Why The Frackers' Language "Overhaul" Is Doomed To Fail

Top: Fracking well despoiling water and emitting volatile organic chemicals in a Colo. town. Bottom: Students get ready for global climate strike

Today, as the global  climate strike revs up, it is well to consider the not insignificant role of fracking.  True, fracked shale oil is still a minor part of fossil fuel consumption but it has an outsized impact on the environment and public health. We've known this since the excellent two-part documentary ("Gasland")  by Josh Fox.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/gasland-ii-fracking-is-worse-than-you.html

Less well known is that fracking - apart from wasting precious ground water reserves and contaminating the environment with fine particulates e.g.

• A New Pollutant Category Appears ( PM_2,5) And L...

has been a bottomless money pit for investors.  This is  given it takes more energy to generate a quantity of fracked shale oil than the extracted amount delivers.  Thus, the June article in The Wall Street Journal's Business and Finance Section (' Frackers Scrounge For Cash As Wall Street Shuts Spigot'', p. B1, June 7) didn't really astonish or surprise me.. Especially on reading:

"The companies behind the U.S. fracking boom are turning to asset sales, drilling partnerships and other alternative financing to supplement their cash flow. These forms of funding often come with higher interest rates or other downsides  - such as giving outside investors a hefty share of future oil and gas profits."

And further (p. B2):

"Producers have been forced to get creative about financing because Wall Street began shutting off the cash spigot  last year after frackers routinely failed to turn a profit over the last decade."

Worse, only a tenth of large shale companies saw a positive cash flow in the first quarter of 2019.   This according to a Rystad  Energy analysis of 40  drillers.  To sustain  or increase their production these companies had to keep drilling new wells, as opposed to seeing greater production from each existing well .

The piece also noted some companies had become so desperate for cash to jump start new wells that they turned to junk bonds.  The central question emerged:  Why have the frackers - who seemed to be all over the place -- failed to turn a profit over a decade? 

I explained this in earlier posts in terms of the lower energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) say compared with the light  crude oil of the past, non-shale based. I also pointed out the difference in EROEI translated into some bad economics given the lower energy content of shale oil (kerogen) meant the frackers would always be in "catch up" mode so struggling in an energy (and hence economic)  hole.  A less efficient energy source means you have to extract more of it, and at ever higher costs given the innate diminishing returns. (According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in a report issued as recently as May 31::"The average breakeven price of oil has fallen 4 percent (or $2 per barrel) over the past year, to $50 per barrel, according to the latest Dallas Fed Energy Survey." )

The entire issue of sinking oil shale fortunes pivots on the breakeven price: that amount which the recovered oil needs to earn to have made its extraction worthwhile  If that per barrel amount tends to be below what the market offers, a loss occurs and over years the losses pile up. In many cases, as seen in recent years there is the added factor of an oil glut from over production.  In this case one has an excess supply and so oil prices tend to plummet creating a bigger financial hole for an already marginal operation.

The issue first surfaced some six years ago in Richard Heinberg's book, Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future', ( p.115).   Therein we learned from a report by a London -based brokerage firm,  Tullett Prebon:

 "Our calculated EROEIs both for 1990 (40:1) and for 2010 (17:1) are reasonably close to the numbers cited for those years by Andrew Lees. For 2020, our projected EROEI of 11.5 to 1 is not as catastrophic as 5: 1 but would nevertheless mean that the share of GDP absorbed by energy costs would have escalated to 9.6% from about 6.7% today. Our projections further suggest energy costs would absorb as much as 15% of GDP (at an EROEI of 7.7 to 1)  by 2030."

Now we flash forward to a WSJ Business & Finance piece from Sept. 10  (p. B1):  'Fracking Lingo Gets An Overhaul' where we learn that:   "Frackers are changing how they talk and how they drill to show they can live within their means."   The problem is that  changing the language doesn't really address the core problem: The low EROEI of shale oil which makes it a fundamentally inefficient mode of oil extraction and use.  But what language overhauls are we talking about?  Some examples from the piece:

1) "Where once top shale executives promised to 'ramp up/ production, these days they are more likely to assure investors they can deliver 'free cash flow'."


According to the article this is "the trendiest term in the industry right now".  It has become synonymous with the promise "not to spend beyond their income and to then generate profits which can be returned to investors."

So, in other words, the execs are promising to lowball the costs of their fracking operations because they can't deliver the fracked oil at the price needed for investors to make a buck.. So the interpretation seems to be forget "production growth" and instead look to "discipline" - meaning the frackers will cut more corners to try to ensure costs of extracting the stuff are within bounds.  But this is impossible if the shale oil itself is of such low grade in terms of EROEI.  After all (ibid.)

"Many of  the companies have yet to show they can deliver consistent returns or live within their means as oil prices hover below $60 a barrel"

Again, WHY is this? Well, it's because it costs MORE to extract a barrel of shale oil than $60 a barrel. So  at that price it's a breakeven world and  below that price it's a LOSS.  If companies have YET to show they can live within their means then they never will unless oil prices spike much much higher.  The EROEI of shale is simply too low compared to light sweet crude to support its consistent profitable production.  Hence, no surprise that "shale stocks have hit historic lows with many companies all but cut off from capital markets and many filing for bankruptcy protection."

In other words, the classic losing operation, or "batting on a losing wicket" in Bajan parlance

2) The frackers promised investors they would "downspace" the wells , i.e. move them more closely. In this case, the frackers claimed "they could boost production by placing wells in closer proximity".  

However, .they  found "doing so meant the wells produced less as they draw down the same resources".  

 Quick to parse the lingo, the industry called it the "Parent-child well problem"   but I call it the "not enough shale energy to go around" problem."  Obviously if two wells are placed closer together and the extracted oil from the combo is less than expected it means there wasn't enough there to supply 2 wells to begin with.   Or to put it another way: the energy returned from the two wells is still too low to make a profit because the oil extraction process itself is too inefficient to support the cost. Because the shale itself (kerogen) is too unprofitable.

Supporting this thesis is the revelation (ibid.) that:  "as financing dries up many companies are retreating to the sweetest spots in the best basins and shutting down drilling elsewhere."  Again, why is that being done?  It's because the frackers - with so little capital to work with on account of the oil price being too low, e..g.  to make it profitable -  have to go to the most productive basins to even break even.  Hell, and "even stalwart fields where the shale boom began, including North Dakota's Bakken, are declining in popularity with drillers."  Why?   Because it takes more energy and effort to snag the few barrels left than the barrels are worth!  The amount of energy processing for kerogen, given its cost, is simply too much for the quality of energy resulting.

