jobs?

First a representative from Texas and now lawmakers from Louisiana, all crying to save offshore drilling. The Texas guy, John Culberson, called the oil spill a "statistical anomaly." I guess that is what you call a drive-by shooting, unless you are the victim?

In any case, all these good people are just trying to save jobs. We have to drill oil so people have jobs and the economy recovers. That is of course if other people are so kind to burn that oil, greenhouse gases be damned. Never mind the bad stuff, it is all a "statistical anomaly" anyways, so says the good man from Texas.

The real issue is not jobs of course, it is profits. It is easy enough to create other jobs, in alternative energy for example. But that would not help all the fat cats who own shares in oil companies. All that beautiful infrastructure that decorates the landscape. Doing away with it would hurt the profits of the oilmen. And what is Texas without its oilmen? Just ask George.

free trade: too good to be true

Did you parents ever warn you of deals that are too good to be true? Well, "free trade" is one such deal. Its main benefit is low prices and as we saw earlier, low prices are bad for people.

Free trade is, as the ads say, good for consumers. Consumers being the mindless automatons that consume things. This is how large multi-national companies think of you, the American citizen. They think of you as the American consumer, the last step in a long process that destroys value and shifts money into their pockets.

You are the last step in a long process, but fear not, you are also the top line in their spreadsheet. Because they are the bottom line and we all know what that means: it is the bottom line that counts. They are the main beneficiary of the long chain of consumption. You are just a line item, a cog in the big machine of consumption.

Free trade is only good for consumers to the extent that it induces them to consume more. Consumers are only valuable if they consume items. And what that means is nothing more than incessantly buy and throw away stuff. The throw away step is an integral part of the equation as it is necessary to make room for new stuff. If consumers do not throw out old stuff or if they do not throw it out fast enough, then the final step in the process will jam up and the reaction will stop. And when the reaction slows down or stops -even temporarily- then the flow of wealth into the pockets of the rich slows down or stops.

Free trade is intended to keep prices low, or below real cost, so consumers find it easy to buy more. They are lured into buying more because prices are constantly dropping as goods get commoditized. Commoditization, although "feared" by companies is a key step in the "value chain." Value chain is a misnomer and the process should be called "destruction of value chain" but not only does that sound bad, it is also a mouthful. So we prefer the shorter and crisper label, value chain.

Free trade destroys local economies by finding cheaper items and especially cheaper labor abroad. It can do so because one key cost factor is conveniently ignored: the cost of transportation and shipping. If one can find cheaper labor on the other side of the globe then go for it, because you can ignore the cost of shipping. One can fish salmon in Norway, ship it to China to clean and bring it back to Norway and sell it for less than it would cost to have it cleaned locally.

We are told this benefits the Norwegian consumer. Never mind the Norwegian worker who just lost his or her job. They can be retrained for another job.

Such miracles are possible because of cheap oil. Oil is cheap for several reasons: first, because we choose not to pay the cost of pollution and cleanup. We only pay the cost of exploration and pumping. Second, because we guarantee cheap access through our military.

Let there be no mistake. The main function of our military is "to protect our freedom to access cheap oil." Note that that too is a mouthful so we like to shorten the message. We simply state that the goal of our military is "to protect our freedom." That sounds better too. And it is easier to remember. Besides, the latter part is self-evident. You only have to look at the wars we fight. We fight wars for oil. It is as simple as that.

The military is but one tax we all pay so we can buy more gadgets and eat more food. But it is a tax we willingly pay because we know that "freedom is not free." Neither is free trade.

fuel consumption

BP, a company that would like to be known as Beyond Petroleum, published its statistical review of world energy recently. According to the WSJ, the BP report has the best data of any energy company report. You can download the report and the statistics from BP's website. If anything, the report makes it clear that we are a long way from being "beyond" petroleum. So much for advertising.

But there is some good news. Fuel consumption in the US in 2008 declined compared to 2007. Which goes to show you that there is nothing better for the environment than a good recession. US fuel consumption in million tonnes of oil equivalent declined from 2,359.6 to 2,299.0. It is not a stunning decline, but it is a start, you could say.

South and Central America did not "participate" in this decline and their consumption rose from 563.5 to 579.6. Note that the US alone uses almost 4 times as much fuel as all of Central and South America combined.

Europe and Eurasia also saw a small rise in consumption from 2,956.9 to 2,964.6. So did the Middle East, going from 577.6 to 613.5. Africa's consumption rose from 341 to 356, and Asia-Pacific went from 3,816 to 3,981.9. The latter gain was almost exclusively due to increased fuel use in China. Unfortunately, most of China's energy use is from coal. No wonder the country has now surpassed the US as the prime greenhouse gas producer.

Along with the US, the UK, Ireland, and Australia saw declines.

BP did mention that reserves are more or less stable (no whopping new discoveries), but it is happy to announce that we will have oil, gas and coal for decades to come. Pollution and global warming will get to us before we can run out of carbo-combustibles.

Happy breathing!

Essay

Roger Howard, the author of "The Oil Hunters: Exploration and Espionage in the Middle East," wrote an essay in the Sat/Sun WSJ. It is entitled "An Ode to Oil." It displays some fascinating reasoning. The essence is quite simple.

We, in America, are addicted to oil. But we also hold the technology to find more oil in these difficult times. Difficult because all the "easy" oil is gone and most of the existing fields are past their peak. Also difficult because the countries where those fields are,  those countries that lived of oil revenues have prospered for a long time and their populations have surged and now they need more dollars and more oil to keep feeding their own habits. 

That is one thing about oil, the suppliers are addicts too. Actually everyone is an addict including the pushers, who are the executives and investors of the big oil companies. These guys are mostly American. They hold the key to the technology. But I digress.

