DrumBeat: August 23, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 23, 2006 - 9:11am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Russia oil production overtakes Saudi Arabia
Russia is extracting more oil than Saudi Arabia, making it the biggest producer of "black gold" in the world, figures show.The statistics, from the oil cartel Opec, reflect a trend that has seen the Russians periodically surpass the Saudis as the world's biggest oil producers on and off since 2002.
These latest figures are being hailed in Russia as evidence that such periodic production spikes are not one-offs though and that Moscow really does have a right to lay claim to the No 1 spot.
Oil Profits Help Russia Pay Off Soviet-Era Debt
Eight years after it defaulted on more than $40 billion in debt and slid into financial chaos, Russia transferred $23.7 billion to the Paris Club of creditors Monday, wiping out the last of its Soviet-era debts and underlining the extent to which oil and gas revenue has transformed the country's finances.
Katrina, Rita Cost to Oil Industry Rises to Record $17 Billion
"Hurricanes come every year, and we are accustomed to dealing with them," said Roger Plank, chief financial officer with Houston oil and gas producer Apache Corp., which had as much as $700 million in damage from 2005's storms. "But what, as an industry, we are not accustomed to are 100-year storms, and we had two of them last year."
Energy Bulletin has posted several articles about ASPO-5:
| Robert Hirsch scares me out of my wits… |
World oil demand growth brings dilemma for Opec
Energy focus for Chavez in China
Oil producer Venezuela wants to reduce its reliance on the US, the destination for most of its oil exports despite the two countries' ideological differences.China, in need of oil supplies to maintain its rapid economic growth, offers a lucrative alternative market.
More protests over power shortages in Bangladesh
The Sylhet Bibhag Ganodabi Parishad, a citizens' forum, yesterday took out a procession in the city and laid a siege to the Power Development Board (PDB) office demanding smooth power supply....With Md Turan Mian presiding, speakers at the rally said power stations in Sylhet region produce 180 MW electricity a day, which can fully meet the demand of four districts in greater Sylhet. But the region reels under severe power crisis as power is supplied to other districts.
They demanded that Sylhet region's requirement has to be met before taking power for other districts.
Nigerian oil unions consider quitting Niger Delta
Nigeria's oil workers' unions may pull out all members from the Niger Delta over safety fears following a spate of abductions by militants and a military crackdown, the head of one of the unions said on Wednesday.
U.K.: Winter power shortages loom
Namibia: Fuel Hike Starts to Bite
NAMIBIA'S farmers expect to be severely affected as fuel prices continue to spiral up, with last week's increase alone - 50 cents a litre - pushing up their operating costs by 20 per cent....The fishing industry is hunkering down, predicting "millions of dollars" in extra running costs, while transport companies anticipate the increase will add 10 per cent to their input costs.
[Update by Leanan on 08/23/06 at 11:16 AM EDT]
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending August 18, 2006: Crude oil fell less than expected, distillates grew far more than expected, and there's a surprise build for gasoline.
Lower Fertility: a Wise Investment
The results might be interesting.
However, the U.S. would be at steady-state or slightly declining population growth, if not for immigation. Everyone wants to move here and get a piece of the American dream.
As a Canadian, I'm accutely aware that we not only have more immigration but a much higher average ecological/energy footprint. If America is bad, we're worse. Much of the reason we're worse is that we are supplying America with energy and resources, but that doesn't get us off the hook in my view.
Nit-pick: Be careful using "everyone".
IMO...no. That is an issue separate from population.
It is pointless to control population without also understanding the impact of individual (and collective)ecological footprints, just as it is futile to moderate individual (and collective) ecological footprints without understanding and adjusting population.
Well, overpoplation will, too, but that will be a lot nastier than not being able to afford an SUV or plasma TV.
And the market will not take care of overpopulation. The laws of nature will eventually curb overpopulation, not the laws of the market.
Methinks you are mistaken the market with Mother Nature. Malthusian principles will prevail in spite of the market, not because of it.
No, I think what will fix it is the market. We are using more than our share of resources because we're sucking them from the rest of the world. That won't go on forever.
No. what will "fix" it is war.
(It being America's taking of 25% of resource flow in comparison to her 8% rank in world population)
You forget that we are the "ownership society"
We "own" all the resources of the world and if they don't hand the stuff over to us, we go to fight them "over there" for it before they fight us over here.
Our notion of being the "ownership society" will end when we are bankrupted by our nonprofitable military adventures or when "they who hate our freedom to take what we want" vanquish us militarily.
