Category Archives: big oil

Oil Speculators At It Again – This time instead of fooling with contracts they are actually fooling with the tankers themselves.

Posted on by
2

Is there no end to the criminal ingenuity of Wall Street. It’s not enough that they destroy the mortgage market or sell all our jobs over seas, they just have to squeeze every dollar out of their grandmother’s social security check.

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45530

http://marketplace.publicradio.org//display/web/2009/01/09/pm_contango/?refid=0

Investment banks hoarding oil

Fifty million barrels of oil are just sitting around on supertankers. They’re not getting unloaded because investors are waiting for the price of oil to go up. Mitchell Hartman explains.

More on Oil

TEXT OF STORY

Bob Moon: Now here are some millions that haven’t raised the ire of Congress — 50 million… Barrels of oil. They’re sloshing around on huge supertankers right now. They’re not going into port, not getting unloaded. They’re just waiting, for the price of oil to go up. It’s a financial play known as “contango.” A lot of investors are getting into the act. Marketplace’s Mitchell Hartman explains.

Mitchell Hartman: “Contango” refers to a market condition in which the future price of a commodity is higher than the cost of buying it today. Right now, investors can lock in oil futures contracts to get paid $46 a barrel in March. They can fill a supertanker right now for just $41 and change. It’s pretty cheap to keep the tanker floating around in the ocean. When it unloads in the spring, the investors make a tidy profit: more than $3 a barrel.Daniel Yergin is author of the Pulitzer-winning book, “The Prize.” He says there’s a glut of oil right now, caused by the global recession. But futures prices are going higher, because OPEC has promised to cut production. And, says Yergin, oil traders are reading something else in the economic tea leaves.>Daniel Yergin: There’s a bet here that all of the stimulus, new economic programs, are going to work, and that by the second half of the year, we’re going to move out of recession, back into economic recovery, and that demand will start rising for oil again.

.

:}
For more please go to the PBS site and listen to the report. For a different point of view:

http://www.supplyexcellence.com/blog/2009/01/13/oil-price-fundamentals-contango-opec/

Oil Price Fundamentals: Don’t believe the hype

January 13th, 2009 · by Bob Zieger ·

Last week, Marketplace had an interesting report on the growing trend of “contango” in the oil industry. For those of you who are not familiar with the practice, contango occurs when investors sit on a commodity because the future price is higher than the spot price. In this case, that results in full oil tankers sitting offshore, waiting for the price to rise before they unload their 50 million barrels onto the market. So a quick buck is made by those holding the inventory on the high seas, but what happens when those barrels eventually reach a port ? We’ve got a glut of material again, which forces prices down. This type of profit-taking merely adds to the volatility of the market, but has little influence on macroeconomic fundamentals.

Frankly, it seems as though the oil/energy sector has the most interesting bag of tricks when it comes to speculation, rhetoric, and other market manipulation. But all the headline grabbing stories aside, oil is just like other commodities in that pricing is governed by supply and demand. While contango, Somali pirates, and accounting tricks can be a source of market volatility, these games don’t have a long term impact on pricing.

:}

The POINT for us is that they are “messing around” like mice worrying at a hole. Practicing. If someone doesn’t hit them with a broom, sooner or later they will succeed.

:}

For more on Cantango and other disgusting practices:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/contango_backwardation.asp

 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/01/super_contango.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/11/11/crudes-credit-contango/

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47633

:}

Please note Goldman Sachs says oil will hit 102$$ per barrel by the end of the year and I have said that oil will hit 130$$ a barrel by next summer. I wonder whose right?

:}

Man Made Global Warming Is Not Happening – So these experts say

Posted on by
Reply

Ah the liars strike back. SO TAKE THAT you you you environmentalists you.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/denialists_scraping_the_bottom.php#more

Denialists scraping the bottom of the barrel 

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 28, 2008 10:22 AM, by Tim Lambert

You have to think that global warming denialist Matt Drudge must be getting desperate when he touts a column by Christopher “White asbestos is harmless” Booker arguing that winter has disproved man-made global warming:

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

But this time of the year you normally have the whole of Canada and half the US under snow. Look at the graph below from the Rutgers Global Snow Lab. If you move your mouse over it, it will show current snow cover. Not much different, is it?

Despite a strong La Nina this year, 2008 was nowhere near as cold as the years at the start of the 20th century.

So what’s the second part of Booker’s disproof of AGW?

Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world’s most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that “consensus” which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

OK, lets look at the list of “climate experts” who signed the Manhattan declaration. I don’t see many eminent climate scientists there. Of the 619 authors of the IPCC AR4 WG1, precisely zero signed the Manhattan declaration. There are a couple of eminent climate scientists there: Reid Bryson and Bill Gray, but the vast majority are not climate scientists at all, and the list includes entries like this:

John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, Post-graduate Diploma of Computer Studies, B. Arch., Climate Data Analyst, Computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia

Even if you repeat it, “Climate Data Analyst” is just a title he made up. Study the graphs above of climatic data. Congratulations! You’re analyzing climate data, so you can call yourself a Climate Data Analyst as well.

:}

But Booker is a serious author right? Here is one of his little triumphs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

I must end this year by again paying tribute to my readers for the wonderful generosity with which they came to the aid of two causes. First their donations made it possible for the latest “metric martyr”, the east London market trader Janet Devers, to fight Hackney council’s vindictive decision to prosecute her on 13 criminal charges, ranging from selling in pounds and ounces to selling produce “by the bowl” (to avoid using weights her customers dislike and don’t understand). The embarrassment caused by this historic battle has thrown the forced metrication policy of both our governments, in London and Brussels, into total disarray.

Since Hackney backed out of allowing four criminal charges against Janet to go before a jury next month, all that remains is for her to win her appeal in February against eight convictions which now look quite absurd (including those for selling veg by the bowl, as thousands of other London market traders do every day). The final goal, as Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund insists, must then be a pardon for the late Steve Thoburn and the four other original “martyrs” who were found guilty in 2002 – after a legal battle also made possible by this column’s readers – of breaking laws so ridiculous that the EU Commission has even denied they existed (but which are still on the statute book).

:}

The EVIL METRIC people must be defeated….HAHAHAHAHAHA 

Oil Prices Fall Below 40$$ Per Barrel – We are all going to die!

Posted on by
Reply

I predicted this almost a year ago. BUT be prepared. By next summer oil will be back up in the 100$$ range probably topping out 132$$ per barrel. Why? Because this commodity market have never been destabilized by speculators before and it will BOUNCE around. Back and forth. Back and forth. Until it settles down where it started and where the Saudi’s say it should be at 70$$ per barrel. Will we survive all that whipsawing? Probably not. By then maybe we will be off the damn stuff and no one will care.

Today I wanted To Post About SeaGen – But I made the mistake of typing in skinny car

Posted on by
Reply

into a search engine. I WAS still looking for that gosh darn #$@%!&*(”_) beetle like car that I saw in San Francisco. I turned up the Tango and just loved it. We shall take up SeaGen on Monday. Have a Good Weekend and may God Bless.

 tango.jpg

 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2003/0727/cover.html

WRITTEN BY PAULA BOCK
PHOTOGRAPHED BY BENJAMIN BENSCHNEIDER

 Even though it’s Ferrari red, zooms from zero to 60 in four seconds, and has a sensuous black leather dash with the same Motech data display found in Grand Prix race cars, this is not your typical little red sports car.
 

For starters, it’s smaller. Or rather, smallest. At 39 inches wide and 8 feet 5 inches long, it’s skinnier than some motorcycles and shorter than many a living-room couch. It runs on batteries, not gas. And, if the thing ever makes it out of Spokane and into consumer production — a big if — this two-person, commuter concept car could very well alleviate air pollution, cruise past freeway congestion, shimmy through urban gridlock and actually find a parking spot.

At the moment, however, U.S. Patent No. 6,328,121 (Ultra-Narrow Automobile Stabilized with Ballast) is causing a jam in front of Spokane’s Northtown Mall. Traffic stops, drivers gawk.

“Cool,” declares a 20-year-old strawberry blonde, snapping a paparazzi shot. “Can I borrow it and drive to California?” A silvery couple in matching pink polo shirts inquires about the nearest dealership. A woman with toddlers wants to know about safety.

Remarkably, though trapped by the rubberneckers, everyone smiles at the little red car, including a mall-security guy who, instead of unblocking the lanes, gives a thumbs-up: “Awesome!” 
:}

It all started with a sailboat…

 :}

 Rick and Brian Woodbury refurbished an ocean-going 35-foot junk-rigged schooner, Sea Witch, to sail Puget Sound. It was the sailboat, in a strange way, that launched the skinny car. “Mom hated it,” Bryan recalls. Alice Woodbury never acquired sea legs, feared her family would drown, and didn’t like her husband and son spending every weekend across state at Bainbridge Island’s Eagle Harbor, where Sea Witch moored for free. So Alice issued an ultimatum: The boat. Or her.