Let's go back to the argument. Howard says we are addicted and the suppliers need our technology to keep supplying us. They need to keep supplying us because otherwise they will starve. And that will be worse now than a few decades ago, because all this time they have benefited and now they have many more mouths to feed. Ergo, oil can be a stabilizing, peace-bringing force. Did you get that last part?

What Howard really means is we own the technology and we are the buyers so we are in the driver's seat. Our dependency is our strength. And since we are, by definition, the only and all that is good in the world, our strength means oil is the great pacifier of the 21st century. Everybody will have to listen to us -and by definition again, that is good, so he really says, everybody will have to be peaceful and happy.

Nil nove sub sole.

drill baby drill

Such was the utterance filled with joy of one Republican conventioneer interviewed by Channel 7 news the other day. The thing he really liked about McCain apparently was offshore drilling. And he is not alone. As I pointed out earlier, even die-hard environmentalists, driving their Volvo's around Berkeley, think it is time to give drilling a second look. "If it can be done without harming the environment," of course!

What drives this enthusiasm is high gas prices. Or should we say, relatively high gas prices, because these prices are only as high as European prices were before the recent run-up in oil. It says a lot that Americans are hurting at levels that Europeans found quite comfortable for many decades.

The call for offshore drilling has met with all kinds of well-meaning but irrelevant responses. Barack Obama rightly points out it won't matter to prices paid at the pump. Others worry about beach pollution and oil spills. Yet others think we may be able to reduce "our dependence on foreign oil" this way.

As an aside it always strikes me as funny that we Americans are so afraid of the world. Politicians make a point of protecting America, as if we are in danger somehow. The theme was everywhere at the political conventions. It must be high on people's minds. But why?

The only danger to our well being my friends, is us. We are driving this civilization into the ground with our endless unsustainable consumption. Nobody, just nobody in the whole wide world can threaten us in a meaningful way. Sure 9/11 was extremely painful, but in the big scheme of things, quite irrelevant.

Back to the drill bits though. I am afraid to say, that whether we drill or don't drill won't make one bit of difference to the environment. The thing that destroys the environment is our wasteful misuse of energy. In this case, "our" includes not just America, but increasingly other countries as well. The only thing that can save us from such destruction is high gas prices. Unless you support high gas prices (and I mean $10 per gallon and up), don't call yourself an environmentalist. Don't protest the war in Iraq. Don't bother pretending you care. All you care about is your own comfort.

The only thing that is proven to work against this madness is high prices. Sustained sky-high energy prices. That is what it takes. If you are ready to support it, stand up and raise your hand. Because that is the price to pay for saving "the planet" and ensuring a future for our kids.

on the war path

We are finally seeing where all our NATO expansion is leading us. Not to mention our Star Wars plans. What, you may ask is the purpose of NATO and Star Wars now that Soviet Union is gone? It appears the answer is, to promote its comeback. Because that is just what we are doing. We are pushing Russia into a corner, and they don't like it.

While all of us are busy watching the Olympics, Russia decided to take care of a few outstanding issues. They were only too happy to respond to Georgia's assault on Tskhinvali in South Ossetia. Surely Mikheil Saakashvili should have known better. Did he really think his "friend" George W. was going to bail him out and endorse his nationalistic drive? Did he really think the Russians were going to roll over?

Putin's reign is a clear sign that Russia is tired of being treated like a second-class citizen. They do not like our Eastward expansion. The European oil and gas "wars" have already made that clear to anyone with a bit of international sense. Now the Poles are getting worried. And they should. History has shown time and again that Poland is easily overrun. Despite treaties of various sorts, Poland is extremely vulnerable. The treaties did not stop Hitler and they surely did not stop Stalin.

The Bush administration appears nonchalant. It is no stranger to riling up tensions. As a matter of fact, someone there seems to enjoy making trouble. But we do need to point out that whole NATO issue started with Clinton. You see, when it comes to short-sightedness, everyone wants their fair share.

The current energy crisis is only making matters worse. The smart response would be for all to cut back on energy usage and do the environment a favor. Instead, everyone from the reddest redneck down to the dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist is crying foul. They all want their cheap gas, everything else be damned. Everyone driving an SUV is already an implicit supporter of the Iraq war. Soon we may see some action in Iran as well. All areas where Russia has considerable influence. For those of you not so clued-in, remember that the so-called war on terror is really a war about oil and gas.

If you want trouble, rest assured it is coming. Energy is one area where Putin holds a lot of cards. And he is willing to play hardball to avenge Russia's loss of status. Those who taunt the bear better beware!

food prices

According to the FAO data, the current spike in food prices is quite modest. When adjusted for inflation and compared to other data over the last 50 years, the price hike is barely noticeable. In the 1970's for example, rice, wheat, and other cereals were anywhere from double to almost four times as much as they are today. Yet, corn has risen 31% over the past year, while wheat has gone up a whopping 130%, according to Bloomberg.

Several factors have been blamed for these price hikes. Oil prices play an important part as most food stuffs are transported over large distances. I read somewhere that the average food item travels over 1,500 miles before it reaches your table. Oil also powers farm equipment and irrigation devices, that are both needed and used extensively to grow food on an industrial scale. Petroleum is key for fertilizers and pesticides that are an equally integral part of the production process.

It seems likely that oil prices will continue to move upward over the long term. On top of that we will no doubt see several spikes -as the one we are currently in- and drops -that will surely follow-. But the underlying trend will be up and up. Hopefully, that trend will remain "visible"enough so people have some incentive to change their life-styles before the whole rigamarole comes tumbling down in one big collapse.

Apart from oil, there are other factors. One is the biofuel craze, or growing crops for fuel production. More fuel production means less farm land is available for food. This trend is unlikely to persist for long but in the meantime it is giving rise to a fair bit of speculation. Wild promises also make it less likely people will think conservation.

Another factor is the shift in eating habits. That shift is especially pronounced in developing nations such as India and China, that are now changing to Western eating habits. Never mind that such habits come with definite health concerns. The key shift is towards more meat. In China meat consumption per capita has gone from 20 kg in the 1980's to over 50 kg today. Given how inefficient meat production is, and how wasteful it is with resources, that is not good. This trend however is likely to continue for as long as beef is available and people have money to pay for it.

Considering all these factors it may surprise you that FAO predicts food prices will stabilize in the next decade. Not just stabilize mind you, but remain low compared to historical trends. If that is so, there will be no stopping the predicted population boom. Estimates are there will be 9.2 billion people on the planet by 2050.  But then again, people thought US real estate prices would rise forever too.

I am willing to bet we are in for a big surprise. By mid-century the world will be a different place. And it won't be the rosy predictions people have grown accustomed to from watching Star Trek and similar shows.

invisible damage

The BBC has an article today highlighting a Science report about the dismal state of the planet's coral reefs. To anyone who has ever gone snorkeling or scuba diving, the influence of humanity is nowhere as visible as in coastal reefs. The closer a reef is to civilization, the more damaged it is and the more it looks like a wasteland.  Damage to coral reefs is something that jumps out at you. Once you've seen a healthy reef you won't bother going to Florida, or most of Hawaii for that matter. Those are the places where the sparse little fish come to look at all the humans wearing diving gear.

Climate change, overfishing, coastal development, and agricultural run-off are all to blame for damage to the reefs. As soon as the first beach villas go up, all the large fish disappear. The lush growth of coral is replaced by a few patches here and there. To the naive eye an occasional small but colorful reef dweller may look miraculous, but anyone who has gone to healthy reef, with big fish swarming all around you, will know different. Unfortunately, like smog, people adapt and their expectations adjust accordingly.

It is not just beauty that is leaving us, to be replaced by concrete, mega-mansions, artificial lawns, SUV's, motor boats and jet skis. Our very survival may be at stake. As the reefs go, so goes the fish and fish is an important source of protein for much of the world's population. Greenhouse gases like CO2 threaten reefs in two ways. The warmer seas destroy many species and the higher acidity -caused by dissolved CO2- damages even more.

As is usual however, our assault is multi-pronged. Agriculture develops behind the mansions and fertilizer run-off quickly causes algae to bloom. These algae kill off both fish and reefs. Finally, there are the "improvements" in fishing technology. The same "improvements" that allow us to increase our yields, and (temporarily) feed more people. The type of improvements that did away with Monterey's sardines and many other fisheries around the globe.

For many years, coastal people have relied on fishing to survive and thrive. Until they suddenly got access to cheap oil and managed to take fishing to a whole new level. A level that is clearly incompatible with the survival of the fish and the food sources that fish depends on. Big trawlers scoop up all the fish, damage the sea bottom -where food sources for fish are- and thrash coral reefs. The BBC website has a great video showing the destruction of reefs by trawling nets.

It has been estimated that most wild fish stocks will be depleted by mid-century. Some of it will no doubt be replaced by fish farming, but it remains to be seen what the long term viability of fish farms is. Already there are signs that these enterprises accelerate destruction instead of curing it. 

We might be in for a big surprise.

the 100 year flood

I read somewhere that the MidWest is experiencing its fourth 100 year flood in 35 years. Clearly something is amiss here. Maybe someone misplaced the zero? Already a debate has started whether or not global warming is to blame. Remember Katrina? We are at it once again.

I want to sidestep the global warming issue because it is likely to lead to unproductive debates. Instead of pointing fingers, let's take a look at the facts. Nothing but the facts, ma'am. If four hundred year floods occur in less than forty years then we are really dealing with 10 year floods. And if every 10 year flood is as devastating as this one, we aren't going to do so well in the long run. It is not just a matter of poor statistics we are talking about. It is something that wrecks the livelihood of many good people.

Once again the problem is that people are trying to live in areas where they should not live or do things there that they should not do. I am not saying we should refrain from changing our environment, but there needs to be a limit somewhere. Humans like all animals try to modify their environment, and doing so is a good thing to do. I am absolutely positively in favor of making life better. And if there is some collateral damage, well so be it.

Changing the environment makes it so we can enlarge our niche and it protects us from danger and makes it so we can live more comfortably. But that also imposes a good limit. A cost/benefit limit. Clearly floods like these every ten years or so do not make us comfortable. They do not make it safer for us to live there. We are asking too much.

Every time you ask this much you should also ask yourself, why? And here the why is obvious. It is called greed. We live in the plains because it allows us to grow cheap food that we can transport easily via the river to far away places. But location is not enough. These plains, while enormously productive would not be so without cheap oil. Once again, cheap oil is allowing us to do things we better not do.

The floods are but one symptom. They inundate the land that we grow food on and make it so our yields drop. But in "normal" years the runoff from pesticides and fertilizers make it so the Gulf of Mexico is becoming a wasteland where food (here fish) is disappearing quickly. It appears this situation is one of extremely high cost, with very little benefit. Unless you think high fructose corn syrup is a benefit. The only benefit we can see is dollars flowing into the pockets of some very rich farmers. That is called greed. For the time being the profit is quite literally underwater. 

