The Tragedy of Elections
Posted by Heading Out on May 28, 2007 - 11:00pm
I was, just recently, at one of our annual Conferences. There were about 450 delegates, from 17 countries, with an associated exhibition with, I suppose, around 50 displays. After the meeting was over I wandered down town and took in a show that featured 12 Irish tenors (who came from places such as Australia, London, and the U.S. as well as the auld sod itself). Following the show I dined, in this inland, rather dry location, on seafood that, though delicious, had obviously traveled some considerable distance. I mention this because, for many academic types, this is a fairly common annual activity. It is how we network most frequently (and not just academics, since we were very much in the minority at this particular gathering). These types of event provide considerable income to the locations where they are a common happening. It is, like tourism, an activity that requires considerable travel, and considerable fuel (and not just the sort that comes in small glasses at the social events). Travel has become an assumed right, and there is no thought, at gatherings such as this, that their day in the sun may very soon wane. I helped put a meeting together in 2003 and with the concerns and expense of travel at that time, the attendance was down significantly from earlier meetings, and took another year to bounce back, and it is only in the last two years that we have been seeing the sorts of numbers that we had pre-2001.
It set me to thinking of the Denver Peak Oil meeting, when one evening as Stuart, Dave Cohen and I headed out for dinner, Stuart commented that I was much the most pessimistic of the three. And now I am trying to decide whether that is still true (if it was). I think, in the short-term it probably isn’t, but in the longer-term it may well be. So let me explain my reasons and, in the process, perhaps disagree a little with some of my colleagues.
In the short term (say ten years) I think that Stuart’s view is gloomier than mine. He has done superb work on demonstrating how close to being done are the oil reserves at Ghawar, but I am not totally convinced that there is not still enough in the Northern part of the field that there will remain significant production over this time interval. I continue to think that the current Saudi drop is politically, and economically driven, rather than geologically. But, as I note, this is only for the short-term. In ten years life will get a bit grimmer.
Within this next ten years I do feel that we will see a greater contribution from bio-generated ethanol. Among the meetings I have been to there is talk of corn varietals that will produce up to 4 times the quantity of fuel per acre that is now common. And it may be, though I suspect here that I am just as cynical as Robert and some DoA economists, that cellulosic ethanol may prove, as production moves to a larger scale, to be able to make some of the breakthroughs that will be necessary before it can be viable. But there is one thing that concerns me a little about this debate (and I include fireangel’s post in this), and that is that we are perhaps not truly appreciative, perhaps because now we talk about it, of the need for all the solutions we can get, and that we need more investment in any and all potential ideas that have a chance of working. I therefore am somewhat optimistic that we may see more from the biofuels side of the house than others may, provided, that is, that the investments are made to expand the fields of investigation.
And this is where my vision turns darker. Let me pinch a figure from the EIA It shows U.S. energy sources for 2004, but they haven’t changed that much since.
The three big slices of the pie Petroleum, Natural Gas and Coal are depleting fossil fuels. I need to explain my concern about coal in a longer post, but readers of the many detailed articles by the well-informed community that writes on this site cannot be in any doubt that the other two large slices cannot be sustained much longer. And as we erase chunks from those three large wedges, the hope for the thin slices to fill the gap is becoming less realistic. And this is my concern.
Just as the folk that attended the Conference (unrelated to energy) had very little thought about the rapidly approaching supply problem that we are heading into, so there is no immediate concern for most politicians and the movers and shakers of the world. We are now approaching the 2008 election, and those who must make the large investments needed to generate fuel at the levels that will be needed are starting to be shy of making those investments. Why? Because the rules may change with the regulators in a new Administration. Thus why begin to invest in the paperwork to start a new refinery/power plant/reactor if you can’t be certain that new rules, set in a couple of years, may negate the value of that investment? And so we enter into a period of uncertainty, of caution and, with it delay.
Unfortunately the problem itself is not concurrently delayed. And so, with the time span that it will take to bring forth new ideas still remaining at around 20 years (and bear in mind that it is somewhat difficult to legislate new technology) and with lots of words but no action (wasn’t there a Texas saying about that once?) we are probably now some years away from any significant government action in the U.S. We really cannot tell which direction the new Administration will favor at this time, and once in power it will take some time for the new levels of senior Administration of the different departments to be put in place, and then to begin to move plans of action forward. It is an opportunity that is now lost, and a time that cannot be regained. And it makes me more worried, and gloomier, and I begin to accept that Stuart was right about my pessimism. (And I haven’t mentioned Hurricanes once).