Kickstart. Father and son sold Sea Witch and started work on the Tango

Compared to that, creating the Tango was quick, cheap and clean. In 1998, Rick and Bryan took their $20,000 profit from selling the boat and haunted junkyards and used-car lots buying parts. In Seattle, they found a 1968 Fiat 850 Spyder that had been converted to electric, trailered it home to Spokane and tore it apart in their garage. Within two months, they’d built a new frame, mounted wheels, brakes and steering components and rolled the chassis down the street, neighbor kids chasing alongside. By winter they had a drivable car, and by fall, they were racing it on autocross tracks. Working from a photo-shopped picture of a 1998 Mercedes A-Class hatchback morphed to ultra-narrow dimensions, Bryan hand-sculpted a body for the car out of Urethane, fiberglass, epoxy and Bondo, sanding large areas with a cheese grater. They hired a pro to finish and paint the body, then took the car to California.

:}

Turns out they have their own page:

http://www.commutercars.com/

Meet the Tango

Introducing the world’s fastest urban car

The revolutionary commuter vehicle that combines the speed and agility of a motorcycle with the security and comfort of a high-performance sports car.

Beat Traffic:

The Tango’s ability to maneuver through traffic is second to none. Like a motorcycle, it can change lanes to gain advantage in traffic better than any car in history. Unlike a motorcycle, it is safe, dry, climate controlled, and can securely carry a reasonable amount of cargo. Where lane splitting is permitted (i.e., driving between lanes of stopped or slow-moving traffic), such as California, Europe, and Asia, the advantage can be staggering. In extremely heavy traffic, a Tango or motorcycle can travel in 20 seconds the distance that cars travel in 20 minutes.

Help forge a congestion-free future:

The Tango can fit in a 6-foot half-lane with more clearance than a truck has in a full 12-foot freeway lane. This virtual doubling of lane capacity can make the traffic jam a fading memory.

Parking:

A Tango can park perpendicular to the curb, in left-over spaces between cars or driveways, next to buildings, or in unused corners of parking lots–in thousands of heretofore-unusable parking spaces.

:}

For more than you ever cared:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=17387

http://metrospokane.typepad.com/index/2008/06/tango-the-world.html

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=16622

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_Cars_Tango

It really is a cute little car (:=}

Everyone Takes A Traditional View Of The Economy – They see the death of new energy markets – a replacment post for 12/03/08

Posted on by
Reply

But we know that is all Capitalist Mythology. The Economy is what we want it to be and what the government tells it to be. We all used to travel by horse (or animal). Then the government ordered Steamships and we all traveled by steamships. Then the government order Trains and we all traveled by train. Then the government ordered Cars and now we all get around in Cars. The idea that this is some kind of natural evolution is just silly. Well the same is true of energy use.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/24/tech/cnettechnews/main4544891.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4544891

Will Alternative Energy

Run Out Of Gas?

Clean-Energy Field Getting

Bitten By Credit Crisis, But Long-Term

Trends Point In Its Favor

(CNET) By Martin LaMonica

People in the alternative energy business have said repeatedly there are “great fundamentals” driving their businesses, namely high fossil fuel prices, supportive government policies, and growing environmental awareness.

Now some of the pillars underpinning green technologies are wobbling. Oil prices have plummeted more than 50 percent since the summer, making traditional energy sources look a lot more affordable than they did six months ago for businesses and consumers alike. And the global credit crisis that has sucked the wind out of the economy has done damage to the funding of alternative energy projects as well.

The hardest hit by a freeze or reluctant lending are renewable energies which are already commercial, or on the cusp of getting there. These aren’t cheap little startups we’re talking about: Constructing a biofuels plant costs upwards of a $100 million while connecting a solar power plant, capable of powering tens of thousands of homes, is in the range of $500 million and $800 million, depending on the size. In the current credit market, it’s tough to come up with that money.

But don’t write off clean tech as another casualty of the souring economy quite yet. Today’s clean energy field is a lot more resilient than in the days of the 1970s oil price shock for one simple reason – society’s priorities have changed since then. Climate change and energy security are front-page issues that still command the attention of consumers, businesses, and politicians, regardless of the economy.