But fear not, those farmers will go to Congress and you and I, the taxpayers of America will bail them out. Whether we like it or not. And that is wrong.

oily banana split

I read an interesting op-ed column about food and energy yesterday. It was written by Dan Koeppel in the NYT and is entitled:"Yes, We Will Have No Bananas." It brings up lots of interesting issues. What is really interesting is how cheap oil has distorted our world view, mine included. I used to buy a lot of bananas -I won't anymore now that I have read this. For some reason it never occurred to me that bananas are way too cheap. And despite the term "banana republic" (not the clothing brand) I always ignored the role of our military in providing us with artificially cheap food. Talk about national security.

Here are the key points, which I will list but you really ought to read the Koeppel story because he has a wonderful way of explaining it.
1. Bananas are produced thousands of miles away. They are a locavore's nightmare. Refrigerated food that is shipped in half way across the planet.
2. Bananas are perishable. They do not keep well and need to be refrigerated.
3. Bananas don't have seeds (they are sterile) and they are a mono-culture. A mono-culture that has been struck with devastation before and it is only a matter of time before it will happen again.
4. Banana culture leads to rainforest devastation.
5. The bananas we eat look good but they are an inferior-tasting variety. Out of the 1,000 or so varieties that exist, producers chose the one that is hardy, looks good, but has inferior taste.
6. Foreign policy plays a key role in keeping bananas cheap by supporting exploitation of workers.
7. Our military backs up that foreign policy agenda, beating up revolting workers if necessary to ensure cheap prices.
8. All that results in bananas being cheaper than apples, a local fruit that is hardy, keeps well, and needs no refrigeration.
9. Bananas are one of the most popular fruits in the US.
10. Not part of the article, but interesting nonetheless, bananas are little more than sugar-rich fruit. In many countries their calorie-rich, low nutrition value leads to malnutrition.

So now you know. Next time you see the yellow fruit beckon at 59c a pound, please abstain. You will be doing the environment a favor. You will also be saving oil and reducing greenhouse gases.

good news and bad news

The bad news first: the oceans are rising more and faster than we thought. New studies clarify what was long a puzzle for climate modelers. Scientists found a subtle error in previous temperature readings done by submarines and ships. Now they estimate the seas warmed and rose about 50% faster than previous estimates. That is especially bad news if you just invested in a nice coastal property and managed to escape subprime woes and foreclosure. Your troubles are just starting: mother nature is coming to get you. Is there no fairness in the world?

More bad news for those of you with coastal properties, especially in Florida and California. Our president and one of the presidential candidates want to restart offshore drilling. And guess what, even "hard core" environmentalists -those that drive Volvo SUV's with tons of stickers no doubt- now feel that gas prices are SO high that "something needs to be done." How about driving less? Are you kidding? We have to drive, they say. The environment be damned, they think.

Better prepare for oncoming seas filled with tar balls and bunker fuel. Now there is something that will affect property values. So far coastal communities have fared better in the mortgage crisis than their inland peers. Maybe there is justice after all?

The good news, for as long as it lasts, is that DOT announced that Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer highway miles in April of 2008 versus April 2007. And who said there was no way to solve greenhouse gas pollution? Who said we needed to explore alternative energy and invest in clean technology to solve our energy "needs?" What we really need, my friends, is to stop driving. That will solve many of our biggest problems.

1. Obesity. The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates over 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. It has been called an epidemic that threatens life-expectancy for future generations. Guess what, have the kids walk to school, or have them ride their bikes. And while you are at it, you can bike too.

2. Dependency on foreign oil. This is big, especially in an election year, when concern with matters of national security and flag waving are high on everyone's to-do list. Since we only import about 50% of our oil and we certainly waste more than that, what is the problem really ? Our only dependency is our addiction to consume more.

3. Global resource depletion and pollution. The more oil we use, the more other goodies we consume as well. Oil is the lubricant of the consumer economy. It makes it so we can buy new things all the time and then throw them away within 6 months. The trucks not only bring in new goodies all the time, they also take away our waste to far away countries such as India and China. It is no surprise that over 60% of China's drinking water is contaminated.

4. Global warming. That is a no-brainer. Just wait until your beach and your beach house disappear into the deep blue sea.

It is clear that high gas prices are the solution to our woes. However, instead of rejoicing, we are all worried. Not so much about the high prices -they are way too low for us to worry a lot now- but about what could happen in the future and the possibility of dwindling supplies. Nothing to strike more fear into the hearts of addicts than the specter of future shortages. That is when all good intentions go out the door. Now we are ready for blood.

The drug pushers too are getting worried it seems. Saudi Arabia just announced it was going to boost production come July 1. The kingdom is worried that we might get serious about alternative energy. Or god forbid, that we would actually change our habits and continue to use less oil. Now that would be a real disaster for the pocketbooks of so many greedy people.

G8 wisdom and foreclosures

The G8 ministers meeting in Japan are up in arms about oil prices. The G8 are a group of eight rich nations whose influence goes well beyond that of the remaining 100+ countries on the planet. Nevertheless the G8 invited China, India, and South Korea, illustrating the power shift that is about to take place on the world stage. Soon the G8 will have to add to its magic number or consider booting some of it older members who are no longer carrying so much weight.

For now though, it appears the G8 mostly invited China and India so participants could scold these countries for their energy subsidies. The participants in question being mostly the US. Never mind that the US has its own energy subsidies in place. When you are the biggest bully on the block it is fine to attack others for what you yourself do all the time.

