text:
Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability
As the star-studded endorsements and media hype surrounding the all-pervasive Global Goals campaign begins to subside, a very different truth is beginning to emerge about this latest attempt by the international community to end poverty and create an ecologically viable future. Despite the UNs ambitious claims, all the indications are that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) do not have the potential to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want or heal and secure our planet. On the contrary, the new agenda for development fails to address the root causes of todays interconnected global crises, perpetuates a false narrative about poverty reduction, and reinforces an unsustainable economic paradigm that is inherently incapable of reducing the true scale of human deprivation by 2030.
If taken at face value, it may seem irresponsible for anyone to dismiss the broad vision and prime objective of the SDGs to end poverty in all its forms everywhere if only because it presents a valuable opportunity to improve intergovernmental cooperation and focus both political and public attention on pressing global issues. As Share The Worlds Resources have outlined in a recent report, however, there are many reasons to question not only the targets themselves, but the entire sustainable development initiative and the political-economic context within which it will be implemented.
For example, one of the key concerns that emerged from the Financing for Development talks that accompanied the SDGs negotiations was whether governments will be able to raise and redistribute the huge sums of money needed to meet the goals especially given that developing countries face an estimated annual gap of $2.5 trillion in SDG-relevant sectors. Even though levels of international aid still fall far short of the 0.7% of GDP that donor countries have repeatedly pledged for more than 45 years, governments attending the financing talks failed to agree any concrete measures for redistributing more of the worlds highly concentrated wealth to protect the most vulnerable people.
Instead of agreeing to provide significantly more funding for development, donor governments pushed for countries in the Global South to take greater responsibility for mobilising finances domestically. At the same time, they effectively refused to implement any of the urgent measures that civil society has long been calling for to prevent illicit financial flows, tackle tax avoidance or restructure external debts measures that could mobilise many billions of dollars in additional revenue each year for low-income countries. Until these critical issues are addressed, foreign aid will continue to be dwarfed by the net flow of financial resources from the Global South to the North, which suggests that in reality the populations of (resource rich) low-income nations continue to finance the development of rich nations rather than the other way around.
Unwarranted importance was also placed on scaling up private-public partnerships as a way of raising finance, which is a measure that scores of campaigners and civil society organisations argue has established a corporate development agenda that will benefit businesses far more than those living in extreme poverty. As summarised in a joint statement released by numerous civil society groups during the financing for development negotiations, [the] emphasis on private financing and the role of transnational corporations will further weaken public policy space [for] governments and fails to address the unfinished business of regulating the financial sector despite the extreme and intergenerational poverty created by the global crisis.
Another major critique widely voiced by environmentalists is that the SDGs encourage governments to maintain their obsession with putting economic growth before pressing social and environmental concerns. In particular, SDG 8 is entirely devoted to the promotion of sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, even though there is now ample evidence to suggest that relying on the trickle-down of global economic growth is not an effective way to end poverty. Many campaigners have cited detailed projections by David Woodward (based on optimistic assumptions about future rates of global economic growth), demonstrating that it would take at least 100 years to eradicate poverty at the $1.25-a-day level and twice as long at the more appropriate $5-a-day measure of poverty.
Far from promoting a truly ecological agenda for development, the SDGs reflect the widely recognised and profound contradiction between the pursuit of economic growth and the very notion of sustainability. Not a single country has managed to decouple economic growth from environmental stress and pollution, and achieving any significant level of decoupling remains highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Indeed, evidence suggests that accelerating economic growth in order to speed up poverty reduction will result in a rise in global carbon emissions that would wipe out any possibility of keeping climate change to within the acceptable margin of a two degrees centigrade increase.
However much we would like to believe that governments are on track to end poverty by 2030, a more detailed examination of the available data shows that the received wisdom about our economic progress is largely based on misdirection and exaggeration. According to official UN statistics, there has been a steep drop in global poverty levels over the past 25 years. In 1990, around half of the developing world reportedly lived on less than $1.25-a-day a figure that reduced significantly to 14% by 2015. According to new data just released by the World Bank, these numbers have diminished even more rapidly in recent years with as little as 10% of the worlds population now living in poverty.
However, there are serious concerns around how changes to the way poverty is calculated have contributed to the illusion that poverty significantly reduced as a result of the Millennium Development Goals. Most significantly, the baseline year for measuring progress was shifted back to 1990 in order to include all the poverty reduction that took place (mainly in China) well before the Millennium Campaign even began. On more than one occasion, changes to the way the poverty line was calculated meant that hundreds of millions of people were subtracted from the MDGs poverty statistics overnight.
The World Banks definition of what constitutes extreme poverty is also widely regarded by economists as highly problematic. According to the Banks latest revision, this all-important measure is now based on an international poverty line of $1.90-a-day (previously $1.25-a-day). This exceedingly low and highly contentious poverty threshold reflects how much $1.90 can purchase in the USA but not in a low-income country like Malawi or Madagascar, as is often believed. Its clear that meeting even the most basic human needs for access to food, water and shelter let alone paying for basic medical services would be impossible to achieve in the United States with such little money. In comparison, the official poverty line for people who live in the United States is set at the substantially higher rate of around $16-a-day.
At the very least, this behoves the World Bank and the SDGs to adopt a morally appropriate dollar-a-day poverty line that accurately reflects a minimum financial requirement for human survival. This is a view shared by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) who argue that only by using a higher threshold of $5-a-day would it be possible to fulfil the right to a standard of living adequate for
health and well-being as set out in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more than 65 years ago. According to World Bank statistics, poverty at this slightly higher level of income has consistently increased between 1981 and 2010, rising from approximately 3.3 billion to almost 4.2 billion over that period.
If the Millennium Campaign had used this more appropriate poverty threshold, MDG-1 would clearly not have been met: rather than halving the number of people living without sufficient means for survival, there are 14% more people living in $5-a-day poverty now than in 1990. As ActionAid and others rightly suggest, however, a $10-a-day benchmark may be a far more a realistic measure of poverty when comparing lifestyles in rich and poor countries, which would mean that an alarming 5.2 billion people live still in poverty today.
There can be little doubt that the mainstream narrative about how global poverty is being dramatically reduced distracts from the need to address its structural causes and diffuses public outrage at what is, in reality, a worsening crisis of epic proportions one that demands a far more urgent response from governments than the SDGs can deliver. At the very least, adopting a more realistic international poverty line would transform our understanding of the magnitude and persistence of poverty in the world, and spark a long overdue debate on how ambitious and transformative the international development agenda really is.
While such critiques of UN poverty statistics are necessary to highlight the truth about global poverty levels, this still doesnt fully illustrate what life-threatening deprivation means in human terms, especially for those of us living in affluent countries who have little or no contact with the worlds poor. World Bank figures conceal a disturbing fact about what it really means to forgo access to lifes essentials: according to calculations by Dr Gideon Polya, over 17 million avoidable deaths occur every year as a consequence of life-threatening deprivation, mainly in low-income countries. As the term suggests, these preventable deaths occur simply because millions of people live in conditions of extreme deprivation and therefore cannot afford access to the essential goods and services that people in wealthier countries have long taken for granted.
The extent of this ongoing tragedy cannot be overstated when approximately 46,500 lives are needlessly wasted every day innocent men, women and children who might otherwise have contributed to the cultural and economic development of the world in unimaginable ways. This annual preventable death rate far outweighs the fatalities from any other single event in history since the Second World War, and around half of those affected are young children. Given todays technological advancements and humanitys combined available wealth of $263 trillion, its perhaps no exaggeration to suggest that the magnitude of these avoidable deaths is tantamount to a global genocide or holocaust.
What, then, should be our reaction to the sheer extent of life-threatening deprivation in the world, given that our combined efforts to meet urgent human needs as expressed by the actions of our elected governments are tragically inadequate on a global scale? Its surely futile to direct further policy proposals or alternative ideas to the worlds governments, who are failing to enact the emergency measures and far-reaching structural reforms that are necessary to end extreme poverty within an immediate time-frame. Instead, civil society groups and engaged citizens should adopt a strategy for global transformation based on solidarity with the worlds poor and a united demand for governments to radically reorder their distorted priorities.
STWRs founder Mohammed Mesbahi has proposed such a strategy for redirecting public attention towards the shameful injustice of this growing humanitarian crisis, based on the need for governments to finally uphold the long-agreed entitlements set out in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as their leading concern in the period ahead. As Mesbahi explains, the time has come for millions of citizens in every country to collectively demand the universal realisation of these basic rights for adequate food, housing, healthcare and social security for all until governments significantly reform the global economic system to address the root causes of hunger and needless poverty-related deaths.
With over 70% of the global population struggling to live on less than $10 per day, there is no doubt that a common cause for guaranteeing basic socio-economic rights across the world could bring together many millions of people in different continents on a common platform for transformative change. If these public protests can become the subject of mainstream political and media discussions, people from all walks of life may soon be persuaded to join in - including those who have never demonstrated before in the richest nations, along with the poorest citizens in low-income countries.
Needless to say, galvanising an informed public opinion the world over is a formidable challenge given the false mainstream narrative on poverty reduction and a general lack of popular awareness within affluent society. But without a collective worldwide awakening to the injustice of widespread poverty amidst excessive wealth inequalities, it may remain impossible to overcome vested interests and the political inertia of governments. The responsibility for change falls squarely on the shoulders of us all - ordinary engaged citizens - to march on the streets in enormous numbers and forge a formidable public voice in favour of ending extreme human deprivation on the basis of an international emergency.
This article is drawn from a report entitled: Beyond the Sustainable Development Goals: uncovering the truth about global poverty and demanding the universal realisation of Article 25
Image credit: David Sandison/Save The Children
This past summer I was asked to give a presentation on science and ethics. The person who asked me was motivated by the Popes encyclical, the comments regarding climate change.
The group to which I was to present its members most interested and well-informed about climate, yet also confused by the strong opinions of dignitaries and luminaries, such as the Pope wanted a climate scientists perspective. I could not help them with their ethical outlook, but I realized what people really need is not the tit-for-tat, back-and-forth endless debate, with each side being right; they needed to understand that we scientists really dont know what climate is doing or will do! No one does. We only have degrees of uncertainty. Thus, the presentation evolved, with the originally requested topic modified to discuss my perspective on the uncertainties in climate science. After giving the talk, I realized there could be many versions of such a presentation, with different levels of detail and scientific background. I would like this information to be communicated to the public, as well as to college and high-school students. In the past, I could ignore the dissemination of misleading information to the general public. No longer can I. The stakes are too high; the consequences too dire.
Uncertainty in Climate Science
The complete powerpoint presentation can be downloaded here: Uncertainty in Climate Science
Word around town is that science is truth. Sorry to damp the zeal, but science is NOT truth. By definition, science equates to varying degrees of uncertainty, with hypotheses and theories bookending the uncertainty spectrum to some, a rather boring outlook. Hypotheses suggested explanations for how things work, and based upon observed evidence, offering potential prediction of phenomena whose correlative relationships may be causal must be both testable and falsifiable. A hypothesis cannot be proven to be true; it can only be proved false. For a hypothesis to be elevated to theory a rare and significant promotion the hypothesis must survive multiple replications of results with a wide set of data, and it must be tested under a variety of circumstances. Even then, while uncertainty of a theory is minimized; it is never zero. Hence, science is the constant process of trying to figure out how things might work. To a scientist, this is exhilarating. To the non-scientist wanting a solid answer, not so much!
Well, this is all relatively bad news for those of us who study climate. Climate, by nature, does not lend itself well to being tested. We cant isolate its parts and study them in a lab. We cant condense decades and millennia into hours and days in order to extract multiple data points and long records. Intertwined and multiple parts of the climate system render its evaluation stymied by the endless unknown unknowns! So what do we do? We seek out proxy data riddled with caveats. We invoke computer climate models riddled with caveats. No matter which way we turn, we are faced with caveats, but its the best weve got. Sometimes we get so used to working within these constraints imposed upon us, we begin to lose sight of our assumptions, and the attendant biases, caveats, and uncertainties laced throughout our research format. In time, it is not difficult to see how we come to believe the little fantasy world we have made for ourselves in attempt to make sense of natures vast stomping grounds. And when it is demanded of us to stop equivocating, to make the discussion short and sweet, packaging into sound bites the complexities of 4.6 billion years perspective on climate and how its changing character of today differs from any time past and how we humans and other earthly creatures will survive an onslaught that, by human perception, appears unprecedented and unendurable; What can we do!!!! Politics enters the stage, followed closely by celebrities and media. Messages are surgically edited to be woven into stories far more captivating than those told by the equivocating egg-heads; and photographers, accompanied by narrators with scholarly accents and compelling rhetoric, come in to educate the public. And the public find no choice but to believe. Uncertainty is forgotten, actually no, it is abandoned. Uncertainty is not for the impatient. Good intentions pave the path forward. So where does that leave us? How does one make policy decisions based on science, with uncertaintys role demoted to nuisance status?
It might be of interest to know that historically, skepticism has fueled forward movement of scientific discovery. Uncertainty has always motivated inquiry. Conversely, certainty has squelched it. Certainty entrenches paradigms. Examples dot history of paradigms kept on life support with increasingly complicated constructs to explain phenomena or occurrences inconsistent with hypothesized dynamics and behavior the 1600-year-long geocentric model being a most vivid example. Upending of faulty paradigms often relies on evolution of technology. New evidence reveals surprises those unknown unknowns. Ironically, those most educated in a field often are not the ones in history to have revolutionized thought. Lay persons and scientists of different specialties often were the ones who saw what was hidden from the hardened mental filters of those overly invested in a paradigms survival. Skepticism has gotten a bad rap in recent years. Instead, it should be embraced. It is skepticism not conformity that provides the checks and balances to humans tendency to see the expected.
How does one make good decisions in context of uncertainty? One must gather good evidence not hearsay, not sound bites, nor consensus. Good evidence can be garnered only through understanding how conclusions are reached the methodology and data used to construct them. This is not easy, but just accepting what others say their filtered conclusions, even those of respected scientists or trusted dignitaries not investigating the scientific process employed in generating a conclusion, and not exploring alternate possible explanations for observed phenomena, destines its victims to the unintended consequences.
Scientists do agree: Temperatures have increased since 1850; CO2 has too. CO2 is an infrared warmer. With no positive or negative feedback responses, a doubling of it will lead to an approximate 1.1ºC temperature increase. Disagreement erupts over just how much temperature has risen; what part is due to CO2; what part to land-use changes; what part due to natural or intrinsic influences. How well do models represent climate; what is climates sensitivity; are the data reliable? Is there really a problem? Is it a problem that can be solved with proposed solutions? And what are potential consequences of proposed solutions? It is said to be certain, to be settled science. Really!?!
1. Hypotheses overview: More than one hypothesis can explain observed behavior.
Two general and contrasting views exist on climate behavior. One view is the consensus hypothesis, where external forcing both natural and anthropogenic dominates climate behavior (climate change) a modification of the former anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. The contrasting view allows a greater role for internally generated dynamics, especially on decadal-plus time scales.
According to the external-forcing view, parts of a system operate relatively independently; the system is prone to instability, is not resilient, and, with continued anthropogenic greenhouse-gas-emission increases, is projected to result in catastrophic climatic changes.
In contrast, the intrinsic-dynamics view envisions network-behavior dominating climate behavior, where parts of the ocean, ice, and atmosphere sub-systems self-organize over decadal-plus time scales, interacting with one another, and thereby initiating intra-network communication, conveying resilience and relative stability to the climate system.
The external forcing hypothesis is based on strong understanding of greenhouse-gas forcing, but low-to-very-low levels of understanding of other external forcings clouds, aerosols, solar influence, for examples. Extreme increases in projected temperatures rely on incomplete understanding of reinforcing consequences of the original CO2-induced warming, i.e. positive feedbacks. Little is understood about potential damping mechanisms e.g. clouds, aerosols, atmospheric convection, and precipitation. Likewise, little is fully understood about, or attributed to, intrinsic dynamics. None of these weaknesses guarantees this hypothesis is wrong, but the uncertainties involved are striking. More striking is that the hypothesis is not testable. It cannot be falsified. The alternate hypothesis, the network hypothesis, is rooted in observation, among a variety of indices. Mechanisms have been elucidated as possible dynamics underlying climate-signal evolution. Uncertainties underlie this hypothesis, as well. Yet, its strength lies on observations. They are consistent with the hypothesis, and in time years to decades this hypothesis is testable and falsifiable.
2. Models: Hypotheses, themselves, models are good tools, yet not reality.
Computer climate models complex, incomplete, and flawed have failed to capture the temporal and spatial signatures of observed climate behavior. Great tools, they are, but they, themselves, are hypotheses. Each one is an experiment, of sorts. A climate model can be thought of as a script, taking orders from computer programmers in the form of complex mathematical equations. Increased complexity of input is expensive and time-consuming. Hence, simplifying is required. Lost is the ability to capture details of climate phenomena too large or too complex for the model-grids scale of resolution. To compensate, some assumed-to-be unimportant phenomena are omitted entirely; other phenomena are parameterized, meaning simple empirical formulas are used to represent the collection of phenomena as best as understood, with adjustable coefficients inserted thermostats, of sorts, tweakable to fit observations. This does not mean output is necessarily wrong, but it does mean uncertainty looms in procedure and in results!!! A major problem arises when model outputs are considered to be reality.
3. Data: Ah yes, the data
But the data!!! exclaimed the woman, hurriedly removing herself from my presence in undisguised disgust. All I said was, climate is complex.