:}

What they always forget are the jobs created by implementing new technologies and the externalities to be gained. No carbon production: Good! We all live. But then if you are a coal company, an oil company or own carbon related energy production this is evil thinking.

:}

Instead Of Global Warming It Should Be Called Hot Acid Ocean – Maybe then people would get it..replacement post 11/27/08

Posted on by
Reply

Once we kill off the Oceans of the Earth, what shall we do next?

;]

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Nov-13/is-the-ocean-a-victim-of-global-warming-our-intrepid-reporter-travels-thousands-of-miles–from-moss-landing-to-peru-and-chile–to-crack-an-environmental-crime/1/@@index

Posted November 13, 2008 12:00 AM

Liquidity Crisis

Is the ocean a victim of global warming? Our intrepid reporter travels thousands of miles – from Moss Landing to Peru and Chile – to crack an environmental crime.

By Kera Abraham

A cold, salty wind blows from the west. The gray Pacific Ocean – incubator of slimy life, cycler of nutrients, composer of storms – doesn’t seem like itself lately.

The bully they call El Niño seems to be coming around more often, screwing with every fishery he touches. Niño plays games with the world’s weather, flooding dry Peruvian coastal towns while parching lush Indonesia.

Expanding offshore twilight zones of low oxygen turn fish into refugees and kill whatever can’t swim away. Oregon fishermen pull up buckets of dead crabs while jumbo squid pulse poleward, happier than clams in the suffocating layer. Other warm-water species are hanging out in places that used to be too cool for them. Tropical storms are getting meaner; jellyfish are swarming.

Meanwhile, the mad chemist known as pH is tinkering with the ocean’s ions, making California’s coast more acidic than the psychedelic ’60s. Dolphins file noise complaints, the shells of microscopic snails dissolve, and light-reflecting plankton retreat.

The sea’s weird behavior is a tough nut to crack, but some of the world’s sharpest minds are on the case. Their chief suspect is carbon dioxide, code-named CO2: atmospheric loiterer, weather tweaker, planet heater.

;]

For much more see this article or google “acid ocean” and watch the hits grow.

Newt Gingrich Plans To Save The Earth – Maybe the silliest use of energy yet

Posted on by
1

So silly in fact that the price of the book has fallen from $20 to $2.39.

http://www.amazon.com/Contract-Earth-Newt-Gingrich/dp/0801887801 

This from a man who does not believe in global warming. This from a man who helped start the “Drill Here, Drill Now” movement. This from a man who adamitly opposes Cap and Trade even though it’s an industry ameliorative. Oh and a forward by the man who once hypothesized that people with black skin have lower I.Q.s then people with white skin color. But don’t listen to me:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0801887801

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars If we pass the test, we get to keep the planet (Everglades), December 6, 2007

Local Book Review by John Arthur Marshall, (JAMinfo@AOL.com); President
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation and Florida Environmental Institute, Inc. www.ArtMarshall.org

A Contract with the Earth: Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple; John Hopkins; 2007

Contract with the Earth is an overdue call for local, national and international action in a time of serious need for we planetary occupants to pay much more attention to what we are doing to the planet (destroying our life support system at a seemingly indiscernible rate, with enormous consequences given ubiquitous inaction). This is the major problem that Contract addresses.

Contract might be summarized as a re-call of Teddy Roosevelt conservationism with emphasis on the authors’ new advocacy of entrepreneurial environmentalism. All this verges on a matter of insistence, which is good, even great, if twice as many folks that are engaged in the present environmental movement read and heed… Then engage at least one neo-conservationist politician on the need to take on stewardship of the environment as a major issue in the current election debates. We can do it!

As the authors astutely note: Everyone ought to participate in discussions of environmental policies and to that end should have a rudimentary understanding of the processes that make a habitable planet.

Of particular importance in the current elections scenario, the authors identify the need to get the environment elevated as arguably the most important issue confronting society today. How can presidential candidates not pay attention to long-term effects of climate change, and the need for conservation and preservation of what remains of our life support system? A bonus is a call for strategic planning, and adherence to planetary needs.

The authors acknowledge that insufficient attention is being paid by politicians, and with the rest of us, lament that the current administration has been a failure here, even with the late attempt at for lasting legacy to cover inaction regarding potential disastrous consequences in the future.

