2100 AD: Civilization Ends. Cockroaches and Appliance Industry Fine.
Submitted by advisor on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 9:44am.
The ABC News special "Earth 2100", broadcast June 2, predicted a possible future based on the converging disasters of Global Warming, Population Increase, Extinction, and Mattress Label Removal. We are happy to report that the Major Appliance Industry was not mentioned, and therefore is expected to pull through the coming dystopia in remarkably good shape. This is particularly good news for Philips and their recent Saeco acquisition (manufacturer of espresso machines). Most forecasters expect the post-apocalypse fight for survival and resulting sleeplessness will drive an explosive growth in sales of caffeine, caffeinated products and energy drinks such and Red Bull.
INVITATION TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS WARMING
We at ApplianceAdvisor.com have for some time hoped to find Green House Warming skeptics in our industry to debate the issue, and discuss what our industry should or should not do in response. We had high hopes for "Old Jar Head", but evidently he is one US Marine not interested in defending his position.
How about you? We know you have an opinion, just look at the polling.
Interested in a friendly, informational, non-political discussion about "Warming" and what our industry should do about it.......if anything?
Off Topic?
Hate to break up the high brow political discussion with this question, but whether you believe in the human affect on global warming or not, it is hard to ignore the business opportunity this presents. Right?
If our politicians could manage, imagine laws that require that everything sold must meet higher energy standards, governement dollars for researching new e-technology, real tax breaks for manufacturers that can meet the new standards and can do it here in the U.S.! Increased tariffs on cheap inefficient imports. Laws requiring high efficiency appliances for ALL new construction to drive the demand side. Rebates for consumers to relieve the pain in the short term. Heck, if they could give even a fraction of what these loser car companies are getting to the appliance industry, imagine what we could do... and the AMERICANS that would be doing it. We should be pushing for MORE regulation, more incentives from Big Bro, and investment in our "green technologies" too and not fighting them.
I know there are down sides to this too. It will be a real survival of the fittest moment as U.S. manufacturers complain about the strain on R&D and workers that stricter requirements bring. Consumers moan and wail at higher appliance costs (volumes suffer a bit?). Why should government meddle in this too, right?
But as an industry wouldn't we stand to gain more? Politics and science in this case are a moot point. Let's move past devisive issues and on to the solutions that benefit the planet and the economy.
Right on topic
Here Here! An idea we can all get behind. Can we all get behind this idea? What do you think of creating an online petition suggesting, "both more rational and more stringent environmental regulation be enacted as soon as possible to reduce our nations dependence on all forms of fossil fuels, and imported energy blah blah blah, that incentives be increased to accelerate the change over to more efficient appliances, and further that individuals from the industry be included in formulating and commenting upon said regulations".
I would go further to include tariffs........but.......I do not believe that has a future.
Advisor of Oz !
Well certainly ideogically that would be a great idea. We would have to eliminate compromising at "somewhere in the middle" to avoid a watered down version which always seems to come out of a committee. Certainly I don't like government telling us what to do but to this point business itself has been shortsighted and irresponsible in handling most of their own problems so I am with you on this.Get the petition rolling.
Told what to do...
Certainly no one likes "being told what to do". I think this has to be presented differently. Currently there are no stiff penalties for making energy wasters, and we lack true incentives to shift our paradigm. I would rather the government balance "telling us what to do" penalties with the "please change our appliance world" incentives. You are also right that a watered down version does no good. But what organization in the world is large and powerful enough to truly shift the markets of the U.S. Certainly the manufactureres will not simply change on there own. Why should they? To earn more meaningless logos to stick on thier machines? Why risk the current low profit levels for a niche marketing campaign? Consumers can not unite long enough to even figure out which alternative fuel they really want (see discussion below). Only the U.S. governement has the ability and the right to force our industry and our population to change. Let's just hope they can make it a world in which appliance makers produce products people want, produce them profitably, and continue to employ Americans.
Oh No.
So you think the government knows what is best for all of us ? I am disappointed in that thought process. Generally an educated work force that has younger people moving into responsible positions will help.We have done a good job of educating the younger crowd on the environment. The government with it's myopic behavior will make it complicated with little improvement but with the right intentions. It needs to be a dual effort with both government and industry.I understand your concern that business won't solve this because business has done a lousy job both morally and ethically with our economy and their greed. Business leaders of today are morally bankrupt for the most part.
