Ode to the Industrial Age

Massive extractions, massive amounts of fossil fuels; such a relatively brief geological time-frame -- the geological blink of an eye; life on planet Earth, in the cross hairs?

Results:
- Certain economic uplift for some of world's population.
- Pollution, including green house gasses.
- Increasing extremity of real economic inequality between rich and poor.

Problem: No one knows what will happen.
- We do however know some of the certain present day outcomes, and while for a percentage, oh say roughly 20% of the world's population, life has gotten better, for many, it may be argued, improvements have not really panned out, and many people are stuck in impoverishment, and further, enslavement, in order to suit the economic benefits of others.
- We also know that a massive extinction event is already well under way. Many species have already been drive to demise, as a result of industrial impacts on environmental conditions, the ecological balances necessary for life to flourish.

And so what about the future... It is reasonable to question whether current activities might result in ever increasing consequences for over all life on Earth. This is not even to mention the present day injustices and violence associated with the current harmful economic paradigm.

So, why do some still take profit and reap reward from activities that do so much to harm (to others, and to the overall diversity and balance of life on Earth.) So--What do you think?

Internationalize the Petroleum Industry

cross posted from OlyBlog, June 11, 2010:

There is Beauty, even in a Natural Disaster

It may be perverse, but I think there may even be some beauty to be found in nightmare horror that is the terror of the multi-national corporation quest to find the environmental bottom. hahaha! not REALLY - except perhaps in limited circumstances like the one seen below in a photo by Richard Perry of the New York Times, who photographed this stunning image of the red crude fossil fuel petroleum as it has reached the surface of the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the recent Deep Water Horizon major industrial disaster.

What a sad state of affairs. I think it is just plain wrong for anyone to profit from environmentally destructive activities.

update: p.s. NOT that this man-made volcano is a natural disaster... But it is a disaster, and this image is somewhat beautiful. Though there are plenty of disturbing and alarming images that are not beautiful. I have been impressed with ongoing coverage of this issue in the New York Times. Although I think that the paper, and the mainstream media in general, are not doing anywhere near enough to question the underlying root-causes of this disaster. I think questions need to be asked about industrialization and technology, and about how people are profiting from the most destructive, abusive and violent endeavors.


photo by Richard Perry, The New York Times

Following BP (it's a disaster - a volcano - not a "spill" nor a "leak" - a major man-made volcano!)

What a mess. At least now there is more information coming out about the lead up to the disaster, and how BP has a record of operating out of compliance with safety regulations.

So we can see how a corporation puts profit before the precautionary principle, and before the interests of life and health.

I am going to drop a few links here to articles that I think are important in terms of developing a more full understanding of the background and full scope of this disaster.

From Truthout.org: Ex-EPA officials ask why isn't BP under criminal investigation

Greg Palast: BP's other oil mess this week

NYT: Photo gallery

Video: what BP does not want you to see

Democracy Now! Oil disaster responders being hospitalized due to toxic exposure

Could the problem have been avoided?

NYT: Panel finds BP had evidence of problem with oil well long before disaster

NYT: Documents show earlier worries about safety of rig

What if BP let the disaster happen intentionally...

Does it make sense for people to profit from environmentally destructive activities?

Oil Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico

The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is very bad. BP (British Petroleum) estimates 5,000 barrels a day. Independent analysts estimate that the number could be ten times that much, or more.

At 5,000 barrels a day, the amount of oil would already be 4 times as much as the Exxon Valdez disaster (which happened over 20 years ago off the coast of Alaska.)

This is not to mention the possible effects of chemical dispersants, which have been used in the recent disaster to accelerate the decay of the swirling crude.

Most of the oil that is spewing from a pressurized oil deposit deep under the surface of the water (5,000 feet deep) is not reaching the surface, due to underwater currents. No one knows what the real consequences of this disaster (consequences for ecosystems and all the life in and around the waters of the gulf, and to human lives,) will be.

One thing is for sure though. This is a big deal.

This is not to mention that according to current regulatory policies BP's liability for the disaster is capped at $75 million. The total cost of the disaster could very well exceed the $1 billion mark. I am not sure if the $1 billion estimate includes the placement of monetary value on the potential loss of life (which is extreme.)

Power of Community

I already published this video on this blog, but it's worth posting again. It is about how the nation of Cuba survived a crisis similar to Peak Oil, in 1991, when imports from the Soviet Union ceased (upon collapse of the U.S.S.R..) The film explores how the Cuban people adjusted, specifically in terms of local economic solutions.