The author’s define the distinction between conservation and preservation in a manner that deserves further consideration. That is left for future readers to discover, in a book that is worth reading, and begging for action by the non-reactive information-overloaded majority.

As President of a tree-planting organization, my most favorite spot in this book is Chapter 8: Renewing the Natural World. This chapter emphasizes the need to preserve rainforests and restore forests and wetlands. Here in Florida we call them forested wetlands, or swamps (lots of cypress and custard apple trees and related species normally in standing water). In the sequence of quotable quotes at the beginning of each chapter, Chapter 8 also holds my favorite quote:

Few are altogether deaf to the preaching of pine trees. Their sermons on the mountains go to our hearts; and if people in general could be got into the woods, even for once to hear the trees speak for themselves, all difficulties in the way of forest perseveration would vanish. John Muir [Founder Sierra Club]; there were also lots of pine trees in Florida. The past-tense is not good.

This quote is an appropriate sequel to another salient section in Chapter 10, with the mention of Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods. Louv amplifies the need for the younger generation to be more exposed to nature, as previous generations were. Something is missing. Louv points out that staying indoors in front of a computer, rather than more exposure to nature, may lead to nature deficit disorder, which he relates to potential attention deficit disorder and maladjustments in life.

As a sixth generation Floridian, following progress of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) I very much appreciate Newt’s observation on page 226:

“Florida has the opportunity to become a laboratory that the entire world studies… There are very few places where you have a complex fragile ecosystem this close to this many people”. Newt, Associated Press, 1997. Recent AP headlines – Everglades Restoration bogged down – is inappropriate.

The authors also recognize that the proximity of massive land-fills (Mt. Trashmore’s we call them) to the Everglades are inappropriate to conservation and preservation of important ecosystems. Currently, local government is considering locating a Mt. Trashmore right next to the Arthur R. Marshall National Wildlife Refuge, a primary subject of CERP implementation. Not only will the landfill be a dominant terrain feature, the creatures this will attract will pose a serious threat to native wildlife, especially wading birds. This could also pose a serious threat to federal funding.

The authors also implore us (again!) to think globally and act locally. OK Palm Beachers, CERP implementation is also about sustaining a viable water supply. This is need to know stuff.

Unfortunately the behavior of government toward CERP, especially in the current federal administration, is much like the authors describe:

The American government, however continues to posture and vent, unable or unwilling to commit or act decisively…. Except possibly to give development overwhelming priority.

If there is one thing that might call for a little reconsideration, it is the authors’ inclination to view technological solutions as sometimes preferable to natural one’s, without mentioning the precautionary principle, an approach advocated by scientists when there is a dearth of knowledge. Scientists caution on reliance of engineered solutions, as there are always unforeseen, usually adverse consequences here. Humankind’s intrusions require natural solutions. Natural solutions are most often perpetual, and the most cost-effective. OK, green energy may be an exception.

At the onset, Contract challenges the readers to take a Test to determine whether (or not) you (the reader) is a mainstream environmentalist. In the end the authors challenge the readers to support the broad principles of the contract, by contributing time and ideas to create together a new kind of environmental movement.

From the Everglades Restoration endeavor, a more widely applicable quote is attributed to the Mother of the Everglades, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, author of Everglades, River of Grass:

If we pass the Test we get to keep the planet!

DISCLAIMER: The Author of this review, an Everglades restoration advocate, is not a professional book reviewer.

John Arthur Marshall
2806 South Dixie Highway, WPB 33405; 561-801-2165
 

:}

On the other hand:

Same old, same old, April 18, 2008

By  Arthur E. Lamontagne –
(REAL NAME)   

A lot of rehash of old ideas and trite science. I was disappointed, especially since I have been a big fan of Newt’s philosophies and politics.
:}

If you want to hear what the great man himself thinks try, are you ready for it?, newt.org:

 http://newt.org/AContractwiththeEarth/tabid/220/Default.aspx

:}

Scientist Fred Bortz sees it a little different:

http://www.fredbortz.com/review/ContractWithEarth.htm

I am a scientist, and I vote. To put this review in context, I place myself in the moderate to progressive segment of American politics. But I never let my political views get in the way of interpreting what observation, experiment, and scientific analysis tell me about the world.