We are discussing
We are discussing efficiency, and certainly there is no argument that "more efficient" is better than "less efficient", even if it's the government who is telling us this. The suggestions isn't that government is picking winners or losers. It would be applying costs to energy, it could be creating disincentives for appliances which do not meet some defined standard of efficiency, or simply offer incentives for consumers acquiring more efficient appliances.
Disincentives ?
Disincentives prove or fix nothing. It creates a tax if you will.That tax is passed along to the consumer and nothing is ever fixed because why should the company care ? Doesn't cost them a dime. Strong measures to force the issue need to be in place. By applying disincentives you are accepting failure. This has to be a tough issue with no compromise once a well thought out plan is established. We need a George W. Bush attitude on this one.
Theory
There is a theory that the Europeans adhear to. Tax the wazoo out of everything, but avoid outright bans. When you apply a carbon tax to reduce energy use, AND apply a sales tax on energy inefficient goods AND incentives for the purchase of energy efficient goods you have accomplished more than an outright ban could. You have paid for the entire program on the backs of the wealthy who want what they want, accelerated the retirement of all the old stuff, while keeping energy efficiency in the minds of consumers, when buying but also when using appliances.
Some people want a Hummer. Let them have their Hummer.
Theory 2
First of all Americans are not Europeans. Many of us have European ancestors but we hardly think like the people in Europe.Your theory begs of an elitist society. I thought we were looking to help reduce carbon emissions for the prevention of global warming ? That tends to be the problem. We have a plan to help and then we have to weaken it for the folks who have no desire to fix anything and have enough money to do anything. If we need to fix a problem which many leftists blame on America ,then develop a plan and have the fortitude to see it through.Your tax theory is like dilluting milk with water.Let's address the real issue oh Wizard.I personally think the problem is not so much what we exhale as it is for more taxes by the likes of you for giveaway programs.En Garde'. Save the middle class ,lower taxes !!!! This was not a direct attack on you but on the system itself. I agree with you for the most part ,except for the tax on usage.
Well, as Usual, I've got a Different Opinion ...
I have long been an advocate of "Green" ideology going back to sophomore year in high school when I founded a club called "New Age" ... standing for "Never Ending Ware Against Garbage in our Environment" ... which made me a pioneer in recycling @ a time when it was not so popular to be an activist unless it was against the Vietnam War ...
Since then I have continued my dedication to recycling and conservation of the earth's good bounties ... and ... I firmly believe that "green" appliances which conserve energy, water, and leave only recyclable refuse, are the best selections for just about anyone and everyone !!!
I am an advocate of solar, wind, and other alternative energies like our brethren in South America have embraced ... unfortunately for some though, I have philosophical problems with Al Gore and his scare tactics about global warming ... (especially when he flies in a Lear Jet to go to the speaking engagements ... the most fuel inefficient way to travel !!!) I don't totally reject it, so since I don't have much respect for him, I have a problem with anything which he purports as gospel as being just another knee-jerk reaction ...
America needs to embrace energy sources which will make us independent of oil ... and every time I fly to the west coast I see all that vast land away from anyone where nuclear power could be utilized and fed to the populace with the equivalent of a giant extension cord !!! I know it sounds simple-minded but isn't it better than what we have now ??? France does it successfully ... why can't we ... especially with so much more un-developable land masses ???
So, yes ... truly energy & water efficient appliances are, and should be always offered ... that's why I like "convection" and other appliances which are "outside-the box" ... I even routinely try to convince clients that a good quality grille with a side-burner is a good choice for summer "boiling" like for crabs, corn, etc. so they don't deposit BTU's which they then want their A/C to vacate ... cook it outside and save the energy !!!
Enlightened
I am very impressed that there are so many erudite members of our trade with such confident expertise on so many of the scientific, environmental and social issues of the day. Who knew? I thought most us were just genetically programmed to move shiny domestic steel things in big cardboard boxes and to wear blinders when it came to just about anything else. Does this mean if I don't start reading a lot of science journals and DVR'ing PBS immediately, I'll lose all touch with Appliance Industy reality?
