Sunday, July 24, 2011

Population Control in China

Population Control and Consequences in China

Problems associated with overpopulation. China has the highest population in the world, encompassing 1.2 billion or twenty one percent of the world's population (P.R.B. 7). China faces serious social and economic problems associated with overpopulation in the years to come. Overly populated regions lead to degradation of land and resources, pollution, and detrimental living conditions. The Chinese government has tried to find a solution to the problem of increasing population with moderate success.

China's population control policy. The Chinese government has used several methods to control population growth. In 1979, China started the "one child per family policy" (Juali Li 563). This policy stated that citizens must obtain a birth certificate before the birth of their children. The citizens would be offered special benefits if they agreed to have only one child. Citizens who did have more than one child would either be taxed an amount up to fifty percent of their income, or punished by loss of employment or other benefits (Hilali 10). Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies or pregnancies without the proper authorization would need to be terminated (Hilali 9). In 1980, the birth-quota system was established to monitor population growth(Jiali Li 563). Under this system, the government set target goals for each region. Local officials were mainly held responsible for making sure that population growth totals did not exceed target goals. If target goals were not met, the local officials were punished by law or by loss of privileges.

Other population control methods. Other methods that have been used by the Chinese government to restrict rising population totals include birth control programs and economic changes. In the early '80's, sterilization target goals were set and made mandatory for people who had two children (Hilali 19). At its peak in 1983, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and abortions amounted to thirty-five percent of the total birth control methods (Hilali 20). In addition, the economy changed from primarily one of agriculture to industry (Hilali 22). The government used this to its advantage; spreading the view that economic growth would hinder population growth (Hilali 22).

Problems associated with population policies. There have been many problems associated with the policies and programs established by Chinese officials. First of all, these programs have been difficult to implement and have had little success. Local officials in charge of growth totals, have falsified reports in order to avoid punishment (Zeng Yi 29). Consequently, this has led to underreporting of the number of births by as much as twenty-seven percent in 1992 (Zeng Yi 32). Moreover, compliance with the birth-quota system has been low. Of the 14,808 infants born between 1980-1988, only about half have been with a legal birth permit(Jiali Li 567). Of those born with a permit, eighty-eight percent were first children born into families (Jiali Li 567). Furthermore, out of the second children born, only eleven percent were authorized (Jiali Li 568). Lastly, people of rural communities, who depend on having larger families to help with the farms, have succeeded in finding ways around the birth-quota system (Hilali 13).

Social and political consequences. The Chinese government has also had to deal with political and social upheaval as a result of its strict policies. The United States, as well as many other countries, have publicly expressed their disapproval with Chinese leaders for their sterilization policies (Hilali 20). In addition, the Chinese citizens have retaliated with acts of violence related to the one child policy (Hilali 25). Finally, the cultural preference for sons has led to a large number of incidences of female infanticide (Hilali 21). As a result, the Chinese government has had to relax policies to include the "daughter-only-household" policy, which allows rural couples having a daughter first to be allowed to have a second child (Jiali Li 569).

Social and economic benefits. Over the last fifty years, China has raised the standards of living by keeping growth rates down. Access to natural resources have increased dramatically since 1980. According to the State Family Planning Commission, coverage in tap water has increased from eighty-four percent to ninety-four percent in the last fifteen years. Furthermore, coverage of natural gas has risen from sixteen percent to seventy-three percent. In addition, medical coverage has been extended to include birth insurance and workers compensation for mothers who follow China's birth policies (SFPC). In 1998, nineteen percent of China's population used this policy. Other benefits include increases in average life expectancy from thirty five years in 1949 to seventy years in 1996, and decreases in infant mortality rates from two hundred per one thousand to thirty three per one thousand (SFPC).

Future outcomes. Serious reforms are needed to ensure that China's population will not continue to grow. Better policies, more education, and urbanization could help China to reach population target goals. Since 1980, China has realized the importance of collaboration among agencies, and it has established the Population and Information Research Center (SFPC). This agency, along with others, is in charge of gathering information about population totals and helping the government to implement policies (SFPC). Projected growth of China's population is estimated to be around 1.5 billion by the year 2025 (P.R.B. 7). These figures will continue to rise, and the social and economic burdens will continue to plague everyone living in China.


Questions for debate: How does the theory of logistic population apply to overly populated regions? Explain the political implications associated with overpopulation. Differentiate the pros and cons of mandatory birth control and sterilization tactics.


Bibliography:

Hilali, A.Z. "Chinaís Population Growth: Policy and Prospects." China Report 33.1 (1997): 1-34.

Jiali Li. "Chinaís One-Child Policy: How and How Well Has It Worked?" Population and Development Review 21.3 (1995): 563-585.

Population Reference Bureau. World Population Data Sheet. Washington D.C.: Population Reference Bureau, 1999.

State Family Planning Commission of China. www.sfpc.gov.cn.

Zeng Yi. "Is Fertility in China in 1991-92 Far Below Replacement Level?" Population Studies 50.1 (1996): 27-34.


Jamie Cook, December 5, 1999

Population Control - Nixon & Rockefeller 1972

What is not discussed here is the science behind the movement to control world population. Unfortunately Nixon took this as an opportunity to control the black population. Liberals criticized the movement because of the anti-immigration aspect. Conservatives fought against the movement because they believed (and still do) that infinite economic growth depended on population growth. this explains why the GOP are against Planned Parenthood since that was designed to curb excessive children among the poor.



The point is, this is all tied to peak oil, peak debt, and climate change, as we knew this as far back as the 1960's when M King Hubbert starting talking about peak oil.



It was all forgotten when the issues were politicized, there was no unification and mutual understanding.



What many dont understand now is that the middle class is slowly being destroyed by their way of life, which demands too much oil, which actually mimics the wealthy, which also has an impact on food production and climate, and it has nothing to do with race.



Now the US government (and many other world governments) is headed towards peak debt because of the policies that support predatory capitalism that has created neofeudalism and oligarchies that resemble the 13th-19th century Europe.