For instance, when I reviewed Chris Mooney’s provocative The Republican War on Science (RWOS), my first reaction was skepticism. “Show me the evidence,” I demanded of that book. In the end, Mooney’s thorough research persuaded me that his thesis deserved serious consideration.

RWOS covered a broad range of topics, but the one of greatest concern to me was the political foot-dragging and outright denial of human-induced global warming, especially in the Republican controlled congress and the George W. Bush White House.

I often wrote in my blog that I would listen to any proposed political solution to the problem–liberal, conservative, or otherwise–as long as the discussion began with the best understanding of the science and considered a range of plausible scenarios. Thus I was heartened to learn of this new book by one of the United States leading conservative thinkers, Newt Gingrich, in collaboration with conservationist Terry Maple.

I assumed that I would disagree with Gingrich’s proposed political approaches. But I also assumed that the book will make an important contribution to the debate on global warming. I was correct on both counts. A Contract With the Earth has the potential to move the debate away from whether global warming is occurring and whether human activities are causing it, and move toward issues where conservatives and liberals argue about how best to deal with the problem.

However, I am disappointed that it pussyfoots around the Right’s nonsense about calling global warming a hoax and a liberal conspiracy. Gingrich frequently points fingers at the Left for their “doomsday scenarios.” I disagree with that characterization, though I understand that a warning can be delivered too stridently, thereby turning off the people you hope to reach.

But if turning people away from the solution is a problem, then Gingrich needs to be equally critical of outright denialism on the Right. To deny and obfuscate is far more than simply to “disdain” environmental action, which is about as far as he goes in criticizing his own party. He may not have agreed with leading denier Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, but by remaining quiet he facilitated Inhofe’s misuse of his Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to block action on global warming. In this book, Gingrich is continuing to give Inhofe and his cronies a pass.

In other words, I don’t doubt his sincerity about the need to act, and I don’t question the value of conservative approaches to the solution. But Gingrich is clearly worried about his right flank in this book. Mainstream Republicans have known for some time that global warming is a problem and would welcome some courageous leadership from Gingrich. Instead, many of them will see this as opportunism by someone who wants to be president and thus can’t afford to alienate the Right.

Physicist Fred Bortz is the author of numerous science books for young readers.

:}

Leave it to the Washington Post to get it right:

http://www.powells.com/review/2008_01_04.html

Green Republicans

A review by Juliet Eilperin

Yet they gloss over some of the toughest questions facing international policymakers today, and they compare the environmental records of Bush and former President Bill Clinton in a way that strains credulity.  

On the central question of global warming, Gingrich and Maple are closer to Bush than to most of the world’s business and political leaders. They argue that climate change poses a serious threat and that the United States should reengage in international negotiations. But they question the wisdom of imposing a mandatory, nationwide cap on carbon emissions on the grounds that Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose faster than America’s between 2000 and 2004. (It’s worth noting that since 2000, U.S. emissions have risen at 1.5 times the rate they did in the 1990s, not exactly a stunning model of restraint.) Like Bush, Gingrich and Maple rest their hopes on technological innovation: “The world can be changed faster by the spread of brilliant ideas than by any plodding bureaucracy, and we gladly put our faith in such intellectual and social processes.”

In that sense this book is classic Newt, brimming with military metaphors and grand visions of America leading the rest of globe to a brighter future. In environmentalism, as in war, “we must demand a complete and decisive victory,” the authors say. “Renewing the earth is surely one of the greatest challenges this generation has confronted, and we understand how important it is to succeed.”

To show the value of what they call “business partnerships on behalf of the environment,” the authors describe how the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society have made common cause with such corporate entities as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. As a result, much of the book reads like the kind of corporate advertisement that appears on newspaper op-ed pages. Gingrich and Maple contend that the private sector, not government, holds the answers to the globe’s biggest problems. The question is whether people in places such as Bangladesh can afford to wait and see if they’re right.

Juliet Eilperin is the Post‘s national environmental reporter.

:}

:}

The Topic Of The Week Is Silly Energy Uses – As typed in at Google

Posted on by
Reply

I was shocked when I type in Silly Energy Uses into Google and got back 8 out of 10 references to Sarah Palin. But then I thought about it and realised that the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd does look silly, with oil prices in the 50$$ per barrel range and maybe going to 40$$ a barrel. The Saudis, the Ruskies and the Venezualans (should we call them Vennies?) have got to be looking to kill a bunch of Hedge Fund Operators and other bizzilionaires. Though the Brazilians (Brazzies?)got pletty of crap all over their faces too. What in the world are they going to do with all those oil rigs?

