I just read the energy speech Obama gave on Tuesday in Nevada. I'd call it a TKO if I didn't sound so unconvincing using boxing metaphors.
Watch what he leads with: "A green, renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future, it is now."
This is what the campaign, correctly in my judgment, has decided people need to hear first and foremost: It's happening. People just like you, who live around here, are getting jobs doing this stuff.
The Obama campaign is way ahead of most pundits and politicians on this issue. They've realized that in the fight for sane energy policy, you don't need the environmental message (climate change is mentioned just once, in the context of criticizing McCain for empty rhetoric). You need economic competitiveness, security from scary dictators, and a sense of collective purpose. It's about translating the "green economy" abstraction into nuts and bolts.
There's nothing wrong with "the environment" of course, and Obama's called it out before, but he's casting a wide enough net now that he pulls in plenty of people who don't give a frack about polar bears and icebergs.
And he just dismantles McCain. It's one jab after another. Like this one, about the $300 million prize McCain proposes for new electric car battery:
When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win -- he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people.
Or this one, on the universally debunked claim from McCain that offshore oil drilling would bring "short-term relief," which McCain has since ... modified:
Just yesterday, Senator McCain actually admitted this. In a town hall he said, and I quote, "I don't see an immediate relief" but "the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial." Psychological impact. In case you were wondering, that's Washington-speak for, "It polls well."
That's going to leave a mark. Thing is, none of this is mudslinging. He's hitting McCain on legitimate policy differences. He's just doing it with a little flair.
Now listen to McCain's return blow:
"On this energy issue, yeah, it's easy to say 'no' to everything," Mr. McCain said. "That's what Senator Obama is doing. We've got to come forward with bold proposals, innovative ones, and ones that will bring this nation to energy independence for national security reasons as well as others."
Feeble and off-key. This is what you get when you ask your granddad about a new rock band. It becomes pretty clear he can't follow the tune. And the tune voters just heard from Obama is full of Yes: new energy, new jobs, new opportunities, new leadership. Meanwhile, as for "bold" and "innovative" proposals, it's tough to see how drilling for oil and serving pork to the nuclear industry, whatever their merits, fit that bill. That's singin' to the oldies.
McCain and Obama agree on high-toned energy rhetoric, but this is just like when Democrats used to try to finesse the national security issue by going Bush-lite. A choice between Bush and Bush-lite will always go to Bush. A choice between two guys who agree on the need for new energy policy will go to the guy who's offering it up, not the guy who's lip-syncing the words.
I don't know if this stuff will register in the polls -- there still aren't enough people paying attention to it -- but as far as I can tell Obama is completely outflanking McCain on the energy issue, and winning on substance to boot. He's got an increasingly honed message while McCain is being buffeted about the demands of his base, tripping over his inch-deep grasp of policy, and flip-flopping so fast he's already done on both sides. And it's only June.
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
Steve Bloom Posted 4:15 am
25 Jun 2008
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 4:24 am
25 Jun 2008
Don't get me wrong - I like Obama a lot - but I've not yet seen that he really understands the structural problems in our existing regulation that are much easier, and much cheaper to address than tax policy tweaks. Perhaps moreso than McCain, but he's still got a long way to go.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:04 am
25 Jun 2008
Sean, I don't know whether Obama's people are hip to the regulatory stuff. I know he calls out decoupling relatively frequently, but as you've said, the devil's in the details there. Either way, I'm not sure it serves the purpose of giving a rousing speech. "Yes we can ... remove perverse incentives for capital deployment from the regulated monopolies in the utility sector!" [crickets]
As for economic development policy, there's deploying incentives and deploying incentives. If the Bush era has taught us anything, it's that the difference between competent gov't and ... not competent gov't is as or more important than fine policy distinctions.
grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:04 am
25 Jun 2008
Government policies and subsidies do not wag the tails of venture capital, just another by-the-way benefit.
Economics rule! Obama is on the money!
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:25 am
25 Jun 2008
That said, the security issue could help push the U.S. toward more localized energy sources and away from destructive ones, mainly nuclear. But regardless, we still need to consume a lot less.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 6:13 am
25 Jun 2008
More seriously, don't you find it a bit troubling that the details he's articulating are so light on ambition? It just seems out of pace with the rhetoric of change and new approaches to then espouse details that simply expand things we're already doing. Is the best idea out there to encourage clean energy that of renewable production tax credits, so that we can just evaluate candidates based on the size of their PTC?
