The Differences Between Chinese and U.S. Economic Recoveries 38 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Back on Dec 5 2008, many investors didn’t agree when I wrote “China’s Stock Market Bottoms”. The China Shanghai Index SSE has risen over 22% from its bottom. The stocks I recommended have doubled, such as American Superconductor (AMSC) and Suntech Power (STP). I am not saying you should buy these two companies here, as I do see pullback imminent in this two stocks.
As a further comparison, I have plotted SSE and DOW in one chart. It is undeniable that China’s recovery is likely V shaped, very likely. American investors dreamed a V shape recovery here in the US, but reality is reality, and we don’t have it so far. So what’s causing the difference between the Chinese market and the US market? And, the same question I asked in the previous article: what should investors do this time?
- China is leading the stimulus globally. A $600B injection into an economy that is 1/3 the size of the US is enormous. It is beyond imagination of any economist. In other words, it has to work. We are experiencing short term deflation, however, with this stimulus it is going to inflate the price on anything from commodities to service industry. Isn’t this what we want in short term? Of course, we welcome short term inflation, most importantly for investor, this will inflate the stock price as well, and this is also what we want in short term.
click to enlarge
- Many data indicate that China’s demand in commodities such as steel, iron ore, and copper have been rising in the last few months. Domestic energy demand is also rising. Electricity demand is also catching up in the east part of China. A good sign that people want to pay attention is that President Hu visited Saudi Arab last week and signed an oil supply agreement, in which Saudi Arab agreed to meet China demand under any circumstances.
- With $789B stimulus passed by congress, we will have the similar impact here in the US. The US economy is eager for the new blood flowing. The timing of the huge stimulus tells me the November bottom is the bottom in the stock market.
- Investors should pay attention to commodity prices, the renewable energy industry and the financial sector. Renewable energy investment is a big part of the stimulus in both China and the US. China’s wind farm grew fast in the last year, it is estimated that wind energy will double this year by adding another 6.5GW. Wind turbine production is exceeding solar in the Chinese market as it is cheaper and cleaner. GE recently formed a venture with A-Power Generation (APWR), capable of producing 1.2GW annually to meet demand. German wind turbine giant Fuhrlander also expanded production in China recently.
- Unlike the Chinese solar industry, the US solar industry is doing better; Energy Conversion Devices (ENER) reported Q1 recently, topping Wall Street estimates. Sunpower Energy (SPWRA) also easily beat Wall Street expectations in Q4. Both companies’ stocks are rising steadily, while wind turbine producer Trinity (TRN) apparently is experiencing some headwind as its Q1 disappointed investors and the company idles plants.
Disclosure: author has no positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 38 comments:
Tthe US economy is approx. 14% export and 86% consumer based, with the Chinese economy approx.inversley stacked.
My believe is that the Chinese economy is doing an "end run" around much of the world's G7 economies.
The near term solution to their problems, has been determined by Beijing. Generate consumer stimulism within their own borders.
Last month, for the first time ever, the Chinese economy produced more new vehicles than the US. This is THE precursor to what's to follow.
Within the near future, the Chinese government will initiate social reforms, designated to alleviate much of their peoples long term concerns, thereby stimulating spending, while spurring a consumer based "back-up" economy capable of withstanding the turmoil to their current export woes.
In the short run this will prove positive for China, while being a detriment to the US thru higher import prices.
The Chinese are undertaking a bold, comprehensive alteration of their economy, probably at the perfect time, and without much of the hoopla generally associated with this type of transformation.
these type errors bring article's credibility into question. though index comparisons can't be questioned, content errors raise questions.
""after all it is the USA THAT BUYS MOST OF THE INFERIOR PRODUCTS THEY MANUFACTURE""
But from a common sense viewpoint I'd have to say that the biggest difference, with regards to stimulus spending, between the US and Chinese "economic recoveries" is that we are financing our $787 billion expenditure with DEBT while the Chinese are paying for their $600 billion with CASH- a good chunk of which is from our interest payments to them.
When you just step back and think about that for a moment, squinting at the correlation between some squiggly lines on a chart seems rather insignificant, doesn't it?
"I didn't hear the kind of nonsense about renewables that I hear in Europe. Maybe it's because the Chinese government has too much respect for its citizens."