  As  Richard Heinberg explains (op. cit.,  p. 110):

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. "

Oil shale fracking is a symptom of diminishing quality supplies of oil, that of high EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) not oil abundance. Anyone with half a brain would know that, which is why Heinberg  refers to it as "snake oil". It simply can't deliver the energy solution promised and in fact its continued use will result in ever lower quotas of useful energy- at ever higher cost.

While we're on the topic of fossil fuel production and global climate issues, let's bear in mind the Dems are not all pure as driven snow in regard to fossil fuel impacts, campaign cash flows etc.. (At least they seem to be better  in comparison to the climate change denying Reeps.)  On Wednesday, the 103-member New Democrat Coalition saw its Pac BP, ExxonMobil and the Edison Electric Institute all max out on donations to this year –then  outline a series of incremental and “pro-market” steps to curb carbon emissions.

 A suite of legislation unveiled on Wednesday would do many great things, like investing in clean energy research and development via ARPA-E and limiting emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. It is not, however, a plan for fulfilling the challenge laid out by the IPCC, leaving the door open to define coal as a potential source of “clean energy” in pursuit of a “technology-neutral, market-oriented standard for electric energy generation” and providing a financial incentive for fossil fuel companies to capture carbon dioxide and funnel it back into pumping out more fossil fuels.

Sadly. Greta Thunberg’s right. And establishment Democrats pushing doomed strategies and policies are denying climate reality nearly as much as Republicans.

Those who want to access all 340 pages of the 'Climate Deception Dossiers' can go here:

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

See also:

Environmental Policy | Social Justice and Activism

It’s Time to Strike for the Climate

And:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGlDSFrLX4A


And:

Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

The Climate Crisis Means the Wrong People Are Running the World

And:

Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

We Have a Decision to Make. Change the System or Face Climate Catastrophe.

Why Are The Frackers Losing Money And Resorting To Junk Bonds To Stay Viable?

The news in The Wall Street Journal's Business and Finance Section (' Frackers Scrounge For Cash As Wall Street Shuts Spigot'', p. B1, June 7) didn't really amaze me in the least. Especially as we read:

"The companies behind the U.S. fracking boom are turning to asset sales, drilling partnerships and other alternative financing to supplement their cash flow. These forms of funding often come with higher interest rates or other downsides  - such as giving outside investors a hefty share of future oil and gas profits."

And further (p. B2):

"Producers have been forced to get creative about financing because Wall Street began shutting off the cash spigot  last year after frackers routinely failed to turn a profit over the last decade."

Worse, only a tenth -  10 percent - of large shale companies saw a positive cash flow in the first quarter of 2019.   This according to a Rystad Energy analysis of 40  drillers.  And to sustain  or increase their production these companies are having to drill new wells, as opposed to seeing greater production from each existing well .  The piece also noted some companies have become so desperate for cash to jump start new wells that they are starting to turn to junk bonds.  Well, talk about batting on a losing wicket.  But the central question here is why have the frackers - who seem to be all over the place -- failed to turn a profit over a decade?   I've explained this in earlier posts in terms of the lower energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) say compared with the light  crude oil of the past, non-shale based.

I also pointed out the difference in EROEI translated into some bad economics given the lower energy content of shale oil (kerogen) meant the frackers would always be in an energy (and hence economic)  hole.  A less efficient energy source means you have to extract more of it, and at ever higher costs given the innate diminishing returns.  It means, basically, endless reinvestment to support the losing operations.  This isn't relativity or rocket science.

The issue first surfaced some six years ago in Richard Heinberg's book, Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future', ( p.115).   Therein we learned from a report by a London -based brokerage firm,  Tullett Prebon:


 "Our calculated EROEIs both for 1990 (40:1) and for 2010 (17:1) are reasonably close to the numbers cited for those years by Andrew Lees. For 2020, our projected EROEI of 11.5 to 1 is not as catastrophic as 5: 1 but would nevertheless mean that the share of GDP absorbed by energy costs would have escalated to 9.6% from about 6.7% today. Our projections further suggest energy costs would absorb as much as 15% of GDP (at an EROEI of 7.7 to 1)  by 2030."

The report goes on to conclude that the dismal diminishing energy returns means that the economy we "have known for more than two centuries" will "cease to become viable at some point". Cease to become viable?  Uh, yeah!  To use a human analogy, think of a gluttonous guy of 300 lbs, suddenly dropped on to 'Survivor Island' and forced to eat rice, a few crabs and coconuts for the rest of his life as opposed to just 39 days. Think he'd have the energy to do anything?  Think he'd survive? Guess again. His body - starving of protein  (the equivalent of high EROEI energy)-  would begin to consume itself.    That is effectively what our energy-gluttonous society is now doing but in the process headed toward distinct 'malnutrition"'  given the energy content of what it ingests gets lower and lower.  Think of that 300 lb. human gobbling more and more empty calories.

As Heinberg observes, while it may cost less to extract a cubic foot of natural gas or a gallon of oil shale today, it will cost much more in just five years and even more in ten - such that one would have to spend as much or more to get the energy as the benefit it delivers. Heinberg summons a point that most of the snake oil salesman humping fracking won't tell you, that it costs energy to get energy. And if you are a nation that resorts to employing 15 to 1 EROEI energy to extract  5 to 1 EROEI  oil shale energy.....well, can we say 'stupid'?

As Heinberg puts it (p. 116):

"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

Heinberg's book is essentially a tour-de-force exposing the false promise of fracking - whether for oil or natural gas-  with hard statistics and basic energy principles. He also shatters the myth  of "100 years of cheap  natural gas" as  effectively as he does the trope of cheaper and cheaper shale oil.   He observes, for example(p. 110), that "a study of the EROEI for electrical heating of methane hydrate deposits between 1000 and 1500 meters deep yielded ratios from 2:1 up to 5:1, depending on the source of the electricity"

The entire issue of sinking oil shale fortunes pivots on the breakeven price: that amount which the recovered oil needs to earn to have made its extraction worthwhile  If that per barrel amount tends to be below what the market offers, a loss occurs and over years the losses pile up. In many cases, as seen in recent years there is the added factor of an oil glut from over production.  In this case one has an excess supply and so oil prices tend to plummet. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas:

"The average breakeven price of oil has fallen 4 percent (or $2 per barrel) over the past year, to $50 per barrel, according to the latest Dallas Fed Energy Survey."

 This report was dated May 21st  and since then oil prices have climbed owing to the recurring Middle East instability and especially U.S. saber rattling at Iran.  Nonetheless,, given the frackers have repeatedly found themselves in such gluts, their losses have been magnified even over their inability to achieve  breakeven (in normal times).