This is an unfortunate tale. Few realize: Data records are a mess. Thats the short version. The long one is filled with justifications and fixes. In short, climate is long-term behavior and we dont have long-term records. The longest instrument temperature records we have are patchwork compilations of temperature readings gathered from various and evolving technologies and varying degrees of instrumental precision. Confounding consistency are continual changes in measuring distributions; numbers of reporting stations; extent of coverage; and required conditions of the measuring stations; etc. Assumptions rule the temperature record. When we see data that make no sense, we speculate why. If the instrument, technology, conditions, and the like seem sketchy, we document such and assume what climate conditions likely existed and therefore what temperatures should have been recorded, based on a variety of guidelines, and we change the recorded temperatures to what we think it maybe really was
The motivation for adjusting data is honest; at least we hope it is. A recent increase in the frequency of data adjustments in temperature trends has raised red flags, with findings of undocumented changes, questionable extrapolation practices, and computer-initiated homogenization changes made according to assumptions. Some argue that where assumptions might have trumped accuracy, the number of errors is so small as to not present a problem. Yet, it seems yesterdays data sets showed variability over the years. Now the warm 1930s and 1940s have been erased, relegated to mythology. We shiver as we are told of the warmest years on record by hundredths of a degree, and with minor data re-calculations, pauses in observed temperature trends disappear overnight, and we are told to accept this, and we do, in light of all the uncertainties. Can this be???
There is more than one way to evaluate temperature. Four categories commonly used include surface thermometers, satellite-retrieved measurements, balloon-mounted instrumentation, and proxy data. None of these temperature trends match the modeled trends. Quantitatively, among the four temperature records, while their trends are analogous to one another, the magnitudes of their trends are not. Surface temperature-trends are steeper than satellite-retrieved and balloon-based temperatures; while satellite and balloon temperatures are similar to one another. Tree-rings buck the trend further, with one of cooling since 1940, most strongly since the 1960s. Tree-rings, depending on tree species and location, capture a variety of information e.g. moisture content, sun exposure, and also temperatures, generally maximum ones. On the other hand, much of the increase observed in surface instrumental land-temperature increases can be attributed mostly to increases in minimum temperatures, which, when averaged with their daily maximum counterparts, reflect increase. Satellite and balloon instrumentation infers temperature of the lower troposphere, where greenhouse-gas warming is supposed to be greater than surface warming. Thus, all methods differ in where and what they measure. All temperature data are further enhanced by extrapolations of neighboring stations, some up to 1200 km away, as in the Arctic the region known to host the widest extremes in temperature on multidecadal timescales. Sea-surface-temperature measuring methods have their own story. And then we model data or reanalysis products to infill missing data points. And sometimes we mix modeled data with observational data, subtracting one from the other, in order to evaluate climate. But right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, this is what we have. Judgment on such is not the point here. The point is uncertainty bias is potentially injected at every step of settled science.
Archival records speak to hot intervals The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer; in some places the seals are finding the water too hot
a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic
well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared (Washington Post: November 2, 1922). And in 1933, the New York Times: America in longest warm spell since 1776
a 25-year rise. And again in 1947, the New York Times: A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a serious international problem
And history tells us of cold July 18, 1970, New York Times: The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. Fortune Magazine in February of 1974 warns of a
very important climate change going on right now
not merely something of academic interest
.if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth
A longer view of climate, one supported by thousands of papers pre-dating the 1990s, showed pronounced variability and warm intervals equal to those of today, the most recent of which was about a thousand years ago. Studies in the late 1990s removed that variability. And while the science behind the historical climate revisions has been challenged and shown flawed, the public perception of past uniformity lingers.
5. Consensus: Not a measure of scientific validity.
Science has always been a story of revision. Consensus-based paradigms come and go. The geocentric model endured for 1600 years. But consensus plays no role in scientific validity. Yet, one can understand their evolution. Limitations of technology, egos, hardened mental filters, and the like can contribute to a flawed paradigms endurance. Typically paradigms are perpetuated by the best educated. Those not immersed in the field and not financially tied to the discipline were the one who saw through a different filter and revolutionized a science that was not necessarily their area of expertise.
Sometimes scientists find themselves split between being scientists and being useful to society. Most have read the words of scientist Stephen Schneider, now deceased, but once a scientist at NCAR: We are not just scientists, but human beings
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have
And then that of an NCAR scientist (to remain unnamed) who spoke to a class of mine in 2007, We should not talk to the politicians about our doubt or the uncertainties of our model output; we should keep that among ourselves, when we are talking to other scientists. It is our moral duty to express certainty. Yes, scientists are human
The diagram that follows traces my view of how todays consensus evolved.
The left side shows the IPCC* conclusions and goals feed the federal funding for grants given to scientists to study, specifically, the effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on climate behavior (AGW: anthropogenic global warming). This is the external-forcing-dominant paradigm. Thus, the funding feeds the AGW hypothesis. In turn, the hypothesis inspires the computer-climate-model designs. The modeled output, in turn, has led slowly to the observed data being adjusted, as the observed data records tend to be inconsistent with theory. The data, while fed by models and hypothesis, in turn, feed the hypothesis. Studies supporting the consensus hypothesis are easily published, review processes more streamlined and lenient than with studies whose conclusions do not support the hypothesis or are neutral. This all dove tails with media promotion, typically highlighting only AGWsupporting conclusions and not the methodology and data used to derive the conclusion, and not the authors noted limitations and weaknesses of the study and its conclusions.
The right side shows the fate of a non-AGW hypothesis: The IPCC does not fuel funding for the hypotheses that are not AGW, those that tend to argue for a strong role for internally generated dynamics (intrinsic variability). In the case of an alternate hypothesis, the data inspire the hypotheses. The historical data feed the hypothesis. Modeling with the atmosphereocean coupled general circulation models (AOGCMs) used for IPCC-related research do not support these hypotheses; it is assumed that critical dynamics are either absent or poorly represented in the AOGCMs.
White asterisks: modified and modeled data. .Red dotted line: no correlation. Blue arrow: arrow points from end member that supports the other. .Red arrow: arrow points to end member being driven by other member. Red dashed double arrow means the two end members are consistent or supportive of one another.
6. Perceptions/Reality: Things arent always as they seem.
Photo-journalism and social media have enhanced our understanding of the world. They bring to our eyes, and our hearts, the enormity of global changes that imperil our future. This eloquent statement, said to me recently by an acquaintance, was followed by an attempt to boost the credibility of her words And Im a Republican! Yes, I understand the political framing, much as I rebel against it as it has no place in science but that is todays reality. And she was on to something; indeed, photo-journalism and the power of social networking have scripted our perceptions and redesigned reality for our consumption. But, behind every photograph of a stranded polar bear, of mountain glaciers shrinking, of drought-ravaged landscapes, of tornado-inflicted devastation, of flooded neighborhoods, of pounding seas and calving glaciers, hurricane-pounded surfs and ice-locked shipping ports, our impulse to assign cause to effect confounds our ability to reason, to see the story behind the sensation.
For examples: Polar-bear populations have rebounded, especially since the hunting rules were changed in the 1950s. The bears have redistributed their populations within the Arctic, and for those in regions of greater ice loss, the white giants have been found to exhibit foraging plasticity i.e. they are changing their diets[1]. In the cases of droughts, hurricanes, weather events, etc many exhibit decadal to multidecadal cyclical behavior, with human population shifts further modifying the trends not shown to be due to global warming, but through land-use changes, through changes in perception about the events due to where population centers have migrated, and to greater exposure due to 24/7 news and a camera phone in every pocket. Calving glaciers are calving because they are growing; retreating glaciers, especially mountain glaciers, are retreating for a variety of reasons while rising temperatures certainly play a role in some cases, little evidence supports global warming as the main culprit. In fact, mountain glaciers are really bad thermometers adjacent glaciers may exhibit opposing trends, with one advancing and the other retreating. Much of the retreat witnessed in glaciers occurred long before carbon-dioxide emissions were prominent. And precipitation patterns, winds, solar-insolation patterns are among factors dominating the behavior of these alpine features. Sea-level-rise is occurring at a rate about 2mm/year, depending on the study cited. A cyclical component underlies a linear one. Complications in measuring and comparing current to historical measurements confound clear assessments. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, if melted, would contribute the most severe consequences to rising water, but dynamics are complex and our understanding of them not at all imbued with certainty.
Scientists compound the misperceptions at times. The famous study by Parmesan et al (1999)[2], associating warming with the poleward-migration patterns of butterflies in northern Europe is one such example. A shift has been documented, but a conclusive reason was far from established, a direct link to temperature not forthcoming. But the conclusion was promoted anyway. The uncertainties laid in the inconvenient about third of the 35 species studied moved north with warming temperatures; approximately two-thirds expanded north, not abandoning their southern bounds. A small percentage actually shifted southward with increasing temperatures. The list is long of these ambiguities in study results none pliable within sound bites, herein muting the message of uncertainty!
(Possible consequences of global warming an essay: www.wyattonearth.net investigations into climate and geology page)
7. Solutions: Everything is a tradeoff. Beware the fix being worse than the problem.
There is the view point that we should just do something, just in case
And argument can be made for this opinion. But arguments can be made against too, many laid out in this text and its accompanying Power Point presentation.
Regulation is one approach toward a solution. Will there be unintended impacts? Economic? Environmental? What countries will comply? CO2 knows no boundaries. And most importantly, what correction in the climate-change trend can be effected? Will our best intentions curtail warming significantly? By some estimates, a 40% decrease of CO2 emissions in the United States, alone, will avert a scant 0.016ºC of projected warming by 2050, assuming a climate sensitivity of 2ºC.[3] And if climate sensitivity is assumed larger, at the high end of estimates, say 4.5ºC, then the temperature-increase averted by 2050 will be 0.025ºC, and by 2100, 0.056ºC. Bring all industrialized nations under regulatory control, and if the collective reduction of emissions is 20%, with an assumed climate sensitivity mid-range, at 3ºC, the temperature-increase thwarted is estimated at 0.025ºC; by 2100, 0.045ºC. Is the science settled enough to justify the drastic economic adjustments required for the projected solution realized? What level of uncertainty is acceptable?
And seeking energy resources that provide beneficial alternates is not at all a bad thing, for a variety of reasons, not just environmental. But caution is warranted, as with good intentions, there is always a trade-off, usually hidden behind the good feeling of doing something. For example, wind turbines: Just a few months ago, the German medical community requested a halt to further turbine installation until the health impacts of turbine-associated low-frequency noise can be further studied. Perhaps stories of dying sheep and goats due to sleep deprivation and reported human problems of headaches, dizziness, nausea and insomnia associated with noise from the whapping blades hold merit. Birds and bats are casualties hundreds of thousands each year, with trickle-down consequences on insect populations (increasing mosquitoes, for one). Costs and pollution of associated fossil-fuel use are a dirty secret, a consequence of on-demand backup requirements, consequent of winds inconsistent presence. Local weather changes result from turbine-altered wind patterns. And solar solutions are not without issue. Manufacturing-related leakage of SF6 and NF3 greenhouse gases 23,000 and 17,000 times as potent as CO2; reduced albedo (reflectivity) in desert areas due to acreage covered in black panels; and birds vaporizing in flight over hot panels. Clean trucks, newer than five-years-old, in Europe, are associated with unexpected increases (34%) in black carbon emissions soot a warming agent.
These points are a small sampling of the many documented issues of re-designing our energy use. Not that re-structuring would not be worthwhile to strive toward, but we have talked about this goal for at least forty years and little progress has been made. It must be realized that every source of generating and transmitting energy comes with trade-offs. None are without flaws and detriments.
Deciding on action is difficult, a personal opinion. Understanding the level of scientific certainty of the proposed problem is one step toward that decision. How settled is the science? How much uncertainty hides behind the loud voices and compelling photographs?
[1] Gormezano and Rockwell (2013): What to eat now? Shifts in polar bear diet during the ice-free season in western Hudson Bay; Ecology and Evolution 3(10):3509-3523; doi:10.1002/ece3.740
[2] Parmesan et al. (1999): Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming; Nature 399, 579-583; doi:10.1038/21181
[3] meaning that climate is assumed to behave in such a way, that for a doubling of CO2, temperatures will increase 2ºC
Fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, are really solar energy stored up over millions of years of geologic history. Discovery and exploitation of these fuels has made possible the Industrial Revolution of the past three centuries, with huge advances in the living standard of an exploding global population, and advances in science that have led to the development of sustainable, non-fossil-based sources of energy -- assuring availability of vital energy supplies far into the future.
Energy based on nuclear fission has many of the same advantages and none of the disadvantages of solar and wind: it emits no carbon dioxide (CO2) and is practically inexhaustible. Nuclear does have special problems; but these are mostly based on irrational fears.
A major problem for solar/wind is intermittency -- while nuclear reactors operate best supplying reliable, steady base-load power. Intermittency can be partially overcome by providing costly stand-by power, at least partly from fossil fuels. But nuclear also has special problems (like the care and disposal of spent fuel) that raise its cost -- and inevitably lead to more emission of CO2. Such special problems make any cost comparison with solar/wind rather difficult and also somewhat arbitrary.
At first glance, neither solar/wind or nuclear generate electric power without emitting the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide. But this simple argument is misleading. All three sources of energy require the manufacture of equipment, and that usually involves some CO2 emission; a rough measure is given by comparing the relative capital costs of site preparation and construction, as well as of operation and maintenance (O&M). Caution must be exercised here: a nuclear plant has a much longer useful life (up to 60 years, and beyond). We dont have much experience yet with corresponding lifetimes and O&M costs for solar and wind, but they are likely to be higher than for nuclear reactors -- excepting for the preparation cost of nuclear reactor fuel.
There is general agreement that both solar and wind energy are truly inexhaustible and satisfy the principle of sustainability. However, both are very dilute and require large land areas -- as well as special favorable locations -- and subsequent transmission of electric power. On the other hand, nuclear power plants have only a tiny footprint and can be placed at many more locations, provided there is cooling water nearby.
Nuclear Energy is Sustainable
Surprisingly, nuclear energy is also inexhaustible -- for all practical purposes. Uranium is not in short supply, as many assume; this is true only for high-grade ores, the only ones considered worth mining these days. Beyond lowergrade ores, there is uranium in granites -- and an essentially infinite but currently uneconomic amount in the worlds oceans.
Only 0.7% of natural uranium is in the form of the fissionable U-235 isotope; the remainder is inert U-238. For use in power reactors, the uranium fuel must be enriched in U-235 to at least to the 2%-level; for weapons, the required level rises to about 80%.
Currently, uranium is cheap enough to justify once-through use in light-water power reactors; the fuel rods are replaced after a fraction of the U-235 is burnt up; actually, some fissionable plutonium (Pu) is also created (from U-238) and generates heat -- and electric power. The spent fuel is mostly U-238, plus radioactive fission products with lifetimes measured in centuries, and small amounts of long-lived radio-active Pu isotopes and other nasty heavy elements.
But as every nuclear engineer knows, the spent fuel is not waste but constitutes an important potential resource. The inert U-238 can be transformed into valuable fissionable reactor fuel in breeder reactors -- enlarging the useful uranium resource by a factor of about 100. And beyond uranium ores, there are vast quantities of thorium ores that can also yield fissionable material for reactor fuel. It is mainly a matter of reactor design -- not wasting any neutrons used for breeding.
And we havent even mentioned nuclear fusion, the energy source that powers our Sun. Fusion has been the holy grail of plasma physicists, who after decades of research have not yet been successful in building a stable fusion reactor; the hydrogen bomb is a version of unstable fusion. I hate to admit this: We may not need fusion reactors at all; uranium fission works just fine. However, a hybrid fusion-fission design might make sense; it would use pulsed fusion as a source of neutrons for breeding inert uranium or thorium into fissionable material for reactor fuel.
So why are we not moving full speed ahead with all forms of nuclear, destined to become our ultimate source of energy for generating heat and electricity? Are we wasting precious time and dollars on marginal improvements to solar photovoltaic and wind technology? What seems to be holding back nuclear is public concern about safety, proliferation, and disposal of spent fuel.
Safety: It should be noted that there have never been lives lost in commercial nuclear accidents; Chernobyl was a reactor type not commercially used in the West. Proper design is constantly improving safety by reducing the number of valves and pipes, by relying on gravity in inherently safe designs, and by properly training human operators.
Nuclear proliferation: Over past decades, many things have changed. There is no longer a nuclear duopoly of US and USSR. The horses have left the stable: If terrorist North Korea and Iran can build weapons -- and delivery systems -- it may be time to rethink international proliferation policy.
Disposal of spent reactor fuel: I am assured there are no real technical problems; there are even reactor designs (like IFR Integral Fast Reactor) that can eliminate all waste. Reprocessing of spent reactor fuel works just fine, but has been discouraged because of historic concerns with proliferation based on plutonium; but power reactors dont produce plutonium suitable for weapons.
Relative Costs
It is doubtful that future generations will ever enjoy the truly low cost of fossil fuels. In a rational world, low-cost deposits are exploited first and costs rise gradually; this has not been the case for petroleum, mainly for geopolitical reasons, but it is more or less happening with coal, where many low-cost deposits around the world compete with each other.
For wind and solar, technical limits may soon be reached for conversion devices (wind turbines and photovoltaic cells), and a lower cost limit may then be set by O&M costs, by the opportunity cost of the land occupied, and/or by transmission costs of electric power.
For nuclear, there are still many ways to lower cost, widely discussed in technical journals: construction of modular, low-power (~100 megawatt) reactors in factory mass production rather than costly on-site construction of gigawatt reactors. The biggest savings would come from more rapid construction and less delay, involving pre-approval of reactor sites and blanket approval of standardized, mass-produced reactor designs.
Energy Policy
In spite of its obvious advantages, why then is nuclear being downgraded compared to wind and solar? Call me a cynic if you want; but I think the main reason is money. Another reason is the ingrained hatred by Green groups of all things nuclear.
A classic example by now is Solyndra, which managed to waste more than half-a-billion dollars of federal money. In addition to innumerable small projects (that add up to an impressive total), one can cite some major boondoggles: How about the governments third (!) attempt to build a solar power tower? [The first one failed during the Nixon-Carter administrations Project Independence some 40 years ago.]
None of these projects can survive without generous subsidies, feed-in tariffs, and tax breaks. The costs are borne by ordinary ratepayers; for example, electric energy costs in Denmark and Germany, leaders in wind power, are 3-4 times US costs. In the US, the policy disaster has been strictly bipartisan. While George W. Bush disavowed the Kyoto Protocol, he missed the opportunity to phase out and kill subsidies for solar and wind. We are currently witnessing the consequences of this failure.
Update: A portion of the above essay had been submitted as an op-ed by S. Fred Singer and Gerald E. Marsh to The Bridge, a quarterly journal of the National Academy of Engineering.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Supplement 1
Supplement 2
Supplement 3
Supplement 4
Supplement 5
Supplement 6
Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the PelicanWeb Home Page


