Atmospheric scientists release first 'bottom-up' estimates of China's CO2 emissions

Jul 06, 2012 By Caroline Perry
A new joint study by Harvard and Nanjing universities takes into account small-scale sources of carbon dioxide, such as the burning of crop waste. Credit: Brian Yap/Flickr

(Phys.org) -- Atmospheric scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Nanjing University have produced the first "bottom-up" estimates of China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, for 2005 to 2009, and the first statistically rigorous estimates of the uncertainties surrounding China's CO2 emissions.

The independent estimates, rooted in part in measurements of pollutants both at the sources and in the air, may be the most accurate totals to date. The resulting figures offer an unbiased basis on which China might measure its progress toward its well-publicized CO2 control goals.

The findings were published July 4 in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

"China's emissions of CO2 are of central concern in efforts to combat ," says lead author Yu Zhao, a former postdoctoral researcher at Harvard SEAS who is now a professor at the Nanjing University School of Environment in China. "But despite all of the attention to China's CO2 emissions, they're less well quantified than most people realize."

Existing estimates for these emissions are calculated "top-down," based on annual energy statistics that are released by the . The nation has only once officially estimated its CO2 emissions, based on national energy statistics from 1994, although it is now constructing a data system to produce periodic national greenhouse gas inventories. Non-Chinese organizations, such as the U.S. Department of Energy and the Netherlands Environment Agency, produce widely cited CO2 estimates for China (among other countries), but these are also based on the national energy data.

A study published last month by a China–U.K.–U.S. team in Nature Climate Change spotlighted a large disparity in estimates of Chinese CO2 emissions when the numbers were based on national energy statistics versus summed provincial data. To illustrate the contrast, those researchers had applied a standardized U.N. protocol for estimating the emissions of any developing country by sector.

The new Harvard–Nanjing study goes deeper, however, constructing a "bottom-up" emission inventory that is specific to China's energy and technology mix. It combines the results of Chinese field studies of CO2 emissions from diverse combustion processes with a plant-by-plant data set for power generation, independent research on transportation and rural biomass use, and provincial-level energy statistics for the remaining sectors.

The Harvard-Nanjing team believes provincial energy data to be more accurate than national statistics because the provincial data have been empirically tested in peer-reviewed atmospheric studies that compare the expected emissions of conventional air pollutants to actual instrumental observations by satellites and ground stations. Provincial statistics also take into account the large quantities of coal produced by small, illegal mines.

"There are several different ways to estimate emissions of greenhouse gases or air pollutants, from those designed to support policy processes to those made by scientists researching atmospheric transport and chemistry," explains co-author Chris Nielsen, Executive Director of the Harvard China Project, which is based at SEAS.

The former methods suit the needs of policy, attributing emissions to identifiable sources for actionable controls, but the latter are often more environmentally accurate, according to Nielsen.

"The methods used by can be more complete, incorporating new research on dispersed sources that are poorly represented in official statistics or weakly targeted by policy—such as the burning of crop wastes in fields or biofuels in poor, rural homes," Nielsen explains. "The data are also more detailed in spatial terms. This allows a comparison of emission estimates to the pollution levels measured at the surface, or from space, testing the underlying energy data in the process."

The new study capitalizes on prior tests and a bottom-up data framework that has been demonstrated for conventional air pollutants to produce a more thorough estimate of China's CO2 emissions.

The new study also quantifies the uncertainty of the emission totals, applying formal statistical methods. For instance, the team found that the 95% confidence interval for the 2005 CO2 estimate lies between −9% and +11% of the central value. This relatively wide range means that measuring China's achievement of its national CO2 control targets may be more difficult—and potentially more contentious—than generally recognized by Chinese and international policy actors.

"The levels of uncertainty indicate that Chinese domestic frameworks to set control targets for CO2 emissions at scales larger than individual factories, such as provinces or sectors, may reflect unwarranted confidence in the measurability and verifiability of the impacts of policy interventions," says senior author Michael B. McElroy, Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies at SEAS.

"Such levels of uncertainty aren't unique to China among developing and emerging economies," Zhao cautions. "All have less-developed data systems than those that have been built up over decades to serve energy markets and environmental regulation in the United States and other industrialized countries. It's critical that international agreements to limit CO2 emissions recognize these differences in national data conditions."