I would think the opposite is true. One difference, and probably a major one, is that the Chinese are free to make decisions based on good sense(not that I would choose their non democratic system). We on the other hand, have a system that placates the fossil fuel industry, which pays for that favor, and allows them to fool the public about climate change and energy solutions. And for the last eight years they may as well have been the government. It amounts to the same thing.
The Bush administration had a lot of respect for our citizens. That's why it censored and squelched any scientific evidence of global warming, while doing the bidding of the oil and coal companies. They even stifled research by cutting funding to NASA etc, and never launching a completed satellite, meant to study climate change, while burying reports on climate change. They spent many billions of taxpayer money on the climate study that they then censored.
That's because the science is getting stronger all the time, despite the lies you believe, and because the evidence is overwhelming and has overwhelming consensus among climate scientists, despite the lies Sen. Inh0fe etc. want you to believe. They didn't want the citizens to know, nor did they want any more evidence.
Ferdinand, the world really isn't flat.
You probably believe some nonsense about the warming being a natural cycle.
The coal in the earth took 60 million years to accumulate, through the natural carbon cycle. We are now releasing that 60 million years worth of accumulated carbon into the atmosphere in the blink of an eye of 150 -200 years. Explain how that is a natural cycle, like anything the earth has ever been through before, that didn't kill off 90% of life on the planet. Read the new book, "The Carbon Age".
Education does wonders.
"The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It’s made up to look like science, but it’s PR."
David Archer
That's what organizations like the Heartland Intitute are for.
"It's no coincidence that the Heartland Institute has also received funding over the years from companies that stand to benefit from delaying government regulation in the areas of tobacco and greenhouse gas emissions."
"No group typifies this more than the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based 'think' tank that simultaneously operates the 'smoker's lounge' and 'global warming facts" sections on their website. The former arguing for 'smoker's rights' and railing on about the need for 'sound science' on tobacco issues and the latter arguing that global warming is not a crisis."
www.desmogblog.com/cli...
Wind energy grew by 8.3 gigawatts last year in the U.S. That's the equivalent of 3 nuclear reactors, or 4.5 coal plants, taking the capacity factor of wind into consideration, and comparing with the average 1 GW nuclear plant
and 650 MW coal plant. And wind energy jobs grew by 70% to 85,000.
That's a near term solution. Nuclear or "clean coal" will take a decade at least to produce any new power. Those are maybe mid term solutions. And they both will be expensive ones. And they will still be among the dirtiest of solutions.
Wind and solar will create 4-5 times as many jobs as the equivalent in coal or nuclear.
And they will provide cheaper power than either coal or nuclear.
"The time to plan and construct a coal-fired power plant without CCS equipment is generally 5–8 yr. CCS technology would be added during this period. The development time is another 1–3 yr. Thus, the total planning-to-operation time for a standard coal plant with CCS is estimated to be 6–11 yr. If the coal-CCS plant is an IGCC plant, the time may be longer since none has been built to date."
"..... based on the most optimistic future projections of nuclear power construction times of 4–5 yrs. and those times based on historic data, we assume future construction times due to nuclear power plants as 4–9 yr. Thus, the overall time between planning and operation of a nuclear power plant ranges from 10–19 yr."
"The median construction time for reactors in the US built since 1970 is 9 yr."
"For CSP(solar thermal), the construction time is similar to that of a wind farm. For example, Nevada Solar One required about 1.5 yr for construction. Similarly, an ethanol refinery requires about 1.5 yr to construct. We assume a range in both cases of 1–2 yr. We also assume the development time is the same as that for a wind farm, 1–3 yr. Thus, the overall planning-to-operation time for a CSP plant or ethanol refinery is 2–5 yr."
www.rsc.org/delivery/_...
"Wind power's ecological footprint is so small — a million times smaller than ethanol's — that if all the cars driven in the United States were battery-electric, they could be fueled by wind turbines whose total land footprint, not counting spacing in between, takes up less than 1.2 square miles, Stanford University environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson found."
Wind farms only use about 2 1/2% of the land they are sited on, coexisting with agriculture, and conceivably with solar power.
solveclimate.com/blog/....
If you go to the first link, you will learn that nuclar and coal with CCS come in dead last in life cycle carbon footprint, compared with other
alternative energy sources. Coal with CCS is still off the charts in this regard.
Because of that, I think your side has been making a huge mistake in its packaging. There are a lot of us that don't really care about the arguments the global warming alarmists have been making, but we DO care about the national security, trade deficit, and jobs aspect the energy debate. That gives us a common cause even if for different results.
