DrumBeat: February 13, 2007

Fears for North Sea output grow

Oil and gas production in the North Sea is now expected to be about 10 per cent lower over the next few years than previously thought, according to the leading survey of the state of the industry.

The faster than expected decline in production is bad news for Britain’s energy security, increasing the country’s dependence on imported oil and gas, and also for the exchequer.

Thomas Homer-Dixon: Is the Deadly Crash of Our Civilization Inevitable?

My difference with Diamond is that I don't think we're going to really begin those conversations in a proper way until we face some crises or breakdowns. In other words, my impression of his argument is that collapse is something we have to avoid, in all cases and in all forms. On the other hand, I believe there is a spectrum of forms of collapse. At one end is the ideal, optimistic future where we solve all our problems and we live happily every after. At the other end is catastrophic collapse. We have tended not to fill in all the spaces in between, but that's actually where things might be very interesting. There may be some forms of disruption and crisis that will actually stimulate us to be really creative. Most importantly, they may allow us to get the deep vested interests that are blocking change out of the way.

...The key thing though -- and this is where I think that Jared Diamond's argument just doesn't give us the purchase that we need -- is that we have to keep the breakdown from being catastrophic. There has to be enough resilience in the system, enough information, enough adaptive capacity that things can be regenerated. With catastrophic breakdown, recovery is often impossible.


Facing Flood of New Rigs, Drillers Lose Grip on Pricing

Drillers have been able to play gas producers off one another the last few years, taking advantage of an historic shortage in manpower and equipment in North America. Now, producers are extracting a little payback.


Gazprom, Interros Ready to Carve Up Power Industry

Anatoly Chubais’ long-held dream of free-market electricity reform looks to be in disarray after two giant business groups, Gazprom and Interros, emerged as the favorites to carve up the country’s power production and form regional monopolies.


Cypriot Pres: Lebanon, Egypt Oil Exploration Deals to Go Ahead

The president of Cyprus said in a newspaper interview published Sunday that he has received assurances from Egypt and Lebanon that they will go ahead with oil and gas exploration deals with the island despite threats from Turkey.


Good Sports

I reckon, in the next few years, as a result of caps on emissions and peak oil being reached, that we can say goodbye to international sports and most national sports. The idea that you could fly people and teams all over America, all over the globe, all the time, just to play sport, is so late twentieth century. Fifty years ago it was still something of a novelty to see people flying to play sport. Now it is taken for granted.


Obamamania - Kunstler

By January 2009 we will surely be reeling from the "work out" of peak financial excess represented by the hedge fund fiesta and the reckless mortgage fiasco (from which the housing industry as we have known it will never recover). By 1/20/09 (inauguration day) the global oil crisis will be accepted as self-evident even by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (and its clients in the oil industry). By 1/20/09, we will have gone through two more global warming hurricane seasons. By 1/20/09 we will have spent several hundred billion dollars more maintaining our garrisons in the Middle East and elsewhere — and the strategic concerns that have required them will still be there.


The Nuclear Renaissance: Is it real?

Despite the condition of our economy, within the next decade, Michigan - and the rest of our country for that matter - will need more electricity . . . a lot more. And pollution free nuclear power has to be an important part of the mix.


Senate Appropriations Panel to Assess Interior's Royalty System

The Interior Department's management of offshore oil and gas royalties comes before the Senate Appropriations Committee this week as lawmamkers continue to look into the controversial topic amid charges Interior has not done enough to make sure petroleum companies make their full payments.


Ethanol's growth and implications for grain producers

In Iowa, combined corn processing capacity for ethanol and other corn products will soon be equivalent to more than half of the 2006 Iowa corn crop. If all planned plants are built, processing capacity would be equivalent to 133% of last year's crop -- within three to five years. At the national level, existing processing capacity and plants under construction or being expanded will likely boost total capacity to the equivalent of about 40% of last year's corn production -- within the next 15 to 18 months. If all planned and proposed corn-based plants in the United States were built, corn processing capacity would exceed the 2006 U.S. crop by at least one-fifth. Current returns for processing corn into ethanol are quite favorable.


Attributes of best biofuel: Cost-efficient, eco-friendly

Additionally, these crops are not sustainable. When crops are harvested, the embedded nutrients are removed and not replaced through the natural process of recycling dead plants back into the land to provide nutrients for the next generation. Ethanol production uses large amounts of water, which could exacerbate the water shortage worldwide, which is already occurring in some arid countries. Another factor: Farm machinery and vehicles burn fossil fuels to harvest and transport the crops. This process contributes considerable amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere.


