tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.comments2008-08-12T23:47:08.879-07:00energy, food, environmentdustin r mulvaneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-59613320296977361942008-08-12T23:47:00.000-07:002008-08-12T23:47:00.000-07:00Obama's energy policy has become more clear since ...Obama's energy policy has become more clear since that announcement. Climate progress describes it well here. <BR/><BR/>http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/04/barack-obama-new-energy-plan-for-america-efficiency-now-10-renewables-by-2012-1-million-plugs-in-by-2015/<BR/><BR/>Though progressive, a rebate is not any solution, its political posturing. I know that is part of the game (despite my nagging idealism). Yet, if that wfp tax passes, its a once in-many-generations opportunity that can't be squandered for the sake of modest consumer spending. I would rather see this invested more substantially in means to help conserve and produce energy more efficiently... Maybe that is the ultimate plan for wfp tax, some rebate, some reinvestment... <BR/><BR/>I think this more recent announcement is moving the right direction...but not far enough... 10% renewables by 2012 seems like a marginal foray into the carbon energy economy, since we are 7% as of 2006 according to the EIA...<BR/><BR/>http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html<BR/><BR/>Its particularly the details about that $150 billion in green jobs that still seem quite abstract. We need that Apollo vision advocated by Shellenberger and Nordhaus.<BR/><BR/>http://www.apolloalliance.org/dustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-64871008979302500322008-08-11T10:46:00.000-07:002008-08-11T10:46:00.000-07:00I don't see this as weak on substance at all. Firs...I don't see this as weak on substance at all. First of all, the energy rebate is not a gimick, it is short-term relief. It doesn't force consumers to buy more fuel. As a universal redistribution it is progressive. It allows consumers to chose to spend the money on food, or rent, or even to save it. This is the opposite of the McCain elimination of the gas tax. More importantly, it includes a windfall profits tax. By converting it directly to a rebate, it takes the political sting of a "tax" out and makes it a populist position. This would have precedential value as well. Any responsible carbon tax plan or cap-and-auction plan (Obama supports the latter) would have to be revenue neutral to fly in our anti-tax culture. A universal rebate based on a share of the revenue from either system would help mitigate the regressive aspects. This is an opportunity to make the idea of a carbon tax (my preferred option) or a cap-and-trade system palatable to the general public.Ben Weilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377715761719099567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-81338291905907023152008-07-26T10:45:00.000-07:002008-07-26T10:45:00.000-07:00Great article, its quite extraordinary how much ha...Great article, its quite extraordinary how much has been caught up in the fiasco. Check out an earlier <A HREF="http://energyfoodenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/07/ending-ethanol-gold-rush-and-biofuels.html" REL="nofollow">post on biofuels</A>. <BR/><BR/>It is too bad that the Robert Moses of the world won out over he Lewis Mumfords. <BR/><BR/>The end of suburbia is coming... and i cannot say I am disappointed or surprised.dustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-28024360964673634202008-07-25T16:36:00.000-07:002008-07-25T16:36:00.000-07:002 mikeg: I specifically said that we need to consi...2 mikeg: I specifically said that we need to consider the type of reactors (chernobyl was a mistake of stupid people heading the project, and negligence of the workers. I know, I was about 1000 miles away from there). and that nuclear tech has gone a long way since 70's tech (take a look at france)as far as speed- nukes have a very small physical footprint, compared to an equivalent generating solar/wind farm, and has significantly higher energy density factors than either of the big renewables<BR/><BR/>2 Dustin: Well, that's sort of what I'm saying, it has to be a mix, but to completely rule out new construction I think is a bit premature. Once again, look at the greenhouse gas reductions in france. Oh and as for nukes as weapons- that's an entirely different story :-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704789106885490233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-13134865366642267122008-07-25T15:29:00.000-07:002008-07-25T15:29:00.000-07:00I think there is some common ground here to work w...I think there is some common ground here to work with. I think we must simply start off by saying that nuclear energy currently is in the mix, and that any growth in nuclear capacity should remain on the sites currently producing nuclear energy. I think this is a reasonable starting point. There are host of followup requirements... but I don't see the argument for increased the nuclear power plant footprint, except at the immediate margins. <BR/><BR/>First, you will create more spaces vulnerable to transportation hazards with spent waste, if that