 | World Crude Oil Production Forecast using Current Fields and Future Megaprojects | The Oil Drum | Classic TOD:NYC |  |
DrumBeat: December 29, 2006
Posted by threadbot on December 29, 2006 - 10:05am
Another factor unraveling the globalist project is its obsession with economic growth. Indeed, unending growth is the centerpiece of globalization, the mainspring of its legitimacy. While a recent World Bank report continues to extol rapid growth as the key to expanding the global middle class, global warming, peak oil, and other environmental events are making it clear to people that the rates and patterns of growth that come with globalization are a surefire prescription for ecological Armageddon.
Belarus delegation heads for gas talks in Moscow
MINSK - A Belarus delegation headed for Moscow on Friday in a last-minute attempt to settle a gas pricing row with Russia, which could threaten supplies to Europe in the New Year.
India: 4-hr domestic power-cuts to tide over energy crisis
HYDERABAD: Stung by the farmers’ protests over inadequate power supply to agriculture sector, the State Government on Wednesday initiated a series of measures including imposition of four-hour duration power cut in the domestic sector to tide over the ongoing energy crisis in the state.
Iran’s IOOC sets record in crude production
LONDON, December 28 - Average crude exploited by Iranian Offshore Oil Company (IOOC) has set a record figure in the company’s history, production manager at IOOC stated on Wednesday MNA reported.“By developing the potential oilfields in the region, their capacity has increased from the previous 766,000 bpd to current 805,000. This is mainly due to simultaneous production coordination,” Gholam-Abbas Jokar noted, adding that maintaining the present level of oil extraction is on the company’s priority list.
China: Crude imports 'to surge'
China's crude oil imports are expected to surge this year and exports will fall year-on-year as a result of market demand and trade policy adjustments, a leading industry analyst said yesterday.
The Russian Energy Inc powerhouse is taking shape, and man oh man, it is a formidable juggernaut capable of disrupting the global balance of power. Major Western energy giants struggle to keep pace, join forces in incestuous unconstructive fashion, and have become increasingly “bit players” in the scheme of things. The Seven Sisters from the US & Western Europe seem like rented high school prom queens by comparison. The Russian dames are supermodels on the runway, not much on earning style points (rude, pushy, intimidating) but incredibly impressive chassis to behold (nice bodies)!!!
Russia pondering ways of spending oil revenues
MOSCOW - The Russian Finance Ministry has proposed establishing an Oil and Gas Fund based on the Stabilization Fund, to ensure long-term budget stability through a balanced use of oil and gas reserves.
Russia: Elections and Oil Hold Key to 2007
This year, Brent crude prices were especially buoyant, averaging $67 per barrel after a historic peak of more than $73 in July. In recent months, however, the price has leveled off. Brent was trading at $60.90 per barrel in London on Thursday morning, and most economic forecasts for next year, including those written into the federal budget, are based on the assumption that it will stay above $60 per barrel.Alfa Bank strategist Erik DePoy said this assumption hinged on a pair of highly unpredictable factors -- "the two Ws: weather and war."
Analysis: Unrest curtails Africa oil
Petroleum-rich Nigeria led all of Africa's oil-producing states in two crucial categories in 2006: barrels produced per day and violence against foreign energy firms.
Interest high in Barnett Shale
Action by Congress in the final hours of its last session of 2006 signals to some oil and gas experts that the nation will likely focus its energy-hungry eyes on the Barnett Shale in North Texas.
Fuel Scarcity in a Land of Oil Abundance
While the country is rich, the people are poor. Fuel unites them, but the petrodollars seldom trickle down.
Raymond J. Learsy: An Energy Agenda For a Newly Energized Congress (Part V) -- Preaching Energy Conservation From The Bully Pulpit
In a recent news conference shortly before the Christmas holidays the President encouraged the assembled newsmen and those TV viewers throughout the land to "go shopping". This at a moment when sending additional troops to Iraq was the issue of the day. Said in an offhand way, it nonetheless struck a sour chord, as being out of place and out of sync with the nations mood.Just imagine, instead of urging us to go shopping, he would have said:
"Our situation in Iraq is grave and our soldiers are sacrificing so much. The little we can do this Christmas season in solidarity with them is to make a concerted effort to keep our use of energy to the bare minimum, to learn to live with less, to begin as a national community to make individual efforts to regain our self reliance and our self respect. The price we are paying for our dependency is too high in blood, money and the environments' destruction. Each of us must do our share!"
Congressional Leaders Urged to Shift R&D Funds to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs
Washington, DC -- In a letter delivered Dec. 27 to congressional leaders, 103 business, consumer, environmental, energy policy, and other groups urged that federal energy research and development funds be shifted from fossil fuel and nuclear power programs to those supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Renewable Energy Roadmap: Rural America Can Prosper
Report from the University of Tennessee finds the 25x25 goal will boost farm income and create millions of jobs.
Environmentalists Revive German Speed Limit Debate
BERLIN - German environmentalists hope the country's stewardship of the Group of Eight and the European Union in 2007 will help steer the car-crazy nation towards imposing speed limits on its unrestricted autobahns.
Renewable Energy Set to Explode...with Government Backing
A bomb went off in the renewable energy world two months ago, but almost nobody heard it. It has stunning implications for the energy business, both the traditional hydrocarbon side and the renewable side.
Munich Re Sees Natural Catastrophes on the Rise
FRANKFURT - Munich Re sees the number of severe weather-related natural catastrophes increasing in coming years because of global warming, among other reasons, the German reinsurer said on Thursday.
A grass-roots push for a 'low carbon diet'
[David] Gershon put his nose to the grindstone, and a slim workbook titled "Low Carbon Diet: A 30 Day Program to Lose 5,000 Pounds" was the result. Replete with checklists and illustrations, the user-friendly guide is a serious attempt at changing American energy-consumption behavior.
It’s the energy and the economy, stupid: An open letter to US policymakers
The 21st century will likely be defined by three overarching forces: climate change, Peak Oil, and macroeconomics. The twin issues of climate change and Peak Oil are intertwined variables, and each represent extremely important phenomena that have slowly gained some public awareness. However, the third issue, macroeconomics, and more specifically the global trends regarding multiple petrocurrencies remains essentially unreported by the five US corporate media conglomerates.
Top 10 sustainability stories of 2006
Amory Lovins Stepping Down as Rocky Mountain Institute CEO
Wind energy turns out to have a complication: reliability
Engineers have cut the cost of electricity derived from wind by about 80 percent in the last 20 years, setting up this renewable technology for a major share of the electricity market.But for all its promise, wind also generates a big problem: Because it is unpredictable and often fails to blow when electricity is most needed, wind is not reliable enough to assure supplies for an electricity grid that must be prepared to deliver power to everybody who wants it — even when it is in greatest demand.
Ice mass snaps free from Canada's Arctic
"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years," Vincent said. "We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead."
Russia tightens grip on gas, threatens to cut supply
LONDON — It's getting cold in Europe, and Russia is threatening to turn off the heat — for the second straight winter.Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled natural gas monopoly, has told Belarus to pay double the current price for gas by New Year's Day or supplies will be cut. Gazprom also demanded a stake in the pipeline carrying gas from Belarus to other European customers.
Belarus has rejected the demands. Moscow warned Poland, Germany and Lithuania on Wednesday to expect shortages if the dispute continues. It also warned Belarus not to siphon gas from the Yamal-Europe pipeline.
Honda says fuel-cell cars can be mass-produced by 2018
...challenges include how to reduce the amount of noble metals used for fuel cells, how to improve hydrogen storage and how to make hydrogen at lower costs.
China's Chery confirms deal to build cars for DaimlerChrysler
BEIJING - Chery Motors, one of the few Chinese car makers with its own brand, has confirmed it will build small cars for German-US giant DaimlerChrysler, state media has reported.
Cleaner diesel engine rules take effect
Federal regulations that take effect Monday mandate cleaner diesel engines in new trucks and school buses, dramatically cutting pollution but raising costs.
The price of a barrel of oil will fall below $50.As a result, ethanol mania will cool.
One euro will cost $1.50. (It's $1.31 now.)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will receive the first application for building a new nuclear power plant since 1973.
Exxon Mobil asks court for leases
JUNEAU, Alaska - Exxon Mobil Corp. wants a federal court to overturn the state's decision to revoke its leases in the North Slope's Point Thomson oil and gas field.
Linde probed over suspected bribery
MUNICH, Germany - German prosecutors said Friday they are investigating industrial gas company Linde AG on suspicion it bribed the regime of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein while taking part in the U.N. oil-for-food program.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Back from vacation, seeing relatives out in the hinterland. We saved a lot of miles by carpooling with family during most of the trip, although it was a tight squeeze in the car.
The more I see the suburban and commercial sprawl over former farmland, the more I worry about our ability to relocalize in many areas. At the same time, there is great potential to reconstitute many suburban areas into small towns with real walkable streets. The main problem in my opinion is exclusive zoning. At my girlfriend's parents place in the suburbs, we did a lot of short runs in the car just to get basic food, pharmacy and other goods from the strip mall 3 miles down the road. Just plopping down a small retail plot on every block or making one retail strip every few blocks, would have easily made the area more convenient and walkable.
The most surreal experience was going to the newest outdoor shopping area called The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley (http://www.thepromenadeshopsatsauconvalley.com/info/aboutUs.cfm). It was organized just like a small town downtown shopping district feel. Instead of being inside the whole time, you walked around outside from shop to shop. Most were big chain retailers, but there were a few local shops thrown in. The only way to access this was by car, even for the people in the various housing tracts, golf course & hotel across the highway.
Here is a quote from their website:
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with most suburbs is the lack of sidewalks; it is often just not safe to walk. I grew up in a town with sidewalks and by the age of eight was turned loose to pretty much walk and bike where I wanted to, so long as Mom knew where I was and that I'd be back for lunch. Then, in a horrible experience, when I was nine the family moved to a ritzy California suburb, and my freedom was gone. Not long thereafter I was hit by a car while walking home from school in the street. Indeed, the authorities at school refused to let me walk home, and I was forced to ride the bus (which I got around by taking the stinky bus to the first stop and then walking the rest of the way home).
In older towns and cities it was and is routine for many children to walk to school--seldom if ever is that the case in the suburbs. I know one ten year old girl who has to get on the bus for twenty minutes to go the two hundred yards from where she lives across the road to school--not safe to walk.
All true.
I grew up in a small town in northern New Jersey during the 1950s and was never more than six blocks away from either grammar or high school. I used to come home for lunch practically everyday, something that is quite atypical these days.
It's not just the growth of new suburbs that has done away with this sort of environment, but also the trend towards consolidating several small local schools into a giant regional school, a move which makes busing just about mandatory. School desegregation in urban areas (though a worthy goal) has had much the same effect.
I wish we would return to small local schools, but I doubt this will happen any time soon.
There is actually an active movement to re-establish small neighborhood schools. See for instance the National Association of Realtors' magazine, On Common Ground, Winter 2005. The effort is helped by support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the fact that small schools have better performance records. See in particular the article Of Sprawl Schools and Small Schools.
Another factor that makes suburbs unwalkable is that the street patterns are deliberately designed to be disconnected, with every street ending in a cul de sac. You might live a half mile from school as the crow flies, but it could be a two mile walk to get out of the maze of cul de sacs, out onto the dangerous arterial, and to the school campus (after cutting through 5 acres of school parking). Why did the suburbs develop that way? See Connectivity Part II: Historical Background for the story.
Isn't (d)efficiency wonderful?
exactly, no sidewalks.
Last time I was there we had to use the car to go to the library on the same block!!! It was either that or playing the risky sport of walking with the cars (or through the woods). With a sidewalk it would be less that 5 minutes.
We also saw police stop a couple people who walked on the street.
I had no idea this was happening. I recall about 1971 I would walk to 2nd Grade on Kadena Air Base in Okinawa over several fairly steep hills. It must have been over a mile. Air bases have very little traffic except at the main gates. Security was never a problem. In 1975 I used a bicycle for a longer distance to get from Travis Air Base to a public school in Fairfield, CA.
Wow, no wonder the kids are getting so tubby.
In Massachusetts there has been some debate about these "Lifestyle Centers" mostly because every town in MA has an actual downtown that these places are trying to emulate and the real things aren't doing too good because the malls destroyed them all. People are saying why build a new downtown a few miles away when there's the real thing right there looking for occupancy! From what I understand, the answer that comes bacck is that the real shops in downtown don't have enough square footage for the mega-chains satisfaction.
I like this one:
No kidding!
I always have to laugh at the way the media is reflecting our energy problems... it looks more like a Mexican TV show than a journalism. Arghh I forgot - it's because it is some sort of a show after all. Now that they just discovered that wind requires some (in most cases) fossil powered backup, when will they discover that ethanol is almost an energy loser? Or that hydrogen is a worse energy carrier than electricity in batteries? I'm holding my breath for the next episode... anybody got a popcorn?
There is a solution for everything. Global warming will greatly increase both the intensity and reliability of all winds. 200mph 24x7 and we will still be nowhere close to the reliabilty figures they obtain on Saturn.
Exactly the opposite. The greater winds occur in colder conditions.
"Now that they just discovered that wind requires some (in most cases) fossil powered backup,..."
Eventually the Firsties of the world will have to learn to adapt their lives and livelyhoods to the availability of energy - like they are doing in the up-and-coming second and third worlds (from Leanan's Links above):
----
"I always have to laugh at the way the media is reflecting our energy problems...
I think we are going to see many more such "eureka" moments from the press over the years ahead - probably the same phenomena that happened to most all of us as we researched Peak Energy.
First we/they discover some technology (old or new) as a substitute for fossil fuel sources. Later, "upon further review", we/they discover there are limitations to the pet technology and then realize the "Silver Bullet" is at best a silver BB. The lag time between the two depends on how long it takes people to question their assumptions about their new "discovery."
During the holidays several friends and relatives apparenly just discovered natural gas-powered cars, ethanol and coal gasification ("Hitler Used It in WWII".... yeah, and look how things turned out for hitler ;). They happily reported the "breakthroughs."
They are clearly still in denial and also in an argumentative mode so I just nodded and left the discussion. "Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference" - or never argue with suckers, there's one born every minute and you'll die of exhaustion.
It's NOT PEAK ENERGY! It's PEAK OIL.
Re: "It's NOT PEAK ENERGY! It's PEAK OIL."
And Natural Gas. Definitely in North America, but we are not far away from peak natural gas elsewhere as well. Our knowledge of what is out there for natural gas is pretty deficient.
Furthermore, climate change says we should not be using coal to substitute for oil and natural gas. This combination of issues gets us pretty close to peak energy.
Uh, "pretty close"?
Yeah, if 2075 is pretty close. Oh brother.
Sorry Hothgar, but peak oil is peak energy - and peak matter.
Errr, peak oil doens't matter.