Beyond the policy implications, the availability of accurate estimates of China's CO2 (and the related uncertainties in the data) can improve scientists' understanding of the global carbon cycle and the physical processes driving global climate change.

Explore further: 'Shocking' underground water loss in US drought

Related Stories

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

CO2 emissions booming, shifting east, researchers report

Sep 24, 2008

Despite widespread concern about climate change, annual carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement have grown 38 percent since 1992, from 6.1 billion tons of carbon to 8.5 billion tons in ...

Recommended for you

'Shocking' underground water loss in US drought

15 hours ago

A major drought across the western United States has sapped underground water resources, posing a greater threat to the water supply than previously understood, scientists said Thursday.

User comments : 68

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (29) Jul 06, 2012
Translation: Every "Green" dollar spent to keep CO2 rising has been wasted utterly and completely. All 100 trillion dollars.

http://wattsupwit...he-room/

Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (17) Jul 06, 2012
There are no green dollars. There are only dollars.

ParkerTard's financial backers believe it is better to spend those dollars on pizza and beer rather than taking steps to avoid the central U.S. from reverting to a vast desert wasteland.

Even Mad Max would disagree with he and his carbon industry financers.

"Every "Green" dollar spent to keep CO2 rising has been wasted" - ParkerTard

Parker Tard is mentally diseased, and desperately needs to get psychological help before he hurts someone.
Ventilator
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
The opinion of the first poster is something he is fairly entitled to; that he may be wrong is entirely possible.

To wit, why the harsh critique? There's a great deal of import in the minds of those to whom this whole thing is a waste; the sad fact is that our exhaust on a planetary scale from technology is over-politicized is the true issue.

There seems to be no room for working together these days. Fix that, and we have a chance.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (26) Jul 06, 2012
There are no green dollars. There are only dollars.

ParkerGenius's financial backers believe it is better to spend those dollars on pizza and beer


I have no financial backers.

And my recommendation has been to switch to shale gas instead of squandering trillions on unreliable wind or solar of GHG-spewing biogas.

The US is on track for 1990 CO2 levels thanks to utilities burning cheap clean shale gas.

Greenies want you to pay 10x more for electricity so their financial backers can pull in big fat bribes for Obama.

I want you to pay less for clean cheap shale gas.

TheHealthPhysicist
2.6 / 5 (28) Jul 06, 2012
Shale gas will not prevent global warming. It is not a solution to the problem.
xen_uno
1.5 / 5 (24) Jul 06, 2012
parker - "Greenies want you to pay 10x more for electricity so their financial backers can pull in big fat bribes for Obama."

... and there you have it. Proof the boy is another conspiracy theorist like most AGW deniers. But the negativity toward Obama I share. He should be packing his bags in Nov.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (27) Jul 06, 2012
Shale gas will not prevent global warming. It is not a solution to the problem.


I'm not saying it will since I doubt CO2 has much effect.

However, if you are a CO2 cult member who blames CO2 for the weather o climate or whatever, then for the same amount of energy, shale gas produces half the CO2 of coal and diesel etc.

Therefore, if you believe CO2 was the culprit (rather than an excuse to destroy capitalism) then you would favor inexpensive clean lower CO2 shale gas.

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (27) Jul 06, 2012
parker - "Greenies want you to pay 10x more for electricity so their financial backers can pull in big fat bribes for Obama."

... and there you have it. Proof


Big Obama donors get big fat greenie loans and then rake off lots of money and go bankrupt. Crony capitalism -- the Chicago Way!
TheHealthPhysicist
2.6 / 5 (25) Jul 06, 2012
Your doubts about CO2 are contrary to the evidence. Shale gas produces have the CO2 when it's burned, but if fugitive emissions (unburned) escape they are 25x worse than CO2. At the end of the day, it doesn't save much, if anything.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
ParkerTard, UbVonTard, sunshinehour1, and whatever else it is calling itself today is certainly entitled to its opinions. But two problems remain with his comments.

First: He is really expressing the Opinions of his financial supporters.

Second: His only method of supporting these opinions is through the use of fraud and deception.

"The opinion of the first poster is something he is fairly entitled to" - Veneiculator
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (26) Jul 06, 2012
Your doubts about CO2 are contrary to the evidence. Shale gas produces have the CO2 when it's burned, but if fugitive emissions (unburned) escape they are 25x worse than CO2. At the end of the day, it doesn't save much, if anything.