is the direction they decide to go with waste (which BTW is a bad direction: waste should remain on site, and not be tossed around on the roads and rails; think Cosco Buscon, Exxon Valdez, Homer Simpson). Every new site is a new road that could be logged onto the nuclear waste disposal network. <BR/><BR/>Second, the creation of what Rebcaa Solnit calls new "sacrifice zones" is a terrible mistake in my view. It leaves a legacy that cannot be remediated. What will happen to these old contaminated sites anyways? If any industry should be concentrated, it should be nuclear (physically and political economically). But we want to talk about much higher safety and compliance records. <BR/><BR/>Third, the issue of cost never goes away. Price-Anderson is a huge distortion, and even we wanted this to be artificially competitive, I am not sure that other low carbon options on the immediate horizon are better suited for that market distortion given the distortion's size.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the question of runaway climate change versus nuclear meltdowns make for frightening prospects. The threat of nuclear weapons proliferation by far outweighs the two and in the next 100 will continue to be the biggest threat of the three for human civilization. They are all obviously fates we want to avoid. It would be naive to detangle nuclear weapons proliferation from nuclear energy production. There are simply too many assumptions about peace, science & technology, stability, and good intentions that must be made otherwise.dustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-57835096581825314482008-07-25T14:20:00.000-07:002008-07-25T14:20:00.000-07:00Nukular sux; Chernobyl anyone? How can you argue t...Nukular sux; Chernobyl anyone? How can you argue that nuclear meltdowns won't be global when after the Chernobyl blow up, the sheep in Wales were glowing as was half of Norway and anywhere else the fallout went in the upper atmosphere. Clearly not 'global' but surely 'regional' and what if it had been worse? And fastest way? How long does it take to build a nuclear plant versus develop some wind farms/solar? I don't have the figures, but I am guessing those plants take a long time to build. Anyway, put down that nuclear crack pipe Alex and smell the plutonium-238, baby!MikeGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16695202399894827221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-19444761444992975752008-07-25T13:21:00.000-07:002008-07-25T13:21:00.000-07:00I have disagreed with Amy Goodman on a lot of issu...I have disagreed with Amy Goodman on a lot of issues before, and I have to disagree again. The reality, as I see it, is that if we are serious about dealing with climate change, nukes have to be on the table. Yes, they are problematic, but less so than in the 70's. Yes, there's the issue of waste. But the sad thing is that it is currently the fastest way to generate power without releasing greenhouse gasses. does that mean that we should not try to get as much renewables up and going as soon as we can?-no, of course not. but the danger of a runaway greenhouse effect is much higher, and much more globalized, than that of nuclear meltdowns.Alex Gershensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01771387427318123654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-59058566426745150572008-07-22T14:39:00.000-07:002008-07-22T14:39:00.000-07:00i would bet that even the riots over the corn laws...i would bet that even the riots over the corn laws in 18th century UK had organized elements of political opposition. (industrialists thought it would cause wages to rise, workers saw only benefits to the landed elites.)<BR/><BR/>..fantastic analysis BD. <BR/><BR/>I recently found an excellent paper on the 2001 food riots in Argentina that uses social movement theory to explain collective violence. <BR/><BR/>www.sunysb.edu/sociol/faculty/Auyero/Food%20Riots%203.pdfdustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-80963526167942504082008-07-21T12:18:00.000-07:002008-07-21T12:18:00.000-07:00What a powerful article. It really brings home the...What a powerful article. It really brings home the impacts of rising food costs on urban West Africa - especially on women. The article's focus on and exposure of the gender politics of food in Burkina Faso is its strongest contribution. <BR/><BR/>A couple of comments/critiques.<BR/><BR/>June/July is historically the toughest time for urban dwellers in West Africa, since the harvests have yet to come to market. The Burkinabes featured in this article are eating primarily corn...or millet - both of which will not be harvested until August at the earliest. Beginning in the end of August prices for these staples (first corn, then millet) will come down considerably. <BR/><BR/>The "food riots" referred to in this article are in reference to imported foods - primarily cooking oil and rice. The rising prices of these commodities is a result of a different set of factors than the seasonal price spikes of corn and millet.