| Author |
Message |
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
 Posted:
Oct 09, 2004 - 10:43 AM |
 
|
| Post subject: Carry on Kyoto |
Ah. Tks Putin. You pimped yourself pretty well. Uncle Sam, seems you will have to swallow your own turd. Life is sweet.
---
Climate change
Carry on Kyoto
Oct 7th 2004
From The Economist print edition
The Kyoto treaty on global warming is about to come into force
LIKE a swamp creature in a bad horror movie, the Kyoto treaty on climate change has risen from the dead. A certain Texan cowboy thought he had killed the Japanese monster. Alas, thanks to a last-minute betrayal by an inscrutable Russian spymaster, the green beast is back.
That is only a slight exaggeration of how some people view the revival of the Kyoto protocol. The controversial UN treaty, agreed in Japan in 1997, commits rich countries to cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012. But it was dealt a near-fatal blow when George Bush confirmed America's rejection in 2001. The EU, Japan, Canada and over 100 others remained in, but Russia wavered. If it did not ratify, the pact would fail.
Vladimir Putin played coy and angled for special favours. The Russians had anyway been bribed with generous emissions targets, which they had expected to sell as credits in the international emissions-trading market envisaged by the treaty. With the departure of America, the biggest emitter, Russia's windfall (mocked as “hot air”) largely vanished. Only clever manoeuvring by the EU, including support for Russian entry into the World Trade Organisation, saved the treaty. Mr Putin's cabinet has just formally approved the pact, and the parliament is expected to ratify it shortly.
The EU encouraged Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and will begin its emissions trading scheme in 2005.
Not everyone is rejoicing. Kyoto-bashers claim the deal is dangerously deluded, citing environmental and economic grounds. That is unfair. Some insist that the emissions targets will slow the warming trend only slightly. That is true, but Kyoto was always seen as the first step in a decades-long journey—akin to the early GATT trade rounds. Some sneer that there are no legal sanctions for non-compliance. That is again true, but misleading. For example, Kyoto rules have the full force of domestic EU law, so future European offenders can indeed be hauled before the court of justice in Luxembourg.
Others claim that Europeans will choose to buy Russian “hot air” rather than tackle the tougher job of making emissions cuts. But EU countries have agreed to meet more than half of their emissions targets at home. Moreover, it is not in Russia's interest to dump its carbon credits and risk a price collapse. Since credits are “bankable”, Russia will do better to hold on and hope that America will enter the market in future, greatly lifting their value. As for costs, the original targets were too ambitious. Economic sense argues for a gentle start to emissions cuts, moving flexibly towards deep cuts in the long term. That would be the surest way to spur the development and adoption of low-carbon energy technologies. These anyway need to be embraced by the Kyoto countries in future if the broader process is to be a success.
The EU's initial rejection of emissions trading (done at the behest of green lobbyists) made it impossible for America to stay in the treaty. But European industrialists then realised that Kyoto might put them at a disadvantage and so pushed for carbon trading. Ironically, the EU is about to launch the world's first international carbon-trading system. America, which pioneered such trading, is left out. Canada, Japan and maybe even cheeky California will soon join Kyoto-land (see article).
The emergence of this innovative market is the best reason to stick with Kyoto, but to make sure its flaws are fixed. Because climate change is so complex, any sensible response must be market-based—as Kyoto has belatedly become. It is a long-term problem, because carbon dioxide stays in the air for a century. That is why the UN framework on which Kyoto rests (happily, Mr Bush still accepts it) is rightly long-lived.
Negotiations start next year for the next Kyoto commitment period (which begins in 2012). Informal efforts are underway to bring the 20 biggest emitters on board. That will mean widening the treaty's scope to include developing countries such as China and India. Tony Blair intends to use Britain's position as head of both the EU and the G8 next year to woo America.
Even so, it will not be easy. Some European greens are foolishly insisting on another rigid Kyoto round. Rather, negotiators must hold on to the best aspects of Kyoto, such as trading, and leave behind a failed “targets and timetables” mindset. More creative proposals, ranging from emissions targets pegged to GDP growth to fuel-efficiency commitments, are needed to persuade America, and perhaps even China, to agree to meaningful participation. A less aggressive treaty that actually works is surely better than a failed one.
|
|
|
|
|
Goosie
Board Grand Dame
Joined: July 16, 2003
Posts: 4776
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2004 - 07:26 AM |
|
|
Henry, I do hope the U.S. eventually signs up. The single biggest problem I see for America is its dependence on foreign oil. The environmental consequences are only the tip of the iceberg. The economic implications are frightening, not just for America, but for the entire world.
For starters, I'd like to find a way to wean Americans off their cars. I personally don't have one - I live in a city with excellent public transportation so it isn't cost effective for me. But plenty of people do have them who don't need them. Do you think a massive gas tax would help? How do we get the auto manufacturers to make fuel efficient cars? How do we get them to develop cars that run on renewable fuel sources?
I think these things can be done, but the will isn't there. Thoughts? |
_________________
Nemesis of Political Correctness |
|
|
|
|
Benoist_Shanghai
Low Seater
Joined: May 18, 2003
Posts: 3057
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2004 - 07:47 AM |
|
|
I hate to say this but massive tax on gas in European Countries since 1974 have led to the development of more efficient/less greedy engines/cars. Now, I am not sure wether this (is it more than 90% or 'just 75-85% in France?) tax could be channeled towards specific environment-friendly projects, but it would probably incite US Automotive industry to further adjust to the oil/environment issues.
Benoist. |
|
|
|
|
SwedishChef
Low Seater
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 3028
Location: Køokin' der yummee-yummer
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2004 - 10:00 AM |
|
|
Interesting to note is that the two most expensivew countries when it comes to petrol are the UK (No.1) and Norway (No.2).
Two countries which both has oil and makes good money from it.
What needs to be done in the US is a significant increase in petrol prices before we will see any noticable effects. With a price of about $1 per gallon it is just too cheap. Most of the UK are prices just under £1 per litre. Compare that...
£1 = $1.73
http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm
This site, even though it is against increasing petrol prices, has some interesting comparisons. |
|
|
|
|
MaomingMaster
Board Legend
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 11059
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2004 - 10:07 AM |
|
|
^ I had the shock of my life when I rented a car in the States. Couldn't believe how cheap gas was. So, I got rid of the little Honda I rented and got a fckin' huge petrol-guzzlin' Caddi.
Excellent! |
|
|
|
|
|
Goosie
Board Grand Dame
Joined: July 16, 2003
Posts: 4776
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2004 - 10:11 AM |
|
|
Swedish Chef, gas no longer costs $1 a gallon here. It's way higher. But maybe still not high enough.
I think Benoist is right. The only solution is to tax the hell out of it, like cigarettes.
Henry, what do you think? Seriously, I'm not looking for a flame war. I'd be very interested to know what you would propose to do about US dependence on oil. |
_________________
Nemesis of Political Correctness |
|
|
|
|
SwedishChef
Low Seater
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 3028
Location: Køokin' der yummee-yummer
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 11, 2004 - 11:48 AM |
|
|
Define WAY higher...it is still dirt cheap compared to the rest of the world... |
|
|
|
|
|
Caesara
Post Roaster
Joined: July 31, 2004
Posts: 4572
Location: The Middle Kingdom (Shanghai)
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2004 - 02:23 PM |
|
|
| Goosie wrote: |
| The environmental consequences are only the tip of the iceberg. |
True.
| Goosie wrote: |
| How do we get the auto manufacturers to make fuel efficient cars? How do we get them to develop cars that run on renewable fuel sources? |
They've designed and made them, at least as prototypes. On top of that, they're even commercially viable. The hybrid cars coming out are the first step. However, the technology's been available for twenty years or so, but it wasn't in any producer's best financial interest to mass-develop and mass-market these vehicles. Some oil producers would buy up the rights to the newly invented "green" vehicles and shelve them to prevent their use and a reduction in petrol dependence. (It's a common competitive practice if your company can afford it - Microsoft does the same type of thing, to mention only one) Hence, they stayed in the lab.
| Goosie wrote: |
| I think these things can be done, but the will isn't there. |
Therein lies the whole problem.
Over this past summer, gas prices in Canada hit $1 per litre. At four litres to the gallon, that was brutal, but people began carpooling and using public transit even more, so perhaps it's good in the long run. |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2004 - 09:12 PM |
|
|
"Henry, what do you think? Seriously, I'm not looking for a flame war. I'd be very interested to know what you would propose to do about US dependence on oil."
FACTS:
-Canadian, Mexican and US Gulf oil will be over in 10 years
-Same in the North Sea, although the US don't import that much from there
-Unlikely that Alaska oil would be touched, even by GWB
-Risk factor in Venezuela, where lead times are short and as such a criticial backup to longer routes such as Middle-East. Chavez, or anyone for that matter could pose trouble when the shiat hits the fan (example: two days after the war in Iraq started, petro-workers in Venezuela went on strike, knowing they had a perfect supply constraint situation in Far-East).
-Instability in Africa and anti-americanism decreases access to Nigerian and Angolan oil: it's a time bomb that the US cannot count on to supply its thirst for oil. It's there, but it might not be as reliable as necessary.
-Russia oil is seasonal (not a lot can be pumped during the winter), making supply irregular, not to mention increase in consumption to China and India (decreasing slack production that could be directed to the US). Further, as Kyoto proves, the Russians are trickier and will not be easily bought with Uncle Orville Caramel Popcorns and the likes.
-Middle East: extremely unfriendly to the US. Only player with spare capacity (Saudis) playing the OPEC game pretty well. Only country with reserves close to the Saudis is Iraq (and hence the war).
-Caspian Sea: piles of oil there, however to some extent infrastructure not yet there, straights in the Caspian sea and Bosforos/Dardanelos not VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) friendly. Makes transhipments and all sort of lead-time increasing measures a must. Not to mention the increased risk. Further, highly instable region (Iran, Afgn., all sort of ex-USSR republics).
-At the same time, hunger for oil from China and India growing quick: oil at mid 20 usd/barrel is past. Will never happen again. This will cause some good inflationary pressure.
-Some years ago, as Detroit was facing tough regulations re polution starts massive campaign to sell cars falling OUTSIDE regulations. And hence the SUV frenzy.... (moms taking their V8 SUV to shop plastic sandals in Wal-Mart...totally unnecessary...). Obviouslly SUVs are extremely innefective in terms of fuel consumption, but of course Detroit doesn't give a fcuk as the yield per SUV is much higher than a normal car. This, of course, until all European and Japanese manufacturers learned how to produce SUVs good enough (kicking detroit in the balls in the process).
As you can see, the US is totally dependent on oil, like a cheap whore addicted on crack (US), begging for a last stone from their pimp (OPEC). It's pretty simple this entire war thing... As mentioned in other posts, GWB (or whomever is piloting him) made a VERY intelligent move by invading Iraq FROM AN OIL SUPPLY POINT OF VIEW. By invading Iraq:
-Access to the 2nd largest reserves on Earth. Hurra Schlumberger, Hallyburton, ...
-Exerts pressure on growth of developing economies (China and India in particular)
-Decreases the price control of OPEC
-In the process, cheap oil prices would lead to the COLAPSE of the Saudis, as their population growth (4%+), royalty, corruption and the like makes low oil prices a nightmare....could help solving the Israeli / Palestine thing as well, once regimes start to fall.
-Bringing the Saudis to their knees would for sure promote regime change, and as such open up the door to crackdown terrorism financing at its root, hence solving the second major problem
For anyone trying to understand the oil dynamics, suggest to get a hold of BP's yearly report. Excellent tool. There you can see why the US are not very happy with Russia re Kyoto.
It doesn't look like the world will be a better place does it? |
|
|
|
|
|
MaomingMaster
Board Legend
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 11059
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2004 - 09:21 PM |
|
|
No, it doesn't...
HC - any chance of you providing some links/sites where you may have gleaned this information?
Pretty interesting (albeit depressing) reading... |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
Oct 12, 2004 - 09:34 PM |
|
|
It was more through books and stuff, not that much websites, although there are some good ones out there. Most password protected. The chartering companies probably have some analysis that could help. Clarksons is a good start.
The BP (British Petroleum) website has this report with any possible statistic you might want...
The Economist tradionally has some pretty good analysis on oil...some of it password protected as well.
Anyway. An industry that explains why the world is what it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
SwedishChef
Low Seater
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 3028
Location: Køokin' der yummee-yummer
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 13, 2004 - 09:53 AM |
|
|
Facts and theories about the current oil reserves as well as currently undiscovered ones are all over the internet.
I won't be able to give you any specific links, but trust me there is a lot.
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=1316
This links refers to a promise made in 2000 by the CEO of Volkswagen to build and drive a car that consumed less than 10 litres per 100 kms.
As Caesara has already stated, the technology is there...it is just a matter of generating enough interest to bring it out. With companies such as Halliburton, Exxon, Shell and the list goes on...this i not likely to happen anytime soon.
Take a wild guess why top solar panels only have a efficiency of about 12%.
The technology and the instruments to provide large parts of the world with environmentally friendly energy is there...we just need to push harder to get it! |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
Oct 14, 2004 - 04:06 PM |
|
|
Excellent article.
--
When It Comes to Oil, Americans Live In a Fantasy World
By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
The Washington Post
October 7, 2004, www.wsj.com
WASHINGTON -- The recent surge in oil prices to roughly $51 a barrel teaches some useful lessons. One is that surprises happen. A year ago, futures contracts predicted today's price would be $25. A second is that the economy has grown less vulnerable to oil "shocks." Compared with 1973, we now use almost 50% less energy for each dollar of output. New industries (software, theme parks) need less than the old (steel, chemicals). But the largest lesson is depressingly familiar. Americans won't think realistically about oil. Americans consider cheap fuel a birthright, and when they don't get it, they whine -- rather than ask why or what they should do.
If prices rise, Americans blame a conspiracy of greedy oil companies, OPEC or someone. The reality is usually messier. Energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. attributes the present price run-up to massive miscalculation. Oil companies and OPEC underestimated global demand, particularly from China. Since 2001, China's oil use has jumped 36%. This error led OPEC and companies to underinvest in new production capacity, he says. In 2002, the world had 5 million barrels a day of surplus production capacity; now it has little. Unexpected supply interruptions (sabotage in Iraq, civil war in Nigeria) boost prices.
Mr. Verleger says prices could go to $60 next year or even $80 if adverse supply conditions persist. No one really knows. Analyst Adam Sieminski of Deutsche Bank thinks prices may retreat to the low $30s in 2005. A slowing Chinese economy could weaken demand. But the uncertainties cannot obscure two stubborn realities. First, world oil production can't rise forever; dwindling reserves will someday cause declines. And second, barring miraculous discoveries, more will come from unstable regions -- especially the Middle East.
We need to face these realities; neither George Bush nor John Kerry does. Their energy plans are rival fantasies. Mr. Kerry pledges to make us "independent" of Middle East oil, mainly through conservation and an emphasis on "renewable" fuels (biomass, solar, wind). Richard Nixon was the first president to promise energy "independence." It couldn't happen then -- and can't now. The United States imports about 60% of its oil. A fifth of imports come from the Persian Gulf. Even if Americans eliminated Persian Gulf imports, they'd still be vulnerable. Oil scarcities and prices are transmitted worldwide. The global economy -- on which we all depend -- remains hugely needy of Persian Gulf oil.
Mr. Bush's pitch is that Americans can produce their way out of trouble. No such luck. Drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, with possible reserves of 10 billion barrels, might provide 1 million barrels a day, or 5% of present U.S. demand. Fine. But the practical effect would be to offset some drop in production. American oil output peaked in 1970; it's down 34% since then.
A ground-breaking study from consulting company PFC Energy illuminates the predicament. The world now uses 82 million barrels of oil a day; that's 30 billion barrels a year. To estimate future production, the study examined historic production and discovery patterns in all the world's oil fields. The conclusion: the world already uses about 12 billion more barrels a year than it finds. "In almost every mature (oil) basin, the world has been producing more than it's finding for close to 20 years," says PFC's Mike Rodgers. That can't continue indefinitely.
With present rates, he expects global oil supply to peak before 2020 at about 100 million barrels a day. Whatever happens, the world will probably depend more on two shaky regions: the Persian Gulf and the former Soviet Union. The Gulf now supplies a quarter of the world's oil; PFC projects that to rise to a third in a decade.
Although the future is hazy, what ought to be done is not. We need to dampen oil use, expand production and -- if oil prices recede -- the U.S. should significantly increase the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Most important, Americans should curb gasoline use. The Energy Information Administration reports the following: gasoline represents about 45% of U.S. oil demand; since 1991, the explosion of SUVs and light trucks has meant no gains in average fuel mileage efficiency; over the same period, typical drivers travel almost 1,000 miles more annually.
We should be promoting fuel-efficient vehicles, particularly "hybrids." They cost from $3,000 to $4,000 more than conventional cars, mainly because they have two power sources.
The way to expand demand would be for the U.S. to adopt a gasoline tax of $1 to $2 a gallon. Americans would know that fuel prices would stay high. They'd have reason to economize. The tax should be introduced over five to 10 years to give drivers and auto firms time to convert.
Of course, a fuel tax is political showstopper. It isn't in Mr. Bush's or Mr. Kerry's plan. They promote hydrogen-powered cars. These sound great but -- given the technical obstacles -- won't become widespread for many years, if ever. This captures our choice: taking modestly unpleasant preventive steps; or running greater future risks by clinging to our fantasies. History favors our fantasies.
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
serend
FooJay
Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 1712
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 17, 2004 - 05:31 PM |
|
|
So Hillary will have her plate full. Medicare, public schools, fuel, re-signing Kyoto...... maybe she'll be too scared to run. |
|
|
|
|
|
Henry_Chinaski
Board Lord
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 5025
|
| Posted:
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:50 PM |
|
|
Oil in Asia
Pump priming
Sep 30th 2004 | BANGKOK AND JAKARTA
From The Economist print edition
Reuters
Dear oil and subsidised petrol are hurting Asia's economies
THE high price of oil is taking a serious toll on Asia, in more ways than you might think. Inflation is already ticking up, from Mumbai to Manila. Interest rates are beginning to follow. Increased energy costs, the United Nations reckons, will shave a percentage point off the region's economic growth this year. The Asian Development Bank has just cut its growth forecasts for next year too. In some cases, the prognosis is truly dire: prices of $50 a barrel, if sustained throughout next year, will slash four percentage points off Thailand's growth rate, according to the bank's projections. Yet many Asian governments, including Thailand's, are making a bad situation worse by subsidising fuel prices.
