Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Thursday, November 03, 2011

Carbon pollution- my conspiracy theory



And now for my conspiracy theory. Before I drop my bomb shell, may I go on the record as saying I am an environmentalist and I do despise pollution. I do believe in clean energy and I do hope for a cleaner tomorrow.

Here's my bombshell. Global warming induced by carbon pollution is a croc!

That does not necessarily mean I do no think that climate change could be occurring. But let me leave that  argument for a little later. I am saying that I think the theory that says carbon and fossil fuels are causing the atmosphere to overheat, is a conspiracy.

Instead of stringing you along let me give my reason first and then attempt to back it up.

Here are some facts:
-Global oil supply will not last for ever. Pessimists say that oil supply is already in decline. Optimists say that the peak of oil production will come in 2020 or even a little later. After this point the amount of global oil supply will reach its peak for a season. Once its peak is reached there will be a decline. This is based upon a pattern that has occurred with all oil wells in the past. It is derived from a mathematical formula called the Hubbert Curve. At the point of this decline, the price of oil will begin to sky rocket and people will not be able to afford to drive their oil fuelled cars anymore. Then after that at some point the oil would run out altogether.

-The population of people driving cars in the world is exponentially increasing. This is only speeding up the imbalance between supply and demand when it comes to oil.

So the fact is, the world will run out of oil and people will not be able to run their cars anymore. Without some major long term structural changes to society, entire economies will cease to function as we have become ultra dependent on cars (not to mention the other purposes oil serves).

What is the solution to this problem?
The solution is to get people off an oil dependency on to other forms of energy. This is now so widely accepted that it seems a no-brainer. But it has taken decades of "education" to get people to hold this world view.
That oil is running out, I do not doubt. My theory however is that governments and oil companies of the world have known this fact for decades. In fact it has been known since Hubbert developed his curve in the 50s, and it was predicted that America would reach peak oil production in the late 60s, prompting the oil crisis of the 70s. That oil crisis of the 70s saw a major restructuring in the world- the rise of Arab Oil economies; the decision to make the US Dollar the currency of international trade; the decision to take gold out of the equation as a guarantee for the value of the US Dollar. And those decisions are the bedrock of the current financial crisis in the world.
So my conspiracy theory is that governments made a decision on a strategy to wean the world off oil. And the oil companies convinced the governments to time this strategy for when oil actually started to decline, so that they could still reap maximum profits before that.
The strategy decided upon was to convince the masses to stop using oil and to move to alternative energies. But how could they convince us? We are so car dependent that to simply stop using our cars is madness!!! madness I tell you!!  And why would we voluntarily want to just pay more for alternative energies without a good reason for doing so. Positive incentives never seem to work either on people. So negative incentives had to be found.
It is easier to convince the world that we are all doomed. It is easier to convince the world to stop using oil, because if we don't we will kill our grand children. Negative incentives such as global warming and carbon taxes are invented to convince people that we need to switch to alternative energies. It is a weak claim to say- "just stop using the oil, because you will breathe more cleanly" or "just stop driving the car and get out and walk or ride and enjoy the sunshine."
But with fear as a motivator we are all convinced that we need to do something good for our planet. We don't complain when prices sky rocket, we don't complain where burdensome taxes are placed on us, because it is for the good of the planet and our grandchildren.

So we have been given a different reason to switch to alternative energies than the real reason.

The truth: We need to switch to alternative energies because oil will eventually run out.
The reason people would not believe this truth: It sounds fanciful, distant, and alternative energies have been far more expensive in the short term than oil.

The lie: Oil is killing our planet. We need to switch to alternative energies to stop global warming.

Some incriminating facts that expose the conspiracy:
-Governments have discouraged and forbidden development of electric cars for decades in the past. It has only been in recent years that they are allowing development to go ahead, neatly timed for a transitional switch over as oil supply declines.

-The Australian and State governments are not overly interested in increasing public transport. I.e if they believed that burning oil was damaging to the environment they could take far more effective action in the short term to reduce car usage.

-Very little is being done to switch to alternative energies in Australia. While oil is in danger of running out, there is still plenty of coal to go around in Australia. Coal fired energy plants are increasing, not decreasing. The plants that burn uncleanly are not being cleaned up.

-A carbon tax is simply a method to provide negative incentive, to help people believe the lie that carbon is the killer.

-Al Gore is one of the canaries in the mine that expose the conspiracy. His film "An Inconvenient Truth" is very out dated now because the predictions in it are not even coming true. He is a trader in carbon credits. Carbon trading stands to become a major world wide commodity even by 2015. Mean while Al Gore has a large mansion with multiple cars, and is constantly flying around the world. His actions do not line up with someone who believes in carbon induced global warming.