I would absolutely LOVE to see us move toward becoming energy independent with an energy "moon shot" that enabled us to stop sending our hard-earned dollars to petro-dictators in Latin America and the Middle East. By getting off oil/gasoline to as great a degree as possible, we could reduce the trade deficit, strengthen the dollar, weaken our enemies, create domestic jobs AND, if one cares, reduce carbon emissions.
That is the angle the climate change alarmists need to adopt, perhaps best articulated by Thomas Friedman. His positions make sense to libs and conservatives alike and make a whole lot more sense to me than seeing a few sympathetic polar bears struggling to find solid ground.
If you want to live up to your name, keep watching Fox news.
The most unfair and unbalanced "news" network in history.
There you'll learn enlightening facts like the OMB report that Sean Hannity keeps talking about. This report supposedly forcast dire consequences of Obama's stimulus package.
The only problem is that THERE WAS NO SUCH REPORT.
But Hannity kept harping on it a full week after other networks let the public know that the report doesn't exist.
you rely on these clowns for information?
Signals from China are mixed. The SSE index is one indicator, but since the government controls the bulk of stock shares, the prices can be easily manipulated. Therefore, I wouldn't rely on that alone.
Areas that were booming with the export economy are in a serious slump, but that's not the whole story either. I like the author's approach of looking at resource utilization, commodities and energy, as a more persuasive indicator of the overall economic trend.
"I'm not smart enough to argue with you on this topic, but I continue to suspect that the global warming crisis is overstated like all other political-economic crises in order to get attention and money."
You're not smart enough to argue, but like 79% of Republicans, you think you are smarter than the 97% of active climate scientists who agree on global warming?
That is the best example of the dumbing down of America that I have ever heard of.
The scientists are not alarmists. That is just not true. They have been overly conservative if anything. That is the truth. It's the nature of science to be conservative, plodding and skeptical. That's how the scientific process works.
But that is not the skepticism of the denier crowd. Not even close. They continue to repeat arguments that were decent arguments ten or twenty years ago, but that the science has left far behind. That is not scientific skepticism. It is deceit, plain and simple. And it is all those with certain political ideology need to hear, as they are gullible enough to believe anything that fits their political bias.
The idea that scientists are in it for the money is so ludicrous it defies common sense. The idea that the science is wrong because it is government funded is equally absurd. Who do you think does most basic research? Academic labs and government funded research, in every branch of science do the yeomans work of basic research. Scientists are really motivated by science, not money. Any respectable scientist will tell you that.
Have you seen the latest on climate change? It is more proof that the scientists have been overly conservative, not alarmist. You are just repeating an accusation which you have no clue is true. The fact that you use the term alarmist when by your own admission you don't understand the science, should tell you something is amiss. On what do you base this assumption of alarmism? According to who?
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20...
Global warming seen worse than predicted
You are being fooled by one of the largest and best funded propaganda campaigns in history. And what is really sad, is that it is working.
It's about a heck of a lot more than the plight of the polar bears. How about a drought that effects one third of the planet for 1000 years, with no surviving agriculture in California, because there won't be any irrigation water. That's just one small outcome of what will happen if we do nothing.
We are in danger of exceeding tipping points, like the melting of the tundra, that can accelerate global warming beyond our ability to mitigate it. These aren't alarmist delusions, they are real dangers.
Did you read what I said about the carbon cycle? That's not science fiction. It's fact.
There is no way you can release 60 million years of carbon accumulation from the carbon cycle, in what is the equivalent to a nanosecond in geological time, and expect a good outcome.
Common sense would tell you that. You don't need to fully understand the science to get that.
It does help if you know what the carbon cycle entails. Very few understand this.
Read the book. It's a fascinating look at the making of a planet, the development of an atmosphere and life, and of how life and the atmosphere are one system that revolves around the amazing unique properties of carbon.
CO2 from man's activities is acidifying they ocean, at a rate unprecedented perhaps in the history of the planet. Armored plankton, called coccolithophores that make their shells from calcium carbonate can't survive in an acidic ocean, and they are critical to life as we know it on this planet. They are the bottom of the food chain, and they balance the CO2 in the atmosphere by taking excess carbon out of the cycle. They are maybe the largest carbon sink on earth and we are threatening their very existance with the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. Did your skeptic information sources tell you about this?