text:
Columbia River Caucus
The Columbia River Caucus provides a forum for County Commissioners within the Columbia River Basin to interact, discuss, engage and partner with the Washington State Department of Ecology in the implementation of the Columbia River Basin Water Supply Development Program.
RCW 90.90 was adopted by the 2006 legislature and provides the framework for implementing the Columbia River Basin Water Management Program. It directs Ecology to aggressively pursue development of water supplies to benefit both instream and out-of-stream uses through storage, conservation and voluntary regional water management agreements. Specifically, RCW 90.90.020 stipulates that the primary foci for the Program are:
"(3) The department of ecology shall focus its efforts to develop water supplies for the Columbia river basin on the following needs:
(a) Alternatives to groundwater for agricultural users in the Odessa subarea aquifer;
(b) Sources of water supply for pending water right applications;
(c) A new uninterruptible supply of water for the holders of interruptible water rights on the Columbia river mainstem that are subject to instream flows or other mitigation conditions to protect streamflows; and
(d) New municipal, domestic, industrial, and irrigation water needs within the Columbia river basin."
WSAC has been involved in the Program since its creation. WSAC also seeks to include designated watershed planning units (under RCW 90.82) and Ground Water Management Units (under RCW 90.44) adjacent to the Columbia River to interact, discuss, engage, and partner with the Washington State Department of Ecology in the implementation of the Columbia River Water Management Program.
Ecology has formed a Policy Advisory Group (CR-PAG), made up of a broad group of stakeholders interested in water supply issues in Eastern Washington, to advise it on implementation of the Program. County commissioners have four seats on the CR-PAG. The CR-PAG has been meeting since the program was initiated and has provided valuable insights to Ecology.
As of February 2019, WSAC's county commissioner members of the CR-PAG are:
- Commissioner Mark Stedman, Lincoln County
- Commissioner Mike Leita, Yakima County
- Commissioner Wes McCart, Stevens County
- Commissioner Richard Stevens, Grant County
Four alternates have been appointed to participate in CR-PAG meetings when the regular members are not available. These alternates are:
- Commissioner Jerome Delvin, Benton County
- Commissioner Ron Anderson, Yakima County
- Commissioner Doug Englund, Chelan County
- Commissioner Scott Hutsell, Lincoln County
Participation in the Columbia River Caucus
Each member of a Legislative Body from a County in Eastern Washington (defined for these purposes as all counties above Bonneville Dam) may participate in the Columbia River Caucus. Typically, member counties designate one commissioner per county to participate. Additionally, it is expected that the Washington State Department of Ecology will provide consistent attendance and leadership from the Office of the Columbia River with support from other divisions as necessary.
Specific Objectives and Responsibilities of the Commissioner's PAG:
- Help Ecology identify policy issues with implementing the Columbia River Basin Water Management Program.
- Provide Ecology with perspectives on water-related topics from local government officials elected to govern counties in the Columbia River Basin.
- Assure that the interests of Watershed Planning Groups and Ground Water Management Units are fully represented in a meaningful and integrated manner.
- Provide guidance and advice to County Representatives representing the Columbia River Counties on a variety of committees including the Columbia River Policy Advisory Group and providing advice to Ecology on implementation of the Columbia River Program and related water issues.
The Commissioners' PAG meets 4-6 times per year to carry out these tasks.
Neil Aaland provides staff support to counties involved in this Program. Neil can be reached by e-mail at email@example.com or by phone at (360) 791-8905.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Tesla Motors, the California maker of the Model S electric sedan, this week will open the first Supercharger stations in Colorado along the key Interstate 70 corridor.
The Superchargers are at Glenwood Springs and Silverthorne along I-70, and both will be available for use Thursday.
The company said that with the latest expansion of Telsa's Supercharger network, Model S drivers have access to 26 Superchargers in the United States.
The stations provide free charging and are between city centers and popular tourist destinations which enables free long-distance travel with the Model S, said Tesla.
The Model S was named Motor Trend's 2013 Car of the Year.
More denverpost.com