Yes
Many of us are well educated with some depth to our personality. We understand the challenges we all face quite well thank you.We do take the time to think through issues and look at both sides of an issue. We also applaud the Advisor for their tenacity in making the world a cleaner place.Most of us have an independent thought process that fits well.
Advisor Response II
Bob, if you only knew what kind of true believing nut I am......then again maybe you do.
It's never a good idea to attach the message with the messenger, don't personalize, though I can see the attraction. I'm on your green appliance band wagon. Let's build the wind farms and the solar farms and the wave farms.......though let's stop the corn farms......but maybe that's a different conversation.
Environmentalists love the term "Energy Independence" since there's something for everyone, everyone can agree on it, and its dripping with patriotism. Yum. In reality though, E.I. is kicking the PR problem of educating the voters, way down the street. Simultaneously, there's all this scientific goo out there, like that referenced and responded to below, just muddying up the waters. There are 38 climate flavors on the internet, each of which seems like an opinion of equal standing with all the others. That is just not the case. The folks who do this for a living, by overwhelming majority, say its real. Aren't we all a bit full of ourselves, somewhat overestimating our skills in the meteorologic-arts, a tad arrogant, as appliance experts to be dabbling in their field?
Here's a list of scientific organizations both dissenting and supporting the contention that green house warming is man-made. I found it funny that since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists revised their statement of dissent in 2007, there are no other scientific organizations of national or international standing left dissenting.
Here is a short interesting piece from Canada's Sierra Club with the Ten popular myths about climate change. (why don't those people get their own mountain range!)
Though we are not that far apart, you accept evolutionary changes, while I want a revolution, with the torches and the pitch forks and the cold beer and popcorn.
Curious ...
I'm curious, Mate ... why " ... let's stop the corn farms ..." ???
Ethanol
Corn derived ethanol uses more fossil fuel to make than it replaces in the tank. It's a loser but the Ethanol industry is a winner in the ways of DC. Corn derived ethanol has only one real purpose, and that's to replace MTBE as a gasoline oxygenate, but that's just 2% compared to the ethanol industry's goal of 10% as a gasoline substitute. Corn is also quite nasty as a cattle feed (but that's another subject).
To eat? I love it.
OK ...
Thanks for the info ... you provided my learning experience for the day !!!
Apple Pie is Next
Well no more corn flakes. Could apple pie be next ? Definitely feel colder already and the sky is clearer here in California.My head is steaming from eating so much meat. Here comes the EPA to get me !
corn
Did I say don't eat corn? I don't think I said that. Please eat corn. I said don't feed corn to your car. That would be stupid, however you do it.
Feeding corn to cows is just not good for cows. Cows were designed for grass not corn. Corn is too rich for them, gives them intestinal and stomach ailments cured with an electrified spike to the head. There's more to this, but feel free to Google it.
Corn 2
What about is "corn fed white boys" who play football ? Now say grass fed ? I do agree about the corn in the car ,lousy idea and the cows should eat grass as it is healthy for them compared to corn.
Corn 3
Not too sure how the color on the outside effects the business on the inside, but if diet is primarily corn, probably same problem as with cows. Lots o' methane. Grass is not very good for people, who require a richer diet to make up for the shorter digestive cycle.
We really are verging on the Bath side of Kitchen and Bath....and that is a place we really shouldn't be.
Corn 4
Well since I eat corn fed beef and corn I must be a polluter,but it sure is fun oh wise ones. It helps my digestive track. Anyone I know who says they eat "healthy" have a cold or the flu half of the time and the other half complain about headaches. Back to the global warming issue.
You Remind Me ...
... of those PC folks who demonize veal ... which, as an accomplished chef, I admit, is my favourite meat !!!
Not to side-track the conversation, mind you ... so please don't let it do so ... it is quite informative and edifying
Jeeze Bob
How exactly did we get into a conversation on cow Pro-Life? Eat you're veal, smoke, ride your motorcycle without a helmet, take controlled substances, have at it.
I didn't ...
... and I was sure to ask that no one else digressed into my comments ... but your ideas on smoking, helmets, & CDS would make for a great Libertarian conversation topic ... but only with your approval ...