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com

Actual Recording: Richard Nixon Talks Population Control [TRUTHDOC]
See more at www.youtube.com
 

Friday, July 22, 2011

Wikileaks: Catholic Church & US Government Fought to Keep AMLO Out of Mexican Presidency

Amplify’d from www.jornada.unam.mx
Wikileaks
Frenar a López Obrador, pidió Sandoval Íñiguez a Estados Unidos en 2006

El cardenal calificó de peligroso el avance de la izquierda en América Latina, de acuerdo con un cable de la embajada de Washington en el Vaticano

Foto
De la redacción

 
Periódico La Jornada
Viernes 22 de julio de 2011, p. 2

El cardenal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez pidió ayuda a Washington para frenar el avance de Andrés Manuel López Obrador en 2006, de acuerdo con el cable 06VATICAN61 de Wikileaks, redactado por la embajada de Estados Unidos en el Vaticano.


La representación estadunidense afirmó en dicho cable que a Sandoval Íñiguez le preocupaba el avance de la izquierda en Latinoamérica, y señaló que aumentaba el poder de Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Néstor Kirchner, Michelle Bachelet y López Obrador.


El prelado se reunió en Roma el 28 de marzo de 2006 con Francis Rooney, embajador de Estados Unidos en el Vaticano, cartera que ocupó de 2005 a 2008.


El cardenal Sandoval dijo a Rooney que el avance de la izquierda representaba una tendencia peligrosa, señaló la embajada en el Vaticano.


De acuerdo con el cable de Wikileaks, el prelado preguntó si el presidente (George W.) Bush podría ayudar. Sandoval afirmó que durante el gobierno de López Obrador el crimen y la violencia habían aumentado en la ciudad de México.


El embajador concordó con la importancia del mensaje, y agregó que durante una visita al Vaticano el entonces subsecretario de Estado, Thomas A. Shannon –ahora embajador de Estados Unidos en Brasil–, ya había tratado el tema de la ola izquierdista latinoamericana.





Agregó que el presidente Bush había tocado en tiempo y forma el tema con el nuevo nuncio papal en Washington, señala el cable.


Los cardenales sienten que los pobres de Latinoamérica no entienden los beneficios potenciales que les puede traer el mercado libre, por lo que apremiaron al gobierno de Estados Unidos a ayudar (a concretar tratados de libre comercio), reconociendo que la Iglesia, aunque cautelosa, también puede jugar un papel más importante en la materia, resume el texto difundido por Wikileaks.


El prelado había viajado a Roma para asistir al consistorio católico llevado a cabo el 24 de marzo de 2006.


Allí Rooney solicitó reunirse con Sandoval Íñiguez y otro religioso, el cardenal brasileño Claudio Hummes, con quien habló un día después de hacerlo con el primero.


Sandoval mencionó a Rooney su sueño de construir un santuario en Guadalajara para conmemorar a los mártires mexicanos, pero la plática fue principalmente sobre asuntos políticos.


El texto fue difundido en: http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06VATICAN61.html


Los cables sobre México en WikiLeaks


Sitio especial de La Jornada sobre WikiLeaks







Read more at www.jornada.unam.mx
 

Relationship Between Oil Energy And Standard of Living

Once again Gail has written a brilliant article making it easy even all to understand; even for those who deny that oil is finite.



The "conversation" between governments and its people occured in the 1970's with Jimmy Carter's speeches, part of which later became known as the Crisis of Confidence and the Carter Doctrine.



This is why a REAL energy policy is needed and it MUST include efficiency, conservation, focus on alternative and renewable energy, and a change of culture. Ultimately, a new model for measuring economic progress will be necessary as well. Perhaps Gross National Happiness.



If Obama chooses not to have this conversation with Americans before the 2012 election, the next president will most certainly be forced to do so. Let's hope one of them is as honest as Carter.
Amplify’d from oilprice.com

Written by Gail Tverberg

Friday, 22 July 2011 12:45
The amount of oil that is extracted from the ground each year has been close to flat since 2005, regardless of what has happened to price. Since world population has been growing, this means less and less is available for each person. We use oil in many important ways, including growing food, manufacturing and transporting goods, and in some parts of the world, heating homes. There is a clear tie of oil with standard of living. If we have less oil, the tendency is for people’s standard of living to drop.

OPEC and Non-OPEC Oil Production, Compared to Oil Price
Figure 1. OPEC and Non-OPEC Oil Production, Compared to Oil Price. (Production is Crude and Condensate from EIA.)

The “natural” approach for fixing this problem is recession and debt defaults. With limited oil supply, oil prices rise. As oil prices rise, the higher prices leave less funding for everything else, because oil is important for many necessities–food and commuting expenses particularly. A person who pays more for food and commuting expenses will cut back on discretionary spending. This leads to layoffs in market segments affected by cutbacks in discretionary spending–especially construction of new homes, building of cars, restaurant spending, and donations to charitable organizations. Those laid off tend to default on loans. Others default as well, especially those who were living “at the edge,” before oil prices rose.

The government tries to fix the problem by “stimulus,” and temporarily “fixes” the situation. This temporarily hides the situation in the governmental sector. What happens, though, is that the government finds itself with increasing debt levels because of its stimulus efforts, and inadequate taxes, because so many have been laid off work, and are not contributing to the tax base.

All of this leads to governmental debt problems, including the United States’ problems with debt limits, and the problems many European countries are having with debt.

How does all of this get fixed? Basically, what the natural system does is push us towards a lower standard of living. This is very uncomfortable. If we need to spend more on food and required energy supplies (as for commuting), we have less to spend on other things. People who are unemployed end up moving in with friends or relatives with jobs. Young adults live with their parents longer. Most of us cut back on discretionary spending.

There are a few ways we can theoretically solve our problem:

1. All of the world could cut back on their standard of living, and reduce their demand for oil products this way. It is hard to see this happening voluntarily. If oil supply should actually decline in the future, multiple cuts in standard of living will be needed.