Unmentioned until now is that whenever one has increased production which expands the existing supply beyond the current demand, a deflationary force is interjected, What this does,i.e.  in tamping down the cost at which oil can be sold, is create more problems for lower efficiency oil sources like fracking - whether in the Permian or Appalachian basins.   (There is also variability among operators;   according to the Dallas Fed survey, with the breakeven prices ranging from $23 to $70 a barrel.  This merely informs us that different operators will have differing methods of extraction, and some may be more efficient, Also, some areas may be more bountiful then others and that needs to be factored in.)

None of this detracts from the point that shale oil is a lower EROEI source and hence much more work must be done to extract it and process it (i.e.g from kerogen) and hence this inefficiency must appear in the lowered GDP over a future track, as reported by Tullet Prebon, e,g,  "Our projections further suggest energy costs would absorb as much as 15% of GDP (at an EROEI of 7.7 to 1)  by 2030."

Energy costs absorbing as much as 15% of GDP by 2030? What does this mean? It means our present energy-intensive civilization with its HDTVs,  Ipads, Smart phones, F35 bombers, Dreamliner and MAX jets,  ICBMS, drones and SUVs will need to go into ever  more debt to function at the same level. That is, to produce the same energy intensive devices, products, gadgets, toys etc.  much greater manufacturing and processing costs will have to be born.  That almost certainly implies much higher levels of debt, namely for the U.S. frackers who will be unable to contend with light crude oil producers (say like the Saudis)- who enjoy far lower breakeven prices (e.g. $23- 24 per barrel).  They mostly enjoy these lower breakeven prices because that oil has a significantly (2x, 3x) higher EROEI.

The much higher processing costs for shale oil also contribute to its producers never having made profits over the past 10 years, and always seeking loans or going through the junk bond route in desperation.   Why? Look no further than the fact (from FactSet) that 40 of the largest oil and gas frackers  since 2009 have collectively spent more than $200b  more than they took in from operations.  This is an ancillary aspect to the lower EROEI and efficiency of the source.   Again, Heinberg succinctly describes the basis of the problem which one never reads about in the mainstream media:

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. Therefore the EROEI in processing oil shale is bound to be pitifully low. According to the best study to date, by Cutler Cleveland and Peter O'Connor, the EROEI for oil shale production would be about 2:1. That tells us that oil from kerogen will be far more expensive than regular crude oil."

This is something to keep in mind as one reads more and more media accounts of how the frackers are going into debt, and basically getting nowhere fast in extracting their product and selling it beyond the breakeven threshold.  The problem for them now is getting the money to support their continued operations since "investor appetite for buying shale companies' corporate bonds has dwindled"  - leaving the companies "no choice other than to explore the junk bond markets"   There they may find the loans, but with up to 13 percent interest imposed on each one.

This isn't even just a losing wicket, but a veritable sinkhole.

Applying Physics (And Some Math) To The Green New Deal - Why It Can't Work As Set Out

To read the financial press (WSJ, Financial Times) the last few weeks it is evident a form of hysteria has seized the assorted columnists, e.g. Holman Jenkins Jr.

Big Names Bake a Climate Pie in the Sky - WSJ

and editors (e.g. "$1, 973 LEDs and the Green New Deal', WSJ p. A14 Feb.16-17)

Some in the more reactionary enclaves of the media have even warned that if such a Green New Deal comes to pass, Americans will be left with no burgers or pork chops to eat, and will have to bike to work given all cars will ne prohibited.  Amidst this hysteria is there a way to import some sense and a scientific perspective?  I believe so, and that's the purpose of this post.

First, let's turn once more to one of the more sensible and intelligent WSJ columnists, Greg Ip ('Upside Down Economics of Green New Deal', February 14, p. A2).  Among the points noted by Mr. Ip:

- "The premise of the Green New Deal is correct. While the world may not spomntaneously combust in 10 years, global C)2 emissions need to start dropping soon, by a lot - to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 Celsius.

-- Because the private market has no incentive to reduce carbon emissions government intervention is necessary."

Given these two propositions are accepted by most insightful - intelligent citizens, what's the problem?  Ip again:

"Kevin Book, head of research at Clearview Energy Partners, estimates replacing 83% of the current U.S. energy generation that is not renewable with solar, wind and biomass, would cost $2.9 trillion - nearly a full year's tax revenue."

In other words, taxes would have to be raised and not just on the wealthy. Now, counterpoise these numbers with a recent U.N. report affirming that hitting the 1.5 C target would cost an average of $3.5 trillion per year through 2050.  This is nearly $1 trillion per year more than the current pledges from government.  But with such enormous demand, the bulk of the money will have to come from the private sector.  Mind you, there are already nibbles of energy efficient improvement (i.e. Walmart has installed more than 1.5 million LED light fixtures across more than 6,000 stores) but much more is needed.

Indeed, lost in the mix is just how much high quality, intense energy is actually needed to run the U.S. economy and industrial civilization overall.   Where will the energy come from to support an industrial-energy intense and consumptive civilization? You can’t just say “new non-fossil sources” and leave it at that. What new sources? Where? As Jay Hanson (www.dieoff.org) pointedly notes:

“The fact that our society can‘t survive on alternative energy should come as no surprise, because only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc., AND still have enough energy left over to support a corrupt political system, armies, etc. Envision a world where freezing, starving people burn everything combustible -- everything from forests (releasing CO2; destroying topsoil and species); to garbage dumps (releasing dioxins, PCBs, and heavy metals); to people (by waging nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional war); and you have seen the future. “

But how correct is he?

One needs to process that different kinds of energy resources have fundamentally different "qualities". For example, a BTU of oil (oil before it is burnt) is fundamentally different than a BTU of coal. Oil has a higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher temperature than coal. It is also easier to transport, and can be used in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive wastes only one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per kilocalorie than coal.

This means you need to factor that increase in for coal  (OR - for any combination of non-fossil fuel sources) to get the same amount of work done.

Ditto with solar. Unlike energy derived from fossil fuels, energy derived from solar power is diffuse and also extremely intermittent: it varies constantly with weather or day/night. If a large city wants to derive a significant portion of its electricity from solar power, it must build fossil-fuel-fired or nuclear-powered electricity plants to provide backup for the times when solar energy is not available. Solar power has a capacity of about 20 percent. This means that if a utility wants to install 100 megawatts of solar power, they need to install 500 megawatts of solar panels. This makes solar power a prohibitively expensive and pragmatically poor replacement for the cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy our economy depends on, especially if one intends to use it operate missile factories.

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion (or replacement)  of fossil fuels are:  muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out.

Further, Matt Savinar (Life After the Oil Crash) has shown that NONE of the alter-sources usually cited: from methane hydrates, from coal, from geothermal hot dry rock technology, from natural gas, from oil shales and tar sands, from secondary recovery of existing oil fields, and so on- will do squat to totally replace the energy now being consumed for our entire infrastructure, from powering a military-industrial complex with umpteen bombers, and now missile defense, plus more tanks for occupations and wars, not to mention sustaining growth in industries, new computers, maintaining the electrical power grid and building new nuclear reactors.