I have not had so much laughter and fun since the gas lines in the 70’s and the recession that led up to globalization in the 80s.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/

 htww.png

Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008 09:39 PDT

Sarah Palin’s silly energy speech

When the announcement that John McCain had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate broke across the political landscape like an Alaskan mountain avalanche, many analysts, including yours truly, jumped to the conclusion that her background in energy issues made her a savvy choice in an era of record-breaking oil prices. McCain’s “drill here, drill now” mantra was taking a bite out of Obama’s poll numbers, and the immediate expectation was that Palin would be a potent vehicle for delivering energy-related soundbites.

But it didn’t turn out that way. On Wednesday morning, oil traded at $65 dollars a barrel, more than 50 percent off its July peak of $147. The financial crisis proved more riveting than gas prices, and Sarah Palin’s rocky performance as a debutante on the national political stage swiftly obliterated the conventional wisdom that she could be an asset to the McCain campaign.

 :}

But Palin’s speech is still worth some attention, because it clearly makes the case for why the McCain-Palin agenda is fundamentally wrong for the United States.

Palin started off by acknowledging that “the price of oil is declining largely because of the market’s expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand.” She was absolutely correct to note that “this is hardly a good sign of things to come,” and that “when our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices.”

(:=} even the Saudis got to get into the act)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523334615277739.html

By GUY CHAZAN

 LONDON — The slump in oil prices has spread relief among consumers and fuel-reliant industries, but also is squeezing the companies who could invest in new sources of oil — spurring concerns that prices will prompt them to shelve investments.

Industry executives warn that could mean the world will face a dramatic ramping up of prices as soon as the global economy, and demand, begins to rebound.

“Low oil prices are very dangerous for the world economy,” said Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, speaking Tuesday at an oil-industry conference in London. 

(:=}

The piece drew many comments but the first is the most rational. Then they decay into the IT CAN’T BE DONE comments from the ignorant right. As usual.

 http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/view/index3.html?show=all

What we need is a commitment to relatively low-tech alternative energy

Solar satellites and fusion energy are pie-in-the-sky ideas that have been around forever and have yielded little practical promise. Existing earth-based solar collector and wind farm technology could provide a substantial percentage of our energy needs right now. Dedicating a few hundred square miles of CA/NV desert land to a massive solar collector that could provide 100% of U.S. electrical needs would be a worthy investment.

 http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/86951-sarah-palins-silly-energy-speech.html

Both the McCain/Palin campaign and the Obama/Biden campaign are making unrealistic promises about the prospect of reaching energy independence. As Obama himself notes, when you consume 25 percent of the world’s oil but own only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, energy independence isn’t ever going to come from expanding domestic production.The difference between the two campaigns is that McCain/Palin is more unrealistic. Obama has made it clear that his energy independence plan will requires massive expansion of alternative and renewable energy resources and huge investments in conservation and energy efficiency, even as he acknowledges that more investment in offshore drilling, nuclear power, and clean coal will also most likely be necessary. (McCain and Palin routinely misrepresent Obama’s position on nuclear power and clean coal, and the vice presidential candidate did so again today.)Palin devoted one paragraph of her energy security policy speech to alternative energy solutions.

In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.

That’s not enough. True leadership on energy requires devoting more than one paragraph to vague handwaving about wind and solar and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic turmoil and low oil prices may have shunted renewables and conservation off the main track for now, but to quote Palin, “this is hardly a sign of good things to come.”

 :}

But then the real waste of Energy was people trying to “figure out the real” John McCain. He was the guy who wanted to build 100 NUKES and was too old and out of touch to be President.

http://sillyhumans.blogspot.com/

 By TIM DICKINSON Posted Oct 16, 2008 7:00 PM

—
This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain’s life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers’ powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives’ evangelical churches.

 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.

“I’m going to the Middle East,” Dramesi says. “Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran.”

“Why are you going to the Middle East?” McCain asks, dismissively.

“It’s a place we’re probably going to have some problems,” Dramesi says.

“Why? Where are you going to, John?”

“Oh, I’m going to Rio.”

“What the hell are you going to Rio for?”

McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.

“I got a better chance of getting laid.”
 :}

:}

Oil Falls To 57$$ A Barrel – We are all going to die!

