A woman holds a sign during a protest against high fuel price with other truck drivers April 28, 2008 in Washington, DC. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

44 percent of Americans in a recent survey said paying for gasoline was a serious problem for them. Gasoline costs were the most frequently cited economic concern across all income levels. 25 percent of people who make more than $75,000 per year said it’s a serious problem while a whopping 63 percent of folks who earn less than $30,000 feel that way.

The cost of gasoline far outranks the number two economic concern, getting a good paying job or a raise at 29 percent and paying for healthcare and health insurance at 28 percent. The survey was conducted on behalf of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

And all indications are it’s going to get worse before it gets better. As gasoline shoots past $4 per gallon in some parts of the country, the president of OPEC is predicting crude oil prices could hit $200 per barrel. A year ago average gas prices were less than $3 per gallon according to AAA.

One idea being tossed around as a way of dealing with this is the four-day workweek. Several states are considering it. Staggered work schedules would be necessary in order to keep government offices open five days a week, and some have suggested that would end up costing the taxpayers more money. It’s also an idea that may gain traction in the private sector. I, for one, think it’s a terrific idea.

Here’s my question to you: Would shifting to a four-day workweek be a good way to save fuel?

Original article here

The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability (Yale University Press, 2008)In it, Speth — Dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University — concludes that if we continue to do exactly what we are doing, with no growth in the human population or the world economy, the world in the latter part of this century will be unfit to live in.

Speth writes that “there were warning signs along the way, but we did not notice then, or when we did, we paid no heed.”

These signs said things like:

•  being, not having
• giving, not getting
• needs, not wants
• better, not newer
• community, not individual
• other, not self
• connected, not separated
• ecology, not economy
• part of nature, not apart from nature
• dependent, not transcendent
• tomorrow, not today

We ignored these signs.

Now, according to Speth, unless we take action, we will be toast.

Transcript of talk available here

Nicolas Van Praet, Financial Post  Published: Thursday, April 24, 2008

Original article here

Key points:

 Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist and strategist with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, forecasts in a new report titled The Age of Scarcity

1) Gasoline prices in North America will soar over the next four years to $2.25 a litre

2)  oil supply will fail to meet the new demand

3) Gasoline, diesel and other transport fuels now account for over half of the world’s oil usage and have driven more than 90% of demand growth in recent years

4) oil prices will soar to $225 a barrel by 2012

Jeffery Rubin’s claims are disputed by John Wolkonowicz, Global Insight’s senior automotive analyst for North America – “We’re forecasting prices are going to come down because higher prices will spur more exploration.”

No mention of peak oil

The Great Change

Albert Bates, author of The Post Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook, brings you along on his personal journey.

A Wave With Words

Yesterday I met a man who had a wave with words. He was a cognitive semanticist. His name is Joe Brewer. He contributes to an ongoing discussion of climate policy from the viewpoint of cognitive science at rockridgenation.org.

Those who regularly surf NPR or PBS will probably have seen Joe Brewer’s mentor at Berkeley, George Latoff, most often in political campaign season. Latoff is that guy who talks about language, and how conservative spinmeisters have co-opted the discussion by framing the question. Some classic examples are the “death tax,” (for inheritance taxes), “War on Terror” (for illegal, immoral and endless military adventurism), or “intelligent design” (for creationism).

Read the rest of the article here

Short synopsis on language and framing

1) Switch the language back to actually describing what is going on. “Healthy Forests Initiative” should be called “No Tree Left Behind.”

2) “Liberal” means “a command of the basic facts and a sense of being an equal, not a superior.”

3)  environmentalists, and environmentalism, have been negatively framed. Those treehuggers would have us sacrifice comfort and well-being for the sake of some abstract aesthetic value — polar bears on an ice floe, or a tiny snail darter in a dammed stream.

 The NeoCon frame goes like this:

• Nature is a resource waiting to be exploited.
• Wealth is measured by money.
• Industry makes money, and thus creates wealth.
• Markets, which aid wealth creation, are naturally good.
• Any intrusion by government upon free markets is bad.
• Polluting is the natural consequence of industry, so pollution is an inevitable side-effect of wealth.
• Protection of the economy and protection of the environment are goals that inevitably conflict.
• If industry is forced to achieve environmental goals, then companies should be compensated for the cost.
• The better choice is for governments just to leave it to the markets.