If you got your information from actual scientific sources instead of political blogs with an axe to grind you would be much closer to the truth. The next time you read something by a supposed "expert", check them out at Desmogblog or Sourcewatch. If you want to know what real climate scientists think, go to
Realclimate.org
Newscientist
Logical science
Skeptical science
Open Mind
Deltoid
Rabbet run
Desmogblog
Greenfyre
It's time to wake up.
The ozone hole closed up after we banned CFCs. A Nobel prize was awarded to the three scientists who dug up the evidence. The ozone hole hasn't closed entirely, but CFCs haven't been entirely stopped, regardless of the Montreal Protocol that banned them.
And there are other gases that contribute to the problem. Nitrous oxide from vehicle exhaust is one if I'm not mistaken.
And the same right wing "think tanks" that fought against the science on tobacco smoke, and the science of CFCs and the ozone layer, are now fighting the science of global warming.
And they often use the same fossil fuel funded scientists, to state their case, like Fred Singer who has taken money for all three of these unworthy causes.
Since you are so very smart and knowledgeable . Perhaps you can answer the following questions:
carbon dioxide comprises less than 1% of the atmosphere. Water vapor comprises far more and is an equally potent "green house" gas. Why then is the emphasis on controlling carbon dioxide ?
A single volcanic eruption releases more green house gases into the atmosphere (especially methane) than a small industrialized county does in a year. how do you propose to stop the occasional volcano ?
The average temperature of the earth (to the extent that there is such a thing) has been declining for the last decade while carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing. How can this be ?
The earth has been much colder than it is now and much warmer too (on a yearly, decade long, century long and eon long basis) . Why then is the current temperature a cause for concern ?
What is the correct temperature that the earth should ?
What is the correct level of the ocean ?
for those wanting WIND STOCK PLAYS, AMSC, APWR, and especially VESTAS (VWS) are the true wind stock plays inside China
1) China's exports are declining rapidly, and
2) The Chinese government is heavily investing its reserves in domestic relief programs
Both of these facts mean they will have diminishing cash to buy USD and US debt. This comes as the Treasury prepares to launch its biggest ever issue of bonds! Don't be surprised when yields climb and USD suffers...
On Feb 15 11:34 AM Universal Huckleberry wrote:
> I'm just a simple man, I can't offer any fancy charts or graphs.
>
>
> But from a common sense viewpoint I'd have to say that the biggest
> difference, with regards to stimulus spending, between the US and
> Chinese "economic recoveries" is that we are financing our $787 billion
> expenditure with DEBT while the Chinese are paying for their $600
> billion with CASH- a good chunk of which is from our interest payments
> to them.
>
> When you just step back and think about that for a moment, squinting
> at the correlation between some squiggly lines on a chart seems rather
> insignificant, doesn't it?
And food shortage is on the way?
Well, how about planting trees?
Just one in my backyard surely collected 1-2 tons of CO2 in the last 20
years.
If cars are selling well in China and people are driving them, why is SNP so weak despite the low crude oil price and high gasoline price in China?
One point about the China stimulus plan is that most of the projects are only 30% financed by the govt. They have to get 70% of the money from banks causing the huge growth in loans in Dec and Jan. Not to mention the total scope of the projects will dramatically exceed the $584B from the govt.
It is true that the government does try to interfere with the free market with its own political and economic objectives. That is no different that the $787 billion stimulus package that our government just approved. It is not true if you imply that the government trades in and out of stocks to move the market higher. What the government does is to instruct the social security fund to buy more stocks when the market is down. Hey that is much better that our social security system because all we have is IOU's from the US Treasury.
I have lived in the US most of my life and now live in China for two years now. The government they have now is more sensitive to people than our government. When the Sichuan earthquake hit last May the Premiere was in the disaster area in seven hours. Where was our President when New Orleans was flooded? I was moved to see their Premiere worked day and night for one full week urging the soldiers(they were the only relief workers) to work harder and faster. This government has learned from the US that you need good PR to win people's hearts.
A US Expat in Guangzhou
On Feb 15 01:26 PM Aalan wrote:
> Comment stream has gone in a different direction from the headline--that's
> where I want to check in.
>
> Signals from China are mixed. The SSE index is one indicator, but
> since the government controls the bulk of stock shares, the prices
> can be easily manipulated. Therefore, I wouldn't rely on that alone.