What worries the US is that world oil production has stalled since 2005, while global economic growth -read China and India- is pushing demand to ever higher levels. Much of that growth is fueled by US dollars and US demand for cheap goods. The US has moved much of its manufacturing base to China, and much of its low-level services base to India. When you buy a gadget in the US, chances are it was made in China, and when you call customer service to inquire about something, chances are someone in Bangalore will be answering the phone. That puts the US in a tricky position. What also puts the US in a tricky position is the increasing military might of the Chinese. That while we are busily trying to keep our head above the water in the Middle East.

We also read that the five top consumers, the US, China, Japan, South Korea, and India, urged oil producers to boost output, while pledging to develop clean energy alternatives and increase efficiency. It is unclear what if anything the US government means by its pledge to develop clean alternatives and increase efficiency. So far, all we have seen is quite to the contrary. Any attempt to take away subsidies from fossil fuels has been death on arrival. With two oil men in the White house, it seems unlikely such a pledge amounts to much more than window dressing. Other bills, to support alternative energy, or to reduce greenhouse gases, or other pollution have all been stalled, and received veto warnings to boot.

On a more practical level, both China and the US are increasingly reverting to coal, a fossil fuel that is even more damaging to the environment than oil. So much for progress. In the US, coal has been busy convincing consumers and politicians alike that there is such a thing as "clean coal." Ads on TV ask consumers to embrace clean coal as the energy of the future. Both the US and China unfortunately have huge coal reserves to feed their power hungry consumers.

The advertising is especially damaging. At this stage, clean coal is as real as cold fusion, or x-ray lasers. And we all know what happened there. Fortunately for us, the US is more constrained than China and US consumers are more sensitive to coal pollution than the Chinese, who have little say in what their government does. But there is no telling what US consumers will put up with once gas prices close in on $8 a gallon. It is a scenario that is more realistic than most people think. The US infrastructure is also more vulnerable than the Chinese infrastructure. In the US much of what is there, and almost all of what is being added daily is heavily dependent on cars and trucks. The layouts are very unfriendly towards alternatives such as walking, biking, or even public transportation.

If the US mortgage crisis has a silver lining it is right here. Now is the time to abandon much of this non-sensical infrastructure. If you have to leave because your house is in foreclosure, at least now you have the option to go live closer to work, closer to the city, or in a place where you can walk or use transit. The high oil prices give you an added incentive and one can only hope prices will stay high for long enough to support a mini-migration towards the population centers. It is important because there will be partial recoveries and people may be tempted to re-indulge in their bad habits. Ultimately though our economy is unsustainable and a collapse of one kind or another is inevitable. The more we adjust now, the better off we will be when that finally happens.

food and starvation

The BBC asks the question, is it time to reconsider GM foods? Like hybrid cars, GM or genetically modified foods are the big technology breakthrough that is going to save us from extinction. But whereas hybrid cars are largely a gimmick, GM foods do have some merit. Inserting genes to make plants more resistant to pests, or make it so they can tolerate herbicides seems to make sense. After all, it is what evolutionary forces have been doing all along. That is what "evolution" is all about: change to deal with your environment. You might argue plants would never become tolerant to RoundUp, the Monsanto herbicide, but that is just wrong. Given that there is a genetic solution to RoundUp tolerance, it seems likely that sooner or later plants would have acquired this trait. That is, if there were enough RoundUp available to make RoundUp resistance a distinct advantage.

GM foods are likely to work for a while. They will make it so farmers use less chemicals and hence, less oil, but I doubt it will make much difference, or for very long. It may make Monsanto stockholders wealthy though, but that is another matter. Ultimately, pesticides and herbicides will fare no better than antibiotics: resistant strains will appear and the gains will be nullified. For antibiotics, it took a mere fifty years for that to happen. Give it another 50 years and we will be back to pre-antibiotic times. For pesticides and herbicides it may take a bit longer, since multi-cellular organisms cannot adapt that quickly. But ultimately, these chemicals will become part of the "normal" scenery and of limited value to agriculture.

The trouble is that giving the way we live now, with all the waste, and excess, there are simply too many people on the planet. Oil is what keeps them there and oil is a limited resource. Once we run out, or are getting close to run out, the party will be over. That means the people will have to disappear, one way or another. If we changed our life-style perhaps we could accommodate more but six billion is a lot. As for changing life-styles, fat chance that that will happen. So we are looking at mass starvation, massive die-offs as a result of disease and other enormously unpleasant events.

The sooner we deal with it the better off we will all be.

hybrid technology

Quite frequently people re-invent something that already exists and re-introduce it with great fanfare. When they do so they make sure the "new" item is so well camouflaged with the latest widgets that consumers will not see the obvious connection. And so it is that Toyota re-invented the small light-weight car with a small engine and made it look appealing to US consumers. That is no small feat really and the company should be given ample credit for building a small car that Americans want to buy and drive.

Prius is so successful that some have suggested Toyota spin out the line to stand on its own. Prius has also been the target of vicious attacks from SUV makers, some of whom have claimed it was less energy efficient than a full-size SUV. To prove their point these defenders of waste engaged in some creative math using some wild assumptions, but overall they failed to drive their point home. Luckily, the average citizen is smart enough to realize that a Prius has to be more energy efficient than a hummer.

Unfortunately, the hybrid gimmick is having some unwanted side-effects. Many people seem to believe that the Prius achieves its remarkable mileage and its environmentally friendly status by virtue of it being a "hybrid" car. Some people really do believe that the Prius uses less gas because it has an electric engine. But where does the electricity come from?

This is a classical example of a trick question for physics 101. Since the only energy source available to the Prius is gas, it follows that all the Prius' output comes from gas. And that includes the power developed by its electric engine. It is true that the Prius uses some clever tricks such as regenerative braking to fill its batteries, but somehow the initial speed used in this process had to be developed by burning gas. Even if the braking results from coasting down a hill, one has to realize that gas was used to climb that hill in the first place.