Has methane admissions in the US climbed while CO2 production dropped?

Or are you one of the millions of greenie who hate shale gas because it threatens their plan to bankrupt capitalist countries?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
And you didn't, because you have nothing to offer society.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwww.........

"Big Obama donors get big fat greenie loans" - ParkerTard
TheHealthPhysicist
2.4 / 5 (20) Jul 06, 2012
No, CH4 emissions have increased while CO2 emissions have also increased. It's global suicide.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
"According to the new EIA data, carbon dioxide emissions from the US have resumed their rise, after a brief blip caused by the financial crisis and recession in 2008. That increase came despite the much-vaunted switch from coal to shale gas with its lower emissions than coal when burned for energy that has dominated the US's energy economy in recent years."

http://www.guardi...eed=true

"Has methane admissions in the US climbed while CO2 production dropped?" - ParkerTard

Nope.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
The claimed "doubts" of a congenital liar who is a paid propagandist don't interest anyone by the psychiatrists who study their mental disease.

"I doubt CO2 has much effect." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 06, 2012
ParkerTard is motivated by Conservative political Liedeology rather than facts and reason. This is why his posts are filled with non stop fraud and deception.

"Therefore, if you believe CO2 was the culprit (rather than an excuse to destroy capitalism)" - ParkerTard

He doesn't live in the reality based community.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
Then given the volume of your posts under your various names we are forced to conclude that you are a welfare bum.

"I have no financial backers." - Parkertard/SunshineHours1/UbVonTard etc. Etc.. ETC...

casualjoe
2 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
But the negativity toward Obama I share. He should be packing his bags in Nov.


OK, who would you put in his place? There is nobody else. It's a choice of bad or worse.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
It always is when the people are no longer smart enough to govern themselves.

"It's a choice of bad or worse." - Casual

It is always a downward spiral into oblivion.
Au-Pu
2.3 / 5 (23) Jul 06, 2012
Do most Americans live with their heads in the sand?
Global warming is a natural cycle and has been for more than 2.8 billion years.
No amount of denial will alter that.
Barring some extraordinary burst of volcanic activity global warming will continue, with or without humans for the next 7,000 or 8,000 years.
If we add to it with excessive burning of fossil fuels then all we will be doing is speeding up the warming process.
It is doubtful that once we add to it that we will be able to withdraw our input.

If you put vested interests aside it is far more sensible to seek renewable energy sources as opposed to relying upon finite reserves of fossil fuels.
xen_uno
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 06, 2012
Joe - "OK, who would you put in his place? There is nobody else. It's a choice of bad or worse"

I'm not fan of Romney either, but grudgingly will take him over Obama. Career politicians are bad news for a republic (which the US was at one time). The people that would make good presidents don't want to run, or are so honest and blunt that they would never get elected. So here we are stuck choosing between a couple of spin doctors, and neither are worth getting excited over.
casualjoe
3.7 / 5 (10) Jul 06, 2012
If you value humanity do not support Romney, that is all.
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (21) Jul 06, 2012
"According to the new EIA data ...


CO2 in 2011 was lower than 1996 levels and is on track for 1990 levels.

http://www.eia.go...12_3.pdf

1996 5,501

2011 5,473

unknownorgin
1.2 / 5 (24) Jul 07, 2012
NASA summed up the problem with the statement "We could terra form mars but will not plan to because of the ethics of environmentalism" They identified enviromentalism as a faith and this is why the faithful cry foul when any facts ,statistics or study indicates that the world may not bake due to CO2. LIfe has survived for hundreds of millions of years on this planet so to make a statement that a differance of a few degrees or a few parts per million CO2 is going to kill all life is not even close to factual.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2012
American Conservatives argue against any reality that contradicts the tenants of their Conservative Ideology.

They spend their lives lying to themselves and each other about all manner of things, evolution to the failure of their economic principles.

"Do most Americans live with their heads in the sand?" - AuPu
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2012
unknownorigin summed up his dishonesty with the false quote "We could terra form mars but will not plan to because of the ethics of environmentalism" - NASA
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2012
I find it absolutely astonishing that AuPu's claimed "fact" just doesn't seem to appear in the earth's climate record.

"Global warming is a natural cycle and has been for more than 2.8 billion years." - AuPu

Must be a conspiracy.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

http://earthobser...?id=5620

NOAA: Carbon dioxide levels reach milestone at Arctic sites

http://researchma...CO2.aspx

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

Since 2008 CO2 levals have risen from 385 to 397 ppmv.

ParkerTard's claim that there has been a decrease is a lie.

"CO2 in 2011 was lower than 1996 levels and is on track for 1990 levels." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.
jdw
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2012
Shale gas will not prevent global warming. It is not a solution to the problem.


Why don't you just come right out and say what it is you believe is the solution to the problem?

I submit that underlying the 'green', the 'left' (I know, synonymous) movement is pure, unadulterated misanthropy; that their unspoken 'cure' to save Gaia is that the majority of the human race conveniently dies off, and not replaced. Global population control, overseen by the likes of Al Gore's like-minded fellow travelers.

Mud huts for what's left of the masses; the rest, living their lives like all high-ranking Party officials always do.
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2012
According to the new EIA data for the USA ...

CO2 in 2011 was lower than 1996 levels and is on track for 1990 levels.

http://www.eia.go...12_3.pdf

1996 5,501

2011 5,473

Shale gas got going in the USA before greenies figured out it was a threat to their squandering of trillions on solar panels and unicorn fart power generation.

But greenies now fight shale gas. They hate the world.

Shale gas drillers love the world and want people to use clean low-CO2 natural gas.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2012
No, CH4 emissions have increased while CO2 emissions have also increased. It's global suicide.


California burns a lot of biogas, pretending it isn't actually methane.
dtxx
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2012
Joe - "OK, who would you put in his place? There is nobody else. It's a choice of bad or worse"

So here we are stuck choosing between a couple of spin doctors, and neither are worth getting excited over.


I wouldn't use the word excited either, but I definitely have a very high level of concern whichever one gets elected. Obama may very well spend and spend and crush our economy into submission. Voting for Mitt feels like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. And voting for either of them won't do a thing to stop thousands and thousands of technical jobs from going to India. Obama seems to kiss factory workers' asses, but he doesn't do anything except raise the number of H1-B visas to foreign technical workers with advanced degrees who are happy as hell to make $20K US as a salary. Mitt has promised more H1-Bs for these workers as well. So yeah, I'm not excited, that's not the word...
xen_uno
1.7 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2012
origin - "LIfe has survived for hundreds of millions of years on this planet so to make a statement that a differance of a few degrees or a few parts per million CO2 is going to kill all life is not even close to factual."

See what happens when you guys don't lock the door at nite? In come the riff raff. The lunatic is in his brain, but I'll engage him anyways ..

What timescale is your "few" on? Is that per decade, century, millennium, what? Since few can be as little as two, then a few ppm CO2 increase globally PER YEAR really adds up ...

http://en.wikiped...mosphere

See the chart on the right? The effects of the rise I trust you can research yourself (scads of AGW articles here and on the net).

Life disappearing totally? Where did you get that? What you will see is weather pattern change, desertification, sea level rise, bio system collapse, etc. All at a rate far faster than earth has ever seen before (barring large meteor impacts).
SteveL
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2012
Neither American political party is really interested in resolving the causes of increasing CO2. Neither of them are taking sufficient steps to reduce consumption of goods and energy. Basically, the steps that have been taken to improve and expand "green" technology are barely sufficient to pander to the green vote. Besides, these programs still only address the symptoms, not the real problem.

The real problem is too much consumption by too many people. What is needed is to reduce our population, starting with phasing out government encouraged and supported reproduction via the dependent tax deduction. The Republicans won't do that because it will make them seem anti-family which will decimate their voting base. The Democrats won't do it because they require ever more new workers entering the market to fund their social programs. Libertarians might if someone can spin the dependent tax deduction as some kind of government involvement in their private family planning.
xen_uno
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2012
parker - "... unicorn fart power generation"

You may have something there but I think that technology is down the road a pace. We would need unicorn numbers equal to the american bison populations at their absolute peak. Maybe we can reduce the numbers required by hiring Monsanto to create a super flatulent unicorn, thru drugs and genetic manipulation. We would need some kind of matrix system to extract the gas efficiently. The Wachowski brothers could be brought in for technical advice on that front. For feedstock, corn will do, as no one seems concerned that corn prices have risen substantially since ethanol became such a big business. With recent ethanol subsidy termination however, I think more corn will be available for our unicorns. Alternative energy requires sacrifices after all ... Corn Pops will have to go. We need a unicorn subsidy, tho it may be tough to get as I don't think Obama will be in office and Romney will be a tough sell ... but we'll see. Lets make this happen!
eachus
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
Shale gas will not prevent global warming. It is not a solution to the problem.


