ignorant friend"?
geeze guys... why are you such meanies?
"but a polluted environment leaves no such choice to those affected by it especially if they are unaware of the risks."
We were discussing cost/benefit, and your question was about the value of a product despite the harm done to children. Remember? here it is again:
"how do you, for instance, say that mercury in a river that causes harm to mental development of children is not "worth" the benefits of the products made and the byproduct mercury dumped?""
I gave you examples of benefits that are accepted as outweighing the harm.
Some people believe that solar panels provide a green solution to energy needs, although there is certainly a downside.
"you know.... this is about property rights - also."
Perhaps you would be interested in this illustration of the Coase Theorum
as it applies to the type of negative externality you are interested in.
"the only way that I can see that domestic energy extraction actually HELPs US citizens is in it is sold only to US citizens at prices lower than what it fetches on the world market/highest bidder."
Government price controls? Great idea, Larry! Who do you think would develop *domestic* resources if they could make more developing them somewhere else?
"but a polluted environment leaves no such choice to those affected by it especially if they are unaware of the risks."
We were discussing cost/benefit, and your question was about the value of a product despite the harm done to children. Remember? here it is again:
"how do you, for instance, say that mercury in a river that causes harm to mental development of children is not "worth" the benefits of the products made and the byproduct mercury dumped?""
I gave you examples of benefits that are accepted as outweighing the harm.
not accepted by all and that's the point.
"you know.... this is about property rights - also."
Perhaps you would be interested in this illustration of the Coase Theorum
as it applies to the type of negative externality you are interested in.
knowing your love of such things, I doubt it but I'll give it a look/see.
"the only way that I can see that domestic energy extraction actually HELPs US citizens is in it is sold only to US citizens at prices lower than what it fetches on the world market/highest bidder."
Government price controls? Great idea, Larry! Who do you think would develop *domestic* resources if they could make more developing them somewhere else?
nope. the premise is that domestic energy is a better thing than importing it.
and that premise is proven to be bogus to the bone as you have ably pointed out that exporting it while simultaneously importing it - is not based on "helping" anyone but those engaged in investing in it.
That's fine but don't pretend that domestic sources of energy - that involves risks and externalities is worth the downside because it will "help" consumers and lower our dependency on foreign resources.
if there was a worldwide shortage of a valuable resource could it be considered a strategic resource worth more to the country than the profits to investors?
like rare earth metals?
is that something for the govt to decide or investors?
as I suspected....
" a key criticism is that the theorem is almost always inapplicable in economic reality, because real-world transaction costs are rarely low enough to allow for efficient bargaining. (That was the conclusion of Coase's original paper, making him the first 'critic' of using the theorem as a practical solution.)"
yes indeed...
"When you sell to the higher world bidder.. it's not "helping" the US to reduce foreign dependence nor is it lowering prices for US Consumers."
You don't understand global markets, or supply and demand, do you.
ALL commodities are sold to the highest bidder, whether they are foreign or domestic. A greater supply drives down prices for everyone.
The US both imports and exports natural gas continually, as is also the case with oil & oil products.
Johnny: "Seems similar that gasoline is pennies a gallon in Saudi Arabia, yet $3.60 here. The Arabs dont seem to suffer by shipping their excess abroad for a nice profit."
Gasoline sold in Saudi Arabia is subsidized by the government . That means everybody gets to pay for it, not just those that use it. The pump price doesn't reflect the market price of gas.
"You don't understand global markets, or supply and demand, do you.
ALL commodities are sold to the highest bidder, whether they are foreign or domestic. A greater supply drives down prices for everyone. "
this is true so what is the charade about it helping reduce foreign dependence?
and no.. if you add 1% to the world supply - there is no guarantee that prices will decrease domestically either.
take a look at current fuel prices...going up ..even though world demand is down.. and domestic exports are up.
you rely on theories.
I'm asking about the realities and why the theories are contradicted.
"hey... isn't that what the fools that produced dioxin, kepone, PCBs, etc said also?"...
Well larry g how come you didn't use a search engine and find a credible source for people who alledgedly said that those chemicals were somehow good in some odd way?
"this is true so what is the charade about it helping reduce foreign dependence?"...
How did you get price and source of a commodity mixed up larry g?
oh it wasn't me Juandos.. I'm just repeating what those who say drill drill drill have been saying.
are you saying those folks drill and who make such claims are ignorant of economics?
;-)
I mean even some of you guys have been saying that Obama is preventing oil drilling that would reduce our dependence right?
oh it wasn't me Juandos.. I'm just repeating what those who say drill drill drill have been saying.
are you saying those folks drill and who make such claims are ignorant of economics?
;-)
I mean even some of you guys have been saying that Obama is preventing oil drilling that would reduce our dependence right?
BHO has already done a great job of driving investment and resources offshore.
Businesses were free to comply with the laws and stay in the US, as opposed to spiting the US.
Then again, what says the US doesn't have the tools to forcibly repatriate it?
"this is true so what is the charade about it helping reduce foreign dependence?"
That's exactly what it is. It's a political gimmick that those in office and running for office pull out to whip their supporters into a patriotic nationalistic frenzy. "Addiction to foreign oil" is a sure fire emotional hot button.
If importing oil is bad, so is importing any other commodity. There are many materials not found at all in the US, so that they are entirely imported. Why don't we hear about our dependence on foreign bauxite?
