Category Archives: scarcity

Solar Aid Is Such A Cool Site – I just had to do a post on them

Posted on by
3

I have also added them on our blogroll:

http://www.solar-aid.org/

I know I have been bouncing around here from the Democrat Convention to Oil Speculators and now Africa but I ran across these folks awhile ago. I tucked them into a folder and forgot about them. So while I have the folder accidentally open…

 billboard_about.jpg

About SolarAid

Power to the people
Two of the biggest threats facing humanity today are climate change and global poverty. SolarAid helps to combat both, simply by bringing clean, renewable power to the poorest people in the world.

Fighting poverty
Right now, two billion people have no access to electricity. They rely on burning fuels such as kerosene and wood for light and heat, which is highly toxic and expensive. Having solar power improves people’s health, income and education. That’s because solar power can enable poor people to cook food, pump clean water, run fridges, light homes, schools and hospitals, farm more effectively, and much more.

Fighting climate change
Climate change is mainly due to the massive and continuing use of burning fossil fuels for energy. This has pumped vast amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. At the same time, we have destroyed vast tracts of forest, which has released billions of tonnes of carbon.

By replacing carbon-emitting products with solar power, and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, particularly wood, we can alleviate global warming.

Fact:
The average kerosene lamp, used widely across the developing world, creates around a tonne of carbon over seven years. Replacing these lamps with solar lanterns will lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions.

Our history

Our vision
Our vision is to make solar energy as widely available as possible to the poorest people in developing countries, helping them bypass the need for dirty, fossil-fueled power and giving them access to all the educational, health and social services that we take for granted in the West. With two billion people in the world not having access to electricity, that’s quite a vision.

Yet we believe in being ambitious and visionary and we hope you do too. That’s because the two most important threats facing our world today are global poverty and climate change. Both are linked as the poorest countries will be hit the hardest by the effects of climate change. While we do not claim that solar energy is the magic bullet that can solve these problems single-handedly, we do believe it can play a major role, with your help.


Our origins
Although SolarAid was officially started in 2006, the thinking behind it goes back much further, to the founding of Solarcentury eight years ago by Dr Jeremy Leggett, who had worked in the oil industry in the 1980s and then became Chief Scientist at Greenpeace in the late 1980s when he became aware of the threat of climate change.

Solarcentury was set up with the vision that business could help find a solution to climate change through solar energy, so its founders wrote into its constitution that it would donate 5% of its net profit with no commercial strings attached in order to set up a charity to help the poorest communities in developing countries access solar power. Solarcentury made profit in 2006, which is why we then set up SolarAid as an independent charity in August 2006 and gathered support from a wide-range of companies, foundations and individuals, as you can read below.

SolarAid is different to your usual international charity. We join the fights against global poverty and climate change in a way not done before. And from the start, we have aimed to bring together the professionalism of the commercial sector with the values of the charity sector in order to create an organization that will bridge the gap between both. That’s why entrepreneurialism and innovation are at the heart of what we do.

Microsolar, a ground-breaking model
Our microsolar approach is pioneering. We identify entrepreneurs in developing countries, who we then train in business planning, market research and solar skills. We help them set up their solar microbusinesses so that they can build and sell solar lanterns and solar chargers for radios and mobile phones. This came out of research that we carried out that showed that the average household in a developing country spends between 10-20% of its income on kerosene for lighting, single use batteries for their radios, and charging their mobile phones. That’s a lot of money, plus kerosene smoke is toxic, single use batteries are polluting, and mobile phone chargers need access to the electric grid, which most rural areas in developing countries do not have and probably will never have.

Our microsolar model is a perfect solution to this. Our solar entrepreneurs convert kerosene lamps into solar lanterns using light emitting diodes (LEDs, which are cheaper, robust and use little energy) and build solar chargers from local materials and imported solar glass. These solar products can then fulfill much of the average household’s energy needs, leading to a substantial increase in their income because they no longer need to buy kerosene or batteries. The solar entrepreneurs make money too – a win-win situation.

Macrosolar, power for communities
Our macrosolar work involves installing larger solar systems on schools, community centres and health clinics. Barely 2% of rural populations in most African countries have access to the grid, forcing them to rely on kerosene, candles, car batteries and firewood for fuel. Schools cannot teach in the evenings; community centres cannot offer services such as educational videos or vocational training; and health clinics cannot power basic medical equipment such as vaccine fridges.

Yet a standard 300 watt system installed on the roof of a school, community centre or clinic can solve all these issues. In Uganda, for instance, we are installing a solar system on the community office of the Katine Project, a programme run by development charity AMREF and the Guardian newspaper and funded by Barclays bank (read about it on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2008/feb/28/background.development). In Malawi, we installed a 300 watt system on a community centre, the only place now with electricity for miles around. In South Africa, we installed a solar system on an orphanage. And we are starting to install systems on hundreds of schools, community centres and health clinics in Tanzania and Zambia over the next four years.

Support for SolarAid
We have been fortunate to gather far-reaching support for our SolarAid dream. Following Solarcentury’s example, a number of other companies have come on board: Scottish and Southern Energy provides funding and staff volunteers for our projects in Tanzania; Vodafone and Global Cool provide funding for our Zambia programme; Lloyds of London, through its charities trust, is helping us develop our carbon offsetting scheme; White & Case and Covington & Burling, two leading legal firms, give us pro bono advice; and the City of London, through the City Bridge Trust, supports our communications activities. Foundations have also provided vitally help, from the Big Lottery Fund’s grant for us to research setting up programmes in Tanzania and Zambia, to assistance with UK management costs from Avina Stiftung, the Sylvia Adams Trust, the Polden Puckham Foundation and others.