I agree with you. But it is worth noting that gas from fracking produces less CO2 per BTU than oil and much less than coal. Fracking also is returning the US to a net exporter of oil. Now all we need are some new, modern (and thus more efficient) refineries. (The long-term solution is nuclear power, but even a "crash" program could not double nuclear power in the US in less than 20 years. And we need at least ten times the power from nuclear, not twice.)
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
ParkerTard repeats his lie about CO2 being down and here I repeat my exposure of that claim as being a lie.

http://earthobser...?id=5620

NOAA: Carbon dioxide levels reach milestone at Arctic sites

http://researchma...CO2.aspx

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

Since 2008 CO2 levals have risen from 385 to 397 ppmv.

ParkerTard's claim that there has been a decrease is a lie.

"CO2 in 2011 was lower than 1996 levels and is on track for 1990 levels." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
There is a limit to what a President can do with an obstructionist Republican congress that is doing everything in it's power to make the situation worse.

"Obama seems to kiss factory workers' asses, but he doesn't do anything" - dtxx

When you vote Republican, you vote for continued failure.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
Virtually of that spending is in the form of welfare, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and the like.

If you want to see how quickly a full blown depression comes to America vote Republican budget cutters into the White House.

"Obama may very well spend and spend and crush our economy into submission." - dtxx
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
ParkerTard's new tactic is simply to repeat his original lie once it has been exposed.

The definition of mental disease is to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.

SteveL
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
The definition of mental disease is to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.
Like 4 more years of politicians just throwing trillions of American dollars worth of money that they borrow from China to their cronies and unions? That's not really a good option.

If you get some spare time consider doing this: Compare a map of red vs. blue states for the 2008 presidential election with a map of states indicating where the American stimulus money went to then compare this to the population of those states. What you will find is that the states that voted for O-borrower tended to cash out pretty well per person compared to those that didn't. Now considering that our President is supposed to be the leader of all of his people, not just the ones who voted for him, tell me, is this fair?

That said; the previous President was an idiot also. We need some leaders in politics can that think beyond their own political party before we have a chance to make progress.
SteveL
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
Virtually of that spending is in the form of welfare, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and the like.
Over the last few years what I do see is millions spent on advertising telling people how to get food stamps and welfare or how to get free cell phones with 250 free hours per month. What I have yet to see is advertising telling people where to go to get jobs. Can you see where the emphasis is?

If liberal politicians can get you on the public dole, chances are they could have a voter for life. How a person will vote if they are self sufficient is a crap shoot. So the present administration is using public money from businesses and all the working people more to encourage lack of success compared to encouraging success.

Now Vendicar, in Canada you won't owe this debt, but you should understand that when the American economy suffers as one of our biggest trading partners so will yours.
SteveL
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
One of the places where I differ from many conservatives is that I believe there is a place for solar and wind power. I know we will keep on using carbon-based energy sources for many more generations because it's cheap and it's what our energy infrastructure is designed for. However, carbon-based energy should be viewed as a transitional energy source. No matter how some squirm we just can't get away from the fact that carbon that has been buried for millions of years, when used to produce energy is reintroduced back into our atmosphere. This is a fact that cannot be denied.

The question then becomes what will we transition to? Nuclear can be part of the solution, so can hydroelectric, but distributed solutions like solar, wind and bio-sources need to become part of our energy profile. In fact I think hydroelectric needs to be a fundamental part of our energy storage network to compensate for wind and solar intermittancy.

Politics should not pick energy winners and losers.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
They haven't thrown one trillion yet Steve. You did know that didn't you?

Virtually all of the money that has been borrowes so far has gone to keeping Americans fed and off the street.

If you want to see how rapidly America can sink into a full blown depression, stop spending, and watch how rapidly America becomes the land of soup kitchens and the homeless.

"Like 4 more years of politicians just throwing trillions of American dollars worth of money that they borrow from China to their cronies and unions?" - SteveTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
You mean they should be told to go to China?

