DrumBeat: February 4, 2007
Posted by Leanan on February 4, 2007 - 7:20am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Worldchanging Interview: Lester Brown
The fortunate thing is that it does not take a lot of energy to build wind turbines, and they last for a long time, and produce an extraordinary amount of energy. But it is important that we start this sooner rather than later, because the longer we wait, the less energy we'll have, and the more difficult it will be to get enough energy to build the new system.
Report: N.Korea considering concessions
North Korea is ready to freeze a key nuclear facility and allow international inspectors limited access to the country in exchange for millions of barrels of oil and an easing of U.S. financial restrictions, a Japanese news report said Sunday.
California: Power plants concern residents
The thought of not just one, but two gas-burning power plants being built in west Hayward unnerves retired schoolteacher Laura Ramsey...."Why Hayward?" asked Ramsey, who imagines the worst in the two new plants: rows of dirty smokestacks and noxious air.
9 oil workers kidnapped in Nigeria freed
China's Foreign Ministry announced Sunday that nine Chinese oil workers who were kidnapped last month in Nigeria had been released unharmed by their captors.
They want to survive. They understand Peak Oil better than you. They understand its true implications - the die off. They are planning to do whatever they can to help their elite make it through. What are you doing for your family?
Bolivian forces take control of pipeline
Soldiers and police retook control of a natural gas installation Saturday, using tear gas and rubber bullets to drive out protesters who had forced the closing of a key pipeline serving the nation's two largest cities.Demonstrators seized the Transredes pumping station near Camiri, 320 miles southeast of La Paz, following five days of protests demanding that President Evo Morales broaden his petroleum nationalization and expand state energy company operations in the area.
Ecuador probes oil companies over pollution
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said on Saturday the government would suspend contracts with any foreign oil company found to have needlessly damaged the environment.
Boxer wants U.S. to host energy summit
"I'm calling on the federal government of the United States of America to be a model of energy efficiency," said Boxer, who was at the United Nations for a briefing on the report and the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region."I'm calling on the president to convene a summit at the White House of the 12 largest global warming emitters. She added that she would bring over some of the scientists who issued the report to brief the Senate.
Scotland: Watt demands think tank on energy crisis
David Watt, director of the Institute of Directors Scotland, said energy production, supply and consumption was at the top of Scotland's agenda but ideological arguments at Holyrood were preventing proper debate.
Simply put, our oil addiction undermines our well-being because the volatility of oil prices threatens our economy. Because we spend so much on oil and there are no short-term substitutes, price spikes wreck household, business and government budgets alike. Our sense of insecurity is magnified because volatility is both unpredictable and generally beyond our control.
For those who would like to see more fossil fuels taxes enacted, you can provide your input. Barbara Boxer is asking for a prioritization of the things we need to do to combat Global Warming. You can also include comments:
Rank the Priorities
She didn’t have taxes listed, so I put a "Cap & Trade" Carbon Emission System as my number 1 priority. This should provide a similar incentive to conserve as a tax. Have other countries successfully implemented a scheme like this? If so, I would like to see the details. I also included in my comments that I thought we needed higher fossil fuels taxes.
R-Squared
Thankyou so much for your leadership on the issues as they may pertain to Peak oil. I read as many of your posts as my schedule allows ....impressive and illuminating... My respect for you WestTexas Stuart Staniford and even Totoneila and the many others cannot be expressed. You all serve your fellow man beyond expectation... thank you all.
Should we collectively consider the formation of hard copy deliverables to the various members of congress in the form of solutions? Proffered in the following manner: 1. one page point paper. 2. three page amplification of same. 3. a white paper similar to a report with findings. 4. a Power Point briefing outlining #3.
Perhaps the collective wisdom of the Oil Drum should take pains to work on a set of deliverables to the main stream.
regards TG80
TG80,
I think that in terms of getting the most "bang for a buck" what would work best is a book of edited TOD postings. This anthology would be an introduction to the related issues of Peak Oil and climate change--as well as an interesting list of short discussions on topics related to these two main ones.
My guess is it would take about 2,000 hours of work for somebody to put this book together (Co-editors would work.), and in my opinion royalties sould go entirely to the editors (who could if they wished donate some funds to TOD). The book could be put in the form of an annual edition.
Books have credibility. With a book, you can get major TV exposure.
There are no guarantees in the publishing world, but it would not surprise me to see a best-seller titled "The Oil Drum" or something like that.
BTW, I am not volunteering to be an editor because I have another project underway.
Don Sailorman,
The reason for my suggestion is based upon my experience. The volume of digestable information in the halls of Gov't is less than that actually consumed. The point paper, white paper, power point briefing material are examples of documents that consolidate information to the consumable and digestable level. Imagine the mass of reading material that comes across the desk of a congressman.
