|
|
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
|
|
| |
So, er, what's your plan?.
From the comments a couple of posts back:
J says:
Laying aside the nominative squabbling about what kind of
government we are slinking towards, I guess I have one burning question
for every one of the people reading this blog - what are any of you
doing (personally and/or profesionally) to prepare for the next decade?
Does anybody here actually have a personal plan or is everybody waiting
on government for the solution?
Big Gav responds:
I have a personal plan of the "head for the hills" variety - which
is partly based on identifying "what sort of place is likely to slide
down the peak in the most comfortable way", "what skills do I need to
gain to become a valuable member of that community" and "how do I
insert myself into such a place (which is partly a money and timing
problem)".
This comment thread really got me to thinking.
So, why not open up another commenting thread just to ask you this question:
What's your plan (let's say in the next year) with regard to the
oil situation? Do you have one? Are you formulating one? Are you
thinking government will take care of the situation? How are you
changing your life?
(Also, don't be a threadkiller and take up 25 inches of column space...this is meant to be a conversational thread. Thank you!)
Technorati Tags: peak oil, oil
[The Oil Drum]
9:29:36 PM 
|
|
Uncertain electorate, tight marginals.
While it is a foregone conclusion that Labour will win the elections,
the big drama is whether Blair can keep his commanding majority, or
whether he'll have to deal with a smaller advantage. The latest polling from the Financial Times and Guardian indicates things may be tighter than they first appear. As
all three main parties manoeuvre for last minute advantage 48 hours
from polling day, ICM's campaign polls data shows that Labour's vote
share in 108 key seats where it faces a strong Tory challenge is down
from 47% in 2001 to 41%. The Tories have maintained their share of
the vote at around 36%, suggesting their strategy of focusing money and
personnel on re-winning lost marginals may inflict damage deep within
Labour's post-1997 comfort zone. The prospect of a cliff-hanging
outcome to the campaign is underlined by today's Mori poll for the
Financial Times. While giving Labour a solid 39%-29%-22% lead among
those certain to vote, it claims that 36% of voters may yet change
their mind, compared with just 21% still undecided in the final week
last time [...] But ICM's findings suggest that Labour's
160-seat Commons majority could be cut to below 80, despite its
comfortable leads of around six percentage points in the national polls. p.s. "Lost marginals" translates into "lost battleground districts" in American political parlance.
[Daily Kos]
7:31:53 PM
|
|
Instant Karma's Gonna Get You, Poppy!.
The Carlyle Group - largely a collection of former American
government officials and which includes former president Bu$h (Ah!
doesn't that sound nice!) - is extremely interested in the conduct of
the 'War on Terra' being conducted by the current...
[The Left Coaster]
4:40:43 PM
|
|
Get Raped - bear the child. Via the Mahablog, this execreble piece of moral sickness from people who dare to suggest they act on behalf of God instead of his adversary.
Imagine two rape victims taken to the same hospital emergency room. Imagine them put in adjoining examination rooms.
Let's say they have identical injuries.
Presume everything about them is the same except for where they are in their menstrual cycles.
Do they deserve access to the same medical treatment?
At most Catholic hospitals in Colorado, they can't get it.
The protocol of six Catholic hospitals run by Centura calls for rape victims to undergo an ovulation test.
If they have not ovulated, said Centura corporate spokeswoman Dana
Berry, doctors tell the victims about emergency contraception and write
prescriptions for it if the patient asks.
If, however, the urine test suggests that a rape victim has
ovulated, Berry continued, doctors at Centura's Catholic hospitals are
not to mention emergency contraception. That means the victim can end
up pregnant by her rapist.
Really - what can you say about something this morally depraved? [BOPnews]
4:36:57 PM
|
|
The Boston Globe's Farah Stockman recalls when John Bolton collapsed
the Biological Weapons Treaty to the surprise of US allies:In December
2001, at a conference on biological weapons, John R. Bolton stunned his
fellow diplomats by insisting, without warning, that...
[War and Piece]
9:39:48 AM
|
|
Stretched to the limit.