The Prius uses several gimmicks to give people the impression of something truly novel. For example, it uses its electric engine to accelerate because electric engines accelerate much faster than a comparable gas engine. And it also shuts off its engine when it isn't needed, saving additional gas in the process. While all that sounds good, there are inevitable losses that come with the dual technology. Converting chemical (gas) energy to electrical energy adds some waste, and storing and retrieving electricity from batteries does too.

The real advantage of the Prius therefore lies in its small size, low weight, and aerodynamic profile. The clever tricks, regenerative braking, shutting down the engine, etc. result in some gains, even after losses due to conversion and storage are taken into account. But these gains are minimal and the lion's share of savings is due to the physical properties just mentioned. And that is important for two reasons.

First, the label "hybrid" is pretty meaningless, especially when attached to large and heavy SUV's. One would be better off buying a smaller conventional car. Second, if you want to save money buy a small conventional car. It will do just as well in gas usage and CO2 production, but will cost a lot less. Prius commands a very high premium. Estimates are that it is "over-priced" compared to a regular car, by at least $7K, or almost 33%.

That is the price you pay for your badge of honor. It is a price you can only get back by driving a lot. And that is exactly what you shouldn't do. If you really care about the environment and your pocketbook, buy a smaller car instead. The most important thing to do is to drive less. Ride your bike. That has the added benefit of keeping you in shape and healthy in the long run.

food and agriculture

A UN-World Bank study concluded that food production has to change if we are to cure world hunger and prevent ecological disaster. The study admits that the current industrialization of food production has resulted in great gains in productivity but it also pointed out that the benefits of these are spread around the globe very unevenly. So while the West got rich, and while India and China were able to grow furiously, there are still 800+ million people today who go to bed hungry every day.

There are several problems with food production and agriculture that could bring about future disasters. There is an astonishing loss of biodiversity, making the food crop very vulnerable to pests and increasing demand for pesticides. On the other hand, the biotech industry is trying to make up for this by reintroducing certain pest-fighting genes and thereby reduce the need for pesticides. It is like much else in our society: first you create a problem and then you try to solve it in some roundabout way. But like so many engineered battles, in the long run we are much more likely to lose out.

Agriculture has not just focused on monoculture. It has also concentrated on large scale. Because large fields of identical items are easiest to harvest and process and have the best return on investment. Such fields are also the most vulnerable and once a pest or disaster finds a "hole in the armor," total devastation is inevitable. It seems likely that over time, organisms will become resistant to nearly all pesticides. Since pesticides target multi-cellular organisms, resistance is slower to develop than antibiotic resistance, but develop it will. And much like we are moving back to pre-antibiotic times in medicine, we will go back to pre-pesticide days in agriculture too. Unfortunately, by then we will have destroyed a ton of biological variability that is ultimately the only long-term defense against pests.

The UN-World bank study recommends going back to the "family farm," a small local enterprise that produces food for the owners and the local neighborhood. It is unlikely to get a seal of approval from the world's leading food producers. Agriculture is big business and too many people stand to lose if this were to happen. Not just food producers, but also fertilizer, pesticide and seed producers, biotechs, farm equipment manufacturers and the like.

Unfortunately, our current agriculture system is not sustainable. It is far too dependent on oil, massive irrigation projects, and monoculture to survive for very long. No doubt technologists will patch it up for many decades to come, while those who are getting rich of it will continue to sing its praises. But sooner or later it will all come crashing down. The longer we wait the more painful and the more disastrous that fall will be.

Fortunately, there is something we can do now. As citizens of a rich country we can have a disproportionate effect too, so every little bit will help a lot. First, buy local food. Join the locavores. That is the most important thing you can do. Don't buy anything that had to travel more than 100 miles to get to your table. And the heavier it is, the more eagerly you should avoid it. So never, ever buy bottled water.

Secondly, grow your own food. Everyone can grow some food, especially fruit. The more food you grow the better. The benefits go far beyond feeding yourself or your family. You are also helping maintain biodiversity. Especially if you grow items like heirloom tomatoes or less popular varieties of fruit.

Thirdly, buy organic. Always buy organic milk if you buy milk. But also look for organic fruit and cotton. While cotton is not a food item, growing cotton is one of the most polluting endeavors on the planet. Every cotton item you buy that is made from organic cotton will make a huge difference in the overall scheme of things.

Don't ever think these problems are too difficult to tackle. The truth is they are not. And we can all make a huge difference to our environment and the long term survival of our species. And feel better in the process too.

too puny to matter?

An often heard criticism of global warming is that we humans are too puny to matter much. An extension of this criticism is that we as individuals are too insignificant to do anything about it. Big problems need big solutions. Well, I urge you to look at the facts and reconsider. Very small savings multiplied by billions of humans do matter. They matter a lot.

The BBC estimated that if every British household turned off just one 100W light bulb for a day, Britain could remove four 500 megawatt coal fired plants. Britain has 22 million households. Or to use another example. The famous Hoover dam produces 2,080 megawatts of electricity. That is just sufficient for one 100W bulb for every British household. Surely, Britons would not be worse off if they were forced to use one less bulb. But how do you get them there? Unfortunately my friends only one things seems to work: higher prices. You don't like it and I don't either, but there is no other way.

The Grand Coulee Dam is the largest hydro-electric power source in the US, and the third largest in the world. It produces 6490 megawatts or more than three times the Hoover output. However, with 105 million households in the US, not even the Grand Coulee could provide enough power for that one extra bulb. One less 100W bulb for every US household would save more power than the Grand Coulee, the Hoover, and the Chief Joseph dams combined. Think about that when you leave your lights on.