2. Some parts of the world could cut back on their standard of living, and let the rest of the world live better. Government leaders may push for this, but it is hard to see the population of countries voluntarily accepting this result.

3. Cut back on some parts of the economy that are not critical, so as to try to save the standard of living with respect to the rest of the economy. One that comes to mind is military spending. Another that is often targeted is personal auto use, but if more efficient cars are sold, this change phases in slowly, so is not very effective in the short term. If only few countries cut back, the result is similar to (2) above, however, with the slightly lower oil prices because of the cutbacks benefitting those who choose not to cut back.

4. Ramp up alternative energy supplies to try to offset the shortfall. This approach has been most successful in China and India, where coal supplies have been ramped up greatly, but with negative environmental consequences. When alternative forms of energy are expensive (most energy sources that need subsidies), it is doubtful that the economy benefits at all–the result is just more recession and debt defaults.

World coal consumption by area
Figure 2. World coal consumption by area, based on BP data.

5. Drill for more oil in the US. This doesn’t do very much, very quickly, unfortunately, because of long lead times, and because the most promising areas have already been drilled.

6. Start fighting with each other over the resources that are available, so that declining standard of living is less of an issue for the “winner.” Wars are likely to use up a lot of resources, and don’t really solve the underlying problem.

7. Encourage limited family sizes (one child per family (?)), so that resources will stretch better in the future. It is hard to get agreement on this, however, and the change is very slow to have an effect on total population.

* * *

It is hard to see that any of these approaches will lead to very satisfactory outcomes, in short enough time frames. Ultimately, we are all likely to find ourselves with lower standards of living. This is something governments find it very difficult to talk about and plan for. Perhaps if we could start facing up to the real issues we are dealing with, it would be easier to find mitigations for our problems.

By. Gail Tverberg

Gail Tverberg is a writer and speaker about energy issues. She is especially known for her work with financial issues associated with peak oil. Prior to getting involved with energy issues, Ms. Tverberg worked as an actuarial consultant. This work involved performing insurance-related analyses and forecasts. Her personal blog is ourfiniteworld.com. She is also an editor of The Oil Drum.
Read more at oilprice.com

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Legalization of Hemp in Mexico Will Help Solve the Emigration & Rural Poverty Problems

After watching Roy Germano's "The Other Side of Immigration" and having lived in Michoacan, Mexico for 2 years, I recognize the benefits that the legalization of marijuana and hemp would bring to both the USA and Mexico. (See http://youtu.be/F8t78ClZFpY for a review of Germano's new documentary.)



Currently America suffers from a mountain of debt generated in part by poor agricultural and tax policies, a failed war on drugs, failed immigration policy, and significant unemployment, and the destruction of the small farming industry facilitated by NAFTA and corporate farming. It's about time for a new direction.



Meanwhile, Mexico has suffered a significant decrease in oil production and thus reduced oil export revenues. As Mexican citizens are unable to find employment in the US, remittances will decrease dramatically and many will return home to a lower cost of living. Unfortunately, they also return to fewer economic opportunities in the countryside, with the exception of the illegal drug trade.



20 years of NAFTA has primarily benefited US corporate farmers aided by Federal subsidies and driven Mexican farmers out of business through dumping by corporate farmers.



Mexico must pass legislation similar to H.R.1831, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011, submitted by US Congressman Ron Paul, which will enable its rural farmers to grow a cash crop unlike any other.



Mexico, like all other nations, must have access to every available clean energy resource available on god's green earth and this MUST include HEMP. Legalizing and taxing hemp across the Mexican Republic would spawn new industries that could be a vital part of the solution to many of its economic problems, which in turn would help solve the emigration problem.



Hemp is high yield crop, producing more biomass per acre than most other crops and can be used for biofuels, biomass, textiles, paper, plastics, and more. Unlike oil, coal, natural gas or nuclear fuels, hemp is a biodegradable, renewable resource that could supply us with raw materials for thousands of years, without changing our climate and without producing waste that remains radioactive for millions of years.



Taxing every stage of the production and distribution of this new crop and energy source would create revenues for city and state governments fighting revenue shortfalls. Confining licenses to citizens and chartered small businesses would promote sustainable businesses for the rural farmers across the country and creative clean energy entrepreneurs could contribute to GDP with exports of their new natural and clean energy resources and products.



Americans concerned about energy, pollution, war, illegal immigration, and economic prosperity, must support HR1831 that is currently in the hands of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.



Mexicans concerned about sufficient jobs for rural farmers must lobby their own government to draft similar legislation and spawn a new and booming industry that could propel Mexico and its citizens into prosperity.



#hempforvictory #hemp4Mexico

Amplify’d from www.youtube.com





Legalización de la Marihuana en México


See more at www.youtube.com
 

Goldman Sachs Expects Long Term Stagnation in USA and EU, Growth in BRIC Nations

You've heard the "new normal" to be expected in the US economy. You've seen the enormous debt burden for the State and Federal governments. You've heard of the EU debt crisis.



But have you understood the shifting economic crisis over the past 30 years or more? Compare the rapid growth and collapse of various markets from US Savings & Loan Debacle of the late 1980's, to the USSR collapse in the early 1990's, to the Asian Tigers of the 1990's, to the Argentine economic collapse in the late 1990's, the Dot com crash of the late 1990's, all showing markets expanding at a rapid pace as capital is drawn to the next big thing, and finally exploding as the bear market gets a flash of realism and all foreign investors flee, leaving the local markets in shambles.



9/11 seems to have marked a comeback as the US government went into massive debt and a spending spree to fund 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global war on terror. The ancillary markets began to recover and domestically, Americans focused on record low interest rates, a stock market boom, and a housing boom.