And crucially, we have a world-class board of trustees and advisory panel. All of them are heavily involved in our work, providing vital advice and contacts as we grow. You can read more about them here.

We launched SolarAid officially in December 2007, with a big event at City Hall in London presented by the Major of London Ken Livingstone. More than 180 people from the energy industry, NGOs, government, African embassies, foundations and others joined us for this celebration.

The future
We want to reach millions of people with solar power over the next few years. But we don’t claim that will be easy. That’s why we need your help. We need hundreds, thousands, even millions of people like you to support us regularly, each month, with whatever donation you can afford: £15 ($30) can pay for a solar lantern; £5,000 ($10,000) can pay for a solar system on a school; and if you’re a high net worth individual, £1m ($2m) can pay for a full-scale four year programme reaching tens of thousands of people in a country such as Tanzania. The need is huge, which is why we urgently need your support to make this happen.

Nor do we claim that implementing our projects will be plain sailing. As anyone who works in international development will tell you, working in a developing world environment is challenging. Basic infrastructure – roads, water, electricity – is often lacking due to few resources; the financial and legal framework – banks, the law courts, state legislation – is weak and laws can be difficult to enforce; corruption is frequent, from the grassroots level to the top of the state, making it difficult at times to operate with confidence; and industry is struggling, making it hard to source many of the materials and products needed to implement a project.

But these are also the very reasons why our work is so important and why we need your support. We want people to understand the challenges and successes of development and how solar power is a part of this. That’s why we’ve designed this website in this way, with blogs to give you the latest news straight from our projects and with the option for you to post your comments too. We want to hear what you think of our work. We want you to be part of this dream. We want you to share in our joys and our hardships.

So please, visit our project pages, click on the blogs, make a donation, and join us on this exciting adventure to bring power to the people.

:}

:}

Oil Speculators Are the Modern Robber Barons – State Journal Register letter to the editor hits the tap on the barrel head

Posted on by
Reply

I swore on my mother’s grave (sorry mom) that I would not put up a post about oil prices until they fell below 100$$ per barrel because I was tired of people pointing fingers at each other because the whole system is rigged. The Chinese were hoarding diesel for the Olympics (now over), the speculator’s contracts were lapsing (August 31 and September 15), the Senate is going to have hearings in the middle of September (hint: it will all be back to normal by then), and when the oil prices fall the gasoline refiners will lose their cover and half to ramp up aritificially low production levels to drop the price of gasoline. BUT not before 300 billion $$$ are vacuumed out of poor people’s pockets. Boy that took a long time to say! Then I saw this letter and was re-energized to put the facts out there one more time, so maybe people would wake up and just stop using those nasty stinky oil products.

http://www.sj-r.com

Things could be done

to reduce price of gasoline

The recent letters regarding the why and wherefores of the price of oil and

 gasoline prompted me to join in the debate.

First, a few observations:

Since 2003, investments in commodity index funds have increased

 from $13 bil­lion to $$260 billion, a 20-fold increase.

The Commodity Exchange Commission has already set

limits on the holdings any one investor can have in a commodity

to prevent speculation. But the larger institu­tional investors

(known as “swap dealers”) such as Goldman Sachs have exploited an

exemption that allows them to bypass those limits if they make trades through

brokers or dealers.

The majority of these trades in the USA are made by a British company

 with head­quarters in Atlanta while all the trading takes place in

Chicago! They do have a rep in London, Robert Reid, who answers to Atlanta.

The intercontinental exchanges do not have to abide by the rules set up by

the New York Mercantile Exchange be­cause they are listed as a foreign company!

Last month Michael Masters, a portfolio manager, told Congress that index

speculators had bought the equivalent of 1.1 billion bar­rels of oil — eight times

 as much as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

over the last five years!

Because of all this speculation the price of oil has reached $140 a barrel.

The speculators in oil futures obviously say it is sup­ply and demand that

is causing the rise in prices. Granted, there is a certain amount of this i

nvolved, but not in the USA. The demand or use of oil in the U.S. has

been stead for at least a decade.

The ex-president of NYMEX, appearing before a congressional committee

a few weeks ago stated that if margins, which are now 50 percent, were

increased, the price of oil would drop to approximately the marginal cost

of oil, which is between $60 and $70 per barrel. It was also stated that

these margins could be increased, accord­ing to NYMEX rules, during an

 emergency. I think this is an emergency! By the way, it was stated that this

could be done within a 30-day period.

P.S. Just recently, a bill that would put new limits on speculative trading

 in ener­gy commodities failed to get the two-thirds majority required.

Most Republi­cans objected to the bill — the vote was 276 to 151.

Eric Gregg Springfield

:}

Think Eric is crazy? Want to hear more names of the AMERICANS picking your pocket? Well okie dokie then.

:}

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1276-Stop-the-Oil-Speculators.html

Tuesday, May 27. 2008

Posted by nimda in In the Public Interest

Stop the Oil Speculators

What factors are causing the zooming price of crude oil, gasoline and heating products? What is going to be done about it?

Don’t rely on the White House—with Bush and Cheney marinated in oil—or the Congress—which has hearings that grill oil executives who know that nothing is going to happen on Capitol Hill either.


Last week the price of crude oil reached about $130 a barrel after spiking to $140 briefly. The immediate cause? Guesses by oil man T. Boone Pickens and Goldman Sachs that the price could go to $150 and $200 a barrel respectivly in the near future. They were referring to what can be called the hoopla pricing party on the New York Mercantile Exchange. (NYMEX)

Meanwhile, consumers, workers and small businesses are suffering with the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50 a gallon. Suffering but not protesting, except for a few demonstrations by independent truckers.

