Study Finds CFCs, Not CO2 , Are Cause Of Global Warming

Posted by Milton Recht:

From "Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says" on ScienceBlog:

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."***Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu’s cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

Deforestation Is Second Largest Source Of CO2 Emissions

Posted by Milton Recht:

From "Simplified Solutions To Deforestation Ineffective In The Long Run" on ScienceBlog:

Deforestation is the second largest source of CO2 emissions after consumption of fossil fuels.

So-called PES programmes, where landowners are paid to replant or protect forests, have been promoted as a way to reduce deforestation. However, the effectiveness of the programmes has been questioned, and new research from the School of Business, Economics and Law at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, points to potential negative long-term effects and a need for broader guidelines and policies.

Eliminating Federal Tax Deductions Unlikely Because Large Share Of Middle Class Taxpayers Claim Them

Posted by Milton Recht:

From Tax Policy Center, "The Challenge of Cutting Deductions to Lower Tax Rates" by Howard Gleckman:

It isn’t a new lesson, but it is one that bears repeating. For instance, a March 21 CRS paper shows that in 2010 about 40 percent of all deductions were claimed by households making between $20,000 and $100,000, with 28 percent going to those making between $50,000 and $100,000. Nearly half of tax filers making between $50,000 and $100,000 claimed deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving, and more than half deducted state and local taxes.

Those three deductions alone represent more than two-thirds of all itemized deductions. Thus, it is hard to imagine any base-broadening, rate-cutting reform plan that doesn’t include some cuts in those preferences. And taking that step threatens to make a lot of middle-income taxpayers very unhappy.

Almost 60 Percent Prefer Less And Cheaper Employer Medical Insurance Coverage, Major Medical, In Exchange For More Take Home Pay

Posted by Milton Recht:

From Rasmussen Reports, "59% Prefer Less Health Insurance, Bigger Paycheck:"

If they had a choice, 59% of Likely U.S. Voters would choose a less expensive health insurance plan that covered only major medical expenses and a bigger paycheck. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 31% would opt instead for a more expensive insurance policy that covered just about everything and receive a smaller paycheck.

The telephone survey answer was in response to the question:

5* If you could, would you be more likely to choose an expensive insurance policy that covered just about everything and receive a smaller paycheck? Or would you choose a less expensive plan that covered only major medical expenses and take home a bigger paycheck?

In Almost A Quarter Of US Households, Women Earn More Than Their Husbands

Posted by Milton Recht:

From CNBC, US News, "Moms' Roles Rising as Lead Breadwinner" by Amy Langfield:

Women earn more than men in almost a quarter of U.S. households, a huge leap from 50 years ago, when only a handful of women brought home more income, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center.

Women are now the leading or solo breadwinners in 40 percent of households, compared with just 11 percent in 1960, according to Census Bureau data analyzed by Pew.***In 1960, only 4 percent of women made more than their husbands; it's now 23 percent. That translates into 5.1 million married "breadwinner moms." Of those making more than their husbands, 49 percent have at least a college degree, 65 percent are white and 67 percent are between the ages of 30 and 50.

Deposit Insurance Not Legally Backed By Full Faith And Credit Of US

Posted by Milton Recht:

From The Wall Street Journal, "Deposits Guaranteed Up to $250,000—Maybe: What does it mean to be 'Backed by the full faith and credit' of the U.S.?" by Alex Pollock:

Congress apparently has never enacted a provision in a law simply stating that insured deposits are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the government—at least I have diligently searched for it, including asking the FDIC for such a statutory citation, without success.

See my August 28, 2009, post "FDIC Insurance Fund Is Not Backed By US Full Faith And Credit"

Dog Bites Account For One Third Of Homeowner Insurance Claims

Posted by Milton Recht:

From TIME, Business and Money, "Dog Bites Insurance Companies: Man’s Best Friend Behind One-Third of All Homeowner Claims" by Brad Tuttle:

Over the last decade, the number of insurance claims related to dog bites has basically remained flat. But the amount of money paid out in claims has soared, and last year dog bites accounted for more than one-third of all dollars paid out in homeowners insurance liability claims.

Data from the Insurance Information Institute (III) released in honor of something called National Dog Bite Prevention Week indicates that over the past decade, the number of dog bite claims has drifted from the low 14,000s to the high 16,000s. In 2012, the total stood at 16,459, down from the 2011 tally of 16,695, and also lower than the 2003′s total of 16,919. The low over the past decade occurred in 2005, when 14,295 dog bite claims were recorded.***The average dog bite claim payout rose from $19,162 in 2003 to $29,752 last year, an increase of 55%.