The financial collapse of 2008 has started the down cycle again and despite record spending by the US government and a money printing binge by the Federal Reserve, the money is concentrated in the hands of a few (the uber wealthy 1%) so a recovery is unlikely since the masses (the middle class) do not have money to spend.



Each economic crisis leaves the middle class and the local economy completely weakened, dependent, and needy like a host following a viral or a vampire attack.

Amplify’d from www.bloomberg.com

Goldman Sachs Plans Job Cuts as Debt Trading Misses Estimates

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), the U.S.
bank that makes most of its money from trading, said it will cut
about 1,000 jobs after a plunge in fixed-income revenue that was
bigger than analysts estimated.

Second-quarter fees from trading debt, currencies and
commodities tumbled 63 percent from the previous quarter, more
than twice the drop at other major U.S. banks. Net income was
$1.09 billion, or $1.85 per share, the New York-based company
said today in a statement, falling short of the $2.30 per-share
average estimate of 23 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Led by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman Sachs last year ceded its dominant position
among fixed-income traders to larger rival JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)
In the second quarter of 2011, Goldman Sachs cut risk-taking to
the lowest level since 2006. Debt-trading revenue of $1.6
billion dropped below JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s $4.28 billion,
Citigroup Inc.’s $3.03 billion and Bank of America Corp.’s $2.7
billion.

“It’s clear that Goldman underperformed many of its
peers,” said Richard Staite, an analyst at Atlantic Equities
LLP in London, who has a “neutral” rating on the stock. “It
seems to have prompted them into a cost-saving initiative.”

The firm identified annual cost savings of $1.2 billion
that will include about 1,000 job cuts this year, Chief
Financial Officer David A. Viniar told analysts during a
conference call after earnings were released. Goldman Sachs
employed 35,500 people at the end of June, up 100 people from
the prior quarter.

‘Foreseeable Future’

“It looks like the environment’s going to be somewhat
slower for the foreseeable future and so we decided it made
sense at this point to cut some level of expenses to be more
efficient,” said Viniar, who turned 56 years old today.

Job cuts will be “broad based” and are likely to affect
both junior and senior employees, he said, adding that Goldman
Sachs’s plans to grow in countries such as China, India and
Brazil, where the firm has been doing the most rapid hiring,
won’t be affected.

Operating expenses in the second quarter totaled $5.67
billion, down 28 percent from $7.85 billion in the first quarter
and 23 percent below the $7.39 billion in the second quarter of
2010. Compensation expenses fell 39 percent from the first
quarter to $3.2 billion.

Goldman Sachs fell $2.73, or 2.1 percent, to $126.61 in New
York Stock Exchange composite trading at 2:04 p.m. The stock, at
its lowest level since April 2009, has dropped about 25 percent
this year.

Net income climbed 77 percent from the same period a year
earlier, and earnings fell 38 percent if one-time costs are
excluded from the 2010 results. Last year’s second-quarter
earnings were reduced by a $550 million settlement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and a $600 million expense to
pay a U.K. tax on employee bonuses.

Analysts in the Bloomberg survey lowered their earnings
estimates by an average of $1.09 per share in the past four
weeks.

Revenue fell 39 percent to $7.28 billion from $11.9 billion
in the first quarter and $8.84 billion a year earlier. The
figure fell short of the average $8.2 billion estimate of 15
analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Return on equity, a measure of
how well the firm reinvests shareholder funds, decreased to 6.1
percent from 12.2 percent in the first quarter.

No Rebound

“We’ve had four relatively weak quarters in a row, and I
think it’s now quite clear that the difficult environment is
going to be continued throughout the remainder of this year,”
Atlantic Equities’ Staite said. “I’d be pretty surprised if we
see a marked rebound any time in the near term.”

Overall revenue from trading, run since February 2008 by
Edward K. Eisler, David B. Heller, Pablo J. Salame and Harvey M. Schwartz, fell 47 percent to $3.52 billion from $6.65 billion in
the first quarter and was down 29 percent from $4.98 billion in
the second quarter of 2010.

“Certain of our businesses had disappointing results as we
reduced our market risk in response to attempting to manage
fluctuations in prices and market liquidity,” Blankfein, 56,
said in the statement.

Value at risk, a gauge of how much the firm could lose in a
single day of trading, fell for the eighth consecutive quarter,
to $101 million. The figure was the lowest since the third
quarter of 2006. The firm reduced the amount at risk to equity
prices, currencies and interest rates, while the risk in
commodity prices jumped.

‘Not as Effective’

“During the quarter we were not as effective at navigating
intra-quarter swings in market prices and liquidity as we have
been historically,” Viniar told analysts. “We generated lower
revenues from managing client-originated market-making
inventory, particularly in our largely U.S.-based mortgages
business and our global commodities and credit business.”

Goldman Sachs’s equity-trading revenue declined 17 percent
to $1.92 billion from $2.32 billion in the prior quarter and
rose 19 percent from $1.61 billion a year earlier. That compared
with $1.22 billion of second-quarter equity-trading revenue at
JPMorgan and $812 million at Citigroup. Analysts including as
Roger Freeman at Barclays Capital expected Goldman Sachs’s
equities revenue to be about $2 billion.

Revenue from investment banking, overseen globally by
Richard J. Gnodde, David M. Solomon and John S. Weinberg,
advanced to $1.45 billion in the quarter from $1.27 billion in
the first quarter and $941 million in the second quarter of
2010. By comparison, JPMorgan’s investment-banking fees totaled
$1.92 billion in the quarter and Citigroup reaped $1.09 billion.

Investment Banking

Goldman Sachs’s investment-banking revenue exceeded
estimates from analysts at Atlantic Equities, Barclays Capital
and ISI Group, who expected revenue in the range of $1.2 billion
to $1.3 billion.

Fees from takeover advice, a business led by Gene T. Sykes
and Yoel Zaoui, increased to $637 million from $357 million in
the first quarter and from $471 million a year earlier. The firm
ranks first among advisers on mergers and acquisitions announced
so far this year, according to Bloomberg data.