Instead of that, we can reframe:

• Nature is the basis of our survival.
• Wealth is really about well-being; having good friends, or living in a flourishing community.
• A healthy economy requires a healthy environment.
• We all breathe the air. It is our right to have it, and in clean, healthy condition.
• Markets are tools for achieving societal goals and should serve those purposes.
• Markets should generate wealth in the broad sense — the health of the planet and future generations.
• Good government makes markets possible.
• Unregulated markets destroy the societal goals that created them.
• Regulation of industry and markets creates real wealth, and enduring wealth, in the broadest sense.

April 25, 2008

Right-wing pundits, Jeremy Leggett, Bill Clinton, and peak oil

By Charlie Smith

For years, right-wing journalists have been dismissing peak-oil theory as a bunch of hogwash.

The Economist magazine’s environment and energy correspondent Vijay Vaitheeswaran poked fun at a group of petroleum geologists that he dubbed the “Depletion Doomsday Gang” in his 2003 book Power to the People. 

It prophesized an energy-rich future that would transform the world.

Back then, oil was trading at around US$25 per barrel.

Today, Vancouver Sun editorial board member Harvey Enchin joined the chorus of peak-oil critics, citing the fall of the U.S. dollar and the discovery of a giant offshore oilfield near Brazil as two reasons why we shouldn’t be concerned.

Read the rest of the article here 

Peak oil’s a chimera. Dumb policies are the real problem

Harvey Enchin, Vancouver Sun

Published: Friday, April 25, 2008

 ”Peak oil proponents have recruited many converts to a new theology of supply and demand…”

“The environmental movement has become a death cult…That’s why prophets of doom like Al Gore draw audiences and win awards for their specious exhortations…”

 It seems like there are is a lot of poorly informed commentary coming from editorials these days.  Hopefully Harvey will lay down the denial shield and have a more nuanced debate.  I offered a response to his editorial but it wasn’t published.  Here is my response to his editorial. We have offered his Editor to a counterpoint reply. Let’s hope they are interested.

Response to Harvey Enchin  by Justin Roller, member VPOE

      This is in response to Harvey’s charged and contentious editorial regarding peak oil as a chimera with frequent allusions to the environmental community as welcoming harbingers of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. What Harvey fails to see is the distinction between ‘description’ of environmental and peak-oil concerns and ‘prescriptions’ for attempting to solve the issues. As a scientist, I approach issues by taking in all the available information, research what I can and then weigh the relative merits of each argument. I then carefully consider the balance of evidence. He has confused the balance of evidence with some perceived bias towards hyperbole within the community.  Has it ever occurred to Harvey that ‘despair’ might be an appropriate response to a desperate situation? Since when has supply and demand become a theology? Surely if he “reads the Economist in his spare time” he understands basic market fundamentals like supply and demand. The economy is hemorrhaging because of high-energy costs, especially for an inelastic commodity like oil. What he and most other dogmatic critics fail to see is that the world requires flows of oil. If it is not at the pump when it is needed and in the quantity it is needed then expect the price to reflect that. For instance the tar sands contain presumably as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but we can only coax out about 2 million barrels/day and maybe 5 by 2015 if the water and natural gas required can be maintained at that level. What good does it do the market if it lies dormant? If we take the cost of using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground into account then the market may decide to let it stay in the ground. These decisions are going to have profound repercussions on our economy and lifestyle but so is the decision to continue with business as usual. Another thing that Harvey and his ilk don’t get is the difference between time scales and magnitudes. Sure Brazil had a tremendous discovery in the Tupi field but that entire amount only equates to less than a year supply to the world. Does this isolated discovery and the potential reserves off the coast of North America really address the root causes of the problem or do they simply extend the waiting period? The market has already started to smell the gap between supply and demand and any bit of demand destruction that occurs in the West will likely be happily gobbled up in the East.  I suggest Harvey check out the Vancouver Peak Oil Executive website www.VancouverPeakOil.org and read through a couple of the articles posted there. Oh and by the way Harvey, Cassandra in ancient Greek times was right in her predictions, it was just that nobody had the foresight to believe her and Troy fell. 