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.
The tradegy of elections has to do with an assumption of democracy that 3 people with an IQ of 70 each are smarter than 2 people with an IQ of 150 each. When I look at who gets elected it strengthens my belief we would be better off just picking people at random.
"we would be better off just picking people at random"
Dmitry Orlov has written that the latest development in US democracry is the photo-finish, with the winner pulled out of the statistical noise.
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?" - Robert A. Heinlein
Everyone who believes this is solvable tends to focus purely on the technical aspects of the problem. I fully grant that we have the technologies to solve these issues. What I do not grant is that the problem is purely technological. The problem, as Alan can testify, is political, sociological, and psychological.
Are we supposed to believe that every civilization that collapsed before us was vastly more stupid than we are? And yet they collapsed anyway.
Those who focus solely on technology may be overlooking the harshest problem of them all - homo sapiens himself.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Actually, democracy is based on the assmuption that one million and one men are wiser than one million men, so you are back to that one man again.
Look up Condorcet's jury theorem. Suppose a man has a 55% of making the right verdict. Now suppose that all members of a jury of five has the same chance. What is the chance that a majority in the jury reaches the right verdict?
What happens if you increase the size of the jury to twelve members?
You don't need much faith in people to appreciate the wisdom of democracy.
I'd say that democracy is based on the idea that it is better to let citizens vote their interests directly rather than have a smaller group decide for them. In the US, we only do that for the occasional proposition or referendum. In all other cases, democracy is heavily filtered through the political parties, the electoral college, etc., leading to a small group of leaders.
Actually, democracy doesn't has anything to do with a concern of making good decisions. Democracy is all about stability: even if asinine policies are enacted, at least a majority is behind them, and openly starting an armed conflict as a minority is a Bad Idea.
x
The real tragedy is that no matter who gets elected the population problem will not be addressed.
(And I haven’t mentioned Hurricanes once). Some not mentioning, actually it's people and population that no one in your article mentions.
I posted a graph of Chinese population forecast awhile ago and it looked like a python eating a meal. Maybe despite appearances they might not be having those tragic elections we think they are having, elections we have which only concern the politicians interests in being and staying elected..
I think that sums it up as neatly as is possible, CrystalRadio...
My view on how this is going to play out is that our energy systems are going to continue to become increasingly stressed as greater demand is placed on fragile, complex and lengthy supply chains.
In the rich world, this will not induce collapse - gas will be available, but it will be expensive. Electricity will be available, even if some of us suffer brownouts; and the odd grid collapse as happened in NE North America a couple of years ago. Many people will buy small gasoline or diesel gensets to cover these periods if they feel they must.
Peak oil is already a daily reality in many poorer countries and for poorer people in richer countries. Assuming oil production doesn't grow any more (it hasn't for nearly 3 years) and to the extent that consumption by richer people and countries grow, poorer people and countries will quietly drop out of the oil age. "Those poor people in the third world - all that starvation - it is just terrible. When I go down at the mall I will give $10 to world vision" will be the main response.
I suspect that our political classes and the MSM will maintain the illusion, however tenuous, that oil supply is going to start growing again. This farce will be maintained by the usual culprits even as supply starts to decline. Stock markets may continue to fly, fed by central banks eager to maintain the illusion of stable economies as long as possible.
All very sad; and a couple more elections may pass before the dreaded "Peak Oil" is mentioned.
Hi Heading Out,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Some questions:
1) re: "Thus why begin to invest in the paperwork to start a new refinery/power plant/reactor if you can’t be certain that new rules, set in a couple of years, may negate the value of that investment?"
What do you see as a plan of action that addresses the concern you raise here?
Is there any way to address the concern you raise here? If so, what might that be?
2) re: "...to move plans of action forward."
What is the plan you would like to see "movers and shakers" put forward?
In other words, assume, for a moment, that a "mover and shaker" is elected who wishes to do "the right thing."
What is that "right thing"?
What should he/she do?
3) re: "Just as the folk that attended the Conference (unrelated to energy)..."