Many of the same solutions could be applied to societies elsewhere, if we were to make conscious changes, and a decision to move away from an economic infrastructure that is based on and utterly dependent on petroleum resources. Petroleum is a finite resource. It will run out. Whether it is in 30, 50, 100, or 300 years (or however long), there will come a time when we will not have access to petroleum.

What will fuel our economy and our every day lives? To what will we turn?

I argue that we would be better off to make these decisions, to make appropriate changes, without a (metaphorical) gun pointed toward our heads. Already, we are embroiled in wars over resources. Many people suffer and die because of domestic demand for petroleum. It's unethical to kill people over resources. The technology exists for an altruistic and enlightened society. Let us make changes that will benefit ourselves, and indeed all of humankind and future generations.



link to film on internet: http://www.livevideo.com/video/mercofspeech/CD893609A0CB495D9A9CF04AC9E4AEFF/power-of-community-how-cuba-.aspx

How Cuba Survived Peak Oil

I watched this movie for the first time tonight, and I recommend it highly. Well worth dragging all of your friends to see.

Read More: Oil and Sustainability and Cuba [OlyBlog].

The Prize by Daniel Yergin

Check out the eight part video series, The Prize, based on the book of the same title by Daniel Yergin. I posted all eight episodes at olyblog.net. Here's the link: olyblog.net/understanding-each-other#comment-65309

It IS about Oil

www.truthout.org/article/it-was-oil-all-along

Also see the Bill Moyers Journal excerpt: www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06272008/watch3.html

Abusing Our Troops (Trading Blood for Oil)

President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. "Dick" Cheney are abusing the troops.


Photo by Laura Killian

Well, further, and according to Vincent Bugliosi, sending the troops into harm's way without national security imperative, prerogative, or necessity makes those culpable decision makers complicit in the murder of U.S. Soldiers. There was not national security justification for the invasion of Iraq. The justification for invasions/occupation is the policy of global dominance. Access to, and control of, the vast Middle East petroleum resources is a necessary ingredient in the maintenance of global dominance.

So, the essential truth is that the U.S. launched a military invasion - an act of aggression - designed to conquer, extract and exploit the mineral resources of a foreign nation. That is not okay with me. How's it by you?

In Support of Global Dominance

Our legislators don't represent the will of the people for peace and justice. Instead they all too often represent the will of corporations for global dominance, even to the point of militarism and the use of violence. Here's a comment I made at OlyBlog about Congressman Brian Baird (D - WA 3rd Congressional District):

go to original

Do the terms "liberal" or "conservative" have meaning anymore?

As far as it goes with the occupation of Iraq, Congressman Baird certainly provides liberal support to those (Western multi-national petroleum corporations) who seek domination and control over the oil resource of Iraq.

It's great that Baird is a strong proponent of abortion rights and other things. But I wish he was a support of peace, justice and disarmament. It seems that he is an able and willing supporter of global dominance and a foreign policy of violent militarism. Congressman Baird lives up to a the tradition of the military-industrial-congressional-complex.

The same criticism that applies to Baird also applies, unfortunately, to a majority of US Legislators: they are wedded to a system that represents the interests of the corporations. It's corporatism plain and simple. Regular citizens just don't have access to government anymore.

The people need healthcare and good, stable jobs. But the corporations are making it impossible - with the help of Congress.

If the work is to represent the interests of peace and justice, the government is often less than willing to receive the message. (This is also true at State and local levels, but the degree of receptivity varies on a case by case basis.)

27 Gallons of Fuel per Day per Soldier in Iraq

The US military is currently consuming over 27 gallons of fuel per day, per soldier, in Iraq:

go to original

Military feels fuel-cost gouge in Iraq

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 3, 1:27 AM ET

Think you're being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves.

Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.

Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars — $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Some lawmakers say oil-rich allies in the Middle East should be doing more to subsidize fuel costs because of the stake they have in a secure Iraq. Others point to Iraq's own burgeoning surplus as crude oil prices top $100 a barrel. Baghdad subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.

The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies. The center then sets a fixed rate for troops, currently $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline, $3.04 for jet fuel and $13.61 for avgas, a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles.

Kuwait does grant substantial subsidies, but they cover only about half the fuel used by the U.S. in Iraq. And the discount is eaten up by the Energy Support Center's administrative costs and fluctuations in the market.

Overall, the military consumes about 1.2 million barrels, or more than 50 million gallons of fuel, each month in Iraq at an average $127.68 a barrel. That works out to about $153 million a month.

Historically, these figures are astounding. In World War II, the average fuel consumption per soldier or Marine was about 1.67 gallons a day; in Iraq, it's 27.3 gallons, according to briefing slides prepared by a Pentagon task force established to review consumption.