J. Paul Getty
There is nothing inherent in the market that will assist the current have nots to become equal with the haves. While it may be true that we will not always have more than our fair share, the market will not be the instrument that changes that. In fact, if it is ever changed it will be in spite of the market, not because of it.
And you said, in your previous post, that the market will also take care of the overpopulation problem. It is the principles of Malthus that will eventually fix that problem, not the market. What the market will do is insure that those with the most have the best chance of survival. Very unfair but that is just the difference between the market and Malthus. (Again, fair only in the moral sense.)
Who said anything about equitable?
Utimately the rules of nature and the market system is connected. I can best summarize the connection between markets and nature by borrowing the title of Darwins famous book "Survival of the fittest". Those without wealth, resources or can't adapt will suffer and probably die off.
The rules of survival, the market, and natural selection are all the related. People that can adapt and have access to the necessary resources will survive. Those without will perish. We can see this all the time in business. Successful businesses that provide good or services that meet the demands of tje market survive and flourish, those that don't go bankrupt. Businesses also need to adapt to the changing market. For instance during much of the 20th century, camera film manufactures and processors flourished. Kodak was part of the dow 30 for many decades. When film was replaced by digital photography, these companies no longer served the market. Some adapted and some went bankrupt.
Market forces will bring about changes, but they aren't going to save humanity from the trouble ahead. The only option is to adapt or die. Those that believe that Communism and socialism can solve the problem are dead wrong. Our planet's history has been dominated by the market system since life began about 2 billion years ago. During this time, nature has never developed an eco. system based upon the ideas of communism. It has always been based upon a market system and always will be. In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
No, "the market" is a much too coarse approximation of Darwinian selection AND vice-versa!
Survival of the fitest does NOT have the same meaning in these two cases.
This is all because of several reasons, among which :
- In nature more is not necessarily better.
- In nature the various needs are regulated by idiosyncratic mechanisms which do not "trade" among themselves thru a neutral medium, neither money nor raw energy, a lack of such or such protein is not "fungible".
- In nature cooperation between individuals, groups, species and even across genres (bees / flowers) is regulated by hard-wired mechanisms which evolve only VERY slowly, like our "basic instincts".
In the market these are replaced by the rule of law which can be arbitrarily crazy and changing fast.
Never had a tax rebate repealed or the like?
In the end the rules of the market system will prevail, it just won't be one that is any regards, equitable.
Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
The market does not appear to be sustainable in a FINITE RESSOURCES environment neither are "Communism and socialism" which are just a reframing of the growth trend with more "equity".
Your absolutely correct. Althought I was just refering to the rules that that they share, such as the rules of supply and demand. If a required resource becomes depleted, it becomes expensive to obtain. For in a drought, food and water are harder to obtain for both man and animals. More labor or energy is required to obtain adquite supplies to sustain life. A society, herd, or even single cell organisms either adapt or fight to obtain what remains. These rules apply to business, societies, or even single cell organisms. The market system isn't fair nor is survival fair.
>Nice to you to care for equity but this is not the direst problem, SUSTAINABILITY is the direst problem.
We don't have a sustainabe system, and there is no way to support 6 Billion or even perhaps even 2 Billion in any sustainable system. FWIW: If I had some sort of magic wand I would use it to waive all these problems away.
Most probably, any other idea beside the "magic wand" ?
Prayer, Rapture, Singularity, Armageddon, Nukular, what's you pick?
Darwinian is right:
When the US is no longer able to import the required amount of fossil fuels, Americans will start to use what ever fuel is available. That being trees, coal, garbage, etc. What ever they can use to heat their homes and run the power grid. Search the financial websites for growth in wood pellet stoves and coal consumption to see that its already begining.
A decline in oil and gas imports will be the beginning of the biggest ecological disaster in history. FWIW: The entire Northeast of the United States was deforested by the beginning of the 20th Century (mostly for heating and steam power). Since that time, the land has recovered because Oil and Gas was cleaner and cheaper than wood and coal. You could say that Oil and Gas production came in the nick of time to prevent a real disaster. This time there is no new source of energy to save us.
In other words, overpopulation will be solved, either by birth control and family planning, or be depopulation. The same with the other problems we currently face.
I would much rather take the first route instead of waiting for Mother Nature to do it for us.
Overpopulation has only 3 solutions as I can see. 1. Mother natures kitchen solution - Global warming or bird flu...or both. 2. War 3. We wake up and convince several generations to stop having babies so we can reduce the global population 2/3rds. (yah right)
Maybe the outcome will be a hybrid, some of Momma's wrath, a few nukes, and then who ever is left is involuntarily forced in realizing that they should have less babies(however this is against procreation principles).