I notice Gail wrote on the topic of "peak oil" for her professional colleagues, and apparently continues on with her efforts.
So, I'm wondering if there might be some means to address the concerns you have with your professional colleagues? It seems everyone has a stake in this issue. (Or do you see it differently?)
4) re: "...These types of event provide considerable income to the locations where they are a common happening."
This strikes me as a crucial point, as humans interface w. the natural world via FF (for the most part), thus the diffusion of wealth over the human species, is, in a sense, a somewhat arbitrary free-for-all.
My question, though...I'm wondering if there might not be a way to address this.
I'm reminded of a charity who had a "silent party" event. No event, just send the money you'd otherwise spend.
Or...? Instead of jet travel, we'll donate for...(the construction of a community garden. I'm just reaching here.) Or, yes, the jet travel, and in addition...local carbon offsets. (By way of illustration, if nothing else.)
The gov acts only when the wolf is in the door, eg after pearl harbor and 9/11.
If forethought is needed, pin your hopes on the private sector and the hidden hand.
imo po is here, c+c is down no matter why you think sa is down. Its past time for chris to adjust his bottoms up for higher decline rates. Meanwhile, total liquids are pretty flat if you correct ethanol for reduced btu content... some may be noticing they can't drive as far with the ethanol blends.
Price has already brought po to the poor, no doubt about it, but price has also caught the attention of the private sector, always sniffing for a buck or two. Solar is very close, I today wrote a speculative check for shares in a co that hopes to have printed solar panels on the market next year, and with prices under $1/w by the following year. Expensive silicon is not used, so there is no obvious limit to scale up, or lack of funding if demo targets are met.
Nukes are advanced into the planning stage, some southern communities have voted for them, imo they will be announced before the next election. Dems will not try to stop them whether elected or not... we are likely to see ng shortages and brown outs by spring 2009. The public, and some greens, will be clamoring for nukes.
First I've heard about 4x corn ethanol improvements... imo the public is becoming aware that food = fuel and vice versa, just as some of the right wing south are beginning to focus on the equation fossil burning = gw = hurricanes.
Things will get better and worse. IMO po is accelerating africa down, but the trend was already very well established by vast corruption and thuggery. Even saddam was not as bad as what we are seeing now in deepest darkest, quickly getting deeper and darker. On he plus side for all calling for a reduced population, disease and starvation is helping out on the dark continent.
Nothing wrong re: chavez' changing the energy rules/contracts, and nothing new re: chavez' social experiment. The former will net more money if oil continues higher while the latter will destroy all non-energy production, first and foremost food production, just as it has done on fertile cuba.
Hi jkissing,
Not what I would consider an elegant solution and not much of a plus, especially considering how little energy Africans are using compared to us. There is a solution though but I doubt that your version of the invisible hand of the market place would give it a thumbs up. You can find the solution in Heller's novel Catch 22, quite simple but considering the momentum of this society about as much of a solution in the short term as wind power is for the energy problem. We need something on the scale of nuclear energy to help here. Something like LSD in the Perrier or San Pellegrino, then maybe Helliers solution would work.
Hi j,
Thanks for your response. Agree w. your assessment on the arrival of "peak" - plateau at the very least.
If possible to continue the discussion,
1) re: " The gov acts only when the wolf is in the door, eg after pearl harbor and 9/11."
Some argue that "gov" was acting prior to 9/11, (and similarly WRT Pearl Harbor, for that matter) and the sense I can see in that, if "sense" is to be made of it - (not willful conspiracy, rather negligence and/or using one event to justify another)- is WRT Cheney's speech to the PI. And the task force, here's just one ref. http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1225
However, if you mean in "acts" in a positive sense, my Q is: If you were "The gov" - what would you do?
Or have you addressed this elsewhere?
2) "If forethought is needed, pin your hopes on the private sector and the hidden hand."
How do you see this actually working? (Or, do you?) Do you see subsidies, tax, etc. as playing a role? If so, a necessary one? Tangential one?
What about the prospect (as predicted by Deffeyes and others) of increased volatility in oil price being less conducive to "private sector" response?
Also, what about the "receding horizons" argument?
And, do you personally have the view such hopes are justified? If so, can anything be done to enhance this route, one way or another? And what about in relation to what I assume (take as) a cynical (expression of sadness) WRT Africa...my Q is: if something could be done in a positive sense, can you describe what this would be?