A consumer and small business revolt could be politically powerful. But what would they revolt to achieve? Their government is paralyzed and is unable to indicate any action if oil goes up to $200 or $400 a barrel. Washington, D.C. is leaving people defenseless and drawing no marker for when it will take action.

Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product—petroleum—is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions.

Over the time since early 2007, U.S. demand for petroleum has fallen by 1 percent and world demand has risen by 1.3 percent. Supplies of crude are so plentiful, according to the Wall Street Journal, “traders of physical crude oil say their market is suffering from too much supply, not too little.”

Iran, for instance, is storing 25 million barrels of heavy, sour crude oil because, in the words of Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s oil governor, “there are simply no buyers because the market has more than enough oil.”

Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale in London agrees. “There’s various signals out there saying for right now, the markets are well supplied with crude.”

Historically, oil has been afflicted with the control of monopolists. From the late nineteenth century days of John D. Rockefeller, and his Standard Oil monopoly, to the emergence of the “Seven Sisters” oligopoly, made up of Standard Oil, Shell, BP, Texaco, Mobil, Gulf and Socal, to the rise of OPEC representing the major producing countries, the “free market” price of oil has been a mirage. Despite the breakup of the Standard Oil company by the government’s trustbusters about 100 years ago, selling cartels and buying oligopolies kept reasserting themselves.

In an ironic twist, the major price determinant has moved from OPEC (having only 40% of the world production) and the oil companies to the speculators in the commodities markets. What goes on in the essentially unregulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)—without Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforced margin requirements, and, unlike your personal purchases, untaxed—is now the place that leads to your skyrocketing gasoline bills. OPEC and the Big Oil companies reap the benefits and say that it’s not their doing, but that of the speculators. Gives new meaning to “passing the buck.”

Deborah Fineman, president of Mitchell Supreme Fuel Co. in Orange, New Jersey, summed up the scene: “Energy markets have been dictated for too long by hedge funds and speculators, who artificially manipulate the numbers for their own benefit. The current market isn’t based on the sound principles of supply and demand but it is being rigged by companies and speculators who are jacking up prices for their own greed.”

Harry C. Johnson, former banker who worked for many years inside Big Oil and ran his own small oil company in Oklahoma, blames the CFTC, the Department of Energy, the Administration, and Congress, as “asleep at the switch on an issue that is probably costing U.S. consumers $1 billion per day.”

He cites “some industry experts, who profit greatly from the high price of crude, and have stated openly that the worldwide economic price of crude, absent speculators, would be around $50 to $60 per barrel.

Imagine, our government is letting your price for gasoline and home heating oil be determined by a gambling casino on Wall Street called NYMEX. The people need regulatory protection from speculators and an excess profits tax on Big Oil.

In addition, a sane government would see the present price crises as an opportunity to expand our passenger and freight railroad capacity and technology.

A sane government would drop all subsidies and tax loopholes for Big Oil’s huge profits and other fossil fuels and promote a national mission to solarize our economy to achieve major savings from energy conservation technology, retrofitting buildings, and upgrading efficiency standards for motor vehicles, home appliances, industrial engines and electric generating plants.

Those are the permanent ways to achieve energy independence, reduce our trade deficit, create good jobs that can’t be exported and protect the environmental health of people and nature.

Those are the reforms and advances that a muscular consumer, worker and small business revolt can focus on in the coming weeks.

What say you, America?

People New To Environmentalism And The Energy Field Must State The Obvious

Posted on by
2

Environmentalism really IS about saving the Earth. Not the rocks, the water and the oxygen some of its primary components, but the lifeforms that inhabit it. When we try to preserve the humpback whale it’s because it they are beautiful and important to us. It is also because to some extent they are sentient. We are in the midst of one of the largest die offs in terms of the number of species that were here a 1000 years ago. When we preserve a section of the planet as in a park we preserve those species but we also preserve their habitat for future generations to see.

Obviously we are one of those species. So saving the Earth means saving us too. But we are a special case because we have over populated the planet and we are one of the leading causes of the die off, so saving ourselves and the planet requires a population reduction and a change in behavior. Two huge issues that I do not see our species solving. No other top of the food chain species has solved it. I have written before about Science Fiction’s contribution to the myth of a disposable planet so it’s not a wonder that these guys come off as slightly clueless.

Still they have pretty pictures:

http://howyoucansavetheworld.com/2008/08/the-earth-will-be-just-fine-th.php

 the-earth-will-be-just-fine-thank-you.jpg

The grand myth of environmentalism is that it’s all about saving the Earth.

It’s not. The Earth will be just fine. Environmentalism is all about saving ourselves.

That may seem a bit counter-intuitive; after all, the Earth is certainly central to the rhetoric, the memetic of environmentalism. Most environmental discussions focus on ecological dynamics, with references to human beings typically limited to enumerations of the various insults we’ve visited upon the planet. Given the degree of culpability we bear for the current state of the planet, this is entirely appropriate.

But the rhetorical focus of environmentalism on the planet obscures the fact that what human beings have done to the Earth pales in comparison to past disasters hitting our world, from massive asteroid strikes to super-volcano eruptions killing off 90+% of the Earth’s species. And in every case, the Earth has recovered, and life has once again flourished.

We sometimes make the conceptual mistake of thinking that the way the Earth’s ecosystem is today is the way it will forever be, that we’ve somehow reached an ecological end-state. But even in an eco-conscious world, or one devoid of humans entirely, natural processes from evolution to geophysical and solar cycles would continue. The Earth’s been at this for a long time, literally billions of years; from a planetary perspective, a quadrupling of atmospheric carbon lasting 10,000 years (for example) is little more than a passing blip.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how much greenhouse gas we pump into the atmosphere or how many toxins we dump into the soil and oceans, given enough time the Earth — and its ecological systems — will recover.