Looking back, one of the more disturbing moments from the president's
prime-time press conference came in response to a question about
military readiness.
Q: Do you feel that the number of troops
that you've kept there is limiting your options elsewhere in the world?
Just today you had the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency say
[...]
[The Carpetbagger Report]
9:39:28 AM
|
|
Polluters and politics.
Environmental Promotion Tied to Campaign Contributions::The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection screened a key enforcement
supervisor for promotion on the basis of his campaign contributions,
according to documents released today by Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The agency also directed the
supervisor to interview with a prominent Republican political
contributor as part of his selection process. Shortly after the
supervisor was promoted, pollution enforcement actions against a
landfill managed by that contributor abruptly stopped. (...)
[South Knox Bubba]
9:38:41 AM
|
|
Moving out of the superpower orbit.
Tom Engelhardt | May 3
Asia Times Online - Of the two superpowers that faced each other down
in an almost half-century-long Cold War, one - the United States -
emerged victorious, alone in the world, economically powerful,
militarily dominant; the other, never the stronger of the two, limped
off, its empire shattered and scattered, its people impoverished and
desperate, its military a shell of its former self. This is a story we
all know, and more or less accept. Winner/loser, victor/vanquished. It
makes sense. That's the way we expect matches, competitions, struggles,
wars to end. But what if, as has been suggested recently, the Cold War
turned out to be a loser/loser contest? That may seem counterintuitive.
In regards to the US, it would have been considered laughable not so
long ago, except to a few scholars of imperial decline like Immanuel
Wallerstein, and yet it may be an increasingly plausible thought.
[The Agonist]
9:38:10 AM
|
|
Note to the Right.
Dear Outraged Conservatives, I've made an effort to ignore the "Pozen
plan", figuring it beneath comment or, indeed, contempt. But since
you've all chosen this moment to outflank us hypocritical liberals,
here's a quick guide to why no one...
[Ezra Klein]
8:02:30 AM
|
|
"Fixing" SS: Repeal Bush's Giveaway To The Rich.
E.J. Dionne has the right idea: The
[Social Security] game is also fixed because the president has narrowed
the range of Social Security options to protect his most questionable
policy choices. Some press reports have suggested that Bush's
willingness to cut Social Security benefits for the wealthy turned him
into some latter-day Karl Marx, or at least Ted Kennedy. This is nonsense. Bush has refused to put his own tax cuts on the table as part of a Social Security fix. Repealing
Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $350,000 a year could cover
all or most of the 75-year Social Security shortfall. Keeping part of
the estate tax in place could cover a quarter to half of the shortfall.
Some of the hole could be filled in by a modest surtax on dividends or
capital gains. But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich
by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from
the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy
are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him. As Dionne says, this game is fixed. So he is right when he says: Walking
away from a rigged game is hard for some people, especially when those
running it and the respected opinion-makers who support them insist
that this time the game will truly be on the level. But, especially
when the danger involves gambling away the future of Social Security,
the truly responsible thing is to leave the table. Amen.
[Daily Kos]
8:01:30 AM
|
|
A Contest
This is something I had in my mailbox:
Hello,
Today
marks the beginning of Chastity Awareness Week in Pennsylvania and
NARAL Pro-Choice America has an activity for your readers to keep their
minds sparkling clean.
President Bush has recently asked
Congress to provide more funding for his abstinence-only until marriage
programs. Despite the fact that study after study has shown that these
very programs are ineffective and even harmful for our kids, Bush has
decided to yet again offer us the latest in medieval birth control:
Chastity!
What's in these "abstinence-only until marriage" curricula? Slogans like:
* Pet Your Dog, Not Your Date!
* Don't Be a Louse, Wait For Your Spouse!
* Would you want a cookie that someone had already taken a bite out of?
These
slogans might be out-of-date but that hasn't stopped President Bush
from providing federal funding – your tax dollars – to buy them to
teach our kids.
I do hope you will participate in this contest
- your chastity may very well be at stake! To enter, please send an
email to GiveUsRealChoices@gmail.com. We will announce the contest
winner on May 7th.
Sincerely,
Amelia Field
GiveUsRealChoices.org
[ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES]
7:58:27 AM
|
|
You'll know what God wants, 'cause it's exactly the same as what I want. Dennis
Prager suggests today that if liberals get our way, murder won't be
illegal. How does he know this? Well, it seems it's because we are
relativists, and you can tell that because we are against the Ten Commandments being propped up in courthouse yards.
In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the
source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral
transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or
individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once
individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right
and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's
preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant
attitude toward morality in modern secular society.
That means that freedom of religion means that what society decides
what is right and wrong is a total crapshoot. Granted, every single
secular society on the face of the planet has laws against murder and
theft and various other crimes like this, and while the citizens might
say that this has something to do with the hazy concept of the "social
contract", it is actually a total coincidence. America, not being a
theocracy, may very well legalize murder tomorrow.
[Pandagon]
7:57:43 AM
|
|
The alternate approach to the gas problem.
Simplistically there are two
approaches a government can take to a crisis. They can do something
about it, or they can do nothing. Back in the days of President Carter
the nation tried the first approach when faced with an energy crisis,
this time we are trying the second.
When asked specifically last night as to whether his proposals
would affect the nation's gas supply and prices, President Bush in
essence said no. The price, and supply, of enough gas to feed the
nation and the world is out of his hands and there is nothing he
intends to do about it that will have any effect within the next five
years.
This is after opening his press conference with the comment that because of higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable.
In the near term, we will continue to encourage oil-producing nations to maximize their production.
Here at home, we'll protect consumers. There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in America.
We must address the root causes that are driving up gas prices.
BUSH: In the past decade, America's energy consumption has been
growing about 40 times faster than our energy production. That means
we're relying more on energy produced abroad.
To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps.
First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy.
And secondly, we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive
ways to make the most of our existing energy resources, including oil,
natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power.
Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as hydrogen, ethanol or bio-diesel.
Fourth, we must help growing energy consumers overseas, like China
and India, apply new technologies to use energy more efficiently and
reduce global demand of fossil fuels. While these are valid
goals, there was no indication that the effort will include anything
beyond the Energy Bill that the President hopes to sign this summer.
And that does not really address any significant new efforts in regard
to the first two of the steps, which is unfortunate since these might
have some effect on the demand:supply ratio that is developing.
The choice to let market forces drive the price, and the hope that
this will induce further supplies to come on the market is unlikely to
generate much more oil, since most producers have been providing as
much as they can at the existing higher prices. But as the Crown Prince
said the other day, there are also constraints in that the transport
system to move the oil, and the refineries to process it, are becoming
fully employed. This issue is not quite yet that of Peak Oil, rather it
is one of supply and demand. It will become a Peak Oil issue when the
suppliers such as Mexico, the North Sea countries and many others
continue to see a decline in their production and their current
customers go onto the market to find an alternate supply and find that
there isn't one. And that may or may not yet happen this year. And if
we lost the opportunity to do something about that situation ten years
ago, as the President pointed out last night, we obviously are not
making much of the opportunity to change that situation now.
Technorati Tags: peak oil, oil
[The Oil Drum]
6:46:56 AM
|
|
Continuing on the Question of Fascism....
Big Gav of Peak Energy has an interesting and extensive discussion of, well, quite a few things today, namely the growing power and momentum of right and the oil supply.
A thought that I should elaborate on this topic: it is interesting
that the Reagan idea of conservatism was defined by a penchant for
limited government, if not libertarianism, and local control instead of
federal control. Take the money and regulatory power out of government
hands and give it back to the people and the states!
As I said a couple of days ago, times have obviously changed with regard to the right.
Now, we have massive federal government expenditures, a lot of it on
defense spending and anti-terrorism/homeland security efforts. These
expenditures are merely the growth of government and centralization of
another form and purpose than those of the Great Society in the 1960s
and 70s here in the US.
You see, when the left centralizes, the goal is socialism or
maintaining a redistributive equality of resources. The New Deal, The
Great Society, both are not without their problems...but that was
government growth about redistribution of wealth and higher taxes.
When the right centralizes, the goal is the maintenance of an order
as defined by a principle (the "Reich," etc.). If you, as a citizen,
are a part of what defines the order, you're fine as long as you play
by the rules. However, if you are neutral or are a part of what the
order is organized against, good luck to you.
When there is less centralization, there are more freedoms/less
restrictions/more democratic input. The ultimate in decentralization
with a government is libertarianism. The ultimate without is anarchy,
(but then we just return to the state of nature...).
When there is more centralization, well, the converse is the case.
The extreme of centralization on the left is communism, the extreme
on the right is fascism. Both are totalitarian in nature, and actually
resemble each other quite a bit as the government controls the social
ideology as well as the economy.
(NB, these recent centralizing efforts from the right are quite
dissonant with the ideas of Reagan. Reagan's ideas were against the
centralization of the left, not for the centralization of the right.
However, it seems in retrospect, without the steps under Reagan, we
never would have gotten here, now would we? The power had to be taken
from the left and given to the right...)
Think about it, we have massive deficits being run up, spending the
future's money on rules, machines and men to keep an order that those
on the right get to define because they are in power, not the
democratic whole.
In other words, the pieces are being put into place. The momentum
is on their side. The soonest the Dems could get power is 2008. That's
three years more for the right to get more entrenched and run this show
their way, pushing it towards the right. Is it a pendulum? Will it
swing back? Extremes either way are bad, and lead to totalitarianism.
As Gav suggests, we could cooperate globally and "powerdown" slowly, coordinating with other nations. But again, the idea of governing
the commons applies here: The rational choice by any actor is to hoard
until there is a penalty for hoarding or reward for cooperation. In
better words, we would need a central coordinating authority to enforce
an actor from taking more than its share, and that's not going to
happen willfully on the part of any actor until another actor has the
teeth to stop them. That's why no Kyoto. That's why continued beating
down of the UN.
Instead, it seems the US plan is to maintain its crack supply by whatever means possible.
As I said in that post: "It's not just ANWR folks, it's a state of
mind. Because of our dependency, the United States will behave like a
crackwhore sooner or later...rational courses of action are not taken
by crackwhores, last I checked."
A money quote from Gav's detailed analysis of the chessboard:
"Still - unless this is all just left wing, paleo-con and
libertarian agit-prop, the slide down the slippery slope does seem to
have begun - and the weirdness doesn't end with the nastiness pointed
out in the articles above. For example, you have Morgan Stanley's
Steven Roach looking at the economy and saying "I am not a believer in
conspiracy theories. But the Fed's behavior since the late 1990s is
starting to change my mind.". You have the Taipei Times noting that 2.1
million americans are in prison - as a proportion of the population
this is 7 times higher than in communist China and authoritarian
Russia. You have Seeing The Forest noting that the administration has
blocked Democrat supporters from attending international conferences.
You have the, to me, incomprehensible Minute Man Project going on. You
have Paul Krugman saying that the new bankruptcy legislation will
create a Debt-Peonage Society. You have pre-election rallies for the
Bush-Cheney campaign where attendees are rigourously screened and have
to sign loyalty oaths. You have billboards appearing showing pictures
of "Our Leader". You have a mass media system that seems to have been
largely transformed into a right wing propaganda organ."
Definitely worth a read, very provocative. He even drops in some Jay Hanson/dieoff.org props.
Maybe go get a glass of water first though.
Technorati Tags: peak oil, oil
[The Oil Drum]
6:46:06 AM
|
|
Geopolitics, Oil, and Global Security...Asia's Growing Demand.
Here's an MSM article that seems to rather get it right.
First, a comparatively bland quote from the article to set the scene...
"The developing world's growing appetite for oil is one reason
gasoline prices have shot up for Americans. Over time, these emerging
economies also will shape not just global oil flows and prices but also
world events, said Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the
Analysis of Global Security, an energy security think tank in
Washington.
And then perhaps a nomination should be forthcoming for " best takeaway money quote of the year:"
"A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore," she said. "That has profound geopolitical implications."
(HA! Awesome. Give that lady an "huzzah!" for snarky pith.)
The article also contains a summary of EIA information on proven
reserves (although much of the information on reserves is guesswork)
and some discussion on the coming geopolitical wranglings over oil from
a relatively benign perspective.
edited to add in response to a comment:
yes, the reserve information is rather misleading, so I took the
chart down. it makes it seem like everything's ok...until you start
wondering "wow, we've already sucked that much out of the ground in 140
years?" and "what does 'proven' mean?" and "is that deep water or shale
oil? isn't that much more expensive if not experimental?" etc., etc.
the article is good though...
Technorati Tags: peak oil, oil
[The Oil Drum]
6:43:08 AM
|
|
We go into the crisis with the car fleet that we have.
J mentioned in comments
that he is in the process of changing cars, and moving back to older
more efficient ones, rather than seeking an overly expensive hybrid.
In their view of the developing crisis the Hirsch Report
notes that the average age of the 130 million strong US auto fleet is
nine years, with about half of the 1990-model cars still expected to be
on the road in 2007. To expect much more than normal rollover of this
fleet seems overly unrealistic. After all, since each vehicle may go
through several owners, the number of new cars currently entering the
fleet is only about 8.5 million each year.
In the same way there are some 80 million light trucks with an
median lifetime of some 16 years, and an annual replacement of about
8.5 million; and there are some 7 million heavy trucks, with a median
lifetime of some 28 years and about half a million new trucks bought
each year.
Within the context of those numbers, particularly the relatively
small percentage of replacement vehicles to the overall fleet size, it
is not easy to see how the transportation fuel demand can be expected
to change significantly through the introduction of new options (diesel
or hybrid) in the near term. Particularly as gas prices go up the money
available to an individual to change vehicles will diminish. The only
likely change will be in the purchase end where, as in the 1973 - 1983
there was a greater emphasis, and public sentiment, as Philip Brewer noted to using smaller, less obviously gas-guzzling vehicles.
It is therefore most likely that drivers will, where they can,
drive somewhat less (the Hirsch Report notes that 67% of personal
automobile travel, and 50% of airplane travel, is discretionary). This
will likely have a significant impact on those who work in the sectors
that service this discretionary activity.
To complete this series on the report, which holds a considerable
volume of additional data, I'd like to quote some of their
recommendations. They note that "given the experience of the 1970's
many of the policies enacted in a crisis atmosphere will be, at best,
sub-optimal." In terms of doing something positive they look to a
combination of solutions that will, over a twenty-year period, provide
an amelioration of the situation. These include:
More fuel efficient transportation Deriving fuel from heavy oil and oil sand deposits Coal Liquefaction Enhanced oil recovery and Gas to liquids conversion.
Note that all of these are relatively current technologies. As we
have commented before, if the technology is not at some obvious stage
of testing for commercial reality at this point, it will not have much
impact in the next 20 years. The report further notes that the peaking
of the oil supply is largely going to be a liquid fuels problem, not an
energy crisis. Thus the development of alternate energy sources, wind,
solar and the like, will not mitigate the problem in this time frame.
Further they conclude "Intervention by governments will be required,
because the economic and social implications of oil peaking would
otherwise be chaotic."
The report would provide more comfort if more of the five
suggestions were currently being aggressively pursued, and if we had
the twenty years to wait.
Technorati Tags: peak oil, oil
By noemail@noemail.org (Heading out).
[The Oil Drum]
6:41:43 AM
|
|
Social Security: Cracking the Code
On Sunday, both FOX News Sunday and ABC This Week had good panel
discussions on proposed Social Security changes. On This Week,
the panel discussed the underlying alleged intent to create a new
Republican class and the theory that by applying a means test to
benefits, you relegate Social Security to a "welfare program."
FOX News Sunday had another good panel, where Bill Kristol of The
Weekly Standard predicted that 2005 will not be the year America sees a
Social...
- Rory
[Sunday Morning Talk]
6:36:37 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2005
Michael Mussington.
Last update:
6/1/2005; 1:34:09 AM.
|
|
|