To further fix ideas and get into the more practical realm it is useful to cite  The Physicist's Desk Reference (Table C, p. 187, Energy Generation by Type) showing the most energy-intense uses (aggressive consumption category, I) for all forms of solar, geothermal and wind are projected to total only about 9 exajoules by next year.Thus, ALL the usual "green" alternatives are projected to barely add up to a blip on the energy "radar" .(Note:  1 EJ   = (10¹⁸) joules   J)

For reference, current yearly U.S. energy consumption is 94 EJ.. To put the numbers in a harsher perspective, any serious major effort to "decarbonize" the planet will require an amount of clean energy on the order of 100 trillion kilowatt-hours per year  or 360 EJ. To reach this target even within 3 decades the world's nations would need to add 3.3 trillion more kwh of clean energy every year. Solar and wind simply cannot scale up to that level in that time, so the only remaining form of energy - apart from fossil fuels - is nuclear and at least one climate scientist (James Hansen)  has recommended such incorporation . See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/top-climate-scientist-advocates-nuclear.html

All told, 220 reactors are currently being built or planned worldwide, with another 324 on the drawing board.  If replacing fossil fuels is a genuine goal, these reactors can't come onstream fast enough.

Leave out nuclear and how long it will take to get to a preponderance of renewables, even using Germany's high standard of adding 0.7 trillion kwh of clean energy per year. Well, even I the most optimistic scenario it would take close to 150 years - by which time this planet would be on the verge of being another Venus.

Given this, one thing the Green New Dealers don't need is flippant or stupid comments, remarks. As Michelle Goldberg noted in a recent NY Times op-ed Ocasio-Cortez’s staff certainly "made a huge mistake by releasing a flip document about the Green New Deal  resolution saying that it will be impossible to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes in 10 years" .  This was like a gift, providing Republicans an opening to claim that Democrats want to "ban hamburgers and air travel."

Conservo hack Michael Barone (writing in a rag called 'The Washington Examiner') actually claimed the Left - using the Green New Deal - wanted "to abandon even 20th century technology and go back to the 19th century" - including wagon trains and old style steam locomotives.

Of course,  that's nonsense but Dems must be savvy enough to grasp the Reeps and conservo nabobs will search for anything to paint the D progressive wing as commies, out of touch or nuts.  See, for example, my post from yesterday referencing a recent  WSJ  op-ed by Lance Morrow.  This preposterous  piece of twaddle inflated a number of minor progressive proposals (e.g. from the left's LGBTQ  and MeToo wings) to make it seem like progressives as a whole were planning the overthrow of Western civilization. Seriously!   

Meanwhile, Ms. Goldberg also cited. Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith who made a convincing case for a version of a Green New Deal that emphasized funding the development and export of green technologies and also included a carbon tax and carbon tariffs. The United States, after all, is responsible for only about 14 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions.   But in a hypothetical future where America became a leader on climate, it would probably have to use economic incentives to get other CO2 spewing nations to cooperate. 

But all of this may merely be dodging the core issue: Can alternative sources of energy support this nation's energy demands in 10 or even 20 years?    The $64 question is: Can adequate alternative energy sources fill in most of the gaps, say when the last break -even oil is exhausted and only the very expensive to drill form remains? It’s all very well to speculate and ruminate that future energy needs will be met, but the question remains: HOW? When one does the math, and in particular pays attention to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the entropy law)  and the ‘net energy equation’. At the heart of all salient considerations to replace fossil fuels - especially oil -  is the latter (cf. Physics Today, July 2004, p. 51)

Q (net) = Q (PR) – [Q (op) + E/T]

To fix ideas:  The planet was endowed with roughly  3,000 billion barrels of oil – of which we’ve consumed 1,700 billion barrels but only  300 billion barrels of relatively cheap oil remains (assuming increased deep sea floor drilling), after which 500 billion barrels of “break-even” oil remains.  Arrival at the latter phase means the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is close to zero. In effect, for break-even oil one would find Q(net) = 0

Thus, there is no net gain in energy given the quantity accessed is basically the same as that which must be used to obtain it.  This is what we are approaching now with shale and tar sands oil.  Here's another alarming aspect:  As that usable, higher EROEI oil is depleted how much renewable energy in the form of solar, geothermal, wind, etc. is needed to replace it to sustain our industrial society which also depends on an extensive military component?  It turns out a lot and vastly more than is currently  coming onstream - if nuclear energy is omitted.

Here's an even more sobering wake up call:   The stage is set to add 25 % MORE humans by 2050, topping off at nearly  9.5  billion.  This will necessitate - if we still plan to retain solar in the mix - converting an area the size of Europe to solar panel arrays. In addition, to feed all those hungry mouths, we will need to add an agricultural area the size of the whole continent of South America - especially given how the eating habits of Chinese and Indians have now altered to become more "American" (e.g. much more meat, like steaks, etc. - which re-acquire vastly more water and resources to produce)

The bottom line here isn't very pretty. It reads like this: Alternative energy sources - no matter how many are incorporated - will provide only a very marginal, fractional benefit unless:

a) humans majorly reduce their birth rates around the world, and

b) Our concentrated energy use society is rendered much more delocalized and diffused so that it can better adapt to the diffuse,  lower quality capacity of alternative energy sources.

I suspect neither of these will occur, meaning that as we approach the climate change critical stage, there will be literal hell to pay and no real "Green" salvation to spare us.   The most alarming recent revelation concerns the much more rapid warming of the oceans.   Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published  in the journal Nature  noted:

"If you look at the IPCC 1.5C, there are big challenges ahead to keep those targets, and our study suggests it's even harder because we close the window for those lower pathways. A warmer ocean will hold less oxygen, and that has implications for marine ecosystems.  There is also sea level, if you warm the ocean more you will have more thermal expansion and therefore more sea level rise."

The critical element is the fact that as waters get warmer they release more carbon dioxide and oxygen into the air.  As Dr. Resplandy made clear:

"When the ocean warms, the amount of these gases that the ocean is able to hold goes down,"  

Adding:

"So what we measured was the amount lost by the oceans, and then we can calculate how much warming we need to explain that change in gases."

Lastly:

"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted.  But we were wrong. The planet warmed more than we thought. It was hidden from us just because we didn’t sample it right. But it was there. It was in the ocean already".

Given ocean temperatures are rising more rapidly than previously calculated, that  leaves nations even less time to dramatically cut the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide. That is, assuming there is any hope in limiting global warming to the ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.  Many newer results show this is overly optimistic and neglecting other factors in play, e.g.

Climate report understates threat

The takeaway here?  While the Green New Deal definitely sounds promising on its face,  doing the math shows that it simply can't achieve what it claims to in the time - say 12 years.  Certainly not without massive infusions of nuclear power.  This doesn't mean doing nothing, but the humans on this planet have to understand that they are the source of most of the greenhouse gases. 

Cutting human numbers, despite what the loopy economists say (i.e. regarding the need for "more economic growth") is a major first step.  That will mean less CO2 churned out, by fewer autos and coal -fired plants, and less need to chop down more forests. It also means not allowing human numbers to reach anywhere near 9 billion in 30 years. We need, in other words, massive  birth control expansion as well as massive nuclear energy expansion. And that will be just to contain the most dire effects of a rapidly warming planet.

There are bound to be affirmative voices that the Green New Deal can work (see links below), but I'd challenge any of them to do the same physics and math and still claim the plan's objectives can be attained in the given time frame. Especially if nuclear energy is not part of the solution!

See also:

Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

Climate Change Is Scary—Not the Green New Deal

And:

Economic Policy | Energy Policy | Environmental Policy

Answering the Attacks on the Green New Deal

by John Feffer | February 21, 2019 - 6:58am | permalink

— from Foreign Policy In Focus

American Workers Still Lashed To The Productivity Treadmill - Wage Stagnation

In a WSJ piece from five days ago on declining worker productivity, we learned that "productivity growth, though volatile in the short run has slowed markedly since the information technology fueled boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s." Why is this? Why are American workers, though they are underpaid and work more hours than ever before,  still held to unrealistic productivity standards by the economic pooh bahs and gurus?

 Northwestern University's Robert Gordon has posited that the Industrial  Revolution (at the turn of the 19th century) had a vastly bigger effect on productivity, economic growth than the so-called "PC revolution" in the 20th. Think about it! The former meant transition from the impossibly laughable energy of whale oil to kerosene, coal etc., a mammoth jump in the EROEI of available energy sources. The latter transpired over a period of roughly 20 years over which the EROEI of oil actually decreased from 16:1 to roughly 10:1.  Translation: More work over more hours was needed to get the same 'bang for the productivity buck.'

Little wonder wonder that even millions of computers were not able to match the sheer change in productive output that accompanied the Industrial Revolution- and within the scope of the latter's purview we include the internal combustion engine, electricity, and indoor plumbing.  Gordon argues, and he's correct, that by the time the digital revolution got under way- say in the 80s- the big payoff in productivity began shrinking. Meanwhile, the PC-computing payoff basically has "come and gone" dissipating by 2004, when EROEI reached below 10:1.

Energy efficiency continues to decline and yet the econ genii still can't fathom why labor productivity is in decline, nor identify the things gov't can do to slow it. For the worker himself, any such claim is taken as nonsense because he is working harder than ever and merely treading water.

Less noted, but an equally important factor is how productivity is gauged. We are informed (WSJ, op. cit.) that labor productivity is tied to economic growth, i.e.  the GDP. The GDP in turn is dependent by nearly a 75% proportion on consumption. The growth "rate" however seems to be stuck at 2 percent per year and no more. Indeed, in a number of quarters since the credit meltdown we've barely seen 1-1.5% per year. In addition, we've been informed (op. cit.):

"If labor productivity grows an average of 2 % per year average living standards for our children's generation will be twice what we experience... If labor productivity grows an average of 1 % per year, the difference is dramatic. Living standards will take two generations to double."

Is this all bad? And what is the root cause?  A major clue is provided by authors William Wolman and Anne Colamosca.in their (1997) book,  The Judas Economy: The Triumph of Capital and the Betrayal of Work in which we learn that productivity in relation to GDP has increased more than 40% in the interval since 1973 even as wages-salaries have remained almost stagnant.

From this it emerges that labor productivity is ebbing because wages have stagnated so workers have not been able to earn enough to spend - to contribute to the 75 percent consumption part of the GDP equation.  The inherent problem then appears to be tying labor productivity to economic growth. TIME economic columnist Rana Foroohar reinforces this aspect by noting (p. 20, Sept. 5, 2016):

"Nobody us suggesting that productivity isn't rising because individuals aren't working hard enough. On the contrary, most economists believer the American blue and white collar workers alike are firing on all cylinders."

So what the ivory tower economists are really telling us when they bitch about "moderate productivity" or "labor productivity too low" is that it isn't being translated into economic growth. But that elicits the question, why not? The answer again, is because workers are not being paid enough to purchase most of the goods they make.  Unless it's via credit card debt, of course,

Is this poppycock? Let's delve into it further. Half of the jobs in the U.S. currently pay less than $18 per hour, according to Labor Department data. That's about $37,000 a year - assuming someone works full time. Meanwhile, forty percent of jobs pay less than $15.50 per hour according to the Economic Policy Institute. How far do such incomes go?

In the Denver area the average rent is currently $1,350 a month. Not including utilities that would be   over 50 percent of $2620, the monthly income after taxes, for the earlier class of worker named above.  In terms of home ownership., 6 of 10 homes in the Denver area are over $400,000. The annual income needed to qualify for a mortgage for such a home - assuming a 10 percent down payment and 4 percent interest rate - would be $94,000 a year.  This is over two and a half times more income than half the jobs in the U.S. currently pay.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or math whiz to figure out the disposable income available to those with the lower incomes (than $37,000/ yr.) would not entice them to spend on very many things - whether goods (e.g. new HDTVs, cars) or services (dining out). Hence, to avoid overstocked warehouses companies must cut production of goods. This in turn leads to a problem with aggregate demand.

Meanwhile, we learn hourly earnings for private sector workers "increased 3 cents last month to $26.39 an hour."  This is better than more than half U.S. workers but still not sufficient to rent an apartment or get a mortgage for most homes in Denver. Not to mention, Miami, LA and San Francisco.

Aggregate demand is composed of two parts: 1) demand generated by consumers for goods and services, and 2) the demand for investment goods. When the level of aggregate demand is high, both these components are generally equally high, and the levels of production and employment are high. On the other hand, when aggregate demand is low - or even one of the components (e.g. (1)) is very  low, then levels of production  plummet.

Quick and stupid fixes will not solve the situation. Thus, Columbia Business School Dean Glenn Hubbard (the guy who conceived the Bush tax cuts) and his "solution" of "rolling back regulations" (WSJ, op. cit.) will not increase productivity. It will only make more workers ill when they drink degraded water or get exposed to harmful chemicals because regulations (read protections) have been eviscerated.

A more sober and sensible take (ibid.)  is provided by Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer who observes that policies work best when areas are addressed that the private sector neglects. These include: "investment in basic research, infrastructure, schooling and public health"

Imagine how much more productivity could be improved if roads, bridges were properly maintained - existing ones with issues repaired- enhancing manufacturing to retail outlet times. Imagine also how it could be improved if workers' health was improved, causing fewer work days missed.