3) Just out of curiosity, if legal/kosher to tell, what is the name of the solar co?
4) re: Cuba. Not sure how to interpret what you say. I have a friend from Cuba who's offered to refute point-by-point, the apparent characterization of Cuba ("role model role") in the film. So, curious what you're saying here, if you might perhaps explain a little further.
Aniya:
I have to grin since lots of my proposals and papers begin, these days, with comments about the problems of future energy supply - which I then tie into the relevance about the subject I am writing about - which may superficially not be related. I am, in short, becoming quite a bore on the subject.
The main problem I was trying to decry is the system inertia that will now occupy the body politic for the next three years, minimizing the willingness of industry to make an investment now since they don't know how the election will turn out - so from that point of view it is not really the candidate that can do much about it. Unless, that is there was broad political agreement say that whoever got in would put a CTL plant in Montana, or accept a nuclear reactor in Manhattan or whatever.
I would like to see a significantly greater investment in relatively novel ideas for addressing the energy imbalance, and this would include programs to stress conservation as well as broader funding for innovation - no matter, in the first go round, if it does not initially meet the approval of "the man who Knows." The problem is big enough that we can afford to fund a few blind alleys, just in case some of them aren't quite that blind.
And the reference to the travel etc related to the scale of the impact that is likely to come about as travel prices rise, since so many "discretionary" industries will become vulnerable.
HO,
First, nice post. I agree with you and GreyZone that we have a focus problem not a technical problem.
In my simplistic mind I have boiled this down to the inability to craft a viable business plan based on using less. Less of anything, but particularly less energy.
How does one get funding for launching projects with the defined goal of ultimately using less than the existing infrastructure. Why would a bank or government fund it? There is more return in the status quo system. Until the system of lending money (to get more money returned) breaks, we won't use money to build infrastructure that consumes less energy.
It not about being efficient with energy or food. It is about being efficient with money. What is the best way to multiply it? I don't see that model having a lot to do with using less.
Hi NC,
I appreciate your comments, which I'd like to understand a little better.
1) re: "In my simplistic mind I have boiled this down to the inability to craft a viable business plan based on using less. Less of anything, but particularly less energy."
Well, for sure, we can say: given no change, on the global scale, "we" are (in global total from all sources, already? not sure) (or will be soon) using less energy.
However, it seems that regarding what appears to be (on the technology side of things) - the "need" to expand the renewable wedge for the predicted shrink of the FF wedge in HO's article...
This isn't exactly "less" in every framework.
To expand the renewable wedge is "more".
So, part one is: If we stop building roads tomorrow, and start putting in wind farms - do you mean...no business plan that does not count on re-directed tax revenue and/or subsidies?
And part two: If renewable energy technologies are manufactured, this means (perhaps) electricity will (still) be available, hence the infrastructure that uses electricity presumably can still use it.
Yes? No? Maybe?
2) What am I missing? In other words, yes, on the large scale - less energy. However, for any particular piece of it - I'm not so sure. How would you address this?
3) Someone has written previously with the example of Starbucks, along the lines (to put it in my own words), some times the material component of a price is very small - it's a kind of tokenism, really, not reflecting the material of the product.
So, for example, if every coffee customer brought in his/her own cup...? Don't know what this might do to the arrangements, in terms of money flow. Also, strictly speaking, in terms of energy, if each cup is washed by the user. Still...?
4) Of course, the rationale for the "ultimate goal" part is - do with less or do without altogether. We each have our personal preferences, which may make the problem seem intractable. Still, there are some "goods" people can agree on. Maybe - ?
Aniya,
Yes, I am continuing to write for my colleagues and others. I have had a fairly good response to Our Finite World: Implications for Actuaries, although people still tend to think that the problems are many years away.
My latest is on corn ethanol. (This may eventually be on TOD). I make several points in this article that would be worthwhile sharing with politicians, including:
1. In the volumes produced today, ethanol is a substitute for MTBE, rather than a substitute for gasoline.
2. MTBE, which is made from natural gas, was a US-made non-petroleum gasoline extender.
3. The analysis by EIA of the expected impact of the substituting ethanol for MTBE was that it would reduce gasoline supply and raise gasoline prices.