But human civilization is far more fragile.

Human civilization could not withstand and recover from the same kinds of assaults the planet itself has shrugged off in eons past. We remain entirely dependent upon myriad Earth services and systems, from topsoil and clean water to carbon cycles and biodiversity. Activities that undermine those critical services and systems quite literally threaten the survival of human civilization. The fundamental resilience of the Earth’s geophysical systems simply means that, when we ignore our effects on the planet, we’re simply making ourselves disposable, just another passing blip in the planet’s long history.

In trying to minimize the harmful impacts of human activities upon the global ecosystem, environmentalism supports the continued healthy existence of humankind.

To me, this too is entirely appropriate. Despite its many flaws, I’m a big fan of human civilization. I marvel at our capacity to organize matter and information, at our ability to learn from mistakes and pass that learning down to subsequent generations. Civilization — writing, cities, trade, the whole lot of it — makes us unique on this planet and, as far as we can tell so far, in our part of the universe. Destroying that through malice or negligence is the worst form of crime, and the height of tragedy.

Part of a focus upon civilization, however, is the recognition that we do not exist in isolation, that we are dependent upon an enormous variety of complex systems. As a result, our continued existence requires the continued success of those systems. In order to save ourselves, we have to minimize actions which damage and disrupt the environment.

:}

They spent their whole history telling us we could leave this planet so nothing here matters. Now they want to turn around and Say WOW everything here matters. We ain’t going anywhere anytime soon. HMMMM 

:}

The Ultimate Peak Oil Site – While I know that speculators caused this price spike

Posted on by
Reply

The Peak Oil People are so focused on the inevitable that you have to admire them: 

http://postcarbon.org/

Post Carbon Institute

Reduce Consumption : Produce Locally

New: Post Carbon Institute Issues A Call For Action
and releases Ten Steps For Individuals To Get Off Fossil Fuels

Commentaries

 

Airline industry backpedaling on expansion?

After my presentation to the Anchorage (Alaska) Municipal Assembly last week, I chatted with a…

Daniel Lerch · August 15, 2008 ·

 

Losing Control

August 15, 2008

–>

Humankind has control issues, and they’re about to get a lot worse. As a species, we’ve…

Richard Heinberg · August 15, 2008 ·

 

How students get around

August 14, 2008

–>

The USA Today headline was “Schools move to eject cars from campuses.” The article gave…

laurel · August 14, 2008 ·

 

The Disappearing Lake

August 13, 2008

–>

As the subtitle of Richard Heinberg’s book Peak Everything says, the world is waking up…

asher · August 13, 2008 ·

Media Appearances

 

Al Jazeera

Post Carbon Institute Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg was interviewed by Al Jazeera English TV. Richard…

Aug 4 2008 ·

Press Democrat

Kiss Your Gas Goodbye! was covered in this in-depth article in the Sunday Edition of…

Aug 3 2008 ·

 

Featured Articles

 

A Call to Action

August 02, 2008

–>

A call to action for each of us to respond to the joint challenge of peak oil and climate change.

August 02, 2008 ·

 

Peak VMT – Are Americans Kissing Their Gas Goodbye?

Here’s an interesting question: if you gaze for a moment at this fine piece of art…

July 31, 2008 ·

 

IEA Still Misleading On Future Oil Supply

The IEA is still saying there is no real problem with oil…

July 31, 2008 ·

 

100 Percent Renewable Power

July 22, 2008

–>

Post Carbon Institute’s Plan to reach Al Gore’s ambitious goal of 100% Renewable Electricity in ten years.

July 22, 2008 ·

T. Boone Pickens Is Wrong – It’s not the oil we import it’s what we use it for

Posted on by
2

Can you imagine all the dumb things we do with oil? We use it to make fertilizers most of which evaporate or run off. We use it to make plastic bags for God’s sake and then throw most of them in the dump. If we just cut our stupid usages and limited our oil consumption to the necessities like pharmceuticals we could easily cut our oil imports in half.

http://www.reusablebags.com/

Eco-friendly reusable bags, plus facts & news on plastic bag issue

Billions of plastic bags are choking our planet. All of these “free” bags ultimately cost both consumers and the environment plenty:

Each year billions of bags end up as ugly litter.

  • Eventually they break down into tiny toxic bits polluting our soil, river, lakes and oceans
  • Production requires vast amounts of oil.
  • Countless animals needlessly die each year. (more)

Since 2003 ReusableBags.com has been a major force providing facts and news on the global push to reduce plastic and paper bag consumption. Plus, simple actions you can take to help the cause.

As part of the solution our store features a wide range of reusable shopping bags and other innovative, practical products all designed to help people consume less, preserve natural resources and save money too. 

:}

I can’t reproduce this site because it’s a flash player but it is cool>

http://www.mybagcares.com/

 :}

Even the grocery stores are getting into the act:

 http://www.sustainableisgood.com/blog/2008/05/mystery-surroun.html

 Mystery Surrounds New Whole Foods Reusable Bag

Mystery Surrounds New Whole Foods Reusable Bag

Wholefoods_betterbag

Whole Foods A Better Bag (photo: www.made-in-china.com)

When I started this story last month, I never expected a standard interview request with a designer to turn into a bureaucratic two-step that took us to China and back.

Austin-based Whole Foods Market officially phased out the use of plastic shopping bags on Earth Day last week. 

