I graphed some data from the Earth Policy Institute. This chart is from data in the table Global Average Temperature 1880-2008. I think the data shows a long term trend of increasing temperatures across the globe:
However, when you hear someone say there’s been a decline over the past 10 years, they are being truthful but misleading. Here is the data they are looking at (1998-2008) which certainly looks like a decline:
This graph uses the same data but 1998 happens to be one of the warmest years on record. Those 10 years are the last two peaks in the 130 year graph.
Category: Politics
Global warming a political winner?
I was arguing with someone about global warming and one of his claims was that global warming is a political winner for the democratic party. I don’t think so. As a measure, here is a poll from CNN just before the election showing what people think is important. Environment and/or global warming? Not on the list:
Unemployment rate
Pick your favorite, worst recession and compare with how we are doing now. There are even predictions that unemployment may reach 12%.
Unemployment is always a relative thing but this chart looks at employment as a percentage of the total work force. From Brad DeLong:
Gold bugs unite!
Here’s one of those info-graphics to get all the gold bugs in a dizzy:
Taxes on the top 1%
From Conor Clarke is this chart plotting the effective federal tax rate of the upper 1%.
First off, never trust a chart that doesn’t start at 0 but anyway. What’s interesting is that this is the effective rate being paid (not the marginal rate).
Here’s some related information that shows how income has grown for the wealthy. This is also the chart that makes a great argument that income inequality isn’t representative of an educational gap. Presumably, the top 10% have all received comparable educations — yet the top 1%’s income has grown even more.
And in the most recent past, the very highest earners did very well indeed, capturing almost three-quarters of total income growth in the economic expansion of 2002 to 2006, while the remaining 99 percent of the U.S. population split among themselves the final 25 percent of the increase.
Unemployment post-recession
This graph has been making the rounds (I got it from Barry Ritholtz’s). It shows the percentage change in unemployment (Y-axis) and the months since the official start of the recession.
What’s particularly dramatic about this is employment continues to worsen and over a much longer period of time than past recessions. E.g. this recession is going to be deeper and longer than past ones.
What I don’t like about this chart is that it is the percentage change in a rate. For example, the unemployment in 1960 was ~6%. A 50% increase brings it up to 9%. In 2007, unemployment was 4.5%. A 100% increase brings it up to 9%, too.
Cash-for-Clunkers
It looks like Cash-for-Clunkers has passed. I could get $4,500. The way it’s supposed to work is you give your old car to the dealer and the dealer discounts the price of the car. I think the car is supposed to be junked so it’s not clear there’s any trade in value.
Here are some notes:
In a nutshell, your vehicle qualifies for trade-in credit if:
- It is at most 25 years old.
- It gets 18 miles a gallon or less.
- It is drivable.
- It is registered.
- It has been insured for the past year.
You can find out what gas mileage your car or truck should get here.
I’m not sure my car qualifies! According to the web site my car gets 19mph! I don’t believe it!
‘Cash for Clunkers’ Passes House
So the cash for clunkers is getting closer. It passed in the House:
In addition to having stricter fuel economy requirements, the Senate bill contains three major differences. The first is the maximum fuel economy of the trade-in vehicles, which is 17 miles a gallon. The second is there are three voucher amounts ($2,500 to buy a new car that gets at least seven miles a gallon more, $3,500 for 10 m.p.g. more and $4,500 for 13 m.p.g. more). Finally, the Senate bill also offers a provision for buying a used car.
So maybe that new car smell isn’t so far away. Here’s a comparison of the House and Senate version of the bill.
The estimate is that it’ll increase auto sales by 625,000. It’ll work for me!
That new car smell
I’m closely keeping track of that cash-for-clunkers program. It sounds like the Senate is close to approving a plan that provides a $3,500 subsidy for trading in an old gas guzzler for a more efficient car!
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a plan and the Senate is likely to do the same this week. It looks like the plan would provide a $3500 subsidy to anyone trading in a car getting less than 18 miles per gallon as long as there is at least a 4-mpg improvement. (I think I got yardage on my old car, not mileage.) A 10-mpg improvement would get you another $1000.
Closer to a new car?
It’s one step closer to happening! Getting a new car based on a trade in might actually happen. It hasn’t passed the House yet (much less the Senate) but the leadership of both parties agree on doing it.
From House Reaches a Deal on ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Program:
Under the House plan, a car trade-in that improves fuel efficiency by at least 10 miles per gallon would qualify for a $4,500 voucher, as would the trade-in of a small truck that improves efficiency by 5 miles per gallon. The new vehicle must have a minimum fuel efficiency rating of 22 miles per gallon for cars and 18 miles per gallon for small trucks.
Pete Ware 