AuthorTopic: Agelbert's Newz Channel  (Read 1176269 times)

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Some people at Statoil Actually Think Logically
« Reply #8205 on: November 23, 2017, 03:05:38 PM »
Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Powers Up in the UK

November 22, 2017 by gCaptain


Statoil’s 402MW Dudgeon offshore wind farm near Great Yarmouth, England. Photo: Statoil

SNIPPET:

The Dudgeon offshore wind farm has started delivering electricity to the UK power grid, providing renewable energy to around 410,000 homes.

Statoil and its partners Masdar and Statkraft officially opened the Dudgeon wind farm on Wednesday in Great Yarmouth, England.


A view of Statoil’s Dudgeon offshore wind farm near Great Yarmouth, Britain November 22, 2017. REUTERS/Darren Staples

Full article:

http://gcaptain.com/dudgeon-offshore-wind-farm-powers-up-in-the-uk/
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Tesla Completes World’s Largest Li-ion Battery (129 MWh) In South Australia
« Reply #8206 on: November 24, 2017, 11:11:57 AM »
Tesla Completes World’s Largest Li-ion Battery (129 MWh) In South Australia (#NotFree)

 

November 23rd, 2017 by James Ayre

SNIPPET:



Tesla has now finished construction work on the 129 megawatt-hour (MWh) energy storage facility that it was contracted to build in South Australia, the government of the region has revealed.

Full article:

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/23/tesla-completes-worlds-largest-li-ion-battery-129-mwh-energy-storage-facility-south-australia-notfree/
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The fossil fuel corrupted governments have simply chosen not to listen.
« Reply #8207 on: November 24, 2017, 03:34:02 PM »
Agelbert NOTE: The scientists have been warning us for YEARS. The fossil fuel corrupted governments have simply chosen not to listen.


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/dXYlfeajaYY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/dXYlfeajaYY</a>
New Scientific Warning about 'Abrupt' Climate Change

Tim Weiskel

Published on Oct 9, 2017

This program, “New Scientific Warning about 'Abrupt' Climate Change,” was recorded on 15 December 2013.  It is is episode #138 of an ongoing series of educational videos from the Citizen-Science Online Learning Initiative  (CSOLI).  These educational videos focus on global climate change and its implications for the transitions we must make in our institutions and behavior in order to survive the coming decades.  See:  http://wp.me/P2iDSG-2

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Rapid collapse of Antarctic glaciers could flood coastal cities ...
« Reply #8208 on: November 24, 2017, 03:37:45 PM »


Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pp5kK0Td-Vc" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Pp5kK0Td-Vc</a>

Climate State

Published on Nov 23, 2017

Rapid collapse of Antarctic glaciers could flood coastal cities by the end of this century. Based on an article written by Eric Holthaus. Read the full story https://grist.org/article/antarctica-...
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Running Out of Time on Climate
« Reply #8209 on: November 24, 2017, 03:52:47 PM »
Running Out of Time on Climate

Captioned for sharing with Chinese Speakers

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/4dSe1vCHUto" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/4dSe1vCHUto</a>

UPFSI .org


Published on Oct 14, 2017
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Coming Soon to your community: WATCH this real video of DESTRUCTIVE wind shifts
« Reply #8210 on: November 24, 2017, 04:04:38 PM »
Coming Soon to your community: WATCH this real video of DESTRUCTIVE wind shifts:
Hurricane Maria Damage Estimate of $102 Billion Surpassed Only by Katrina

Dr. Jeff Masters  ·  November 22, 2017, 12:57 PM EST

SNIPPET:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FAS6JC41Fwg" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/FAS6JC41Fwg</a>
Video 1. This video taken at Yabucoa, Puerto Rico, near Hurricane Maria’s landfall point shows an extraordinary reversal of Maria’s eyewall winds multiple times. The first huge gust happens around 0:50, throwing cars around. The reversal of the winds multiple times could be due to tornado-scale mesovortices embedded in the eyewall, in combination with the funneling effect of the high rise building across the street. Interestingly, a video shot by storm chaser Josh Morgerman of iCyclone just a few miles away shows a flow that is smoother and steadier, without wild directional shifts. He writes: “This makes sense, because I was right at the coast, where the wind was coming off the open ocean with very little friction.” (The weird reversing wind video was shot a couple of miles inland, where there was lots of friction.) Maria made landfall in Yabucoa, Puerto Rico as a strong category 4 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 155 mph.


Full article with several eye opening graphics and drone video:

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/hurricane-maria-damages-102-billion-surpassed-only-katrina

« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 04:22:23 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Kevin Anderson & Hugh Hunt make the situation on climate change CRYSTAL CLEAR
« Reply #8211 on: November 24, 2017, 04:36:04 PM »

Kevin Anderson & Hugh Hunt - Quit the loose talk on climate change and let's get serious!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/skilmEHMsMc" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/skilmEHMsMc</a>

UPFSI .org

Published on Nov 17, 2017

In this Climate Matters show live from COP-23 in Bonn, Kevin Anderson of Britain's Tyndall Center and Hugh Hunt of Cambridge University, go at it in a lively discussion of all the loose talk happening about climate change and the lack of meaningful action. A lively and light conversation for a very serious and weighty subject.

Category: Education

License: Standard YouTube License



« Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 04:39:04 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Scientist Kevin Anderson: Our Socio-Economic Paradigm ensures FAILURE
« Reply #8212 on: November 24, 2017, 04:55:08 PM »


Scientist Kevin Anderson: Our Socio-Economic Paradigm Is Incompatible With Climate Change Objectives

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/cBAcYkc6v6A" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/cBAcYkc6v6A</a>


Democracy Now!

Published on Nov 16, 2017

https://democracynow.org - Broadcasting from the United Nations Climate Summit in Bonn, Germany, we continue our conversation with Kevin Anderson, one of the world’s leading climate scientists. Anderson is deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester in Britain. The report is entitled “Can the Climate Afford Europe’s Gas Addiction?”

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on nearly 1,400 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9AM ET: https://democracynow.org

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: https://democracynow.org/donate


Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Cornel West gives it to Trailer Trash Trump Lackey for defending a LIAR!
« Reply #8213 on: November 24, 2017, 07:46:31 PM »
Agelbert NOTE: Cornel West tells it like it IS!

"WHY YOU GOTTA DEFEND A LIAR, MAN?!" Philosopher Cornel West DESTROYS Trump Lackey Paris Dennard

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/dPefdL-SPcY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/dPefdL-SPcY</a>

860,674 views

Dose of Dissonance

Published on Aug 15, 2017

During a CNN panel debate on "Anderson Cooper 360," philosopher Cornel West brilliantly destroys Trump lackey & former Bush staffer Paris Dennard for defending Donald Trump's lies!
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Stupid Selfish Behavior the Orwellian Propaganda Machine calls "Patriotism"
« Reply #8214 on: November 25, 2017, 12:55:44 PM »
Agelbert NOTE: Phil Donahue is a man who broke through all the brain washing LIES he was spoon fed as a child BECAUSE he tirelessly searched for and accepted the TRUTH, no matter how uncomfortable it was for him to incorporate into his world view. 

This TRNN replay is must viewing for anyone who thinks trusting the State they grew up in is "objective" and "reasonable". Trusting the State is the path to dictatorship. Flag waving fools (i.e. 'my country right or wrong' ) are precisely the people that have been suckered into defending the fascist destruction of what little democracy we have left in the USA.

If you feel comfortable with today's U.S. Government foreign and domestic corporate plunder and pillage based polices, you will not escape the cruelty that those policies have visited on others. You are only fooling yourself to think you will never be the target of corporate government profit over people and planet mayhem simply because you are "white" and economically well off. Your Government encouraged empathy deficit behavior, cleverly labelled by the Orwellian Propaganda Machine as "patriotism", will eventually boomerang on you and yours. Stop letting greed destroy our country. Stop being stupid. Stop ruining the future of your offspring. Start admitting you have been wrong. Then, and only then, we just might get through this. Otherwise, your selfishness will be key to the destruction of everything decent about human society. You have been warned.




September 30, 2014

The Radicalization of Phil Donahue - Reality Asserts Itself (1/3)

Mr. Donahue says he believed he was blessed, living in the greatest country on earth - but through hosting his show, speaking to people like Chomsky and the Black Panthers, he came to question what he had thought was true

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/18O4B5ciUOE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/18O4B5ciUOE</a>

October 2, 2014

Corporate Media is Destroying Democracy - Phil Donahue on Reality Asserts Itself (2/3)

Mr. Donahue says that corporate media doesn't rock the boat, it is the boat
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-QllHWFvv9U" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/-QllHWFvv9U</a>

October 3, 2014

Whistle Blowers, Dissenters, and Progressives are the Patriots - Phil Donahue on RAI (3/3)

On Reality Asserts Itself Mr. Donahue says we are a nation of laws, until we are scared
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/fHetGaORG2w" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/fHetGaORG2w</a>

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=1237' style='color:#000;

Logic is the enemy and truth is a menace.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/oADlQPJ_Zfc" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/oADlQPJ_Zfc</a>
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 12:59:23 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The Market and Private Property Should Be The Slaves of Democracy
« Reply #8215 on: November 25, 2017, 02:12:27 PM »


May 15, 2014


Piketty: The Market and Private Property Should Be The Slaves of Democracy

TRNN Producer Lynn Fries hosts an extended interview with Thomas Piketty about his widely acclaimed Capital in the 21st Century

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWbWS_miEoM" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/zWbWS_miEoM</a>

Agelbert NOTE: I am posting the transcript along with the video because Professor Piketty has a strong French accent. Professor Piketty accurately explained the direction our greed based history is taking us. Since this interview, things have proceeded exactly as he has predicted. IOW, we are even more screwed now than in 2014.  :P

As Phil Donahue said in the previous post (third video) when he was interviewed by TRNN in 2014, "... the USA could elect a neo-Mussolini". We are there.  :(

biography
Thomas Piketty is Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics and author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He has published numerous articles in journals such as the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Journal of Political Economy, the American Economic Review and the Review of Economic Studies, and of a dozen books. He has done major historical and theoretical work on the interplay between economic development and the distribution of income and wealth. In particular, he is the initiator of the recent literature on the long run evolution of top income shares in national income (now available in the World Top Incomes Database). These works have led to radically question the optimistic relationship between development and inequality posited by Kuznets, and to emphasize the role of political and fiscal institutions in the historical evolution of income and wealth distribution.

transcript
LYNN FRIES: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Lynn Fries reporting from Paris. In this program, we look into the history of income and wealth from the 18th century. Who owns what and who earns what? For centuries this has been a debate without much data but that's changed with the publication of a new book. To discuss all this The Real News visited Thomas Piketty in Paris. Thomas Piketty is Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics and the author of this new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Welcome Thomas. Thank you.
THOMAS PIKETTY: Thank you
FRIES So you've assembled a huge amount of data and then you wrote a huge book about it. So tell us your objectives
PIKETTY: OK. So the objective of this book is really to provide the readers with a lot of historical evidence on income and wealth. And this comes from a collective research project that involves over 20 other scholars including Tony Atkinson, Emanuel Saez, Facundo Alvaredo and we have been collecting over the past 15 years the largest existing historical database on income and wealth inequality. And the primary objective of this book is to put all this data in a consistent manner so that everybody can access the documentation. And I draw some conclusions about the future at the end of the book but most of all the book is really about the history of income and wealth so that, to help everybody to draw their own conclusion
FRIES: With three centuries of data, you're saying that the Old World countries of Europe and Japan are back to 19th century levels of wealth inequality. So tell us about that and why it matters for the entire world and especially people born in 1970 or later.
PIKETTY: Well I guess I have particular sympathy for people born in the 1970s and for them wealth is going to have a different structure than for the baby boom core. Namely we see in recent decades a return of the relative importance of wealth as compared to income which we didn't have for the baby boom core. And the reason is that until WWI we lived in societies that I call in the book patrimonial societies, where the total quantity of wealth was very large with respect to income. So typically the ratio of total wealth to income was about six to seven years. Then this dropped tremendously to about two/three years in the 1950s and this has been going upward again particularly in European countries and in Japan back to five/six years of national income today. And what this means is that for the post war baby boom core there was relatively little to inherit from the past.This was because of the destruction, the inflation and taxation due to the financing of the war which reduced the quantity of private wealth that was to be transmitted in the ‘50s,'60s. Now we are back a relative importance of wealth that is going in the direction of pre World War I societies with lower concentration of wealth. You know, it's important to emphasize that today there is a middle class in wealth that did not exist one century ago. So having a lot of wealth per se is certainly not bad. If you have the middle class and if you have an equal sharing or at least a spreading of wealth then it is better to have more wealth than to have only debt. So it's all a matter of whether we manage to make the middle class in wealth expand rather than shrinking which is what we've had unfortunately in the recent decades.
FRIES: So let's talk now about income inequality in the New World, the United States. An important study was done in US income inequality by Simon Kuznets in the 20th century. Tell us about his work and put it in historic context..
PIKETTY: OK. So in the 1950s, Kuznets was the first economist to produce an income inequality series. And what he found was a decline in income inequality in the United States between 1913 and 1948. Now in fact it was largely due to the Great Depression, to World War II, wage compression during World War II, taxation policy that was enacted after the Great Depression. And Kuznets himself was very much aware of that but people in the ‘50s and '60s in the Cold War and post colonial context wanted to believe in a happy story and a happy end about inequality and capitalism. And Kuznets somehow proposed such a story by saying OK maybe there are universal and natural reason why inequality could reduce in the advanced stages of economic development. You know himself, he was not really very convinced about it and indeed what we've seen then is a return of very large inequality of income in the United States, And I guess what's new in this book is that we are able to extend the work of Kuznets to many more countries and to much long time period. And this allows us to realize that this optimistic belief in the Kuznets curve in the 1950s, 60s, 70s was really due to in fact to very special circumstances.
FRIES: And other optimistic beliefs? You've said that the Golden Age post war meritocracies were built on transitory illusions. Tell us about that.
PIKETTY: I think in the ‘50s, '60s, '70s we sort of invented a number of fairy tales or nice stories as to why the world is now different. Inequality has nothing to do with 19th century inequality. Now the two main illusions, I think are the human capital illusion and the war of ages illusion. And I should say that as all good illusions, they are partly true but they are just much less true than what people believe and what a number of people still believe.
So the human capital illusion is saying that now with the modern economy all that matters is human capital. And education, personal skills, personal talent, as opposed to traditional forms of non-human capital – financial, real estate, etc. Now this is an illusion because in fact in the long run you have a rise of both human and non-human capital in comparable proportions. So of course you have a rise of human capital. You have more education and higher level of human skills today. But you also have a higher level of real estate, equipment, patents, robots and other non-human assets. So that in the long run, you know I'm not saying that robots will dominate humans but I'm just saying that the balance between human capital and non-human capital has no reason to move in the direction of human labor. And indeed, if we look at the recent trends, you know the capital share in GDP has actually been going up and the labor share, for the share of income going to labor earners in the form of wages or other forms of compensations for labor, has actually been reduced. And I'm not saying it's going to reduce forever but it can very well stabilize at a level that is not so different from the 19th century. So in other words, the capital labor split today is not that different from the 19th century. And it would be wrong to assume, and this has been an illusion to assume, that technological change alone and modernity alone in the form of technical change would make the triumph of labor over capital, and the triumph of human capital. So this is the first illusion.
The second illusion is different. The war of ages illusion relies on the idea that with aging and with the increase in life expectancy, the whole nature of capital accumulation has changed entirely and now its mostly life cycle accumulation. So you accumulate for your old age and then when you are old you consume some of your capital. So you still have a lot of capital but it's not really inequality because it's just everybody is going to be young and then old and so there's no problem. It's just a way, capital is just a way of shifting puchasing power later in life. Now unfortunately, this is largely an illusion in the sense that the share of wealth accumulation that has to do with a pension has certainly not become 100%. It has not even become 50%. It has not become less than 20% of total wealth accumulation in every country. And even in the countries where this life cycle wealth acccumulation including pension funds is up to 20% or 25% ,you know, the concentration of this wealth within age groups is quite large. And overall if you take the 100% of wealth accumulation what we observe in the data is that inequality of wealth within each age group, so within people with the same age – 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 30 to 39, 70 etc - is actually almost as large as the total inequality of wealth over the entire population. So this is really an illusion to imagine that because people live longer the inequality of wealth has completely changed the very nature of capital.
So I think it's really time to reopen these debates. Some of these illusions could have been right. And to some extent there's some element of truth in them but it's important to put them under examination. To look at them in a very careful way and I think to conclude that they are partly illusion.
FRIES: To sum up the ground covered so far, talk specifically about these two distinct patterns you find in your study - one for income, the other for wealth – and then get into what all this means for the 21st century.
PIKETTY: The main evolution that I study in the book are two important U-shaped patterns One is for the share of total income going to the top income earners. And we've seen the reduction of the share during the war period and then a large increase particularly in the United States since the 1970s and this is largely due to the rise of top managerial compensation in the US. Now the other U shaped pattern which in my view is even more important in the long run is the evolution of the total quantity of wealth with respect to income. And what we've seen particulary in European countries & in Japan is that the total quantity of wealth was very large up until WWI around six-seven years of income. It dropped to two-three years of income in the 1950s and then it has been increasing since then. And it is now back to levels that are almost as large as prior to WWI. Which is not necessarily bad in itself if people have equal share in this large stock of wealth. Now the problem is that in practice the inequality of wealth tends to be much larger than the inequality of labor income. So this return of wealth also implies to some extent a return of inequality. But we can do better. We can try to have, of course there's still this large quantity of wealth but with a more equal distribution and higher wealth mobility and higher access to wealth for people who start with low income.
FRIES: Before getting into how we can do better, talk about what would be reasonable to expect if instead, capitalism was just left to itself.Of these two patterns, you say that even if we get income inequality, get wage inequality under control, what most concerns you is wealth inequality. If we don't get that under control, we're headed to levels like in the 19th century or worse. So talk to us about the dynamics of the future accumulation of wealth. And what's behind it, what's pushing us in that direction.
PIKETTY:
I think the main force that can push the long run towards very high concentration of wealth is the tendency for the rate of return to capital to be higher than the growth rate. Which I note r bigger than g in my book. And which until the 19th century and until World War I this was pretty obvious to everybody that r was bigger than g. People will not formulate it this way but in fact it was obvious because the growth rate was very small. Certainly in agragian societies the growth rate was close to 0%. Then with the industrial revolution it increased up to 1% to 1.5% but with a rate of return to capital of at least 4% to 5%. And sometime even more for more risky assets. Then the gap between the rate of return and the growth rate was very large indeed up until World War I. And what historical investigation suggests is that this was the primary explanation for the very large concentration of wealth and so in spite of the fact that there had been a complete change in the nature of wealth between the 18th century and 1910. You know in 1910 land does really matter any more. It's only in Downton Abbey that you have a lot of land but in the real world land was less than 5% of national wealth in the UK or in France in 1910. But the concentration of wealth, although wealth took new forms - financial assets, international investments, industrial capital, real estate - the concentration of this wealth was as large or even a bit larger than the concentration of land in the 18th century. And the primary explanation for this, according to my investigation, is this tendency of rate of return to be bigger than the growth rate. And there is a