In any case, growth must stop somehow as you stated.
If you have other solutions, love to hear them.
=======It's all about population!
5. Malnutriention resulting in wide spread of pandemic diseases (The dark ages during the little ice age).
If one person makes the decision to only have one child or no childern then somebody else decides they can take up the slack and have extras. The first person had reduced the chance of continuing the blood line and somebody else filled in.
I carpool, but that just allows one other car and that much more gas to be used by others on the road.
I lower my electrical consuption by using a programmable thermostat and turn off the AC during the day. But that just allows somebody to run a little bit cooler without overloading the grid.
Samething with NatGas in the winter. . .
The Easter Island story has been mentioned several times here. I can imagine the last group of survivors as they watch the trees disapear with each day. At some point either one person, a small group, or even the entire population looks at the remaining trees and realizes that they are running out. Maybe even as a collective they decide they should not cut any more down for fires to cook food. But all it takes is one person to decide that they are going to go out and cut down a tree and use the wood for fire. He has just increased his chance of surviving. Then somebody follows suit and cuts down the next tree to increase their chance. As individuals they feel justified because just one tree isn't going to matter, but pretty soon everybody has cut down a tree.
Maybe the person that stood up and said that they need to save the trees holds true and does not cut down a tree. He cannot cook food or provide shelter. His chance of survival is reduced.
Even though the long term solution is to reduce there will always be masses that 'pick up the slack' of those that are conserving. It is human nature - and I don't see how we avoid it.
I conserve, you conserve - sustainable world
I conserve, you don't - I suffer a lot, you enjoy yourself
neither conserves - we both suffer greatly because of an eco-collapse.
There are two ways around it, according to Diamond.
One is to be such a small society that everyone can understand the problem and everyone has a stake in the solution.
The other is a central government strong enough to force compliance.
This is all a problem of priorities, which kind of goals is a "strong enough central government" likely to look for first?
- Survival and enjoyment for government employees (of "sufficient" rank of course).
- Necessary but unpopular measures which may bring trouble with the masses.
As Diamond points out, a king has incentive to protect his kingdom. He gets his wealth from the entire kingdom. And he hopes that his heirs will inherit that wealth one day. He has reason to promote sustainability.
In a democracy, where your time in power may be fleeting, perhaps there's more incentive to just loot the country while you can.
OTOH, our system of government isn't as egalitarian as we like to believe. Maybe King George II would like to leave something for his heirs, future Presidents Jenna and Barbara.
That was Votlaire's idea of an enlightened despot.
That won't work either, not only because we cannot get back to this, but because if by any stroke of luck you DO get an enlightened one this always turn sour in a few generations.
Enlightenment is not hereditary.
Speaking of enlightenment, do you really think that "King George II" COULD manage to "leave something for his heirs" ?
Not that I think it's an option for us, but perhaps the idea that "all despots turn bad eventually" is a myth? Or, as Tainter would put it, it's one of the "nonmaterial elements" used to legitimize our society. The Emperor is a God. Democracy is the best form of government. Etc.
The pretty violent downward adjustment in energy consumption of the 90s was handled, overall, unexpectedly well (no mass starvation or mayhem; human contentment index probably not substantially lowered).
I'm not advocating it as a transposable model or anything. For one thing, I would be prepared to tolerate a fairly high degree of mayhem before surrendering my freedoms. For another, the ratio of "enlightened" despots to overall despots is not terribly high.
Contest. This is a college essay. Or an essay on a college entrance exam (just shutup, and pretend):
Explain what the Eastern Roman Empire did to preserve itself.
All entries must be between 50 and 5000 words. No quotes or links are allowed. Immediate disqualification for any comments that include either.
Points awarded for conciseness, accuracy, and writing style. In that order.
Prizes:
1st) A fictional "Cadillac" mentioned by the Alec Baldwin character in Glengarry Glenross.
2nd) a brand new set of steak knives.
3rd) You're fired.
Now let's progress to the bonus round.
Wait, we have a complaint - somebody is saying you were not actually anwering the question, you were asking a question...Judges?...yes, sorry. Minus 5 points!
Beavis and Butthead? Your remarks?
uhuhhuhheh.
OK. Plus 10.
Final score - 105. Congratulations. You are the Leader.
I've always wondered. Does DIY mean Do It Yourselfer?
uhuhhhuhehuh
Yes, that's what DIY generally stands for. It was a handle I used in another forum, and lack of creativity or a limitation on handle length or a desire to limit typing prohibited using say, "ConcernedButUnpreparedAndNowScared****less" or something. Of how large a company are you CEO?