And then there is some good news. Americans are driving less. Yes folks, economics works. Even if the geniuses on Wall Street and Capitol Hill don't understand it -or pretend not to. When prices go up, people use less. They are smart. They start treating oil for what it really is, a precious and finite resource. Americans, like everyone else in the world, are smart enough to figure out how to combine car trips and save gas. Over time, even Americans will figure out that buying a smaller car makes sense too. And they won't be any unhappier for it. And that is why the government should fix gas prices at no less than $5 per gallon. Only then will we make some headway against greenhouse gases. All the rest is idle talk and grandstanding.

So Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama, how about it? How about showing some real leadership and some guts where it really matters? How about setting a minimum gas price? How about driving home the message that our resources are finite and valuable and that wasting them is a stupid thing to do?

iraq and the big picture

Whether you are for or against the war in Iraq, remember one thing. The war is and was all about oil. Everyone knew it all along but nobody wanted to come forward and say so. Those who tried were quickly silenced. Often by flag-waving, patriotic slogans, and ingenious and long-winded arguments about freedom, democracy, and what have you. Or maybe they were touched by cruelties such as "gassing his own people."

The Iraq war has been wrapped and boxed in more layers than an Egyptian mummy. Instead of cotton and cedar though, we are talking layers of political and ideological obfuscation. If nothing else, it shows how good we humans are at rationalizing our behaviors and how willing we are to listen to and even believing other people's rationalizations. Experts have analyzed and probed into the President's mindset and utterances, only to discover drives and motivations that wouldn't fool a four year old.

The war in Iraq is a logical and inevitable consequence of our over-indulgent life-style and addiction to oil. And that life-style goes across the aisle. Nobody with the tiniest bit of self respect can argue they are against the war and drive an SUV every day. What they can say is that they are against how the war was conducted. Or that they are disappointed in the tactics we had to resort to. They can be embarrassed that we had to use torture or open up concentration camps to get our way. They can be shocked at what little was achieved. And maybe that is what this is all about. We are all against the way the war in Iraq was run.

The conservatives may feel we should have gone in with more fire power. More shock and awe fireworks. However, they probably remember the Vietnam debacle and the strong aversion we all have towards casualties. In this age of high-tech we want clean wars without casualties. American casualties that is. Because for all our political correctness, the others don't count, and that is exactly why we don't count them. Wars are messy, anyone can tell you, and as long as we keep the mess away from us, things should be OK.

The liberals may feel there was too much overt damage. Too many shocking images unfit for prime time TV. Too much loss of life. They may think should be able to get our oil without blood and gore, and without all that macho testosterone posturing. Let's just be smart about it and find some way to run off with it. That is what those anti-war stickers on the big Volvo cross-over are all about. But hurry, we have to drive the kid to soccer practice and then get in the car to go to the gym. And let's not forget our weekend trip to the mall.

Perhaps we should have a little People magazine quiz to find out if we are really against the war. It could have questions like, how many cars do you own? How many boats, motorcycles, jetskis, snowmobiles, lawn-mowers, and other gas guzzling devices? How big is your house? How high is your monthly electricity bill? How much gas and oil do you use for heating? How much water do you waste each and every day? How big is your lawn? And how many frequent flyer miles do you have? How much beef do you eat? And how much do you weigh?

If you scored above 5, and who doesn't, you are a true dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the war in Iraq. So quit the charade and sing out loud with Borat, "we support your war of terror."

fluff ball economy

The US economy is in a recession. Although it has not officially been announced yet, everyone knows it. It does not look good. This recession could be a tad worse than others in recent memory. Meanwhile the US banking system is in trouble. Even the almighty dollar is not doing so well. No wonder the Federal Government had to step in and bail out Bear Stearns. It seems quite likely that before this is over, others will need to be bailed out too.

Above all, the government needs to restore confidence. Otherwise there will be widespread trouble. We have deficits galore, trade deficits, budget deficits, you name it. And more and more of that debt is held by foreigners. The budget deficit alone amounts to about $30,000 per person -that includes babies and elderly people too-. $8,000 of that is owned to foreigners. We don't want to scare these foreigners away. That would cause trouble. Major trouble.

What do you do with an economy that is based on discretionary spending? I.e. spending on things nobody needs. An economy that is made up of doctors, lawyers, nurses, nannies, gardeners, psychologists, massage therapists, family coaches, concierges, spa personnel, and other fluff? All these people do is shift wealth around.

We have an economy whose value is in churning through materials at ever faster rates. Whose collateral is huge homes in swamps and deserts. Homes that can only be sustained by the flow of copious cheap oil -and guess what? It is no longer so cheap anymore.

Fortunately we have Madison avenue to package it all and make it appear as if there is something there. And we have a great military to beat up anyone who disagrees with that view.

The American economy works as follows. Pump in vast quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal. Unfortunately, more and more of that needs to be imported from other places so that is where our military comes in: to guarantee that we keep getting it at a good rate.

Bring in tons of cheap, preferably below minimum wage labor. Labor that is free of rights. Such labor can be found in abundance in Central and Latin America, although Asian sweatshops are acceptable too. Here is another job for our brave soldiers: keep all these volatile "labor units" under control. These labor units are responsible for all the real value produced in our economy. They work the farms, mine the resources, and are essential in creating the wealth.That is why Washington has problems with the current illegal immigration debate. How do you tell working class Americans that the only reason we can live the way we do is because of the vast labor pools south of the border?

Now unleash a formidable media and advertising campaign to get the engine rolling and keep it revved up at all times. That is where Madison comes in. Hollywood plays a key role in all this too and it is the main reason why we pay these actors and actresses so much money. They fuel consumption. They drive consumption's big wheel, called fashion. Fashion makes it so that you discard good stuff that is practically new and buy other stuff. The geniuses on Madison Avenue make sure you stick to the program. Because the economy is in churn.

Another key ingredient is people. Bored people. Bored because there is nothing real for them to do. So we stoke their desire to outdo the neighbors, their unlimited greed, their hugely inflated and fundamentally insecure egos, and their inherent laziness. That makes it all work. Add to that the mind's addiction to moving images and the body's virtual unlimited capacity to store fat, and there is your recipe for success.

So what do those American's do to sustain their spending habits? They work in the services business. In the fluff ball economy. The economy of make believe. They scratch each other's backs. They help you move money around. They sell and resell housing and all the stuff in it. They advise you on finances, retirement, consumption, and other "important" matters. They do planning. They build and endlessly upgrade houses. They sell trinkets. They defend people who divorce and fight with their neighbors, they cure imaginary illnesses, and they help people reduce stress and cope with life. They teach fluff.

Despite its intricate structure and tremendous track record, this fluff ball economy is unsustainable. It won't last. Like one giant bubble it will explode. Better move out of the way when that happens.

bailout

If you look around you can see what happens when greed festers. Consumption without restraint maybe fun for a while, but inevitably the time comes to pay the piper. In a free market economy that means a prolonged recession or even a depression. Recessions are much like storms. Most of them are easy to weather, but every once in a while you hit the perfect storm. One that leaves a trail of casualties behind. There is a high likelihood that we hit another perfect storm. Some have argued we are in a situation similar to that of the early 1930's.

The remedy for such situations is called government bailouts. This is the part the less regulation-less government crowd does not want to talk about. These guys hate the government. They like to be left alone so they can fully indulge in their endless greed. They don't want anyone to spoil the party with planning and regulation. Planning and regulation prevent them from getting scandalously rich. But when the bubble burst, they are the first to call for government help. Suddenly, the evil government turns to a saving angel. When trouble hits, the tax payer is the one footing the bill. And the really rich have already made sure they will not be the ones paying taxes.

In many ways the financial system is mimicking the real world. There are many analogies between financial systems and natural evolution. And there is something we can learn from observing this credit crisis. Absence of restraint and regulations leads to fantastic growth but also to premature death. While the bubble grows, nobody can convinced that the party will end. But it is obvious things cannot keep going the way they are. Yet the skeptics are dismissed as out of touch, old-fashioned, luddites, and what have you. And then the bubble bursts.

Unfortunately, once this happens on a global scale, there will be nobody to bail us out. So go ahead and waste resources. Drive gas-guzzling cars, fly all over, turn up the heater and the air conditioner, build those 5,000 sq foot mansions. Live it all up. Just remember, when the party ends, and it will, there will be nobody to turn to. Evolution has a nice way of dealing with such excess. It is called extinction. And it is as much part of the natural world as the creation of new species.

another war won

President Bush noted today that we won the war in Iraq. You may think he is alone in this belief, but think again. "We," meaning Bush and his close friends, did win. And they won a lot. Just take a look at Halliburton's stock price (ticker HAL). Five years ago, it stood at less than $10 per share. As the war went on, so did HAL. By the middle of 2006, it reached $40 and it has been hovering around that price ever since. You probably also noticed the exorbitant profits made by oil companies throughout this period. Like it or not, these are the real measures of success. Hard numbers that few can argue with. And real dollars to line the pocket books of the President's sponsors.

If Bush failed somewhere it was in handling the PR. He did a reasonable job selling the war, but then again, after 9-11 one could have sold virtually anything to a blood thirsty nation. No real kudos there. It is like saying I doubled my money on a stock in the midst of a large bull market. Sure you did, and so did everyone else. The real kicker in getting us to war was to get Colin Powell to go stand in front of the UN security counsel with tons of shaky, if not outright fabricated, "evidence." That took some doing and the Bush team did a superb job here.

The greatest "pure" PR stunt of this whole debacle came with the aircraft carrier landing and the speech, mission accomplished. It did work at the time, but the images have lingered and they have come back to haunt the administration. Even Bush should have known that "accomplished" was a premature term. HAL had yet to double. Even though, he and Vice President Cheney probably knew that the ball was rolling and that there was no stopping it now.

Overall, the war in Iraq is a minor issue really. It catches the public's attention but it is hardly worth a tenth of the time spent on it in the media. For the umpteenth time, we went out to bully a small country. Granted, it did not go as smoothly as we expected and it ended up costing a lot more money, but we had few alternatives. Iraq was sitting on a lot of oil and if we are to be taken seriously and protect our "economy," we needed to do something dramatic. Even though the sanctions worked, they did not make us look good. A small time dictator thumbing his nose at the world's most powerful country is not an image we can easily live down.

And don't say you didn't support the war. You did. Even most of you who voice opposition. The true measure of support is right there in your garage. That new SUV or cross-over vehicle. All the energy you waste on running your heater and air conditioner unnecessarily. All the money you spend on throw-away goods. All the gadgets and toys you buy but never look at.

If you were or are truly outraged at the war in Iraq, there is only one way to show it. Ditch that SUV. Cut your driving by at least 50%, and urge your representatives to put a high tax on gasoline. Support $5 a gallon gas so people will stop driving like maniacs. Wean yourself from indulgent overconsumption and take a stance to protect our environment by buying less. Instead of spending your weekends at the mall, go to the lake for a hike, or a run.

Otherwise you just sound like any other addict who complains that their dealer is beating up another party to secure cheap product.