A battle over biofuels

While nearly 80 percent of Americans favor increased use of ethanol to ease our "addiction" to oil, there is still concern that ethanol's demand for corn will create grain shortages that drive up the cost of food.


Brazil Ethanol Can Replace 10% World Gasoline In 20 Yrs

If the right investments are made, Brazil could replace 10% of the world's gasoline with its bio-friendly cane-based ethanol in 20 years' time, according to a study conducted by a university in Sao Paulo at the request of the country's Ministry of Science and Technology.


New Fuels Have Huge Potential To Reduce Gasoline Use

New vehicle fuels and related technologies offer the greatest potential for large reductions in gasoline use and the U.S. economy’s dependence on petroleum, a White House report says.


'Elephant grass' may be the next big biomass crop

If your corn is being processed into ethanol and your soybeans into biodiesel, your acreage unsuited for row crop production may soon be converted to production of miscanthus, a biomass crop that some researchers believe will help fill the shortfall in U.S. energy production.


Britain tries to block European targets for renewable energy

Britain is trying to block new European rules that would set binding targets on renewable energy generation to tackle climate change, according to leaked papers.

The European commission wants to force member states to generate 20% of their energy by 2020 from green sources such as wind power and wood chip boilers. But Britain has argued against such a binding goal, saying countries need the "flexibility" to set their own targets.


Mandelson wants free trade in 'green' goods

Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has called for a 0%-tariff deal on environmentally friendly technologies as part of the Doha Round, saying that such an agreement could help provide a global solution to climate change.


Push for New Climate Treaty Intensifies, Hope Seen

Intensive diplomatic efforts to agree the elements of a framework by the end of the year for a new global climate change treaty are starting to make headway, according to a European official close to the negotiations.


China: Experts concerned about pollution targets

Experts are concerned that the country's plan to reduce major pollutants by 2 per cent this year might have set the bar too high.


Politics to complicate energy conflicts

Energy-producing nations with state-owned oil and gas firms will continue to flex their muscles on the world stage, causing more confrontations, according to a panelist at Saturday’s energy symposium.

And the volatile mix of oil and nationalism will bring dire consequences to energy consumer nations such as the United States, said Nikolay Bogachev, chairman of Yamal LNG of Moscow, Russia.


Energy critical power source within N Korea

In the depths of the North Korean winter, where temperatures regularly plumb -10ºC, government offices and even hospital wards in Pyongyang are so cold that people can see their breath indoors. Lights – not to mention medical equipment – constantly flicker on and off.

In the industrial areas along the east coast, the vast majority of factories and mines simply lie idle.

...“North Korea’s power plants were already 40 years out of date [when the Soviet Union collapsed] but they can’t repair them because they don’t have the energy to make spare parts, which is causing them to deteriorate further,” says Timothy Savage of the Nautilus Institute, a think-tank that has done extensive studies of the North’s energy sector. “Their whole energy system is held together with chewing gum and baling wire.”


North Korea agrees to nuclear disarmament

The North must provide a complete list of its nuclear programs and disable all existing nuclear facilities. In return, the North will get aid in corresponding steps worth 950,000 tons of heavy fuel oil — details of which will be addressed in later working group discussions.


China's 2006 oil import dependency at 47%, up 4.1 pct points from 2005

China's net oil import was up 19.6 pct year-on-year at 162.87 mln tons last year, of which net import of crude oil was at 138.84 mln tons, up 16.9 pct.


Trouble in the Straits of Hormuz

A slew of articles has recently appeared in the international media warning that the US — or more accurately the Bush administration — is preparing for an imminent and catastrophic military attack on Iran. The evidence of military preparations in the Middle East region is mounting.


PetroChina to Explore Arctic Shelf with Rosneft, Gazprom

Russia's remote oil-rich Arctic Continental Shelf may welcome joint exploration by PetroChina, Russia's Rosneft and Gazprom, the first two largest oil and gas companies in Russia, a Russian media outlet reported. According to the media, PetroChina is expected to provide capital and essential equipment, in exchange for the right to exploit Arctic oil and gas and the related agreement would be signed in the second quarter of this year.


New Cold War with Russia Over Oil and Gas

A new Cold War is under way, but unlike the conflict of the Reagan era it is not a fight for military supremacy but rather for gaining control, directly or through commercial proxy, of energy resources.


Vietnam predicted to import coal from 2015

Vietnam is forecast to have to import some kinds of coal, mainly fat coal used for metallurgy, from 2015, local newspaper Vietnam Economic Times on Tuesday quoted the country's Industry Ministry as reporting.