The only way in the meantime to increase productivity tied to economic growth is for employers to increase worker wages. They can then  achieve greater purchase power, and a higher standard of living and keep those warehouses filled with product.  This is even more critical now given the weakening of the dollar's value. As per John Tamny's WSJ article ('Trump Is Wrong - A Weak Dollar Doesn't Make Strong Economy', Aug. 9, p. A15):

"American workers are paid in dollars. Devaluing the currency erodes their ability to buy the necessities and pleasures of life, whether they're created across the street or on the other side of the world. This obvious truth has long eluded proponents of a weak currency who are prone to limiting their analysis to first stage implications".

In like manner, one could say the obvious truth of hiking worker wages to enhance productivity (as currently defined) has also eluded the proponents of low wages - who are only obsessed with controlling inflation.   But as Mr. Tamny also writes, applicable here as well:

"The reality, seemingly ignored in the discussion of economic growth is that workers produce in order to consume. The making is all about the getting."

But what if the connection is ruptured? Then so also is labor productivity ruptured from GDP and economic growth.  In this case we may have a more objective measure for productivity not based so much on worker consumption.

For now, because wages are so stagnant, workers are again tapping homes for cash (WSJ, 'Tapping Homes for Cash Is Back', Aug. 28, D1) and maxing out with credit card debt.  ("Home equity line originations rose nearly 8 % to almost  $46 billion in the 2nd quarter- the highest level since 2008".)

In addition, too many American workers now appear to have '"settled" meaning they've lowered work satisfaction levels to the bare minimum or close to it (WSJ, 'Expecting Less Jobholders Cheer Up',  Sept. 2-3, p. D1).  Thus we learn:

"A decade of bruising job cuts, minimal raises and lean staffing has led workers to lower their expectations."

Also:

"The average employee today shoulders more risk for retirement and health care than in past generations, and enjoys less job security.."

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has proposed massive corporate tax cuts, i.e. effectively for the CEOs, companies, while trying to make employees believe this will translate to a few extra nickels for them.  
More than ever, Dems need to make the case that American workers need support, and also expose Trump's idiotic tax "reform" plan for what it is - sheer exercise in fantasy.  I will have more to write about this and why his idiocy now presents a "red flag" to the bond market.

Stay tuned!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/peter-dreier/74936/this-labor-day-remember-that-martin-luther-king-s-last-campaign-was-for-workers-rights

Trump: The 'Hannibal Lecter' Of Climate With His Coal E.O.

"Ah, for some nice roast planet, pickled Dems and ....fahvah beans!"

Let us admit right now that about the worst fuel that can be used on this planet is coal. As Bill Nye ('the Science Guy') explained last night on 'The Last Word', it is the stuff of ancient plants that existed millions of years ago. And not just in any era, but a very high CO2 era. Hence, burning coal releases the long sequestered CO2 within it, tipping our planet further toward the runaway greenhouse effect.

Let's also understand that coal mining jobs are decreasing and this is as a result of primarily automation. Coal companies have already cut mining jobs by nearly  two thirds since 1985 - because of factors like automation, as well as the fact that fracking produces a bigger 'bang for the fuel' buck for energy companies.  But don't tell Donald Trump that. Each day it seems this turkey occupying the highest office in the land knows less and less about less and less.

If not why would this odious gasbag issue yet another "executive order" this time to increase coal production, mesmerized by the "clean coal" oxymoron. Which makes about as much sense as "benign VX nerve agent" ... or "President Trump". 

But let's not mince words here, Trump launched an all-out assault on Barack Obama’s climate change legacy on Tuesday with a sweeping executive order that undermines the U.S. commitment to the Paris agreement. The worst aspect? This travesty took place at a ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, where BLOTUS FECES signed an order to trigger a review of the clean power plan, Obama’s flagship policy.

No surprise this move was swiftly condemned by environmentalists and climate scientists as a “dangerous” and “embarrassing” attempt to turn back the clock that would do little to revive the U.S. coal industry while threatening cooperation with major polluters such as China and India. In a speech noted for its stupidity and ignorance before he signed the order, Trump promised “a new era in American energy and production and job creation”.

He actually said: “The action I’m taking today will eliminate federal overreach, restore economic freedom and allow our workers and companies to thrive and compete on a level playing field for the first time in a long time. I’m not just talking eight years.”

Trump promised the measures would be “bringing back our jobs, bringing back our dreams and making America wealthy again”.

Don't believe it, not now or ever! Those jobs aren't coming back no matter what this glorified baboon says. The entire energy dynamic no longer supports coal miners. And no amount of Trump wishing it so or tweeting like a drunken canary will make it so. Even if this buffoon thinks of himself as a canary in a clean coal mine.

Adding insult to felonious injury Trump also pledged a future of “clean coal”, and dismissed “the so-called clean power plan” as “a crushing attack on American industry”. The executive order also lifted a moratorium on the sale of new coal leases on federal land, removes “job killing restrictions” on energy production, and returns power to state level. Of course, with no federal oversight most energy generating states will just go hog wild and try to expand fracking, for example, wherever they can. I expect now that Colorado will probably open fracking wells in or near Rocky Mountain National Park.

All of this amount to a recipe for ensuring this planet is uninhabitable for a future generation, say by 2100. Because if the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima scale bombs are now being unleashed every year in the atmosphere -  comparable to the watts per square meter excess CO2 input from man-made global warming, then Trump's E.O will ensure it hits 500,000 bombs per year equivalent within 8 years.

While the fictional "Hannibal the Cannibal" butchered and ate 36 odd humans over his vile career (usually served with a fine Chianti and fava beans), the EPA estimates that 3,600 more will die each year if Trump's new climate insanity gets implemented.

And yes this nation's wealthy days, at least for the general population, are over. I've gone over the reasons until blue in the face in numerous posts but basically it's because the energy efficiency of our current fuels - that determined by EROEI or energy returned on energy invested- is much less than previously. If you want to talk of a "Peak oil" era we can.

At the heart of these considerations is the concept of net energy (cf. Weisz, in Physics Today, July, 2004, p. 51). Weisz posed this in terms of a concise equation:

Q (net) = Q (PR) – [Q (op)  + E/T]

In effect, for break-even oil one would find Q(net) = 0

For the last 700 billion barrels:    Q(net) = negative quantity =  - Q

Since the rate of energy production (Q (PR) must be debited by the energy consumed for its operation Q(op), and the energy E invested during its “lifetime” T. Thus its Q(PR) will be small in relation to the bracketed quantity.  In a similar vein, Richard Heinberg has used the quantity EROEI or ‘Energy returned on energy invested’ which for oil reached a high of 30 (ratio) in the 70s and is still the highest of all energy sources at around 22.   Thus, the problem in a nutshell is not “running out of oil’ per se but running out of CHEAP oil.