The firm also ranks first year-to-date in managing global
equity sales and initial public offerings, the data show.
Revenue from equity underwriting, overseen by London-based
Matthew Westerman, fell to $378 million from $426 million in the
first quarter, while debt underwriting revenue dropped to $433
million from $486 million in the prior three months.

Investing and lending, the segment in which Goldman Sachs
books gains or losses from the firm’s own stakes in companies
such as Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (1398) Ltd. and other
assets, made $1.04 billion in the period, compared with $2.71
billion of gains in the first quarter and $1.79 billion in the
second quarter of 2010.

Revenue from investing and lending was more than double
what was expected by analysts at Atlantic Equities, Barclays
Capital and ISI Group. Their estimates ranged from $210 million
to $411 million.

“People regard those revenues as pretty volatile and I
don’t think people will take any comfort from a better
performance” in that business, said Atlantic Equities’ Staite.

Revenue from investment management, the business run by
Edward C. Forst and Timothy O’Neill, was unchanged from the
first quarter at $1.27 billion and up from $1.13 billion in the
second quarter of last year. Assets under management increased
to $844 billion at the end of June from $840 billion at the end
of March.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Christine Harper in New York at
charper@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
David Scheer at dscheer@bloomberg.net.

Read more at www.bloomberg.com
 

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Why the Legalization of Industrial Hemp is a National Prosperity and Security Issue

Like no other time in history, modern America suffers from a lack of domestic clean energy production, weakened national security, unprecedented personal and governmental debt, and a destitute middle class.

This is why it is imperative that the 112th Congress of the USA vote to approve of H.R.1831, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011, sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul and co-sponsored by 26 other members across the political spectrum.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1831/show# - Click on "I Support This Bill" and share this article and call your local representative.

What does hemp have to do with energy security, national security, and national prosperity? I am glad you asked.

Over the last 30 years, the U.S. Federal government in conjunction with the privately held Federal Reserve system have gutted our a middle class with years of economic policies that force unsustainable lifestyles, debt, and dependence. Meanwhile absentminded citizens, addicted to a lifestyle of consumption and convenience are largely unaware that our military and Federal government have justified the defense of finite resources such as natural gas and petroleum at all costs around the globe as explicitly defined in the Carter Doctrine. At the same time the Federal government provides subsidies for the fossil fuel industry giving them an unfair advantage over alternative energy sources.  These policies and addictions have bankrupted our citizens and governments, polluted our planet, driven us to war, and endangered our national security.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century it is unmistakable that as part of the total solution we need access to every available clean energy resource available on god's green earth and this MUST include HEMP. Legalizing and taxing hemp across the nation would spawn new industries that could be a vital part of the solution to many of our economic problems by creating jobs for citizens across the country and creating new exports to fight the trade deficit.

Hemp is high yield crop, producing more biomass per acre than most other crops and can be used for biofuels, biomass, textiles, paper, plastics, and more. Unlike oil, coal, natural gas or nuclear fuels, hemp is a biodegradable, renewable resource that could supply us with raw materials for thousands of years, without changing our climate and without producing waste that remains radioactive for millions of years.

Reasonable taxation of the production and distribution of this new crop and energy source would create revenues for city and state governments fighting deficits. Confining licenses to citizens and chartered small businesses would promote sustainable jobs for the middle class across the country and facilitate financial independence for creative clean energy entrepreneurs.

As a domestically grown alternative biofuel, hemp could become an effective peace pipe for national security by easing geopolitical tensions between the US and other nations (such as China) competing for energy in increasingly dangerous locations.

Opponents of the bill such as big pharma, big oil, the cotton and the natural gas lobbies will argue that their economic prosperity will decline with the legalization of industrial hemp farming in the US market. For them there are no easy answers. For the middle class, however, this is an opportunity of a lifetime.
Americans concerned about energy, pollution, war, and economic prosperity, must ACT NOW. Show your support for HR1831 - Legalization of Industrial Hemp Farming

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1831/show# - Click on "I Support This Bill" and share this article and call your local representative. On Twitter, look for #hempforvictory

Monday, July 18, 2011

Global Commission Report - War on Drugs

Global Commission Report

WAR ON DRUGS - REPORT OF THEGLOBAL COMMISSIONON DRUG POLICY - JUNE 2011

COMMISSIONERS
Asma Jahangir,
human rights activist, ormerUN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial andSummary Executions, Pakistan
Carlos Fuentes,
writer and public intellectual, Mexico
César Gaviria,
ormer President o Colombia
Ernesto Zedillo,
ormer President o Mexico
Fernando Henrique Cardoso,
ormer President o Brazil (chair)
George Papandreou,
Prime Minister o Greece
George P. Shultz,
ormer Secretary o State, United States(honorary chair)
Javier Solana,
ormer European Union High Representativeor the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Spain
John Whitehead,
banker and civil servant, chair o theWorld Trade Center Memorial Foundation, United States
Kof Annan,
ormer Secretary General o the UnitedNations, Ghana
Louise Arbour,
ormer UN High Commissioner or HumanRights, President o the International Crisis Group, Canada
Maria Cattaui,
Petroplus Holdings Board member,ormer Secretary-General o the International Chamber o Commerce, Switzerland
Mario Vargas Llosa,
writer and public intellectual, Peru
Marion Caspers-Merk,
ormer State Secretary at theGerman Federal Ministry o Health
Michel Kazatchkine,
executive director o the Global Fundto Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, France
Paul Volcker,
ormer Chairman o the United StatesFederal Reserve and o the Economic Recovery Board
Richard Branson,
entrepreneur, advocate orsocial causes, ounder o the Virgin Group, co-oundero The Elders, United Kingdom
Ruth Dreiuss,
ormer President o Switzerland andMinister o Home Aairs
Thorvald Stoltenberg,
ormer Minister o Foreign Aairsand UN High Commissioner or Reugees, Norway



Friday, July 15, 2011

America's Lost Generation

Starting with the Reagan presidency in 1981, through Bush Sr., Clinton, and ending in the final 6 months of  George W Bush' second term in 2008, Americans were distracted with the false belief in infinite growth enabled and driven by the perpetual flow of cheap energy, cheap credit, 401ks, and explosive real estate.  The obsession became an addiction to oil and money that stripped most Americans of any conscience.  This became the slippery slope down the road to a hollow soul and empty culture that was no longer capable of self reflection or positive contribution to mankind.  It wasn't just Americans of course.  Others around the world who did not understand sinister geopolitics and our hidden motives, were equally drawn to our wealth and lifestyle.

