Reactions to story from The New York Times

• 

  Helms had a good excuse for not returning the NYT's call

  http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9198
  148 days ago in FP Passport | blogging on global news, politics, economics, and ideas · Authority: 1,118

  Helms had a good excuse for not returning the NYT's call Mon, 07/07/2008 - 3:10pm On a ridiculously early flight this morning, I finally got around to finishing the Sunday New York Times and noticed this little gem in the lead story in the Business
• 

  Bio Fuel

  http://www.greenireland.org/index.php/2008/09/22/bio-fuel/
  71 days ago in Green Ireland · Authority: 1

  It seems that with the High price of oil people are beginning to turn to Biofuel as a way to beat the pump price of oil. This also has its share of problems. The more people use, say Rapeseed oil instead of diesel the harder it is to buy it. It seems that the market for Rapeseed has gone through the Roof, where as even a few months ago farmers were still wondering what to do with all the Oil they produced. A friend of mine as been running his van on rapeseed for the last 2 years. He is now finding it harder and harder to get rapeseed as a lot of local farmers have run out. It seems that supply cannot keep up with demand and its going to get to a stage that it might only be a few cents cheaper than Diesel…. According to an article in the Irish Times we use “183,000 barrels of oil per day” I wonder how much land it would take to generate 183,000 barrels of oil a day, so that our economy can keep on ticking. Considering that “One acre of rapeseed yields 115 gallons of biodiesel” That equivalent to 1591 acres, roughly 6 square kilometers. It take between 6-7 months to grow, (plant in march and harvest in September/ September to march). It is a very bad idea to have a mono crop so the land would have to grow other crops for the rest of the year. So we use on average 66,795,000 Barrels of oil a year. (70% for transport). So to supply all the oil for Ireland for one year, if we could! it would take 2350 Km/2. But because we can only grow the crop in rotation and some time the land would have to be left idle(good farming practice, IANAF). so 3 to 4 times this amount of land would have to be set aside. So taking maybe 3×2350km/2 = 7051km/2 which isn’t a small patch of land by a long shot, Cork County is 7457km/2 in size. So providing Irelands need in Oil for one Year using Biofuel is huge undertaking and I don’t think that it is even possible to do. What’s left for Ireland to do? Reduction would be a start! Increase the use of public transport, that is alot easier to say than to implement. I think for the foreseeable future Ireland will depend on Oil. Unless there is a radical shift in Goverment policy!
• 

  Failed American Energy Policy

  http://northington08.blogspot.com/2008/07/failed-american-en...
  149 days ago in Northington '08 · Authority: 9