"What I have yet to see is advertising telling people where to go to get jobs." - SteveL

Implicit in your whining is a belief that there are jobs to be had for everyone who wants one. There are of course. We have had waiters here working in America who are paid $2.50 an hour. And some I have seen get paid from tips only.

Truly that would be a dream job for the Libertarian types.

Don't you agree Steve?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
The eradication of the evil and supremely ignorant American state will be well worth the price.

"Now Vendicar, in Canada you won't owe this debt, but you should understand that when the American economy suffers as one of our biggest trading partners so will yours." - SteveL
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
Republicans hold a majority of the purse strings. Why are they funding Obama's backers?

"What you will find is that the states that voted for O-borrower tended to cash out pretty well per person compared to those that didn't. " - SteveL
SteveL
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
Implicit in your whining is a belief that there are jobs to be had for everyone who wants one. There are of course. We have had waiters here working in America who are paid $2.50 an hour. And some I have seen get paid from tips only.
In the little plant I work for we have 3 openings for injection molding Maintenance Technicians which pays over $25 per hour. We have been trying to fill these openings with qualified labor for years. If government was serious about trying to get people employed they would help business find skilled labor. We do our searches on several on line sites including monster.com, beyond.com and indeed.com to name a few. It's not working.

If government was serious about getting people employed they would help unemployed find jobs and help business find skilled labor. One of the ways they could help would be by enhancing the skill level of the unemployed. If you want unemployment checks you go to school and learn an employable trade.
SteveL
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
supremely ignorant American state
Ah, I see you and I have the same opinion concerning the success of Jimmy Carter's Department of Education. Unlike Libertarians I think this department is needed, but not as a department, this should be an office under the Department of State and its mandate should be changed to ensure the US educational system produces competitive scientific, engineering and skilled labor resources. Since before the creation of the Department of Education we have been heading the wrong direction and this department has failed to improve the situation.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2012
With millions of Americans out of work, your employer could fill all three of those positions in an hour if he wanted to.

What is keeping him from doing so?

"In the little plant I work for we have 3 openings for injection molding Maintenance Technicians which pays over $25 per hour." - SteveL
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2012
Then the failure is yours.

You could have trained 30 people for those positions by now.

Your employer doesn't want to train people to do the job they need done? Awwwwwwwwwww.... Too bad.

"We have been trying to fill these openings with qualified labor for years." - SteveL
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
More corporate welfare.

You know... There are employment agencies. Want ads. Craigslist.

And gosh.... You could actually train people to do the job you wanted done rather than waiting half a decade for someone to come to you.

"If government was serious about trying to get people employed they would help business find skilled labor." - SteveL

Please Gubderment find us workerz dat we is too stupids to findz 4 owrskelves.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jul 07, 2012
There are thousands of workplace training programs available.

This site allows you to select them by state.

http://www.career...arch.asp

Your failure is presuming that any of them will train individuals for the skill set that you need. They probably won't because your demands are too specific.

No one in their right mind is going to train for a position where there may be 200 openings in a year spread all over the country.

"One of the ways they could help would be by enhancing the skill level of the unemployed." - SteveL
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
I see. So there will be very little "freedom" in education under your rule.

The state needs engineers hence Little Tommy must be an engineer.

"its mandate should be changed to ensure the US educational system produces competitive scientific, engineering and skilled labor resources." - SteveL

The American system of education continues to fail NOT because it is a failure, but because American Culture is a failure and the education system is unofficially charged with becoming the surrogate parents for children who's parents are American wage slaves and have no time for parenting.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2012
And it never "improve the situation" since the failure is American Culture, not American Education.

"Since before the creation of the Department of Education we have been heading the wrong direction and this department has failed to improve the situation." - SteveL
Vendicar_Dickarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
And it never "improve the situation" since the failure is American Culture, not American Education.

"Since before the creation of the Department of Education we have been heading the wrong direction and this department has failed to improve the situation." - SteveL
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2012
Then the failure is yours.

You could have trained 30 people for those positions by now.

Your employer doesn't want to train people to do the job they need done? Awwwwwwwwwww.... Too bad.
Expecting small companies to sufficiently train their personnel is a bit to Libertarian for me.