4. Ethanol is most heavily used between May and September. It seems likely that the substitution of ethanol for MTBE is contributing to the summer run-up in gasoline prices.
5. Large increases in corn production above current levels are likely to have adverse impacts and be unsustainable.
6. When we substitute corn ethanol for MTBE, we are effectively substituting a more expensive US-made gasoline extender for a less expensive US-made gasoline extender (not ethanol for foreign oil, as is commonly assumed).
7. The economic impact of substituting corn ethanol for MTBE is likely to be inflationary. The change likely adversely affects the balance of payments, because corn (and other food) exports are likely reduced.
8. It does not make sense to continue subsidies for corn ethanol.
If others agree with my points, it seems like it would be worthwhile getting this message to politicians. I may need to prepare a one page version of my article that could be aimed at politicians.
GOod points, some I did not know.
RE: politicians...
Politicians are not stupid, many have excellent staff. IMO most know that ethanol is a dead end. They continue for some very good reasons:
1 they are being bribed.
2 The public wants to believe there is a painless solution to our oil dependency. RIght now the public is quite happy with the ethanol myth, and politicians never want to be a bearer of bad tidings because in this case they will be replaced by those who will say what the public wants to hear.
Hi Gail,
Thanks for sharing your work. These are interesting points, which I'll definitely make use of
I hope you continue on...
The period of stability, and indeed social stasis, the US has either enjoyed or endured from 1945 to present is extraordinary, The obvious comparison would be the British Empire 1815-1914.
There is no particular reason to be making decisions 20 years out as if all elements of the equation will be fixed in place, except for the variable you are thinking of at the moment. Yes, if you think too much you will never act. But the fewer expectations you have the less you will be disappointed.
oldhippie:
The problem is that it is going to take twenty years to put alternate supply sources in place at a sufficient level that they can address the shortfalls, and if we are not starting that effort now at the right level, then we are already ensuring that we will have a problem of growing size in the future.
I think Newt Gingrich hit it on the head during the debate over Bush's Social Security privatization scheme. He said if people are told there will be a crisis in SS in 13 years, they'll say "tell me about it in 12 years, 8 months."
If investors knew that assets would increase by 30% before Oct. 2009, then crash like in 1929, how many do you think would bail out now?
Probably few, if any. Most of them would focus on that 30% gain, and hope to sell their positions before everyone else, in August or Sept. of 2009.
Either way, long term planning seems not to be part of the equation.
Then you start with something that has quick payback. Something that will continue to function even if your grand plan grinds to a halt.
Specifically you can build wind and solar in months not decades. And if this leads to more capacity to continue building out wind and solar, great. Plans that reach fruition or have payback only after 20 years - I wouldn't invest a nickel.
Peak oil is supposed to create either an emergency or Armageddon or at least interesting times. Why start a plan that requires the support and persistence of an unwavering status quo ante? Not happening.
Hi oldhippie,
I like these points, especially,
re: "Then you start with something that has quick payback."
What do you have in mind and how to get this started?
re: "Why start a plan that requires the support and persistence of an unwavering status quo ante? Not happening."
Can you please explain this a little further? You mean, this isn't a good approach?
Okay, so you are saying...the way to get these things done sooner is...?
Could you possibly outline or explain an approach you would like?
Those slices of energy sources are why I advocate my "20 for 1" solutions. 20 BTUs of oil products for 1 BTU of electricity.
Massive disruption of our economy and the "American Way of Life" is almost a given at this point.
My hopes for something to rebuild an economy and functioning society upon include massive increases in renewables (mainly wind).
I see French towns of 100,000 to 150,000 getting new tram lines with more promised. A steady investment over decades. And the new "rent-a-bicycle" program in Paris & Lyon.
The Swiss decision to move, wholesale, freight movement from heavy truck to electric rail with a MASSIVE public investment over 20 years (= to US spending $1 trillion) shows what can be done.
And the US once built streetcar lines in 500 cities and towns in 20 years with 1/3rd our current population and 4% of our current wealth (and what % of our current technology ?).
I want to start the ball rolling, at least slowly, towards some workable solutions !
