Not only at Daimler, Volkswagen and others, but elsewhere the working people have to fear for their jobs after Brussels and Berlin have declared war on Germany’s most important industry. Now the automotive supply chain is also being hard hit.
Berlin, Brussels tighten the screws
The value-adding industry has already been badly shaken by the exaggerated, simply senseless corona measures of the Merkel IV government. Now the Brussels EU government (including former German minister Ursula von der Leyen) are tightening the screws even more as they love to ban internal combustion engines completely. The EU has just tightened the rules for limiting CO2 emissions. Not only the well-known car manufacturers are under pressure, but also their suppliers, hardly known by name, such as Mahle from Stuttgart.
Mass job losses
The globally producing parts manufacturer still has around 12,000 employees in Germany (72,000 globally). In the country, 2,000 workers are expected to lose their jobs, globally 7,600, and this despite a partial switch to e-car parts. It’s not enough, says a works council member, because there is no concept for the domestic combustion engine factories to convert over to electrical parts.
In this blog post we reproduce the Abstract, Policy Implications and Conclusions and parts of the Introduction, Results and Discussion. We encourage you to read the entire paper.
Abstract: This paper tests the validity of the FUND model’s energy impact functions, and the hypothesis that global warming of 2 °C or more above pre-industrial times would negatively impact the global economy. Empirical data of energy expenditure and average temperatures of the US states and census divisions are compared with projections using the energy impact functions with non-temperature drivers held constant at their 2010 values. The empirical data indicates that energy expenditure decreases as temperatures increase, suggesting that global warming, by itself, may reduce US energy expenditure and thereby have a positive impact on US economic growth. These findings are then compared with FUND energy impact projections for the world at 3 °C of global warming from 2000. The comparisons suggest that warming, by itself, may reduce global energy consumption. If these findings are correct, and if FUND projections for the non-energy impact sectors are valid, 3 °C of global warming from 2000 would increase global economic growth. In this case, the hypothesis is false and policies to reduce global warming are detrimental to the global economy. We recommend the FUND energy impact functions be modified and recalibrated against best available empirical data. Our analysis and conclusions warrant further investigation.
In the first part of a new video series, I give an outline of Chapter One of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, which covers environmental economics. I explain the role of economics in protecting the environment. In a nutshell, it’s this: economic prosperity gives humans the time to care about the environment. Otherwise it’s just a day-to-day battle for survival.
…
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels (principally coal, oil, and natural gas) by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs). It is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series and, like the preceding volumes, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
…
Additional background information about Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels is available at these links:
Message from the Coauthors (2-page PDF)
About the Coauthors (1-page PDF)
About NIPCC (1-page PDF)
Impact of Fossil Fuels on Human Health (full-color graphic, PDF)
Complete background package (5-page PDF)
by Bjorn Lomborg, October 10, 2018 in ClimateChangeDispatch
…
The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions. Fossil fuels provide cheap, efficient power, whereas green energy remains mostly uncompetitive.
Switching to more expensive, less efficient technology slows development. In poor nations that means fewer people lifted out of poverty.
In rich ones, it means the most vulnerable are hit by higher energy bills.
The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe.
Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years.
Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented.
Selon les prévisions annoncées dans l’édition d’octobre du Commodity Markets Outlook, les prix des produits énergétiques (pétrole, gaz naturel et charbon) progresseront seulement de 4 % en 2018, après l’envolée de 28 % de cette année.
La géologie, une science plus que passionnante … et diverse