Don't get me wrong - I like the rhetoric as much as you do. I just don't see details to back it up. Hell, maybe there's a better idea than my crazy ones about regulatory reform. But we ought to push for something greater than just doing what we've done before, bigger.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:12 am
25 Jun 2008
His tongue is silverier than ours and his political judgment is better, and he's decided the best message to lead with is that there are real jobs being created, and not just on the coasts, and he's going to dump a whole lot of public money into the effort to boost the industries that are creating them.
Remember, by and large, people don't give a sh*t about policy. It's all about affect. He's positioning himself as someone who recognizes people's economic pain and has a concrete, well-funded plan to address it. Anything more detailed than that belongs in a white paper (of which his campaign has released plenty!).
grist.org
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:44 am
25 Jun 2008
Note also, at 5 minutes and 30 seconds into his speech, Obama ridicules McCain's "$3 million prize" for a better car battery, when in fact what McCain proposed was a "$300 million prize." Obama then credits big government for putting men on the moon, but forgets to mention that the $10 million X-Prize proved to be a powerful incentive for the creation of a non-governmental space ship (and that Charles Lindbergh was inspired by the Orteig Prize to make the first solo transatlantic airplane flight).
Interesting that Obama also says (at 7'45) that what the American people need is something that "will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table." I wonder how is he going to square that promise with his unstinting support for corn ethanol?
Like Sean, I see also some positive ideas coming out of the Obama camp, and some silly ones coming out of the McCain camp. But I think you're exaggerating by calling the speech a TKO, David.
For some of us, policy details DO matter, especially given what we know about how each of the presidential candidates have voted.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 8:51 am
25 Jun 2008
"We have a national ability to innovate. We have a magnificent entrepreneurial culture, and massive access to capital. Those strengths have enabled us to solve the greatest challenges faced by past generations, and will be put to work to solve the greatest challenges of our generation as well. But they won't do so if they are held back by government regulation. Government is not the solution. It is the problem. [riff on as appropriate]"
Reagan built a mantra around this that still drives much of the GOP, even as their actions fail to live up to the rhetoric. So fundamentally, I don't agree that one could not frame an energy policy that is both rational and makes for a good sound-bite. Obama's got the latter in spades...
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:18 am
25 Jun 2008
With McCain, you get none of the latter. And for giving it up, what do you get in return? A zeroing out of federal biofuel subsidies? Let's just say I highly, highly doubt that. Even just so far in this campaign, McCain's shown his willingness to throw his climate/energy concerns overboard for the slightest political advantage. If he's in the White House, alone in his administration in opposing these subsidies, beset by the enormous agricultural lobby ... is he going to put skin in the game? Maybe, maybe not. Even if he does, it's hard for me to see that as a good bargain. I don't see the rationale for being a single issue voter on biofuels.
Sean, another aspect of the regulatory thing is that anything that even smells of deregulation is going to get Obama pilloried by large swaths of the left. I'm with you on the substance, but it's very hard for me to see how Obama finesses the complexities without getting political blowback. And remember, to implement good policy, step one is getting elected.
And to step back: my praise for the speech was political. I think he's nailing the message and I think he's hitting McCain with hard, legitimate punches. I didn't mean to hold it up as a blueprint for the Perfect Pony Energy Plan.
grist.org
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 12:43 pm
25 Jun 2008
So obviously I've gone overboard of what you could say in a speech - but I think 'not deregulation - smarter regulation - no Halliburton contracts for utilities' could work.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:59 pm
25 Jun 2008
David, I realize that one should not be a one-issue voter, and I won't be. But I sometimes get the impression that people get so excited about Obama's overall aura that they gloss over some of the important details. And, from what I can see, the media -- mainstream and minor -- is honing in on ethanol as a defining difference between Obama and McCain.
After the front-page story in the New York Times the other day ("Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol"), the blogosphere has gone crazy on this theme. I just did a Google search on that exact phrase (i.e., between quotes) and I get 41,700 hits. On Tuesday, all my Google Alerts on the key words "ethanol" and "subsidies" linked to stories on either Obama's or McCain's stance on ethanol subsidies.
This is no longer a marginal, parochial issue. The UN's Food and Agricultural Organization held a summit just last month to discuss how to respond to sharply rising food prices. The role played by biofuel support policies was a central, and controversial issue in that discussion. Just yesterday, Oxfam issued a report claiming "that rich country biofuel policies have dragged more than 30 million people into poverty."
THIS is here, THIS is now. What is he going to do about it?
I agree that Obama is a compelling speaker. He is one of the few American politicians who I actually enjoy listening to. But I don't like being bamboozled with, "we're going to spend lots and lots of money to solve all our problems." A chicken in every pot. Throw lots of money at the automobile industry? The same companies that are already building fuel-efficient cars in Brazil and Europe, but chose to build up and protect a U.S. market based on sales of SUVs and large pick-up trucks?