>
>
> Areas that were booming with the export economy are in a serious
> slump, but that's not the whole story either. I like the author's
> approach of looking at resource utilization, commodities and energy,
> as a more persuasive indicator of the overall economic trend.
I think you misunderstood me. I said wind energy had expanded by 8.3 GW capacity. Wind has a capacity factor of about 35% because of it's intermittency. So the 8.3 GW can't be compared directly with 8.3 GW from coal or nuclear, which have capacity factors of about 90%.( they need some downtime for maintainence etc., but otherwise run 24/7)
So the 8.3 GW of wind capacity can generate about as much in kilowatt hours as 3 nuclear plants of 1 GW capacity each.
This is correct, or close at least. The average nuke in the U.S. is 1 GW capacity. The average coal plant in the U.S. is about 600 MW capacity.
Capacity is how much a power source can produce at peak power.
What we need to know is how many kilowatt hours it will produce, or Gigawatt hours if you like. That's what the capacity factor is used to figure out. Solar PV is about 25%. Wind 35-40%
Solar thermal with heat storage could approach the capacity factor of nuclear and coal, if enough heat storage is built in to run all night.
Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it acts as an amplifying feedback mechanism that accelerates warming, not as a cause of warming itself. The science is very clear on this.
No, volcanos produce about 1/100 as much CO2 as man, and they also produce sulfer oxides and such that have a cooling effect. Volcanos are not a big mystery to climate scientists. They had an excellent chance to study them when the big volcano erupted in the Phillipines in the 90s.
Again, the science is very clear on this also.
No, the earth is not cooling. That is more misinformation. That conclusion is only reached by cherry picking the data and manipulating the charts. It is false 100% false.
Just because someone makes these claims doesn't make them true, they are contrary to the science.
Excellent spoof/demonstration of how deniers cook up their phony claims, like that the earth is cooling now.
greenfyre.wordpress.co.../
Since this is such a popular skeptic argument presently, here are more links on supposed cooling of late.
scienceblogs.com/delto...
www.realclimate.org/in...
climateprogress.org/20.../
climateprogress.org/20.../
Like I said before you won't get real information from the sources you are getting these lies from. Go to the science websites I list in the previous post.
Every argument you have raised has been completely and absolutely debunked by science.
It is not a natural cycle.
It is not cooling.
It is the rapid rate of change that is so dangerous, not just what temperature it is.
Neither man or other species can adapt fast enough.
Global average has risen 1.4 F in 100 years. In the Arctic temp has risen 3 C or 5.4 F
The small change so far is enough to melt the polar ice caps, change timing of seasons, screw up the migration/feeding/bree... patterns of many species, acidify the ocean and much more.
You have been listening to a bunch of nonsense so far. Don't be so gullible.
"while wind turbine producer Trinity (TRN) apparently is experiencing some headwind as its Q1 disappointed investors and the company idles plants".
I never knew Trinity to be a producer of wind turbines.
www.reason.com/news/sh...
Al Gore was a champion of Rachel Carson and today he's a champion of the global-warming crowd. Not hard to understand the skepticism of many Americans regarding this latest environmental crusade.
We need to build giant turbines based on vertical axis "drums". Even though much "slower", these monsters could each deliver on the GW scale, and start up in less wind! (I heard China is in on that too??? MWTT). Automated PV factories are a necessity. It seems a bit of a conspiracy theory that they are not already dirt cheap (use robots). And we need to employ CSP which bty really can provide up to 90% of baseload power once the transmission upgrade is complete (assuming new lines in the southwest and over sized heat storage).
Enviro's need to care more about all the damage POST OIL CRISES will do than worry about pretty lands and their backyard.
I apologise in advance if I misunderstand you. Everything sounded good till the last paragraph.
"Enviro's need to care more about all the damage POST OIL CRISES will do than worry about pretty lands and their backyard."
That is not the case. It's not about pretty lands. It's about the suvival of ecosystems that are critical to all species, including ours.
They are not separate things or separate interests.
Man's welfare IS the envirnonment's welfare and vise a versa.
We can't survive in a bubble, separate from the rest of the species on earth. We are part of those ecosystems, interdependent parts of the web of life. This isn't some hippie enviro delusion. It's scientific fact.