text: Media Newsroom ofMiamiSem Follow on Social Network 95 Merrick Way 3rd Floor,Coral GablesMiami, FL 33134Phone: 1-786-607-7655Website: http://miamisem.com/ SEO Miami – Miami SEM provides SEO, PPC, social media & web design in Miami, Florida. Plans start at $399. Call (786) 607-7655 for a FREE WEBSITE ANALYSIS!At Miami SEM, we are digital marketing, SEO, and Web Design specialists. We put our clients first, utilizing the most up-to-date techniques and technology available. We are a fully Google Panda, Hummingbird, Penguin-compliant Search Engine (SEO) and Social Media Optimization services provider. Your business's online presence needs to be current in order to be competitive in today's digital landscape- we can help!


text:
As an NPO we are able to make a difference through the support of our community. WE ARE BETTER TOGETHER! We reach over 1200 children, we empower over 100 women, and add value to our city.
As we THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX for ways to connect, we invite local companies to get creative. Examples:
- A local designer/printer allocates us an annual printing budget, and advertises the partnership on their website.
- A car product shop sponsors through monthly giving, while a construction group sponsors school fees for two children each month.
- A flooring shop sources and sets aside astroturf to help us with creche renovations.
And now, together with Dominique Holdings we can offer your business a chance to save on copier costs while supporting Botshabelo too.
For every machine supplied Dominique Holdings will donate the first month's rental to Botshabelo.