Yes we CAN spend more money (for awhile). But can we stand up to powerful lobbies? Can we admit when we're wrong?
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:40 pm
25 Jun 2008
I am very interested in the elimination of world poverty. I come from India, which is a third world country. But I don't have any problems with US bio-fuels. I don't see it as a problem if you Americans decide to burn corn in your cars.
Why ? Because India is not dependent on US Food Aid programs. We used to be so during the 1970s. But thanks to the Green Revolution of the 80s, we are now self sufficient in food, indeed we export food as well.
Now, it is true that inflation is soaring in India. And food costs have exploded out of bounds. But the fault lies squarely with the speculators who teamed up increasing oil and commodity prices. It would be a great help to India if US actively starts reigning in these influences. Any US move towards lesser oil will reduce international demand, and help India.
Unlike India, there are a few countries which are indeed dependent on US Food Aid. These countries will be hit hard when you divert your food surplus towards biofuels. The question that needs to be asked is Why are the poor countries still dependent on US Food Aid ? What can be done to prevent water depletion and famine in poor countries ? What can be done to increase the agricultural investment in poor countries ? Why do they lack good seeds and fertilizers ? Why is the Green Revolution, successfully implemented in India 30 years ago, still being denied to many countries in Africa and Latin America ? What role do the food subidies being handed out to large agricultural conglomerates play in this misfortune ?
If Americans come clean about this, and implement a true initiative towards eliminating poverty in third world countries, that is great. This starts primarily with a commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid, extremely necessary to achieve the millenium development goals of UN.
Hijacking the world food prices issue towards condemning bio-fuels is cheap politics. Bio-fuels can be good or bad. It is primarily an American issue. It's about your priorities on energy security and economics. The ball is in your court.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:39 pm
25 Jun 2008
Uh-huh. Please provide evidence to support that claim.
Hijacking the world food prices issue towards condemning bio-fuels is cheap politics. Bio-fuels can be good or bad. It is primarily an American issue. It's about your priorities on energy security and economics. The ball is in your court.
I don't see any hijackers around here. Not too long ago, both the industry and the U.S. government were crediting demand for biofuels for driving up the prices of grains and oilseeds above the trigger prices for commodity payments, thus saving the federal government money that it otherwise would have had to pay for crop subsidies. (Of course, the increase in costs to consumers, and the costs of biofuel subsidies themselves, were usually glossed over.)
Since then, the volume of grains and oilseeds diverted to the production of biofuels has increased dramatically. Now what we are witnessing is an even higher mandated volume at a time when the area planted to maize was already expected to drop by 8%. And, because of heavy rains, the total harvest could fall by a much greater percentage than that.
No serious agricultural economist that I know of would ever claim that demand for biofuels has NOTHING to do with the rise in the prices of crops. Experts may respectively disgree on how big its contribution has been, but nobody would say it is anywhere close to zero.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:47 am
26 Jun 2008
Vakibs,
Lots of good questions. What we need are good answers.
Hijacking the world food prices issue towards condemning bio-fuels is cheap politics. Bio-fuels can be good or bad.
It isn't just about food. Biofuels are destroying biodiversity and increasing global warming via a combination of land use changes (destruction of carbon sinks) and nitrous oxide releases.
"Can be" good is a hoped for future potential. Today they are bad.
Almost all biofuel comes from palm, soy, canola, cane, and corn. As these crops expand with demand they all destroy carbon sinks or displace food crops. Deforestation is the second leading cause of global warming.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:53 am
26 Jun 2008
And this certainly is not just India's problem; China, and really much of the rest of the world, has been horribly abusing the freshwater and soils of the world. So it seems to me that the rise in food prices is, at the very least, a wake up call to create a more sustainable global agricultural system.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:42 am
26 Jun 2008
India is indeed facing acute water shortage. This will be manifest in a decade when the available fresh water per person will drop below the bare minimum required (1700 cubic metres). Curently this figure is around 1800 cubic metres on the average, though several regions in India have already fallen below the threshold.
India has the largest irrigated land mass in the world (558,080 sq km). A large network of rivers makes this land very fertile. But the population growth is in the danger of trespassing even this liberal barrier. Water conservation is a more urgent problem in India (and in most of the 3rd world) than energy conservation.
It is a misconception that the crops of green revolution are responsible for water-abuse. It is the population growth which is responsible (coupled with dietary changes involving more meat) ! Green revolution just makes food production efficient.
Ron & BioDiversivist
Bio-fuels do have a role in increasing food prices, and this should be addressed. But they are not the main culprit.
World food security is an important problem, which has several variables. Drought in Australia
has a role. Increased transport and fertilizer costs due to oil prices have a role. Depleted dollar has a role. Open speculation on energy and commodity markets has a role.