Wow
Bob..The advisor staff is frustrated because we have good arguments.
Sham Wow
Not really frustrated.....more exhausted by the political posturing, non-plussed by the reliance on "common sense" and the lack of actual data, and lamenting the general level of debate.
Words, and more words, but not 2 facts to rub together. Only Cohiba dug down to find information to support his contention.
Now that you mention it, you may be right: "frustrated".
Sham-Wow-Wow
Digging too deep confuses the issue. You should start a scientific blog to dig deep. The effects on the appliance business I recently stated. Political posturing ? Well it seems like every issue people think is tainted with politics. I just don't believe in the man made theory that we are creating global warming. Does that mean I can't be a democrat ? Does that mean each person must follow some stupid party line for all issues ? That would be short sighted. The trouble with some is if you don't agree with them that becomes a mortal sin. The world does not work that way. Did you watch 'How the Earth was Made' on the History Channell today ? Pretty good data.There has been a clear cycle of changes in our atmosphere going back forever.
Global Warming
I'll start the debate if Jarhead wants to remain silent.
In my view the debate is not about Global Warming, which is documented at +0.74 C degrees during the period 1905-2005. The real debate is whether or not Global Warming is the result of increased greenhouse gases due to industrialization and human impact on the environment. The case for CO2 & human cause was made by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a collection of scientists who owed their incomes to the governments that commissioned their study. They documented the .074 degree C change in climate and claimed it to be the most dramatic increase in temperature over the past 400 years. They blamed the increase on increased CO2 emissions in large part due to a study of mature growth pine trees in elevations over 5,000 feet in the California - Nevada Sierra mountains. Rapid growth of these trees, as evidenced by tree rings made the case for increased CO2 at higher altitudes (since mature trees grow with increased CO2). However, their study failed to blame the biggest increase in 400 years on the end of the Little Ice Age (which coincided roughly at about the beginning of this period study)
The contrary view is made by the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) which documented both the Medievil Warming Period (10th - 14th Centuries) and the subsequent Little Ice Age (16th - 19th Century). Climate change during these two period was also dramatic and absent the impact of industrialization. In fact, evidence suggests that the average temperature during the Medievil Warming was 2 - 3 degrees warmer than what we experience today. The NIPCC report, which was signed by 31,478 scientists stated there is no scientific evidence to suggest that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases has or will cause catostrophic heating of th Earth's atmosphere.
My own middle of the road view (which is not unusual for me) is that there has been increases in greenhouses gases and there is global warming. However, I don't believe the two are cause & effect, but rather that man's release of greenhouse gases has contributed to the increase in temperature, rather than having caused it.
Global Warming
I'll agree with this. The most extensive studies have pointed to the warming being more cyclical than anything else, though the point was made in one of them that while most of the scientists agreed that it was cyclical none of them thought that pumping the pollutants into the atmosphere at the current rate was a good idea. That being said I keep rooting for a legitimate wave of green appliances (as opposed to marketing existing systems as green) just for the sake of having a new selling spree that will make front load laundry look like peanuts.
Global Climate Change
Here is a subject that so far we are on the same page. I would consider myself an environmentalist of the "Fox News" crowd. I believe in conservation because it is the right thing to do. I don't believe there are facts to support a sustained global warming trend and I (we) are not alone in that. Even the most hard core of the global warming crowd are calling it "climate change" now instead of global warming that way no matter what happens they are covered. Most people involved heavily in this debate are in it for the money and the money alone. Using Stallion's example of Al Gore: if he were truly concerned about the climate and our affect on it he would live in a normal sized home and fly commercial to wherever he needed to go instead of taking his private jet. Some of the extreme are more bent on destroying the economy and corportations of the United States then they are on saving the planet - a prime example is the issues California is dealing with. They need to find alternative sources of energy but their environmentalists are not allowing them to put up windmills (they don't look nice) or solar panels (the poor tortoise in the Mojave Desert might not like them). If they believed it was the end of the world couldn't we possibly survive without a tortoise (and I truly believe the tortoise would be fine). Thanks guys for sticking with the facts. Great input Cohiba. It is important to conserve but we don't need to destroy our entire economy over a newly established religion.