The end of underpriced energy (in relation to gathering photons in the now and making them work for us) and the effects on the economic system is what the peak is all about.
You really should have ended your post after, "Errr..." - or maybe added an "ah...um..ah... nevermind" to it.
Thanks for your comment. IT has added SO much value here - makes ya look like a sage.
what energy source powers polyannaland ?
Hot air.
I think you misunderstand their situation -- they're ignorant of the ramifications not in denial.
ImSceptical
"I think you misunderstand their situation -- they're ignorant of the ramifications not in denial."
Can I ask a question, ImSceptical? Do the doomers have ANY other response to those who can make distinctions, such as the difference between "oil" and "energy", the difference between "peak" and running out", the difference between the real possibility of "oil" and "gas" peaking, and the assured and apocolyptic destruction of all civilization, between "silver bb's" and real artful and intelligent design, and between "peak oil" and peak incompetence, do the the doomers have any other response other that a knee jerk accusation of "ignorance" and "denial".
Just once try to argue the case on the merits.
I love the story about wind reliability! But put it in perspective...I know of some southern cities several years ago who took the windows of out of city buses because they could not keep the air conditioning running in them. Did anyone decide that air conditioning was to unreliable to be used? Don't the energy police wish it were so...no, they realized there was nothng wrong with air conditioning as a technology, but that they were seriously short of ocmpetent technicians to maintain it.
The constant attacks by many here on anyone with a differing opinion, the fast whipping out of the term "troll", and the belief that there is one belief system and one only risk destroying the usefulness of this forum.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
P.S. Motto for the day: It does not take a troll to see the difference, the fundamental, complete and philosophically central difference between peak oil and peak energy.
Funny that you should see our TV "News" sources as an almost comical soap opera or movie that is greatly distanced from reality.
I was just watching this weird video: Who is David Icke and is he right? (warning a long video, approx 45 minutes)
Not that I subscribe to much of what Mr. Icke proposes, but one of his theories is that MSM is nothing but a bunch of well dressed "repeaters" who know nothing and merely repeat the official propaganda line of TPTB. Another of his theories is that MSM is a kind of side-show or distracting movie that the masses are supposed to watch so that they are kept from spotting what is "really going on".
Step Back,
As a former member of the mainstream media, I can tell you that is EXACTLY what is going on. When I proposed an expose on Canadian stock fraud boiler room operations, my editors at CBS told me that they were not interested in stifling business or in negative news.
The evolving state of journalism from the eighties to the present has been a change from investigative journalism, such as we saw during the Watergate era, to one of complicity and so-called "fairness." This rather brilliant ploy by the PTB, calling for "fair and balanced" reporting, played upon American's core need to be fair. This idea is an offshoot of the notion that everyone should get a chance. Before the advent of Republican hegemony, the FCC required that political presentations on TV and radio must air opposing viewpoints through the use of the Fairness in Media Act passed in 1949 and eliminated in 1987. The principal reason for this forced fairness was the simple fact that he who owns the printing press has freedom of speech, all others must beg for air-time. Once that rule was eliminated, the right wing seized upon this basic idea of "fairness" and turned it into a highly effective weapon. Because they were no longer required to supply a credible opposing viewpoint, they would either pit wildly mismatched opponents such Hannity and Colmes, or uses fringe opponents who would appear incredible no matter what they say. By using this execrable technique, the right wing could claim "fair and balanced" coverage while putting on what can only be called a parade of "news" propaganda.
Then the right wing radio shows which made no pretense to fairness, accuracy, or even sanity, simply dumped the opposing voice and launched its loud abrasive voice at the uneducated American and through the big brother technique of shouting a lie often enough and loud enough it permeated the simplistic American's mind as truth. For a great list of outrageous right-wing lies, canards, slurs, and libels, check out: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/45983/.
Yes, the masses are not only being diverted by media, they are actively being brainwashed, witness global warming and the legion of Exxon funded "experts" who stepped in to pooh-pooh these alarmists who claim such outrageous science. Look at the hundreds of "think tanks" ( I call them zombie tanks) funded by the right wing to put forth "experts" whose sole job is to dilute the argument. Their job is not actually to win a scientific, economic or social argument, but to inject as much doubt into the argument as possible. They call it muddying the waters. This simple act of diversion enables their coporate sponsors to evade moral responsibility and to continue to profit from the death of the planet.
The reporters I've dealt with in the past ten years are on the whole an earnest group and, despite being cloaked in a mantle of "unbiased objectivity," they are dumb as a sack of hammers. They pride themselves on their unwillingness to research a topic. To be fair to them, the sheer workload heaped upon them often precludes research, but I have not heard a single reporter bemoan this fact. Now, lower level employees are no longer protected by the basic tenets of journalism. They toe the line because journalism jobs are far and few between. And this type of control means very little information dangerous to the PTB manages to percolate to the surface. Combine that with the gnat-sized attention span of the consumer and the media, and you have a wonderfully effective propaganda machine.
I think that the state of American/Soviet media should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see.
On the other hand, the Internet is a fantastic source of info and gaining in strength every day. As an example, I remember the pre-Internet (for me, anyway) 1991 attack on Iraq. I was gung-ho for the good guys (us) and in all likelihood totally ignorant of the actual reality of the conflict. IMO, the Internet is an incredible threat to the MSM.
Internet good short form. Print good long form
I wd bet u 2 scroll long posts
Internet drive out print.
Print good.
Internet sloppy.
Books are here to stay.
I call them "thought tankers".
(The so-called think tanks.)
Their job is to stop people from thinking, to tank the thought process, to shut down the neo cortex in the brain, to activate the reptilian fear factor.
9/11
be afraid
be very afraid
"they" are out there to get "you"
stop thinking and start trusting us, we are the "decider" people, we decide--you inform (on your fellow citizens), we are the most trusted source in a spinning know zone, be fair and off balance -all the time
"Their job is to stop people from thinking, to tank the thought process, to shut down the neo cortex in the brain, to activate the reptilian fear factor."
Agreed, Stepback. Good thread and you hit the nail on the head!
"It is the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and private sector." - Noam Chomsky
I think Chomksy did a great job explaining the process in Manufacturing Consent. He contends that the super elite use the media to persuade (brainwash) the 20% of the population considered to be the intellectual class and to distract everyone else. He also explains that the dominant political parties are really just two factions of the same corporate machine. I also think the two majors are mainly tools for the dialectic approach of implementing policy changes and restructuring societal paradigms. The electorate is never expected to think critically on important issues and is given a false sense of choice during elections and opinion polling. Owing to the highly compartmentalized nature of our society, the strategy has worked remarkably well. While Chomsky is a linguist, his observations are consistent with tenets from neuropsychology.
Last year I came across a good example of the level of control corporate interests excercise on the MSM. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was on the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart when he recounted his frustration of having worked with a major network to put together a news show documenting the link between mercury in vaccinations (thimerosal) and a dramatic rise in autism. Kennedy was called by a network executive right before the show was to air and told that it had been cancelled by higher-ups. Presumably, pharmaceutical interests used their clout to derail the program. Par for the course...
Good point.
The FDA (US "Food" and Drug watchdog agency) never said boo to the whole thing. They are in cahoots with big food and big pharma interests. They are wolves in sheep's garment. They circle about us every day. And yet, "We the Sheeple" keep grazing in happy slumber.
And yet, "We the Sheeple" keep grazing...
"We" --- So YOU are a Sheeple?
Absolutely.
And I have Bahhhd news for you.
You are sheeple too.
You are sheeple too.
Hmmmmm...
Not sure, I am not part of the "elite" but I am not edible either, may be I am just a leftover.
It appears to me that Mr. Icke is absolutely correct.
You should be more faithful to your moniker, ImSceptical. In the UK, we're quite familiar with Mr Icke and know that everything he says has to be taken with a pinch of salt because he is - to put it mildly - stark, staring bonkers. Don't believe me? Read the man's own words (he's not joking!):
By all means associate peak oil with the ravings of such a man. I'm sure the majority of posters here will thank you for it. [/sarcasm]
Don't get me wrong. I agree that much of what Icke says on that tape is a bit past the deep end.
However, some things have the ring of truth to them and that is what is scary.
Firstly, like many of the sheeple, he senses that "something is wrong" but can't quite put his finger on it.
Second, he is able to attract crowds to his message. So something is resonating with them. Crazy as he might be, he is getting his message through. Can we say the same for our "Peak Oil is near" crowd?
Lastly, this business about a "reptilian illuminati" is clearly far fetched. But I think he is touching on something that is real in our society. There are people who play with the reptilian brain stem of the masses by putting fear (terror) into their/our hearts. There are these so-called pundits or minions of the elite that come out of the wood works to do their master's biddings. How do you explain away the existence of CERA or many a shadow organizations of similar ilk?
There is something to Icke's message. It's not all sane. But yet there is something there. Something you can't quite put your finger on. Think of him as the nutty canary in the mine shaft.
Just cause he's nutty doesn't mean we should totally ignore him.
(I bet many of our friends & family think we're "nutty" when we espouse this Peak Oil rubbish.)
Levin;
I think they just left out one modifier. It should have been "Wind power has complications in /Short-term/ reliability." And then they would have been able to discover the important corrolary in the 'new knowledge' that oil and gas turn out to have a complication: /Long-term/ reliability.
There 'ought' to be supplemental supplies that can fill in the gaps when the winds are calm, the sun is down, the grid hiccups and the ice storms come.. but I think at the consumption end, both for residential and manufacturing uses, we could do well to devise systems to 'make hay while the sun shines', so to speak. Just as there are 'smart fridges' that have been designed to precool eutectic (?) salts or coolant stores when the electric rates are lowest already, we may have to similarly find ways to take advantage of the power when it's on at all, either doing the work or storing the energy when it's available.
It might turn out that the current schedules of "Peak Rates" will turn around and you'll be paying the premiums on calm nights, when the power is being artificially generated, and the bargain rates when the 'free supply' is flowing.
Bob Fiske
Demand management has been touted a lot and I am also a cautios optimist, but there is one problem with it - it has not been even demonstrated yet. We are going to need smart meters that follow the changing tarrifs and every user is going to have to install a equipment to manage the devices that can be managed - a tough idea to sell but not impossible of course.
In addition I can not estimate what portion of demand can be actively managed - I think refrigerators and A/C (to some extent) fall into this category but lighting and most industrial processes do not... I'd rather leave the question open until I see some expert evaluations on this. Until then it is simply a good idea, but there are many good, but likely impractical ideas on the line too - my personal best is an electrical car with swappable battery pack. Think of hundreds of battery packs recharged at the gas stations and balancing renewable power at the same time... sounds quite good IMO.
Actually, I suspect that the Mexicans are smarter than you dimwits.
Actually, I suspect that the Mexicans are smarter than you dimwits.
Leanan...this is a great article and the kind of thing the PO community needs to market to those outside the community. Isn't Clark considering a run for President in 2008?
It’s the energy and the economy, stupid: An open letter to US policymakers
by William Clark
http://www.energybulletin.net/24172.html
I think you're confusing William Clark with General Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is the would-be president. William Clark is considered something of a nutburger by mainstream types, because he writes a lot about the petrodollar, the Iranian oil bourse, etc.
Oh bummer...I was hoping it was the same guy. Sorry, didn't have time to research it before posting.
IMO, nonconventional gas is to total US gas production as nonconventional world oil production is to total world oil production. With that as my premise, I herewith offer the following excerpt from the Barnett Shale article posted above. Note the discrepancy between the huge increases in Barnett Shale natural gas production, against the overall drop in total US gas production. In other words, nonconventional gas is serving to slow, but not reverse, the long term decline in US natural gas production.
An excerpt from a previous article by Ronald Bailey (The "Tea Leaves" $50 Oil Price link above):
Following is a link to an OpEd piece that I wrote (in rebuttal to Bailey’s article), with considerable help from Alan Drake and Bart at the Energy Bulletin: http://www.energybulletin.net/17009.html
In any case, I have previously noted that the Lower 48 and the North Sea, both managed by private companies, are excellent examples of how successful private companies have been in managing the petroleum resources in the two regions.
The long term decline rate in Lower 48 (C+C) production has been about 2% since peaking in 1970, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.
The long term decline rate in North Sea (C+C) production has been about 6% since peaking in 1999, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.
The major oil companies, using the very best state of the art technology, have succeeded in keeping the North Sea decline rate down to only about three times higher than the Lower 48 decline rate.
My point is that the rise and fall of large oil fields drives the oil business (and the HL method). I agree that private companies can do a better job than state owned enterprises, but this is just a rounding error. The fundamental problem is the rapid depletion of large old oil fields worldwide. However, the emerging excuse for declining production will be that world production would be rising if only private companies were in charge.
Thus repeating the free-market mantra that privitizing makes everything better. I believe there is more than a little evidence that private companies will maximize short term profits at the expense of long term gains. In oil-extraction terms this translates into over-producing the fields to the detriment of URR and to the detriment of the country that owns the reserves. Kuwait is a case in point of the 'evil' government deciding to limit production for the good of the fields and the good of the country. In Venezuela, it is quite possible that the oil extraction is being managed poorly and thus not 'maximized' for efficiency. It is also quite possible that this is better in the long run for Venezuela.
Good point. And I'd love to see some economists do a thorough analysis of this dynamic. My guess is that even private companies start to experience a substantial incentive (from their expectation of future market conditions) to husband their reserves. And governments, of course, if their time horizon is shorter will find themselves sweetening the deal for oil companies just to keep production from falling.
The economics of hoarding. Doesn't that argue for a plateau rather than a peak?
Gee, it sure seems to me that the brown Spanish speaking Venezuaelans are'nt as competent as the Anglo-Saxon racist Europeans.
Gee, it sure seems to me that the brown Spanish speaking Venezuaelans are'nt as competent as the Anglo-Saxon racists.
And God knows, the managers of a private enterprise have never, ever failed to invest sufficiently in new technology and resources instead of grabbing for a short-term killing and then skipping off to the Caribbean with a fat pension.
Note that Cheney's all-important 1999 speech while still Halliburton CEO smeared state-held reserves as a potential threat to industry expansion, thus planting the meme in the Right that states that owned their reserves would have to be dealt with one day. How's that Iraq privatization working out, Reason?
Well, according to the likes of CERA, those reserves now include huge tar sands deposits in Alberta, and they're currently in the hands of private enterprises. Let's see how they're getting on compared to the projections in bottom-up analyses by Koppelaar (RK - ASPONL 5/06) and Skrebowski (CS - April 06):
Syncrude Phase III -- Both RK and CS saw this expansion bringing production up to 350,000 b/d in 2006. Production did reach 348,000 b/d in Oct 06, but fell back due to a damaged coker. Technical difficulties persist and Canadian Oil Sands is now projecting average 2007 production of 301,000 b/d.
Surmont Phase I -- RK and CS have this coming onstream in 2006, but it's not yet producing. Total is now saying "early 2007".