When we are serious about an issue, we should make a thorough analysis of all the causes. One should analyse the rate of increase in food prices, and compare it against the rate of increase of each concerned variable.(what is the rate of increase in bio-fuel usage, what is the rate of increase of oil prices, what is the rate of fall in Australian wheat production.. and see if it all sums up).
Putting the blame squarely on biofuels for food price increase is a knee-jerk reaction, probably with intentional malice. It is not a secret that Big Oil has a huge media network. One knows not who to trust.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:28 am
26 Jun 2008
Well, BioD, looks like Vakibs has blown our cover. Better turn in your Exxon Secret Agent ID card.
Vakibs: Reputable organizations, like IFPRI, the OECD, the FAO, the World Bank, the IMF are looking into what is driving up world prices. When the price of grains (and hence of livestock products) and of oilseeds climbs as much as it has, they would be remiss not to. Here is what the OECD and the FAO said (p. 40) in their Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017:
Wheat and coarse grain [i.e., maize, oats and barley] use overall increased by about 80 million tonnes, or 5%. Within this aggregate, biofuel use doubled, rising by 47 Mt, thus accounting for over half the increase in world grain use. The US biofuel use of grains alone explains the vast majority of this change, up by 41 million tonnes, even after adjusting for distillers grains co-produced with ethanol and added to feed use. [My emphasis]
With regard to oilseeds (p. 43), this is what they wrote:
World vegetable oil use increased faster between marketing years 2005 and 2007 than production. Of the demand increase, biofuel use of oils accounted for over half. [My emphasis]
Still maintain that biofuels are a minor factor, Vakibs?
It is part of the biofuel industry's rhetoric to accuse critics of blaming ALL the rise in food prices on biofuels. Yet I know of no serious critic who has.
But I have also spoken to many agricultural economists who agree that the total effect of the multiple causes of food-price inflation is probably greater than the sum of the parts. That suggests that eliminating one of the pressures might have a bigger effect on prices than its proportional effect in isolation.
There is not much that the world can do about droughts (or floods) in the short term, nor about its growing population. The one thing it -- or at least individual countries -- does have control over, however, is biofuel policy, especially mandated use targets and subsidies.
Ask yourself: If countries stopped mandating and subsidizing biofuels, what would happen to demand for their feedstocks, and the price of those feedstocks? Nothing?
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 8:09 pm
26 Jun 2008
But I think you are misunderstanding the problem a bit. Ideally, the price and demand are strongly coupled. But in reality, the purchasing power of people could be so low that they cannot buy food even if it is available.
Millions of tonnes of grain can be stocked in warehouses, but people can still die out of hunger. This is the reason US and Europe have to constantly bail out populations through food aid. This reality will sink in if you live in a poor country.
A question I have is, would decrease in US bio-fuel consumption create further demand for oil and push up the prices ?
Oil prices are the reason behind inflation. Inflation is present not just in food prices, but in pretty much everything (clothes, copper, iron..)
Again, demand is not the reason for oil price increase. The demand did not miraculously increase by over 300% an year. Currently, a few guys hold the entire humanity for ransom through an oil stranglehold over the neck. They can quote the price they want. This is a more important reason than environment, why we should get out of oil.
Energy is money. If people don't have energy, they will not have purchasing power. Even if there is food, it will just stay in warehouses.
Freeing ourselves from oil is not an easy process. Each of the promising technologies that help this transition produce results in different time-frames. Fortunately or unfortunately, the thing that helps the most immediately is biofuels.
The numbers you have produced tell us is that Bio fuels account for about 2.5% increase in demand (out of the 5% total increase). But in the poorest parts of the world, the increase in food prices is a lot higher than 5% (at some places, the prices increased by more than 100%). What is the reason for this ? For how much should biofuels be held accountable ?
Can the 2.5% damage of bio-fuels be compensated by investing in poor countries and increasing food production there ?
I am not accusing you of something as simple as being an oil agent. You could be just one of the people who ate their propaganda. It could be anyone, including guys from FAO. With respect to WTO and IMF, I always take what they say with a pinch of salt.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:52 pm
26 Jun 2008
Millions of tonnes of grain can be stocked in warehouses, but people can still die out of hunger. This is the reason US and Europe have to constantly bail out populations through food aid. This reality will sink in if you live in a poor country.
From what evidence did you reach your conclusion that we do not understand that?
A question I have is, would decrease in US bio-fuel consumption create further demand for oil and push up the prices?
