CNN.com starts out this morning with two idiotic news articles explaining how high oil prices won't damage the US economy because we're so much more "energy efficient" now. Some of my favorite quotes:

Oil: No longer a heavyweight
Efficiency has played a big part in that change. Following the first oil shock of 1973, when OPEC refused to sell crude to the United States in retaliation for U.S. support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War, Congress passed laws mandating more fuel efficient appliances and cars. Industry also started buying more efficient machines.

The result: EIA data show that it takes nearly half as much energy to create one dollar of economic output today than it did in 1981, owing to efficiency gains and an economy that relies on less energy intensive industries.

I guess the news "reporter" who wrote this hasn't noticed that fuel efficiency of US vehicles has actually gone down thanks to the SUV/pickup truck revolution. As for manufacturers being "more efficient," that has mainly to do with the fact that they've moved their factories to China. As China's energy consumption goes up, America's goes down, creating the false appearance that American manufacturers are using less energy.

The new math of oil
The critical insight into what's happening comes from Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and a longtime authority on world energy. "This is a demand shock, not a supply shock," he says. "What's causing it is the extraordinary economic growth of the past few years."

Any news reporter who uses Daniel "$39/barrel" Yergin as a reliable source of information should get his head examined.

Ozonehole

If you take Yergin out of context and pay no attention to his past history as a prognosticator, then his observation is accurate.

I read on one of Leananan's links to the Financial times that China's imports were up over the last calender year 18.7%. Since the big mega-projects that were supposed to come on line didn't do so(the Caspian and the deep Gulf of Mexico projects, BP's Thunderhorse and Atlantis), I think Yergin's observation is fair. Then again, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hopped. But it is fair to say that upper pressure on prices is demand driven.This is a different situation than anytime in the last 105 years, when Spindletop and the Lucas Gusher blew in at 70,000 bbl. a day. Since then the only shortages have been caused by war and embargos-"above ground considerations".

And we can laugh at Daniel Yergin all we want, but he's making huge money restating the obvious and keeping a straight face while telling the oil companies and right wing think tanks what they want to hear. And he's a good writer too-I think he deserved the Pulitzer, and also to have the oil price increases denominated with his name. We're hovering around 2.7 Yergins this week.

If we didn't have him to kick around peak oil would be mighty glum and discussed only by guys with pocket protectors for their ball point pens and scientific calculators clipped to their belt.

Bob Ebersole

And we can laugh at Daniel Yergin all we want, but he's making huge money restating the obvious and keeping a straight face while telling the oil companies and right wing think tanks what they want to hear.

I do have to hand it to Yergin - he knows which side of the bread is buttered. Seeing all the money made by right-wing attack dogs like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc, I've wondered if maybe I shouldn't adopt a pseudonym and write trash-for-cash for right-wing stinktanks and then on another web site use my real name to refute the trash. I actually knew a guy who did this in the "letters to the editor" page of a major daily newspaper. One of his personas was a right-wing nut, and he had a left-wing alter ego. He kept launching rabid verbal attacks on himself. He was doing it just for fun, not for money, and nobody but a few of his friends knew what he was up to. We just fell over laughing every time we read his stuff. Even funnier was when some of his nutcase writing got quoted in news articles - the reporters were clueless.

regards,
Oz

People do get a little humorless sometimes. I guess I have my trollish moments, too. A couple of months ago Drumbeat was working itself up to the No Knothing position in reguards to the Mexican illegal immigants, the Lou Dobbsian pro Minuteman stuff. I got in a couple of serious arguments calling a spade a spade about the Minutemen-they are a bunch of drunken thugs, carrying guns and intimidating Latinos here in Texas and elsewhere. Allowing that kind of Militia was one of the primary causes of the American Civil War.

I think the immigration situation is a result of our energy and climate change situation, combined with Thomas Malthus. Spanish and Portugese speaking America is a real seat of the world population growth and climate change is hurting the productivity of the lands with chronic drought in the Amazon and the Chihuahuan desert. And, its only going to get worse if we don't help them out to become prosperous at home. At any rate, I started calling the illegal immigrants "Documentationally Challenged", which I thought was pretty funny and a pretty fair ribbing of the politicially correct verbal conventions we all adhere to these days.

Only on problem, nobody laughed or even acted as thougth I might be kidding . Oh shit, we are entirely too serious. And that's not a joke.
Bob Ebersole

The comedian Don Novello had a great series of books in his personna of Lazlo Toth, where he published his letters and replies from various places. I would love to read this set you describe.

Phil Hendrie on the radio does this in real-time where he fakes out his callers by creating fictitious guests with his own voice. But everyone knows the joke except for a few clueless that call in. But unlike oil, there is an unlimited supply of cluelessness.

I'm sure that the reporter also didn't note that a dollar today is worth much less than half of a dollar in 1980.