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-04a.htm
http://www.trains.com/ctr/objects/images/railroad_electrification_1970s.gif
Best Hopes,
Alan
I think what this all boils down to is that we might as well consider the FedGov as being irrelevant at best. Our best chance to actually get some big investments in some large-scale projects is at the state & local level. Rather than being frustrated by federal inaction, maybe what we should really be doing is writing off the FedGov and calling on them to just get out of the way.
We are now approaching the 2008 election, and those who must make the large investments needed to generate fuel at the levels that will be needed are starting to be shy of making those investments. Why? Because the rules may change with the regulators in a new Administration.
This is indeed one of the tragedies of democracy. As an election approaches, the incumbent government becomes reluctant to embark on new initiatives that might be controversial. After the election is called, nothing new will be started until months after the next government has taken over, even more months if the administration changes. Pessimism, then, is justified when the most of the time for preparation and planning has already been squandered. That's where the Canadian government finds itself vis-a-vis Kyoto.
And in Canada, at least, I think this election-related paralysis is just as true of the research allocations on which HO undoubtedly pins some of his residual hope.
But there is one thing that concerns me a little about this debate (and I include fireangel’s post in this), and that is that we are perhaps not truly appreciative, perhaps because now we talk about it, of the need for all the solutions we can get, and that we need more investment in any and all potential ideas that have a chance of working.
When the reins of power change party, these days, a new administration seems more likely than not to dismantle the major academic funding programs of the previous administration because, by the incoming standards, any initiative begun by the last government must be ill-considered, if not downright wrong. Then, the time horizons expand once more. Yes, I can see grounds for pessimism.
Slightly rephrasing your question:
Why do you think politics is the cause of the uncertainty?
It's not even close to clear to me that politics is the cause; instead, I'd argue that our politics is the response to the physical dead end in which we find ourselves. No more rising tide.
I firmly believe the environmental system is already responding to us, well in advance of our conscious understanding. Just as the grid responded to the tree branch and it took how long for humans to figure it out - assuming we have figured it out - which I don't believe for a heartbeat.
Uncertainty is going to increase. Systems operating at the max without resilience and without the ability to degrade gracefully. How, generally, do any of our leveraged high-tech systems degrade gracefully?
cfm in Gray, ME
Well, the "tragedy of elections" may be coming to end:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/29/12921/7971
I'll just repeat my DailyKOS comments here. This sort of nonsense should not even be posted on TOD.
With every presidency since JFK this sort of nonsense has come up. Every president since JFK has signed executive orders that give them dictatorial powers and not once have any of them actually used these powers. Right wingers were expecting Clinton to do this. He did not. Left wingers were expecting Reagan to do this. He did not. Hell, even Nixon didn't do something this stupid.
Whichever party is out of power has a lunatic fringe element that brings out these sorts of insane accusations. I saw these same sorts of wild accusations against Clinton. They brought up the Mena AK ties, the drug ties, the money laundering issue, the Vince Foster issue, the sellout to China, and the list goes on and on. A tiny few of these accusations had some miniscule grain of truth and others were wild-eyed fantasy.
I now see that DailyKOS is populated by the liberal version of the fanatic lunatic right wing fringe. Get real people.
P.S. Halliburton got the original "detention camp" contract under Clinton. So either the Democrats are in this up to their eyeballs in which case you people have no chance in hell short of armed revolt or this is all insanity.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
P.S. Halliburton got the original "detention camp" contract under Clinton. So either the Democrats are in this up to their eyeballs in which case you people have no chance in hell short of armed revolt or this is all insanity.
Seems like Cindy Sheehan has come to the conclusion that there is not much difference, and from the actions I see now in Congress and the Senate, show me where they really differ on the major issues. Oh there is "speech" making, but when it comes to the vote, look where they go.
As for the Arkansas stuff, well I live close to there and I've met some people that were around during the "gov" days.
Not going to repeat what this guy told me, but it was freaking scary, if he wasn't BSing, and this was early in his first Pres term. Before the headlines.
I will share this little story though.
He knew the Gov's PR guy very well. He got a call from him around sunset and told him to come to the gov's mansion as fast as possible. He asked why, and was told no questions, just to do it as a favor. The guard would have his name and to drive around back. He did so.
When he pulled up the PR rep appeared at the back door with a very very drunk woman who made headlines about her affair with him named Jennifer. Put her in the car and he drove her home and was told to keep his mouth shut.