text:
NFL Star Orlando Scandrick -- BACK ON ... With 'Basketball Wives' Star
NFL Star Orlando Scandrick BACK ON With 'Basketball Wives' Star
Two big victories for Dallas Cowboys stud Orlando Scandrick ... first, he beat the Texans -- and then, he GOT BACK TOGETHER WITH HIS EX!
Just two months after "Basketball Wives: LA" star Draya Michele kicked him to the curb, the two were back in each other's arms in Dallas this weekend.
Michele went to the game -- rooted for Orlando -- and even sat with his family members.
Afterward, she posted a pic on Instagram with the caption, "We might not HAVE IT ALL TOGETHER, but TOGETHER we HAVE IT ALL."
Back before the split in August, Draya had said the two were close to marriage.
Wonder if they're gonna pick up where they left off.
Waiting for your permission to load the comments.


text:
Have you ever wondered how you can optimise your training? Perhaps you have a heart rate monitor and have no idea what the 'numbers' mean?
If so then this may be the way forward. A Lactate test is a straightforward way of ensuring you understand and know the correct training zone to train in. The process is straightforward and involves you running on a treadmill, starting at a very comfortable pace. Pace is gradually increased and periodically small blood samples are taken and the lactate you are producing is measured. The information is correlated with heart rate and speed measurements and the training zones that are specific to you can be determined.
Yes, it really is that straightforward. Yes, it does work, just ask any of the Accelerate Supported Runners who have seen continual improvement.
You will also, be given time to discuss what the different training zones mean and you will be given a full report, following the test.
The test will be carried out by one of our fully trained Coaches, either Stuart or Marcus and the cost is £95 per person. Group concessions are available.
Testing is carried out by lead coach Stuart Hale and by Marcus Scotney.


text:
A Fundamental Point...
The Big Bang " wasn't the emergence of the universe into space, but rather the emergence of space," according to physicist Brian Clegg in Before the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, there was "not empty space; just nothing."
Robert Wolfe, in the Science of the Sages shares this insight by Brian Clegg and he goes on to say that "….all matter and all gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to precisely counterbalance. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because, it is, fundamentally, nothing."
He then shares that Astronomy professor Mark Whittle elaborated that "The total mass/energy of the universe equals zero: the universe sums to nothing. This is comparable to what one associates with traditional spiritual -based cosmologies. This also gives us insight into how the universe came into being: perhaps it came from nothing."
In Kashmir Shaivism, which is the great monastic tradition, it states that the object/subject relationship eventually subsides and all that is left is pure subjectivity - pure "perceiver"… Could this be where science and the monastic practices of non-duality intersect? And can it be true that a person can experience this subjective "empty" consciousness, without the limits of the mind, intellect or ego, while still in the body?


text:
Our Residential Painting Contractors are some of the most professional in the business! Here at Tru Colors Contracting we know that we are able to give you the top quality painting job you deserve. Our professional team has the experience and resources to handle any size job. We use top quality products that will give you the long lasting results we promise and guarantee. Painting is the cheapest and most impact home improvement you can do to maintain the value of your home and protect your investment. Hire Tru Colors Contracting today and see for yourself why we are considered one of the best in the business. For more information about our business, contact Tru Colors Contracting today!
Here at Tru Colors Contracting we customize our services to meet the specific needs of your residential painting project as well as you fitting your budget. Our sales team has years of experience quoting jobs, and will not only give you an accurate price, but will discuss in full detail your entire project from start to finish. We do not have any hidden costs or fees. We back this up in our written price quotes! After we finish your project we will also perform a final walk-through to make sure your job meets both yours and Tru Colors expectations. We are proud to offer some of the best Residential Painting Contractors in the business. They work with integrity and do not rest until the job is done right. Trust our reliable team here at Tru Colors Contracting.
At Tru Colors Contracting, we treat each and every job as a top priority, and we are dedicated to ensuring that all of our client's needs are met. Take a look at some of our past clients and see for yourself how we can help you with your residential painting needs. Project planning is important to us and we strive to make your project run smoothly and timely, while giving you a brighter image for your clientele and employees. Next time you are in need of professional Residential Painting Contractors, look no further than Tru Colors Contracting. Contact us today to find out how Tru Colors Contracting can help make your company's next interior/exterior residential painting project spectacular.
Call Tru Colors contracting today, to schedule your estimate and find out how we can help you make your next project spectacular!
Licensed, Bonded & Insured


