Two of Europe’s biggest oil and gas companies, Total and Eni, each plan to bring nuclear power to countries in the Middle East. (link)
It should be U.S. companies leading the way, in that technology. After the 1970s energy crisis, France invested heavily in nuclear power and technology, and is seeing clear benefits today.
It's sad that the United States is not a serious contender in the nuclear power arena, at a time when we need plentiful, clean, safe energy.
BBC: The United Arab Emirates is sending an ambassador to Baghdad, and cancelling all debt ($7 billion) owed it by Iraq. (link)
Interesting article, related to my previous post: Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis. Internal World Bank study delivers blow to plant energy drive.
The key paragraph (as it relates to my last post):
President Bush has linked higher food prices to higher demand from India and China, but the leaked World Bank study disputes that: "Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."
With regards to biofuels, using a food source was always a stupid idea. Waste biomass is a much more plentiful source, one that does not compete with food.
With regards to India and China and my last post, that industrialization and urbanization shift is not something that occurs in a matter of months, like these food price increases.
The article doesn't discuss how much of the food price increases were linked to oil price increases (food must be transported to the market, after all). Analysis I've read in FT and elsewhere seems to think that the oil price increases are not yet fully factored into food prices, implying further price increases are coming.
World population: 6.6 billion (link)
India population: 1.1 billion (link)
China population: 1.3 billion (link)
United States population: 0.3 billion (link)
Our industrial revolution began in the late 1700s. Our Western society took decades upon decades to fully industrialize, with progress continuing (and accelerating) to this day.
The rapid industrialization and urbanization in India and China has been going on for, maybe, 10 years. That means 36%, or one third of the entire planet, is moving at light speed towards Western-style lifestyles and consumption rates. Raw materials are at record prices, as China in particular requires ever-more food, oil, steel, concrete, ...
The law of supply and demand is like the law of gravity: it just is. When there is more demand, prices will go up and consumption will go down. When there is less demand, the reverse occurs. Politicians cannot wish away the increases in demand from China and India.
American politicans — both Democrats and Republicans — have their favorite blame targets (evil oil companies, evil environmentalists that prevent domestic drilling), but don't believe the hype.
We need to prepare our country for some fundamental shifts, such as a country four times as big as ours, all wanting cars and Taco Bell.
And don't even get me started on looming demographics in Western countries (thanks D for the link), and what happens when you build monetary programs like Social Security on the assumption that population will always increase over time.
Please tell me... in what universe will a windfall profits tax on the oil industry actually lower gas prices? (ref LA Times editorial, "economy puts heat on pols") Congressional Democrats are proposing this, and Obama is running ads here in North Carolina proposing same.
Looming over everything else is rising global demand, particularly from societies that are industrializing at light speed.
The law of supply and demand is like the law of gravity: it's fundamental.
If oil supply remains flat while demand rises, the price will go up. You cannot wish or tax that away.
McCain and some Congressional Repubs proposed reducing various gas taxes during the summer months. But even if we assume zero state and federal taxes for the sake of argument, this cannot change the underlying fundamentals of the commodity, thus not affect gas prices more than a dime or quarter or so.
Reducing US consumption of fossil fuels will help mitigate prices -- but with rising global demand elsewhere, any reduction in US consumption will easily be matched and exceeded by demand elsewhere.
Perversely, some environmental weenies like this situation, because economics forces use to consider alternatives. Alt-energy research is quite active, true, but we shouldn't hope for high prices to force events in that direction. Any increase in oil prices has a ripple effect that hurts the poor most of all. Gas and personal transportation costs go up. Food prices go up (getting it to market costs more). Wal-Mart prices go up (like it or not, the poor shop there, prices are cheap). Those that are the neediest, hurt the most when gas and food prices go up.
Is this what a 100-years war feels like? The constant, though relatively "contained" skirmishes between Israel and Everyone Else have seemingly inured the combatants and the world to the constant violence. Israel is even thriving, as this ETF illustrates.
Has this constant, low rumble of slow war become simply a fenced-in football field, a proxy for the world to work out the angst between Muslim peoples and the western, Christian-originated democracies?
(And did Bush tear a hole in the fence of that football field?)
Venezuela and Colombia restore ties. Ecuador considers the incident resolved.
Given the relative strengths of the armies, Colombia has a strong advantage (link anyone?), so this largely amounted to a textbook drill on resolving a dangerous situation peacefully.
Chavez no doubt hoped to score points domestically by looking tough, and score points abroad by resolving a situation diplomatically, quickly, and with [the appearance of] finality.
Did he succeed? I'm doubtful.
Colombia killed a very high level FARC rebel. Chavez seizes the spotlight by rushing troops to the border, and talking of war with Colombia.
Does this have even the slightest potential of drawing the U.S. into a skirmish or war with Venezuela? I don't know what treaties we have with Colombia, but I wonder.
Update: Ecudor follows suit, pulling its diplomats and sending troops to the border.
Posts
All Comments