Median Physician Income By Specialty

Posted by Milton Recht:

From The New York Times, Economix Blog, "Debating Doctors’ Compensation" by Uwe E Reinhardt:

Source: The New York Times

***

Source: The New York Times

***

Standard economic theory suggests that over all, American doctors are overpaid, although perhaps not the primary-care specialties. This position leans on the fact that at existing incomes there is still considerable excess demand for places in medical schools among bright American youngsters – not to mention a huge pool of highly qualified foreign applicants. This suggests that the lamented doctor shortage in the United States is the result of an artificially constrained supply of medical school places and residency slots, which serves to inflate physician incomes above what they would be in a better functioning market without supply constraints.

Cities Growing Faster Than Suburbs Including NYC And Its Surrounding Suburbs

Posted by Milton Recht:

From The Wall Street Journal, Real Time Economics, "U.S. Cities Growing Faster Than Suburbs" by Neil Shah:

The nation’s 51 largest metropolitan areas — those with populations over one million — saw their city populations grow 1.12% between July 2011 and July 2012, up from 1.03% a year earlier and an average of 0.42% between 2000 and 2010, according to an analysis of Census data by demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution in Washington. By contrast, these cities’ suburbs grew just 0.97% last year, higher than 2011’s 0.96% but far below the average of 1.38% in the previous decade. In the New York-Northern New Jersey metro area, New York City — the nation’s largest, with over 8 million people — saw its population grow 0.8% between July 2011 and July 2012, much faster than the 0.3% growth of its suburbs. Between 2000 and 2010, the New York metro area’s suburbs generally grew faster than New York City.

Fewer people "are moving out of the big urban cores because the recession [and sluggish recovery have] tended to freeze people in place," says Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at the Carsey Institute and a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire. The Chicago metro area exemplifies the trend: Chicago’s population grew 0.4% between July 2011 and July 2012, while its suburbs grew only 0.2%.

More Foreign Born Workers In US Workforce

Posted by Milton Recht:

From The Wall Street Journal, "Vital Signs Chart: 16% of Work Force Foreign Born" by Neil Shah:

Immigrants are becoming a bigger part of America’s labor force. The share of workers in the labor force born outside the U.S. hit 16.1% last year, from 15.9% in 2011 and 15.5% in 2009....

Source: The Wall St. Journal

Electric Vehicles Are Not Greener Than Comparable Gas Powered Autos

Posted by Milton Recht:

From National Review Online, Planet Gore "Tesla and the Myth of the Zero-Emissions Vehicle" by Henry Payne:

According to a comprehensive engineering study published in the February 2013 Journal of Industrial Ecology, greenhouse gas emissions for an EV’s full life cycle — from production through road use — are not much greener than a comparable gas-powered auto, and no more planet-friendly than a diesel car. Indeed, when you factor in the toxicity of materials used in battery production, it’s hard to make the case that EVs are a very green alternative.

"Almost half of an EV’s life cycle global-warming potential is associated with its production," concluded a study group from the Department of Energy and Process Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. "We estimate the GWP [global-warming potential] from EV production (to be) roughly twice (that) with gas-engine production."

Multi-Family Home Construction At Pre-Recession Level But Single Family Home Construction At A Third Of Peak Level

Posted by Milton Recht:

From Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Economic Trends, "Housing Recovery?" by Kyle Fee and Daniel Hartley:

Recent data shows that construction activity of multifamily housing has recovered to around its pre-bust level, with roughly 300,000 to 400,000 units of new construction beginning each year. These levels were typical through the late 1990s and early 2000s. In contrast, single-family housing construction—even though it has increased from around 400,000 units per year to around 600,000 units per year—is still far below its peak during the boom (1.8 million units) and less than its average during the late 1990s (about 1.2 million units per year).

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Per Kilowatt Hour, Solar Power Costs Are About 4 Times Nuclear Power Costs

Posted by Milton Recht:

From The Wall Street Journal "Going Green? Then Go Nuclear: We're environmentalists, but pretending that solar power is ready for prime time is delusional." by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger:

The cost of building and operating the Finnish nuclear plant over the next 20 years will be $15 billion. Over that time period, the plant will generate 225 terawatt-hours (twh) of electricity at a cost of 7 cents per kilowatt hour.

Since 2000, Germany has heavily subsidized electricity production from solar panels—offering long-term contracts to producers to purchase electricity at prices substantially above wholesale rates. The resulting solar installations are expected to generate 400 twh electricity over the 20 years that the panels will receive the subsidy, at a total cost to German ratepayers of $130 billion, or 32 cents per kwh.

In short, solar electricity in Germany will cost almost five times more for every kilowatt hour of electricity it provides than Finland's new nuclear plant.

Over its 60-year lifetime—which can be extended by relicensing—the Finnish plant likely will generate more electricity than Germany's solar panels ever will. That's because solar panels only have an expected lifetime of 25 to 30 years and lose about a half a percent of their efficiency every year. Compared over their full lifetimes, the Finnish plant will produce power at a cost of about 4 cents per kwh, while Germany's solar panels will produce electricity at a cost of 16 cents per kwh.