Long Lake -- RK and CS say on stream in 2007 at 70,000 b/d, but this is only bitumen production which will be upgraded. Synthetic crude production won't start until late 2007 with peak production of 58,500 b/d not being achieved until late 2008 / early 2009.
Sunrise Thermal -- RK has it onstream (along with Tucker) at 100,000 b/d in 2007, up to a peak of 200,000 b/d in 2008. CS has it onstream in 2008, again at 200,000 b/d. But Husky Energy says "Initial production from Sunrise Oil Sands Project is anticipated in 2010 to 2012". Also, once again this is bitumen production. Husky hasn't decided yet on upgrade options.
Horizon Phase I -- Onstream in 2008 according to CS, with peak flow 240,000 b/d. A year ago CRNL said this would start in 2008 at 110,000 b/d, rising to 232,000 in 2011. A year later and they say 110,000 in 2008, with a second phase adding 45,000 in 2010, with final production of 232,000 b/d in 2012. Project creep...
Kearl Phase I -- Onstream in 2009 according to CS with max of 100,000 b/d. Imperial Oil describes it as a "potential oil sands mining, pipeline and upgrading project" which if it goes ahead "will likely involve an initial mine development as early as 2010 with design capacity of about 100,000 barrels a day."
Muskeg River -- Another 2009 expansion project according to CS. He lists 140,000 b/d of additional production. Albian Sands is planning to increase Muskeg River bitumen production by 100,000 b/d by 2010, so I'm not sure how CS gets 140K.
Jackpine Mine Phase I -- CS has this onstream in 2008, with peak flow of 200,000 b/d in 2010. Western Oil Sands is currently saying production of bitumen from the first phase will begin in late 2009.
Joslyn Phase I and II -- Listed as 2008 by CS, with 100,000 b/d by 2014. The project actually started in Nov this year, but it will only produce 10,000 b/d. Total is saying that mining developments for the 100,000 b/d expansion "are planned for the first part of the next decade".
Not exactly encouraging is it? Don't hold your breath for "All Liquids".
"nonconventional gas is to total US gas production as nonconventional world oil production is to total world oil production"
I agree - both are "red herrings" that act as psychological pacifiers for The Herd.
Note that the article uses impressive "percentages" instead of absolute production to compare production increases for "unconventional gas" and decreases for conventional gas. How impressive would this be if the actual amounts produced were compared?
And as usual, they talk of "cutting edge technologies" instead of saying "highly experimental and problematic technologies that may not be economically feasible ever in our lifetimes."
"The field is labeled an "unconventional" reserve because only through cutting-edge technology can drillers ... extract gas that was previously unrecoverable.
And they completely ignore the price differential for the consumer for the "unconventional gas" vs conventional gas.
Maybe for unconventional gas production, Congress should mandate every citizen have a Colon Methane Collection Catheter surgically attached to their body and also fund a Manhatten Project-level effort to build the infrastructure necessary for Community Colon-gas Collection Stations on every suburban street corner.
Price? Price doesn't matter - just borrow against your rising home equity, and there are lots of good paying jobs in manufacturing, and high tech., er I meant house building...
Hmmm maybe we get to choose between warm houses and starbucks coffee,crusty cream donuts, and inflatable Santa's.
I'm somewhat relieved by all the plastic (oil) trash we create. Someday we will dig it up and burn it too. This will be "the new technology" that helps save us.
"Colon Methane Collection Catheter" OMG! My wife would buy me one...yesterday.
When you don't got the house, the others are comforting.
colon methane collection catheter ......... lmao........ for all the good that would do you might as well stick it up yer arse
On Glob. in Retreat. link
“Globalization” in its modern sense - trade in 1920 was very free and global - is in a way nothing more than ‘new colonialism’, the attempt to exploit poor workers and grab resources with carrots and clout, mirages, without the need to ‘occupy’ a country or territory, that is control it in all its details with jackboots, which is expensive, cumbersome, dangerous, not politically correct, not modern. (Iraq is a counter example, but the USuk invasion there has already failed.)
Many have obviously understood the trick and refuse to take a penny from the IMF.
Essentially rapacious, the ‘new’ globalization counts on quasi-religious economic mantras, accepted by dictators and higher ups, as they will ensure their positions and their own profit. Ordinary people understand this confusedly, so protest, more against their leaders than against ‘free trade.’
One sided, I know. ‘Growth’ has provided much for many. Where it all ends is another story.
Why is it to be one sided? Quoting you: "Growth has provided much for many".
Isn't the real question who are these "many"? Capitalism is like nuclear power - it can be done right or wrong... see capitalistic Mexico vs capitalistic Sweden.
I don't think it can be done right. That is, sustainably. Capitalism is an efficient method for exploiting abundant resources. It's not so great when resources are constrained. And I think even Sweden is about to find that out.
Capitalism is an efficient method for exploiting abundant resources.
Yes, but there is nothing unnatural in this per se. Life itself is based on acquiring and transformation of resources. The question is, can a capitalistic society reach a long-term equilibrioum with the environment? My answer would be - it depends on the corrective mechanisms.
If left unconstrained it definately will behave like cancer, eventually devouring everything around. If efficient corrective mechanisms are in place it could be constrained before this happens. "Economic growth" is a hollow word in this context - we can achieve growth without necessarily acquiring more resources - it is not a strict one way relation. We can achieve better quality of life - works of art, education, health care, free time etc. without trashing the environment further on. At some point we need to transition to qualitive growth as opposed to quantitive one anyway.
I would say no. And the reason is interest. There's a reason why charging interest was seen as a sin as bad as murder in ancient world, with its steady-state economy.
I agree with levenK that capitalism is "not unnatural," and also that it is not good/bad or a "sin" or whatever.
I also agree with you that capitalism is not the best strategy in a steady-state economy (or an economy in decline or on the verge of collapse).
Like the "good genes/bad genes" argument, it depends on the enviornment the critters find themselves in. Capitalism works best during the Growth Phase in an environment of excess resources.
"Capitalism works best during the Growth Phase in an environment of excess resources."
This is a good way of looking at economies. We must change over time depending on the dynamics of the resources. We need to adapt to a new economic model now that we are approaching a "constrained" resource future.
The problem with capitalism is that it exploits the the desperation of the many for the profits of the few [the capitalists]. It has always struck me as odd that capitalism is equated to private enterprise which is a totally different animal. Capitalixm is based on the possession of the currency of the moment and the desire to exploit that possession for one's own good.
I realize that many will label this viewpoint Marxist, but in reality, it's the case, Capitalism in its extreme form involves slavery.
I think you are forgetting that nature is nothing but a bank herself. She, too, charges interest and the more you borrow, the more interest she charges. Ask any physicist, biologist, ecologist about this fundamental notion and you will hear an earful.
It is not capitalism that is unsustainable but greed. I don't think getting rid of the former gets us rid of the latter. See the failed communist model... they were brought down by the greed of the few who knew how to exploit the system just as much as by the built in dogmatism. I don't think capitalism will (have to) die, but neoconpitalist dogma for sure will.
I think you are forgetting that nature is nothing but a bank herself. She, too, charges interest and the more you borrow, the more interest she charges.
Can you explain and support this "gratuitous" metaphor?
Bingo! Very well stated. People focus on the system and forget that it is us humans that make the system what it is.
If I understand fractional reserve banking does not need to charge interest for it to be profitable. The purpose of interest rates is to protect the value of currency, i.e. prevent inflation. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The high interest rates of the late 1970s was in response to the 4-fold price increases of OPEC.
I consider a steady state economy at this time to just a way to perpetuate poverty. If we devoted our efforts to converting just 1% of the solar energy our world receives into goods and services then economic activity could be 16 times its present value and eliminate poverty. But the elimination of poverty would require big changes in how goods and services are distributed.
I'm not necessarily talking about fractional reserve banking. I'm talking about an economic system where people can get wealth without laboring or producing anything. That is, a system where people can live off usury.
I would agree, and I would say this probably necessary if we wish to be sustainable. The alternative is dieoff.
180 degrees wrong. The purpose of interest rates is profit.
If you want to protect the value of a currency, interest is the last thing you want.
How on earth can interest prevent inflation? Interest simply means paying back the principal plus an extra N percent. Where could N come from, other than the creation of more money? If you keep your money base stable, or at 100%, how will you pay back the 100+N% (principal plus interest) that you owe?
Iterest rates have several functions and purposes.
To restrain inflation a central bank will reduce the rate of growth in the supply of money. Usually that will push short-term interest rates up. During the early 1980s in the U.S. brutally high interest rates choked off inflation in only a couple of years--but oh boy, did it hurt!
Don,
Have you seen the reconstituted M3 numbers floating around in internetland? I've seen different graphs from different sites and they all put it between 11-13%. Keep smashing that button. I've started to read a bit more on the repo market and it's disturbing once you realize the size of this daily market.
M3 does not matter. I know you have no reason to take this statement on faith, but let me put it this way: Milton Friedman followed M2. I first met Milton back in the fall of 1955, when he helped me with my tennis game (at the time I had no knowledge of or interest in economics, but we were both tennis players at the U. of Chicago.) Milton knew more about money than just about anybody else( except for his collaborator, Anna Schwartz, in his masterwork on money).
Now it would take me a 3,000 word essay to explain why almost everything of interest about M3 is contained also in M2, but I've already been posting too much today. This happens, when my woman friend is out of town;-)
There are lots of things to watch. M3 is not one of them. I have never ever followed M3, though I do look at fifty or eighty other numbers of interest in economics.
OMG.
"I first met Milton back in the fall of 1955, when he helped me with my tennis game..."
Milton Friedman is a neoliberal thug, the Hitler of economics, the Dean of Autistic Economics. There is no man more responsible for economic human suffering than Milton Friedman. This guy is a criminal, and it is too bad the weasel is dead, cause there are thousands of poor people in the world who would like to see him hang.
For more information on this slime:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11491
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/grandin11172006.html (Scroll down one page or so.)
For an explanation of Friedman's "neoliberalism:" http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/histneol.htm
He was a fine tennis player, and at five foot three played against guys a foot taller than he was and held his own. He often partnered with George Stigler, another Nobel Laureate in Economics, and another of my favorite economists.
He was a fine tennis player
And THIS boosts his skills as an economist?
Especially with respect to the M3/M2 question and excuses him for the damage he has done with his demented economic advices?
Can you elaborate SENSIBLY on that or are you just too drunk or senile to follow up?
so when the "woman friend" is out of town you just spend the whole day playing with those internet dials ?
"Milton knew more about money than just about anybody else"
Perhaps he did, but like many economists he seemed to lack an empathy chip and the ability to factor in the human equation.
I recall a transcript I read a few years back of a debate with Friedman and three other panelists on whether medical innovations were only possible in an unregulated health care free market. A physician from Physicians for a National Health Program used devastating logic and specific examples of important new applications where profit was not the motive (e.g. polio vaccine) to utterly defeat each and every point Friedman tried to make. At the end of the debate Friedman was backpedaling at breakneck speed.
I do not intend to imply there are no broad minded economists around. My father-in-law and my Med Econ prof seem to be able to see outside the economics lens. However, one cannot escape the basic fact that anyone socialized in this society and with an advanced business/economics education is deeply indoctrinated in the economic paradigm.
hi don
I have often heard economists pooh-pooh M3. I don't believe you need a 3,000 word essay to state your main points. 'Because Milton Friedman followed M2' won't do. Briefly, why is M3 irrelevant?
I have plotted M3 and the cumulative trade deficit on the same scale here. They scarily look like mirror images of each other.
M3 is approximately useless because of its volatility. Most of the variation in M3 (beyond that in M2, which is the biggest part of M3) does not represent trend but rather haphazard data swings that do not represent much of economic interest. Thus the noise to signal ratio is too high in M3 to make it good for much.
BTW, M3 often swings downward drastically when M2 shows a steadier uptrend; the volatility does not always create bigger M3 percentage growth numbers than M2 percentage growth numbers.
O.K., that is the short version, which is somewhat quick and dirty. To explain and defend the statements above would take about 3,000 words, which you can find in most any advanced book on finance that covers this topic.
Thanks for the response.
It does look like M3 is a little more volatile, though not amazingly so at a resolution of one week (from research.stlouisfed.org).
Since M2 makes up more than half of M3, they are correlated. However, it is obvious from the graph above that M3 began to pull away from M2 just before M3 was discontinued.
If you follow M3 back twenty or thirty years you'll see that there is a lot more volatility over time in M3 than in M2.
Here is another thing to be aware of: "Money" in the strictest sense is M1. M2 includes M1 but adds very close substitutes for "money" to the core M1. Well then, what is the additional stuff in M3? Answer: More substitutes for money but not as close as in the (M2-M1) quantity. In other words, M3 is more a measure of liquidity than is M1 or M2, as opposed to being a measure of "money" as such.
There is no clear dividing line between "money" and close substitutes for money. A case can be made for tracking M1 rather than M2, but as stated above, when it comes to money I go with The Master, Milton Friedman, and first I look at M2, then M1, then maybe some other measures of liquidity. The history of the various measures of liquidity is very interesting: They keep changing.
My answer would be - it depends on the corrective mechanisms.
WHICH "corrective mechanisms"?
What do you think can withstand the pressure of the greed of the have as well as the reproductive urge of the have not?
Even WITHOUT capitalism this is a seemingly impossible endeavour.
Yes Kevem, capitalism is neither unnatural nor a sin, anymore than it is unnatural or a sin for a deer to consume all the fungi on its island, and send its cohort into overshoot.
Capitalism is not the problem, merely a symptom of oil abundance. Or else, why didn't we arrive at it earlier. Weren't we smart enough (lol)?
WHICH "corrective mechanisms"?
There are many. There are laws and a state to apply them. Laws are meant to defend the long-term stability of the system - how well they do it, is another question. There is religion, there is moral if you wish. Even this blog is some type of corrective mechanism - people here are not discussing out of commercial interests or to maximize their short term interests (or at least not primarily IMHO).
There are many. There are laws and a state to apply them.
This is plain handwaving.
For instance, just about laws:
The UNDERLYING causes, reasons and motives for the "corrective mechanisms" are the critical points.
Not just the theoretical (and true, indeed) fact that "there might be corrective mechanisms".
In a discussion about capitalism and/or growth based economies, the term "growth" is supposed to be understood. Adding something like "qualitative growth" has nothing at all to do with that discussion, because it has no relation to either economics or to economic growth. It distorts the discussion to the point where people talk about completely different things, and effectively no longer have a discussion. Happiness is not an economic term. Nor is love.
Capitalism as we know and define it, and don't start redefining that as well, can never reach an equilibrium, other than at the point where it has inexorably collapsed. Suggesting capitalism and steady state economics could be combined shows a misunderstanding of both.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com
Americans only love capitalism because of growth. Many of us sure stopped loving it in a hurry from 1929 to 1932. It's like Americans loved free trade as long as they were winning at it, and they loved wars as long as they were winning.