The ministry predicted that Vietnam would have to import 5.9 million tons of some kinds of coal in 2015, 15.4 million tons in 2020, and 54.4 million tons in 2025, to serve increasing demand for the fossil fuel of its energy-thirsty industries, including metallurgy and thermoelectricity.


Russia, Qatar eye OPEC-style natural gas cartel

Leaders of natural gas-rich Russia and Qatar said Monday they would explore the creation of a natural gas cartel to represent the interests of producer countries to influence the global market.


Oil's Geopolitical Price

But while winter's grip will soon be broken and the supply concerns in regard to the shutdown can be overcome, the geopolitical landscape is as unpredictable as ever, which has oil traders everywhere attempting to price in that risk. The result is much higher prices.


Gunmen in Nigeria release 24 hostages

Gunmen on Tuesday released 24 Filipino sailors taken hostage in Nigeria's lawless southern oil-producing region, which has been roiled by weeks of stepped-up violence and kidnappings, officials said.


Shell says California refinery ops back to normal

Shell Oil Co. said on Sunday operations were back to normal at its 156,000-barrel-per-day San Francisco Bay area refinery in Martinez, California, after emergency flaring on Friday.


Canada sets 1.28 billion dollars to fight climate change

The money will be contained in his Conservative government's upcoming budget, and distributed to provincial governments to use to stem carbon emissions linked to global warming, Harper said at a press conference.


With eye on legacy, Blair mulls climate change with Merkel

Prime Minister Tony Blair heads to Berlin for talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, with moves towards securing a new deal on tackling climate change top of the agenda.


In Congress, a shift over fuel economy

Lawmakers who have opposed stricter emissions standards find themselves pressured to combat climate change.


Brazil's Lula to challenge Bush on environment

Brazil will challenge President Bush to cut emissions of carbon gases that cause global warming when he visits Latin America next month, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Monday.


Activist: Oil crisis requires drastic changes in Madison

Local activist Jan Sweet envisions a city without cars, or at least a compromise - a hybrid city, which would function like a hybrid car and conserve oil.


Oil prices prove to be a tricky economy indicator

At the time it was widely believed this particular oil crisis was different from previous crises, being driven by surging demand – particularly from emerging economies such as India and China – rather than due to a supply shock.

On top of these demand-driven concerns were the Cassandras who were vehemently arguing that the world was on the edge of a precipice and that "peak oil" – the peaking of world production – was at hand or even past.

These two factors were supposedly set to drive oil prices ever higher.


Biofuel is NOT “Carbon-Neutral”

Biofuel today is produced, overwhelmingly, from oil palms and sugar cane, and overwhelmingly, these plantations stand where tropical rainforest recently stood. Over a year ago, a well-documented essay entitled “Worse Than Fossil Fuel,” was published in the London Guardian by George Monbiot, an environmental activist and professor at Oxford-Brookes University in the U.K. In this article, Monbiot states “Between 1985 and 2000 the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia. In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5m in Indonesia.”

Thanks to Heading Out for his Global Warming skepticism. We certainly wouldn't want to restrict pollution for any reason, especially not for the sake the climate.

John Tierney both assures America that there is no problem while also promising techno-salvation:

A Cool $25 Million for a Climate Backup Plan

If governments and other moguls throw in more money, the new Virgin Earth Challenge may be the start of competitions that ultimately yield nanobots or microbes capable of gobbling up carbon dioxide. As far-fetched as it seems today, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere could turn out to be a lot more practical than the alternative: persuading six billion people to stop putting it there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/science/earth/13tier.html

Not that it is needed, though ...

The other problem is that most of the horror-movie scenarios are looking less and less plausible. Climate change will probably occur not with a bang but with a long, slow whimper, as you can see in the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In which case, perhaps, it is not necessary to do anything. Nor will the politicians, either, because they don't think in the long term (i.e., 25 years into the future).

It’ll be hard to keep audiences interested, particularly since the solutions are also in slow motion. The I.P.C.C. considers options for reducing greenhouse emissions, but projects that even the most radical (and politically painful) policies wouldn’t make much difference the first two or three decades. To politicians worried about the next election, especially in poor countries, 2030 sounds like eternity.

It’s always possible that something will galvanize people around the world into taking short-term pain for long-term gain. But I suspect there’s a better chance of someone claiming that $25 million prize. Whether it’s carbon-dioxide-gobbling nanobots or something else, it’d be good to have a backup plan when 2030 rolls around.

So the nanobots are either not needed or if they are needed they will appear just in time or everything is ok with global warming or the changes will occur slowly and not really impact humankind in any sort of harmful manner.

What I sense, actually, is cognitive dissonance: The conservatives must know that the world is changing but they still possess a faith hope that either (1). nothing catastrophic will occur, or (2). techno-salvation is just around the corner.

Thank God for the techno-god! If you have faith the techno-god will save humankind! Just keep shopping!

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, two politians who have no future, have an editorial with contrary yet similar message in today's Boston Globe:

The turning point on global warming

In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.

Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02...

They have introduced legislation on behalf of the climate, or perhaps on behalf of the fossil fuel industries, as they state later in the editorial:

Wall Street analysts and industry executives have predicted the eventual enactment of a bill such as this for some time. Late last month, a group of prominent industrial leaders, including two executives of coal-intensive electric power companies and a major oil company, urged Congress and the president to enact measures that align with the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. Perhaps the inevitable is now imminent. We must seize the initiative.

How can Congress close the deal to prevent catastrophic global warming while it still has the chance? In the same way it has enacted every other major environmental law in the past 30 years.

Congress must listen to the companies that will be governed by the new climate law. After all, they are the ones who will develop and deploy the advanced energy technologies that will solve this problem. While intransigent firms should not be allowed to weaken the legislation, lawmakers must be open to a good-faith business perspective that can help solve this urgent global problem. As the bill reflects, lawmakers must also have the courage to promote safe climate-friendly nuclear energy.
(/blockquote>

Yes, I trust the coal and oil industries to look out for the interests of humankind. These corporations are well known for their humanitarianism. Too bad that these corporations have already destroyed the Earth and transformed the entire planet into humankind's sewer.

The editorial ends on an ominous note: Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren.

To which I say: Too late. The children have already inherited a mess and soon they shall inherit the apocalypse.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Your opening remark is uncalled for, and unsupported. Not that many here likely think that is somehow out of character for your posts, though.

Good post. There is nothing in our past behavior that would indicate that we place a very high value on the future, despite our platitudes about caring about future generations. We need to be recalled for some rewiring and reprogramming.

Agree with expat here.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Beyond that, AFAIK this is not a religious site, so we need to apprise ourselves of reasonable views even when they vary a little from some sort of received catechism.

Oh, and ad hominem attacks will never fish those drowned ancient cities out of the sea. If the real world is actually not quite the equable, stable place that many seem to assume it to be, as they naively extrapolate from the mere 120 years of quantitative records that are virtually all we have (and beyond which we must resort to interpreting proxy measurements that blur out the devilish details), then we really need to know that.

So thanks, HO, for the article.

also agree with pauls and expat. HO was only presenting a differing view. are we all so tied into the TOD meme that we can't even deal with another approach? granted saylor's arguments are not particularly valid, but as a non-climatologist , i certainly learned more from the rebutals to saylor then i ever would have learned from yet another thread from the "amen choir".

Hello steverino,

also agree with pauls and expat. HO was only presenting a differing view. are we all so tied into the TOD meme that we can't even deal with another approach?

What is the TOD meme?

If TOD really does have a meme, I am naturally inclined to reject it because (as far as I can tell) that meme appears to represent the interests of the oil industry and other related industries. Heading Out seems to speak on behalf of the oil industry as he skeptically evaluates the Global Warming idea.

I have more faith in Al Gore than I have in Heading Out. At least I know Al Gore's name. Anonymous people are often anonymous for a reason. I cannot trust Heading Out until he discloses whether or not there are conflicts of interest.

The article that Heading Out wrote wasn't so very impressive, either. The conservative editorialists are more eloquent in their skepticism, but equally wrong. Heading Out used too many words to say too little.

Heading Out should at least explicitly state his opinions regarding Global Warming. I'd prefer to know what he really thinks. Not that it would change my mind. Not at all. I have read plenty of views regarding Global Warming from numerous sources all across the full range of the political spectrum.

I don't imagine that there is anything that Heading Out could say which would change my mind. I am naturally inclined to oppose the world-polluting, world-destroying, impoverished-persons-oppressing industries. The oil industry has committed enough crimes throughout the world.

I'd much prefer that the oil, coal & mining industries not exist. If that means the end of technological civilization, so much the better.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

mr. mathews,..there is much that you write that i can agree on, but at other times you go way overboard with your save the whales story. do you walk everywhere you go? heat with solar power? clothe yourself with bark? off the grid? no one is above reproach in this world. i would try the holier than thou attitude elsewhere.

Hello steverino,

mr. mathews,..there is much that you write that i can agree on, but at other times you go way overboard with your save the whales story. do you walk everywhere you go? heat with solar power? clothe yourself with bark? off the grid? no one is above reproach in this world. i would try the holier than thou attitude elsewhere.

There is only one sort of life possible in the United States of America, the American Way of Life.

There was a time when I did not have a car (nor a job) and I walked everywhere I wanted to go. Life of this sort is next-to-impossible in Florida now but it functioned successfully for thousands of years prior to the modern automotive age.

Walking alongside the road is a terrible experience specifically because our roads (and our civilization) was designed specifically to be anti-pedestrian. If cars don't run you over the pollution in the air is enough to kill the pedestrian. American oil-addicted civilization is pretty unpleasant stuff, I wouldn't wish it on our worst enemy (China), but they've bought it so the end of the world is approaching that much faster.

I would much rather save the whales than save human civilization. If forced to choose between these two, I would sacrifice human civilization on behalf of the whales.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Hello PaulS,

Beyond that, AFAIK this is not a religious site, so we need to apprise ourselves of reasonable views even when they vary a little from some sort of received catechism.

TOD is not a religious website? That is hard to believe. I have read so many long discussions regarding God, Christianity and Islam here that I assumed that TOD had a special emphasis upon religion (in addition to its devotion to theological arguments about the HL plot and the exact timing of Peak Oil).

I know that there are plenty of people here who enjoy boasting about their atheism. My comments about religion are an invitation of these people to argue with me about atheism or religion. I have a special interest in atheism which preceded and transcends my interest in Peak Oil.

I also have an interest in the other great religion of this modern world: The Techno-God and its many adherents which seem to populate websites devoted to technology (and also websites devoted to atheism). Faith in technology appears to have superceded faith in God among these people. Here is a religion which fascinates me.

I believe that there are a lot of people here at TOD who worship the techno-god. I admire their faith and honor their hope. Techno-utopia and scientific immortality are their greatest hopes in life. Seems like a meager religion to me, but that is only because I have a mansion in Heaven built by God Himself. I am looking forward to living in that mansion forever. I hope that it is a really big mansion because undoubtedly I will have a collection of 24 karat gold SUVs in heaven, too.

Who would ever want to live forever on the Earth when it is much better to spend eternity with God in heaven?

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Hello Everyone,

Jay Hanson has written an excellent -- and terrible -- paper. I am certain that he is speaking the truth. I'd prefer a much better outcome to the human experiment, but the last ten thousand years has removed any doubts from my mind regarding the future apocalypse which will overwhelm humankind and send our species to extinction.

Homo sapiens had to make a choice between Heaven and Hell a long time ago. Humankind has chosen Hell. Mourn, mourn for humankind.

The end is approaching and we won't escape from its clutches. I suspect that everyone intuitively senses that the end is fast approaching -- how else to explain this ADHD culture and its emphasis upon doing everything now? -- but the conscious mind rebels from that conclusion just as surely as it reject the notion of personal death.

I will point out one extremely important statement in Jay Hanson's paper:

We include others in our society when it increases our fitness to do so, but we invent excuses to kick minorities out of our society when resources are insufficient. Allies can become enemies almost overnight. The collapse of Yugoslavia is an example of neighbor
slaughtering neighbor.
http://www.warsocialism.com/thermogenecollision.pdf

The process described above is already occurring in American society in two forms:

1. Increasing stress against the Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal).

2. The Long War against Terror, which is taking the form of a war against the Muslim resource-owners in order to seize their natural resources.

The worst case scenario is already activity occurring on the Earth right now. There is no need to talk any longer about an apocalypse which is coming in the future. The apocalypse is occurring right now. We're living in the apocalypse and fail to notice it because it is occurring at such a large scale that it escapes our attention (which is attuned to noticing only those things which are immediately in front of our own nose).

This world is coming to an end. Civilization is grinding to a halt.

Isn't it a pity?

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Every last one of the dinosaurs died off together at the same time. Altogether they probably whined and worried about it less than you do all by yourself. We're not dead yet. Go smell some roses or something, the rest of us have work to do.

Hello Petropest,

Every last one of the dinosaurs died off together at the same time. Altogether they probably whined and worried about it less than you do all by yourself. We're not dead yet. Go smell some roses or something, the rest of us have work to do.

You want to work. I say that you should stop working. You are trying to save the wrong thing. Whereas you really ought to devote your attention to the job of saving humankind from extinction you would prefer to save your careers, your industry, the automobile, technological civilization, and your personal wealth.

I say that all of these are unworthy goals. The more that you do the worse things must become. You are driving humankind extinct by your success and that is your unconscious evil.

The time to stop is now. It is time to make sacrifices. It is time to learn to live without. There is no hope for tomorrow when so many intelligent people are working so hard at destroying the Earth.

The Earth is already too polluted. The Earth is overpopulated by the human pest. There are billions of people who are already living a hellish existence of impoverishment, deprivement and perpetual violence throughout the world.

We're not dead yet, but there are plenty of people who are dying. Shall we let them continue to die while we count our money? Shall we sacrifice all of these people on behalf of the SUV? Will humankind consent to destroying the entire Earth's coast for the sake of television and the air conditioner?

"There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven -- ... A time to search and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away."
(Proverbs 3:1, 6)

"For what is a species profited if it gains the whole world, and becomes extinct and forfeits its own existence?"
(Luke 9:25)

Humankind's era of working is quickly approaching its end. If humans do not choose to stop Nature will bring our work to an end utilizing its most effective and harsh measures.

Once Homo sapiens become extinct will any of these things matter?

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Your assumptions about me are all wrong. You are a troll. Maybe you should do the earth a favor and go french kiss a sick chicken.

Hello Everyone,

I visited Matt Savinar's website and found this most interesting of articles from the New York Times which suggests that the dissolution of the United States of America is already occurring at a subtle and almost imperceptible level:

California Split

By GAR ALPEROVITZ

Governor Schwarzenegger is quite clear that California is not simply another state. “We are the modern equivalent of the ancient city-states of Athens and Sparta,” he recently declared. “We have the economic strength, we have the population and the technological force of a nation-state.” In his inaugural address, Mr. Schwarzenegger proclaimed, “We are a good and global commonwealth.”

Political rhetoric? Maybe. But California’s governor has also put his finger on a little discussed flaw in America’s constitutional formula. The United States is almost certainly too big to be a meaningful democracy. What does “participatory democracy” mean in a continent? Sooner or later, a profound, probably regional, decentralization of the federal system may be all but inevitable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/opinion/10alperovitz.html

This is exactly the sort of message that I would never expect to read in the New York Times. The inevitability of America's collapse is something which I accepted based upon common sense and historical grounds decades ago. The United States of America is by no means an immortal nation, nor does it merit immortality.

But there was something else in this article which really caught my attention:

If the scale of a country renders it unmanageable, there are two possible responses. One is a breakup of the nation; the other is a radical decentralization of power. More than half of the world’s 200 nations formed as breakaways after 1946. These days, many nations — including Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Italy and Spain, just to name a few — are devolving power to regions in various ways.

Here is a dramatic evidence that the collapse of civilization is occurring right now, right in front of our nose. All of these nations which are breaking apart into smaller nations indicate that civilization is dissolving away. Iraq is the latest example of a country breaking apart, though in Iraq's case the civilization has collapsed because of the aggressive action of an outside force (George W. Bush, liberator of Muslims worldwide, excluding the Saudis).

The story of America's breakup is described:

Regional devolution would most likely be initiated by a very large state with a distinct sense of itself and aspirations greater than Washington can handle. The obvious candidate is California, a state that has the eighth-largest economy in the world.

So we really ought to pay close attention to California. If things really began going bad in the United States -- for any reason -- California might assert its independence from Washington, D.C. How much longer could America exist as a nation after California's seccession from the union?

Vermont has already whispered about secession (http://www.vermontrepublic.org/) but this is just talk. The loss of Vermont would not dissolve the United States. The loss of California, on the other hand, would. California is wealthy and powerful enough to pull this off, too, under any circumstance in which the American federal government has weakened and become ineffective.

The world seems to be coming to its end. Thank God for the end of this world. I look forward to the next world and am willing to wait as many millions of years as it will take for Nature to fix this mess that humankind has created.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

This is what happens when about 80% of the population HATES the current president. Given a reasonable president, this sort of talk would quiet down. Also, the US is a federal system, which means that the states have power too. Historically power has moved away from the states, if they manage to reclaim a little bit, that probably isn't a bad thing. What works best in a central fashion (defense, for instance) should be federal, what works best state by state (say, zoning regulations) should be left to the states. Makes sense to me.

As for the whole "too big to be a democracy...", well, emperical evidence (i.e. the existence of the USA) seems to indicate that this outcome is not "unthinkable." Small minds use "untinkable" to describe that about which they would prefer not to think, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Hello slaphappy,

This is what happens when about 80% of the population HATES the current president. Given a reasonable president, this sort of talk would quiet down.

Here is where you are mistaken, slaphappy. The dissolution of the United States of America is, essentially, a natural force which does not relate in any way to the present political climate in the United States. George W. Bush is unpopular, but America has had unpopular presidents before (Richard Nixon, etc.).

The United States of America will break apart into smaller units at some point in the future. Such is the natural course of events for any excessively large nation (see for example the breakup of Alexander the Great's kingdom, and the dissolution of the Roman Empire).

George W. Bush is just a blip on the screen. California knows that George W. Bush will be gone in two years. Pretty much everyone knows that George W. Bush is a lame duck.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

Wow, dm. Interesting stuff. I agree...this could be shaping up. There were plenty of cries for separation after the last prez election.

I hope my current passport will get me into California when they break off.

Hello Dragonfly41,

If the Terminator leads the Peakoil Revolution: My Asphalt Wonderland will have to be renamed the Asphalt Wasteland--> the first thing CA would do is cutoff the FF flow to Phoenix, Vegas, Tucson, etc. The next step would be to take all the Colorado River's water and electricity by military control of the dams and blowing up the CAP canal and powerlines that serve AZ. Cascadia and Earthmarines look more likely everyday--Yikes!

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Note to self: time to stop posting embarrassing videos of Governator on website.

Hello TODers,

Not to change the subject, but I just wanted to get this upthread so it can be more widely seen:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCBDFEC9-30CE-4130-A556-5E41B6951...
------------------------------------------------
Iran bomb attack kills 18 guards

Members of the Revolutionary Guards were the apparent target of the attack [EPA]

Eighteen members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have been killed after a car bomb hit their bus in southeastern Iran.

Qassem Rezaie, a Revolutionary Guard commander, told Iran's official news agency on Wednesday: "In this thoughtless operation, 18 citizens of Zahedan were martyred."
----------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Tierney is a "market" guy so it is natural that he advocate for "have our cake and eat it too" market-based solutions to problems of energy supply, global warming, etc. As I think he correctly surmises, the notion that a free market is capable of resolving any problem runs counter to government mandates and top-down restrictions on resource use.

The problem though, is that the market is a lot better at dealing with problems like "what color of car do I want?" or "how much am I willing to pay for a loaf of bread?" than it is at dealing with "how do we compel people to consume while simultaneouly ensuring that we do not drown in the waste stream generated by that consumption?" The market has never had to deal with a problem like global warming and it isn't clear that the market is even up to such a job. It could be that the free-market types are reaching for a wrench when they need a hammer. We don't know, but if you are a committed free-market disciple, what are your options?

  • You tell everyone that the problem isn't likely to be a big deal and you pray that you are right.
  • You recruit some rich fellow -- preferably one whose fortune is wholly dependent upon continuing consumption -- to bankroll a contest to come up with a solution to the problem that doesn't require that the "little people" get their hands dirty.
  • And this is where I start to get uneasy with Branson's proposal: If the game here is to allow the great mass of people to continue with business as usual, without reducing consumption -- without considering the moral implications of what it means to "live it up" today, knowing that we may have one heck of hangover tomorrow -- what does that say about what it means to be a supposedly rational, cognizant, responsible human? To put it another way, are we to abandon free-will, turn our full attention to consumption and hope that the billionaires, acting as the high-priests of a "free market nanny-state," will pull the right levers and make sure that the human race doesn't crash?

    I'd say it's more that the market only works in the presence of rules. Without rules, there can be no market. If the rules are reasonable, then the outcome is reasonable. If the rules are unreasonable (say, a coal powerplant can kill people for free by dumping poison into the air...), then the outcome is unreasonable. Water is wet, birds chirp, life goes on.

    This is the problem with the "market" types. They want to get rid of "regulation", but certainly only regulation that impacts inhuman entities. So we have a "market" where some people are allowed to kill other people (for free), but you can't copy a CD that you paid for? They also want to get rid of "frivolous lawsuits", which basically means that polluters don't want to be sued by the relatives of the recently deceased. You can't have it both ways. Either have rules that prevent people from being wronged, or allow them to seek recompense when they are, to allow them to be wronged with no recourse is not a recipe for a stable and healthy society. It is also not a recipe for a society that allocates resources in any sort of sane manner, if you define sane as something along the lines of "doing the most good for the most people." or anything similar.

    Anyway, not much of a shock here... Also should not be interpreted as meaning the system can't work, just because it's currently being f'ed up by the MBAs in charge.

    The return of $30 oil?
    DAVID EBNER

    Globe and Mail Update

    CALGARY — Oil could fall to $40 (U.S.) a barrel or even as low as $30 as speculative investors sell their positions and spare production capacity increases, according to a research report published Monday by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., an independent analysis firm.

    The price of crude spiked higher in 2004 as demand from China surged at the same time the key cushion of spare capacity evaporated. As the commodity jumped, billions of dollars from speculative investors piled in, buying futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, helping push oil to almost $80 a barrel last year.

    “We believe such speculative activity created perhaps the biggest artificial distortion of a market since the technology bubble of the late 1990s,” analyst Ben Dell of New York-based Sanford said in a 67-page report entitled: “Energy investing: Beware the Ides of March.”

    “Timing when the good times will be over is difficult but we fear that the collapse could be dramatic.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070212.w40oil0212/B...

    A day late and a dollar short. This stampede has already happened and we are at $58 oil today. Next wishful thinking piece...

    The comments section on this Globe&Mail article makes for incredibly depressing reading. Unless, I suppose, you're hoping that ignorance will rule and demand will stay high.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070212.w40oil0212/C...

    Examples:

    Keep dreaming. No regulation means the oil companies will find some way to keep the prices high no matter how absurd the reasoning is. One day a few weeks back I went home one evening it was 86.5, next morning 75-76, and then by evening back to 86? The next morning it dropped a few cents. The oil companies are doing what they want just like every other big corporation until they step on some politicians foot and thats when an inquiry is made.

    We can thank Bush if the oil does go below $30/barrel. Long live the Anglo-American oil empire!

    Berstein's reputation is built on its analytic abilities. They have analysts all over the world. This would not have been issued without a thorough internal vetting and review. This strain of thought has been heard quietly over the past couple of years. There is plenty of oil and gas in the world, and will be long after all of us are dead. This is in line with an oil industry expert who spoke at Harvard Business School in the past year and made the statement that the real market value of oil, absent the risk premium, is around $20 a barrel.

    Peak oil!!!....Peak oil!!!...repent ye capitalist sinners!!!....oh...gee...that was a bit of a bust wasn't it...what're we gonna do now???...ah...Global Warming!!!....Global Warming!!!...repent ye capitalist sinners!!!

    Like historians always say 'history will repeat itself'. When you look at the history of oil prices there is always an up and down cycle. Prices below $30/barrel may sound ridiculous with the recent history of oil but a lot of that price is due to instability in major oil producing countries such as Iraq and Nigeria. If things finally start to stabilize I can see a major dip in oil prices.

    Great news.

    I'm keeping my V-8 SUV!

    Had enough yet?

    Hello JustZisGuy,

    The last quote: "Great news. I'm keeping my V-8 SUV!"

    I think this is important to bear in mind here on TOD. For every Peakoil warning that we post for other concerned TODers to read: 1,000, 5,000, 10,000? polluting vehicles are sold. We are a distinct minority, when all our numbers from Techno-Cornucopian to Catastrophic Doomer are added up, then compared to the behavior of the world at large. That numeric disparity is why I am continually advocating for Peakoil Outreach.

    Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

    Well, telling people that they'll be resorting to canabilism "any day now" is not often a recipe for being taken seriously. Perhaps the site could seek converts among the homeless men carrying signs claiming the end is neigh.

    Or maybe we could be a little more careful about predictions and not be so transparently out of touch. In short, any argument that says uses the word "unthinkable" is probably not a good one. Partially this is because the thing clearly is thinkable, as the poster just thought of it. Beyond mere semantics, these myriad "unthinkable" things are generally things that actually exist, right now, or close variations thereof. For instance, a few posts up someone claims that a whole (or large fraction of a) continent being run by one Federal government is unthinkable, despite the fact that (unless I miss my guess) the poster currently lives in exactly that.

    If there's a reason why a thing can't work, then it should be easy to express. If there are multiple "then a miracle happens" steps, then it's back to the drawing board. Now, for the record let me just list out a few arguments that I would very much like to never see again, at least not in an unsupported form.

    1) Complexity is not viable, complex systems fail, or require huge energy input, or are hugely inefficient, or just can't work for long, so current society (apparently it's complex) is doomed to fail by mathematical law "real soon now".

    2) Peak oil means peak fossil fuels, peak fossil fuels means peak energy, peak energy means peak food/steel/whatever, peak food means starvation (for people, not for cows, which might logically follow), starvation means unrest, unrest means societal breakdown, societal breakdown means declining population, which leads to extinction, or nearly so. Perhaps a few unsupported assertions there....

    3) People will never survive with 30% (heck, 80% even) less oil than they have now, once people can't drive a hummer to the grocery store 100 miles away, they'll storm the capital with pitchforks and then it's all over. This is a close variant of #2, and similarly there is plenty of contrary emperical evidence.

    4) You can't run the world on nuclear/wind/solar, as they require (lots of, apparently) oil to make/use/maintain, or they will "real soon now" run out of steel/uranium/silicon/sunlight, or there's some other critical problem with them that can never, ever, be overcome, no matter how hard we'd like to try and despite all contrary evidence.

    I'm sure there are many others, but those are the primary ones I'm thinking of. If we just stopped those four, we'd be taken more seriously.