Economic Effects Of A Carbon Tax: CBO

Posted by Milton Recht:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a carbon tax would negatively affect US economic growth, real wages, labor supply and low-income households. The revenue from a carbon tax could be used to partially offset these negative effects, but CBO indicates there will be a trade-off between helping the the economy and helping low-income households.

From CBO, "Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment:"

How Would a Carbon Tax Directly Affect the Economy?
By raising the cost of using fossil fuels, a carbon tax would tend to increase the cost of producing goods and services—especially things, such as electricity or transportation, that involve relatively large amounts of CO2 emissions. Those cost increases would provide an incentive for companies to manufacture their products in ways that resulted in fewer CO2 emissions. Higher production costs would also lead to higher prices for emission-intensive goods and services, which would encourage households to use less of them and more of other goods and services.

Without accounting for how the revenues from a carbon tax would be used, such a tax would have a negative effect on the economy. The higher prices it caused would diminish the purchasing power of people’s earnings, effectively reducing their real (inflation-adjusted) wages. Lower real wages would have the net effect of reducing the amount that people worked, thus decreasing the overall supply of labor. Investment would also decline, further reducing the economy’s total output. [Emphasis added.]

The costs of a carbon tax would not be evenly distributed among U.S. households. For example, the additional costs from higher prices would consume a greater share of income for low-income households than for higher-income households, because low-income households generally spend a larger percentage of their income on emission-intensive goods. Similarly, workers and investors in emission-intensive industries, who would see the largest decrease in demand for their products, would be likely to bear relatively large burdens as the economy adjusted to the tax. Finally, areas of the country where electricity is produced from coal—the most emission-intensive fossil fuel per unit of energy generated—would tend to experience larger increases in electricity prices than other areas would. [Emphasis added.]

How Would Various Uses of the Revenues From a Carbon Tax Alter Its Economic Effects?
Lawmakers’ choices about how to use the revenues from a carbon tax would help determine the tax’s ultimate impact on the economy. Some uses of those revenues could substantially offset the total economic costs resulting from the tax itself, whereas other uses would not.

Using the Revenues to Reduce Deficits Would Decrease the Tax’s Total Costs to the Economy
At least part of the negative economic effect of a carbon tax would be offset if the tax revenues were used for deficit reduction. Federal budget deficits tend to result in lower economic output over the long run than would otherwise be the case, by crowding out private-sector investment. Thus, policies that reduce deficits generally have a positive effect on the economy in the long run (although they can have a negative effect in the short term when the economy is weak).

Using the Revenues to Cut Marginal Tax Rates Would Also Decrease Total Costs
Lawmakers could also offset some of the negative economic effects of a carbon tax by using the revenues to reduce the existing marginal rates of income or payroll taxes—a policy known as a tax swap. Existing taxes on individual and corporate income decrease people’s incentives to work and invest by lowering the after-tax returns they receive from those activities. Consequently, reducing those marginal tax rates would have positive effects on the economy.

Using the Revenues to Reduce Adverse Effects on Selected Groups Would Not Decrease Total Costs
Targeting revenues toward people who would be likely to bear a disproportionate burden under a carbon tax would provide them with relief, but such a policy would tend not to reduce the total economic costs of the tax. Thus, lawmakers would face a trade-off between the goals of helping those households most hurt by the tax and helping the economy in general. Lawmakers could use the revenues in more than one way to try to balance those goals. [Emphasis added.]

CBO's complete 23 page report, "Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment" is available as a PDF.

Map Of State Excise Tax Rates On Wine

Posted by Milton Recht:

From the Tax Foundation, "Weekly Map: State Wine Excise Tax Rates, 2013" by Nick Kasprak:

Source: Tax Foundation

A couple of weeks ago, I posted the Tax Foundation map of state excise tax rates on beer.

CBO's Methodology For Projecting Long-Term Spending For Social Security, Medicare And Medicaid

Posted by Milton Recht:

From CBO, "How CBO Prepares Long-Term Projections of Federal Spending for Social Security and Major Health Care Programs" by CBO Unit Chief Joyce Manchester, Presentation to the Medicaid and Government Pricing Congress on May 16, 2013:

A PDF version of the following presentation slides.

How CBO Prepares Projections of Federal Spending for Social Security and Major Health Care Programs from Congressional Budget Office

PDF version of the presentation slides.

