HeadsetOptions Web Design, SEO, WordPress, Etcetra

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, reached 300,000,000 on 10/17/06 at 11:46 GMT (EDT+4). 

In less than 40 years since the 200 million mark, the net population increased by 50 percent. With one international migrant (net) entering the US every 31 seconds and a net gain of one person every 11 seconds, it is projected that within the next 40 years the US population will exceed 400 million. Some advocacy groups claim that the rapid growth will strain natural resources and essentials, but with Exxon-Mobil and Wal-Mart around, rest assured, we are in good hands.

 

The final debate between Allen and Webb was on TV. Allen as always spun and spun and got nowhere, he even tried making it up with minorities by invoking African American supporters and Latinos!

Among other things, the candidates debated on affirmation action, big oil, profiteering, economics, education, energy and dependency on Middle Eastern oil, environment, health care, infrastructure, nuclear and sustainable technology, immigration, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mark Foley, our media, and of course race! Allen had a well-scripted rhetoric, probably borrowed from Bush’s camp. …

The price of gasoline has dropped over 20 percent in the last 3 months, while some might consider this a good thing, in the long run; the only real beneficiary of this scenario is the oil company themselves.

When a gallon of gas was at $3, viable alternatives was the buzz word, from Venture Capitalists to wannabe inventors, everyone wanted a piece of the fuel pie. Technologies that are long been ignored got some well-deserved attention, not anymore though. Gas it at $2 a gallon and sounds like a bargain to those painfully paid over $50 to fill their tanks.

So how does it make the oil companies winners, for one, they made record profits this past year. And by simply dropping the price of gasoline to a point where consumer feel more comfortable filling up, they have managed to curb much needed research funding to investigate alternative fuels.

If this sounds like a note from a conspiracy theory channel, here are some facts.

1) The increase in price although unreasonable can not be considered illegal as it happened in a non-emergency situation (post-Katrina)

2) Here’s the cost profile for the past year and half:

A barrel of crude was around $24 prior to Kartina, a gallon of gas cost around $1.60.
A barrel of crude post-Katrina soared up to $70, and cost per gallon shot up to $3.07. Although the big oil blamed this squarely on OPEC, it does not explain the supply-demand aspects completely. The OPEC claims that China and India are burdening the demands, which in the ideal world would result in less than normal available gasoline (supply), supply being inversely proportional to demand, which is the one of two reason why gasoline could cost more. Americans consumed the same or more gasoline this year as compared to the same period last year, meaning, there was no short supply. Alternatively, the demand was met with increased production, in which case the cost of per-barrel is explained, but not point 3 below.
Now a barrel of crude costs around $60, and gasoline costs around $2/gallon. So either the production of gasoline has gone up (in which case the cost should drop significantly, bringing the costs below pre-Katrina levels) or the demand has dropped (in spite of approaching what is to be a cold winter)

And of course,

3) Exxon Mobil recorded $340 billion with a “B� profits this past year, Chevron made $190 billion, ConocoPhillips $166 billion.

If $3 is the price we pay to pave the path for a cleaner and more sustainable energy source, we should embrace it and as you fill up realize that your money might be fattening the pockets of big oil, at the same time opening up doors for cash inflow to alternative technologies. Ah, I miss the $3 gas.

Originally posted in D.C. Watch.

While the popular media blames the conflict in the Middle East for the escalating gas prices, no attempts have been made to correlate the soaring profits of Exxon Mobil and the other Big Oil to the recent  price hikes.

Exxon squarely blames Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for not capping the crude oil price. A barrel of crude oil sells for about $74 as compared to $42 from 2004. If that was the reason for $3/gallon at the gas pump, how then can you explain Exxon Mobil’s $340 billion in revenue?

Obviously, no company can make exorbitant profits unless its selling price is disproportional to the cost of production. Now that might explain how Exxon bumped the mammoth Wal-Mart from the No.1 position on Fortune 500 list, with its profits topping at a whopping $36.1 billion, the most by any U.S. company in history!

Alternatively the media blames global demand for the hike in gas prices. Currently the most populous nations, China and India consume less than 10% of the world energy. The marginal increase in the global demand cannot explain the giant leap of Exxon as the numero uno.

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. — Dwight David Eisenhower

The conflict in the Middle East has resulted in a massive spill where over 35,000 tonnes of oil have been spilled into the sea off Lebanon and the continuing violence is hindering the clean-up operation. To makes matters worse, the Lebanese coast has been made even worse by oil leaking from an Israeli warship hit by a Hezbollah missile. A 80km stretch of coastline has so far been contaminated by the spill, affecting beaches as well as ports and marinas. The cost of clean up is expected to be in the region of $40-50 million USD.

Source: edie.net

Photo Courtesy: edie.net

Price of oil is sky rocketing, the fed are raising interest rates, and people are feeling the pinch everywhere, not just at the gas stations, making it even harder to fight the looming recession.

One good thing out of all this might be that people will use less gasoline, and that would render our environment cleaner.

So bring it on.

Photo courtesy: CNN.

Originally posted at D.C. Watch

Here’s an interesting psycho analysis of humans and our reaction (or lack of) to Global Warming. The author is Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard University. The interesting part is the title, “If only gay sex caused global warming.” (with due apologies to our gay readers…)

 

Get the L.A. Times Op-ed here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Originally posted at D.C. Watch

I can understand people fussing about the �Da Vinci Code�, that’s what religious zealots do. But “An Inconvenient Truth�?

In an unprecedented move, the nation’s top climate scientists gave 5 stars for Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, making it an historic first for scientific topping Ebert and Roeper who gave the movie a B-.
William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University said, “excellent, he got all the important material and got it right.” Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists read the book and saw a presentation said, “I sat there and I’m amazed at how thorough and accurate,” he continued, “After the presentation I said, `Al, I’m absolutely blown away. There’s a lot of details you could get wrong.’ … I could find no error.”

One exception amid the back patting was Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography, who said, “I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus.”

Contrary to the academic praises, Dave White a columnist for movies.com said “OK, here’s my beef with Al Gore, and then I’ll talk about the film’s message: He’s a hypocrite. During the Clinton administration, the causes of global warming were chugging right along with help from the government. Global warming didn’t stop when the first Bush left the White House and start up again when the second Bush stole the place back for the Republicans. Gore himself gave the Tellico Dam project a waiver from the Endangered Species Act. George W. Bush might be a nightmare for the EPA, but the Democrats weren’t their wet dream by a long shot.â€?

Somehow, by the end of it all, I personally believe the debate should not be “whether the film was right or left wrong,� but rather “how to combat global warming,� after all the effects are felt by one and all, irrespective of how dramatized or underplayed it is in movies.

 Originally posted at D.C. Watch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court agreed will hear arguments from attorneys for the Sierra Club and the White House as to whether or not the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming. The decision means the court will address whether the administration’s decision to rely on voluntary measures to combat climate change are legal under federal clean air laws.

David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club said “This is the whole ball of wax. This will determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and whether EPA can regulate carbon dioxide from power plants.” In response, John Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute (API) said, “Fundamentally, we don’t think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and so we don’t think these attempts are a good idea.”

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, excess carbon dioxide is. It’s like drinking, when consumed in limited amount it helps your heart; when binged, it’ll hits your liver, kidney and your head. Obviously API will have issues if CO2 were labeled a pollutant, after all, their bottom line relies on sale of automobiles which fuel consumption of petroleum products.

My doubt however is not how clever the two groups lawyers are, but rather how the Supreme Court, who’s members are political appointees, would rule against the very people who put them in place (read Bush). I remember in 2001, when the Republicans were taken to the Supreme Court, they won an election with less popular votes than the Democrats. Need I say more?

And no one hates it more than Americans when someone develops technology (however primitive), which may include the words like “missile,” “bomb,” “nuclear,” “open-source,” or “environment”. 

America probably has more missiles, bombs, nuclear and other arsenal (WMD) than everyone else put together, yet they fear a 1996 model Korean crap. Even if this missile flies across the Pacific, at best it will hit Alaska. Those of us in the continental US might wonder, so what, we can evacuate the 12000 or odd people from Alaska via boats and get done with it, but wait, isn’t Alaska where the oil fields are? This might be a good time to panic!

For more visit BBC