text:
Financial Statement Analysis
- Ratio Analysis of Financial Statements (Formula, Types, Excel)
- Ratio Analysis Advantages
- Ratio Analysis
- Liquidity Ratios
- Cash Ratio
- Cash Ratio Formula
- Quick Ratio
- Quick Ratio Formula
- Current Ratio
- Current Ratio Formula
- Acid Test Ratio Formula
- Defensive Interval Ratio
- Working Capital Ratio
- Working Capital Formula
- Net Working Capital Formula
- Changes in Net Working Capital
- Change in Net Working Capital (NWC) Formula
- Cash Flow from Operations Ratio
- Cash Flow Per Share
- Cash Reserve Ratio
- Operating Cycle Formula
- Current Ratio vs Quick Ratio
- Bid Ask Spread
- Liquidity vs Solvency
- Liquidity
- Solvency
- Solvency Ratios
- Equity Ratio
- Capital Adequacy Ratio
- Liquidity Risk
- Altman Z Score
- Turnover Ratios
- Inventory Turnover Ratio
- Accounts Receivable Turnover
- Accounts Receivables Turnover Ratio
- Accounts Payable Turnover Ratio
- Days Inventory Outstanding
- Days in Inventory
- Days Sales Outstanding
- Days Sales Uncollected
- Average Collection Period
- Days Payable Outstanding
- Cash Conversion Cycle
- Cash Conversion Cycle (CCC) Formula
- Fixed Asset Turnover Ratio Formula
- Debtor Days Formula
- Working Capital Turnover Ratio
- Profitability Ratios
- Profitability Ratios Formula
- Common Size Income Statement
- Vertical Analysis of Income Statement
- Profit Margin
- Gross Profit Margin Formula
- Gross Profit Percentage
- Operating Profit Margin Formula
- EBIT Margin Formula
- Operating Income Formula
- Net Profit Margin Formula
- EBITDA Margin
- Degree of Operating Leverage Formula (DOL)
- NOPAT Formula
- Earnings Per Share
- Basic EPS
- Diluted EPS
- Basic EPS vs Diluted EPS
- Return on Equity (ROE)
- Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)
- Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)
- Return on Sales
- ROIC Formula (Return on Invested Capital)
- Return on Investment Formula (ROI)
- ROIC vs ROCE
- ROE vs ROA
- Cash on Cash Return
- Return on Total Assets (ROA)
- Return on Average Capital Employed
- Capital employed Employed
- Return on Average Assets (ROAA)
- Return on Average Equity (ROAE)
- Return on Assets Formula
- Return on Equity Formula
- DuPont Formula
- Net Interest Margin Formula
- Earnings Per Share Formula
- Diluted EPS Formula
- Contribution Margin Formula
- Unit Contribution Margin
- Revenue Per Employee Ratio
- Operating Leverage
- EBIT vs EBITDA
- Capital Gains Yield
- Tax Equivalent Yield
- LTM Revenue
- Operating Expense Ratio Formula
- Overhead Ratio Formula
- Variable Costing Formula
- Capitalization Rate
- Cap Rate Formula
- Comparative Income Statement
- Capacity Utilization Rate Formula
- Total Expense Ratio Formula
- Markup Percentage Formula
- Efficiency Ratios
- Dividend Ratios
- Debt Ratios
- Debt to Equity Ratio
- Debt Coverage Ratio
- Debt Ratio
- Debt to Asset Ratio Formula
- Coverage Ratio
- Coverage Ratio Formula
- Debt to Income Ratio Formula (DTI)
- Capital Gearing Ratio
- Capitalization Ratio
- Overcapitalization
- Interest Coverage Ratio
- Times Interest Earned Ratio
- Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR)
- DSCR Formula (Debt service coverage ratio)
- Financial Leverage Ratio
- Financial Leverage Formula
- Degree of Financial Leverage Formula
- Net Debt Formula
- Leverage Ratios
- Leverage Ratios Formula
- Operating Leverage vs Financial Leverage
- Current Yield
- Debt Yield Ratio
- Solvency Ratio Formula
Related Courses
Asset Turnover Ratio – On 31st January 2016, Wal-Mart had total revenues of US $482 billion. And its total assets were US $203 billion at the beginning of the year and US $199.6 at the end of the year. So to calculate the average total assets, we need to take the average of the figure at the beginning of the year and of the figure at the end of the year, i.e. (US$ 203 billion + US$199 billion)/2 = US$201.3 billion. Then the asset turnover ratio of Wal-Mart would be precisely (US $482 billion / US$201.3 billion) = 2.39x
So, if you have a look at the figure above you would visually understand how efficient Wal-Mart asset utilization is. The revenue is more than double of what assets they have.
Throughout this article, we will explain how you would be able to calculate asset turnover ratio for your company and how useful it is in reviewing your business at the end of each year.
In this article, we will talk about the following –
- What is Asset Turnover Ratio?
- Asset Turnover Ratio formula
- Interpretation of Asset Turnover Ratio
- Asset Turnover Ratio Example
- Nestle Asset Turnover Ratio Calculations
- Colgate vs P&G – battle of Asset Turnover Ratios
- Limitations of Asset Turnover Ratio
- In the final analysis
Recommended Courses
What is Asset Turnover Ratio?
In simple terms, asset turnover ratio means how much revenue you earn on the basis of the total assets you have. And this revenue figure would equate the sales figure in your Income Statement.
The reason for which it's important is this ratio will give you how useful your assets are in generating revenue. You would agree that there could be some of the assets which lie around in the organization; we call them assets but actually they are not able directly or indirectly affect the revenue of the company.
So asset turnover ratio is used to find out whether the assets you have are efficient enough or not. Higher the number better would be the asset efficiency of the organization. It's being seen that in retail industry the asset turnover ratio is usually higher, i.e. more than 2.
Asset Turnover Ratio formula
To calculate asset turnover ratio, you need to find out the total revenue (the total sales or you can take the average of the sales figure at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year) and then divide it with total assets (or else you can take the average figure at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year).
Asset Turnover Ratio Formula = Sales / Average Assets
Now there are few things you should know before we can go to the interpretation of the ratio.
4.9 (1,067 ratings)
View Course
First, what do we mean by Sales or Net sales and what figure we would take to calculate the ratio? What are total assets and would we include every asset the firm has or there would be some exception?
When you calculate a ratio using "Sales", it usually means "Net Sales" and not "Gross Sales". This "Net Sales" come in the Income statement and it is called "operating revenues" for the company for selling its products or rendering any services. If you have been given a figure of "Gross Sales" and you need to find out "Net Sales", look for any "Sales Discount" or "Sales Returns". If you deduct the "Sales Discounts / Returns" from the "Gross Sales", you would get the figure of "Net Sales".
Now let's come to the total assets. What would we include in total assets? We will include everything that yields value for the owner for more than one year. That means we will include all fixed assets. At the same time, we will also include assets which can easily be converted into cash. That means we would be able to take current assets under total assets. And we will also include intangible assets that have value but they are non-physical in nature, like goodwill. We will not take fictitious assets (e.g. promotional expenses of a business, discount allowed on the issue of shares, a loss incurred on issue of debentures etc.) into account.
Interpretation of Asset Turnover Ratio
This is a very important thing to consider as this will ultimately turn out to be what decision you would make about your company in the long run. Let's interpret two options and let's discuss these scenarios in detail.
If asset turnover ratio < 1
- If the asset turnover ratio is less than 1, then it's not good for the company as the total assets aren't able to produce enough revenue at the end of the year.
- But this is subject to an assumption. If the asset turnover ratio of the industry in which the company belongs is usually less than 0.5 in most of the cases and this company's asset turnover ratio is 0.9, then this company is doing well irrespective of its lower asset turnover ratio.
If asset turnover ratio > 1
- If asset turnover ratio is greater than 1, it's always good. Because that means the company is able to generate enough revenue for itself.
- But this is subject to an exception. For example, let's say the company belongs to a retail industry where the company keeps their total assets low and as a result, the average asset turnover ratio is always over 2 for most of the companies.
- In that case, if this company has asset turnover ratio of 1.5, then this company isn't doing well. And the owner has to think about restructuring the company so that the company would be able to generate better revenues.
Here one thing every company should keep in mind. If they want to compare their asset turnover ratio with another company, it should do it with the companies in the same industry to understand their actual position.
Asset Turnover Ratio Example
Let's understand asset turnover ratio with an example.
|Company A (in US $)
|Company B (in US $)
|Gross Sales
|Sales Discount
|Assets at the beginning of the year
|Assets at the end of the year
Let's do the calculation to find out the asset turnover ratio for both the companies.
First as we have been given Gross Sales, we need to calculate the Net Sales for both of the companies.
|Company A (in US $)
|Company B (in US $)
|Gross Sales
|(-) Sales Discount
|Net Sales
And as we have the assets at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year, we need to find out the average assets for both of the companies.
|Company A (in US $)
|Company B (in US $)
|Assets at the beginning of the year (A)
|Assets at the end of the year (B)
|Total Assets (A + B)
|Average Assets [(A + B)/2]
Now, let's calculate the asset turnover ratio for both the companies.
|Company A (in US $)
|Company B (in US $)
|Net Sales (X)
|Average Assets (Y)
|Asset Turnover Ratio (X/Y)
Let's say both companies, A and B are from same industry. In that case, we can do a comparative analysis. It's clearly seen that the asset turnover ratio of Company A is more than the asset turnover ratio of Company B. As it is assumed that they both belong to the same industry, we can conclude that Company A is able to utilize their assets better to generate revenue than Company B.
But, let's say Company A and Company B are from different industry. Then we won't be able to compare their asset turnover ratio against each other. Rather, in that case, we need to find out the average asset turnover ratio of the respective industries and then we can compare the asset turnover ratio of each company.
Nestle Asset Turnover Ratio Calculations
We have discussed how you would be able to calculate the asset turnover ratio and would also be able to compare among multiple ratios in the same industry.
Let us now compute Nestle's Asset Turnover and what can we interpret from the values obtained.
Calculation of Nestle's Asset Turnover
The first step involves extracting the relevant data for Asset Turnover. For Asset Turnover, you require two set of Data – 1) Sales 2) Assets.
You can access Nestle's Annual reports from here.
Once you have the data for say last 5-6 yeras, you can put those in excel as shown below. Calculate the Average Assets size for each year.
The next step is to calculate Asset Turnover = Sales / Average Assets
Below is Nestle's Asset Turnover for the past 15+ years.
source: ycharts
So from the computation, it is seen that the asset turnover ratio of Nestle is lesser than 1. But that doesn't mean it's a lower asset turnover ratio. We need to see other companies from the same industry to do a comparison.
Also, you may note from this chart, the Asset Turnovers has shown a decreasing trend over the past 15 years.
Let's take another example of Asset Turnovers.
Colgate vs P&G – battle of Asset Turnover Ratios
Let's look at the asset turnover ratio of two companies Colgate and P&G.
source: ycharts
- For the past 10 years, Colgate has been maintaining a healthy Asset Turnover of more than 1.0x
- On the other hand, P&G is facing challenges in maintaining an Asset Turnover. Currently, its asset turnover is 0.509x.
- Colgate's Asset Turnover is 1.262 / 0.509 = 2.47x better than that of P&G.
- We would be able to say that P&G has to improve their asset utilization so as to increase the revenue generation through assets.
Limitations of Asset Turnover Ratio
As everything has its good side and bad side, asset turnover ratio has two things that make this ratio limited in scope. Of course, it helps us understand the asset utility in the organization but this ratio has two shortcomings that we should mention.
- It includes all idle assets: As in the computation, we take the figure of total assets at the end of the year; we also take into account idle assets which shouldn't have been included.
- It gives a general efficiency ratio: From this ratio, it's impossible to extract the individual asset utilization data which limits our understanding of the efficiency of an individual asset.
Asset Turnover Ratio Video
Related Articles
- Examples of Assets in Accounting
- Tangible Assets
- Current Assets
- Ratio Analysis
- PE Ratios
- Financial Liabilities Ratios
- Cash Ratio
- DSCR Ratio
- Current Ratio
- Working Capital Ratio
In the final analysis
You certainly should use asset turnover ratio for understanding the efficiency of your assets in the organization, but don't forget to have other ratios handy, like cash ratio, current ratio, quick ratio, fixed asset turnover ratio, equity turnover ratio so as to understand the overall picture of the company.