Pet Owners Spend More On Their Pets Than Alcohol: Useful Marketing Data For Sellers Of Food, Products And Services To Pet Owners from BLS

Posted by Milton Recht:

From Bureau of Labor Statistics, Beyond the Numbers, "Spending on pets: 'Tails' from the Consumer Expenditure Survey" by Steve Henderson:

Nearly three-quarters of U.S. households own pets. There are about 218 million pets in the United States, not counting several million fish. Pet ownership crosses many demographic boundaries, with Americans of different ages and levels of wealth reporting spending on pets. Further, Americans spend a substantial amount of money on the care and feeding of their animals. Americans spent approximately $61.4 billion in total on their pets in 2011. On average, each U.S. household spent just over $500 on pets. This amounts to about 1 percent of total spending per year for the average household.

***Expenditures on pets include pet food, pet purchases, supplies and medicine, pet services, and veterinarian services. BLS data show the following:

• In 2011, households spent more on their pets annually than they spent on alcohol ($456), residential landline phone bills ($381), or men and boys clothing ($404).
• Average household spending on pet food alone was $183 in 2011. This was more than the amount spent on candy ($87), bread ($107), chicken ($124), cereal ($175), or reading materials ($115).
• Even when spending at restaurants dropped during the recent recession (December 2007–June 2009), spending on pet food stayed constant. (See chart 1.)
• In 2011, one-sixth of U.S. households purchased pet food each week, based on entries in the CE Diary.
• Married couples without children living at home spent the most on their pets.
• Homeowners spent almost three times as much on pets as renters did.

The BLS article has more useful marketing data showing the breakdown of purchases, and average spending by demographics, such as by household size, household composition, owner vs renter, rural vs urban, age of owner/renter, etc.

Work Place Bullies Get Promotions

Posted by Milton Recht:

From "Why Bullies Thrive At Work" on ScienceBlog

Despite resistance to bullying from both employers and employees, many workplace bullies achieve high levels of career success, according to a new study from the University at Buffalo School of Management.

Published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology, the study found that some workplace bullies have high social skill that they use to strategically abuse their coworkers, yet still receive positive evaluations from their supervisors.***"Many bullies can be seen as charming and friendly, but they are highly destructive and can manipulate others into providing them with the resources they need to get ahead," says the study’s co-author, Darren Treadway, PhD, associate professor of organization and human resources in the UB School of Management.

Workplace bullying is pervasive. The study has noted that as many as half of all employees in the U.S. have witnessed bullying at work, and 35 percent have been the target of bullying.***The results showed a strong correlation between bullying, social competence and positive job evaluations.

US Needs Fewer Preschool Programs And More Childcare Programs

Posted by Milton Recht:

As the home environment of low income households becomes more enriched, as the number of very low income households with preschool children with mothers who did not finish high school drops to about half, 71 percent to 37 percent, from 1970 to 2000, and the number of low income mothers who have some post secondary education increases five times from 5 percent to 25 percent, there is currently less educational benefit, and possibly none, from universal preschool.

Parents reading to their young children and parental educational attainment expectations for their children, along with parent educational levels are predictive of children's educational level and success in school. With higher education levels of low income mothers, more at home reading to children will occur and higher parental expectations of education attainment will be expected from children.

The US does not need more money invested in universal preschool programs as President Obama has proposed. Instead, there is need for quality childcare for preschool children, especially for mothers who need or want to work outside the home. As a quality childcare facility probably cost less than a quality preschool program, the US could have more places available for more children in daytime childcare than in preschools. More low and middle income mothers and their children would benefit from the greater availability of quality childcare due to its lower cost than from a lower number of preschool seats due to its higher cost.

From Journal of Economic Perspectives, "Investing in Preschool Programs" by Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson:

In 1970, some 71 percent of preschool age children in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution had mothers who lacked a high school degree, while only 5 percent of the mothers had attended at least some postsecondary schooling (based on authors’ calculation of the October Current Population Survey data). By 2000, the corresponding percentage of children with mothers who did not have a high school degree had dropped by nearly half (to 37 percent), while the percentage with mothers who had completed some postsecondary schooling (based on authors’ calculation of the October Current Population Survey data). By 2000, the corresponding percentage of children with mothers who did not have a high school degree had dropped by nearly half (to 37 percent), while the percentage with mothers who had completed some postsecondary schooling increased five-fold (to just over 25 percent). Today, therefore, children from low-income households are likely to be benefiting from much higher-quality home environments than their counterparts four decades ago. Both higher-quality home environments and increases in other forms of center-based child care raise the bar for impact estimates coming from early childhood education programs. [Emphasis added.]

The First 2 Percent Of Healthcare Spending, Gets 50 Percent Of The Health Benefit

Posted by Milton Recht:

From The Washington Post, Wonkblog, "Bill Gates: 'Death is something we really understand extremely well' " by Ezra Klein:

[Bill Gates:] But here’s the good news for these [poor] countries. If you spend the less than 2 percent of what the rich countries spend, but you spend it on vaccinations and antibiotics, you get over half of all that healthcare does to extend life. So you spend 2 percent and you get 50 percent. If you spend another 80 percent you’re at over 90 percent.