Right now, to fix ideas, we are very nearly at this Q(net) = 0 level with shale oil - which is why once its price falls to much lower than $50 /bl. it makes little economic sense to take it out of the ground. Compared to light sweet crude it is effectively garbage fuel. Bottom line, we need not run out of the stuff before the world economy runs into problems of untold, unspeakable proportions!

Alas, fracking shale oil - drilling into shale rock to get kerogen, or alternatively, natural gas, is in fact evidence of grabbing BREAK EVEN oil NOT high EROEI oil!  It is a sign of defeat and desperation.  not success - just like deep sea drilling for oil.

As Richard Heinberg explains (p. 110) it in his book: 'Snake Oil - How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future':

"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

Get that? Adding it to the total world pool of higher quality oil merely "glutted the market". This is also what's dragging your 401k down right now, though yeah, you will catch kind of a break at the pump. Let's also grasp that this crap oil isn't even used here in the U.S. it's shipped off to places like China - where it fouls their skies and creates health havoc along with the CO2 and SO2 from factories and autos.

Given all of this which transpired yesterday, as Austan Goolsbee pointed out to Lawrence O'Donnell last night, what planet is Trump living on? How can he take a sledge hammer to Obama's climate legacy on the one hand and then expect to find comity and work with Dems on the other? Only a nut, a fruitcake who's 52 cards short of a full deck would fail to process the inherent cognitive dissonance.

Thus we have the latest evidence 'the Donald'  belongs in a face mask like Hannibal Lecter. Especially after Trump declared  some babble the past two days about "working with Democrats" including on infrastructure.   No Dem I know in his right mind would want to work with this orange-haired psycho ape, first because he can't even parse the most basic aspects of legislation and how to pass it. And second, well, because everything he touches turns to shit. Look at his foolish health plan and his claim to repeal Obamacare. If anything the win with health care will embolden Dems to further opposition of this maniac, which is the correct political call.

Sadly too many of his numb nut supporters bought into his con, just like the delusional coal miners did yesterday at his dog and pony show.

After Trump's latest load of fake bravado and posturing,  Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, offered the best take:

“No matter what any elected official says, rescinding commonsense climate change regulations and popular public health protections will not revive the coal industry or put thousands of miners back to work. Market forces, including consumer preferences and technological advancement, are the primary reason for the surge in cleaner forms of energy. In fact, even without the clean power plan, we are likely to hit its emissions targets ahead of schedule – because consumers, cities and businesses will continue leading on public health and climate change even when Washington won’t.”

He is correct up to a point. Unfortunately, the CO2 already accumulated in the atmosphere over the past 100 years will continue wreaking its havoc as the rising CO2 concentrations disclose.  The best we can do now  is at least try to ensure the planet is 50 percent livable -while making plans to adapt to what we can in the other 50 percent.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/29/donald-trumps-grotesque-new-grand-bargain-did-he-learn-nothing-from-the-obama-years/

Another Bloomberg 'Genius" Falls For The Myth That The U.S. Needs More People

Let's put it right out there in the open, that this country is bloody crowded with people. Here in Colorado if you decide to go to the mountains or Rocky Mountain National Park any given weekend, you are doomed to wait hours in long lines on the I-25. If you're in Miami or LA the highways are backed up 16 lanes with traffic almost all the time at peak hours. Here in Colorado Springs. unless you make reservations for most places - even 'Mom n Pop' cafes- you're likely to be out of luck. And woe betide you if you have to use an ER, you may wait for hours.

SO on basic observation the claim this country needs more people is bollocks. But here again, the economic eggheads who think they know better than anyone else, are convinced Americans need to make more babies given our decline in birthrate.  The latest one to make this argument is Bloomberg resident columnist Stephen Mihm whose piece 'Baby Bust!'  appeared in The Denver Post (front page Sunday 'Perspective', Jan. 8 )  He writes:

"Shortly before Christmas, the U.S. Census Bureau put some coal in the nation’s holiday stocking. It released data highlighting a worrisome trend: The population grew a subdued 0.7 percent, the lowest rate of growth since the Great Depression years of 1936 and 1937. Declines in the birthrate and the slowing pace of immigration are to blame.

Ask an economist why this matters, and you’ll get a welter of contradictory answers, as the relationship between population growth and economic expansion is a vexed and controversial subject. But if you sift through the historical data on the subject, it’s hard to deny that the demographic slowdown, should it continue, likely puts a damper on future economic growth."

Okay, two quick points to make at the outset. If the central argument is that the economy "needs more people" - which appears to be the case- then Mihm has already admitted (1st paragraph) that the cause need not be low birthrate, but  rather slowing immigration. This elides into another point I've made consistently in these economic arguments: that the world as a whole is overpopulated but any given nation per se may not be overpopulated. Thus, the world has more than ample people, but with different densities in different nations, regions. Hence, less densely populated places can make up for any perceived economic consequences by simply allowing more immigrants into their nations, while not increasing global population. I know this isn't popular with all the Reich wing populist nuts like Le Pen and Trump, but there it is. THAT is what you're going to have to do in an already overpopulated world.

In the OECD nations right now there are well over 230 m unemployed thanks to a combination of reasons including corporate restructuring, automation - and offloading jobs to cheaper nations.  So rather than add to the world's population burden (and the attendant environmental problems)  why not put these current unemployed back to work wherever needed? Make them 'citizen workers of the world' - since the whole market impetus is to globalization anyway.

Second, Mihm - like most of his economist brethren - misses the mark believing population is the major factor impacting economic growth. No, it is not. As I've noted before (Sept. 20, 2013), it is the decreasing energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of fuel sources. In other words, our energy-dependent civilization is becoming ever more impoverished as the efficiency of the energy to run it diminishes over time. Essentially, a nation which had become addicted to energy delivering 20 to 30 or even 40 times as much energy as it cost to extract, now faces a future with energy return 5 to 8  times less. This spells monetary-economic disaster because at the end of the day it is energy which  determines wealth of nations- money is only a medium to represent it.

A report issued by the London investment firm Tullet Prebon as recently as five years ago, and circulated via 'Strategy Insight' newsletter warned:

"For 2020, our projected EROEI of 11.5 to 1 is not as catastrophic as 5: 1 but would nevertheless mean that the share of GDP absorbed by energy costs would have escalated to 9.6% from about 6.7% today. Our projections further suggest energy costs would absorb as much as 15% of GDP (at an EROEI of 7.7 to 1)  by 2030."