<BR/><BR/>I must admit I'm getting a bit tired of the "hungry people get fed up and riot" coverage of food prices spikes in the global South. The "food riots" in Burkina Faso certainly have an element of people being fed up with the high price of staples - and the government's high tariffs on these imported goods. But let us not forget, these "riots" are organized by elements in the political oppostion in Burkina Faso seeking a means to force open a political system that has silenced and obstructed true participation over the last 2 decades. Seen in this light, the "food crisis" is a way for elements who have been shut out of the political process to clamor for increased participation, to chip away at the current political establishment's iron-grip on power. Another major element in these protests was the participation, even instigation by merchants, not consumers. <BR/><BR/>One last point. The current policies promoted by international development organizations and the Burkinabe government may exacerbate the effects of the food crisis in at least one regard. Current policies, including the adoption of genetically engineered cotton and the "professionalization" of the cotton sector may lead to more migration from the countryside to the cities. With rising food and staple costs, families may be more food secure in the countryside where they can grown their own food, than in an urban slum where they buy their food.Brian Dowdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356967982668795434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-85642525014774935942008-07-13T14:25:00.000-07:002008-07-13T14:25:00.000-07:00Very important detail that I missed. You are corre...Very important detail that I missed. You are correct. That would indeed insulate the oil companies from the dollar's volatility. Touche!Ben Weilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377715761719099567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-73431735186834599532008-07-13T13:47:00.000-07:002008-07-13T13:47:00.000-07:00I think the confusion comes from this snippet in t...I think the confusion comes from this snippet in the nytimes article:<BR/><BR/>"They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today’s prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash."<BR/><BR/>If the oil companies got payment in oil, they would be getting payment in a commodity that is increasing in value, not falling (like US$). By having to buy dollars to pay oil companies, the government would be in effect backing the greenback. For some time we have known that the value of the dollar is backed by governments' need for dollars to buy oil. If they don't, buy $s its effectly decoupling $/oil.dustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-71113591294859361672008-07-13T13:19:00.000-07:002008-07-13T13:19:00.000-07:00It seems strange to me that we could have such dif...It seems strange to me that we could have such different understandings of the same facts.<BR/>Here's my idea of how it works (using Exxon as a stand-in for all the no bid oil giants):<BR/>Exxon gets no bid oil field service contract. They may be paid in dollars or in Iraqi Dinars (I don't know). They get paid a fee for service, not in oil. Since none of these oil majors actually does oil service, they are actually subcontracting out (probably to Iraqis) to do the actual pumping etc. The oil pumped out and in the pipe lines belongs to the government of Iraq. At the port, the oil is purchased on the open market using dollars. Exxon may buy the oil, but Sinclair could as well. It doesn't matter. The benefit to Exxon is really getting the first bite at the apple. When the oil fields are "denationalized", Exxon will already have a claim to the lease on the fields where it has the "service contract". This is not about oil or dollars now, it is about oil field leasing rights later. The thing that gives it away is that Exxon is not an oil field service company. To claim (as they do) that the Iraqis lack the technical expertise is bogus. They are hiring Iraqis to do that for which Exxon itself does not have the expertise. Again, I don't see how this chain of transactions decouples oil from the dollar for Exxon or for anyone else.Ben Weilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377715761719099567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-91650512904289383742008-07-13T09:45:00.000-07:002008-07-13T09:45:00.000-07:00My rationale for arguing the oil and the dollar ar...My rationale for arguing the oil and the dollar are being decoupled is that companies are going to paid to extract the oil, which will then be sold by the government of Iraq on the petro market. Instead of getting dollars, the oil companies will simply get oil. Since oil is traded in dollars, one could argue that the dollar and oil are already coupled. By receiving payments in oil, the removes the oil companies form having to deal with the volatility of the US dollar, and perhaps makes the dollar move volatile. Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems to be the case.dustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-9467195272858999472008-06-30T10:46:00.000-07:002008-06-30T10:46:00.000-07:00This high energy, high food price thing is the mos...This high energy, high food price thing is the most politically volatile and unappealing position in all of environmentalism or its analogous moral economies. It is a political hotpotato. <BR/><BR/>Too bad we have double jeppardy in a legal system. I think GM and Firestone deserve a much greater than $5,000 fine for colluding to rip up all the PT in the country. That would be a source of potential equity and leveling.dustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-3408359912498566112008-06-29T11:31:00.000-07:002008-06-29T11:31:00.000-07:00Energy efficiency and renewables advocates have be...Energy efficiency and renewables advocates have been secretly craving high oil prices since the mid 1980s. I say "secretly" because imposing high oil prices on the waitress who has to commute by car to get to a job at a restaurant in a high-rent district is just cruel. Especially since she is driving a 1989 Ford Bronco that her brother gave her: it was the only car she could afford, but soon she won't be able to afford to operate it. No one invested in light rail or longer distance bus routes, and she can't afford to sell her house in this down market. We need to start thinking now about how to make a low-carbon, high energy-and-food-price world more equitable. People like the archetype I described above are in a series of viscous circles that make investments in energy efficiency almost impossible.Ben Weilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377715761719099567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-19449361622709073672008-06-28T07:53:00.000-07:002008-06-28T07:53:00.000-07:00There are a few other consideration as well. As fo...There are a few other consideration as well. <BR/><BR/>As for oil consumption, if I am not mistaken, the US military consumes up to 20% of the US share of oil consumption. That is probably enough at the margins to contribute to the heightened demand as well. <BR/><BR/>Who does a weak dollar and the high oil prices benefit? Oil firms who want to drill in the US. Its almost as if the dream scenario is emerging for the oil giants, and why would anyone think anything else would've happened given the last 8 years. Record profits and perfectly safe and willing places to invest those profits, and make great returns. <BR/><BR/>As Mike Davis pointed out in the "living on the ice shelf" article, its ultimately members of the Carlyle group and other military hardware contractors that benefit as well, as the petrodollars are reinvested in arms manufactured by US firms. <BR/><BR/>With all due respect to Krugman, who by the way better get better at boxing Bill O'Reilley or I'm looking for a new champion on YouTube, the simple supply-demand argument underestimates the role of oil speculation. It seems like a reasonable assumption that oil futures contracts play a decisive role in driving up prices significantly, just as it does for all commodity investments (gold, copper, corn, rice, etc.). Here are a few reasons why. <BR/><BR/>The NYMEX volume of oil traded has tripled since 2004. A number of institutional investors are exposing themselves to commodities since other areas of the economy are growing much more slowly. <BR/><BR/>Also, while we like to bash the market interfering OPEC (while oddly not questioning our own cartel- the Federal Reserve), their Secretary General al Badri argues that the paper market for oil is 15 times the material market for oil. <BR/><BR/>Finally, where can I find this $4 gas everyone is talking about. Out here in CA, I've been paying $4.55!dustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-81905347506194486912008-06-25T10:42:00.000-07:002008-06-25T10:42:00.000-07:00Ironically, all this talk about oil spills comes a...Ironically, all this talk about oil spills comes as the Supreme Court widdled the punitive damages of Exxon Mobil down to $500 million. <BR/><BR/>That penalty equals 1/26th of their profits last quarter. <BR/><BR/>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-219.pdfdustin r mulvaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05373282700762732287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-29161446325749550612008-06-24T11:32:00.000-07:002008-06-24T11:32:00.000-07:00I'm not sure how this decouples the price of oil f...I'm not sure how this decouples the price of oil from the dollar... nor how the oil companies are paid in oil. "The no-bid deals are structured as service contracts. The companies will be paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits." Why do you presume they will be paid in oil? What is unclear to me from this article is whether the oil companies that got the oil field service contracts will be able to report the oil fields as part of their "proven reserves" If they could, that would almost immediately boost their stock price, which is of primary concern to these corporations (be definition). The fact that the contracts are "no-bid" just proves to the world that we really did invade Iraq to control its oil.Ben Weilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377715761719099567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1446560862167012984.post-53040516636196722772008-06-24T11:30:00.000-07:002008-06-24T11:30:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ben Weilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377715761719099567noreply@blogger.com