"take a look at current fuel prices...going up ..even though world demand is down.. and domestic exports are up."
The subject is natural gas. domestic supplies are up, and prices are down.
"you rely on theories.
I'm asking about the realities and why the theories are contradicted."
Ahh. There it is: When Larry has no answers he talks about theories.
THe laws of supply and demand aren't theories. Learn some economics.
"I mean even some of you guys have been saying that Obama is preventing oil drilling that would reduce our dependence right?"
Yes, that's right.
"Businesses were free to comply with the laws and stay in the US, as opposed to spiting the US."
Business moving operations offshore aren't breaking the law.
"Then again, what says the US doesn't have the tools to forcibly repatriate it?"
Such nonsense! Are you talking about the US or North Korea? Go back to sleep, sethstorm.
"oh it wasn't me Juandos.. I'm just repeating what those who say drill drill drill have been saying."
...and he asked you for your source.
here you go
""hey... isn't that what the fools that produced dioxin, kepone, PCBs, etc said also?"...
Well larry g how come you didn't use a search engine and find a credible source for people who alledgedly said that those chemicals were somehow good in some odd way?
well..no.. they did not say their effluents were good.. they said that the discharges of effluent were not harmful and they had a right to do it since they had a right to make a living and no harm was done by their discharges into waters not owned by them.
Here
so the bottom line is you cannot discharge materials onto land and waters you do not own unless you receive permission to do so by those who would be affected by your discharges.
that's a property rights concept.
NDPES
those affected get to decide whether they think they are harmed or not - not the dischargers.
your property rights end at your property line.
I mean even some of you guys have been saying that Obama is preventing oil drilling that would reduce our dependence right?
That is true. Many people have fallen for the shale bubble mythology and are attacking the EPA and Obama for holding up legitimate exploration and production. While they are right to take their shots at the EPA and the Obama Administration they fail to look at the facts regarding the economics of shale production. When a CEO tells shareholders on a conference call that if it were up to him he would reduce drilling activity by 90% but he has no choice because of the leasing terms a red flag should go up. But if you are hoping to make a killing in shale by finding some other sucker to sell your shares to or by hoping that some new miracle technology will make it economic you don't really want to hear anything about the current reality.
If importing oil is bad, so is importing any other commodity. There are many materials not found at all in the US, so that they are entirely imported. Why don't we hear about our dependence on foreign bauxite?
I find it hilarious that some of the same idiots who are talking about reducing dependency on foreign oil (and OPEC in particular) seem to have no problem with increasing the American dependence on Chinese rare earths exports. While OPEC controls around a third of the world's oil supply China controls about 90% of the world's production of the rare earth elements that are needed to make hybrids, solar panels, wind turbine magnets, and other specialty products. It is amazing how appeals to naive patriotism or nationalism allows people to avoid logic and facts.
Ron H. said...
"I mean even some of you guys have been saying that Obama is preventing oil drilling that would reduce our dependence right?"
Yes, that's right.
=================================
OK, now lets talk about a meaningful reduction in dependence.
" OK, now lets talk about a meaningful reduction in dependence"
it's a bogus concept that the drill, drill, drill folks use to convince USA gullible rubes that it's a good thing.
Many of these rubes religiously watch FAUX News...and love to watch Sara say "drill drill drill baby".
;-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
"here you go"
Why is it that you so frequently either fail to understand what is being asked of you, or intentionally obfuscate?
Here's the pertinent exchange:
[fracking report]
You - quoting source: " But EPA’s testing methods have faced heavy criticism from industry groups and other _____ advocates that call the report badly flawed."
you: ""hey... isn't that what the fools that produced dioxin, kepone, PCBs, etc said also?"..."
juandos: "Well larry g how come you didn't use a search engine and find a credible source for people who alledgedly said that those chemicals were somehow good in some odd way?"
He asked you to cite people claiming that dioxin, kepone, and PCBs were "somehow good in some odd way".
No one asked for information on the origin of the phrase "drill, baby, drill".
"OK, now lets talk about a meaningful reduction in dependence."
"Dependence" has no special meaning in this context. I am "dependent" on my car to get to work. We are "dependent" on our grocers to provide us with food.
If you mean dependence on imported oil, then as I explained, that's no more important than a dependence on Canola.
So all we're left with, is Obama preventing drilling for political reasons.
No one claimed that dioxin was
"good".
what they have always claimed is that the process that generate dioxin effluent are useful and product and the effluent is not harmful or not "very" harmful.
That's what ultimately caused the EPA to come into existence.
Anyone can claim that the byproducts of their process are less harmful than the benefits of the things that get produced.
but that's obviously a value judgement with a conflict of interest and we know from experience that many, many effluents turned out to be exceptionally harmful - after the fact - after the people who were discharging them said they were (in their opinion) not a problem.
At that point the Clean Water Act was passed by both houses of Congress and a REpublican President to assert that the "waters of the US" belong to all the property owners of the US not just those who are discharging effluents and that the burden of proof as to whether something is not harmful is on the person who is discharging not the people who might be affected by it.
This is where NPDES permitting came from.
The EPA establishes standards for public health and from those standards establishes effluent regs as to what can be discharged and in what concentration.
In effect - the govt represents the rights of all property owners not just those who make a profit off some activity and then discharge effluent waste onto property that is not their own.
OK, now lets talk about a meaningful reduction in dependence.
