ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

WikiLeaks peak oil bombshell: Saudi Arabian reserves overstated by 40%, global production plateau immiment

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/apr2007/peak_oil.jpg

The US fears that Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest crude oil exporter, may not have enough reserves to prevent oil prices escalating, confidential cables from its embassy in Riyadh show.

The cables, released by WikiLeaks, urge Washington to take seriously a warning from a senior Saudi government oil executive that the kingdom’s crude oil reserves may have been overstated by as much as 300bn barrels – nearly 40%.

That we are close to a peak in global oil production should not be a surprise to anyone (see World’s top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery, urges immediate action: “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us” and German military study warns of peak oil crisis and Peak oil production coming sooner than expected).

The bombshell is that the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh understands this and that it “now questions how much the Saudis can now substantively influence the crude markets over the long term.”  Who persuaded them of this is equally remarkable — Sadad al-Husseini, “a geologist and former head of exploration at the Saudi oil monopoly Aramco,” who says he isn’t in the peak oil camp but sounds on awful lot like those of us who are.

Consider the first cable, from December 2007:

Read more

Alyssa

Sweet Talk

So, a major men’s magazine did this crazy thing where they asked me, and a bunch of amazing writers and actresses, to give men Valentine’s Day advice. I’m sure it will surprise precisely none of you that I went the nerdiest route possible (and, uh, also have the nerdiest head shot of the bunch). But check ‘em all out. It’s a great package. And a shoot out to the totally rad Mary Elizabeth Ellis, who rocks it on It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and is redeeming Perfect Couples for me, and whose piece is right before mine.

Economy

House Republican Spending Cuts Target Programs For Children And Pregnant Women

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) last week released the House Republicans first round of proposed budget cuts, laying out about $32 billion in overall cuts, but without naming any specific program reductions. Ryan has been justifying his refusal to name a specific program that he’d cut from the budget by punting to the Appropriations Committee. “[Naming specifics] is what is gonna happen in the appropriations process down the road. So I can’t tell you the answer to that because, as a budget committee person, we simply lower the cap and then those things go down,” Ryan said.

Today, the Appropriations Committee — chaired by Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) — released the specific cuts that House Republicans are proposing to get below Ryan’s cap. Of course, the cuts consist of reductions to common GOP bogeymen like the National Endowment for the Arts and Amtrak. But the House Republicans have a preoccupation with cutting programs that affect women and their babies. For instance, the GOP proposed:

Cutting $758 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which amounts to about a 6 percent cut to a program providing food assistance to low-income women and their infants.

Cutting $210 million from Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, which amounts to about a 33 percent cut in a program giving low-income pregnant women, mothers and their children access to health care.

Cutting $27 million from the Poison Control Center, which would essentially eliminate a program supporting local poison control centers and funding a hotline directing residents to their local poison control office. Poisoning disproportionately affects children, with half the exposures at the National Poison Control Center last year occurring to children younger than six.

The House Republicans second-largest cut is to community health centers ($1.1 billion). In 2008, about one-third of community health center patients were children.

In the grand scheme of deficit reduction, these cuts will do absolutely nothing, but they will have extremely detrimental effects for those who depend upon the targeted programs. This shows the folly of the GOP’s approach to budgeting, which leaves huge parts of the federal budget immune to cuts (like the Pentagon), while taking an axe to non-defense discretionary spending. These cuts outlined above total about $1 billion, while simply retiring (and not replacing) one carrier battle group and its aircraft wing would save $1.5 billion.

“Make no mistake, these cuts are not low-hanging fruit,” Rogers said in the statement. “These cuts are real and will impact every District across the country — including my own.” While they may impact every district, they certainly don’t spread the pain equally.

Yglesias

The Immiseration of Labor?

Reader JS writes in with the question that eventually bothers everyone who thinks long enough about economic growth:

I would like to believe we’re heading for a future were everybody is so productive that they can live a good life working 20 hours a week. But I fear we’ll get a society where perhaps 10% of the people will own all the land and capital, and they will hire 60% of the people to work for low but comfortable wages, while 30% will be totally dependent on a welfare and the odd temporary job every now and then.