And it's the fundamental concept that anti environmentalists don't get. If half the species on earth go extinct in the next century or two from global warming, how would man be a special case? Do they think nature will give us some special dispensation because we are human? Yes it is that serious.
Nitrous Oxide has had a big bump to the upside in the last few years because of the Burning of Corn Ethanol.
When someone provides links to the comments of others, you can be sure that all of them will be skewed to the commentators' view. You can also be sure that the Commentator just parrots what he/she has read.
Global Warming=Eliminate Greenhouse Gases=A Dead Ice Ball called Earth.
I admit I'm not a climate scientist, I'm a layman, one with about 1500 hours of research behind what I say. The links are mostly to science websites, not political sites. The fact that I'm a layman is why I point people to the actual science, rather than a bunch of politically motivated opinions.
Most skeptics read other skeptic opinions and don't even bother to see what the actual science says. They gobble up the pseudo science that most of the deniers cling to, out of pure political belief,
The fact remains that the scientific evidence is getting stronger everyday and is overwhelming. The consensus is also overwhelming. It is supported by just about every major scientific organization in the world, including the academy of science of every country that has one, and the earth sceince faculty of every major university in the world.
Believe what you want. Opinions are not worth much. The science is. Do you read what the scientists I reference have to say? I bet not. It might undermine the urban legends about climate change that are the talking points of most skeptics.
and move
and it has opened up again but not like it was before.
If you hear someone argue against global warming theory and they mention the name Al Gore, you can be sure they are not basing their ideas on science, but using Gore as a scapegoat because they don't have anything else to back up their talk. And you can be sure their opinions are almost entirely based on politics, not science.
Yes, I do understand how greenhouse gases operate.
As far as the burning of ethanol, if true, it doesn't surprise me since this is the worst of alternative energies, unless we can develop algae or cellulose based methods that are better environmentally and economically.
But guess what the Bush administration put the most money into.
Why?- because big industries wanted it. Big Agriculture, auto makers, etc.
I do know that when Freon was everyone's scapegoat, a New Ice Age was forecast. Freon was Blackballed. The substitute, whose name I don't remember, did as much harm as Freon.
For anyone who wishes to see what the Climate was like 500 years ago, a visit to an Art Museum or a look through an Art Book will give you pictures of the Tropics in Italy. A 1000 years ago, some explorers must have been intoxicated when they Named Greenland, Green Land.
Global Warming is probably an issue to the uninformed.
I view it as a normal occurance. I did concur that it was being exacerbated by Industrial activities and Population Increases about 6 months ago.
But that is no longer the case. A worldwide Recession has not only stopped the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere, it has decreased the amount, very, very Abruptly. A very violent result has already Occurred.
"The first time in 30 years, 100 years, since records were kept, the First time ever, etc." has been the norm this winter. I expect that I will see reports of similar strange weather patterns to hold through the rest of the Year around the world.
Frankly, this scares me more than Al Gore.
We need to go Back to "Square One"; again, and come up with an electric Motor that is designed as a motor, originally. No need for any "Better" batteries.
While our politicians have been very busy awarding/rewarding much money to many millionaires of "Porkchop City" [the very people that do Not need it] like putting a Solid Gold roof on this House [America] while it is the Foundation that has been eroding [outsourseing] and then, the higher gas prices got these dominos falling...."WE" would be better off; if, "They" had just given out ALL of that money.....Starting at the bottom. [The Foundation= the People that Would Spend It!
"Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it acts as an amplifying feedback mechanism that accelerates warming, not as a cause of warming itself. The science is very clear on this." . This is pseudo-scientific nonsense . If water vapor is a greenhouse gas then it traps heat . If it traps heat is raises the temperature .
Volcanoes emit a lot of methane too , I wonder why you omitted that ?
There are no accurate measurements of temperature around the earth that go back 100 years.
What is the correct temperature for the earth ?
What is the correct level of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
What is the correct level of the ocean ?
The science of global warming is not clear at all, although the politics is (give us more money) . If there were any science one could make predictions based upon that science that came TRUE . The theory says that the earth should be warming. It's not . It has been getting cooler for the last 10 years. If one cant predict (understand ) something it is unlikely one control it . Under those circumstances there is no reason to burden the economy to prevent what is most likely a fantasy of the gullible and avaricious .
If you have to be terrified of something, radioactive monsters in Tokyo harbor is a better choice. The movie is better and Raymond Burr is a better actor than Al Gore .