Besides, On the Job Training not being standardized or accredited doesn't transfer well between employers. Not like certified or degreed programs. It's unrealistic to expect every small business to develop accredited programs. Besides, why reinvent the wheel when institutions of learning, which are already struggling for lack of students, already exist?
SteveL
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2012
I see. So there will be very little "freedom" in education under your rule.
I'm not ruling anyone. The educational system is basically a machine that is supposed to be turning out a qualified and competitive product (people) in a variety of fields. It's not doing so well and the Department of Education as it is presently designed is not helping to improve the situation.

The state needs engineers hence Little Tommy must be an engineer.

Hopefully the state does not need nearly as many engineers as business and industry needs. "Little Tommy" doesn't have to be an engineer, but if he wants to be an engineer he should be a good and capable one. I've worked with good engineers and I've worked with far too many that simply had the paper implying they were one. Business and industry, and the state for that matter, need more of the former and less of the latter. "Learning is not compulsory . . . neither is survival." - W. Edwards Deming.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2012
if global warming is a man made phenomena, the sooner it gets here, the sooner canada northern europe, russia and the northern rim of north america become tropical paradise.

for all intents and purposes the consolidation of global government would be much better off if the developing world were wiped out by global warming so that the developed world could simply conquer these countries, annex them, invite mass migration from all over the world to these countries thereby diluting their ethnic composition, require the spoken and written usage of the conquering countries' mother tongue ( further consolidating global languages ) ----and bring the world ever closer to a homogenous unifiable conglomerate ---1 century at a time.

globalism is not going to succeed solely on the back of economic planning. it's arguably re-trenching as we speak and throwing the world into circumstances leading to a third world war.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2012
Expecting society to train your workers for you is a bit too impractical for society.

If there is a large enough demand for such training, I have no problem with it. But when there isn't, it isn't practical to set up a training course to train just a hand-full of workers.

Society has an obligation to train people to be knowledgeable and correctly thinking participants in society. It has no obligation to provide training on how to be a corporate wage slave.

"Expecting small companies to sufficiently train their personnel is a bit to Libertarian for me." - SteveL
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jul 08, 2012
That is your problem. Not mine.

Perhaps you should avoid purchasing equipment for which you can't find people to run.

"On the Job Training not being standardized or accredited doesn't transfer well between employers" - SteveL
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Jul 08, 2012
When the feed stock of your factory machine turns from iron oar to rubber, don't expect high quality steel at the output.

"The educational system is basically a machine that is supposed to be turning out a qualified and competitive product (people) in a variety of fields." - SteveL

If you intend for the U.S. education system to act as surrogate parents then expect to authorize it, and fund it in a manner that permits it to act effectively as surrogate parents.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2012
Just don't expect to be able to grow much food on the thin to non-existent soils of the Canadian and Russian north.

You do know, don't you... That repeated periods of glaciation have removed virtually all of the soil from these northern regions.

"if global warming is a man made phenomena, the sooner it gets here, the sooner canada northern europe, russia and the northern rim of north america become tropical paradise." - JeddyBedWhetty

Your ignorance must be absolute bliss.
discouragedinMI
1 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2012
The best part about of all of this global warming stuff ... it doesn't f-ing matter what the US or the western world does. China and other emerging economies ALREADY dwarf any attempts we make to cut carbon emissions. If the AGW people are right then we are on a road with no fix even if the US turned off all of it's power plants and vehicles today.

Thus my suggestion is simple. "Man your stations! Missiles to ready!"
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2012
Ah... another lie told by the denialists.

"China and other emerging economies ALREADY dwarf any attempts we make to cut carbon emissions." - PartyTard

Emissions by nation - percent of global total

China 23.33
USA 18.11
EU 14,04
India 5.78
Russia 5.67
All other nations combined 33.07

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2012

"China and other emerging economies ALREADY dwarf any attempts we make to cut carbon emissions." - SanePeople

Emissions by nation - percent of global total

China 23.33
USA 18.11


2008 data. Wow!

2010 estimates have China India = Double USA

http://en.wikiped...stimates

By 2015 it will be triple.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2012
But are equal to USA Europe.

What was that again about the developing nations Dwarfing the developed nations?

"2010 estimates have China India = Double USA" - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He never misses an opportunity to dishonestly misrepresent the facts.

He has a mental disease.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2012
Is the U.S. collapsing that rapidly?

"By 2015 it will be triple." - ParkerTard