text:
This screen will display the Allelic Association test data in a Quantile-Quantile plot chart.
Selecting the QQ-plot node in the tree (1) will display this chart (2). It is a static png image containing all the markers of this Allelic Association test.
QQ-charts are drawn plotting the ascending ordered observed X² values against a random X² distribution with 1 degree of freedom. A departure of the expected value line depicts different kinds of departure from the null hypothesis (stratification bias in the case/control population, association…).
Refer to WTCCC Genome-wide association study (Nature. 2007 Jun 7;447(7145):645-6).


text:
Office of Academic Affairs
Academic Affairs at North Country Community College includes credit and non-credit courses, summer school, the College Bridge program, academic support from the Learning Assistance Centers, and the Library.
Our office is available to aid students from the very moment they decide to apply to North Country. Have a specific question or service you're looking for? Here is information on some of our most frequently asked about resources and services. Can't find what you're looking for? Contact a member of our staff and we'll be happy to help.
Office of Academic Affairs Resources & Services:
• Absence due to Religious Beliefs
•Academic Affairs Calendar 2018-2019
• Change in Program of Study / Course Load / Returning to NCCC
•Accommodative Services for Students with Disabilities (ADA-504)
• Withdrawal from Classes or the College


text:
There's been a lot of growth in the last month. We've had a lot of warm weather so far this spring, but I'm not sure if this is typical for this time of year. I seem to spend every spare moment in the garden doing little jobs – sowing seeds, thinning seedlings, feeding liquid fertiliser, and picking a few bits and pieces.
Fruit Trees
I've had, er, mixed results with stone fruit. I'm sure my newly planted dwarf peach is dead – I pruned it back a little and it was woody all the way through. What did I do wrong? My dwarf Stella cherry still feels like it has sap running (which I'm told means its alive) but no shoots to be seen. However, here is the dwarf Goldmine looking good. It has some leaf curl and two fruits developping. It's only a foot high.
The Fantasia nectarine is only just leafing up. This seems later than every other tree in the area. This spot has a wall to the east. I grew cucumbers very successfully in this spot last year – the soil stays quite moist. So maybe the soil heats up later in the year than more exposed parts. Still, I'm not feeling very optimistic about the cherry.
The Duffy and Apollo feijoas are sending out new growth from the tips and from the base. I can see how you can choose to grow these shrubs or as trees. Question is, is one growth habit better for fruiting than another? I have no idea. Also, these are named varieties so I should check whether they're grafted. If so, I'm assuming I should snip those suckers? Just finally, are they some flower buds to the left?
I planted three olives in autumn: Manzanillo (in a half wine barrel), Kalamata, and a Verdale. The potted Manzanillo pictured below is putting on the most growth. Bit worried the other two are getting too much shade (I know, olives and shade don't mix).
There's growth on most of my stepover and cordon apples. It seems like a good amount but I have no experience to compare it with.
Fruit growing on my Duke of Clarence apple cordon in its first spring. I snipped the fruit that set on the tip but I'm going to let these ones further down the main stem stay.
I'm letting the parsley stay and go to seed. I got loads of parsley coming up over spring from the dry seeds I shook out in autumn. I also read on Jerry Colby-Williams' blog that he find parsley one of the best plants for attracting beneficial bugs. Here is my parsley being obliging.
I think chives are a fabulous plant in the edible garden. They have a very upright and dense form, while being soft and wavy. And I just love the mauve flowers. It is such an easy, useful herb to grow. Something I hate buying at the shops because it's usually in pretty poor shape.
Tarragon dies back over winter and sprouts anew each spring. This is the French tarragon which is supposed to be the preferable variety (as opposed to Russian tarragon).
This purple sage is doing really well. I saw it planted en masse in the Food Forest at the Garden of St Erth and thought it such a nice plant in the edible garden. I'm hoping to take lots of cuttings and plant up the garden with it that way.
Newly planted Rosa Rugosa – I can't remember which one. But Rosa Rugosa form rosehips, and I hope to use them to make tea or jelly, although I have no idea what I'd use the jelly for. It turns out I quite like the shrub too. Check out that hot pink.
Self-seeded nasturtiums. Or perhaps seeds I sowed last warm season germinating now?
A little alpine strawberry flowering. I planted two varieties: Yellow Wonder and White Baron Solemacher. I saw some seedlings of the same variety at the nursery and they were much more vigorous so I'm hoping these will make it.
There are lots of fruit forming on the strawberries. I haven't netted them yet. I feel so defeated after last year's bug plague I don't know if I have the energy to try and save them this year.
Potted blueberries. Hmmm. I need to test the soil pH. I had a couple of handfuls last year from four plants. I don't know if these will continue to flower, but if not, I'll definitely get even fewer berries this year.
Fragola grape growing well in a sunny spot. I'm comparing the growth of this one to two others which are planted in much shadier spots. I bought these as cuttings from Karen Sutherland's open garden. Her garden is full of plants which fruit in shade or part shade, this being one of them.
A newly planted female kiwi vine (Bruno) planted in this spot which gets afternoon shade. I planted it here after seeing an interview with Karen Sutherland on Sustainable Gardening Australia, on growing food in shade. I've got it in a bed with other plants with similar needs: high water, well drained soil, and lots of fertiliser (loquats, feijoas, and rhubarb).
I planted these rhubarbs in late winter. They are really standing up and spreading out. I'm very excited. I love rhubarb but I've never grown it (or most things) before. I'm feeding and watering it a lot (we've had a lot of warm weather).
Here are two potted Dwarf Ruby Red rhubarb plants I planted last year. They didn't do much in their first year and I was convinced I had rotted the crowns over winter. But they seem to have taken off. A third one is still looking unconvincing. They are in pots about 45-50cm across and in good quality potting mix. I have been feeding them slow release vegie fertiliser pellets and fish emulsion (charlie Carp) and Seasol.
This is a Violetto artichoke planted this winter. Not the benignly firm and plump heads I was hoping for. This one plant seems loose, and extremely spikey, much more so than the others I planted. Any advice on this readers? Is this just what some artichokes do? Is it still good eating?
This is more what I was envisioning:
Annual Vegetables
Broad beans providing in earnest now. I'm picking every few days. The soil seems uncharacteristically sandy where they are (I have clay, clay, clay) so I'm having to water them quite a bit in this warm weather.
Kale planted last autumn still providing for us, and our new chooks. I just love this stuff.
I'm getting a useful amount of peas every couple of days now. These pictured are Greenfeast. I put them freshly picked in a frittata and they added noticeable sweetness. Really delicious.
Here come the garlic scapes, joy of joys. Have you heard of them? They are the flower stems on hard-neck varieties of garlic. The bulge you can see is called the umbel, and you can plant the tiny bulbils that form in the bulge for more garlic. Scapes are delicious – they have a lovely mild garlicy-lemony flavour. I adore scapes pesto. It is delicious and fresh. Just replace basil with scapes in any pesto recipe, and omit the garlic.
It pays to make a note of what you sow, where. I can't remember exactly which lettuce this is. I think it's one of the varieties less prone to bolting (flowering, or going to seed) in warm weather. I think I need to feed my lettuces and other greens more often. Or more than never.
Golden Bantam corn poking up. I've never grown corn before. I'm planning on putting down drip irrigation – it's a very thirsty plant. I was a bit confused about spacing. Every 35cm every way, or 60cm between rows? Enlighten me, please.
Everyone says not to plant tomatoes before Melbourne Cup Day around here. But I've got shade cloth at the ready should there be a chance of frost. I want to try and get tomatoes a bit earlier this year. I made these tomatoes cages using wire mesh and tire wire, and three tomato stakes driven in for stability. It worked really well last year.
In the Greenhouse
I've had a few successes and quite a few failures. Here are my pride and joy: Green Grape, Beams Yellow Pear and Green Zebra tomatoes.
A slightly less impressive lot: Minnesota Mini rockmelon, Cape Gooseberries, lettuce and some straggly looking Green Zebra tomatoes. Not sure if they'll make it in time for cup day…
So, mid-spring. Time of peas and broadbeans, and much messing around with seeds. My big aim this spring and summer is to successfully practice succession sowing of the easier crops to start from seed. Post to follow shortly on that topic, although I've posted a spring guide to succession sowing in cool climates here.