For those that witnessed the falls of the twin towers on September 1, 2001, it was a wake up call that something was wrong as the American dream suddenly started to turn into a nightmare.  Meanwhile, many continued to deny anything was wrong at all.  Elsewhere in the world a revolution was brewing with envy of American prosperity and anger at American hypocrisy and audacity.

Bush's presidency laid the final death blows to the American psyche and economy with favors for his good ole boy network that deregulated the banking and energy industries, gave tax breaks to the wealthy, legalized torture, stripped Americans of civil liberties, and burdened the US Government with the financial debt of war and burdened the American people with the psychological debt of guilt for allowing the destruction of the planet by fascist neoconservative movement motivated by greed, matched in history only by Mussolini, Hitler, and the Japanese imperial army.  America has become a sick derivative of its founding fathers' vision in less than 300 years.

And now we are at a fork in the road with several possible futures.  The optimistic,
the pessimistic
the pragmatic,
the hopeless
the angry
the addicted continue filling their veins with mindless sex, synthetic prescription drugs, poisonous processed food and alcohol while denying the connection between oil, illegal drugs, war, and money.

Solar PV Cells Can Be Printed on Paper - Hemp An Option?

This is the beginning of a bright new world! Imagine the material used to paint cars is photovolatic coating made from hemp or the materials used to coat or paint buildings is made of solar PV cells.



Every building unit in the country can be a solar power plant.

Amplify’d from oilprice.com

Written by Brian Westenhaus

Friday, 15 July 2011 15:19

It’s not a joke, MIT’s Miles C. Barr, Jill A. Rowehl, Richard R. Lunt, Jingjing Xu, Annie Wang, Christopher M. Boyce, Sung Gap Im, and Vladimir Bulovi? led by Karen K. Gleason are printing photovoltaic cells on regular paper.  Moreover, the process as being reported in MIT News, its possible to print on ordinary untreated paper, cloth or plastic as the substrate for building a solar cell array.

The new technology paper is published in the journal Advanced Materials, published online July 8.

The MIT News article opens describing that the sheet of paper looks like any other document that might have just come spitting out of an office printer, with an array of colored rectangles printed over much of its surface. But then a researcher picks it up, clips a couple of wires to one end, and shines a light on the paper. Instantly an LCD clock display at the other end of the wires starts to display the time.  Seems to work, and considering the skill sets and innovative atmosphere at MIT its not a great surprise so much as a quite pleasant one.  Photovoltaic is still far too expensive for mass adoption, and in the current economy and government situations, PV is a technology that must self wean itself from incentives.

The device is tough, formed from special “inks” deposited on the paper. It can be folded up to slip into a pocket, then unfolded to watch it again generating electricity in the sunlight.  It’s a more complex than just printing out a paper. In order to create an array of photovoltaic cells on the paper, five layers of material need to be deposited onto the same sheet of paper in successive passes, using a mask (also made of paper) to form the patterns of cells on the surface. And the process has to take place in a vacuum chamber.

Solar Cells Printed on Paper
Solar Cells Printed on Paper. Graduate student Miles Barr holds a sheet of paper that has had one of the layers of the solar cell printed on its surface. Image Credit: Patrick Gillooly.


But the basic process is essentially the same as the one used to make the silvery lining in your bag of potato chips: a vapor-deposition process that can be carried out inexpensively on a vast commercial scale.  When one considers the total area of metalized bags like potato chips versus photovoltaic panels the idea of the scale becomes clearer.


The MIT production process technique represents a major departure from today’s systems creating most solar cells on heavy solid inflexible substrates encased in glass, that require exposing the substrates to potentially damaging conditions, either in the form of liquids or high temperatures to etch the silicon into the needed shapes.


The new printing process uses vapors, not liquids, and temperatures less than 120 degrees Celsius.  While the PC printer metaphor is used, the MIT News article clarifies that masks are used and vapor deposition takes place over five steps.  Its not really so much inkjet printing as five round trips through the potato chip bag process making it more complex but still quite simple, low energy and material intensive and astonishingly low cost.


Using thin film PET plastic in lieu of paper as the substrate in printing a solar cell, the now flexible resilient solar cells still functions even when folded up into a paper airplane.  Such assaults of folding and unfolding it 1,000 times, yields no significant loss of performance.


The team is hard at getting past function to appreciable efficiencies.  Presently the paper-printed solar cells have an efficiency of about 1 percent, but the team believes this can be increased significantly with further fine-tuning of the materials.


Karen Gleason, who is the Alexander and I. Michael Kasser Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT points out, “Often people talk about deposition on a flexible device — but then they don’t flex it, to actually demonstrate” that it can survive the stress. Beyond folding the MIT team has tried other tests of the device’s robustness. For example, Gleason explains, they took a finished paper solar cell and ran it through a laser printer, printing on top of the photovoltaic surface. That subjects the cell to the high temperature of the toner-fusing step, and demonstrated that it still worked. Test cells the group produced last year still work, demonstrating their long shelf life.


These attributes put a whole new perspective on the photovoltaic cell. Professor of Electrical Engineering Vladimir Bulovi? brings the idea forward.  Because of the low weight of the paper or plastic substrate compared to conventional glass or other materials, “We think we can fabricate scalable solar cells that can reach record-high watts-per-kilogram performance. For solar cells with such properties, a number of technological applications open up,” he says. For example, in remote developing-world locations, weight makes a big difference in how many cells could be delivered in a given load.