The surge in demand can be attributed in part to the military's expanding aviation fleet, including helicopters, and its reliance on planes to shuttle cargo and troops between the U.S. and Iraq. Vehicles, too, are more heavily armored and require more energy to run. Another major contributor is the widespread use of generators to cool troops.

The Pentagon's demand for fuel in Iraq has had little if any effect on global oil prices. Frank Verrastro, director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the military's use of 1.2 million barrels a month — or roughly 40,000 barrels a day — represents a small chunk of the 86 million barrels demanded each day on the global market.

Instead, Verrastro says, the hike in oil prices since the 2003 invasion is more likely due to a "fear factor."

"Prices rise when Iran saber-rattles, or there's a disruption potential in Nigeria," he said. An even larger driver of fuel costs is global demand, fed by robust economies in Asia and the lack of available alternative fuel sources, according to Verrastro.

Still, some lawmakers say the U.S. is paying too much to secure an oil-rich nation that resides in a neighborhood swimming in the natural resource.

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was shocked last December to watch U.S. troops in Kuwait filling diesel tanks at higher prices than he would have paid to fill up his boat in Mississippi.

"The Kuwaitis have been good allies. But let's face it, that nation would not be there if not for the American liberation of Kuwait," he said, referring to the 1991 conflict.

When Taylor pressed Pentagon and embassy officials on the matter, he was told Kuwait was actually offering a rare discount. Unlike other oil-rich allies, Kuwait is estimated to have saved the U.S. government $1.2 billion in four years, from 2002 to 2006, U.S. Embassy officials told the congressman in a Jan. 3 letter.

Under the current agreement, the Kuwait-owned company supplies 7,000 gallons per day of free fuel to U.S. forces operating inside Kuwait. For troops in Iraq, Kuwait offers 860,000 gallons of jet fuel a day at less than half the market price. This discounted fuel represents more than half the fuel the U.S. uses in Iraq each day.

The rest of the fuel — about 100,000 to 200,000 gallons a day — is sold to the U.S. military at market rate.

When Taylor asked whether more could be done by Kuwait and other oil-rich allies in the Middle East, a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. wants to see an even bigger reduction in prices from Kuwait but indicated there was no guarantee that would happen.

"It is our view that all of those forces, whether they are semi-stationed in Kuwait ... or those transitioning into Iraq, should receive that fuel at a reduced rate, and that is continuing dialogue that goes on between our government and the government of Kuwait," Mark Kimmitt, deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, said in a January hearing.

It's unlikely the U.S. has pressed Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other oil-rich allies recently to help subsidize the cost of fuel in Iraq. The Defense Department referred questions about such negotiations to the State Department, where a spokesman said the agency was not aware of any.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., also a member of the Armed Services Committee and a vocal advocate pushing the military to pursue alternative energy solutions, said he doubts such talks would be fruitful anyway because of the impression by many in the Middle East that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil to begin with.

"I'm not sure they're as convinced we're fighting for them, as they were in the first Gulf war," Bartlett said.

He said he hopes instead that the war will spur military development of hybrid technologies and alternative fuels at a time when private companies are lacking the financial incentive. So far, the price of oil hasn't restricted combat operations, but it has inspired the military to hunt for new ways to conserve energy.

Development of more energy-efficient equipment will take time. Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who co-chaired a policy panel on the Pentagon energy study, said operations in Iraq and elsewhere are forcing the military to take the burden of fuel costs more seriously.

"The combination of $100-a-barrel oil and the terrorist situation and the dependence on the Middle East are really, I think, waking them up very fast," he said.

In the meantime, other lawmakers say they want to see the high costs of the war defrayed by Iraq dipping into its own oil revenues, which are projected to be substantial. Independent auditors estimate that Iraq is headed this year toward a massive surplus because of as much as $60 billion in oil revenues — a consequence of increased production paired with the sharp rise in prices.

"It's totally unacceptable to me that we are spending tens of billions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq while they are putting tens of billions of dollars in banks around the world from oil revenues," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "It doesn't compute as far as I'm concerned."

Administration and military officials say Baghdad hasn't been able to spend its oil revenues so far because the newly formed government is still learning how to manage its revenues. They say Iraq's lack of spending isn't due to corruption or laziness, but rather Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently.

The Iraqis have a "genuine mechanical problem in drawing up national budgets (and) executing those budgets, particularly when it comes to capital infrastructure," said David Satterfield, the State Department's senior adviser on Iraq. But, he added, the government is improving with time and should be able to do more in the months to come.

__

On the Net:

The Defense Science Board Task Force report: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf