Links 7/10

I am back from visiting a friend who is a top 1-percenter in the Boston-Washington corridor, so I am chockerblot with dismay at the Pollyanna Obama-boosterism of those riding on the Stimulus Gravy Train.  It really took me aback to be asked to contribute to groceries by someone with two homes, including a vacation home on a beautiful island in Maine and annual compensation close to half a million dollars.  The greed and unawareness of how everyone else lives of the top 1 percent is simply astounding.

• Hollow Men of Economics – www.gregor.us 
• Richard Koo’s pro-stimulus slides – still talking about “aggregate demand” instead distribution, the mainstream (i.e., hired pro-status quo cheerleaders) Establishment-approved Spin.  Meanwhile, the Republicans and Tea Partiers prove yet again that there’s a sucker born every minute among the bottom 80 percent.
• Presenting The Wall Of Worry: The 50 Ugliest Facts About The US eCONomy – www.zerohedge.com

Why we are in Afghanistan

Via Wikipedia:  Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline  It’s all about “our” oil.  Can’t we just buy it, like everyone else?  The Chinese are way ahead of us in their strategic thinking about this.  They do deals instead of invading.

Is global warming unstoppable?

Via:  Science Daily

ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2009) — In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions -- the major cause of global warming -- cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.

"It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission rates," says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

Garrett's study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study will be published online the week of November 23.

The study -- which is based on the concept that physics can be used to characterize the evolution of civilization -- indicates:

• Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
• Throughout history, a simple physical "constant" -- an unchanging mathematical value -- links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions.
• "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually -- approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy."

Getting Heat for Viewing Civilization as a "Heat Engine"

Garrett says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute."

"I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem," Garrett says. "I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have."

Article continues here.

Read the paper at arXiv.org here.  Should be read in conjunction with that oldie-but goodie, “Finite-time singularity in the dynamics of the world population, economic and financial indices” found here.

Moral: Prepare for a lower standard of living.

Update on thorium

Sounds a lot better than uranium.  Thanks Anonymous for the reference.