If this scenario is a real possibility, then the only solution I can imagine is highly progressive taxation and wealth distribution, so that the great masses can afford to employ each other (with restaurant meals and dance lessons).

So is it a possible scenario/olution, or am I missing something?

I have heard that during the great depression, many people feared this scenario becoming the new normal, and that even Marx predicted this would happen (and that after that, the masses would revolt and institute Marxism).

People often don’t realize it (though Karl Smith does) but Marx was in many ways working in the tradition of classical economists like David Ricardo and Adam Smith.

At any rate, I’m not blogging about land use at the moment because I’m hoping to build enthusiasm for a potential book, so let’s focus on the “capital” side of this arrangement. What’s missing from the doom analysis (and this is fresh in my mind since coincidentally I’ve been reading Ricardo) is the “human capital.” Employee compensation accounts for the majority of GDP because the majority of the actual capital available to the economy is inside people’s heads. There’s a Race Between Education and Technology and we haven’t seen this immiseration of labor happen because, on average, people have improved their human capital faster than physical capital has rendered it obsolete. But I don’t think this is a law of nature. You could imagine the development of effective, but highly expensive, genetic engineering technology totally destabilizing the situation.

Politics

A Timeline Of Tim Pawlenty’s Evolving Homophobia

Our guest blogger is Elon Green, a freelance writer living in Brooklyn.

On Monday, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) doubled down on last month’s promise to reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell if elected president, telling the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky that rescinding the funds necessary to implement the repeal of DADT is a “reasonable step.” This position consigns Pawlenty to the fringe of the Republican Party itself, whose members backed the repeal by a considerable margin.

In light of last year’s Pentagon study, which concluded that “the risk of repeal … to overall military effectiveness is low,” Pawlenty’s stance on gays in the military cannot be justified with the customary nod toward ‘unit cohesion.’ In fact, his new position should be seen as part and parcel of the Governor’s evolving view of gays, which, over nearly two decades, is sometimes nuanced but generally regressive:

1993: Pawlenty voted to extend protection to gays and lesbians under the state Human Rights Act, effectively banning discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation as well as race, religion, ethnicity and physical or mental disability. (The conservative Star Tribune wrote “the bill would destroy family values and give official sanction to an immoral lifestyle.”)

2002: Pawlenty expressed regret for the vote nine years earlier after his opponents in the governor’s race accused him of, as the Pioneer Press put it, “being soft on gay rights.”

2003: Pawlenty refused to sign a bill sponsored by Rep. Arlon Lindner that would have repealed the 1993 Human Rights Act. Pawlenty’s spokesman told the Star Tribune, “He [Pawlenty] is extremely supportive of human rights. … This [law] is not about gay rights or ‘special rights’ — it is about human rights and fairness for all.” Pawlenty, the spokesman said, “does not believe that anyone should be discriminated against for a job or housing simply because they are gay.”

2003: Pawlenty said, initially, that an attempt by then-state Sen. Michele Bachmann (R) and Rep. Mary Liz Holberg (R) to amend Minnesota’s constitution to ban same sex marriage in the wake of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health is unnecessary. He changed his mind a few days later and enthusiastically supported the amendment.

2004: Pawlenty said it is vital that states avoid “leapfrogging”” same-sex marriage; in March, the Minnesota House passed the amendment.

2009: Pawlenty told Newsweek’s Howard Fineman that the 1993 act was “overbaked” and “not worded the way it should be” because it protected cross-dressers “and a variety of other people involved in behaviors that weren’t based on sexual orientation.” Pawlenty theorized, “[I]f you are a third-grade teacher and you are a man and you show up on Monday as Mr. Johnson and you show up on Tuesday as Mrs. Johnson, that is a little confusing to the kids.”

2010: Pawlenty vetoed a bill that would “allow a surviving same-sex partner to sue to recover damages in the case of wrongful death and to execute a deceased partner’s funeral wishes.” Pawlenty cited his personal opposition to same-sex marriage as he vetoes the legislation.

Climate Progress

GOP Announces New Climate Strategy: Abandon Earth


The view from our future home.

Republicans have a new idea: instead of wasting time protecting this planet, let’s figure out how to escape it.

Over a hundred years ago, scientists started warning that the unconstrained burning of fossil fuels could make planet Earth uninhabitable for human civilization. Since then, we have spewed billions of tons of greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere, acidifying the oceans, devastating ecosystems, and intensifying catastrophic weather. Fortunately, scientists have also found that the strategy of reducing pollution would unleash an economic revolution with clean energy and keep our planet friendly to the human race. Many of these scientists work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA), which has a billion-dollar budget for studying the “natural and man-made changes in our environment” that “affect the habitability of our planet.”

However, Republicans in Congress find the clean energy pathway unreasonable, arguing the costs of reducing our toxic dependence on coal and oil would be too great. Perhaps stung by accusations that they are simply the Party of No, a group of House Republicans have now put forward an alternate strategy to avoiding disastrous global warming: the first step being to scrap NASA’s world-leading climate science research funding, and direct it instead into sending people into unpolluted outer space:

Global warming funding presents an opportunity to reduce spending without unduly impacting NASA’s core human spaceflight mission. With your help, we can reorient NASA’s mission back toward human spaceflight by reducing funding for climate change research and reallocating those funds to NASA’s human spaceflight accounts, all while moving overall discretionary spending toward 2008 levels.

The signatories of this Abandon Earth letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) and Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) are Reps. Sandy Adams (R-FL), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Pete Olson (R-TX) and Bill Posey (R-FL), all from districts that play a role in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) manned spaceflight program. As they are currently on planet Earth, they are also all from districts threatened by the effects of global warming.

Although the signatories don’t explicitly state that the goal of shifting funding from climate research into manned spaceflight is to find a new home for the 350 million people of the United States, one can only assume that they support that goal. Signatory Mo Brooks (R-AL), the new subcommittee chair for the House science committee’s panel on basic research and education, told ScienceInsider that “I haven’t seen anything that convinces me” that greenhouse emissions should be reduced, and will hold hearings about cutting as much of the U.S. climate research budget as possible.

As they are responsible politicians who worry about “[f]uture generations of Americans,” they surely don’t intend to stick our children with catastrophic sea level rise, summer-long heat waves of over 100 degrees, superfueled storms and floods, intense droughts, desertification, and mass species extinction without offering them a Planet B:

Space is the ultimate high ground and nations such as China, Russia, and India are anxious to seize the mantle of space supremacy should we decide to cede it. We must not put ourselves in the position of watching Chinese astronauts planting their flag on the moon while we sit earthbound by our own shortsightedness. Future generations of Americans deserve better.

The Planet-B Republicans rightfully recognize that the moon — without an atmosphere or liquid water — would lead to serious resource competition between the 6 billion people now on this planet, perhaps with China the greatest threat to our post-Earth plans. Although China does have a growing space program, its government is primarily investing in the “save this planet first” strategy, spending twice as much as the United States on clean technology, establishing mandatory standards for renewable energy production, mandatory energy efficiency standards, and mandatory fuel economy standards.

Some people might say that ramping up interplanetary travel from the 12 men who walked on the moon to millions or billions of people, while figuring out how to terraform lifeless planets when we’re failing to keep our own climate stable, in a few decades is a higher risk, more costly endeavor than increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy by one or two percentage points a year. Although those people would be technically correct, they would also be failing to appreciate the total awesomeness of the Abandon Earth plan.

Update

The primary objective of NASA, according to its founding legislation, is:

The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.

Climate Progress

ClimateProgress is looking for a Reporter/Blogger

I am happy to report that ClimateProgress will be hiring a Reporter/Blogger.  That will effectively double the full-time staff at CP, which is good news for both me and you.

I am quite excited about the opportunity for CP to cover more of the story of the century — and to gain the ability to do investigative reporting.

The full job description is here and below.  Please circulate this job description to anyone you know who you think is qualified and interested.

Read more

Yglesias

The Wages of Disengagement

Senator Barbara Boxer is outraged by the slew of new anti-choice bills being offered up by House Republicans: “It breaks faith with a decades-long bipartisan compromise, and it risks the health and lives of women.”

Ann Friedman’s not buying it:

Oh wait, so all those times that Democrats caved on the issue of women’s health — years of rubber-stamping the Hyde Amendment, rolling over on contraception access, failing to do away with abstinence-only sex ed, shrugging off Stupak-Pitts — they were under the impression they were engaging in a bi-partisan negotiation to protect women’s rights? And now they are surprised (and maybe a little hurt?) that Republicans have been empowered by these compromises to introduce even more radical anti-choice legislation? STFU. Just… STFU.

The basic dynamic here should be familiar. When Democrats decided about ten years ago to stop pushing for gun control legislation, that didn’t take the issue off the table it led to a wave of envelop-pushing pro-gun bills. When the GOP temporarily stopped opposing Social Security in the wake of World War II, it led to 30 years of steady increases in Social Security beenfits and eligibility. Every conservative retreat from anti-gay bigotry inspires people to push deeper for equality. As long as a large minority of the public thinks people should be thrown in jail for having an abortion, we’ll either see continual fighting on this point or else continued slippage as the debate loses an anchor on the pro-choice side.

This is also the problem with the tactical decision to move toward “abortion is bad, but…” language when talking about the issue. Whether or not the median voter ever embraces the slogan of abortion on demand and without apology, it’s important for some people in positions of some prominence to be holding down that side of the fort.

Politics

74 Members of Congress Seek Justice Thomas’ Recusal From Affordable Care Act Lawsuits

Supreme Court spouse Ginni Thomas recently opened a lobbying firm which promises to give “voice to…the tea party movement in the halls of Congress.” The job will likely lead her to lobby in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, conservatives are mounting a nationwide litigation strategy to convince Ginni’s husband to give voice to the tea party movement in the halls of the Supreme Court.

In response to Ginni Thomas’ involvement with groups trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 74 Members of Congress signed a letter to Ginni’s husband — Justice Clarence Thomas — pointing out that his wife’s new job could have ethical consequences for him:

As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act. [...]

Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the US Supreme Court’s decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path.

To be fair, the case for Justice Thomas’ recusal could turn on whether his wife is actually being paid to lobby for the Affordable Care Act to be repealed. The federal recusal statute requires Thomas to recuse from any case that could “substantially affect[]” his wife’s finances:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: …

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: . . .

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

It’s worth noting that conservatives have already interpreted this ethics law in a way that requires Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the health care litigation. After progressive Judge Stephen Reinhardt was assigned to the appellate panel that was to hear a challenge to anti-gay Proposition 8, supporters of the anti-gay law called for Reinhardt to recuse because his wife’s organization advocates against Prop 8.

But, of course, Ginni Thomas used to lead a Tea Party group called Liberty Central which vigorously opposes the Affordable Care Act. Liberty Central even briefly signed Ginni’s name to a memo claiming that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional — at least until news reports pointed out the ethical issues her signature raised for her husband. So, by the right’s very same arguments, Justice Thomas must drop out of the health care litigation.

Climate Progress

Energy and global warming news for February 9, 2011: Solar energy in CA cheaper than natural gas; Proposed EPA rules on power plants could bring jobs to Michigan

SCE’s proposed contracts for 250 MW of solar PV projects come in below price of natural gas

We hear it every day: “Solar is too expensive.” Well, not according to the California utility Southern California Edison.

In a recent filing to the state’s Public Utilities Commission, SCE asked for approval of 20 solar PV projects worth 250 MW – all of which are expected to generate a total of 567 GWh of electricity for less than the price of natural gas.

Read more

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up