Actually, a million and three quarter hits on google say that the questions of economics and happiness are being debated:
http://www.google.com/search?q=happiness+economics
Personally, I think the word "growth" works in a lot of ways, and that definitions which are too narrow obscure as much as illuminate.
(as an aside, the word "capitalism" suffers from simplistic definitions as well ... especially when hybrid market-welfare states are swept under that umbrella.)
Right on! Capitalism exists for the purpose of producing capital, not useful goods and services. In feudal societies, profits were mostly used for personal consumption by the wealthy classes, so there was little economic growth. Spain became filthy rich from all the profits from their exploitation of the New World, but it was England and Holland that really got capitalism going. Their trading was the original basis of capitalism, since private traders are always trying to make a profit, and they tend to reinvest their profits to make more profits (capital). Competition means that the companies that make the most profits are the ones that survive and prosper. And they can only do that because they continually reinvest at least some of their profits. This is why, if they don't grow, the competitiion eliminates them. One of the most difficult things we have to do to establish a steady-state society, is to eliminate the idea that economic competition is good (although that doesn't mean it is 100% bad). As Bertrand Russell said, competition in ideas is good, because growth of knowledge is a good thing, while we know that material growth will eventually lead to serious problems of resource depletion, pollution, overpopulation, etc..
When and where economic and population growth will end I do not know. But that it will end is for sure, because any expontential growth eventually becomes too big for "reality" constraints.
What bothers me is the "how" of economic and population growth ending. The "how" is going to be (pick one):
a. A smooth slowdown in business as usual helped by technological advances, nothing to worry about.
b. Difficult with major fluctuations and disruptions and social disorder and wars.
c. Catastrophic involving a major dieoff of the world's population.
d. Doom worse than "c." above.
e. None of the above.
Now, which is the one best answer?
Hi Don:
You once mentioned the economic textbook that you wrote and that it was available at Amazon. What was the name of the textbook again?
Thanks,
Rick
PS - Feel free to send me email offline if you prefer.
"Economics: Making Good Choices," by Don Millman, 1996. The book is unique in that it is the only introductory economics textbook ever to emphasize secondary effects--which include externalities. A good choice is one that looks at all costs and benefits--not just the ones captured by the price system. You may find especially interesting the discussion on gasoline prices, where I show that extreme (short-run) price inelasticities of supply and demand for gasoline cause great price fluctuations.
In the draft version there was a chapter on environmental economics. The editor chopped it out. Also, to be publishable it had to present both growth and globalization in a favorable light, because that was and is the dogma.
Writing the book was a heckuva lot of fun, and the royalties enabled me to retire early.
Don,
Since you brought up the inclusion of externalities, I was wondering if you were aware of the new introductory college level Economics textbook by Daly and Farley that deals extensively with those?
Yes,I have read it and recommend it; it is an updated version of the H. Daly book I used when I taught my Environmental Economics class back in the good old 1970s, when we were worried about the effects of economic growth on the environment--and an eventual end to cheap oil.
Indeed, there is lots of good stuff on both energy and the environment from the 1970s, but I seldom see it cited on TOD--perhaps because hardly any of it is online.
I have a question: how elastic/inelastic do you think the gasoline demand in the US is? How can it be measured quantitatively? Did we completely exploit the existing elasticity in 2005/2006 or is there more to go?
These are real questions seeking quantitative answers.
Thanks!
To specify elasticity you must first specify length of time period under consideration. In the "instantaneous" present gasoline supply and demand are both perfectly price inelastic; in other words the supply and demand curves are both exactly vertical.
In the very short run, both supply and demand are very highly inelastic, e.g. a change in price of ten percent will result in less than a one percent change in quantity supplied or quantity demanded.
In a moderately short run of a few months the elasticities are still far far below unitary elasticity.
In a longer run of years both supply and and demand are still highly price inelastic but not so inelastic as in say, one year.
Over a century, when we will have time to change just about everything, I suspect the price elasticities will both be about one.
(Technically, because demand curves slope down, price elasticities of demand are negative, but to simplify matters for students we instructors usually ignore the negative sign just for pedagogical reasons.)
(If you don't like the concept of elasticity, you can do similar analysis with slopes of demand and supply curves, though slope is most certainly not equivalent to elasticity. For example, a demand curve that is a straight line sloping down at a forty-five degree angle will be price inelastic, unitary elasticity, and price elastic at different points on the curve. There are some advantages to using graphs, but most economists prefer elasticities because you can do more interesting things with them mathematically than you can do with slope.)
Thanks for the answer. It is very helpful.
I was thinking that the natural time scales in the US would be weeks for the minority of people who can switch to public transportation, months to change old habits like driving to the store for every bottle of milk and years for changing the fleet. I doubt we have seen much of the latter (hybrid sales so far made probably not even a dent and SUVs are making a strong comeback), but I can attest that people did switch to riding the train (at least for a while) at the height of gas prices. I think ridership statistics makes that observation quantitative. But even that might have been more of a psychological reaction than a correct economic decision. Monthly public transportation cost in my case is $100 and one would need to consume 100 gallons of gas a month for a $1 price increase just to break even... and I doubt very much that many of the new train riders sold their car...
IMHO the most important scale to watch for is the one year scale because it requires the most changes in habits and is therefor psychologically most painful to most consumers. But that, of course, is a wild guess of mine. I don't see too many obvious other ways of reducing oil consumption in the short run. True technological conservation measures and renewables will take years to decades to ramp up. They will certainly provide an envelope on which consumers can make relatively safe choices but will not relieve the need for most to make some choices in their lifestyle.
On this background my question is probably: How will the US consumer react to a few percent drop in world oil production and rising competition from Asia? If I understand your estimate correctly, you would predict a demand response which tolerates a price response in the tens of percent range for 2007? (Assuming that we have peaked... which we won't know, until some time later, of course).
I expect to see gasoline over five dollars a gallon by 31 Dec. 2008. This is not an unconditional forecast, because if there were a severe global recession then the demand for oil and oil products would decline to the point where prices could actually go down. I think the next recession will be mild.
However, the recession after the next one could very well turn into a nightmare revision of the Great Depression.
I think the U.S. unemployment rate (as officially reported) will be above ten percent within five years. I'll give even odds for long-term unemployment greater than twenty percent in the eight years that follow 2012, which is my guess for when TSHTF.
By the way, there is half a ton of research on the price elasticity of demand for gasoline in the U.S.; most intermediate or advanced books in microeconomics books make some reference to this research, but I imagine that by googling around with "elasticity" and "gasoline" you could come up with a whole bunch of interesting numbers. Some of this research goes back more than thirty years; oddly enough there seems to have been little or no change in elasticities (for a given time period) during the past thirty years.
From memory, I think the one year price elasticity of demand is someting (in absolute value) less than 0.05; in other words, if you raise prices by twenty percent you get less than a one percent decline in quantity demanded of gasoline. The recent price spike after Katrina showed just how price inelastic gasoline is in the U.S., at least over a period of a few months.
This report (from 2005) says -0.6, so you're a factor of 10 out.
And yes, it was the first google hit ;)
Over what time period?????
Note that in the months after Katrina and Rita gasoline spiked up over three dollars a gallon (more than a twenty percent increase) while quantity demanded did not decline as much as one percent against the trendline for increase gasoline consumption.
As I stated at the beginning of my discussion of price elasticity, time period is of the essence. The reason for this, BTW, is that it is impossible to find substitutes in short periods of time, somewhat possible in a year or two or five and much easier in fifty years or so.
Whenever you see a highly demand price inelastic commodity, you know for sure there are no close substitutes, because if there were good substitutes people would just switch to them to avoid steep price increases. This does not happen in the case of gasoline. Hence, one thing we know for sure: There are no close substitutes for gasoline. (And that includes ethanol and biodiesel because of their high cost and scalability problems.)
Over what time period?????
The same as yours, "at least one year". For "short run" (time unspecified), they quote -0.23.
Your statement about "good substitutes" I find somewhat simplistic. You combine quality and quantity. There are close substitutes in terms of quality, but not quantity. Now, is lack of availability the fault of the substitute, or the fact gasoline retailers don't want to undermine their market share by allowing forecourts to sell alternative fuels? In Europe, many people find diesel a good substitute, an option you did not mention. There is nothing in principle to stop me selling my car tommorrow and buying a car using a different fuel.
Therefore I don't think observed inelasticity in demand is really a hard limit. It is not the case that people absolutely can't live with gasoline. It is really down to the fact that even at $3/gallon gas is pretty cheap (it's $6/gallon in Europe), and people are pretty lazy. A 10% increase is peanuts, a realistic test would be to increase prices by 100% to match Europe, and see what effect that has. The fact that gas prices are inelastic over the bottom few percent of the curve really proves little about whether there are adequate substitutes.
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
"At least one year" could mean five years or ten; it is a meaningless phrase.
If you want to get technical, look up "cross elasticities of demand" in regard to what is a close substitute and what is not.
Again I go back to my example of 2005: Prices went up more than twenty percent for gasoline and demand did not go down at all. In 2006 prices of gasoline went down more than twenty percent but quantity demanded hardly blipped above the trendline. Thus I think the evidence that price elasticity of demand for gasoline in the short run is highly inelastic is overwhelming and undisputed.
Everybody knows that the price elasticity of demand for gasoline is less highly inelastic over time. The disagreements are ones of magnitude, and reputable studies are all over the place. Partly these disagreements are due to differences in methodologies, which, in turn, come down to differing premises.
But if you look at the trend for U.S. consumption of gasoline since 1945, I think you will clearly see that price makes hardly any difference, i.e. highly inelastic demand.
Note that every long run is the sum of many short runs.
Thus I think the evidence that price elasticity of demand for gasoline in the short run is highly inelastic is overwhelming and undisputed.
Yeah, you always end up making some blanket statement like that based on a couple of cherry picked examples, but without providing any further evidence. Like, we are just supposed to take your word for it. Why don't you actually read the FTC report I cited, instead of relying on your faulty memory?
Having a meaningful discussion with you is impossible.
Have you ever heard of Google?
You do realize that diesel comes from the same pool of crude?
you stated that "there is no close substitute for gasoline" but what about not gasoline ie conservation ?
Don,
I would assume that a sophisticated model of elasticity would have the relationship described here as a curvilinear function, reflecting the fact that 'tipping points' would be reached and elasticity increases in a non-linear fashion. Would this be a correct assumption?
You are correct that is how it "ought" to be done. But economists hate discontinuous or other badly behaved functions because you cannot differentiate them. Thus in economics we find assumptions of smooth variations, though tipping points are recognized in some special cases, e.g. in regard to the kinked oligopoly demand curve.
I am not happy with mainstream economics; there is a lot of wasted brainpower there. However, there are a lot of very bright economists, and plenty of them swim outside the mainstream. Unfortunately, most of the brightest ones are frozen into the growth paradigm. Intelligence can be misused to defend obsolete models.
A short book on the history of economic thought is most informative; there are at least a couple of interesting ones out there. The best, IMO is "The Worldly Philosophers" by Robert Heilbroner (any edition).
Economists are not the only people who hate non-linearity. Much of theoretical physics is the attempt to explain as much as possible with a (linear) harmonic oscillator. I always find it astonishing how succesful sometimes the even most blunt linearizations are.
Physicists have learned roughly 25 years ago about the underlying mathematical reasons for this success in systems with many dimensions. It turns out that there are a few fundamental dynamic properties which one can derive under rather general assumptions about systems which are close to one of their equilibrium points (that is a very strong pre-requisite of the method, but one that is probably satisfied in economically stable countries).
The names to mention here are Haken and Prigogineboth of whome, among many other systems they looked at, derived laser thresholds from first principles by using a perturbation approach around equilibrium points.
If I coarsly apply the lessons from that calculation method (Haken called it somewhat exaggeratingely the "theory of synergetics", despite it not being a physics theory at all but more of a mathematical toolbox to deal with certain types of systems theoretically), I would have to say that the US and Europe are both at very different equilibria.
The US is at an equilibrium with low gas prices and high personal consumption while Europe is at one with high gas prices and considerably lower personal consumption. A small perturbation around either will evoke a more or less linear response (linear can also mean that there is some dampened or undampened oscillation around average price/demand). So the linearisation used by economists might not be so bad, after all.
The suggestion of the other poster that a violent 100% step is needed to test flexibility will not lead to a test of non-linear flexibility in the "synergetics" picture. Instead it will throw the system out of its stable region around its old equilibrium and force it to either settle in a new equilibrium point or become chaotic.
Synergetics usually makes a few assumptions about the change of the (order) parameters (in this case the oil price) being adiabatic, i.e. slow relative to ALL the timescales of the system's internal dynamics. I don't think this is the case in the real world. However, one can still learn something from the adiabatic (and probably the step function case).
One of the things that I would take for pretty much granted is that sudden moves FAR from the equilibrium should better be avoided in reality. Engineers, by the way, keep that constantly in mind...
Obviously, Europe has, for probably the wrong reasons, made the remarkable decision to force their system into a state that anticipates scarce hydrocarbons. They now have the freedom to counteract rapid changes of the control parameter (oil price) by lowering their taxes. I am not sure they will actually use this degree of freedom that way, but at least they have it. The US, on the other hand, lacks any buffer from forces that will move its economy too far away from its stable state. It might still be time to establish a buffer in form of a much higher gas tax.
(Hope this stays better placed - threading is not as clean as before.)
'Obviously, Europe has, for probably the wrong reasons, made the remarkable decision to force their system into a state that anticipates scarce hydrocarbons. They now have the freedom to counteract rapid changes of the control parameter (oil price) by lowering their taxes.'
At this point, I'm certain you aren't European. Europe has high fuel taxes because Europe has little in the way of oil resources - European states actively discourage wasting what they don't have. Especially when the resource is finite. And of course, taxing fuel is a fine way to redistribute wealth.
But the real reason I am now positive you aren't European is the idea that Europeans will lower their fuel taxes as a way to avoid the economic disruption of higher fuel prices. At least for Europeans like the French, the Germans, the Dutch, and the Scandinavians, they are likely to continue what they have been doing since the 1970s - try to increase efficiency, decrease consumption, use nuclear (though not the Germans) and otherwise look to the long term in a fairly realistic manner. For example, in Germany, the large tax breaks on biodiesel have essentially been phased out - and this during a time with rapidly rising diesel costs. By discouraging consumption, rewarding higher efficiency, and developing alternatives, Europeans are anticipating scarce hydrocarbons, it seems, and reacting.
I guess in American terms, these are 'probably the wrong reasons.'
"but I imagine that by googling around with "elasticity" and "gasoline" you could come up with a whole bunch of interesting numbers"
I know. I was more interested in your personal ideas than what is out there. Thanks for sharing. I think I agree with a lot of what you say. I would certainly agree that $5/gallon is not only possible but sooner than later likely. Since we have an example in Europe where $6/gallon is being tolerated and not the prime reason for economic problems, I would also agree that those prices will not lead to a major depression.
"However, the recession after the next one could very well turn into a nightmare revision of the Great Depression."
That is an interesting thought. Could you elaborate which fundamentals will have to change to lead to such an outcome?
I think a number of EU countries would be glad about having "only" a ten percent unemployment rate. Now, they also have somewhat better safety nets to keep high unemployment from becomming national nightmares. I do not dare to say that the US with its current social structure would do "so well". On the other hand, the US does have a historic example of how it overcame a great depression with some of the results being among the most marvelous creations of the nation. I just saw the Hoover Dam and think it is a remarkably beautiful and artistic piece of engineering. I wonder why this can't be repeated, if necessary. Our dams would probably have to look like wind turbines and solar power plants... but there is plenty the government could do to supply the nation with energy here at home. And a lot of it would generate enormous numbers of employed people.
Twenty percent unemployment would certainly be a catastrophy, on any level. I am not sure I can see how this would be triggered by oil prices alone. (There are nightmare scenarios I can imagine, e.g. a nuclear terror attack on US cities and the resulting (permanent?) flight of the urban population to rural areas would probably qualify.)
"oddly enough there seems to have been little or no change in elasticities (for a given time period) during the past thirty years."
I always wondered how CA electricity consumption fits into this picture. The state managed to keep consumption per capita roughly flat, while the US as a total was growing rapidly:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/images/fcagoals4.gif
The picture, I believe, is not quite as rosy for oil and NG. I still wonder if we are looking at a well managed vs. unmanged resource growth in this case and if that could be repeated on the national level by a properly coordinated, bi-partisan political campaign. (Not that I give it much of a chance... the parties rather see the nation go to the dogs than to agree on something, it seems.). Just a thought... or am I pinning my hopes on an outlier?
If the U.S. goes into another Great Depresssion or Great Stagflation the trigger factor will be an abrupt and major shift in expectations.
Keynes emphasized "animal spirits" which influenced the willingness to invest; he was, IMO, entirely correct.
Because expectations are highly volatile and can be understood only through social psychology (as opposed to economics), economists do not have many useful things to say in this regard.
One of the greatest economists of the twentieth century, Irwin Fisher (who also, BTW, invented the Rollodex) announced late in 1929 that stock prices were not excessive and that the U.S. had achieved a plateau of permanent high prosperity.
Then expectations changed.
The New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression; World War II did that.
I anticipate further wars and probably rationing and price controls to be justified by these wars.
Nevertheless, in the long run I am an optimist. Of course, as Keynes pointed out, in the long run we are all dead, and unfortunately I expect to be cut up by medical students long before we get through the coming hard times.
"The New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression; World War II did that."
You are right... my mistake. Unfortunately neither Iraq II nor a potential North Korea II or Iran I etc. will get that trick done, again. Not sure the current administration thinks that way, though. Which scares the living daylights out of me.
I can see where you are going with the expectations shift... would that make the Chairman of the Fed the great shrink of the nation? The one who tells us to better hate our parents and love ourselves rather than the other way around? It would explain Alan Greenspan's monotonous and almost hypnotic voice while he was reciting his economic analysis of the state of the nation... obviously the new kid is not doing quite as well...
Is expectation change the generally accepted theory of what triggered the Great Depression?
I was always a bit more concerned about US borrowing. The household credit card debt alone will probably dwarf the oil price problem by an order of magnitude. Doesn't it? I thought it was around $10,000 per family, right now...
Infintite: You forgot about the per capita share of the guv debt (about $165000 per person)-maybe $500000 per family.
Actually, the concept of the New Deal did get us out of the great depression. Though you choose to differentiate state spending between those projects initiated pre-WWII and the military spending necessitated by the war, the effects are the same. Unfortunately, we continue to use the military-industrial complex as a stealth new deal program that moderates the economy, enriches the already rich, placates the increasingly poor, produces throw-away wealth, sucks money from the common good, and gets us into trouble through boondoggles like Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, etc.
What we should have done is shut down the military like Ike wanted us to and turn that wealth that would be thrown away towards improving the welfare of U.S. citizens instead of corporate citizens.
Of course, the standard neoliberal economist would insist on the trickle down effect. What that means to you laymen is that the beer you would have gotten directly through a system geared towards the people would first be filtered through the kidneys and livers of the rich who then piss on your heads a rather dilute and inferior brew.
In 1940 the unemployment rate in the U.S. topped 10%. World War II did indeed get the world out of the Great Depression.
I've always liked Galbraith's variation on this. He called it the 'Horse and sparrow effect.' If you shovel enough oats to the horse, the sparrow gets to pick a few out of the horseflops on the road behind.
And... if unemployment was merely 10% in 1940 that indicates that FDR's policies were having an effect since I believe unemployment ran as high as 20% during the Great Depression. Perhaps WWII slowed the recovery? We will never know.
What we need is to know what the unemployment figures were for Canada in 1939. I saw an article last year that laid out a brutal picture of life in Canada during the Depression, where an oppressive right-wing elite refused to attempt a New Deal despite similar suffering. In fact, the maximum unemployment figures I've heard for the US during the Depression were over 30%, but I don't know how they accounted for farm labor and underemployment. The questions are:
1. how did the conservative-authoritarian approach of Canada compare in reducing unemployment to the New Deal before WW2 changes everything?
2. even if Canada did as well as the US, does that justify the greater suffering visited on ordinary Canadians by that laissez-faire approach? After all, who serves whom here?
The break even point should come prior to 100 gallons in this example, because...say that gas was at $2/gallon and went up to $3/gallon and your vehicle gets 20mpg: Your commute of say 100 miles will now cost you an extra $5 ((100/20) * $(3-2)). But...you choose to take the train instead for the entire week...it's not $5 that you've saved but $15 ((100/20) * $3).
If you factor in vehicle depreciation the break even will come at much lower point. A thing that nobody seem to include is greatly increased safety of travel and the ability to actively use the time otherwise spent in driving.
In fact personally I would prefer using public transit for commuting only based on the last two factors as I put a lot value in them. My personal experience is that I was much more happy with my public transit period than I am now. Here is my comparison table:
Unfortunately in my new residence and job location public transit loses because commute time grows to ~4 hours.
Based on this, it looks to be a well-constructed text for learning, particularly the inclusion of concept maps:
Now, which is the one best answer?
tounge in cheek
Whichever one leaves me alive and the people who got us into the mess dead. Having the heads mounted on pikes as a warning to future generations that some actions come at too high a price...an added bonus.
tounge back in free wiggl'n mode
For most of us, making it through the transition alive will be the 'best' answer. Even if Option A is what happens, will there be 'lessons learned'? How about lessons in case B or C or D such that humanity is able to 'advance'?
In the year 2525...if man is still alive, what lessons will this period have taught? How does man overcome the habbits that got us here...habbits pointed out as flaws for years by various people?
One thing I expect to see resulting from the coming hard times is new religions or reformulations of old religions. Oddly enough, of all the major religions, Islam--with its idea of stewardship--may have the greatest potential for effective reform, in regard to how we look at the environment. Christianity is without doubt the worst of all the major religions insofar as it emphasizes that God gave all the world to man to be master of; however, some offshoots of Christianity take a more enlightened view. Oh, forgot: Marxism is a religion even worse than Christianity, but then it is pretty much just a heretical offshoot of Christianity.
To a very large extent, our worldviews are molded by the religions we or our parents were raised in.
You are, unfortunately, all too correct. In my experience agnostics and atheists show a much larger willingness to question dogma and re-calibrate long held beliefs when new facts become available. That is not to say they can, should or are willing to completely overcome the confines of their culture, but at least they have taught themselves that "questioning givens" is not only a good thing but usually leads to better answers.
Islam--with its idea of stewardship-
I see your Islam and raise you an American Indian belief system. I'll make a side bet with the edo period in Japan.
Islam...Christanity....
I was listening to 'wack-job radio' and a guest was on pitching that Mohammad was smart, but illeritate and grabbed the better parts of Christanity to make Islam.
I have no idea how close such a veiw is to the reality, but is was a POV I'd never heard beforee.
Christianity is without doubt the worst of all the major religions insofar as it emphasizes that God gave all the world to man to be master of
Is there not also parts to say that man sould be good stewards to the beasts, plants and land?
I'd say the ability of captialism to offload expenses to someone else is more of a problem than some 'phreer big sky god' religion. The Gods of money and cashflow with the effect of taxation to keep one on the treadmill is more of a 'belief system' to overcome...
Mahomet was literate. He was a shrewd and successful businessman and extremely devout for decades before he became the leader of a religion. I give him heaps of credit for preaching respect and tolerance for Jews and Christians: The modern day Islam is as close to Mahomet as the Soviet Union of the 1980s was to the teaching of Marx.
Islam has some uniquely good features that are not found in either Christianiy or Judaism. For example, there is respect for the feelings of animals. In the Koran, Mahomet states that the adulterous woman who gives a drink of water to a thirsty dog will go to heaven--i.e., the good deed to an animal more than wipes out a grave sin. Another thing I like about Mahomet is that he was an intensely practical man who revised his teachings when he found they were not being followed as he had intended them to be.
Just as the Christians have trashed the teachings of Jesus, so also have the fanatical mullahs destroyed the true spirit of Islam.
In the same spirit one could say that Jesus was a humanist and a highly compassionate man. Sadly enough, Christianity has its own mullahs who like to throw all of that over board to establish their own fundamentalism.
We should probably revive the age old idea of locking our mullahs and their mullahs into the same room and let them fight it out with knives. The winners will be locked up for life for murder.
Are you a muslim convert?
No, but if I were to convert to any religion I'd take a long look at Islam. More likely I'd end up as a Quaker (one of my favorite religions) or possibly B'Hai. There are a lot of good religions out there--thoroughly corrupted by their church organizations in most cases, however. There are a hundred or more varieties of Christianity, of which most are IMHO disgusting in their hypocrasy.
Friends have tried to convert me to more than a dozen different religions, but what I should do is to ace out Alpha Male Prophet of Doom and start my own.
My wife grew up with Society of Friends teachings and I've been to a few meetings. Nice, but I miss the extroverted participatory joy found in the church meetings of Southern African-Americans. I went to the funeral of the mother of an African-American friend and, even at a funeral, there was a great deal of congregation participation in the event. White folks is jes' so uptight.
Hmmm...unfortunately there is a massive disconnect between what Mohomet may have said regarding the treatment of animals and the way in which they are treated in countries in which Islam now predominates. I have travelled through a number of 'Islamic' states and have to say I seldom saw any compassion directed towards animals of any sort. Your comment that Islam may also provide a better frame-work for stewardship of nature is also in my opinion open to question; countries such as Egypt and Jordan (the degradation of the Red Sea reefs) and Indonesia (the rape of native rain forests) show scant ability to protect national treasures even when its in their interest (the tourist dollar) to do so. The concept of 'Inshallah' seems far too entrenched - if the sewage outfall poisons the reef then it was Gods will after all.
Not that I have a particular axe to grind with Islam - a plague on all religions I say.
Islam is just as corrupt as Christianity. Judaism would be equally corrupt, but for its small number of followers; in Israel the Jewish religious fanatics are detested by the great majority of Israeli citizens.
I find minor faiths (such as Quakers or B'Hai) especially interesting because these people have always been regarded as deviant by the majority populations and have not had the opportunity to get far away from the founders' teachings. A most interesting religious group is the Hutterians (aka Hutterites) because they have made "communism" work according to the teachings of Jesus.
Mahomet was literate.
Given the wack-job radio and you , I'll take you as more accurate.
The modern day Islam is as close to Mahomet as the Soviet Union of the 1980s was to the teaching of Marx.
How about this instead:
The people who 'truely follow the book' end up being quiet, not pushy, and get overlooked VS loud, bombastic, and seeking attention types.
I'm betting there are a few people of any religion who could be called 'true beliveres' but we won't notice them, buried under the noise.
Eric Blair,
The study of the "Edo" period (1603-1867) would be most enlightening to anyone concerned about a future that looks doable in terms of sustainability.
I urge everyone to read about this amazing time in Japan's history when Tokyo, known as Edo, achieved stability.
http://www.japanfs.org/en/column/ishikawa.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/5140.html (This link uses material from the above mentioned link but is condensed and not PDF.)
The study of the "Edo" period (1603-1867) would be most enlightening to anyone concerned about a future that looks doable in terms of sustainability.
I bring it up because it is a model that had lasted a long time and there may be people here who are not aware of the existance of said model.
The only thing I've not figured out is how to mesh that period with the present money/political structure so that said structure and the underclass would accept being under whatever contrived model.
The present system it unwilling to accept Quakers, Amish, American Indians, Technocracy, economic-isms other than graft-ism or corporate-ism. But who knows, perhaps there is a philospher-king who can enighten us on some path with less land mines then the present path seems to have.
the edo period was not totally self sufficient. they still traded with neighboring country's all be it in a very limited manner. but that /still/ counts as a input like it or not.
the east India trading company being the best example of it.
No one is claiming that there will not be trade between nations and locations in the future either. There will still be energy inputs beyond what the sun deliveres over a year.
The parts of the model where items were fixed and reused VS just tossed out and where the waste stream is recycled.
Edo sustainability was mostly achieved through famine, the great arbitrator of sustainability.
From the wikipedia Edo article:
Another reference from PBS:
I actually agree with you about the religious content of Marxism. And have distaste for extant Marxist regimes.
But....with Capitalism regnant and some version of Christendom glowering over the planet what do we talk about here? Whether it's dieoff,catabolic collapse, catastrophe, doom or extinction that faces us.
'Course capitalism had nothing to do with that. Nothing at all. Just cause that econ system dominates the planet means nothing at all. It's genes. It's oil. It's the laws of physics. Don't ever point a finger at Capitalism.
And leave Christianity alone. Jesus loves you. Mullahs hate you. The check's in the mail. I promise I won't....I won't finish that one 'cause it's nice to have you back Don. Happy New Year.
Could you differentiate between Marx the academician and his hypothesis on one side, and the groups in history who used it to further their goals on the other side? Or is that too much trouble?
Oh I could if that were the point.
The master historical narrative in Marx's history of the world is a golden age, fall from Grace, trials and tribulation, Redemption through class struggle. It's religion.
Did he have a clearer head than his contemporaries? Are there useful analytical tools here? Is his journalism fun to read? Yes Yes Yes. But it's religion. In many ways a regression from the Enlightenment.
And yes in some ways it pains me to agree with Don.
My larger point was that Capitalism has left us staring at some pretty bleak outcomes. Most here are at least in part doomers. No one will connect doom and Capitalism. More fun to talk what the f**king stock market did today. More fun to get lost in detail.
Globalization in Retreat
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3826
Another fantastic article. I think what we are seeing is the two flows of economic interactions on a global scale. The words say "globalization" which in today's world is "business as usual". The actions are showing more and more national protectionism.
China is moving ever so patiently to rely less on the USD while trying not to collapse it's main consuming customer. Russia is more boldly pulling back ownership of it's resources from foreign companies and countries. Venezuela and Iran are trying to change the rules of "global trade" to better benefit themselves. Africa is a powder keg prepared for implosion as the poor want to keep the resources at home to help them survive. There are numerous other examples.
At this point, most countries that have resources to sell on the global market can't sever those ties without immediate financial repercussions, but more and more, these countries are exploring their options...just in case.
Well history repeating and the New World Order established by the New Global Empire desintegrating... how surprising. We are lucky (?) that it did not take so long IMO. The enviromental and societal destruction it would bring in the end is not in such an advanced stage (yet).
What the article is missing is the role of the end of ex-socialist block and the Soviet Union in the unravaling of this "swan song of capitalism". While it existed it gave a very serious counterweight to the tendencies which have always existed in the West. The mere existance of a social state where all basic needs are guaranteed that bordered the "free" West required it to create something similar for its own citizens - creating a social net, minimum wages, stronger and proactive state etc. Now that the Soviet block is history, those greedy b'stards were quick to start dismantling all of this and to ramp up its expansion to third world countries, under the code word "Globalisation". But people are not idiots, especially if they have been already fooled once you can hardly do it twice and it's all starting to show now.
Peak oil of course will accelarate these tendencies, and this is one of the reasons I'm glad it is happening in my lifetime. "PO is an opportunity disguised as a problem", whose said that?
Me.
Great phrase - we should put it somewhere it can be seen - I mean it. There are many opportunities but for me the biggest opportunity is in the international arena where we will need to replace fierce competition with some sort of coordinated effort to tackle the "twin problems" of PO and GW. Not that I'm an optimist it would happen, but I hope it will soon be realised there is no other way...
Thanks.
Peak oil of course will accelarate these tendencies, and this is one of the reasons I'm glad it is happening in my lifetime.
Your political inclinations (whatever they are, which isn't too clear) are dazzling you to the point of sheer madness.
Being a bourgeois at the Belle Époque is probably the most enjoyable life anyone can wish.
In spite of still poor technology things weren't so bad and there were hope in the future, yet it ended abruptly.
Today there is fear instead of hope but the EXISTING conveniences and amenities are GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED even by the cornucopians, and it will end abruptly too.
"Being a bourgeois at the Belle Époque is probably the most enjoyable life anyone can wish."
Except for the practically inevitable syphilis, of course. Since your wife wouldn't have sex with you and most prostitutes were carriers of one or multiple STDs, you were likely to get infected, go mad and drown your pain and sorrow in alcohol. Alternatively you could decide to be monogamous and then had to raise ten to fourteen children in return for a few dozen nights with your wife.
Another case of "Be careful what you wish for!". Pretty much every visit to the doctor before the 1900s for a serious reason ended with a brief talk about what you had and how long you could expect to live with it and how opiates could relieve the pain, if necessary.
Yeah! Poor sex life, poor medicine and specially "practically inevitable" syphilis...
All I will bother to say against this level of arguments is that you are truly an idiot.
But that does not matter, your idiocy shows at so many other comments that it leaves people of good judgement immune to the crap.
The only cost is the wasted forum space.
I don't think the sex life was particularly poor back then... there was a lot of humping and pumping... it just came at the price of a short life span and some rather nasty complications due to the prevalence of STDs.
As for your "criticism" of me: boring!
If you have a problem with what I have to say, you are free to discuss any of it using logical arguments and quantitative sources. But I bet you don't dare... it might just happen that I turn out to be right and you end up with egg in your face.
:-)
it might just happen that I turn out to be right
You might "turn out to be right" on WHAT exactly?
You just keep spewing contradictory yet optimistic mumbo-jumbo I dont see any need to waste "logical arguments" on that.
"quantitative sources"... Hmmmm... Hmmmm... in search of a "good model" may be?
MORON
Well... if I am supposedly overly optimistic about something (what exactly?), you can surely prove it to me with numbers. I am known to listen to numbers.
:-)
Condoms weren't invented in 1980, old chap.
Condoms came in use somewhere between 1564 and 1647 though rubber ones only in the 1920 : History of the Condom
I am only giving this for the anecdote, there's no point arguing with InfinitePossibilities who is a STINKING TROLL of the same breed as odograph if not just a Sockpuppet of him.
Your political inclinations (whatever they are, which isn't too clear)
What do you need - a clarification, categorisation or what? Personally I don't classify my worldview - I only think that the desintegration of the pyramidal scheme of globalised capitalism the way it was implemented will be eventually a good thing for everyone. I'm welcoming the reappearance of more social and proactive state which will take care of covering the basics of human life - a thing I find essential in any civilised society. I am especially glad this is also happening in developing countries - something I find equivelent to their independance struggles of the last century.
Being a bourgeois at the Belle Époque is probably the most enjoyable life anyone can wish.
So this is your starting point? You think we are now living in a similar period and hence we should try to preserve it? How short-sighted is that? First much of the affluency of that period was due to borrowing it from the future of their kids. What they could not borrow from the future they were simply stealing from the 3rd world. Then it was the British Empire, today it is the Western Empire. They were using guns and whiskey back then, today we are using "globalisation" and "free trade". The only differences are quantitive - today we are doing both things on a much more grandious scale and hence the fallback will be much more painful. I will not argue that life today is good - it is actually too good for the people on the right side of the fence, and this in fact is the problem. We are avoiding to pay the true price of it and this is going to come back at us. A favourite thought of mine (which I don't recall exactly) states that there is no bigger sin on Earth, than avoiding justified suffering... that's what we are doing now.
In the end, I think you will need much more than a pure nostalgie to defend your point (whatever it is).
Interesting perspective. Question for you LevinK (and others): after the Soviet Union collapsed the people of the former Soviet countries, having known both what was bad and what was good in that system, saw first hand the results of introducing capitalism. I was hoping that they would come up with new ideas, outside of the capitalist/communist duality. Has that happened? (Not that I've noticed.) Will it? We desperately need new ideas, involving peace, social justice, and a steady-state economy.
Old Moscow joke from 16 years back:
Capitalism has done in 7 months what Socialism could not do in 70 years.
Oh it has?
Yes. It has made Socialism look good.
It's no wonder that this has not happened, as the people that think that there has been at least something good under the previous system are largely intimidated and overwhelmed within their own countries. I don't think that anybody can come up with something "outside" the capitalism-socialism duality, because this duality reflects the very basic relations driving nature and every sociological organissation for that matter - namely the choices between competition and cooperation, individualism and holism. One can come up with ideas how to balance the two of them, but I don't think you can think of something "outside" of it.
The collapse of socialism lead to a "pendulum effect" - the system just went to the other extreme, which much more resembles the 19th century capitalism than anything else. With the economy in ruins we basicly managed to take the worst of both worlds now, though it is slightly getting better recently.
My worldview is largely influenced by this transitional period which if described in details would probably look rather apocalyptic at times. My most important lesson is that people always find a way, but they need to stick together and try to get rid of their prejudices. Too much time and effort was wasted on side efforts and ideological confrontations.
From my socialist period my message would be that some fundamental parts of our society like education, culture, healthcare etc. should not be left on market forces to handle, maybe to some extent - yes, but not too great one. Market forces favour quantitive development rather than qualitive and long term values like broader general education, profilactive medical care, creating a secure psychological environment for people to be able to develop their potential, are easily displaced by short-term efficiency gains. The consolidation of US schools in giant low-quality education factories in an example of such. Capitalism is trying to introduce competition everywhere - thus creating a very stressful environment, greatly reducing quality of life and spoiling human relations. Introducing a robust "safety net", and softening wealth extremes is mandatory. There must also be mechanisms to encourage cooperation where it is appropriate.
Well I guess I just described pretty much what has been the system in Western Europe for decades. It is too far from perfect - actually it gets pretty bad when governments try to mess directly in the economy, but IMO it's the best we've got right at the moment. I see the problem though that just like in US, large corporations are starting to take over and ideologically-driven "efficiency" policies are starting to cripple the previous system.
Spot on analysis.
From my socialist period my message would be that some fundamental parts of our society like education, culture, healthcare etc. should not be left on market forces to handle, maybe to some extent - yes, but not too great one.
Exactly, (some form of) socialism is good for the necessities of life, (some form of) capitalism is good for the amenities.
Which "forms" and which "blend" of the two are the right ones is however a delicate matter.
I really think that national protectionism of resources may hide the true geologic peak of FF. The effect on petroconsumers will be the same, but more acutely caused by the direct restraints imposed by the exporters.
This is a great phrase, but it can have a positive and a negative meaning depending on where you sit in the strategic petroleum game.
Global Village meets Fractured Fairytales
The “irreversible borderless world" was a Mass Delusion (along with limitless growth and limitless resources).
As time goes by, those with the resources will become the Hoarders who will draw the Borders.
Another example why one should not randomly mix and match terms and expect the results to hold water. The world is indeed pretty much borderless. I can go anywhere I like and with a little bit of money start a business. Some place are just not very attractive for that purpose.
On the other hand, limiteless growth and limitless resources were always a joke that noone with half a brain took seriously.
Consequently, what I read in your post is a cross between an old foolishness and a trivialy incorrect assumption about the year 2006.
Another example of why one needs to have an attention span that lasts through the whole thread, and the ability to comprehend responses in-context.
The borders with limits referred to transit of resources and trade in general.
"The world is indeed pretty much borderless. "
Silly drivel in the context of the article and following discussion. Read the article and dragonfly's post.
"I can go anywhere I like and with a little bit of money start a business. "
Yes, in your imaginary world of infinite possibilities and no consideration of reality or probabilities that is probably true. But it's not true of This World.
Some place are just not very attractive for that purpose. "
There is your first hint - Very Good !!! Now go back and actually read the article and consider the context of the posts before you get confused again.
Please name three places on this planet where you would PERSONALLY like to start a business or would want to establish business relations with and are hindred by regulations to the point of absolute impossibility. And then please list all the companies who trade there, anyway.
I am waiting.
OK. Now let's re-cap the situation in the middle ages in Europe: trade borders with taxation every ten to hundred miles. Dozens of different political borders to cross to get from e.g. Italy to the North Sea. Wars, famine, crooks, thiefs and murder everywhere. Yet, the great traders of the time like the Fuggers, Welsers and Medici amass fortunes that would today be measured in millions and billions. Talk about closed borders... they had to deal with them. And they did.
Not to mention the silk road and other trading routes to the far east...
Compared to that trading today is as simple as grabbing your keyboard and sending a PO together with an international money order somewhere. One can only speculate what those people would have done with today's free trade.
Never mind...
No one said it is the end of world trade.
Look at the title of the article - "globalization in retreat."
Go back and actually read the article so you undestand the discussion.
Quote ‘At this point, most countries that have resources to sell on the global market can't sever those ties without immediate financial repercussions, but more and more, these countries are exploring their options...just in case.’
It’s like putting needles in the cup of water. The process lasts longer than anyone thinks, but the final spill is inevitable.
I think by the middle of the next decade then the China’s GDP will be equall to the US’s (in PPP terms) the market adjustment will be unavoidable. And the consequence will be the abrupt change in the wealth distribution in the world, with the citizens of the so-called emerging market countries as the winners and the citizens of the developed countries as the losers.
Since it looks like Saddam will hang this weekend, please take a minute to consider what has happened while you weren't paying attention.
Recommended reading.
See, and I thought the socialist-utopists of the 1960s were dead... appearently their ghosts live on and write the same old drivel they wrote 40 years ago.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to diagnose that the US is in Iraq because the religiously naive in this country elected an imbecile seeking revenge for Saddam's threat against his Daddy who also happened to be the store-front of a bunch of lousy neocon idealogues with defense industry ties.
Reality is sometimes boringly simple... which is why it completely slips through the hands of politicising intellectuals without any practical exposure to idiots. We are in Iraq because idiots elected idiots. There is nothing more to it.
We are in Iraq because idiots elected idiots. There is nothing more to it.
Ha! You dropped your mask!
Now everyone can realistically ponder your verbiage.
Which mask did I drop? The one behind which the kid was hiding who shouted: "Look! Look! The emperor is naked!"
I guess you got me... and now go back to ponder. You might eventially figure "it" out.
:-)
No not all the cast of the '60's has died.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Excuse me for living.
I wonder. Will he really hang, or will he somehow manage to "escape," as so many prisoners seem to do in Iraq?
This is strange... I know you are not of conspirationist constitution but don't you think that it will much, much SAFER for many people if Saddam cannot speak anymore?
Yes, but I think he also still has many supporters in Baghdad, who may have infiltrated the Iraqi government.
If it was up to us, sure, we want him dead. But if we really hand him over to the Iraqis...will they go through with the execution?
There's conflicting reports about it. The U.S. government said they haven't handed him over yet, contrary to early reports. The judge said Saddam is supposed to die tomorrow, but the Iraqi government says they're in no rush, they may hold off for a month or two.
Sounds like disinfo. Anyone making book on the date?
Have you ever looked at the teeth of the character who's been in the dock? He shows them all the time, just as Saddam showed his choppers all the time.
If you think I'm in conspiracy theory land please there are hundreds of news photos readily available.
It's all disinfo.
The judge said Saddam is supposed to die tomorrow
Case settled, though no doubt that some conspirationists will claim he secretly escaped etc...
Yeah, safer for the Americans like the CIA who helped the Baath take over, like Rumsfeld who helped Saddam Hussein fight Iran, like the American companies who supplied him with chemicals.
Wouldn't you rather that Saddam Hussein at least had been allowed by the pro-American court to present to the cameras his full history of collaboration with Washington before he went to meet his maker? The evidence is covered in detail by Juan Cole today. Or perhaps America's sacred mission requires that we cover up that we are now executing him for crimes we knowingly helped him commit.
There must be people worried about a surge in violence in Iraq when he hangs, but then again, how much worse can it get? This may lead the hangmen to delay the announcement of his death, but on the other side there are many who are eager to show their trophy.
The upcoming Hajj festivities, which move around millions of people in the region, may play into the timeline as well.
In any case, it would be good to remember that we put him there, as we did Osama and the Taliban, and that a large part of the picture we have of Saddam was painted by the same sources that make us believe what we think Castro and Chavez are all about.
What you believe is mostly a function of what you want to believe, not of the information that is "made available" by Fox TV.
Or, NEITHER, there are other sources than Fucks News:
The History of U.S.Torture, By Alfred W. McCoy
But I bet you (InfinitePossibilities) don't "want to believe" this!
They are fast - obiously the guy knows a lot of things they don't want the world to see.
Fortunately there are other sources to verify all the dirty secrets around his rule and especially who put him to power at the first place. But the unability of the main witness to come to court (because his accomplices killed him) will make the task of the future war tribunals harder... pity.
In 1980, the US and Britain engineered Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in an attempt to crush its new revolutionary Islamic government. That war inflicted nearly one million casualties on Iran. President Ahmadinejad led volunteers in the war.
Saddam should face trial for his many crimes, but in a proper legal venue, under full western and international law. The trial should be moved at once to the UN tribunal at the Hague. A fair trial will establish an important international legal precedent.
Dead dictators tell no tales. If allowed to fully testify, Saddam would reveal the whole sordid story of America's long, intimate collaboration with his regime, and how the U.S. and British governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher encouraged, armed and financed Iraq to invade Iran.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm#margolis
Perhaps I [45 days younger] may outlive Saddam? We will see. Like tomorrow?
too late..
he was hung tonight, looks like bush could not wait to do it.
From one of the articles above:
Russia tightens grip on gas, threatens to cut supply
"Moscow warned Poland, Germany and Lithuania on Wednesday to expect shortages if the dispute continues."
Short term, how big a deal is this really? Germany gets 35% of its gas from Russia, but only a fifth of that goes through Belarus pipelines (see link below). If there's really a disruption, how much impact would that 7% have? According to various German utilities, everything will be all right. They can resort to other suppliers, and their gas reservoirs are full. That's just Germany, though; how will Poland and the Baltic countries be affected?
(This link is in German.)
http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,,OID6242882_REF1,00.html
Long-term, the trends seem pretty ominous. Gazprom has been tightening its chokehold on Europe's energy supply even as both it and various eurocrats claim to be cooperating to ensure reliable supplies. Chancellor Merkel says Europe has to "reduce its dependence in order to secure its long-term energy supplies." That's easy for her to say; let's see if she does anything about it in her coming term as EU "president."
So, setting a price that is 60% of the price of oil for the same energy content is a "chokehold". That means that selling it for a song (e.g. 12% for Belarus) is "free access". I see now why the EU is so agitated, it doesn't want to pay a fair price. Does the EU think that hurling abuse at Russia is going to ensure Mickey Mouse prices for Russian gas?
Your logic, which you parrot from the media, is obscene. How can Russia put a chokehold on its own gas!? Do you actually believe that Russian gas belongs to you? The fact that the EU can't find other sources of gas comparable to those from Russia is not Russia's problem or crime. Maybe the EU would have the right to b*tch about prices much higher than for oil, but its current stance is infantile and absurd. Russia should start charging an abusive customer premium instead of giving EU twits a 40% discount.
Squawk, parrot from the media, squawk!
There's probably little point in replying after all this time, but I'll do it anyway.
You seem to miss my point entirely; perhaps your emotions blind you.
The first part of my post posed the question of how a supply disruption caused by the current situation in Belarus might affect the neighbors.
My remark about a chokehold referred to supply, not to price; I made no comments about price at all. As far as price is concerned, I see no reason why Russia shouldn't charge what it wants. Indeed, I wonder why they kept their prices so low for so long.
My main point was that I wonder if Europe is being too blithe about long-term supply issues. Increasing reliance on a supplier with all of Russia's problems doesn't seem like an ideal solution.
Anatol Lieven in the International Herald Tribune (posted here, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1228-24.htm ) puts the main question frankly:
" For market economies, and the Western model of democracy with which they have been associated, the existential challenge for the foreseeable future will be global warming. Other threats like terrorism may well be damaging, but no other conceivable threat or combination of threats can possibly destroy our entire system. As the recent British official commission chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern correctly stated, climate change "is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen."
The question now facing us is whether global capitalism and Western democracy can follow the Stern report's recommendations, and make the limited economic adjustments necessary to keep global warming within bounds that will allow us to preserve our system in a recognizable form; or whether our system is so dependent on unlimited consumption that it is by its nature incapable of demanding even small sacrifices from its present elites and populations.
If the latter proves the case, and the world suffers radically destructive climate change, then we must recognize that everything that the West now stands for will be rejected by future generations. The entire democratic capitalist system will be seen to have failed utterly as a model for humanity and as a custodian of essential human interests."
While mulling his remarks, this item (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1223-25.htm) should also be read, printed and given to our children to read and respond to.
I was just flipping through a recent Time magazine when I saw a picture of a smiling Daniel Yergin. The mug shot was on a full-page ad for 2007's "CERAWeek", Feb. 12-16th in Houston. The speaker's list is a who's who of the energy industry. Somehow I doubt that if we held a "PeakWeek" the media would start listening to peak oilers. If nothing else, Yergin's plugged into some serious money.
Of course, those money connections have *nothing* to do with CERA's position on peak oil, I'm *sure*.
It's only $4,500 to attend. I guess they couldn't get Matt Simmons ;) Anyone going?
Clicking on a link at CERA's website Firefox tells me "Unable to verify the identity of www.cera.com as a trusted site." Hmmm....
Falling U.S. dollar pushes Emirates to convert reserves to stronger euro
Many countries and their central banks are losing billions through their dollar assets. US leaders can fly to China all they want and kow-tow like peasants, but nothing short of the threat of war will ultimately prevent countries from cutting their losses.
Cheney went to the Saudis, and Paulson/Bernanke to Beijing, and though we'll probably never know the details, there can be no doubt that they have agreed to hefty concessions just to keep the USD alive for a while longer.
"The biggest story of the foreseeable future", as quoted from IHT somewhere on this thread, is not climate change, and neither is it peak oil.
There is an easy escape path: convert your savings into Euros... even you can do it.
:-)
In engineering we have this thing about "common mode failures", where the backup plan suffers from the same problem as the original. The Euro is such a scheme. Since it is also a fiat currency, and can also be printed at will (and is), and since the same central banking cartel is probably also involved, a Euro note is just a different color promise-never-to-pay than a dollar note.
"Tangible asset" should be the backup plan from a fiat currency.
I am (sort of) in engineering... and we usually say "Good is good enough" even though we know that the particular solution is not perfect. There are simply no perfect ways of securing your "wealth". All I know is that when I got my first US salary, it was perfectly enough to travel in Europe. Today I am earning a lot more, yet, I can hardly afford to stay in Europe for a couple of days without freaking out financially. And since I also have to support my parents in Europe, my dollar does not go very far in that respect, either.
The problems of the Euro and the Dollar (and the people using these currencies) are not the same. You will understand that if you happen to live for long enough in both places like I did.
The Feds added $5.5 billion to the REPO pool today, bringing it to a new all-time record of 155.23 billion. (The Repo pool is used to intervene in the equity and bond markets on a short-term basis). The Dow did not do much so far today, gold is marking time, the dollar is slightly stronger, and Brent oil 100 day MA is still on a relentless downward slope. (Brent oil front contract is used to set most long-term oil contract prices).
For what it is worth, what I get out of all this is a sense of anticipation. It seems to me Cheney and Paulson et al have done their rounds, the actions have been agreed, and we are waiting for the opportune time to break the news to the people. What shall the new year bring us?
Just thought I would share my mood.
Francois
I just commented on this to Don up thread. I am starting to come to the conclusion that we truly have central bank(s) actively colluding in the market to keep it going. I can't prove it obviously, but the data points to support the hypothesis are there. Its not just the repo market but that is the ultimate short term tool for the FED.
T Bill auctions that don't sell out and instead caribean banks start buying. Right. Foreign net inflows over the past three months have all been in to corporate debt & equity and two of the last three months saw zero NFI to T Bills.
Central banks have ALWAYS intervened in the market to "keep it going." That is their job.
And the peanut gallery always observes how actively they pursue their appointed task.
the us treasury is buying it's own debt via offshore banks ?
Let me take a wild guess. A gold hype site was your source...
Freddy,
What would you advise anyone that is looking to preserve purchasing power?
Private 2nd Mortgages
You are trulu stupid, Freddy. Why should private second morgages provide protection? Do you really want to recover your moeny by selling repossessed houses in tomorrow's market?
well freddy didnt specify if he was the mortgagee or the mortgagor bankruptcy is one way of making a lot of money ask eddie lampert
FinancialSense.com has this link on their front page:
The Theory of Relativity
I don't know which exchange rates you are following, but against the euro USD is 0.6% down from the morning (from 1.3120 to 1.32). This is quite a significant drop for a day.
You are right.
Levin, that makes it four years in a row. Only two to go...
Has anyone ever noticed how any time the MSM talks about peak oil and our energy problems in a positive light, they are simply spinning the truth to lull us back into a false sense of security. Yet when this SAME MSM talks about the 'withering dollar', they are hailed for their insight in speaking about 'the truth of the world'.
It seems the MSM is OK when casting the world in a negative light that fits in with the doomer mentality, but should be avoided at all cost when talking about any optimistic approaches to our future security.
I trust the irony of it all isn't lost on at least ONE person here ~_~
take another swig of that polyanna juice hothgor and have a happy happy happy new year and i recommend you only listen to the happy news the uplifting stuff the lighthearted drivel platitudinous preachings dont worry be happy if anything upsetting comes on, you go right for the mute button, k ?
Hey...what a minute UAE, Bahrain, etc...after we have run our ships together...side by side in the beautiful waters of the Persian Gulf...practicing boarding ships together...after we have offered to secure all their fossil fuel facilities and pipelines for them...THIS is how they show your gratitude. What the H3LL is going on here?
NOTE: I did not resolve to give up sarcasm in the New Year!!
Delta/Comair Pilot's SECRET Holiday Strike/Slowdown
(Comair is one of Delta's regional carriers)
I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, a lot of it is just venting of my anger.
I have often thought that peak oil will be accompanied by the decay of the infrastructure and decline in customer care. When stressed, companies and people get rude and abusive.
Unfortunately, this week I got to experience the decline of the airline industry and the resulting incompetent handling by airline management. We can all probably look forward to this kind of behavior as peak oil progresses. As fuel prices rise the poorly run “full service” carriers just keep getting worse. Everyone wants to keep their piece of the pie from a dieing company, in the end the customer is the loser.
As part of the contraction of the airline industry, companies are removing benefits and pay from their employees. Comair has been negotiating with their pilots about this very thing.
This week the pilots chose to make everyones holiday travel a living hell, while Delta/Comair management chose to lie about the strike/slowdown to their customers, making the situation even worse.
All Delta/Comair had to do was announce that the pilots were striking. It's the holidays, most travelers are at relatives houses, and could have delayed flying for a couple of day. Instead Delta/Comair lied about what was happening, lured their customers to the airport (a 90 minute drive in my case) them manipulated people into entering their system knowing that the passenger would be stranded somewhere along the way.
How events unfolded (times are approximate):
(10:00 am, 12/27/06) I checked my email before leaving my dad's house. No message from delta about delays or cancellations. Interesting enough, when I checked it again this morning, there was a message saying the flight was canceled with a time stamp of “Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:22:57 -0800 (PST)”. The flight is on the east coast, why time stamp your message with a PST time? None of the other emails from delta are time stamped PST. That means the message was really sent at 12:30 eastern time for a flight that was to begin boarding at 1.20 pm
(12 noon) Checked in, and got boarding pass. Unknown to me at this time, was that the same flight was canceled the previous day because of the strike. So I blissfully went to airport restaurant to wait with my dad.
(12:45) Heard people talking about flight cancellations. So I went to check the departure screen. My flight was canceled, “crew unavailable”. No announcement was ever made over the airport intercom. Went back down to the check in counter, and found 30 to 50 people waiting to reschedule their flight. This is a very small airport, so that constitutes a lot of people for the three delta personnel to reschedule. Especially considering, with 20/20 hindsight, that ours wasn't the only flight that was being canceled that day.
While waiting in line I tried calling Delta on my cellphone to book a seat. Line was constantly busy. That's a bad sign, since I couldn't even reach the cue to be put on hold.
A lady walked past talking about how outrageous this was, since the same think happened yesterday for the same reason. They had re-booked her for today's flight, then canceled it when she got there. I stopped her an ask about her situation, she had called the airport before leaving the house an been assured that everything was on time and ok.
When I got to the counter they offered to drive me to another airport (which happens to be 70 mile farther away from my fathers house). This is an important factor since his night vision, stamina and cognitive abilities are shot. If things went wrong at this new airport I was stuck there. I could, an did, end up stranded at this airport. Where, sure enough, the flight I was supposed to take was delayed.
They blamed it on “the Atlanta airport had a power outage”. Yet nowhere in the news was there anything about a major airport hub loosing power over the most important travel week of the year. A fellow stranded passenger used her laptop to check the news about this fictional event. That's when we passengers started to speculate that something suspicious was going on.
When a Delta employee finally decided to grace us with his presence (moments before the nonexistent plane was supposed to leave our airport) I was informed a plane was finally on its way to our airport from Atlanta, but I would miss my connection. So I had a choice of being stranded at my current airport or taking one of two delayed flights, an be stranded at Cincinnati or Atlanta.
Hindsight is always perfect. If I had thought of it, I would have rented a car and driven back to my dad's house at this point.
(10:00 pm, 12/27/06, Atlanta Georgia) My connecting flight to Huntsville left Atlanta at 9:00 pm. I asked a Delta service person about getting a room for the night. She pointed me to a bank of phones. When someone finally answered the phone I was told to go to the service desk. Where I was booked into a horrific hotel, with no sound proofing, that sat beside the airport runway. At the same time, she informed me that if I wanted my luggage it would take an hour to retrieve it. Unfortunately I had placed my medications in my checked luggage. I really needed them so I went to baggage claim. After another hours wait in line I was informed that it would be 4 hours till I could have my luggage, when I pressed about the medications she admitted they couldn't find my luggage at all.
(Midnight) Every couple of minutes the room shook with the sound of airplane engines. The sound kept me awake while simultaneously taunting me with the fact that none were going to my destination. I finally gave up and took the shuttle back to the airport at 6:00 am, my flight was at 9:00 am. Again the flight was delayed. This time they didn't bother to lie, they just kept saying they didn't have approval to board.
(11:00 am, 12/28/06, Huntsville, Al) Finally home! Even though I could barely stand, I had to look on the Internet for a hint of what was going on. From the mainstream media nothing of the problems I encountered.
The only thing I find is crap like this:
“Comair pilots put off strike”
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/12/25/daily21.html
No news about the strike that had occurred, and no news about the fictional “power outage” at Atlanta.
Your recent airline horror story is all too typical. When I was working as a consultant full time, I did quite a bit of traveling, and hated it. Now, with lengthy airport security delays and just plain deterioration of service, it is probably ten times worse.
I am proud to say that I have not set foot in an airport since well before 9-11, and I plan to keep it that way. I refuse to fly unless it's a matter of life or death.
I think what this country needs is a deep nationwide airline boycott. A passenger's strike, if you will. Hit em where it hurts!
I sent a pretty scathing email to delta. I'm sure they could care less that a customer is upset, but one comment I did make was:
“You have actually managed to do something that the 9/11 attacks didn't. Namely, you have convinced me never to fly again.”
This sounds like something in The Onion; unfortunately it's not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Park Service Can't Give Official Age Of Grand Canyon For Fear Of Offending Creationists...
Argh!
You couldn't make it up!
WT I guess by your post time that you are also in the UK at the moment.
Windy isn't it!
For the past two years we have been under threat of electricity cuts in winter (at least for businesses) if there is a cold snap. Not enough natural gas for our CCGT power stations. Luckily we have so far managed to escape this as we have had two very mild winters, this and last.
Carbon - Coventry
A lot of people read this stuff an think it's some kind of joke, but here in Alabama the majority feel the great flood did cause the grand canyon. Everyone reads these stories about Christian fundamentalist wacko's, but they need to realize, they are the majority in many states.
Some comments I hear are:
The first amendment should be repealed and the USA should declare itself a Christian country.
Demons cause mental illness.
Evolution is a lie propagated by the devil.
Hi Bitter
It's different here in the UK
a recent Guardian poll says it all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1978045,00.html
I was still surprised to find that 62% of people here do not consider themselves religious.
Generally it's a secular society and quite tolerant of different faiths, even though I think that it's supposed to be a Christian country as opposed to the secular US.
So I just look on the religious take on life in part of the US with incomprehension.
Maybe you can explain it to me.
Carbon
Carbon: In this regard, Canada is like the U.K. IMO, religion is a major problem in the USA.
First off, here is a link that explains it better than I can. Scroll down past the first part till you get to , “A REMARKABLE POST FROM AN EX-SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE “. It was originally a livejournal blog entry. It got to much attention, so the original blog was shut down.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00109.htm
I've formed several observations about the whole “traditional” religious movement since moving to Alabama.
1)Most of the deeply religious people I've gotten to know, converted to the religion. It turned out that most were damaged goods. The most common causes are drugs, some form of childhood abuse or some traumatic life event like rape. Absolute belief in the infallibility of the bible allows them to function in society. It calms their otherwise troubled minds.
2)Childhood indoctrination to superstition, unchallenged by public schools. Whoever controls the schools controls the future.
3)Religious frenzies are addictive. During Evangelical church services, people whip themselves into such a fervor that they seem to get high on their own Endomorphines. The service I attended kind of reminds me of a national geographic film on voodoo. They call it the holy spirit, I call it getting high off your own brain chemistry.
4)One of the main tenets of this mindset is that they are being oppressed because they believe in Christ. Anytime something bad happens (like loosing an election) it is Satan's doings. So they need to work harder to defeat Satan. It is a very seductive mindset that allows them to never take responsibility for their own actions.
As individuals most are very good decent people. I've actually have helped them with some of their projects (Katrina relief, adopting a poor family for Christmas, feeding the homeless). It is when they try to force their beliefs on the rest of the world that the darker side emerges.
Thanks Brian
Thanks Bitter. The answer you give is a lot more interesting than I thought it would be. Seems that for converts at least, religion is where they turn when they find themselves unable to affect/ understand an unfriendly world where there isn't certainty and where they are otherwise disenfranchised. There'll be a lot more of this to come then.
I have always seen religion as a means of centralised social control. I suppose that in times of strife both TPTB and the confused public like it that way.
Sorry to the 5-6 bn people I am patronising!
I am to bed
Carbon
Actually, they are believers in a heresy, Manicheanism. Manicheanism is a belief that there ate three gods, the initlal creator and his two sons, one good and the other evil; in Christin heresy, they are known as Christ and Satan.
FWIW - Wyoming Mining Website - Coal
Wyoming Mining Association - Concise Guide to Wyoming Coal - 2006
From a summary in the 2001 printed version that is appearently missing from the 2006 on-line version:
25,882 unit trains shipped in 1999, providing 16,000 direct and indirect jobs. Unit trains average 13,000 tons; at $5.14 average 1999 state-wide price per ton ($66,820 per train), 21% went to operating costs, 20% to state and local government, 18.5% to federal government, 16.2% to employee wages and benefits, 17% to services, 4% to environmental and 3.2% to profit.
(P.S.: I've been told that mines are always looking for drivers of those big dump trucks; that it is a good paying but very, very boring job that starts on graveyard.)
Very impressive.
http://www.prosefights.org/coal/northantelope/northantelope.htm
Distinctive road presence and an "Agressive stance"!
Even bigger than a Hummer!
And gets worse gas mileage.
http://www.prosefights.org/coal/northantelope/northantelope.htm
And gets worse gas mileage.
http://www.prosefights.org/coal/northantelope/northantelope.htm
And gets worse gas mileage.
http://www.prosefights.org/msd/msd.htm
Sorry for muliple posts.
But you deal with senior citizen [45 days younger than saddam] who has a LICENSE TO KILL.
http://www.prosefights.org/kansas2006/kansas2006.htm
Bill:
FWIW, the rigs they use to drill for coal-bed methane, such as in the prospectus on your webpage, are considerably smaller truck-mounted rigs than the rig you have a picture of here.
Basically, they use a water well rig to drill into the same coal seams that the big mines are in and then pump out the water that contains the dissolved methane. See the picture of such a rig in Coal-bed Methane - Powder River Basin - Montana/Wyoming. Disposal of the water associated with the coal-bed methane is a huge issue because some of it is fairly saline. See Coal Bed Methane for the state of Montana's take on the water issue (not favorable). In fact, some say that Montana's Governor plays both sides of the energy issue - talking about coal gasification but at the same time appointing people to the state boards who will not approve such development.
The Powder River Basin also has oil and gas but in much deeper strata that does take the big rigs to drill into.
Thanks
My expertise IS NOT in energy. Only a reader on Internet.
Glad you are informing all of us readers like me.
best
http://www.prosefights.org/gas/gas.htm
"Basically, they use a water well rig to drill into the same coal seams that the big mines are in and then pump out the water that contains the dissolved methane. "
Doug told me about this near Price UT. http://www.prosefights.org/coal/coal.htm#tina
I am learning more.
Dig Austin coal return train.
http://www.prosefights.org/coal/coal.htm
Yes, definitely King of the Haul Road. The operator visibility isn't good at all and signs are posted all around the mines warning of this fact. I've seen pictures of conventional trucks and pickups that one of these beasts has driven completely over and smashed absolutely flat. Sometimes with associated fatalities.
Hasn't the dieoff started already? Six hundred thousand dead Iraqis is an astounding number. There is going to be a natural dieoff and an enforced dieoff. The natural dieoff will be due to depletion of resources. The enforced dieoff will be due to wars for those resources.
Al Jazeera has just broke our regular english tv programming for a special report bulletin (and feature) that Saddam Hussein will be put to death in 15 minutes.
No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse; as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of Mine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse; as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of Mine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse; as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of Mine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
Seniors apologize about multiple replies.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm#margolis
Arab TV stations report Hussein hanged
POSTED: 10:19 p.m. EST, December 29, 2006
Al Jazeera is reporting that according to Iraqi Nat'l TV, Hussein has joined his two sons. Can't say if they are among virgins...
And thus ends his regime. Good riddance. Their continued presence in the ME was a hinderance to long term economic stability in the persian gulf and globally. It was a time bomb. Five, ten or fifteen years from not it may not have been opportune to move on them. The USA & UK did the right thing in taking the lead for the 27 nation collaboration.
In 1980, the US and Britain engineered Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in an attempt to crush its new revolutionary Islamic government. That war inflicted nearly one million casualties on Iran. President Ahmadinejad led volunteers in the war.
Saddam should face trial for his many crimes, but in a proper legal venue, under full western and international law. The trial should be moved at once to the UN tribunal at the Hague. A fair trial will establish an important international legal precedent.
Dead dictators tell no tales. If allowed to fully testify, Saddam would reveal the whole sordid story of America's long, intimate collaboration with his regime, and how the U.S. and British governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher encouraged, armed and financed Iraq to invade Iran.
Let's see what happens?
Hussein was hanged before dawn on Saturday in Iraq, at about 6 a.m. (10 p.m. Friday ET), the U.S.-backed Al-Hurra television reported.
But don't forget.
In 1980, the US and Britain engineered Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in an attempt to crush its new revolutionary Islamic government. That war inflicted nearly one million casualties on Iran. President Ahmadinejad led volunteers in the war.
Saddam should face trial for his many crimes, but in a proper legal venue, under full western and international law. The trial should be moved at once to the UN tribunal at the Hague. A fair trial will establish an important international legal precedent.
Dead dictators tell no tales. If allowed to fully testify, Saddam would reveal the whole sordid story of America's long, intimate collaboration with his regime, and how the U.S. and British governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher encouraged, armed and financed Iraq to invade Iran.
So Mr. Bush has brought the blessing of stability to the Middle East? OMFG.
Fraudy's a walking mind fart.
But then that nagging thought kept creeping in:
Sometimes dictators and decider men get the hang of it about how their fellow citizens feel regarding crimes of Christmas past. No worries though mate, Higher Father will protect.
Many of the posters on TOD seem to realize that any solution to the problem of peak oil has to involve a lot of government intervention and regulation. Most people in so-called democratic societies seem to believe that the government is something which they have control over, at least in theory. But as Marx pointed out, even the most liberal capitalist democracy is still the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Since the capitalists control jobs and the economy, financial affairs, the news media, education, the police and the courts and the armed forces, as well as the elections and public officials, they can protect their interests quite well, as long as they are smart enough to buy off the masses of people with some concessions.
Example: The Democrats have been allowed to take power in the United States Congress, on the basis of a mandate of the people to end the war in the Middle East. But the Democrats are now declaring that they have to win the war, and the will of the voters be damned. But they will raise the minimum wage, reform some of the Medicare abuses (especially in the prescription drug program), and use other concessions to get people to accept their war program, which is the ruling class's solution to the problem of peak oil.
We all have some good ideas that will at least alleviate the problem of peak oil, but how can we put these into effect? If the situation is as bad as many peak oilers say, utopian ideas like "We have to persuade the government to do this or that" aren't much good, since they won't work unless you show how you can make them do this or that. As a working scientist/engineer, I always had to come up with some results from my work. It doesn't matter if you predict the exact day peak oil hits, if you don't do anything with that knowledge.
Or do social/political discussions belong in a different blog than TOD? (They are so intimately connected to PO. that they always seem to creep into the discussions.)
The only way to get anything done is to have the majority realize that a crisis is coming. This is supposed to be the job of the MSM, but their real job is to maintain the status quo. Things will start to change once there is enough pain to wake people up, but by then it may be too late.
Perhaps one approach would be to have members of academia put out reports that raise the alarm on peak easy energy. In the case of global warming, scientists are not politically active in this way and still their work is subjected to smear by various think tanks and paid shills that serve the interests of the status quo. But at least the message is getting out and has credibility. We need more than a few web pages to get the message to the masses, since the average person can dismiss this as the ranting of a bunch of internet conspiracy theory nutjobs.
It is sad that the average person cannot or will not use their brain and think for themselves. So they need authorities to tell them what to believe.
Nice post, oldcommie. I for one appreciate the inputs from a hard-left political perspective a lot, since it seems to me that, in the end, the hard left is nothing more than a political orientation that takes elementary principles of truth and justice seriously. A basic commitment to principles of truth and justice certainly ought not to be out of place in discussions of Peak Oil, should it?
I like your handle too. With the addition of yourself, TOD now has:
1) an oldcommie,
2) an oldhippie,
3) a bitteroldcoot, and
4) an oldhermit!
(But oldhermit hasn't been heard from in a while, as far as I know.)
Hello TODers,
Interesting analysis of Turkmenistan Politics from a Russian point of view:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20061229/58118491.html
-----------------------------------------------
Turkmenistan may compete against Russia on gas market
Under the circumstances, Russia has a window of opportunity for enhancing its influence in the republic. No matter who becomes President, he will be interested in getting political and financial resources - on a big scale and as soon as possible. Only one organization can offer this - Gazprom. It has been working in Turkmenistan for a long time, and has a ramified network of influence on local elites.
If Russia seriously limits Turkmenistan's gas exports for at least a month, the latter's economy will cease to exist. It is time to realize that the late Turkmen leader was a man who did not accept criticism or listen to diplomats - he only respected force. His successors are likely to be the same.
If Russia does not take a number of important measures as regards the future regime in Turkmenistan, the United States is likely to do this. Turkmenistan is very rich in gas, and is the last link in the anaconda belt, which encompasses Iran. It is also a country which may potentially become a serious rival to Russia in the European gas market. Right now the emigre opposition has no influence at home, but time, money and political technologies are capable of shaking the positions of Turkmen-style stability.
In this situation, Russia should concentrate not on short-term gas deals, but on building long-term relations with the young and old Turkmen elites, which would consolidate Russian influence in the republic and the rest of Central Asia.
Andrei Grozin is an expert at the Institute of CIS Countries
--------------------------------------
AFAIK, presidential candidate Nurberdy Nurmammedov is still presumed missing and unaccounted for after seven days. Perhaps this is just a modest display of force?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17652020&BRD=2288&PAG=46...
-----------------------------------------------------
Gazprom takes control of world's largest combined oil, gas project
MOSCOW -- Gazprom, the Russian energy monopoly, bought control of the world's largest combined oil and natural gas development Thursday after a highly publicized campaign of pressure on its foreign operator, Royal Dutch Shell.
Shell's sale of 50 percent plus one share followed months of accusations against the project by a Russian environmental regulator -- a problem that President Vladimir V. Putin, in announcing Gazprom's entry, said would now most likely be resolved.
Critics of the sale called it the first effective nationalization of a large foreign oil or gas project in Russia, which this year surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production.
-------------------------------------------
I think Putin is just like Rockefeller. I think he now has accumulated sufficient financial power and political clout to gradually pull all the _____istan exporting countries under the Gazprom and Rosneft umbrellas. Time will tell.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/Zimbabwe/2006-12-29-voa37.cfm
-------------------------------------
Zimbabwe Police Launch New Round Of Home Demolitions In Harare And Kadoma
Workers at Mandel Farm said police assaulted them and forced them to demolish their own homes, then obliged them to sing and dance for more than four hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"Another factor unraveling the globalist project is its obsession with economic growth. Indeed, unending growth is the centerpiece of globalization, the mainspring of its legitimacy. While a recent World Bank report continues to extol rapid growth as the key to expanding the global middle class, global warming, peak oil, and other environmental events are making it clear to people that the rates and patterns of growth that come with globalization are a surefire prescription for ecological Armageddon."
NelsonDeMille may have an answer.
Nuclear winter is the answer to global warming.
We listened to Wildfire to and from Austin December 22 - 28, 2006.
Goal achived. Payne [45 days younger] outlived Saddam.
Albuquerque Journal Saturday December 30, 2006.
Payne born June 11, 1937.
Payne sophmore at Whitman college 1957.
Payne graduated from Whitman college 1959.
Payne completes PhD final examination at Purdue in December 1963.
Payne leaves Washington State University in 1979.
Payne goes to work for Sandia National Laboratories in September
1980.