I do not however disagree with your suggestion that a book is in order. This is a great suggestion and one that must be persued! I've of course read Kunstler and Simmons and use them as constant sources of reference and fact checking esp. Simmons. I have considerable knowledge about the Intelligence community and find that analysts in particular long for more data and are loath to submit findings ....always waiting for more information. However, I find the Oil Drum opinion and analysis quite mature and ready to approach the main. Decision makers and the analysts that support them would be hard pressed to wade through the stream of information on this august site. As I am not a frequent contributer to the Oil Drum but prefer to let the tempest rage my comments are given with hesitation. Moreover, the time may be right. Shall we "strike while the iron is hot" as it were? My successes were always limited by timing. My own desires were limited by the desires of the collective and decision makers who had other priorites the merit of the idea notwithstanding.
Regards TG80 sends
RR -- a very strange thing.
I noticed that Senator Boxer's list did not include investment in transit or walk-able, bike-able communities.
It appears to me that she is stuck in the "same old, same old" mentality of trying to continue and expand the very same infrastructure that we have now, just finding different fuel sources to continue "easy motoring" and "cheap air conditioning" and such.
I'm a bit disillusioned by this.
BTW, I did put the carbon cap and trade high on my list, and added a sentence about "carbon tax" and also one about "transit" in the comments.
Any other folks notice the ommission of transit?
Any thoughts?
I don't really find this so terribly strange. This biking-and-walking stuff is mainly for athletic people in their twenties and thirties, who are nowadays a minority.
As a Senator, she represents the State of California. Much of the interior of the state, especially in the south, is uninhabitable without inexpensive air conditioning, and was only very very sparsely populated before it came along. Biking and walking are potentially deadly activities for many people when the temperature approaches 120F/49C, as happens every summer in places like Palm Springs. If such places are to be inhabited, "easy motoring" must be available for the summer season, so the infrastructure must be there.
And these days, those places - as well as similar places like Phoenix, which is just as unlivable without A/C so that the old downtown is just a very few blocks - are inhabited by older people, who moved there because their doctors told them to stay indoors whenever it is icy. It is icy a lot in the North, so following that instruction is tantamount to placing oneself under weeks-long house arrest. And in addition, shoveling snow is a very hazardous activity for many people. We keep conveniently forgetting that in the nineteenth century, the population was mainly younger people, as the older ones often did not survive. And no one was having dangerous "medicines" that wreck thermal regulation shoved down their throats by doctors tweaking numbers arbitrarily and destroying quality-of-life for fear of massive lawsuits over statistically insignificant increments to lifespan.
As Ms. Boxer is an elected politician who is supposed to represent the whole of California, I really can't expect her to promote socioeconomic suicide for large swathes of that State.
Very good post.
I met a friend at the library yesterday, who is a bit older than me, maybe 10 years, and they asked me if I was cold, since I was just wearing a t-shirt. I said no, actually it's quite nice. Then I observed to him that if I exercise, the general temperature of my body goes up, and that when I moved recently, the long days of intense exercise that entailed meant I was walking around in a t-shirt at night when it was really rather cold and most people were bundled up. So, since I've been exercising lately, I reasoned that this is why I was OK in a t-shirt.
Good point about the older folks dying more often in the old days, but it was not necessarily THAT bad, remember the Bible gives us 3-score and ten, and a fair number made it that far circa 1900.
This is nonsense. That's pretty pathetic if you think that biking and walking somehow is ended after your thirties. I still run, bike, hike, snowshoe, ski, etc. and I am 60. And I am hardly what you would call a naturally gifted athlete. I'd hate to think what sort of shape I would be in if I had quitted exercising in my 40s. If those who bike and walk are in a minority, that is simply a function of being lazy, not a function of age.
Most of Californians live on or near the coast where the climate is quite mild, so walking and biking would be a perfect solution for most of California.
As long as we are talking about infrastructure, let's make sure the infrastructure for walking and biking is available everywhere, for those days, even in the hotter areas, where biking and walking is feasible.
Snow shoveling is hazardous mostly for people who are out of shape. Yeh, if you sit on your ass all year and then go out and try to shovel snow, you are a candidate for a heart attack. But if you stay in good shape, which you should be able to do for your whole life, barring serious illness, you shouldn't have any problem with a reasonable amount of shoveling.
If you are older and out of shape, it is primarily a function of inactivity, not your age.
"But if you stay in good shape, which you should be able to do for your whole life, barring serious illness,"
That's a big exception. A lot of people can't bicycle due to health (illness or disability). Bicycling is a great option, but it can't be mandatory.
No one is asking for biking to be mandatory - just more convenient for those that are willing to do it.
Well, that's great. I wholeheartedly agree that we need infrastructure for safe and convenient walking and biking. I'm not sure everyone is quite as clear as you on the need for personal vehicles as well.
This was part of the original post:
"It appears to me that she is stuck in the "same old, same old" mentality of trying to continue and expand the very same infrastructure that we have now, just finding different fuel sources to continue "easy motoring" and "cheap air conditioning" and such."
That "very same infrastructure" for "easy motoring" is what people with illness and disability need to have "continue and expand".
Actually, I agree with the original post that we should not be expanding the infrastructure for automobiles. For one thing, such expansion always brings more traffic. For another, I suspect that we probably can't afford to maintain the extensive roadway system we've already built. We've got plenty of roads for those with illness and disability.
I think we should consolidate the many, many roadways we have back to streets, with sidewalks, that are part of cities and towns rather than building more bypasses and cloverleafs to the exurbs. I think such roads will be more amenable to a wider range of vehicles, from bikes to cars to buses.
BTW, I've been enjoying the http://pedshed.net/ series on connectivity.
Just my thoughts!
she is a career politician. i think its time to think beyond democrat or republican, (they are in the same bed, just swapping covers) perhaps it's time to find someone who will do the right thing, call it like it is, and take action.
these politicians treat us we are all fools, if they would only come clean and tell us like it is. I think we can all handle the truth. just give it to us!
i am not advocating libertarian, but i am disgusted with career politicians, they are all self serving! we just need someone to step forward and give us the REAL DEAL!
has carbon trading been successful?
Probably not based on the European Trading Scheme and controversy over Kyoto's offset provisions. On the other hand CFCs and SOX have been controlled to some extent but CO2 seems to be a lot harder because of fewer cheap substitutes. The EU scheme almost collapsed because of carbon starting credit giveaways and many now question whether 'clean development' (trees, new energy projects, methane flaring etc) is largely bogus; this has been discussed at length in Gristmill.
Here's some buzzwords in the literature; 'grandfathering', 'hybrid tax and trade', 'safety valve','revenue neutrality', 'import substitution', 'harmonisation', 'permit auctions'. Of course some doomers say CO2 reductions will happen anyway.
I think James Hansen is talking about 50+% emissions reductions within a decade. The lightweight schemes that will spring up in various coutries won't get near that unless there is a meltdown.
I was curious about who the top 12 were. I found the top 5:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/jul/jul21a_04.html
Is anyone aware of a more comprehensive list?
Heh, what about the Departement of Defense?
RR,
Haven't checked it out in-depth, but there's this
The Environmental Integrity Project, at:
http://www.dirtykilowatts.org/
has a database
under 'most popular searches' you can get Excel files for all kinds of pollution
may take a bit of toying around, but looks comprehensive
Ed see also:
Press Release: 50 Dirtiest Power Plants
Here's twelve,.
DVDs of the Boston ASPO-USA Oil Conference are now available at: www.aspousa.org
The set consists of 9 DVDs covering the complete 2-day conference including Q&As. They have been edited to show PowerPoint slides integrated into the speeches from the original presentations, so text and graphics are easy to read. (Note that the preview on the website does not show the integrated PowerPoint slides) .
Cost for the complete set is $75.00 + $7.95 shipping & handling for the 9 DVD set. They come in 2 DVD cases and are shipped immediately via priority mail.
sorry, i dont share the enthusiasm some of the TOD posters have for the government solving ANY of our problems. if we are going to impose a "carbon" tax we will need a check valvue on the $ x 10^9's that are simply returned back to the perpetrators. so why not start by eliminating subsidies (and i mean all subsidies). that and replacing the convoluted income tax with a tax on consumption.
I agree with you completely elwoodelmore. The government is too slow to act and it's doubtful they are competent enough to act wisely. This problem is not "solvable" in most senses of the word for most people anyway.
The more individuals take responsibility for their own energy needs the better. The government has too many titbabies looking for nipples and the titbabies get to vote. Don't expect much from them and you won't be as disappointed, as cold and as hungry as you would be waiting for "leadership" from our politicians.
We tried the voluntary route in Canada. Our emissions went up 34% over 1990 levels. Much worse than the USA experience. Don't go there...
Our new Conservative Gov't has brought in legislation with stronger than EPA type regulations that will take effect in 2012; and there is indication from Cabinet Ministers that new Nuclear plants will be facilitated (Provincial jurisdiction). At a minimum, California level emission standards for new cars will be phased in.