-On a recent trip to Finland I saw some of the hypocrisy that exists within the European Union. The EU is supposed to be the most responsible when it comes to combating global warming. Petrol prices are extremely high ($2.20 a litre) in Europe, being heavy on the taxes.
Yet I noticed a couple of glaring inconsistencies. In Finland infant milk formula comes in ready serve packages of one litre or even single serve 250ml packages. This means a lot of extra packaging is required, than simply using powder. The Finns have the cleanest water in the world, so water should not be a problem. So much extra energy is spent on all of that unnecessary packaging.
Finland have recently eliminated sea/ surface mail as an option. All mail must now go by air. But as air travel burns so much more fossil fuels than land or sea travel this seems a ridiculous decision to make.

If Finland really believed in carbon induced global warming they would not allow seamail to be eliminated, nor would they allow such copious production of packaging.

Finland has thousands upon thousands of lakes. They have more fresh water than they could ever possibly use. Yet they clean and recycle ALL of their water that they use. They are constantly telling people to use water carefully. A lot of energy needs to be spent on cleaning all of that water.

What about climate change?
I think it is still too early to prove if our climate is completely changing. But there are certainly some signs that point in this direction. But some facts should be taken into account:

-The magnetic north pole is moving in one steady direction away from Canada towards Russia at a pace of 55km a year. At the rate it is going it appears to be on a course to flip. Nobody can really say what affect this could have on climate. What we do know is that the magnetic poles have flipped before. We have also had times of major climate change in the past, both warming and cooling of the planet (and they were never affected by carbon pollution).

-The sun is producing an increasing amount of solar flares. Solar flares always account for hotter weather on earth. The sun is the source of all energy on earth. The sun is also responsible for our basic weather of Summer and Winter, based on proximity to the sun. It should be no surprise if the sun is actually the biggest influence in climate change. The sun is far more powerful than any change we can effect as humans.

Conclusions:
I do not deny climate change. I think it is affected by such factors as the movement of the magnetic north pole and increase in solar flares.
I do not think climate change is brought about by global warming, induced by carbon pollution.
We do need to move away from oil usage to alternative energies; but this is because oil will run out and because it's nice to breathe clean air.
Governments have been cooking up the global warming conspiracy for decades as a method of fear to convince us to transition to alternative energies, instead of us being caught in a crisis with no oil and no options.

I can't understand why people prefer to believe a lie and live in fear all their lives? There are far more positive reasons for change and we don't need to be held to ransom by controlling taxing governments.




Saturday, January 31, 2009

Global financial crisis- where has all the money gone?



The global financial crisis has got many thinking. In fact it has many worrying quite a lot. It has got me thinking, but thankfully not worrying. Where did all the money go?
There have been great losses on share markets across the world. This apparently was brought about my financial institutions collapsing due to bad losses on credit. Simply put they lent out too much money, or more accurately lent out money to people who could not repay the loans. These bad debts have triggered the crisis. There is no doubt that the greed of many banks in the US is to blame.

I have always thought of money as a finite resource. I am sure that many have thought the same. But I am coming to change the way I understand that concept. It used to be that a nation would only print as much money as represented the gold that they had in reserve. Back in those times, money was a finite concept. To go even further back in history, people had gold and silver coins, and there were no banks. Of course they could always find more gold in the ground. How things have changed in todays world.

Money is now a relative concept, not finite. It is fitting that such a concept has come about in a post modern world. The house of cards that is the US economy is crashing down. The rest of the world have been attaching our own economies to the US economy, and now the whole thing seems to be crashing down. Recent news reports have said that the global economy has now come to a complete stand still. This means that there is no net economic growth in the world, in fact there are losses, and this is what economic recession is.

But what is economic growth anyway? Well it represents productivity in a society, be that national or global. So there are some tangible things to attach the concept to. On a tangible level we have seen factories closing all over Russia and China. They are no longer productive. (India is still productive and I believe Canada is too.) If there is no product then there is no money. It's a little like if there is no wheat then there is no food for us to eat. Just like there can be a bumper crop of wheat some years, there can also be a bumper crop of money.

A bumper crop of money is when banks reap big dividends. People pay back their loans. Companies post big profits and their value soars. Essentially this means there is more money around to work with. Yes it is true that banks fictitiously create money, but this is only a part of the picture. In today's global economy money needs to be circulated. None of us need to hold on to the money all the time, so it is circulated around for some one else to use. It's a bit like a game of musical chairs. And just recently a whole bunch of chairs have been taken away.

Where did all the money go? Not into the hands of some other person. The money simply disappeared, burned in a fire, got washed away out to sea. Since there is less money to circulate, companies can not afford to pay their staff. This means that productivity goes down. Since there is less money to circulate, people become afraid to spend and then consumer demand drops, so productivity is in essence no longer needed.

Three quarters of Australia's economy depends on consumer spending. I am confident that many other western economies are built on similar principles. If we all spend our money happily then it will circulate and demand for productivity will go up.

Recently Kevin Rudd (Australian prime minister) thinks he knows the solution. He says that it is time to bring an end to traditional capitalism, and that a new age of social capitalism needs to begin. It sounds like a big experiment to me. Somehow I think the SRC School president does not know what he is talking about. Australia's economy is headed for a major deficit and a deep recession. The word depression is not on people's lips yet. But I think that is now a possibility.

Spend your money happily. It may be worth nothing tomorrow anyway.