Seems that the wifey had called and had cut short her out of town trip and was coming home from the airport, which was not expected.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
Isn't it an alarming thing in itself that they sign such orders? They may not dare to use them, but it sure seems like they want to. I think they hoped they would get the opportunity.
I'm in favour of consititutional amendments (not just in the US) to the effect that if the executive seizes extraordinary powers, whether it's called martial law or anything else, then they all face an immediate trial for high treason once the exceptional circumstances are over. With the burden of evidence placed on them to prove that the seizure of power was justified.
And no Pinocheting, or pre-pardoning themselves.
Greyzone - ever check into just what "red" means on our little color-coded terror chart? It's martial law. All our rights as Americans go right out the window.
Here's a question to think about:
Could there ever be an event big enough to halt regular elections in the US?
Say, something like a nuclear terrorist attack. Manhattan is reduced to slag on Halloween of 2008, with much of the Northeast paralyzed by a huge EMP-induced blackout. Or the outbreak of a virulent and highly transmissible disease that forces widespread quarantine around election time.
I'm not saying this is going to happen in 2008, but sometimes I wonder if a regular election could ever be "cancelled".
-best,
Wolf
Interesting thoughts HO. I usually think of, and explain, the Hubbert Peak of fossil fuels as imposing problems more from lack of time than effectively of alternatives.
The Hubbert Peak of the fossil fuels will not mean the end of energy, probably not even the final peak of energy use by humans. The Sun will continue to shine, and we probably still have a lot to release from the Atom. It’s just that it can’t be done overnight - we’ve waited for too long without preparing for the Hubbert Peak.
Let me just remind everyone that Coal took 50 years to became the most used energy source in the World, and that Oil took another 50 years to take that position away from Coal. Nuclear, Natural Gas and Hydro never took that place, and at least the last two never will.
As for agro-fuels, prospects are much better for North America than Europe. Here it is becoming increasingly clear that we won’t have the arable land to meet the Commission’s targets for 2020 – it’ll rapidly collide with food cultures. Obviously the prospects for bio-fuels from waste and residues are much better.
BTW, I’m quite expectant on that Coal post.
Depletion of NG will have an impact on cellulose ethanol since it is currently the main input for the Haber-Bosch proces, which produces ammonium nitrate. Now, one can grow all kinds of grains and corn without this artificial fertilizer, but the point is not to transform the tillage of these grains but to expand it. Whenever gas becomes less available farmers will have hard time maintaining there normal crops, I suspect.
Offcourse there are huge NG fields in the Middle East, so to mitigate for oil export losses they might come up with a plan to produce fertilizer (and a large number of other chemicals, btw) locally and sell thos, thus bypass the need liquifying and transporting NG. It is noteworthy that Saudi firms have large investments in European chemical factories, they even own several. I suspec t that will put trouble off for a while.
Hi p,
I appreciate the info here.
Unreasonable expectations about limitless energy jump from one potential source to the next in ways that undermine opportunities for strategic planning. Oil is depleting? We can grow enough corn and switch grass for a bountiful energy future. Natural gas will peak? Don't worry, the U.S. is sitting on 250 years worth of coal supply.
All we need is a vast fleet of plug in hybrid electrics that run on a combination of ethanol and electricity from coal-fired generators, and we're set indefinitely.
Even the Hirsch report, with all its stern warnings about planning ahead, falls into this trap.
What would be interesting is: How is your railroad infrastructure doing? If the area you live in still has it's old railway infrastructure coal could be used to old way.
Hi kenny,
Thanks and in defense of Hirsch, I'm not sure the authors "fell", so much as made particular assumptions. My guess is they know the relative merit of those assumptions. If you look for some interviews w. Hirsch himself on Global Public Media (the link for which I'd provide, except this seems not to work w/out losing my page) - you'll see his thoughts on the overall situation. Or search www.energybulletin.net.
However, your point well taken on the need for strategic planning.
What do you see as elements of such a plan?
jbunt
HO - Texas saying, "all hat and no cattle"??
Hi j,
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure who you're referring to...me? Hirsch? kenny? or...Heading Out? (And in reference to...?)
jbunt
It is was an aside in HO's article, recollecting some "Texas" saying. I was taking a stab at what he was recollecting.