This problem is much too large to depend on consumer directed programs.
Good point about the "voluntary route" Freddy. Most people would let others volunteer instead of themselves ;).
But that's not my suggestion for collective action on the problem - it's what I think is best for each of us individually.
I think people who carry on as usual and wait for the government to lead the way will probably suffer more than they would if they started acting on their own behalf now.
When I looked over the senator's list of priorities, most of which involve government mandating or implementing a part of the "solution", the same thing went through my mind. All I want government to do is provide the incentive to reduce fossil fuel usage. Let people and business make up their minds how to react to those incentives. Drastically reduced subsidies of fossil fuel use and the implementation of a simple carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system are all I can support at this point... Actually, I have nothing against funding research into green technologies, but with this exception, I'm not in favour of subsidizing green industry (or any industry for that matter).
On the 2/2/07 Drumbeat the first link is:
"Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study"
In the 2/3/07 WSJ is an op-ed piece by Philip Stott, a global warming denier, suggesting that 75% of global warming is caused by cosmic rays!
Coincidence?
The cosmic ray thing has been making the rounds of the popular discussions for a while (I have no idea how long it's been kicking around in academia). The proponents of the idea obviously have a lot of work to do if they want to prove that variations in cosmic rays (recorded where, exactly?) are a better explanation for GW than GHG's. Unfortunately, the great unwashed have no idea how much credence to give this, so they tend to give it "balanced" consideration at 50% (or more, if it lets them absolve themselves of responsibility for buying that huge SUV and the 3500 ft2 house with the 3 massive A/C units).
Tune in next week to find out how to run your car on cosmic rays.
I already run my car on cosmic rays .... they just all happen to be photons from the sun .... from a long time ago.
The background abstract for this is Canadian and this is a hybrid. The hypothesis has been challenged; and basically the cosmic ray affect is sound. The bad news is our Galaxy only goes thru this active area every 125K years. There was a good attempt to show that this cosmic ray effect was cyclical. As i say, it has merit, but the cycle doesn't jive with what's has happened since 1978.
As with the myriad of solar cycles, good science ... but not relevant.
What's next, neutrinos?
The last question in this quote is the best part of the link.
The author is right that Bush and Cheney knew about peak oil coming into office. Too bad he retreats into the simpleton's "evil cabal" nonsense. Good idea for a topic of discussion though.
I would agree whole heartedly.
I hear what you are saying, and I know what you are getting at. But the aim of the article was more to get away from the constant stream of diaries on dkos saying all explanations for Bush/Cheney actions is that they are insane/evil/psycopaths etc. I remember working at Halliburton in the Cheney years and these ideas about the oil peak were not unusual there. So clearly people understood this issue. Now if you start with the assumption that they were fully aware of these issues coming into office, then their actions are consistent with somebody planning for the worst. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but DKos is a political ramblings site so perfectly appropriate place for such a discussion - and somewhere the audience doesn't have as much knowledge about the Peak Oil issues as they might. Better people think about it for whatever reason they may, than to not think about it.
So in the chain "1) understand Peak Oil 2) decide to do XYZ 3) Bush/Cheney track record in office", it doesn't exactly matter what XYZ is to accept that their actions are probably in many ways guided by a better understanding of what is coming than many of their critics. It doesn't mean they take the RIGHT actions. It doesn't mean one can even discern precisely what they are thinking. But I believe it is healthier to ascribe some sort of rational motive to their actions than the alternatives that go on on Dkos sometimes, and Peak Oil related issues certainly offer a potential set of rational motives.
And personally - yeah, i'd be worried in their shoes. I'd be wondering how best to guarantee my survival and those around me. And i'd probably be thinking in the terms i best understand - in their case quite possibly power and money. So if I could think of taking some of their actions as a defense against the future, it is at least possible that they do to. If not, well it doesn't really matter. I am an occasional diarist with minimal readership on a political blog that preachese to the converted. No harm done. And if one person reading it was suddenly prompted to go out and find out what all the peak oil fuss is about - particularly in my own area of main concern - the food supply - then i'm a pretty happy fella.
The original article is interesting, The Daily Reckoning's summary of it is spot on:
That's a parallel to the racial/religious groups urging their members to join the US armed forces to get training for their own little ends.
So in a few years or a decade, we may see Aryan Nations, Nation of Islam, and Kooksters for Krist members using military tactics on US soil.
You mean just like Timothy McVeigh?
Exactly - single "jihadists" as well as groups.
Apologies if this has been posted already at TOD
Wal-Mart requests suppliers decrease fuel usage
That will take a few bushels of corn if they're looking to "only use renewable energy."
The internet, not as innocent as it looks...