The economies of Asia, like those of most developing countries, are oil-intensive. In other words, Asians consume more oil per unit of output than Europeans or even gas-guzzling Americans. Thailand and China, for example, use more than twice the rich-country average, while India burns through almost three times as much, according to the International Energy Agency. So they naturally suffer more when the oil price rises.
One reason Asian countries get through so much oil is that many of them subsidise it in one way or another. Since the beginning of the year, the Thai government has fixed the retail price of diesel at below market rates, at its own expense. Indonesia has long done the same for all types of petrol. In August, the Indian government cut excise and import taxes on oil, to add to the direct subsidies it already pays on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and kerosene. Malaysia, too, keeps petrol prices low through direct subsidies and tax breaks. The government of China sets discounted prices, but leaves it to refiners and distributors, which are largely state-owned, to absorb the shortfall.
Needless to say, all this costs a fortune. The Indonesian government originally planned to spend 14 trillion rupiah ($1.5 billion) on fuel subsidies this year. But as the oil price has risen, the bill has more than quadrupled, to 63 trillion rupiah. That is almost as much as Indonesia's total budget for development. In Malaysia, fuel subsidies and forgone taxes account for roughly half this year's budget deficit of 20 billion ringgit ($5.3 billion). Rating agencies have been muttering about the government's persistent deficits, yet it left the fuel subsidy intact in next year's budget too. India, another compulsive borrower, is spending $1.4 billion this year to subsidise kerosene and LPG alone. The government is also forgoing $540m in tax revenues on various fuels, while state-owned refiners and distributors must also have absorbed considerable costs that do not feature on the government's balance sheet.
Taxpayers, of course, will eventually foot all these bills. Meanwhile, growing public debt puts upward pressure on interest rates and reduces the capital available to more productive borrowers. In the long run, that could cause far more damage than high oil prices.
To make matters worse, artificially low prices encourage waste, along with all the concomitant costs in terms of pollution, traffic congestion and misallocated capital. Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand's prime minister, claims he is determined to reduce his country's energy bills. To save electricity, he has asked shops to close early and that big buildings should switch off their flood-lights. Yet since January, he has capped the price of diesel—on which most Thai vehicles run—at about three-quarters of the market rate. Motorists, naturally enough, are buying more. Thailand's oil imports have duly surged in volume, as well as just price.
Higher import bills, in turn, have sent Thailand's trade balance into the red. That has depressed the baht, making imported fuel more expensive still, and feeding the inflation the subsidies are supposed to curb. Most Asian nations import at least some of their oil; of all the countries mentioned, only Malaysia is a net exporter. Indeed, Asia as a whole (excluding the Middle East, but including Central Asia) produces only 11% of the world's oil, but consumes about 21%. Oil alone accounts for almost a third of India's imports, for example. Admittedly, a healthy balance of payments and huge foreign-exchange reserves will allow most Asian countries to finance expensive oil imports for a long time to come. But there is no sense in increasing the burden unnecessarily.
Furthermore, most oil subsidies do not go to the people in whose name they are paid: the poor. Cheap petrol, for example, benefits most those who drive the biggest, most inefficient cars, namely the rich. The poorest have no motor vehicles at all. Indonesia effectively subsidises its richer neighbours, thanks to a roaring trade in smuggled petrol. Singapore does not allow locally registered vehicles to leave the country with less than three-quarters of a tank of gas, to prevent them from taking undue advantage of the subsidised stuff across the border in Malaysia. Even targeted subsidies can end up in the wrong hands. Many countries subsidise kerosene, since the poor often cook with it. But so do lots of well-to-do restaurateurs.
The biggest beneficiaries of oil subsidies are the politicians who use them as a crude vote-buying technique. Mr Thaksin has declared that diesel subsidies will remain in place until February, which also happens to be the month by which an election must be held. The previous Indian government did not allow any fuel price rises for five months prior to elections in April. The outgoing Indonesian government, too, put off planned price hikes this year. How unlucky, then, that a record year for oil prices also happened to be a record year for elections in Asia.
As always politicians not given a rat's ass about long-term stability...who gives a fk anyway... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