Posted on by
Reply

We are all going to die….well not just yet.

 

https://censys.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=756

 

Why are oil prices dropping?

The price of oil this morning is $72 a barrel — half of what it was three months ago. Ashley Milne-Tyte looks into some factors influencing oil markets, including the disappearance of some speculators.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_petroleum_and_gasoline/index.html?excamp=GGBUoilprice&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=BI-S-E-GG-NA-S-oil_price

Countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iran that were flush with rising oil revenue saw that change reflected in newly aggressive foreign policies. But some unexpected countries reaped benefits, as well as costs, from higher prices. Consider Germany. Although it imports virtually all its oil, it has prospered from extensive trade with a booming Russia and the Middle East. German exports to Russia grew 128 percent from 2001 to 2006. The high price of gas became an important issue in the presidential campaign. Senator John McCain in particular made energy a focus, proposing to suspend the gas tax during the summer. He also made fervent calls to expand domestic drilling for oil, while his opponent, Barack Obama, emphasized the need for alternative fuels. The surge in prices hit automakers hard, as sales of the truck-based models that had been Detroit’s most profitable product dropped sharply. Mass transit systems across the country reported a sharp increase in riders. As prices fell in the fall, the question facing Opec and car makers alike was whether those shifts would reverse, as they had in previous downturns, or whether a tipping point had been reached.

:}

Drill Here Drill Now     

      Drill Here Drill Now             

              Drill Here Drill Now

                                      Drill Here Drill Now                                                                 

                                                          Drill Here Drill Now

The Report Says We Can Be Done With Fossil Fuels In 80 Years – My question is do we have that much time?

Posted on by
Reply

The answer is definitely NOT:

 http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn15043-2090-is-the-deadline-for-the-end-of-fossil-fuel-use.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

World can halt fossil fuel use by 2090

  • 12:13 27 October 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • New Scientist staff and Reuters

The world could eliminate fossil fuel use by 2090, saving $18 trillion in future fuel costs and creating a $360 billion industry that provides half of the world’s electricity, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday.

The 210-page study [pdf] is one of few reports – even by lobby groups – to look in detail at how energy use would have to be overhauled to meet the toughest scenarios for curbing greenhouse gases outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090,” according to the study, entitled “Energy (R)evolution.” EREC represents renewable energy industries and trade and research associations in Europe.

A more radical scenario could eliminate coal use by 2050 if new power generation plants shifted quickly to renewables.

Solar power, biomass such as biofuels or wood, geothermal energy and wind could be the leading energies by 2090 in a shift from fossil fuels blamed by the IPCC for stoking global warming.

The total energy investments until 2030, the main period studied, would come to $14.7 trillion, according to the study. By contrast, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich nations, foresees energy investments of just $11.3 trillion to 2030, with a bigger stress on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ex-US Vice President Al Gore, called Monday’s study “comprehensive and rigorous.”

Dangerous change

“Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” Pachauri wrote in a foreword to the report.

EREC and Greenpeace said a big energy shift was needed to avoid “dangerous” climate change, defined by the European Union and many environmental groups as a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution.

The report urged measures such as a phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “cap and trade” systems for greenhouse gas emissions, legally binging targets for renewable energies and tough efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles.

The report said renewable energy markets were booming with turnover almost doubling in 2007 from 2006 to more than $70 billion. It said renewables could more than double their share of world energy supplies to 30% by 2030 and reach 50% by 2050.

:}

But it will only cost 17 trillion dollars:

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21375/1066/

 Sven Teske, with Greenpeace and co-author of the report, stated, “Unlike other energy scenarios that promote energy futures at the cost of the climate, our energy revolution scenario shows how to save money and maintain global economic development without fuelling catastrophic climate change.”Teske added, “All we need to kick start this plan is bold energy policy from world leaders.” [EREC]Teske concluded, “Strict efficiency standards make sound economic sense and dramatically slow down rising global energy demand. The energy saved in industrialised countries will make space for increased energy use in developing economies. With renewable energy growing four-fold not only in the electricity sector, but also in the heating and transport sectors, we can still cut the average carbon emissions per person from today?s four tonnes to around one tonne by 2050.” [EREC]

In the foreword to the report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri wrote, “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” [EREC]

Dr. Pachauri, who is the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former-U.S. Vice President Al Gore,

 :}

For more links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49Q2I820081027