That’s a major change in perspective.


The MIT team has demonstrated that the paper could be coated with standard lamination materials, to protect it from the elements opening up outdoor use. Plastic laminations aren’t going to last like glass, but say at 7% of the energy production at perhaps 1/1000th the cost of current glass photovoltaic cells, life expectancy isn’t going to have such an important factor in calculations.


“Printing” cells is commercial now at a price advantage to silicon on glass.  Research has been working to produce solar cells and other electronic components on paper, but the big stumbling block has been paper’s rough, fibrous surface at a microscopic scale. To counter that, past attempts have relied on coating the paper first with some smooth material. The MIT team uses ordinary, uncoated paper, including printer paper, tissue, tracing paper and even newsprint with the printing still on it. All of these worked just fine.  It’s a robust technology.


The MIT work in the early stages will most likely go to applications of shorter life times. 


Wall applications, portable devices, and disposable electronics come to mind.  As more research covers the problems of environmental exposure, raising the efficiency, optimizing connections and the field of applications will expand.  Perhaps someone will
tie the ideas of gathering more of the spectrum together and very low cost photovoltaic solar will become a consumer reality.


It’s getting so a skeptic can look forward to photovoltaic solar in the coming years.


By. Brian Westenhaus


Source: Solar Cells Printed on Paper

Read more at oilprice.com
 

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The Relationship Between Peak Oil and Peak Debt - Part 1 | Oil Price.com

The Relationship Between Peak Oil and Peak Debt - Part 1 | Oil Price.com

The Relationship Between Peak Oil and Peak Debt - Part 1

PDFPrintE-mail
Written by Gail Tverberg
Tuesday, 12 July 2011 12:59
Message :
Investors: Free Oil Industry Investment Report - Our Fracking industry guide shows you the strategies that will enable you to generate excellent returns in what will be one of the most profitable sectors of the energy industry. Click here for your Free report.

There is really a two-way link between peak oil and peak debt:

1. Peak oil tends to cause peak debt. Some will argue with me about this, because they believe it is possible to decouple economic growth from energy growth, and in particular oil growth. As far as I am concerned, though, this decoupling is simply an unproven hypothesis–the normal connection is that a flattening or decline in energy supply causes a slowdown or actual decline in economic growth, and this slowdown causes a shift from an increase in the amount of debt, to a decrease in the amount of debt, as it did for US non-governmental loans in 2009 and 2010 (Figure 1).

US Debt at Year end
Figure 1. US Domestic Debt, split between government debt (excluding Social Security) and non-governmental debt. Based on Federal Reserve Z.1 data.

Governments try to step in and keep the growth rate in debt up, but the gap is too great for them to make up. This tendency of governments to take on new debt (together with problems related to the original slowdown in economic growth) are reasons many governments have been getting into financial difficulty recently, in my view.

2. Once debt growth peaks (shifts from growth to decline), we can expect a feed-back loop that will tend to make the peak oil decline even worse than it would otherwise be.
In the current post, called “Part 1?, I will cover the first of these two issues; I will cover the second issue in Part 2.

The Relationship Between Growth and Debt

I have talked many times about the need for economic growth, in order to make our current system of borrowing money, and paying back loans with interest, work on the extensive basis that it is used today.

Future Growth
Figure 2. Two views of future growth

As long as the economy is expanding, as in Scenario 1, businesses feel confident that their future prospects will be better than they are today. As a result, businesses will borrow funds for new equipment and will be fairly confident they can pay back the loans with interest in the future. Governments will also borrow, knowing that they will likely have higher tax collections in the future. Because of these higher tax collections, the governments can expect to pay back the debt plus the interest on the debt.

Even common citizens feel that debt is a reasonable prospect. If the individual loses his/her job, there is a good chance of getting a new one. With prospects for better wages in the future (or at least no worse wages in the future), it makes sense to take out an automobile loan, or a student loan, or even a loan on a new home.

If the economy is expanding, promising Social Security benefits to future retirees looks like a safe prospect, as does promising Medicare benefits. Just as a “rising tide lifts all boats,” an expanding economic circle leaves room for more and more types of payments (Figure 3).

Growing Economy
Figure 3. A growing economy makes allows room for interest and other payments, without crimping budgets.

If the economy starts contracting as in Scenario 2 of Figure 2 (or even stays the same size) then it becomes much more difficult to repay debt with interest, and to fulfill promises of future benefits, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Economic Decline
Figure 4. Paying promises becomes much more difficult after economic decline.

Of course, in a contracting economy, there may still be a few instances where debt “makes sense.” These might include very short-term business loans, for example, covering goods in transit. They would also include some business loans where the economic return is high enough so the loan would make “economic sense” even if the interest rate includes a fairly high charge for risk of default (because of the declining economy) as part of the interest rate.

This decline in the level of debt becomes a real problem for countries, because the availability of debt tends to add to reported GDP. For example, if a person takes out a car loan and buys a car, the cost of the car gets added to GDP, even though the car is not yet paid for. The availability of debt financing also makes it possible for businesses to obtain capital for expansion, so the business can, for example, build more cars, without waiting for sufficient profits to accrue to have enough revenue to finance the expansion. Both of these activities tend make it easier to increase reported GDP.

What has happened in recent years, at least for the US, is that it seems to be taking greater and greater increases in debt to create a given increase in GDP.

change in debt to change in GDP
Figure 5. Relationship of change in debt (private and government combined) to change in GDP.

This changing relationship may reflect the greater headwinds the economy is encountering, now that oil supply is tighter and oil prices are higher.

Declining oil availability (manifested as high oil prices) tends to lead to economic contraction

Oil use, and energy use in general, tends to be tied to economic growth in many ways. Clearly there is a need for oil (or another energy product) to manufacture and transport goods, and to grow and transport food. Given the cars, trucks, trains, and farm equipment currently in use, it is not easy to change the dependence on oil quickly, either.