text:
How exactly to Produce Money On line - Added Income Recommendations
It's on average well-liked by remain in the home moms/dads, teens and only people in general who are seeking to make a supplementary several bucks monthly performing something which does not involve olymp trade turkiye such a thing more than a short while of the time.
While you may or might not already be acquainted with paid surveys, you can find always a few tips and tricks you might afford to discover that may allow you to accelerate your earnings. And, who will argue with this? Therefore, if you're looking to spice up your earnings, have a look at a number of the recommendations under that may get your earnings from average to exponential!
Provide Them What They Want
Industry research organizations are after one thing and one thing just - your honest view! Not only this, but they would like to find out more about you and your interests. This is exactly why they pay you! Therefore, you need to provide them with what they want. Be sure that you total any screener surveys giving these companies your interests. It will help them qualify you for more surveys, giving you more possibilities to bring in extra money. Plus, the more targeted the survey, the larger it always gives!
Do not Just Indication Up for a Several Websites
By just becoming a member of a handful of study web sites, you're an average of decreasing your earnings. Continually be looking for new review sites that are looking for members and sign up! Even though these websites just send a handful of surveys each month, it all gives up in the end. Think it or not, the very best study earners out you can find people of countless web sites! If you wish to earn the major dollars, you have to be ready to set up the work.
Sign up for numerous web sites
Do not leave any review site behind! Registering for numerous paid review sites ensures that you not merely get the most study opportunities, but additionally put more cash in to your pocket. It's a clear numbers sport - the more sites you are a member of, the more chances you've to generate cash.
Study each site
Whilst it doesn't harm to register with every site you interact with, it's best to accomplish a little research to make sure that you'll actually be finding surveys which are value your time. And, it does not damage to be sure that the site your joining will probably pay you, too. By performing some study online, you'll quickly be able to see what internet sites are best for you.
Give them what they want
Make sure you provide everything the marketplace research businesses seek. If they want to know your pursuits, don't be afraid to let them know. In fact, you never want to overlook that step. The more details you provide, the more surveys you'll receive. It really is that easy!
CommentairesAucun commentaire pour le moment
Suivre le flux RSS des commentaires
Ajouter un commentaire


text:
Sometimes when times are hard, and there's a census to complete there's only one thing for it. Census nachos.
NB: this is mostly all substitute ingredients. No salsa. No jalapeños. No guacemole. No soured cream.
Ingredient list:
Tortilla chips. Cheese. Hot sauce. A National Census.
Quote from the eater: "I feel like I'm in America"
Unfortunately, because of the lack of vital ingredients this does not come close to being the Ultimate Nacho. It was, however, a good stop-gap.


text:
I live in Southwestern Ontario Canada which is located between the 42nd latitude and the 45th latitude. We are the bread basket of Canada because we grow abundant amounts of corn, hay, soy beans, vegetables and fruit and berries. You can find market gardens with fields of tomatoes, potatoes and other vegetables along side apple, peach, plumb and other orchards, vineyards and dairy farms. All of these within a 2 hour drive. Located amidst all of this you can find miles of sandy beaches on the largest fresh water lakes in the world. Needless to say. There is plenty of good fishing here.
Thanksgiving has arrived here in Canada. We celebrate it in the peak of harvest season in this country. Apples and grapes, pumpkins and pears can be seen in abundance in many a farmer's field. Families gather together to celebrate our good fortune in having this wonderful food readily available to fill our pantries and freezers. It is a time to get together with friends to give thanks for the harvest which we are here to enjoy. We also celebrate our good fortune to live in this beautiful country and reap the benefits of freedom for all. Our traditional meal consists of Turkey and ham, squash and Brussels sprouts accompanied by lots of turkey dressing and potatoes with gravy. Dessert is Pumpkin Pie and Apple Pie with cheese or ice cream. Local Apple Cider and wines are pleasant additions to our feast. Happy Thanksgiving Everyone.


text:
2016: The Year of Intent
Last year my story was dedicated to owning my power, striving to become the best version of myself at that given moment. Owning it allowed me to understand my strengths, as well as my weaknesses, helping me find the beauty in self-acceptance. Choosing to not beat myself up but to embrace my womanhood fully. I became closer to God, loved on myself a little more, owned the power in my presence, and tapped in to my black girl magic to spread light wherever I went. I felt victorious. Then December came and I felt the weight of the entire year on my shoulders. Had I made the right decisions for myself? Was I truly living a purposeful life? What's next? Could I recreate the magic of this year, was this it? My good friend, author and motivational speaker, Rahfeal Gordon wrote in his book Skyscraper, "Winter is the season of trials and tribulations." "All that we have done and gained through the other 3 seasons are put to the test to determine if we have what it takes to survive and thrive." Although this winter was mostly mild in climate (at least in New Jersey), it was brutal inwardly. Then, I quickly remembered if I could make it through the winter, then I could make it through anything. Caving under the weight of my emotions was never an option. Besides, this wasn't my first harsh winter. I was no longer accepting survival as an option either; 2016 I was intent on thriving.
This year, the energy has shifted and is pushing me to be intentional about my success. Intent is purpose. When you understand your purpose, you know the next step is action, and that must always be followed by faith. I did not set any New Year Resolutions. I only affirmed that my success was possible, and that my tree would harvest juicy plump fruits from its limbs, and overflow with abundance. But how do I get there? How do you get there? By accepting the challenge. Accept it is your divine right to be happy, to accept that you are enough just as you are. I have so many things I want to do, and have no idea how to do them, but it won't stop me. I pray it won't stop you. DJ Khaled is always saying "they don't want you to win," but "they" don't matter when you are self-assured in your craft. One major key is you become the only roadblock keeping you from obtaining your personal greatness. Being intentional about your success will push you over any hurdles you may face by getting past fear and creating a sickening worth ethic. This new work ethic has me up at 5 am to workout or write, and in bed no later than 10:30 pm. I fill my time with people that can shed light on a problem, books that replenish my soul, and at least an hour or two a day on my craft. You must cut the fat and lose the dead weight, any distractions that keep you from focusing. There is no click of the heels to get you to the next step, just the constant pursuit of a goal.
By all means, give yourself permission to fail. A habit isn't formed over night. Failing greatly allows you to see it as a learning opportunity of what not to do, just keep going. Do I wake up at 5 am everyday? No, not yet, but I am conscious about my decision and will keep going until I get it right. As always, write down your hopes, dreams and wishes, put them in a place that you can see them daily, and then take action. Be intentional -seek guidance when you need it.


text:
This story was delivered to BI Intelligence IoT Briefing subscribers. To learn more and subscribe, please click here.
Self-driving cars will arrive sooner or later, but consumers remain divided on many issues tied to these vehicles.
A journal called Science released a study of 2,000 U.S. residents on Thursday that pointed to a major ethical dilemma that could affect consumer adoption of fully autonomous cars.
The study revealed that respondents think self-driving cars should sacrifice the passengers inside the vehicle for the greater good during an emergency. If, for example, the car was about to hit a large group of pedestrians, then the respondents said the car should swerve to avoid them even if it risks the lives of the passengers.
But at the same time, the respondents said they themselves would rather ride in a self-driving car that protects them at all costs, even if it meant harming pedestrians or other drivers during an emergency.
This is an extremely complex ethical dilemma, and self-driving car manufacturers must carefully navigate these questions in order to convince the public to buy and ride in these vehicles. The respondents in this survey had conflicting thoughts on what autonomous cars should do in emergencies. But if the cars can't protect passengers in the first place, then people likely won't ride in them.
This could slow purchases of self-driving cars even though these vehicles should significantly improve road safety. Regulators have repeatedly stated that vehicles can be programmed to save as many lives as possible, and researchers have estimated that mass adoption of self-driving cars could save up to 300,000 lives per year, reports The Atlantic.
Still, self-driving cars will arrive at some point, but the makers of these cars will have to deal with several issues and roadblocks in order to get the vehicles on the road.
John Greenough, senior research analyst for BI Intelligence, has compiled a detailed report on self-driving cars that examines the major strides automakers and tech companies have made to overcome the barriers currently preventing fully autonomous cars from hitting the market. Further, the report examines global survey results showing where fully autonomous cars are highly desired.
Here are some key takeaways from the report:
- Three barriers have been preventing fully autonomous cars from hitting the road: 1) high technological component prices; 2) varying degrees of consumer trust in the technology; and 3) relatively nonexistent regulations. However, in the past six months, there have been many advances in overcoming these barriers.
- Technology has been improving as new market entrants find innovative ways to expand on existing fully autonomous car technology. As a result, the price of the components required for fully autonomous cars has been dropping.
- Consumer trust in fully autonomous vehicle technology has increased in the past two years.
- California became the first US state to propose regulations. California's regulations stipulate that a fully autonomous car must have a driver behind the wheel at all times, discouraging Google's and Uber's idea of a driverless taxi system.
In full, the report:
- Examines consumer trust in fully autonomous vehicles
- Identifies technological advancements that have been made in the industry
- Analyzes the cost of fully autonomous technology and identifies how cost is being reduced
- Explains the current regulations surrounding fully autonomous cars
To get your copy of this invaluable guide, choose one of these options:
- Subscribe to an ALL-ACCESS Membership with BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report AND over 100 other expertly researched deep-dive reports, subscriptions to all of our daily newsletters, and much more. >> START A MEMBERSHIP
- Purchase the report and download it immediately from our research store. >> BUY THE REPORT
The choice is yours. But however you decide to acquire this report, you've given yourself a powerful advantage in your understanding of the emerging world of self-driving cars.