In December Whole Foods announced their intention to eliminate plastic bags and unveiled their new reusable bag called “A Better Bag.”  Following that announcement we reached out to the bag’s designer to learn more about the design and concept behind this colorful new bag. 

The response we received may be an indication of just how important reusable bags are becoming for Whole Foods. 

The colorful bags are quickly becoming the primary reusable bag the company sells, and their customers are embracing them thanks to their bright fun design, durability, low price and unique look and feel.

Perhaps an indicator of their popularity is the fact they are even selling on eBay.

A Better Bag was designed internally by Whole Foods staff who work on the company’s branded products.  The bag’s graphic design depicts blues and greens and a fresh cut apple.  Sustainable is Good attempted to obtain information on the bag’s artwork for this story.  However the bag’s designer was unable to answer any questions, citing a strict non-disclosure policy Whole Foods maintains with its employees.

 Sustainable is Good contacted the Whole Foods corporate office in March for information on the bag for our story.  Initially we were turned down, being told the company doesn’t speak to “trade publications.”  After some follow up we were then informed a “rare exception” was made at the approval of the director of PR for Whole Foods – the company would participate in our story.

:}

For more see:

 www.earthwisebags.com

 www.bravenewleaf.com/environment/2008/04/wal-mart-giving.html

www.shesabetty.typepad.com/shes_a_betty_single_girl_/2007/04/guide_to_reusab.html

www.reusablebags.wordpress.com

 www.reusablebags.com/store/shopping-sets-c-1.html

www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/5806

www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/wal_marts_new_reusable_bag.php

:}

Screw The Environment – Humans were meant to pollute and they have the right to pollute

Posted on by
Reply

I never thought I would be citing Kathryn Rem at the SJ-R for an environmental article. Don’t get me wrong she is a dandy writer, in the same league with Tim Landis (whom I regularly “borrow from”), but she usually writes a food column. I read it faithfully because I am a minor foodie, and she usually has cool things to say. In her Seeing Red About Green, she broke a story that I might have missed. Thanks Ms. Rem!

www.sj-r.com/features/x379998865/Kathryn–Rem-Seeing-red-about-the-green-movement

:}

This is the article that I think she based her article on:

http://industry.bnet.com/retail/2008/07/14/one-quarter-of-consumers-say-screw-the-environment/ 

 Retail Industry

Industry news and insights by Lisa EverittOne-Quarter of Consumers Say ‘Screw The Environment’Two new studies say 10-26 percent of shoppers are “Never Greens,” whose reactions to environmental claims ranges from apathy to outright anger.

Mintel International in Chicago coined the term “Never Green” to describe 10 percent of the shopper universe. A second study by The Shelton Group of Knoxville, Tenn., found that 26 percent of respondents were “hardcore skeptics,” mostly upper middle-class, conservative, middle-aged men.

 reporter Jim Edwards profiles William Coverley, a retired investment banker from Ohio, who just bought his 10th vehicle, a 2008 GMC Yukon XL that gets 14 miles per gallon.

“I don’t care about the environmental reasons and I’ll tell you why,” Coverley said. “All this stuff about carbon emissions, no one really knows about the output of the sun and yet it’s the single most important input behind global warming . . . Are the Chinese going to be environmentalists? Are the Indians going to be environmentalists? Are the Russians? I don’t think so.”

Edwards suggests studying your market carefully before launching green marketing, because emphasizing environmental claims may cost you the business of people like Coverley or Washington accountant Sally Herigstad. She bought organic produce by mistake at Fred Meyer and was dismayed to discover a recently deceased two-inch caterpillar in her steamed broccoli.

Shelton Group CEO Suzanne Shelton found that 46 percent of respondents felt “guilty, skeptical, irritated or unaffected by green issues,” and the same percentage put their comfort ahead of convenience and environmental concerns. The study was commissioned by Shelton Group client BP Solar.

Lisa Everitt

A Denver-based business writer, Lisa Everitt is a veteran of daily and weekly newspapers and trade magazines, including The Natural Foods Merchandiser, Rocky Mountain News, Inter@ctive Week, San Francisco Business Times, and the Peninsula Times Tribune. 

:}

So in the end that is what the environmental movement is up against.  The environmental Rape Crowd, proud that they are stealing from their grandchildren because their grandparents stole from them. If you think they aren’t vocal, you would be wrong.

:}

www.screw-the-environment.imgwebdesign.co.uk

www.deadbabyseals.gather.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2041643/posts

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODDDu25OG6M

http://screwtheenvironment.blogspot.com/

www.iammamahearmeroar.blogspot.com/2007/09/screw–environment.html

 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/8/214522/1724

:}

Oil Falls to 121$$ A Barrel – We are all going to die, but it will take awhile and be mildly uncomfortable

Posted on by
Reply

This is the last time I am going to post about nasty icky oil (that we should stop burning anyway) until it falls below 100$$ a barrel. We need the stuff for pharmecuticals, and parts for our satellites/space craft. Stuff that only oil can be used to make. Transportation ain’t one of them and we need to quit using it for that. Oil will be below 100$$ a barrel by the end of August. All of the oil people should be freaking out because we used some 800,000 fewer barrels in May the USA and those kind of changes usually are permanent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices;_ylt=AshIG6iZs_taqFegOtxj5tOs0NUE

Oil hits 7-week low on demand worries, dollar gain 

By4 STEVENSON JACOBS, AP Business Writer 

NEW YORK – Oil prices tumbled to their lowest level in seven weeks Tuesday as a stronger dollar and beliefs that record prices are eroding the world’s thirst for energy sparked another dramatic sell-off

The drop — as much as $4 a barrel during the day — was a throwback to oil’s nosedive over the past two weeks and outweighed supply concerns touched off by a militant attack Monday on two Nigerian crude pipelines. It was oil’s seventh decline in the last 10 sessions.