This shows the trend in a nutshell and it has nothing to do with population, only that increasing it globally would make matters worse because all those added people would require much more energy to live, including for fuel, food cultivation, transport etc.. And 2b more are expected by 2030.

Again, this shows the problem is not too few people but too many and the core sane solution is to redistribute them for economic maximization. This as opposed to insisting all the more developed nations have more babies.  Not to sound too hyperbolic, but that's kind of like tossing cans of gasoline on a slow burning fire.

We don't need it. But don't try to tell that to these economists! Mihm goes on to admit, however:

"these declines in the birthrate — and the larger rate of population growth — weren’t bad news in and of themselves; if anything, they seem to have been quite positive, going hand in hand with dramatic economic growth."

Well, this is not really surprising given that it costs a hell of a lot to raise a kid from birth  As per a Denver Post Business story ('Discovering What It Costs To Raise A Child') from Jan. 3rd, 2013 (p. 5K) we learn an "average middle class family will need $245, 340 over 18 years, for a child born in 2013"(From a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 'Cost of Raising A Child' report).   And this is bound to be more expensive in the future as medical expenses will rise, and health care is much more difficult to afford (thanks to the GOP).

That chunk of moola, nearly a quarter million or what each retiree needs to cover medical expenses Medicare doesn't,  includes: "diapers, formula, child care, baby furnishings, new clothes every year, electronic computers, smart phones...and other gear and seemingly don't end when the young one finds a job".

So it's no wonder economic growth would rise if that albatross was removed from many couples' necks.  Additionally,  recall this pullback is being done in an energy environment which is regressing in terms of efficiency.  Northwestern University's Robert Gordon has posited that the Industrial  Revolution (at the turn of the 19th century) had a vastly bigger effect on productivity, economic growth than the so-called "PC revolution" in the 20th. Think about it! The former meant a transition from the impossibly laughable energy of whale oil to kerosene, coal etc., a mammoth jump in the EROEI of available energy sources. The latter transpired over a period of roughly 20 years, over which the EROEI of oil actually decreased from 16:1 to roughly 12:1. So no wonder that even millions of computers were not able to match the sheer change in productive output that accompanied the Industrial Revolution- and within the scope of the latter's purview we include the internal combustion engine, electricity, and indoor plumbing.

Gordon argues, and he's correct, that by the time the digital revolution got under way- say in the 80s- the big payoff in productivity began shrinking. Meanwhile, the PC-computing payoff basically has "come and gone" dissipating by 2004, when EROEI reached below 10:1 and fracking began as a last desperate effort to snare the vestigial ""riches" of oil - along with deep sea drilling.

We come back again to Mihm's reliance on Canadian economist Clarence Barber's study tying economic growth to a nation's population:

"In theory, immigration might have picked up the slack. While Barber didn’t address this in his study, it’s worth noting that Congress put drastic curbs on inflows of people in 1924. That year, approximately 706,000 immigrants legally entered the country. The number dropped precipitously the following year, and by 1933, the number had fallen to 23,000, a decline of almost 97 percent.
How these demographic declines set the stage for the Great Depression is hard to know with certainty, but Barber believed that the decline in birthrates among native-born Americans was sufficient to set the stage for declines in aggregate demand."

But again, I can make the symmetric argument that Barber was remiss in not factoring immigration into his work. And if this is so, then the claimed drop-offs in aggregate demand are a function of labor inputs, numbers not native birth rates.  I can vouch for my own maternal grandfather who came to the U.S. from Croatia in 1914 and had his own corner grocery operating in Depression-era Milwaukee by the mid 1920s. His business did so well he could help many native born Americans adversely affected. Hence, one cannot and must not dismiss the role of immigration, particularly in an already overpopulated world.

The solution for nations perceived to be underpopulated, then,  is to allow a larger influx of foreign workers.  To be sure, I am not elated about adding any more people to this country, because I think 300-plus million is more than enough. We already risk a large surplus labor force which can drag down pay or at least keep it stagnant. But ...if the choice is between Americans having many more babies, and allowing in more immigrants to try to enhance economic growth - I am definitely in favor of the latter!

The truth?  Increased populations only assist Neoliberal  (or conservative - like the Koch bros.) elites who can afford to live apart - in their gated enclaves- but who can profit handsomely by the vast surplus labor pools created. As investors, or even owners,  they can basically bid down wages and benefits to whatever lowball number they want, and if the peons.....errr  workers.....don't like it....they can tell them they will send the jobs to China.  Or, automate them.

In terms of providing health care to the people already residing in the U.S. this is a big deal. There is already a projected physician shortage across all specialties and at least the immigrant physicians - say from India, Jamaica, Iran etc., had been making the shortage manageable. Now, with idiot Trump's new "EO" this may be truncated, even as he's altered his "bad guys" list from 7 nations to 6 - already showing it was contrived to begin with. (Apart from which a Dept. Of Homeland Security Report from a week or so ago stated clearly no attacks of any kind came from any of those 7 nations.)

In addition, the fact that the new GOP health care plan wants to pull the rug out from underneath families shows this is not the time to have more kids. What support - health wise- will you get,  especially if your child has autism, muscular dystrophy or some other condition that demands extraordinary  medical expense?  The answer is none. So the decision not to have children  is rational in this hostile environment. One in which the majority R -party is more exercised and outraged about the unborn than protecting the health of the already born.

Oh, and protecting their financial health too while also not emulating  Jacob Chaffetz- who actually suggested if people want to afford their new Reepo health care they should not buy that new I-phone. Evidently, this monkey isn't aware that a typical premium for health care now costs $18,000 a year, compared to a few hundred bucks for an I-phone. (With blabber like this, Chaffetz is ripe for a takedown by Katherine Allen, a physician from Salt Lake City now planning to run against him.)

By the end of his piece, Mihm seems to catch a glimmer of realism but then that recedes as he writes::

"data released by the real estate firm Trulia last week indicates that the number of young people living with their parents (or siblings) recently hit levels not seen since 1940. That statistic suggests that a baby boom isn’t likely, never mind a boom in consumption fueled by the formation of new households.

But at least the U.S. still has immigration, right? Perhaps not: President-elect Donald Trump has been vocal about his opposition to illegal immigration, but since the election, he has started to send signals that he intends to crack down on legal immigration, too. If that happens, only a homemade baby boom will save us from further decline in the Trump years."

But alas, as I showed, no such "baby boom" will save us because it merely means more biologic energy "sinks" to draw on ever diminishing EROEI energy sources. In addition,  it will massively add to the debt of any families that do have more kids - given their atrocious expense- and in an environment where Repukes will be slicing all possible benefits (including healthcare) to the working and middle classes.

All it will do is speed our nation's accelerating decline, especially given the upside down economics of the Trumpites.