serious possibility that we'll be back with this tendency in the future. Primarily because the growth rate in the future, in particular, the population growth rate is apparently going to decline according to demographic projections. And also the productivity growth rate, which was very large in the post war period - ‘50s, 60s, 70s - as some countries were catching up from the war destruction and the growth rates that were 4% to 5% in Europe and Japan during that time are now for the past 30 years they have been down to 1% to 1.5% in productivity growth terms. And you know it could well be that this is the kind of growth rate that we have in the future. In which case, the rate of return to capital especially given international competition and increased bargaining power for capital on earth, the gap between the rate of return to capital and the growth rate will be high again in the future. And you know during the 20th century there were a number of unusual circumstances that changed entirely the equilibrium between r and g; a big decline in r on the rate of return due to the destruction, inflation, taxation; a big increase in g the growth rate in the post war period because of the recovery and also because of the large population growth. It's important to have in mind that half of total GDP growth during the 20th century was actually the growth of population. And this apparently is now over. So I am not saying I am able to predict the future value of growth rate and rate of return. There are many different processes – social, demographic, economic, political, financial – that are going on.What I am saying is that it would be a mistake just to rely on natural forces for the rate of return and the growth rate to equilibrate each other. You know there's no reason, there's no logical reason, there's no historical reason why growth rate should be as large as the rate of return. So it could be that the growth rates are suddenly going to be 4% or 5% percent per year in the future. And it could be that we all have a lot of children and we all make a lot of inventions each year so that the growth rate is 4% or 5%. And maybe one day we'll discover a planet where the growth rate is 10% forever. But you know, I think it would be a mistake to bet on that. And I think we should have another plan in case this incredible coincidence with the growth rate as large as the rate of return happens you know in case it does not happen and in case the growth rate is closer to 1% to 2% in the long run. Then we should have another plan. And we should try to set up institutions – fiscal institutions, educational institutions – that allow us to spread the wealth and that allow us to have a balanced distribution of income and wealth in the long run.
FRIES: So you put three centuries of data into the public domain, so now everybody has access to the history of income and wealth and can draw their own conclusions. But what are your conclusions? What are the lessons so today democratizing wealth can be less violent and more durable?
PIKETTY: I think one of the main lessons of the 20th century is that indeed wars and big shocks played a large role in the reduction in inequality and that we ought to do better for the future and actually we can do better. There are much more pacific ways of course to redistribute wealth but we need to think harder about it. So we need to rethink entirely the issue of progressive taxation. Progressive taxation of income and of inheritance was invented in the 20th century but somehow at the end of the 20th century it was abandoned. I think largely for bad reasons. So we need to rethink that again. And also we need to analyse new forms of progressive taxation in particular progressive taxation of wealth. I think it is important to realize that wealth is going to be increasingly important as compared to income in the 21st century. Therefore the taxation of wealth is going to be more and more important as compared with the taxation of income. We need both, of course, but we need to rethink the taxation of wealth. In most developed countries the way we tax wealth right now is through property taxes. So for instance in the US or in most European countries you tax real estate property just in proportion to their value. So it's not progressive and also because these property taxes were set up in the 19th century, they do not really take into account financial assets or financial liabilities. So I think it would be important to adapt them to the structure of wealth in the 21st century. And it will be adequate to transform these property taxes into progessive taxation of net wealth. So for instance, if you have a house worth $500,000 and you have a mortgage of $490,000 your net wealth is only $10,000. You are not rich in any way. So in the current property tax system you shouldn't pay as much property tax as someone without a mortgage. And sometimes you even have people whose property value is below their mortgage and they keep paying the same property tax. So I think this is just not the right way to tax wealth. And both to allow people to access wealth, to accumulate wealth and also to limit the concentration of wealth at the top end of the distribution, we need to have a progressive tax on net wealth.Where you would have a much lower rate for people who are trying to access wealth, for the bottom 90% of the population, and a graduated increasing rate for people who already have millions or billions of wealth. And the objective is not to tax more wealth overall. It's actually to keep the same quantity of wealth but to spread it more and to increase the mobility of wealth in society.
FRIES: And so why is transparency so integral to your policy recommendations for taxing wealth?
PIKETTY: To me transparency in wealth is really the key objective because I think it's very difficult to have a serious democratic debate and a rational democratic debate with so little hard information on wealth dynamics and with so little public knowledge on who owns what where. And I think to me the primary objective of taxation is actually to produce more transparency. And it's important to realize that historically taxation has always been more than taxation. It's also a way to produce legal categories, to produce democratic accountability. So for instance when there was no corporate income tax there was no corporate accounts. You could not even know what the profits of a company were. So it's not that today's accounts are always perfectly transparent but at least they exist. And it will mean the same for wealth. I think if we, in order to have a proper wealth tax we will need a more serious fight against tax havens. More automatic transmission of information from banks to each country's government so that we know who owns what where. We will need to go toward a global registry of financial assets so that we have a much better knowledge of cross border assets than we have now. And then we will see with this transparency our democratic institutions will be better able to decide which tax rate should be adopted. And you know I don't pretend that I have the perfect mathematical formula to choose the tax rate. I'm just saying if the top of the wealth distribution is rising three times as fast as the size of the economy which is what the data we have on wealth tends to indicate. So for instance, all the Forbes ranking data suggests that the top of the wealth distribution is rising at 6%to 7% per year not only in the US but also in Europe and also at the world level whereas the average wealth at the world level is rising at only 2% per year. The top is rising three times as fast as the average then you cannot say that a 1% tax rate or a 2% tax rate at the very top is going to kill the economy. This is not serious. Now if the data shows differently you know maybe one day when we have better transparency on wealth we will see that the top wealth group actually do not rise faster than the average then they will not need to have steeply progressive taxation. So you know we can adapt our policy to what we see. And you know I think this is what democracy is all about. We need information. We need transparency in order to have a serious democratic debate on the basis of good information.
FRIES: Talk more about the structure of capital in the 21st century in this rethink about wealth tax.
PIKETTY: The 21st century is characterized by similar kind of patimonial structure of the 19th century but with different types of assets and different types of wealth. So the kind property taxation system that was set up in the 19th century is not enough for the 21st century. First because it was not progressive.It was proportional because it was societies that were actually based on very large inequality of wealth and sometime they were not even using universal suffrage.You know this was really a different approach to progressivity. And also these property taxes of the 19th century were not taking into account financial assets, financial liabilies which are so important today. So today a big part of the wealth of course is financial and involves international financial assets. So this is why we need to rethink the taxation of wealth in this high financial wealth world. And this requires international cooperation. Now the US is one quarter of world GDP, the EU is another quarter of world GDP, China will soon be about almost one quarter of world GDP and you know each of these areas has problems with rising concentration of wealth. So, so far China or Russia for that matter are sort of treating their wealthy oligarchs on a case by case basis. Which I think they are starting to realize particularly in China that they ought to do it in a better way. And that property taxation, taxation of wealth is already being seriously debated in China and it could be they make progress faster than Europe or the United States. You know, we will see but all the areas of the world will have to try to adapt their view of taxation and their consideration for a wealth tax to a world of very high wealth to income ratio and very large cross border assets and financial wealth.
FRIES: And why do you find there's so much to learn about capitalism in the 21st century from your study of the period before the First World War?
PIKETTY: There is a lot to learn from the study of 1900, 1910 not because we are going to go for another World War I, but because this was a time where you had at the same time a lot of innovation going on and at the same time a lot of inequality, you know very high concentration of wealth. And it is important to realize that the two can go together because even when you have a lot of innovation the growth rate is not sufficiently large to compensate for the rate of return and to undue this very large concentration of wealth. And some people, I have read some reviews where people are saying well we do not care about the past or the future will be different. We will have a lot of innovation and the growth rate will be 4% or 5% per year. You know I think 1900, 1910 these are not agrarian economies.This is a time where we actually invented the automobile, the electricity, the radio. So maybe it is less important than Facebook but still these are important innovations. And I think it would be wrong to imagine that there is nothing to learn from studying this time period. There were a lot of innovations but still the growth rate was 1% to 1.5% per year. And this was not sufficient to spread the wealth as compared to the forces going in the direction of very large concentration of wealth. So large that this was threat for the proper working of our democratic institution and it could again be so in the future.
FRIES: And your concluding thoughts?
PIKETTY: You know, the concluding thought of my story is that.technological rationality does not lead to a democratic rationality. So the market and private property should be the slave of democracy rather than the opposite. So we want to use the market system, the price system, the property system so as to make sure that everybody will benefit from prosperity, will benefit from income and wealth.But for this to happen we need very strong democratic institutions, very strong fiscal institutions, a very strong and inclusive education system. You know that's not going to happen just by relying on technological forces and market forces. So we really, the lessons of history are very important for that. For a long time, the agenda was set by a number of people arguing that all we need is market competition. Or the book by Milton Friedman in the 1960s argued that all that we need basically is a good Federal Reserve, we don't need a welfare state, we don't need progressive taxation, with a good Federal Reserve that's enough. I think to a large extent, we still live in this legacy today. We still believe that since 2008 basically that creative monetary policy and a good action by central banks is going to be enough. That's not going to be enough. We need a good central bank. We need a good Federal Reserve but that's not enough. We also need progressive taxation, we also need a welfare state, we need education. We need new forms of progessive taxation. I think we've been asking too much to creative monetary policy in the past five years. You know that's not going to solve all of our problems. And sometimes it is creating bubbles. It is creating huge profits for certain people and a huge loss for others. You know taxation is more complicated than money creation because you need the Parliament to vote for the tax base. You need to enforce the tax law. That's more complicated but at least we know who pays what. Whereas when you create billions of dollars or billions of euros everyday sometimes you do not know what you are doing with them. We need to rethink these institutions and what they have brought us in the past and what we need for the future in a new light
FRIES: Thomas Piketty, thank you
PIKETTY Thank you so much.
FRIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
End

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11858' style='color:#000;
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Kevin Anderson: Universities Have Failed on Climate Change Education
« Reply #8216 on: November 25, 2017, 03:36:08 PM »

Agelbert NOTE: Above is a screenshot from the video posted here. It's a long video, but Kevin Anderson makes it crystal clear that mitigating climate change is NOT about technofixes.


Bottom Line: NO ETHICS taught in universities and reinforced with laws against unethical behavior in business, NO VIABLE BIOSPHERE for humanity's offspring.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/v6fLarIV2AI" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/v6fLarIV2AI</a>

Are universities making the world worse? Education and research in an age of climate change

Centre for Environment and Development Studies in Uppsala, CEMUS

Published on Aug 10, 2017

From Almedalen 2017.

Kevin Anderson, Zennström Visiting Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Uppsala University

Josefin Wangel Weithz, Associate Professor in Sustainable Urban Development, KTH

Johanna van Schaik Dernfalk, Unit manager, Environmental and Agricultural Sciences, Formas

What is the role of universities in response to the great environmental and social challenges of our times? In an age of escalating climate change, ecological unravelling and societal instability and uncertainty, what is higher education and research really for? And for whom?

Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The spread of false information continues. Here’s a roundup of a few egregious e
« Reply #8217 on: November 26, 2017, 01:36:59 PM »
But the Polluters  Continue to Peddle Bold Faced LIES to SCAM we-the-people into being FORCED to PAY a PREMIUM for THEIR Polluting Product! They want we-the-people to PAY for THEIR CRIME AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT! 

Fact Check: What critics are getting wrong about wind power during the tax reform debate

NOVEMBER 21, 2017

SNIPPET:

AWEA's Deputy Director of External Communications: The spread of false information continues. Here’s a roundup of a few egregious examples, followed by a dose of reality.

Wall Street Journal editorial board :  “Tax reform is a chance to tell the wind racket  to get off the dole but it isn’t clear Republicans are up to the task.”



Reality: The Journal’s editorial board is asking for something that already happened two years ago—the PTC is phasing down, and will be gone after 2019.

And what they’re calling a “racket” happens to employ over 100,000 Americans across all 50 states, and keeps more than 500 U.S. factories busy churning out wind-related parts. It generates more than 30 percent of the electricity in Iowa and Kansas, and more than 10 percent in a dozen other states. There is now enough installed wind capacity in the U.S. to power 25 million homes, making it an indispensable part of our electric grid.

Merrill Matthews  , The Hill: “Scaling back or ending renewable energy and electric vehicle tax breaks, as the House Republican plan does, would come closer to putting renewable energy on a level playing field with fossil fuels, while saving the government money.”

Reality: Virtually all sources of energy have incentives in the tax code, and most of the fossil fuel incentives are likely to continue even as wind voluntarily gives up its main incentive.
 


Wind, coal, nuclear, gas and solar plants all cost a lot of money up front to build. That means developers need access to capital from investors. Each uses various tax and regulatory structures to gain access to the funds they need to break ground.

Coal and gas can use a Master Limited Partnership, an investment vehicle that does not have to pay corporate taxes and can attract a large number of investors. That gets them access to capital at low interest rates, which helps build more power plants.

Nuclear plants for 60 years have relied on a form of public insurance under the Price-Anderson Act. Investor-owned utilities, the most common owners of nuclear plants, cannot get insurance on the private market that would cover a meltdown. The Price-Anderson Act caps a nuclear plant owner’s liability in the event of a disaster, with the federal government covering the rest of the exposure. That makes such plants more attractive to investors.

For wind and solar projects, the Production Tax Credit or alternative Investment Tax Credit have boosted their attractiveness to investors as a low-risk revenue stream, so they can accumulate the capital to start building. Yet wind has received less than three percent of all energy incentives since 1950.

Sen. Lamar Alexander : “Wind blows only 35 percent of the time… so until there’s some way to store large amounts of wind power, a utility still needs to operate nuclear, gas, or coal plants to cover when the wind doesn’t blow.”

Reality: The average wind turbine generates useful amounts of electricity 90 percent of the time. Grid operators have always balanced changes in supply and demand, and balancing wind is no different. Changes in wind output are gradual and can be predicted up to 24 hours in advance, whereas conventional plants can unexpectedly go offline, creating far more complicated and costly problems for grid operators.

Sen. Alexander is confusing wind generation with what is called the “capacity factor,” which means what percentage a plant operates year-round of its theoretical maximum capacity. New wind farms average capacity factors over 40 percent, roughly the same as conventional plants, which don’t run flat-out 24 hours a day, 365 days a year either. But that doesn’t mean they only generate electricity 40 percent of the time. Rather, some days they’re generating right at the max, other days somewhere in between, but rarely are they standing still.

Think of it like driving on the highway. Even though the speed limit may be 65 MPH, your car won’t hit that maximum speed at all times due to traffic and other factors. But that also doesn’t mean your car is standing still when you’re not hitting 65—you’re still moving (hopefully).

Eduardo Porter , New York Times: “The Wind Catcher farm in Oklahoma occupies 2,400 times as much land as Diablo Canyon but produces half as much energy.”


Reality: This is an apples-to-oranges comparison of different energy sources. Mining and waste storage add to a conventional power plant’s footprint, and a nuclear power plant fully occupies the land it sits on. Meanwhile, land used for wind farms is multi-purpose.

The average wind project leaves 98 percent of land left undisturbed, making it free for other uses like farming and ranching. The proposed Wind Catcher project will use just a tiny portion of the land area its turbines are installed across, with overwhelming majority still free for farming or ranching.

Robert Bryce , New York Post:  “Multibillion-dollar subsidies for Big Wind are also fueling widespread destruction of American wildlife.”


Reality: Wind energy has a legacy of care for the environment to uphold, and does far more to safeguard nearby wildlife than virtually any other industry. Wind turbines have the lowest impacts on wildlife and their habitats of any utility-scale power plant, according to the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority. A typical wind turbine is struck by fewer than one bird per month, which compares favorably to a tall building; overall, wind energy is responsible for less than a hundredth of one percent of human-related bird deaths.

Bryce has a long history of spreading false and misleading information about wind, even after he has been corrected, and he has ties to anti-renewable special interests. More than 50 journalists and educators once submitted a letter to the New York Times urging its public editor to do a better job disclosing conflicts of interest from op-ed writers like Bryce.

There’s more to a thriving business environment than lower taxes. Businesses also need stability to confidently invest and hire workers. By pulling the rug out from under the wind industry, the House bill would upend the stability created by the 2015 phase-out. The Senate version, on the other hand, does right by U.S. wind workers and all the rural Americans who are counting on this new cash crop to revitalize their communities. Contact your representatives today to let them know you support American wind workers. 

Full article:

http://www.aweablog.org/critics-getting-wrong-wind-power-tax-reform-debate/


The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
More Evidence of Runaway Greenhouse Gas Caused Catastrophic Climate Change
« Reply #8218 on: November 26, 2017, 04:56:12 PM »
More Evidence of Runaway Greenhouse Gas Caused Catastrophic Climate Change
Agelbert NOTE: As Global Warming increases, storms form in places they did not form before. Have a nice day.



Nov 20, 2017

Rare hybrid tropical storm in the Mediterranean Sea 

NOAA/NASA's Suomi NPP captured this image of a rare tropical-like storm system in the Mediterranean Sea intensifying off of Italy's southern coast on November 18, 2017. The image shows a well-defined eyewall as the storm entered the Ionian Sea between Italy and Greece.

Named 'Numa' by the Free University of Berlin's Institute of Meteorology, the storm has caused heavy rainfall and deadly flooding in Greece and parts of the Balkans. Numa is considered a hybrid storm, with both tropical and subtropical characteristics. The Mediterranean Sea typically is not conducive to tropical cyclone development, due to its relatively shallow depth and the limited amount of open water uninterrupted by land areas.

Although true-color images like this may appear to be photographs of Earth, they aren't. They are created by combining data from the three color channels on the VIIRS instrument sensitive to the red, green and blue (or RGB) wavelengths of light into one composite image. In addition, data from several other channels are often also included to cancel out or correct atmospheric interference that may blur parts of the image.

    
Terms of Use:   Please credit NOAA/NASA

Keywords:   Mediterranean Sea, NPP, VIIRS, 2017.11.18


https://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail2.php?MediaID=2150&MediaTypeID=1
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 04:58:24 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 10372
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
The United States Government is No Different from a Fascist Government
« Reply #8219 on: November 27, 2017, 04:58:57 PM »
The United States Government is No Different from a Fascist Government

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/GTChUwi87rs" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/GTChUwi87rs</a>

Given the merger of state and corporate power that is our government today, how are we any different from fascist governments?
Thom Hartmann Nov. 24, 2017 2:00 pm





Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1062 Views
Last post October 10, 2014, 02:00:44 AM
by Guest
0 Replies
114 Views
Last post July 05, 2017, 07:11:08 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
79 Views
Last post September 14, 2017, 04:20:30 PM
by azozeo