This is a hotly debated question. At least one set of respected researchers contend that the current support policies are providing little if any incentive to reduce consumption of petroleum (at least in the United States). Basically, because they are subsidized so that they can sell at a price competitive with gasoline, what they have done is expanded the supply available at a given cost.
Freeing ourselves from oil is not an easy process. Each of the promising technologies that help this transition produce results in different time-frames. Fortunately or unfortunately, the thing that helps the most immediately is biofuels.
That is a highly contestable assertion. During the 1970s oil crises in the United States, they tried a different way to reduce demand immediately: reducing the maximum speed limit to 55 miles (around 90 km) per hour. According to this New York Times article:
Roland Hwang, the vehicles policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, estimated the savings of the speed limit in 1983 at 2.5 billion gallons [9.5 billion litres per year] of gasoline and diesel fuel, or 2.2 percent of the total use for these types of fuels.
You then observe that the numbers I supplied tell us is that biofuels accounted for a 2.5% increase in demand (out of a 5% total increase) between 2005 and 2007.
But in the poorest parts of the world, the increase in food prices is a lot higher than 5% (at some places, the prices increased by more than 100%). What is the reason for this? For how much should biofuels be held accountable?
Demand for staples like wheat and maize are highly inelastic. That means that if demand increases, and supply is declining (or at least not keeping pace), prices can increase sharply. The price increases recently have been exacerbated by some countries (starting in 2007) placing bans or taxes on key commodity exports. Such policies can increase market nervousness, and encourage some sellers to hold onto stocks in the hope that prices will rise further -- a self-fulfilling prophesy.
So, in that sense, you can blame other factors. But countries and traders are not operating in a vacuum. They can see a rise in the (mandated) demand for biofuels, and a strong likelihood of a reduced maize harvest. How do you think that will affect their behaviour? Would they behave differently if biofuels were no longer mandated?
Can the 2.5% damage of bio-fuels be compensated by investing in poor countries and increasing food production there?
Yes, but over the longer term.
I am not accusing you of something as simple as being an oil agent. You could be just one of the people who ate their propaganda. It could be anyone, including guys from FAO.
Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories do not carry much weight here, Vakibs, and I would strongly suggest that you refrain from suggesting that prople who you hardly know have "eaten" anybody's propoganda. Some of us like to imagine we have brains of our own.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:52 am
27 Jun 2008
The fastest, cheapest and most environmentally sound way to reduce oil use is to simply replace a low mileage car with a high mileage car. Replacing a Subaru Outback with a Prius cuts oil use 50%, replacing a Jeep Cherokee with a Yaris cuts oil use by 40%. Putting an area of corn the size of Indiana into our gas tanks increased liquid fuel supplies roughly 2% and there is no proof that it did anything to reduce oil imports. It may very well have increased oil use by holding the price just a tad lower.
Question: Why do we want to free ouselves from oil?
Answer: To preserve the biosphere.
Question: Do biofuels preserve the biosphere?
Answer: No.
Question: What is the first step to freeing ourselves of oil?
Answer: Use less of it.
Question: What is the most cost effective way to use less of it?
Answer: Efficiency gains. Replace SUVs and vanity trucks with high mileage cars.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:28 am
27 Jun 2008
For the campaign we need to stress soaring fuel (and all other commodity prices) prices driven by futures trading corruption and demand. Since increasing supply of oil is a chimera, lowering demand is the way to stabilize or even lower prices.
Unregulated futures trading creates an artificial demand almost equal to that of the oil consumption of China. Re-regulate trading and lower demand through higher mileage cars and converting long haul trucks, tractors, and trains to flex fuel operation so they can run on natural gas.
Negotiate large contracts with automakers to deliver high mileage economy cars, flex fuel natural gas trucks, and plugin hybrids for government vehicle fleets. Jawbone large corporations to match government orders for these vehicles.
Geo heat exchange heating/cooling can replace huge amounts of natural gas (and heating oil) freeing up natural gas for flex fuel vehicles.
Biogas from waste can supplement natural gas supplies, replace expensive fossil fuel fertilizer with recycled organic fertilizer (a byproduct of biodigestion), and offset GHG by curtailing methane (21x the GHG effect of cO2) and nitrous oxide (296x the gHG effect of CO2) released by chemical fertilizer.
Green energy/ag re-evolution has to be seen as an inflation fighting, economy restoring, job creating movement along with the GHG fighting. Barack is good at this.