“You talkin’ to me?”

Richard Balfour says the region’s population will increase sharply because of oil shortages.

April 24, 2008

Is B.C. ready for peak-oil refugees?

By Matthew Burrows for the Georgia Straight

When Kitsilano-based strategic planner, architect, and peak-oil proponent Richard Balfour talks about environmental refugees, he mentions his own speculation that “20 to 30 million people” could be living in the Georgia Basin in the next 15 to 20 years.

“They come in three waves,” Balfour told the Georgia Straight in an interview at his home. “The first is the one that is already happening, where people with money think they are going to find refuge up here. So they are buying up the coast of B.C. and the farmland of the Interior. The second wave is the middle class thinking they are going to move up to have a better place for their family, and that has started. And then starts the true wave, where you have the refugees arriving with nothing. How do you stop them?”

Read the rest of the article here

The Straight has been really great at keeping the public informed. This article is a testament to that commitment. Great job folks! original article

Preparing for peak oil

By Charlie Smith

At an April 11 panel discussion, film and television writer-producer Jon Cooksey decided to focus on the emotional impact of rapidly diminishing oil supplies rather than on the numbers. Cooksey, a member of the Vancouver Peak Oil Executive, told the audience of more than 100 people at the Ukrainian Orthodox Church that it was a “very hard transition” for him to accept that this century won’t be an extrapolation of what happened in the past.

He predicted that humanity will soon experience a “discontinuity” because of diminishing oil supplies and sharply rising energy prices. Cooksey—who is making a humorous film about peak oil, global warming, and other pressing issues—also expressed worries about his daughter’s future. He acknowledged that the end of cheap oil required him to learn more about food production than just how to grow mould in his refrigerator.

“I do not come to this as Farmer John,” Cooksey quipped. “I’m as urban as a spark plug.”

Then he explained why he started spending time with members of the Vancouver Peak Oil Executive, a citizens’ group trying to promote solutions to peak oil in Metro Vancouver. “I want to go someplace and not feel crazy,” Cooksey said. “I want to go someplace where I can talk about this with other people who don’t think I’m a nut.”

Read rest of article here 

Read the entire article here: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174919 Here, in a nutshell, are five key forces in this new world order which will change our planet:

1. Intense competition between older and newer economic powers for available supplies of energy:

2. The insufficiency of primary energy supplies:

3. The painfully slow development of energy alternatives:

4. A steady migration of power and wealth from energy-deficit to energy-surplus nations:

5. A growing risk of conflict:

This leads to a final observation: The most pressing decision facing the next president and Congress may be how best to accelerate the transition from a fossil-fuel-based energy system to a system based on climate-friendly energy alternatives.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil.

Paul Krugman – New York Times

Oil numbers

There are two basic facts that would seem to explain a lot about what’s happening to oil prices.

First, Gross World Product growth has accelerated — from 2.9 percent in the 90s to almost 5 percent in recent years, according to the IMF. All of this is because of growth in emerging economies, largely China.

Second, world oil production has stalled — after growing around 1.6% a year in the 90s, it’s been basically flat for the last three years.

So we’ve got rapidly growing demand due to industrialization in Asia colliding with stagnant supply, basically because oil is getting hard to find. (The demand shock is probably even bigger than the GDP number suggests, because China’s economy is highly energy-inefficient).

And the demand for oil is price-inelastic — that is, it takes big price increases to persuade people to use significantly less.

There’s probably more to the story, but that seems to be the basic thrust. And it seems to be a recipe for rising prices for a long time to come.

This is what peak oil is supposed to look like — not Oh My God We’ve Just Run Out Of Oil, but steady pressure on the economy and the way we live from rising energy prices and their consequences. And it doesn’t matter much whether we’re literally at the peak, or whether production can rise by a few million more barrels a day; unless there are big sources of oil out there, we’ll be feeling peakish for the foreseeable future.

original story here