One way is to destroy your economy so that demand falls by a half to two thirds. Producers would be able to sell everything they get out of the ground domestically without a need for imports. Is that what you really want to do?
You all talk about increasing our quality of life. The USA is one of the most depressed, unhappy, and suicidal group of people on the earth. I don't really think quality of life is a good argument for drilling.
You all talk about increasing our quality of life. The USA is one of the most depressed, unhappy, and suicidal group of people on the earth. I don't really think quality of life is a good argument for drilling.
If they are depressed now do you think that $8 a gallon gasoline will make Americans happier? And I see no credible evidence that Americans are any more depressed than the Swedes, Germans, Greeks, Dutch, Italians, or English.
but that's obviously a value judgement
==================================
One cannot make economic decisions on value judgements. There are ways to price such things, and we need to agree on how it is to be done. Otherwise there is no end to the argument, and that is as wasteful of lives as Kepone is.
OK, now lets talk about a meaningful reduction in dependence.
One way is to destroy your economy so that demand falls by a half to two thirds.
================================
That would increase dependence of other kinds. We would have to cut our military, and be more dependent on our allies, for example.
"how do you, for instance, say that mercury in a river that causes harm to mental development of children is not "worth" the benefits of the products made and the byproduct mercury dumped?""
=================================
Easy. You have to put a price on children.
This is distatsteful, yet we do it all the time. All we have to do is acknowledge it.
the govt represents the rights of all property owners not just those who make a profit off some activity and then discharge effluent waste onto property that is not their own.
=================================
Larry, this is the dumbest thing I ever heard.
EVERYONE discherges effluent waste on to othe people's property, and everyone who buys anything is responsible for second hand discharges on to oher people's property.
Someone is going to have to mine and smelt a lot of zinc before you can enjoy the environmental "savings" promised by alternative energy sources.
Anyone who refuses to absorb (any) of the costs of production is not entitled to the benefits.
There are ways to price such things, and we need to agree on how it is to be done.
All value is subjective. A house that used to cost $2.5 million one year can be purchased for $850K the next even though everyone agreed that $2.5 million was a fair price at the time.
That would increase dependence of other kinds. We would have to cut our military, and be more dependent on our allies, for example.
???Your military is a cancer on the taxpayer. You are going to have to reduce it by 80% or more in the next few years. (But that will not mean a reduction in the defense budget. It will only mean that you will stop trying to police the world and try to create an empire.)
And as Ron pointed out, every country is dependent on other nations for many of the goods and services that its citizens use. The fact that China is dependent on foreign suppliers of airplane engines does not bother the Chinese much because they can always buy what they need from countries that make them.
"One cannot make economic decisions on value judgements. There are ways to price such things, and we need to agree on how it is to be done."
reality check: Value judgements are all there are. The difference in peoples ranking of values creates all trade. The measure of that value is the price. There are no objective prices.
People already vote with their dollars for the correct price.
Your desire for an orderly, predictable world in which you are shielded from responsibility by someone in government, is clouding your thinking.
"No one claimed that dioxin was
"good".
what they have always claimed is that the process that generate dioxin effluent are useful and product and the effluent is not harmful or not "very" harmful."
Once again, your references please.
"That's what ultimately caused the EPA to come into existence."
No, that was the relatively harmless, but extremely effective insect killer, DDT.
the EPA is about property rights.
Your property rights entitle you to not be damaged by waste effluent from other property owners.
right?
who decides?
does the polluter decide?
fyi:
" The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the federal agency with responsibility of regulating pesticides before the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, began regulatory actions in the late 1950s and 1960s to prohibit many of DDT's uses because of mounting evidence of the pesticide's declining benefits and environmental and toxicological effects. Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962 stimulated widespread public concern over the dangers of improper pesticide use and the need for better pesticide controls.
In 1972, EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on adverse environmental effects"
Here
"In 1972, EPA issued a cancellation order for DDT based on adverse environmental effects
Here" [EPA DDT History}
How about here, or here, or even here?
the point is that the EPA did not initiate the regulation of DDT but I
I'll take the EPA approach to DDT and other pesticides any day over your right-wing libertarian wackos sites.
and I believe that most Americans will also.
you have complaints. you fight the EPA. you have no solutions other than to go back to a 3rd world on these issues.
the point is that the EPA did not initiate the regulation of DDT but I
I'll take the EPA approach to DDT and other pesticides any day over your right-wing libertarian wackos sites.
and I believe that most Americans will also.
It is easy to oppose a very useful chemical that kills insects that carry malaria if you have already used it to eradicate malaria from your country. While you and the environmental movement may not care much about the tens of millions of brown skinned people who died each year because of the DDT ban the people in those countries do care and are wondering why they must sacrifice their children for a new Western religion called environmentalism.
The story is actually very clear. So is your ignorance.
" It is easy to oppose a very useful chemical that kills insects that carry malaria if you have already used it to eradicate malaria from your country. While you and the environmental movement may not care much about the tens of millions of brown skinned people who died each year because of the DDT ban the people in those countries do care and are wondering why they must sacrifice their children for a new Western religion called environmentalism. "
the EPA regulates other countries?
the heck you say...
I didn't realize that other sovereign countries had to follow EPA bans....
gosh.
the EPA regulates other countries?
the heck you say...
I didn't realize that other sovereign countries had to follow EPA bans....
Your ignorance is showing again. If you want to understand how the US influences international bodies I suggest that you look at some of the books that have been referenced.
" Your ignorance is showing again. If you want to understand how the US influences international bodies I suggest that you look at some of the books that have been referenced. "
"influence" ? is that the same as the force of govt?
or are we back to the Grand Conspiracy world?
why do you think the EPA has "influence" guy.
Do really think a sovereign country would be bullied by our EPA?
you're back into wacked out country here guy
"influence" ? is that the same as the force of govt?
In some ways. The US hands out aid to many countries. It can attach strings such as signing a ban on the use of certain chemicals, the recognition of some country, the adoption of certain rules, etc.,
or are we back to the Grand Conspiracy world?
Of course we are. There was never any scientific evidence to ban DDT and replace it with pesticides that were much more dangerous. The bird populations increased when DDT was introduced because fewer young birds were lost to mosquitoes and other insects that fed on them. DDT never thinned egg shells as claimed. The experiment that was done fed the birds low calcium food to get that result. The ban was purely an act of politics that condemned many people to death.
why do you think the EPA has "influence" guy.
Do really think a sovereign country would be bullied by our EPA?
you're back into wacked out country here guy
You got the horse and cart mixed up. The EPA is a political body that is used by the sitting administration to push its political agenda, punish some groups, while it helps others. As I said, you need to shed that ignorance by actually looking at the facts.
but we can't keep countries from spending their own money on DDT, right?
on the egg shells... eagles seem to have come back in large numbers since it was banned...
DDT is still used by the way but not the way it was... in massive spraying, more selective now.
you cannot eradicate the mosquito...or many other insect pests, it mutates, morphs and gradually overcomes the DDT with more resistant variants.
the DDT saga is yet another one of those Culture War issues that you guys fervently believe in your anti-govt lore....
I need to figure out how to short natural gas prices.
Why? The biggest profit from shorting is behind you and the risks are much higher now than they were when the financing was more readily available. Shouldn't you be trying to figure out how to short bonds instead?
but we can't keep countries from spending their own money on DDT, right?
Sure you can. All you have to do is to threaten to cut off their foreign aid. The kleptocrats who are in charge do not want their Swiss accounts to lose some of their sources of funding and will do what the Western countries want.
on the egg shells... eagles seem to have come back in large numbers since it was banned...
Thank hunting and a warm PDO for that fact. The Audubon society surveys show that the number of birds exploded after DDT was introduced to control mosquitoes. Eagle populations were not as lucky because they were nearly hunted to extinction.
DDT is still used by the way but not the way it was... in massive spraying, more selective now.
No it is not used in massive spraying. When I was in Africa I saw spraying of the interior of huts but no general applications.
you cannot eradicate the mosquito...or many other insect pests, it mutates, morphs and gradually overcomes the DDT with more resistant variants.
Perhaps but until that happens you will have hundreds of millions of people and make hundreds of millions much more productive by reducing illness. That seems to be a good thing.
the DDT saga is yet another one of those Culture War issues that you guys fervently believe in your anti-govt lore....
The facts are clear. There was never any legitimate scientific evidence to justify a ban. The introduction of chemicals that had higher toxicity killed agricultural workers and the ban of DDT caused millions to die needlessly from malaria.
but we can't keep countries from spending their own money on DDT, right?
Sure you can. All you have to do is to threaten to cut off their foreign aid. The kleptocrats who are in charge do not want their Swiss accounts to lose some of their sources of funding and will do what the Western countries want.
you're not in favor of using tax dollars to bribe other countries anyhow, right? And if those countries really wanted to use DDT, they would.
on the egg shells... eagles seem to have come back in large numbers since it was banned...
"Thank hunting and a warm PDO for that fact. The Audubon society surveys show that the number of birds exploded after DDT was introduced to control mosquitoes. Eagle populations were not as lucky because they were nearly hunted to extinction."
what? Eagles were protected guy..
where do you get this stuff?
DDT is still used by the way but not the way it was... in massive spraying, more selective now.
No it is not used in massive spraying. When I was in Africa I saw spraying of the interior of huts but no general applications.
you cannot eradicate the mosquito...or many other insect pests, it mutates, morphs and gradually overcomes the DDT with more resistant variants.
Perhaps but until that happens you will have hundreds of millions of people and make hundreds of millions much more productive by reducing illness. That seems to be a good thing.
" DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years."
the DDT saga is yet another one of those Culture War issues that you guys fervently believe in your anti-govt lore....
The facts are clear. There was never any legitimate scientific evidence to justify a ban. The introduction of chemicals that had higher toxicity killed agricultural workers and the ban of DDT caused millions to die needlessly from malaria.
that's your view - not the scientific community going back more than 50 years.
If you were right - a majority of scientists in a majority of countries would change their mind but of course you see yet another worldwide conspiracy...right?
the scientists of the world have been in cahoots as an evil cabal since more than 50 years ago, right?
you're not in favor of using tax dollars to bribe other countries anyhow, right? And if those countries really wanted to use DDT, they would.
Some countries have already reversed their decisions and told the US to piss off because they don't like the idea of seeing their children die.
what? Eagles were protected guy..
where do you get this stuff?
You might want to check the facts to shed your ignorance. Eagles used to be hunted in the 1950s and 1960s so their population collapsed. When the law was amended in the 1970s to increase the fines and call for jail time the eagle population began to recover.
" DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years."
Nice story but the facts tell a very different story. The spraying caused the rate of malaria infection to collapse because DDT was still an effective repellant. After DDT was banned malaria exploded again and hundreds of thousands of people died again.
that's your view - not the scientific community going back more than 50 years.
No, those are the facts. The Audubon Society surveys tell us what we need to know. If you feed birds calcium deficient diets you expect their egg shells to be thinner. And if you stop shooting and poisoning eagles their population will begin to increase again.
you're not in favor of using tax dollars
Some countries have already reversed their decisions and told the US to piss off because they don't like the idea of seeing their children die.
but it's lost much of it's effectiveness righT?
what? Eagles were protected guy..
where do you get this stuff?
You might want to check the facts to shed your ignorance. Eagles used to be hunted in the 1950s and 1960s so their population collapsed. When the law was amended in the 1970s to increase the fines and call for jail time the eagle population began to recover.
how about a cite on that?
" DDT-resistant mosquitoes were first detected in India in 1959, and they have increased so rapidly that when a local spray program is begun now, most mosquitoes become resistant in a matter of months rather than years."
Nice story but the facts tell a very different story. The spraying caused the rate of malaria infection to collapse because DDT was still an effective repellant. After DDT was banned malaria exploded again and hundreds of thousands of people died again.
that's your view - not the scientific community going back more than 50 years.
No, those are the facts. The Audubon Society surveys tell us what we need to know. If you feed birds calcium deficient diets you expect their egg shells to be thinner. And if you stop shooting and poisoning eagles their population will begin to increase again.
geeze..... guy the egg shell thing was fairly heavily documented and why in the world would you "hunt" an eagle in the first place? It was not only Eagles guy.. it was many kinds of birds.. including Osprey and others.
were they all hunted also?
this is dumb.
"the point is that the EPA did not initiate the regulation of DDT but I
I'll take the EPA approach to DDT and other pesticides any day over your right-wing libertarian wackos sites."
The University of Nebraska is a right wing libertarian wacko site? Who knew?
You didn't read those links, did you. How will you ever learn?
"you have no solutions other than to go back to a 3rd world on these issues."
But I'm not supporting restrictions on DDT that allow 3 million deaths every year from malaria, most of them children under 5, in the 3rd world.
You seem very concerned about children's education being neglected in the US, so much so that you think "we" should "do something" about it, but aren't concerned about millions of preventable deaths elsewhere?
How can anyone take you seriously?
"the EPA regulates other countries?
the heck you say...
I didn't realize that other sovereign countries had to follow EPA bans...."
Your ignorance is appalling.
This short, easy to read book should help clear some of it up for you.
but it's lost much of it's effectiveness righT?
No. DDT keeps mosquitos away from people's homes. And if the mosquitos are not there to bite the malaria rates go down. Which is why many countries have now allowed for indoor spraying.
how about a cite on that?
Why not use google and find out for yourself. The eagle population was in decline long before DDT was invented. There were actually laws as early as 1900 to try to protect it. The decline continued until the early 1970s when the government deemed the eagles as endangered and set high fines and jail times to those that killed them. Once people stopped killing them the population recovered.
This is not some esoteric bit of knowledge. It is what anyone who has been in the conservation movement and cares about the environment should know. The fact that you are totally unaware of the actual history and of the scientific facts only shows the extent of the ignorance you seem so proud to show off.
geeze..... guy the egg shell thing was fairly heavily documented and why in the world would you "hunt" an eagle in the first place? It was not only Eagles guy.. it was many kinds of birds.. including Osprey and others.
OK. Let us look at the documentation and see what it showed.
We begin with the Hickey and Anderson paper cited by the EPA. The abstract of the paper, Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes in raptorial and fish-eating birds, stated, "Catastrophic declines of three raptorial species in the United States have been accompanied by decreases in eggshell thickness that began in 1947, have amounted to 19 percent or more, and were identical to phenomena reported in Britain. In 1967, shell thickness in herring gull eggs from five states decreased with increases in chlorinated hydrocarbon residues."
Around the same time, Bitman, Cecil, Harris, and Gries, wrote a paper, DDT induces a decrease in eggshell calcium that was also cited as evidence of the harm done by DDT.
But problems appeared almost immediately. First there was the inconvenient Audubon data. It showed a number of bird species became significantly more numerous during the years of DDT's greatest usage. The Annual Christmas Bird Census (look it up) observed less than 200 bald eagles in 1941 but by 1960 that number had gone up to over 800. DDT was not killing eagles and other birds but by killing or keeping away the insects from nesting sites, DDT was causing the population of birds to rise. The same type of increases were noted for twenty-six other species during the same period.
The other problem began to appear very quickly. Anyone who wished to look at the science found that Dr. Hickey had documented in 1942 a significant decline in the number of birds of prey. That was before the introduction of DDT. By the time that DDT was banned most of the endangered raptor populations were already recovering.
Then there were the Canadian reports of falcon populations breeding well even though they showed a higher twenty to thirty times more DDT than the birds in the US that were supposedly harmed by the chemical. And the UK reports that there was no correlation between the use of DDT and the decline of predatory birds.
The refutation of the Bitman paper was also swift. Researchers who tried to replicate his results found that When carefully reviewed, Dr. Bitman’s study revealed that the birds being studies were fed a diet with a calcium content that was more than four times lower than normal. Bitman repeated his tests and when the birds were fed the normal diet there were no thinning of the shells.
(ref: Cecil, Bitman, and Harris. No effects on eggshells, if adequate calcium is in DDT diet. Poultry Science. 1971; 50:656–659.)
So no, the science has never supported the alarmism. The DDT ban was mostly a political exercise that caused many poor people to die in the third world.
"but it's lost much of it's effectiveness righT?
No. DDT keeps mosquitos away from people's homes. And if the mosquitos are not there to bite the malaria rates go down. Which is why many countries have now allowed for indoor spraying."
okay
how about a cite on that?
Why not use google and find out for yourself. The eagle population was in decline long before DDT was invented. There were actually laws as early as 1900 to try to protect it. The decline continued until the early 1970s when the government deemed the eagles as endangered and set high fines and jail times to those that killed them. Once people stopped killing them the population recovered.
because you have asserted it guy..back it up..
"This is not some esoteric bit of knowledge. It is what anyone who has been in the conservation movement and cares about the environment should know. The fact that you are totally unaware of the actual history and of the scientific facts only shows the extent of the ignorance you seem so proud to show off."
actually I know far more about this than you think and that's why I am asking you to back it up.
provide a cite please - and a credible one..not one of your whacked out sites.
"actually I know far more about this than you think and that's why I am asking you to back it up."
It's not apparent from your comments that you have any knowledge of this at all. So far, you have just repeating the common greenie propaganda.
"provide a cite please - and a credible one..not one of your whacked out sites."
But anything you don't like is from whacked out site. Even the University of Nebraska is a whacked out site.
Are you going to ignore the excellent and well written comment VangelV just gave you? How about checking some of those references. They can't all be from Whacked out sites, can they?
It seems obvious that you aren't really interested in learning for yourself, you just want to repeat what others have told you.
Thinking is hard work, isn't it.
" Are you going to ignore the excellent and well written comment VangelV just gave you? How about checking some of those references. They can't all be from Whacked out sites, can they"
yep.. whacked out sites suck.
I want to see credible info not some blather from some right wing idiot.
and as far as I know.. I have no cites at all that the cause of the near extinction of Eagles was hunting.
want to help?
thinking? not exactly your strong suit dumbass.
you folks are idiots. totally wacked out anti-govt, grand-world conspiracy types and you fancy yourselves as clever.. but you basically live in your own little world rejecting facts and realities that don't fit with your wacked out philosophies.
want more? roger that.
It's pointless, Larry. morganovich is right. Discussions with you are a waste of time.
only if you are whacked out and can only see one point of view...
but that's really okay in Morgs case because he IS - polite even when he disagrees.
You and your sidekick are not.
and you get what you deserve.
okay
how about a cite on that?
Note that I have already provided many citations. Your ignorance is your problem and since you refuse to actually read anything that is recommended it is a waste of time to cite anything that is common knowledge to anyone who understands the issue being discussed.
because you have asserted it guy..back it up..
Here you go. Another reference from the first page. (With complimentary commentary on DDT even though the Audubon Christmas Bird Counts showed a fourfold increase from the time before DDT was introduced to the time of its peak use in 1960.)
As I said, your ignorance keeps showing up over and over again. Eagles used to be very plentiful but their numbers collapsed by so much that a law to protect them, the Lacy Act, was passed in 1900, long before DDT was first used. That law did not work very well so the government passed the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act in 1940, again before DDT was used. The use of DDT had no negative effect on populations and the number of eagles increased substantially over the years until the ban by the EPA.
The studies used to justify the ban were refuted. The thin egg shell conclusion could not be replicated once birds were fed a regular diet. The original observations were created by a diet of that had four times less calcium than normal. Given the fact that egg shells are made of calcium the thinning would not be surprising.
As I wrote many times, your ignorance is showing over and over again. You are one of those useful idiots that politicians and mountebanks love because you will never look at objective data and really think for yourself.
actually I know far more about this than you think and that's why I am asking you to back it up.
provide a cite please - and a credible one..not one of your whacked out sites.
I provided references to books, journal papers, the federal government site, the Audubon Society data, and other sites. The fact that you have no clue about what anyone who is arguing this issue should know is simply evidence that you don't even know the extent of your ignorance.
" As I wrote many times, your ignorance is showing over and over again. You are one of those useful idiots that politicians and mountebanks love because you will never look at objective data and really think for yourself"
I love it when you strut to hide your ignorance.
your "link" above seems to not work.. how about the plain old URL guy?
ever heard of Pelicans?
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/whatsnew/events/carson/Pres_Web/blus_pelicantalk051107.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Pelican
Peregrine Falcons?
http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/pefaddt.htm
other bird species?
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/pdf/historic/19820308a.pdf
you are so full of it guy.
why don't you take your "ignorant" word and put it where the light don't shine?
and as far as I know.. I have no cites at all that the cause of the near extinction of Eagles was hunting.
It is not just hunting. While hundreds of thousands of eagles were shot in states like Alaska, birds were also lost to traps, poison, and loss of habitat. As I said, you have no clue about the fact yet have no shame and keep posting comments that are little more than greenie propaganda. As I said, check the papers yourself. Hickey, whose 1968 paper blamed DDT for the decline of bird populations had written papers in the 1940s in which he observed that a big chunk of the osprey population was lost to pole traps near fish hatcheries and reported a reduction in the population of peregrine falcons. That decline took place before DDT was introduced.