  The New York Times has a fine article today summarizing the failure of American energy policy over the past many years. Given the current gasoline price of more than $4 a gallon there is much concern among people of all economic positions in the nation. Everyone is suffering the consequence of decisions made over the course of the past 30 years or more.Entire industries are reeling — airlines and automakers most prominent among them — and gas prices have emerged as an important issue in the presidential campaign.Over the last 25 years, opportunities to head off the current crisis were ignored, missed or deliberately blocked, according to analysts, politicians and veterans of the oil and automobile industries. What’s more, for all the surprise at just how high oil prices have climbed, and fears for the future, this is one crisis we were warned about. Ever since the oil shortages of the 1970s, one report after another has cautioned against America’s oil addiction.Where did we go wrong? In large measures the source of trouble may be seen in our own driveways. Americans are now and have been for years obsessed with large vehicles.Nearly 70 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil the United States consumes every day goes for transportation, with the bulk of that burned by individual driversFor many years low cost gasoline was part of American culture. We built houses far from centers of business and continued to drive everywhere we wished to go. Today we are paying the price of our neglect.In 1975 the first corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards were passed.LARGELY as a result, oil consumption in 1990 totaled 16.9 million barrels, basically on a par with the 17 million barrels consumed in 1980, even as the economy grew substantially.A proposed revision of the CAFE standards to raise the average to 40 miles per gallon failed.Amid furious opposition from Detroit, liberal Democrats from automaking states, like Carl Levin of Michigan, joined conservative Republicans like Jesse Helms of North Carolina to block new CAFE standardsThe argument at the time included automakers responding to public demand. People bought more larger vehicles instead of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. I'd argue this was in large part due to advertising pressures as automakers made the larger vehicles seem more attractive and macho. The better profit margins on larger vehicles (especially SUV's) made the pressure on automakers even more decisive.Since the 1970'sglobal consumption [of oil] has taken off, rising to 85.2 million barrels a day last year from 76.3 million in 2000.BY 2001, oil prices were slowly creeping up, but few seemed to notice, perhaps because the march was slow and steady.But the handwriting was on the wall for those willing to take notice. The automakers missed the call and continued to build and market their profitable gas guzzlers.Now even politician regret their previous stance on CAFE standards....onetime CAFE opponents like Mr. [Mike] Castle [R-DE] now say they wish that Congress had acted sooner.Nice to see him on the right page for a change, but now is much too late. The crisis is upon us today. The pain of the current market will not ease any time soon. Solutions lie in the distant past. Today we must face the situation and look for long term solutions.“It’s a shame we’re doing this now instead of 10 or 20 years ago,” says Mr. Castle, who supported the legislation last year.But where was he in 2001 when he voted against raising CAFE? Hindsight is wonderful but today we need honest foresight in Congress.Solutions are not going to be found easily found. Foreign car makers are much better positioned to take advantage of the rise in gasoline prices and the changing demand of American consumers. Detroit is seeing the profit margins of large vehicles dropping faster than the companies are able to respond. The Chrysler plant here in Delaware is closing for an 8 week period this summer to retool for a pair of hybrid vehicles. The entire American auto industry must move as fast as possible to produce smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.Our government needs to invest in research and development to insure technological advance into the future. The current crisis is one more warning sign about a future we must face. Our society must take a look at housing development patterns. We must begin to improve our mass transit opportunities. We can no longer afford our oil addiction.The pain of today is not to be relieved any time soon. We must demand accountability and truth from our elected officials. We must insure a future for our children and our grandchildren by moving to renewable energy sources and we must make the move very soon. Bluewater Wind will supply a small fraction of our electricity. We need a great deal more resources like that. We must move to electric cars or to hydrogen powered vehicles. There is much work to be done. If we fail to move today we stand to lose much more in the future.Together we can face this situation. Americans have shown themselves to be resourceful and flexible over all these many years. We can face the issues of today if we stand together and take action. We stand together or we fall apart.Peace.
• 

  The Future of The World... Illustrated.

  http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2008/07/future-o...
  150 days ago in Little Blog In The Big Woods · Authority: 57

  Today and recently the blogosphere is dripping with blog producers and blog consumers lathering about - The Future.  And if there is one. This is entirely understandable, and believe me, I'm not smirking at all those silly people. We are, indeed, standing on the edge of the cliff here.  Read Sharon; read Ilargi and Stoneleigh.   The thing is, I've known this for a long long time.  I do believe in physics, I do, I do.  And if you do- this collapse of industrial insanity has been inevitable for a very long time. But how, forsooth, to explain that?  Lucidly, and convincingly, to folks who have not spent decades looking and listening, and studying.  What we are all taught, growing up, is that "progress" is glorious, inevitable, and endless- and good.  They pound that in hard.  It's not easy getting folks to the point where they can see it's a dogma based on fallacies and illusions.  And it's not fun.  Luckily for us, California has produced several years of completely clear data.  It isn't necessary for you to understand "the science of economics" (ROTFL!); or physics, or the chemistry of global warming.  You just need 4th grade arithmatic. California is burning, yes?  Badly.  Happened last year; and the year before.  And what are they doing about it all? Not planning, that's for sure.  Here it is: the reaction to the entire state burning down- the reaction of the wealthiest, most forward looking people on the planet. Cost of firefighting in California; by year: Can you say "impotent"? The fact is; our world governments are all in this state at the moment; utterly unable to cope with reality.  The various forces at work are able, time and again, to prevent action. Manifestly- California needs to agree- fires are more costly than they used to be; we must budget more for dealing with them. Manifestly- the state of California has failed to do anything about the problem, year after year. Reality, physics, will prevail; every time.  Which is why California is on fire again. Another litany of years of inaction is here; NYT: Asleep At The Spigot. This is perhaps the largest problem I see for humanity at the moment- regardless of how or why we got here- our joint decision making processes are universally paralyzed. Yes? Universally paralyzed. Pick a disaster; any disaster- as the pundits are sifting through the rubble, you will find this phrase, over and over: "repeated warnings were ignored..." How we got here; why; and what happens next- is tome material; cannot be crammed into a blog. What do you need to do about this?  Realize- you're on your own. Technology will not save us.  Because any truly revolutionary technology will be fought tooth and nail; and subverted, and co-opted; by the same forces that have paralyzed our states. Policy will not save us.  Ditto.  They'll be holding policy discussions at our funerals. What might save us is- us. Communities, working to stick together, and face realities.   The best initiative I know of there is Rob Hopkins' "Transition Towns" -  Tons more on his website; and in video/audio.   There's hope there; if you're willing to roll up your sleeves.
• 