Light, sweet crude for September delivery fell $1.89, or 1.52 percent, to $122.84 a barrel in early afternoon trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier, prices fell to $120.42, the lowest level for a front-month contract since June 10; they have now fallen more than $25 from their trading high of $147.27, reached July 11.

More concerns that crude’s run-up over the past year has pushed prices to unsustainable levels fed Monday’s decline. The U.S. Transportation Department said Monday that U.S. drivers logged 9.6 billion fewer vehicle miles in May — or 3.7 percent — compared to the same period last year, the biggest drop ever for the historically busy summer driving month.

And demand for oil in the U.S. — the world’s thirstiest consumer — continues to fall, dropping by 891,000 barrels per day in May compared the same month a year ago, the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said Monday.

“We’re seeing both statistical and anecdotal evidence of very rapidly weakening demand picture,” said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Ill.

The declines accelerated after oil briefly dipped below $122, a key resistance level that triggered technical selling by computers programed to dump oil contracts once prices fall below a certain threshold. The next technical level traders are watching is $117.

“I think we could see $117 a barrel in a one-week time frame, and this market could eventually get to $100,” Ritterbusch said.

Also weighing on prices was a sharply stronger dollar compared to the euro, which made commodities less attractive to investors who have bought oil futures as a hedge against inflation and weakness in the U.S. currency.

The euro bought $1.5557 compared with $1.5752 late Monday in New York.

“It looks like oil is selling off today with the very, very strong dollar and nothing to drive it higher. Quiet seems to be bearish these days,” said Tom Kloza, publisher and chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service in Wall, N.J.

In a further sign high prices are curbing Americans’ consumption for fuel, retail gas prices fell further below the $4-a-gallon mark. The average price of a regular gas fell 1.7 cents to $3.941, according to auto club AAA, the Oil Prices Information Service and Wright Express.

Monday’s attack in Nigeria targeted two pipelines believed to be owned by a unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC and was the latest in a two-year campaign of attacks on the country’s oil industry. Shell said a pipeline had been damaged in attacks and that some crude production had been shut down to prevent the oil from spilling into the environment.

The oil company said Tuesday it may not be able to fulfill some oil-export contracts because of the damage. Shell didn’t specify how much oil production was cut by the attack or how long repairs would take.
:}

 http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-34728620080729

‘Abnormal’ oil prices could fall to$80-OPEC pres

 By Muklis Ali

JAKARTA (Reuters) – OPEC should not consider cutting production after oil’s steep two-week decline as markets are now balanced, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said on Tuesday, adding that prices could yet fall another $50 a barrel.

Khelil, who is also Algeria’s oil minister, said oil prices could fall to $70 to $80 in the long-term, if the U.S. dollar continued to strengthen and geopolitical anxieties eased.

“The price today is abnormal at $123 a barrel,” said Khelil, speaking to reporters on a visit to Jakarta to meet Indonesia’s energy minister.

He did not elaborate, but OPEC ministers have said repeatedly that they believe the surge in oil prices is not being driven by a shortage of supply.

Asked if OPEC members should cut supply if oil prices continue to decline, he said: “No, I don’t think so, why should they cut production? They always want to make sure there is good supply and demand and to satisfy the demand.”

U.S. oil prices have fallen by $22 from a record high above $147 a barrel earlier this month amid growing concerns that high prices and slowing economic growth are causing a decline in demand, but prices are still up 30 percent on the year.

“We are not worried about any price, because we don’t decide the price. We just meet the demand,” he said.

Khelil said he did not see any signs of demand destruction from high prices. 
:}

Green Cars – Can we get rid of the internal combustion engine fast enough?

Posted on by
1

Forget high gasoline prices. That maybe a short term issue but the fact is global warming is the more important issue that we should not lose sight of:

 http://www.greencar.com/

2010 Prius Production

Moves to US

By Todd Kaho

Like all automakers, Toyota is acutely aware of evolving consumer demands and is responding with some pivotal changes in its manufacturing structure and product mix. It’s beginning this in a big way by adjusting the production mix at three of its U.S. plants to improve production efficiency. In short, big trucks like the new Tundra aren’t selling so Toyota is aiming at the need to build more of its fuel-efficient cars that are in high demand. And the place to start? The Prius, of course.

The most interesting news to come out of this shift is that the next-generation Prius hybrid will be assembled at Toyota’s new Blue Springs, Mississippi plant in late 2010. That move makes it the second Toyota hybrid to be built in the U.S., with the current Camry Hybrid already assembled in Kentucky. The Highlander mid-size SUV was originally slated for production at the Mississippi plant but will now be built at Toyota’s Princeton, Indiana manufacturing facility in place of the full-size Tundra pickup. All current Prius models are currently built at Toyota’s Motomachi Plant in Toyota City, Japan. The move toward building popular hybrids in the markets where they’re already selling well or are expected to do so is already in play at Toyota, which announced recently that it would build the Camry Hybrid in Melbourne, Australia for that market.

When it emerges from the Mississippi assembly plant, the 2010 Prius will be the fourth generation of Toyota’s iconic gasoline-electric hybrid in North America. Speculation and rumors about the new car are running rampant as the current Prius – introduced as a completely revised model in 2004 – nears the end of its life cycle. Spy shots are circulating of what “might” be the next-generation Prius and sketches imagining what the next iteration will look like are also at play. Some are speculating that the 1/X Concept shown here, which debuted at the most recent Tokyo Motor Show, may provide clues regarding the look of the next Prius. The reality is that nobody really knows the true scoop. No doubt, when the new Prius debuts at the 2009 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit this coming January the world will definitely be watching.  