As I said, your ignorance is showing. Try reading a little bit and see what actually happened rather than repeating drivel that is not supported by the facts.
no cites... from you on your lie...
and I just gave you a half dozen cites that clearly demonstrated that many more species were affected by DDT ..and they all came back after it was banned.
give it up guy.. you're making a fool of yourself.
your "link" above seems to not work.. how about the plain old URL guy?
Which link dumdum? Here are a few on eagles.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html
http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle11.html
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/whatsnew/events/carson/Pres_Web/blus_pelicantalk051107.pdf
There are no papers cited. The thinning data was refuted, something that the author failed to mention. If wild pelicans eat a normal diet their shells won't get thinner because of DDT. And note that Hickey went on to blame PCBs, dioxins, and other chemicals later on and admitted that the levels of DDT in shells were insignificant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Pelican
Again you have failed to cite any actual papers that make your point. You do understand that science actually demands real studies that can be replicated by others and that draw sound conclusions.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/pefaddt.htm
LOL... You do know that your link cites the Bitman paper, in which quails who were fed low calcium diets had thinner shells. You do know that Bitman backed away from his conclusions after they could not be replicated and co-wrote with Cecil a paper titled, No effects on eggshells, if adequate calcium is in DDT diet. Poultry Science. 1971; 50:656–659. Why isn't that paper cited? And if it isn't how are we to accept the fact that the material used by the author is objective?
It also cites the Hickey (1968) paper that I have discussed extensively. It fails to mention thann his Congressional testimony Hickey admitted that the egg extracts from his study contained little or no DDT and that he and Anderson were looking into PCBs as a cause. It also fails to mention that Hickey's, Guide to Bird Watching, (1943) in which he notes that many of the falcons are lost to traps near hatcheries.
Sorry but you still have no clue what you are looking at. I doubt that you are smart enough or thorough enough to actually read what you are citing and evaluate it against the actual scholarship that has been discussed by people who have been debating the topic for years.
Like I said, your ignorance (and stupidity) are showing up in spades. The next time you cite something try reading it first.
ha ha ha..you're GOOD... in a very BAD WAY!
they must keep you in a very soft place, eh?
and I just gave you a half dozen cites that clearly demonstrated that many more species were affected by DDT ..and they all came back after it was banned.
give it up guy.. you're making a fool of yourself.
You really are very dim, aren't you. The Audubon Christmas Bird Counts showed a fourfold increase in the number of bald eagles observed from 1941 to 1960. (Peak use of DDT was in 1962.) At the link below you will see many bird species exploded as DDT was used to eradicate the mosquitoes who are responsible for the death of so many of the hatchlings. The population of blackbirds went up by eightfold, crows by 26 times, grackles by 132 times. Gulls became so abundant that the government began culling programs.
http://tinyurl.com/7ez85q6
The Hawk Mountain data, showed the osprey counts increasing from 191 in 1946, to 457 in 1967, and 630 in 1972. That is a threefold increase during a period during which DDT was used extensively.
(ref: Taylor JW. Summaries of Hawk Mountain migration of raptors, 1934 to 1970. Hawk Mtn Assn Newsletter. 1970; 42.)
And last, I refer you to page 93 and page 94 of the original EPA decision made by Judge Edmund Sweeney.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/ddt_hearing.pdf
9. DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.
10 DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man.
11. The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.
12. The adverse effects on beneficial animals from the use of DDT under the registrations involved is not unreasonable on balance with its benefits.
Got that? The EPA investigation found that DDT was perfectly fine. It was the EPA administrator, an EDF member, who overruled the Judge for political reasons. This is a lot like the current AGW debate. The science is mangled and the data is fudged to get the government to act in ways that the data suggests is very stupid and unethical. This is what we expect from mountebanks and their political buddies. And while some of us can get very rich by front running the stupidity and others can get rich by being rewarded as insiders the general population takes a beating because it is in no position to take advantage of the evil that the government and the special interest groups cause the happen.
all WACKOs fella... no credible, authoritative data...
you're living in your own little world here.
all WACKOs fella... no credible, authoritative data...
I gave you the EPA report. I gave you a citation to the US government. I cited actual papers written by the main players in this opera. But all you have are links to superficial material that offers no citations to credible studies and you think that you know something.
As I said, you are one of the most ignorant of all of the posters on this site. And while there is some competition you are convincing me and others that you are one of the dumbest as well.
the evidence from the mainstream scientific community is overwhelming.
you're into wacko territory here.. anti-science... so it fits your view.
"ignorant" is the least of your problems.
you live in a pretend world.
the evidence from the mainstream scientific community is overwhelming.
you're into wacko territory here.. anti-science... so it fits your view.
"ignorant" is the least of your problems.
you live in a pretend world.
No evidence. All you have pointed to is narrative, not science. I have already cited the science and the EPA findings that were overruled by the administrator.
you're on an anti-science mission guy.
Google Scholar has dozens/hundreds of academic articles but your basic MO is to attach these studies then haul in a wack site or two as "proof" and of course the obligatory world-wide conspiracy to boot.
The science goes backs decades.
you could honestly debate the tradeoffs between the benefits and impacts, but the science is clear about impacts.. but you're so bound up in what you want to believe that you just live in a different world on this.
the "hunting" ..then the subsequent "trapping" and "poisoning" was hilarious ..
you might be an ok guy ... but you don't show it here.
you're on an anti-science mission guy.
Not at all. I pointed out that the scientists used by the EDF to push its message had written papers showing that the major decline in bird populations came before DDT was introduced. I pointed out that the two major papers cited had serious problems. The authors of the first testified that they did not find much if any DDT in egg shells and that they were looking at other causes for their supposed decline. The author of the second paper published a subsequent paper in which he admitted that the thinning shell results were not replicable when a normal diet was used. The results from the first paper were achieved by feeding birds a diet that had one fourth the calcium of the regular diet, not because they were exposed to DDT.
I note that the citations that you provided make no mention of the subsequent papers that did not implicate DDT in egg shell thinning or to the bird surveys that showed that the populations of a number of bird species EXPLODED after DDT was used to kill the mosquitoes that were responsible for a high hatchling mortality rate.
As usual you have nothing but empty words and a faith based narrative.
no one is "pushing" a message. The science is clear and long standing and clear.
Science Papers have "problems" all the time.. that's the purpose of peer-review but when you're talking about decades of study - basic agreement is reached even as they may not have total agreement.
you attack selected papers and ignore the broader context .
Science is never exact nor 100% conclusive and has errors.. but when you have decades and thousands of studies.. you need see that.
Go to GOGGLE SCHOLAR guy and try a few searches..both for DDT and for "hunting eagles to extinction" and tell me how many you get for each search.
no one is "pushing" a message. The science is clear and long standing and clear.
Yes, it was clear. The EPA investigation concluded that he science showed that DDT was fine and there was no harm done if used properly. (I provided you with a copy of that report.)
The fact was that the report was ignored by the political administrator who was a member of the EDF and was pushing a political agenda.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.18.1.211?journalCode=publhealth
I can give you a hundred more.
when will you face reality?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4510/922.short
Science Papers have "problems" all the time.. that's the purpose of peer-review but when you're talking about decades of study - basic agreement is reached even as they may not have total agreement.
you attack selected papers and ignore the broader context .
Science is never exact nor 100% conclusive and has errors.. but when you have decades and thousands of studies.. you need see that.
Go to GOGGLE SCHOLAR guy and try a few searches..both for DDT and for "hunting eagles to extinction" and tell me how many you get for each search.
You are the one who is ignorant. I have already looked at the literature and have been very familiar with this debate for many years.
As I pointed out, the science showed that if you feed birds a normal diet their shells do not thin. End of story. The bird surveys showed an explosion in the population of a number of species AFTER the introduction of DDT. We know why this happens because the scientific studies show that a large number of hatchlings are lost to insects. Kill the insects that suck their blood and more of them survive. That shows up in the bird counts and you find more birds than before.
And as I pointed out, the EPA investigation showed that DDT was fine. The decision was not a scientific one. It was strictly political.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ddt-brief-history-status.htm
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&num=100&q=effects+of+DDT+birds+eggs&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C47&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ddt-brief-history-status.htm
I like to go to the original sources. Once again I refer you to page 93 and page 94 of the original EPA decision made by Judge Edmund Sweeney.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/ddt_hearing.pdf
....
9. DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.
10 DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man.
11. The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.
12. The adverse effects on beneficial animals from the use of DDT under the registrations involved is not unreasonable on balance with its benefits.
The EPA investigation found that DDT was fine. It was the EPA administrator, an EDF member, who overruled the Judge for political reasons.
we're not only talking ignorance here, we're talking purposeful, willful self-imposed ignorance...
this is worse than ignorance....
guy...this was ONE hearing examiner in 1972... 40 years ago!
are you going to ignore everything else in the science to pluck this out as your "proof"?
you're whacked out.. you search and search and search til you find something like this and it becomes you bible... despite 40 years of opposite scientific consensus.
it doesn't make any sense at all how you process this...
it's almost if you construct what you want to believe and then everything else is wrong.
guy...this was ONE hearing examiner in 1972... 40 years ago!
are you going to ignore everything else in the science to pluck this out as your "proof"?
That was when DDT was banned you moron. The decision was supposed to be made on the basis of the science but the science was ignored for political purposes. The EPA investigator made a conclusion that was ignored by the political appointee who headed the agency. Since then hundreds of millions of poor kids have died of malaria.
There is no new evidence to contradict the earlier studies. When birds are fed normal diets their egg shells did not get thinner even when exposed to DDT. And the bird counts are still evidence that cannot be ignored. The surveys showed that bird populations WENT UP after DDT was introduced.
As I pointed out, the papers you cite are still ignoring the scientific studies that did not fit the narrative, including the concessions made by the authors that the EDF cited as evidence that DDT should be banned. The way I see it when you feed birds a low calcium diet so that you can claim that DDT is bad for egg shell thicknesses you are an outright fraud, not a real scientist. What is worse is that when you correct your paper and write one that shows that there is no thinning the scientific establishment chooses to pretend that it does not exist and still spins the same old story. And millions die for political gain.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&num=100&as_sdt=1,47&q=does+DDT+cause+eggshell+thinning%3F
are you saying that all of this is wrong?
you are bound and determined to be as ignorant as you possibly can be - no matter what... apparently because you must in order to maintain your belief of political conspiracy.
you are one sick dude.
Post a Comment
<< Home