He is just a bit confused on ethanol, as are a lot of americans. Low information voters and swing voters tend to coincide. They will have to be informed gradually so that our candidates are not vulnerable to that old rovian "elitest" talking point.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:39 am
27 Jun 2008
Now, if it were up to me, all companies would be employee-owned-and-operated, and multinational corporations would be networks of independently employee owned companies, but that's not what we have. And as much as multinational corporations exacerbate all of our problems, and are responsible for much of the over-consumption of our resources as they are, the era that we are running into is one of overshoot, that is, supplies of oil, water, soil, etc. are not keeping up with demand. And so a fundamental rethink of how this civilization operates must be undertaken, or else we'll wind up like the ancient Indus Valley civilization that also overused its resources.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:54 am
27 Jun 2008
I know that is the very sophisticated POV, of market experts who know all about this stuff (give us your money, we'll take care of it crowd), like Krugman, for instance, so you are in good company.
This is so popular in fact it has become "conventional wisdom", the ultimate oxymoron, hehey.
Lest I belabour the point (as if, I do go on and on, hehey), check out the story of the Hunt brothers and their attempt to corner the global silver market. It was a simpler monopoly game before the advent of electronic trading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday
And of course we all know about the enron scam in the Cali brown-out electricity trading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisi ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:23 am
27 Jun 2008
Ecologically-speaking, everything has limits, particularly if you use up capital. Look at it this way, capital -- the means of production -- is used to create wealth. If the capital is in the ground, such as oil, and you deplete it, eventually you can't create wealth anymore (actually, oil is not capital, it's used to run machines which are capital, actually mostly transportation machines).
If soil is blown away, you've lost capital, thus less wealth can be generated in the future. The nice thing about solar/wind/geothermal sources of energy is that it does not use up capital. Same with permaculture-type farming, you build up the soil.
I don't see a level of understanding for the basic economic/ecological processes of production among people who are focusing on speculation. The financial system is only a byproduct of the production system.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:04 pm
27 Jun 2008
There it is! It is actually capital that is being used up. Not oil (in this case).
That's how futures markets are cornered. And yes capital is held back. Big trading players know when, it leaks out to fund managers from their own clients.
If Martha would have gone through a hedge fund, she could have warned the manager without being implicated in the inside information.
The phantom demand created by insider trading is nearly equal to the demand from China. that's a lot of leverage.
Add in inside news of when Cheney will threaten Iran on an aircraft carrier? You be riotch biotch! Consumers go to the poor house.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
yjdmd1 Posted 4:06 pm
29 Jun 2008
Often partial solutions to our problems are presented on the Internet but nobody puts the pieces together. Recently, I have focused quite a bit on the energy issue, and I have found that solutions abound, but the political will to implement them is lacking, or they appear uneconomical because they are, by themselves in fact uneconomical.
A good example of this is wind power penetrating the grid at more than about 20%. By itself taken in isolation, with all other variables ignored; more than about 20% seems impractical because of the variability of wind. But taken with other solutions the picture is quite different.
Our existing electrical grid is mostly an AC grid, the east and the western grids aren't substantially connected, and overall it's inefficient, unreliable, and at capacity straining to meet ever growing demands.
If this weren't the case; if we modernized our electrical grid adding east-west ties and converting all spans longer than 300km to DC transmission, first, doing this alone would be like adding 15% additional generating capacity to the grid without any additional pollution because we could cut the losses from around 17% to around 2%. Moreover, efficient east-west transmission would allow us to distribute the peak load across the time zones requiring less peak capacity and making more efficient use of the capacity we already have, above and beyond grid losses.
If we can utilize geographical diversity with wind generation, something only possible with the modernization of our power grid; then the total capacity available from wind power never falls below about 1/3rd of peak capacity, and then we could, if we choose, simply overbuild capacity and supply our entire electrical needs from wind alone. I'm not advocating wind alone, ideally we'd use a mixture of renewable sources, solar, geo-thermal, ocean-current, ocean-wave, tidal, ocean-thermal, various forms of hydro (there are forms that can capture energy from the movement of river water without dams), etc.
We could generate all of our electricity by wind if we so choose simply by building 3x as much capacity as we need and modernizing the electrical grid. But there is a snag, wind, presently the least expensive method of generating electricity, less so even than coal now, would lose its attractive economics if we had to overbuild by 3x AND if there were no market for that peak power.
Add in some other technologies, for example, we can take electricity, carbon dioxide, and water, and using one of three processes, we can make an alcohol called Butynol (Butynol is manufactured by combining the petroleum gases. isobutylene and isoprene at the extremely low temperature of 100 degree centigrade) which can directly be used as a replacement for gasoline in ordinary gasoline cars. Butynol actually has tremendous advantages over gasoline. Butynol produces only 3% of the hydrocarbon emissions, almost un-measurable carbon monoxide emissions, and greatly reduced nitrous oxides relative to gasoline. It also produces slightly better fuel mileage and power, greatly reduced acidic blow-by products (thereby enhancing engine life) and less waste heat (also enhancing engine life).
We can make Butynol from electricity, carbon dioxide, and water by one of three methods. There exists a kind of reverse fuel cell that was recently invented that uses a catalyst in the presence of electricity to convert carbon dioxide and water to Butynol. That is one method; it's a method that from what I've read Richard Branson paid to have developed to produce Butynol as a renewable jet fuel. However, there are two other methods also that can be used, carbon dioxide can be electrolyzed into oxygen and carbon monoxide, the carbon monoxide can be mixed with steam to form "process gas", and then in the presence of catalysts, this can be used to create a variety of useful hydrocarbons including Butynol. Lastly, electricity can be used to create sufficient heat to disassociate carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen and then the same process that follows electrolysis can be used. The last process has been demonstrated on an industrial scale, I'm not sure if the first processes have made it out of the lab, but they have at least been demonstrated in the lab. Using the latter two processes it is also possible to make synthetic diesel.
If use the electricity generated during times when there is excess capacity to create Butynol, we can replace imported oil used for gasoline and diesel, while at the same time providing a market for the peak electrical production, thereby allowing wind power to be economical even when capacity is overbuilt, and we create a market for the carbon dioxide generated by existing coal and gas fired plants instead of just releasing the carbon dioxide into the air. When the Butynol is burned it will release carbon dioxide, but this is displacing oil that would have been burnt, so the net result will be a reduction in carbon dioxide and if we can bring enough renewable electricity capacity online to eliminate the need for fossil fueled power generation, then we can continue to make Butynol by sequestering carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, thus making the process a closed loop resulting in no net carbon dioxide increase.
Any one of these elements by themselves may not be economic; but they are all mutually synergistic and implemented together they could eliminate our dependency upon foreign oil first, and later eliminate our dependency upon fossil fuels (or for that matter abiotic oil) entirely. (Abiotic - generally asserting that oil is formed from magma instead of an organic origin)
We should be doing this, and we should not be doing it ten or fifty years from now, we should be doing it now.
Jay Draiman said...
Water is the source of life - treasure it! R4.
Water is the source of all life on earth. It touches every area of our lives. Without it, we could not thrive -- we could not even survive.
Sustainability - "We strive to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
We should discourage wastefulness and misuse, and promote efficiency and conservation.
"Conservation is really the cheapest source of supply,"
For the benefit of mankind, maintain the quality of life and preserve the peace and tranquility of world population. Water resources must be preserved - to sustain humanity. We must eliminate wasteful utilization of water, conserve our water sources and implement rigid conservation methods. We should utilize solar and or other source of renewable energy to operate desalinization projects from the oceans. Utilize renewable energy sources to purify and transport the water to its final destination. As world population increases the scarcity of water will become a cause for conflict, unless we take steps now to develop other sources of water for drinking, rainwater harvesting - storm-water and gray-water utilization. Designing of landscaping that uses minimal amount of water.
"With power shortages and a water scarcity a constant threat across the West, it's time to look at water and energy in a new way,"
To preserve the future generations sustainability, we should look into urban farming - vertical farming. The term "urban farming" may conjure up a community garden where locals grow a few heads of lettuce. But some academics envision something quite different for the increasingly hungry world of the 21st century: a vertical farm that will do for agriculture what the skyscraper did for office space. Greenhouse giant: By stacking floors full of produce, a vertical farm could rake in $18 million a year.
Jay Draiman, Energy and water conservation consultant
June 29, 2008
PS.
Hydro dynamics: forget oil. Sharing freshwater equitably poses political conundrums as explosive and far-reaching as global climate change.
Quoted from other sources
Anyone who has ever stood on a beach and looked out into the vast expanse of an ocean knows that there is a lot of water on this planet. In fact, 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water. It may seem like water is all around us, but safe, clean, reliable drinking water is not a ceaseless resource. The problems facing drinking water range from failing infrastructure, to climate change, to insufficient supplies.
Personal Conservation
Preserving our water resources is not a job for water industry professionals alone. We all have a vested interest in ensuring that water remains safe, affordable and available. Therefore, each individual American has a responsibility to monitor and control their water use, There are many simple ways for people to reduce excess water use, lower water bills and protect the environment, especially in die spring and summer months, Beyond the standard constraints of watering the lawn only when necessary and washing car wisely by using soap and a bucket of water, some steps include: draining water lines to outside faucets, disconnecting hoses, shutting off outdoor water sources during cold weather and running a small trickle of water on whiter nights to prevent pipe from freezing.