  Your mileage may vary...

  http://cognitivedissonancepittsburgh.blogspot.com/2008/07/yo...
  149 days ago in Cognitive dissonance in Pittsburgh and beyond · Authority: 11

  I just read a NYTimes piece called “American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot”. It pointed out that when gas prices went up the first time, in the late seventies and early eighties, we reacted with a 55 mph speed limit, with higher fuel standards for cars and by then actually buying the smaller cars. But when the gas prices went down, in the mid-eighties, the speed limit went back up, no updates for the CAFÉ standards were considered, and we started buying bigger and bigger cars. We simply frittered away the nineties and most of this decade. President Bush talked about a giant solar array in the Desert in the South East, back years ago, but did nothing about it. In fact, President Bush could have made energy independence a feature of his homeland security policy back in 2001, he could have advocated solar power, mass transit and new fuel standards for American cars. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only a Texas Bush could have endorsed conservation and alternative energy. But Dick Cheney once said "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy," and the Bush policy has followed suit. Even now, the major recommendation of the Bush administration is to open up more areas for drilling. But while the federal government may be incapable of acting, we can each individually do things, and pressure our local government to act. We can increase our use of bikes in commuting, or use public transportation. By the way, I should mention the electric bike went back. The second rechargeable battery was working no better than the first. But I have taken up using an old hybrid bicycle to commute to work. Hybrid does not refer to engines in this case, rather it was the name given to bikes which have narrower tires and lighter frames than mountain bikes, but are less fragile than road bikes, having fatter tires and the upright riding position of a mountain bike. I already have a stick shift, two door Korean rice burner mini car, but I am going to try to stop driving it to work so much. Meanwhile, I wonder what the City and County could be doing to help their citizens. One thought that occurred to me is that the City could take public land and do things with it. The City could buy up or just seize (temporarily) some of the vacant lots and start growing switch grass there. Switch grass has been cited as a possible source of ethanol, like we are using corn and the Brazilians are using sugar cane. The difference with switch grass is that we wouldn’t necessarily use fertilizer on it the way we do corn (we apparently use a lot of petroleum based fertilizer on corn, in fact, apparently we over use it in the Midwest, it runs off and has created a dead zone in the Caribbean). And Steel City Biofuels has taken up residence in the building where Construction Junction is, no doubt just waiting for a knock at the door.Another thing the City could do would be to put solar panels on Flagstaff hill in Schenley Park. The hill seems about angled right to get a lot of sun. The city could sell the power back to whatever utility (or utilities) it uses to power its buildings and our traffic lights. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with CMU engineers, in exchange for some fraction of the electricity. The County, meanwhile, needs to resolve its issues with the driver’s union. That union seems to feel it can use a strike to its advantage, keeping or even increasing its benefits and perhaps getting a raise too. The County should point out to the driver’s union that transit agencies across the country are seeing increases in riders, but they are also seeing fuel costs increasing even faster. Nationally transit agencies are talking about cutting back on routes. PAT should let the drivers know that if they strike, and afterwards the Authority loses riders, there may be layoffs and dramatic cuts in routes. Which of course is absolutely counter intuitive in this time of higher gas prices. A bus may pollute more than two or three cars, but with twenty riders it is taking twenty cars off the road, and using less gas than probably the first fifteen to eighteen. The point is there are a number of things we can do locally. It remains to be seen whether we will.
• 

  Missed petroleum opportunities

  http://honestpartisan.blogspot.com/2008/07/missed-petroleum-...
  149 days ago in honestpartisan · Authority: 5

  Oil and gas prices were really low in the '90s. We could have used the economic slack low prices allow us to take measures to reduce our long-term dependence on oil. Instead, we went on an SUV-buying spree. Yesterday's New York Times had a great article recounting various missed opportunities to take measures that would have made the current spike in oil price less painful that it is.I understand the opposition to a gas tax, although I favor one (actually, I'd be in favor of carbon tax with credits as offsets to mitigate the regressive impact of it), but the opposition to the 4.3-cent-a-gallon -- not percent, but cent -- increase in the gas tax that Bill Clinton eventually got passed in 1993 reached Armageddon levels. That 4.3 cents doesn't look so significant now, does it?Some proponents of the gas tax or a carbon tax are dismissive of fuel efficiency standards as a way to reduce gas consumption. I see their point, but with gas taxes as politically toxic as they are and the converse having such unpleasant effects as a rise in SUV consumption, it seems to me that you could save a lot of barrels of oil that way. The article details how the imposition of such standards helped hold down American oil consumption throughout the '80s despite the fact that oil prices dropped a lot during that time. The article also points out that the US consumes a giant portion of world oil supplies -- 25% -- such that American consumption habits could have a big impact on global demand and, therefore, price. Opposition to fuel-efficiency standards by everyone from the UAW to free-market Republicans looks awfully short-sighted these days.The environmental downside of oil usage already makes the case for such measures. What makes oil different from say, coal, in the regard is that the global supply of oil is limited. We can either plan for a reduction in oil consumption so as to minimize the economic pain that would cause or have the choice made for us in a way that doesn't. We chose the latter path and are now paying the price.Labels: oil
• 

  Missed petroleum opportunities

  http://honestpartisan.blogspot.com/2008/07/missed-petroleum-...
  148 days ago in honestpartisan · Authority: 5

  Oil and gas prices were really low in the '90s. We could have used the economic slack low prices allow us to take measures to reduce our long-term dependence on oil. Instead, we went on an SUV-buying spree. Yesterday's New York Times had a great article recounting various missed opportunities to take measures that would have made the current spike in oil price less painful that it is.I understand the opposition to a gas tax, although I favor one (actually, I'd be in favor of carbon tax with credits as offsets to mitigate the regressive impact of it), but the opposition to the 4.3-cent-a-gallon -- not percent, but cent -- increase in the gas tax that Bill Clinton eventually got passed in 1993 reached Armageddon levels. That 4.3 cents doesn't look so significant now, does it?Some proponents of the gas tax or a carbon tax are dismissive of fuel efficiency standards as a way to reduce gas consumption. I see their point, but with gas taxes as politically toxic as they are and the converse having such unpleasant effects as a rise in SUV consumption, it seems to me that you could save a lot of barrels of oil that way. The article details how the imposition of such standards helped hold down American oil consumption throughout the '80s despite the fact that oil prices dropped a lot during that time. The article also points out that the US consumes a giant portion of world oil supplies -- 25% -- such that American consumption habits could have a big impact on global demand and, therefore, price. Opposition to fuel-efficiency standards by everyone from the UAW to free-market Republicans looks awfully short-sighted these days.The environmental downside of oil usage already makes the case for such measures. What makes oil different from say, coal, in the regard is that the global supply of oil is limited. We can either plan for a reduction in oil consumption so as to minimize the economic pain that would cause or have the choice made for us in a way that doesn't. We chose the latter path and are now paying the price.Labels: oil
• 

  Energy: Drilling for Oil Offshore and in ANWR; Has the Time Come?

  http://greenskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/07/energy-drilling-for...
  144 days ago in the green skeptic · Authority: 28

  Okay, brace yourself. If you're a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist, you're not going to like what I'm about to write. I'm not sure you'll like it if you're on the other extreme either, but what the hell.I'm wondering whether it may be time to reconsider drilling offshore, and to take a hard look at whether the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) can be developed for oil in an environmentally favorable way. I'm not saying we should go ahead with either, but I do think we need to put both considerations on the table, put aside our emotions, look at the real impacts, weigh the options, and then decide.There are several things we need to factor into our consideration: 1. Our dependence upon fossil fuels is not going away any time soon. 2. There are, according to some sources familiar with the situation, relatively abundant remaining sources of fossil fuels, offshore and on land. Most agree they will take too long to develop to have immediate impact, but they may extend the time-frame for alternatives to replace fossil fuels. And with prices what they are now, it's looking like now may be the time when these sources are actually viable.3. It is not known whether ANWR is a viable source; there is little baseline data with which to make such a call. Some say the oil industry may be betting on the fact that developing ANWR will allow the life of Alaska's pipeline to extend beyond 2030, and make it more viable to recover smaller pools throughout the region.4. Developing ANWR is likely to have little impact on today's prices. In a report last May, the Department of Energy estimated that it will result in a reduction of only 75 cents a barrel. 5. A recent study by the federal government's Energy Information Administration projects, in the best-case scenario, developing ANWR will engender a price reduction of around $1.44/barrel by 2027.The same study claims drilling off the coasts of the US won't affect prices until 2030, as reported in the New York Times.6. Global consumption of oil reached 85.2 million barrels a day in 2008, up from last year's 76.3 million. Another study, to be released this fall by the International Energy Agency (IEA), projects consumption will rise to 116 million barrels next year.7. New techniques, such as directional drilling will continue to reduce the footprint per well-head on Alaska's North Slope, but there remains the issue of roads, housing, pipelines, and other facilities needed to bring the oil to market.Those impacts could still be huge in ANWR, which is used by polar bears, caribou, and other animals as they search for places to give birth. (Birth is the most vulnerable stage in the life-cycle of some species.) Other biologists familiar with the area claim the stated impacts may be overdone.As for the coasts, there are worthy concerns about impacts on human coastal communities, especially those that rely on fishing or tourism for their livelihoods. Our neighbors to the north and south have increased their off-shore development over the past decade with little or marginal impact on the environment. 8. New off-shore development will also take years to put in place.9. Finally, there is a shortage of deep water drill-ships for offshore development, which are currently booked for the next five years, and we may be looking at a long time horizon with very little short-term impact. Still, impact is impact, and while we're looking at alternative energy development, perhaps we need to consider how we will meet demand for fossil fuels while alternatives build momentum.High demand, low supply rules the day. But if the benefits of off-shore and ANWR development are a long way off, is it worth the risk? Can we do without it? What if it can be demonstrated that the environmental impacts are negligible? What if, as Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska announced last week, we could put revenues in service of alternative energy projects?I am not advocating a position for or against such development; I'm simply calling for a rational, emotion-free analysis before we move forward or rule it out.
• 

  Gas price decline: Day 25

  http://short-termtrading.blogspot.com/2008/08/gas-price-decl...
  112 days ago in Short-Term Trading · Authority: 43

  Prices at the pump continue to decline at last as described in the CNN Gas price decline: Day 25 (cnn) It was only a month ago the oil was at $150. Who's Responsible For $150 Oil? A List of the Actual Villains (clusterstock) A lot of discussions on American energy policy American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot (NYT) and alternatives to fossil fuels From WMD to energy (fortune) today oil hits $113 while the dollar all of a sudden becomes stronger against other currencies. THis is quite impressive if you consider also the war in Georgia and the fact that an important pipeline runs in that region. Oil falls to $113 in Asia on stronger dollar (AP) Crude oil hits low not seen since May (seattle times) Now we see forecasts of much lower prices for oil. But can we trust analysts, this is my question. Lehman: Oil Back to $90 In Six Months (LEH) (clusterstock) many are still still negative No Relief from $120 Oil Anytime Soon -- or Ever, says Energy Expert (tech ticker) and others hope to exploit arctic resources Next Brilliant Idea To Fix Oil Crisis: Pillage The Arctic (clusterstock) Econbrowser analyzes the correlation between exchange rates and the price of oil. Oil and the dollar (econbrowser) Presidential candidate talks about oil. Obama's View of Oil Markets (greg mankiw) Where all the windfalls oil profits will go? Two challenges highlight the scale of the bonanza (ft) Measuring Crude’s Wild Swings (marketbeat)

Advertise on Technorati