James Hamilton in his paper Historical Oil Shocks has shown that 10 out of 11 US recessions since World War II were preceded by oil price shocks. Charles Hall, Stephen Balogh, and David Murphyhave shown that prices above $85 barrel in 2008 dollars a barrel tend to cause recession. Robert Ayres and Benjamin Warr have analyzed the amount of work (in a physics sense) that is done by energy of various types. Using this data, they have developed a model explaining the vast majority of US real economic growth between 1900 and 2000, except for a residual of about 12% after 1975.

Robert Hirsh has shown that there is a high correlation between world increases in world oil supply and increases in world GDP.

Relationship between world GDP growth and oil production growth.
Figure 6. Graphic by Robert Hirsch showing the relationship between world GDP growth and oil production growth.

In spite of all of this evidence, there are some who argue that it is not clear which direction the causation goes with respect to oil supply and economic growth–perhaps the only issue is that the world uses more oil when it is expanding, and less oil when it is contracting. With this belief, it is difficult to explain why oil price shocks would precede recessions, but some economists have learned this view in the past, and seem not to be open to looking at the evidence.

There is also a question as to whether we can move quickly away from this close between relationship oil and the economy, perhaps substituting another fuel source for oil. Vaclav Smil inEnergy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects has shown that because of the very large amount of built infrastructure in place, in practice, energy transitions from one fuel to another take a very long time–30 in 50 years.

In spite of what Vaclav Smil has shown, it would seem as though there might still be some possibilities for short-term decoupling. For example, if car-pooling suddenly becomes much more common, it could tend to change this relationship. It is not clear that such a change would be fast enough, or significant enough, to change the basic relationship, however.

Recent Debt Problems of Governments

Recent debt problems of governments seem to be related to a combination of (1) the tendency of high oil prices to cause recession and (2) the additional debt the governments have tried to take on, to stimulate the economy and to bail out failing banks and other businesses. Part of this debt may be taken on, to try to offset the decline in private debt.
In the United States, federal external debt started increasing immediately after oil prices hit their peak in July 2008 (Figure 7).

Average quarterly oil price and US Federal External Debt
Figure 7. Average quarterly oil price and US Federal External Debt

Even with these huge increases in federal debt, the increase in governmental debt has not been able to offset the decline in debt held by businesses and private citizens, as shown in Figure 1 near the top of this post.

Governments around the world have been finding this additional debt burden increasingly difficult to handle. If nothing else, if interest cost of this debt becomes very burdensome, unless interest rates are very low. Furthermore, even when they do try to intervene, their debt doesn’t have quite the right effect–their new debt may buy a new road, but it doesn’t buy a new car for the consumer.

This combination of problems–recession caused by limited oil supply, and increasing need for government debt because of shrinking private debt and need to stimulate the economy seems to me to be what is behind the debt problems that so many governments (including the US government) are experiencing today. Many European countries are experiencing problems as well–Greece, Portugal, and Spain, for example.

In Part 2, we will look at some of the feedbacks of peak debt that may have an impact on the shape of the peak oil downslope.

By. Gail Tverberg

Gail Tverberg is a writer and speaker about energy issues. She is especially known for her work with financial issues associated with peak oil. Prior to getting involved with energy issues, Ms. Tverberg worked as an actuarial consultant. This work involved performing insurance-related analyses and forecasts. Her personal blog is ourfiniteworld.com. She is also an editor of The Oil Drum.

Peak Oil – Cause of Current Economic Problems?

Peak Oil – Cause of Current Economic Problems?

Peak Oil – Cause of Current Economic Problems?

There are many arguments about the merits of the peak oil problem, but few about the results should it occur. For instance, we can credibly ask if peak oil is the cause of our current economic problems.

Capitalism is built on the very simple notion of supply and demand. When the supply more than meets the demand, the price drops as the suppliers compete for customers. When supply is insufficient to meet demand, the price goes up as consumers compete to get a piece of the pie. One needs only look at the housing market in the United States to understand this.

Before the Great Recession, the demand for housing was massive and areas like Las Vegas were seeing price appreciation rates of more than 20 percent a year, a huge number for housing. Then the bubble burst and demand dropped like a rock. Suddenly, you have a massive inventory of homes on the market and few buyers. Prices stated dropping like a rock dropped in lake. As I write this, the housing market appears to be turning over and falling again.

The question a few economists are asking is what role does oil play in this? You are probably under the impression the housing market disaster and Great Recession were created by loose banking practices and evil bankers? Well, the banking industry is a mess, but loans didn’t just go bad. No, what if the banking problems were not a cause of the Great Recession, but a symptom?

As you probably recall, we suffered a major oil price shock just before the Great Recession. Prices went above $140 a barrel, figures never before seen. The result was a massive drop in consumer spending as Americans sought to deal with this new cost. The American economy is a consumer economy. When demand dried up, the loss in revenues caused many businesses to fail since they could not meet their credit obligations. The rest, as they say, is history.

Ah, but what about the fact oil went down in price after that? You are right. In fact, oil prices crashed down into the low 20s. This is because the level of demand in the world imploded. Suddenly, we had more oil than we were using. The excess capacity resulted in prices falling…until demand started to pick up again.

As I write this, we are in a recovery and demand for oil is rising again. Prices are also going up, to just over $100 a barrel. The question is what will happen now. If oil prices go up another $20 or so, consumers are going to pull back on their spending again. This will again lead to a recession. In fact, this may lead to a depression since the federal government is “out of bullets” at the moment when it comes to doing anything to get the economy rolling again.

The Future

To predict the future, we must look to the past. A surge in oil prices has always resulted in a recession historically. Always! If we have hit peak oil, and I think we have, then we are looking at a period of intermittent recessions followed by weak recoveries followed by recessions as oil prices jump up and down. That, my friend, is going to redefine the economic world and not in a good way.