 :}

http://www.greenercars.org/highlights_mkttrends.htm

The Greenest of 2008

This year, the natural gas-powered Honda Civic GX claims the title as the greenest vehicle for the fifth year running. Toyota’s hybrid-electric Prius, which places second, is the year’s top-scoring gasoline vehicle, while Honda’s Civic Hybrid ranks a close third. Rounding out the top five are the recently released Smart Fortwo Convertible and Coupe and Toyota Yaris. In total, the Greenest Vehicles list contains one natural gas, four hybrid-electric, and seven conventional gasoline vehicles, a mix of technologies that demonstrates some of the avenues automakers have taken in developing greener vehicles. Whether using hybrid gasoline-electric designs, compressed natural gas, or simply clean and efficient conventional gasoline designs, automakers have visibly demonstrated their ability to engineer with the environment in mind.

This year sees a number of changes to the nameplates on the Greenest Vehicles list. After being shut out of the top twelve in 2007, a domestic automaker makes an appearance on our top-twelve list. The 2008 Tier 2 Bin 3 / PZEV-certified Ford Focus comfortably takes the 9th spot in the annual ranking. Other new entries to the 2008 “Greenest” list include the Smart Fortwo Convertible/Coupe and the Mini Cooper/Clubman, both small cars that achieve excellent fuel economy.  However, Hyundai’s PZEV-certified Elantra narrowly misses a spot on our list, landing in 13th place as a result of the above-mentioned new entries. Following suit are the Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent, Chevrolet Cobalt, and Pontiac G5, all of which score very well according to our ranking but face more competition this year from several clean vehicles that have entered the market. This is, of course, good news to consumers, who have greater options when it comes to buying the greenest vehicle that meets their needs and fits their budget.

Other good news is the fact that the vast majority of the year’s greenest vehicles are widely available coast-to-coast. Not too long ago, the list was dominated by vehicles for sale only in California, while today more than 80 percent of the Greenest Vehicles can be purchased in any state.

 :}

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-top100/

Concept Green Cars

Toyota first demonstrated a futuristic hybrid concept vehicle at the Tokyo Auto Show in 1995. The car, which consisted of an electric motor connected to a regular gasoline engine, was called the Toyota Prius. Hybrid skeptics ?both at the show and afterward?are now silent, as cumulative global sales continue to surpass all expectations. Which of today’s wild and wacky hi-tech enviro car concepts will become tomorrow’s practical fuel-efficient vehicles? Let’s take a look at some contenders.

Volvo 3CC

The Volvo 3CC concept car, a rocket-shaped three-seater, can accommodate the full range of power systems, from traditional gasoline and alternative fuels such as ethanol, to hybrid and all electric. Three thousand lithium-ion batteries, just like those used in laptop computers, give it the equivalent of 105 horsepower. The 3CC has the aerodynamics of a two-seat sports car, but can slip a third passenger, or perhaps two children, in a single seat in the back.

 Daihatsu UFE III

Daihatsu, the Japanese car company known for compacts, is on the third generation of the UFE (which stand for Ultra Fuel Economy). This mini-hybrid vehicle can transport three people?one upfront, and two in the back. The hybrid system comprises a 660-cubic centimeter direct-injection gasoline engine, two motors, and a nickel-metal hydride battery. Its estimated fuel economy is 169 miles per gallon.

Nissan Pivo

Nissan has developed a bubble-shaped, three-seater electric car called the Pivo?short for pivot. It runs exclusively on electricity. The cabin sits atop a wheeled platform that can swivel 360 degrees, doing away with the need to reverse when emerging from narrow spaces.

:}

But these are concept cars which means that they are years away from production. I do not think we are going to make it.

For more:

www.epa.gov/greenvehicle

www.editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=434502

www.thegreencarco.com/

http://puregreencars.com/

www.ecoworld.com/energy/EcoWorld_Energy_Green_Vehicles1.cfm

:}

Oil Hits 128$$ Per Barrel – We are all going to die!

Posted on by
Reply

Oh never mind. As I said, all along, the oil run up was 3 parts speculation and 1 part nerves. As the August Senate hearings approach on speculation the speculators, like the cock roaches that they are, will scurry and the nerves will harden. Guess what? Oil will fall to 70$$ a barrel and gas prices will come down. How will the American public respond to the fact that they just stuffed 350 billion $$ in speculators pockets? Like sheep – BAAAAAAAAA?

This will happen again however so now that we have a house we can live in, in energy confort what shall we do with what is sitting in the driveway? Like the speculators – SELL

http://www.cartalk.com/

http://www.sj-r.com

Friday, July 18, 2008

.

It’s time to dump SUV

.

TOM AND RAY MAGLIOZZI 

.

DEAR TOM AND RAY: This will prob­ably seem like a really stupid question, but I need professional advice. I own a 1-year-old Jeep in perfect condition, which I purchased for my job. I was laid off from said job, and now I own a gas-guzzling, really nice-looking Jeep Grand Cherokee that is too big and too expensive for me to drive, espe­cially since I no longer have a job. My question is, Should I trade it in for a smaller, more fuel-efficient car? I have no payments, and being unemployed limits what I could purchase. With gas prices continuing to climb, I don’t real­ly know what I should do, since I own the vehicle outright. Care to advise an idiot? — Micci

RAY: I guess this is what you might call “idiot-to-idiot” communication.

TOM: Or, more accurately, “idiot-AND-idiot-to-idiot communication.” So consider yourself warned, Micci.

RAY: Actually, you’re hardly alone. SUVs and pickups were, for many people, a fashion trend during the past 10 years. And like many fashion trends, they were, at heart, exceeding­ly impractical.

TOM: Tell me about it. Try wearing a miniskirt like I did during the entire winter of’68!

RAY: People who didn’t need pick­ups and SUVs bought them anyway, because they were seen as cool, despite the fact that they handled like crud, tended to flip over more than other ve­hicles, ripped countless inseams during ingress and egress, and drank gas like it was a dark-chocolate-caramel-mocha freddo from Feet’s Coffee.

TOM: So now, here we are, with a lot of people stuck with SUVs that get 15 mpg while gas is $4 a gallon. What to do?

RAY: I’d say dump it, Micci. You’re going to take a bath on it, no question. Anytime you sell a car that’s a year old, you take a huge hit from initial de­preciation. Add to that the fact that you’re selling a vehicle that not many people want nowadays, for the same reasons you don’t want it. But there’s always a price at which someone will take it.

TOM: If you don’t want to sell it yourself, you can even try CarMax, if there’s one in your area. They buy late-model cars at the wholesale price.

RAY: And since you own it outright, you can take the cash you get, buy a cheaper 2-, 3- or 4-year-old fuel-effi­cient car, and then put aside a few grand to get you through this period of unemployment.

TOM: If you had an income and weren’t in desperate straits, you could hang on to it a little longer, to see if gas prices level off and come down a bit — which they might. That might make your Jeep a little more valuable on the used-car market. But if you can’t afford the gas to go out looking for a job, you need to do something now. Plus, I don’t see gas prices com­ing down a lot.

RAY: Me, either. Combine the insta­bility and war in the Middle East with increased demand from growing economies in China and India, and the decreasing supply of oil in the Earth, and the long-term trend for oil prices is up, rather than down.

Got a question about cars? Write to Click and Clack in care of this newspa­per, or e-mail them by visiting the Car Talk Web site at www.cartalk.com.

:}
:}

We Are All Going To Die – Oil hits 150$$ a barrel.

Posted on by
Reply

Just kidding. It’s hard to concentrate on the residential housing market when everyone is all aflutter about the high prices of gasoline and the artificially high oil prices. I wish gasoline prices would double again. Then we would see some real doom and gloom. This from Asianone:

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/My%2BMoney/Opinion/Story/A1Story20080701-74069.html:}

 asiaone.gif

The economics of running on empty

Wed, Jul 02, 2008
The New Paper
By Dr Larry Haverkamp

 Surprisingly, there are only two ways to invest: You can own or you can lend. That’s it.

Owning is called ‘buying equity’. Examples are stocks and property.

It earns about 12 per cent a year with lots of ups and downs. You could lose some sleep.

Lending is called ‘buying debt’. Examples are fixed deposits and bonds.

It earns about 3 per cent a year and lets you sleep soundly.

An age-old truth of investments is that equity earns more than debt. I guess it’s obvious since 12 per cent is more than 3 per cent.

A WHOLE NEW WORLD

But now, everything has changed. The world is entering a new era of shortages that could turn the old rules on their heads.

Stocks would follow the economy down, leaving fixed deposits as the top money-earner.

The story begins with the higher prices for natural resources like food, fuel and minerals.

High prices, however, are only a symptom. Chronic shortages are the problem.

You can imagine, for example, the difficulty of building a house without steel or cement.

We saw something like this in 1973 and again in 1982. The US was hit with an oil shortfall, which resulted in both recession and inflation, called stagflation. It spread to Singapore and around the world.

In hindsight, it seems overblown, since everything turned out okay. Prices shot up, then they came down. Growth slowed, then it picked up.

Prosperity returned, as it always does. If it didn’t, you would have a permanent recession. The notion is so absurd that no economist in their right mind would even consider it. So I will.

In a worse-case scenario, permanent recession hits and each generation becomes poorer than the last. Gross domestic product (GDP) declines continuously. It eventually hits zero and we return to subsistence living, like our cavemen ancestors.

We may be seeing the beginning of that now.

Demand is out-pacing the world’s limited supplies, pushing prices higher.

NEW OIL RECORD

Last Friday, oil hit another new high of US$142 a barrel. It is exactly double the price of one year ago.

The demand comes from a rising middle class in China, India and the Middle East. This is new. We didn’t have it in 1973 and1982.

When Li Yong, Ramesh and Abdullah buy their first motorbikes, they love it. They find it hard to go back to peddling bicycles.

The US Department of Energy expects energy use in 30 developed countries to increase 25 per cent by 2030. In developing countries, it will increase 95 per cent.

As high prices persist for one, two, three and then 10 years, people will grow to understand that this is more than just a speculative bubble. (Sorry, Fat Cat.)

A permanent shortage of input (resources) produces a continuous decline in output (GDP). That, by the way, is the definition of a permanent recession.

To drive the point home, try this experiment:

Fill up your car or motorbike with one tank of gas and drive to Kuala Lumpur. When you run out of petrol, walk the rest of the way. It shouldn’t take more than a week.

You’ll be tired, but you will gain insight into a life without natural resources.

The shortages will sneak up on us gradually. A tank of petrol will soon cost some drivers a full day’s wages. After that, it will take a month’s wages and then a year’s.

Finally, availability will cease altogether and the lights will go out.

Future generations will sit around the campfire and tell fantastic stories about hollow trees with wheels that took people from Yishun to Orchard Road in less than an hour.

:}

This from Singapore no less… 

:}