Conclusion:
Water supply management is an issue that affects us all. It may not be apparent to every citizen today, but with climate change and population shifts transforming the United States, it soon will be. Effective solutions need to be put into place today before we are faced with a water crisis. A focus on careful planning, treatments, innovations and conservation measures will help to create stability for long-term water management. Commitment to keeping water at the top of the list for communities and citizens will better prepare us for whatever the future of water holds.
WATER!
The indispensable source of life-without water there would be no industry, no agriculture and, most importantly of all, no life. In dry parts of the world this essential commodity is even more precious. Almost all human actions involve water from taking a shower to reading a newspaper to driving a car or simply eating a sandwich - almost everything we do or touch is somehow related to this precious treasure. We ask that you stop and think how you use water and what you can do to conserve this essential natural resource.
*Water, beliefs and customs,
*Water as a vehicle of the economy,
*Water, source of art and life, irrigation and cultivation.
The people have decided to act to try and develop a real awareness program on the theme of water preservation and distribution in an attempt to help maintain the original purity of rivers and streams.
In many parts of the world water sources and wells are not equally distributed. Water as a source of life can also be at the source of conflict.
Whether we live in India, Iceland or the Atlas... we have always tried to trap and tame water. Dams, pumps, canals, water treatment centers; there are so many different ways to exploit this resource that we often forget how fragile this unique and essential treasure actually is.
Unfortunately, many of the things we do every day can harm our water. That's why all people and government should be working with municipalities, farmers, business leaders and developers just like you to take action to protect our water and clean it up.
Small changes can make a big difference. This guide outlines practical things we can all do to preserve and protect our water. We all need to be part of the solution.
Concentrated Solar Power, which requires no solar panels at all. It works by concentrating sunlight onto a small pipe using cheap parabolic reflectors. The pipe contains a liquid that's heated to very high temperatures by the sun and drives a steam boiler that rotates a turbine to generate electricity (much like nuclear power plants, but without the nuclear waste). It's cheap, low-tech, and far more affordable than solar power. Plus, it can be built in practically any desert, so it doesn't take up valuable land. As another bonus, when CSP operations are built near the ocean, they can desalinate ocean water as a side effect, providing fresh water for irrigation to grow food. This is the only renewable energy technology I know of that can produce cheap energy, fresh water and crop irrigation all at the same time. Plus, it has no emissions, no toxic chemicals, no nuclear waste and very little environmental impact..
"You can't escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today" - Abraham Lincoln said it.
"That man is richest whose pleasures are the cheapest" - Henry David Thoreau.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed" - Theodore Roosevelt.
"When the `study of the household' (ecology) and the `management of the household' (economics) can be merged, and when ethics can be extended to include `environmental' as well as human values, then we can be optimistic about the future of mankind. Accordingly, bringing together these three E's is the ultimate holism and the great challenge for our future" - Eugene Odum.
Water, it's been said, is the "oil of the 21st century" -- a commodity whose availability and quality may be subject to both known and unknown influences. For companies, that poses significant risks, and many companies are making water a strategic issue, creating water management plans that include efficiency and conservation as well as contingency plans should water become less available or more costly. Many firms are examining their products, policies, and processes through the lens of a world in which the availability of water becomes a constraint to doing business.
JUNE 29, 2008
COMMENT
To be sure water is important to life; it's one of the first things we look for on another planet when considering whether that planet may or may not be capable of supporting life.
That said; fresh water on Earth is a secondary problem. Water is an issue only to the degree energy is an issue because there is plenty of salt water and energy can turn salt water into fresh water.
You and I disagree with respect to priorities. You make the statement, "As population rises water will become more scarce".
Well, that's true; but let's look at the first part of that equation, "As population rises", and attack that issue first.
Population doesn't rise in developed countries with robust economies except through immigration.
The lesson there is, if we can eliminate poverty globally, we'll eliminate population growth. In my view, this ought to be priority number one because sustainability depends upon a stable population.
Eliminating poverty, even with conservation, is going to require increased energy production and that can't be accommodated by fossil fuels.
Even worse; the production of fossil fuels has at least temporarily peaked, and even though recent discoveries and new technology will no doubt allow it to continue to grow, no new technology will produce more air; or ocean capable of absorbing carbon dioxide; therefore it's important that the use of fossil fuels not increase, even if we are capable of doing so.
However, the demand is growing and supply is stable or shrinking, if this issue isn't addressed immediately we're looking at a world of economic collapse, widespread hunger, and increased population growth rate.
So we need to consider every option available to replace declining sweet light crude production, we can not, absolutely can not "forget oil" as you suggest.
JUNE 29, 2008
OUR CURRENT METHODS OF LIVING ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE
HOW WE MAKE A FUTURE FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN.
JayDraiman
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 7:46 pm
29 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:49 pm
29 Jun 2008
grist.org
Permalink