In Agreement
The staff at Advisor will probably have differing opinions from us. I think though that common sense tells us that the earth can sustain quite a bit from us and that we are going through a normal pattern. We obviously will not win a nobel prize nor make millions on a movie though. I guess we could if we bashed the establishment in America for doing everything wrong all these years.Has there been an effort beyond superficial to talk to China and Russia to get them involved. Green is good though. I don't like red.I have a cousin who is a physicist who thinks the sky is falling and is an apologist for all of us in the same vein as Gore. The enormity of the earth transcends the damage or cycle being established right now to blame us solely. Can't seem to convince my learned cousin though. Let's hear a good argument as to why it is all our fault.
Good Argument
If you establish a good argument as to why it is all our fault than you would know what the answer is. Until all is known their is no answer
My Point Exactly
That is my point . Depending on their political belief scientists are all over the map on the major cause of global warming. A republican generally will say it is natural while a democrat will say it is man made. Hard to believe. Just like questioning a supreme court nominee. They all will "follow the law". Funny that the votes are usually 5 to 4. Is the law that confusing ? For this discussion is science that confusing ? All of this conversation is good but I like to eat meat , I like fast cars and I do eat corn advisor. We develop land like crazy and then when people move in we tell them to conserve. This is a crazy world. Green appliances will be good but we as Americans should not feel guilty. Gore does enough of that for all of us. So for those who blame people for global warming ,what should we do that will affect the short term fix since you think the sky will fall sooner rather than later. Reading scientific data is like reading supreme court decisions all based on political belief. Don't give me the dumb argument to stop eating meat. Gore and his following would help if they stopped smoking the funny stuff. This argument is mostly politically tilted no matter who speaks.Improve cars ? Improve appliances ? ,don't pollute the water ? Of course.
Not Exactly
Saying that scientists are "all over the map" on this is not true. The scientific division is not 5/4. It's more like 9.5/0.5.
To discuss Gore is to take cover by blaming the messenger, someone you don't like. But that's not an argument, it's more of a smoke screen. The argument is the data, and a consideration of the particular bias's of those who analyze the data. Gore is reporting the news, not making the news.
You also ask, what do we do if this real, but that question is answered by regulation such as from the DOE on appliance efficiency, and the market in a carbon-taxed business environment. If that means less meat on your plate, or smaller cars in your driveway, or a house with public transportation, OR NOT, that is your decision. When smoking was banned in public places, some quit, some just lived with the added hardship.
10 doctors can see the same patient with a breathing issue. There won't be 10 opinions, but there likely will be more than 1. If 7 opinions are for lung cancer, wouldn't you have to at least seriously consider the possibility that you have lung cancer, and to understand the basis for their diagnosis? What if it's 9 doctors?
That 10th doctor could be right, but jeeze, wouldn't you quit smoking anyway.
Polish the Prius
The opinions are more scattered than you think. It depends on what you ask. If you ask them do we have global warming ?, 99.5% will agree . The disagreement comes from what is causing the warming. You are very good at using the comments and numbers to your benefit but it doesn't work that way with us moderates. As for Gore , I like a lot of what he stands for. Just not this issue.We , none of us have ever lived through global warming but the core testing done with ice is accurate and again I think it is a more normal fluctuation of the earth which is much more powerful and immense than we think. I just don't think we have that much power to affect the patterns that are currently evolving. If we stopped everything today , it will not stop global warming. What do you say about that ? Make sure that you use a green cleaner when polishing that hybrid.
Advisor Response
I thought you guys were going to be a harder group.
Cohiba believes that the actions of man are contributing to Earth's warming but that warming is not man-initiated. The petition he references is from the Oregon Institute. There are significant problems with the petition and the Report which was distributed with the petition. Just a few of the problems:
Much of the above is quoted directly from Source Watch.
Though the paper may have had a high risk of bias, if not an out right agenda, its conclusions were interesting. Robinson agreed that CO2 was rising and that it was man caused. Robinson further agreed that the rise in CO2 was changing the planet. Robinson thinks the changes are wonderful and greening and utopian, and I think they are the end of the world.
The sky is falling
Mr. Chicken Little .... We've known each other for about twenty years now, and since I've always been pretty much a moderate, I have disagreed with your political opinions on several issues. But, I've always believed you were one of the most intelligent liberals that ever put on a pair of Birkenstocks. I agree that there has been an increase in the levels of CO2 and that the globe has warmed a bit. I just think it is a non sequitur to believe that an increase in CO2 is the sole cause (or even the primary cause) of the warming of a planet that has had cyclical warming and cooling for thousands of years. If you really want to spend your time worrying about the end of the world, consider the possibility that North Korea or Pakistan may decide to prove T.S. Elliott wrong and take us out with a bang instead of a whimper. Peace Brother ... quit worrying and go polish your Prius.
Helmet On? Check!
If North Korea or Pakistan bomb Louisville or Benton Harbor, or drop cooktops from the sky we'll pay attention. Otherwise not really of interest to the industry.
"Helmet" or High Water
Advisor .... If I was a worry-wart, and I'm not, I'd worry much more about a Nuke going off (anywhere) in my lifetime than I would about the effects that Global Warming will have in my lifetime. Neither prospect is particularly good for the appliance industry. But, nuclear proliferation could actually shorten my remaining few years, while Global Warming would (at most) make me consider dumping my oceanfront timeshare.
Helmet II
You're looking at this from the perspective of an individual. And from that perspective, as long as you don't read the paper, you are correct.
The questions here are related to our entire beloved industry. Regulations tightening efficiency and raising fuel costs are coming soon, and these will require a level of innovation not before seen from our sleepy industry. The issue's we have been talking about are besides the point. The regulations are coming. What is the likely effect on the industry?
Effects on the Industry.
To get serious. I think that we will be required to have all appliances be electric since that spews the least amount of pollution in the home. Gas can be noxious since the regulations are tight but still how many have gotten a headache when the gas cooktop or oven is on too long ? As for electric power it will have to come through wind , solar or other methods that will be regulated for cleanliness. As for Nuclear power ,I am hesitant due to the waste and what we don't know about it. Some other energy sources will be developed. Hydrogen and other sources. But electric appliances will be the rule and it will stress an already engineer short industry,especially in the small to medium sized organizations which may be casualities in this process due to technology shortages on their part.Most smaller than Whirpool or GE companies reverse engineered some of their products to get a foot in the door. Not a lot of engineering talent required to do that with all due respect.Green and clean is good though for sure ,all kidding aside.
Simply put ...
... our Industry will have to become more receptive to the ancillary reasons why people pick products !!! Certain products, like Liebherr have always been for the thinking customer ... but "green" will transcend that because it will become PC ... and that's OK ... but things have to be done for the right reason and from my point of view that means conservation of resources is most important ...
Induction rather than Radiant ... Zenon instead of Halogen ... Gas instead of Electric ... Cooking outdoors instead of depositing BTU's inside which causes one to run their A/C longer ... DishDrawers instead of half a D/W ... Point of use Water Heaters instead of a traditional Tower Water Heater ... Programmable energy use instead of on-demand ... the list is endless ...
If we have done damage to the Eco-System then our first and foremost response has to be to conserve what we have for our kids and grand-kids ... and @ the same time reduce our energy needs to clean energy consumption which is easily renewable ...
If you read anything Tom Friedman of the NY Times has written you will rapidly see that he is what I call a "practical visionary" and I recommend his writings wholeheartedly !!
Hmmmmm.
I would buy yours but I think with global warming my property just east of Camp Pendelton will become a beach front. Hell , they are already advertising that here .
Sarcastic ????
We probably just don't agree with the overall issues of your argument.If they attacked we could probably find someone's range that blows up and bomb them back.
Cohiba Warming.
Couldn't agree more. The process is cyclical and in some measure we may have sped up the cycle. However blaming the US. which is the popular thing to do is not the biggest obstacle. China and third world countries could care less about the impact on the environment and they will soon surpass everyone on the pollutants they exhale in those countries. For the US to participate in making things cleaner is good. I am not sure this cycle will change as quickly as some people order and receive a cheeseburger from MacDonald's. The people like Gore are myopic in blaming America for everything bad that happens and what we can do about it. We play a part and without everyone's cooperation the problem will probably speed the cycle. I am all for green,it seems the responsible thing to do.