Monday, August 18, 2008

Green Speculation

Commenter RAH at the Belmont Club (5:26 pm) speculates on how the Green Movement and CO2 hysteria have played into the hands of the Russians.

Russian President Medeyev was Gazprom President. In his new position he is buying contracts from other countries. Venezuela sells oil to Russia; Libya just signed a contract with Medeyev and Gazprom. I believe that they got the contracts from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Saudi Arabia provides oil to the US as well as Kuwait and they are our client countries.

They have been trying to secure outside sources for oil and gas. They recently this spring went to the artic to lay claim to the sources that may be there. Both Sweden and Finland are contesting those areas. Canada also has interest in the artic. The sea ice in the artic actually has changed and the melt has been prominent in the Russian area. The Canadian ice has been getting thicker. The Russia took advantage of the open sea to explore and lay claim. Russia has been the primary interest in the PARS field in Iran that the French company just pulled out.

So Gazprom has known about the need to get more sources since this is Medeyev’s obsession. The clash for oil sources will be the 21st century issue for some time to come. The fools who decry no oil for blood are clueless about how seriously nations will get to secure their energy. Energy is really the life and blood of a nations economy.

After the Soviet fall the Communist and Marxists groups and agitators went into the Green Movement. The Green Movement and the global warming scare have been targeted at Europe. Now it is curious that Russia has been from the 1990’s trying to become Europe’s energy supplier as the Green movement has insisted that power generation be only from natural gas and not coal that Germany has in abundance. Also they forced Germany under Schroeder to phase out the nuclear power generators. Later Schroeder went and worked for Medeyev’s Gazprom.

There is a true collusion from the promoters of Global Warming and the Green Movement that has been strangling Europe to work against its own national interests.
The vociferous attack against those that speak out about global warming as a product of human produced CO2 has been very strong and picked up by the liberal left and almost accepted doctrine in the West. Now we are just starting to show the cracks in that movement and science with bad methodology and sensors and cook algorithms.
Now what would be a good idea is to look at the funding of these groups and see if they have been funded or a disinformation campaign by Russia. The timing is right and the interests do coincide.

Russia never stopped working against the US and since we are their competitor on the world stage it is not surprising. Russia has fomented terrorism in Libya from the 1970’s and then in Syria and Iraq and Iran. They are also working in South America with Venezuela and Bolivia. So Russia has never stopped the Cold War it just went in different direction and form
Speculation of course. But it rings true. The parts fit. So who is funding AL Gore? And isn't it time McCain dropped his carbon tax ideas?

In any case it also fits with the idea of the Uber Enviros being like Watermelons: Green on the outside Red on the inside. They should be ashamed of themselves. Starting resource wars and all especially in the midst of plenty (at current prices).

Cross Posted at Classical Values


artisan said...

americans and america are some times unbeleivably niave. we bumble off whistling after defeating our enemy (soviet communisim) telling them in o so american fasion, no hard feelings lets be friends, we are the atithesis of the bully on the block, if we kick another countries ass we dont "take thier lunch money" we pick them up dust them off and offer them our lunch money. then with actual and true surprise we find out the powers that control these "former enemies" still hate us and see us as rivals. the sheer willful blindness of western culture to the threats internal and external that would like to destroy our way of life is stagering to me.

very disheartening, im gonna go get some laughs and watch the bob saggett roast on comedy central.

M. Simon said...


It is first of all our nature. Second of all it is effective grand strategy: if you invite the Americans in they will leave when asked. If you get defeated by the Americans and behave they will treat you nice. It reduces the intensity of fighting.

Of course in WW2 no one knew and the fighting was intense. Now a days it is better known and "to the death" is only for fanatics.

jj mollo said...

A petroleum tax is still a good idea. The impact of a carefully monitored tax will keep the price high at the pump but put downward pressure on the price from the producer. The effect of a tax is to depress domestic use and encourage a whole range of substitutes. What it would mean for the economy is that at least part of the money that is going to SA and Russia and Venezuela would stay in the US. This is no different than a sin tax, and financing our enemies is arguably a sin.

The US govt could then turn around and invest the revenues into anything that would stimulate the economy. The result could be net zero with reduced revenues for our enemies.

Right now the PRC is actually doing the opposite. They are subsidizing the use of oil, in spite of a 10% annual GDP growth rate. It's really insane.

The substitutes could be anything, but most likely electricty. There is a part to play in a low petroleum economy for coal, gas, ethanol, nuclear, hydro, tides, what-the-heck -- anything -- and we'd still be better off. We are presently a petroleum monoculture, dependent on our suppliers. It's not a good situation.

Personally, I'm an incorrigible CO2 alarmist, but it seems to me that we will never be able to reduce CO2 until we can reduce our embarrassing dependence.

Nuclear is my best hope. If Gore were to get serious, as serious as he pretends to be, he would also be advocating a crash program in nuclear -- sodium-cooled fast reactors in US secure locations, pebble-bed LS-VHTR elsewhere. Even better, of course, would be if one of your fusion schemes came to fruition.

M. Simon said...


Lower fuel prices will stimulate the economy.

In addition if the fuel is from American wells the government will reap tax advantages (corporate taxes), more jobs for Americans (income taxes), and a direct recycling of petro dollars and a defunding of a number of American enemies.

Every time the government comes up with some kind of tax scheme to help the economy it makes things worse.

M. Simon said...

Personally, I'm an incorrigible CO2 alarmist,

That is not a very scientific attitude.

jj mollo said...

I'm not going to argue AGW with you. I am going to argue about the tax, though. You are indeed correct that lower fuel prices will stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, they will also stimulate use of those fuels.

I want for us to stop using foreign oil. I believe that the best way to do that is to conserve, but conservation can never be imposed by force. Let the market do it for you. If the US government is skimming something off the top of petroleum-based fuels, then it will discourage the use of fuels and depress the economy. If the govt then turns around and lowers another tax, it will stimulate the economy. If they invest the money in domestic alternative energy sources or conservation efforts instead, then independence will be encouraged and jobs will be created -- hopefully enough to compensate for the ones that are lost to the tax.

It's a balancing act. I believe that the Federal Reserve should be tasked with maintaining that careful balance. Their mission should be to reduce the use of oil through a variable tax rate, while at the same time avoiding recession and inflation.

M. Simon said...


Conservation enforced by high prices is a sure way to destroy the American economy.

Now I'm with you on getting off (or greatly reducing the need for) foreign oil. The quickest way to do that is drill, drill, drill.

BTW did you notice today that some Cong. Critters (can't remember if state or Federal) say our biggest worry is a little ice age. Given low solar output and dropping global temps.

It may very well be that you have been conned about CO2.

And why won't conservation have much effect in a global economy? China and India. Second reason? It takes 50 to 100 years to transition to new energy sources.

Logistics is a bitch. Most folks (99.9%) have no idea. You don't deploy 1E12 watts worth of energy infrastructure in a year or even 10.

You also need to consider the folks at the bottom of the heap. Energy affects the cost of everything.

linearthinker said...


I'll try to be as polite as our host, but make no promises.

Your suggestion to tax oil and provide government subsidies to alternate energy sources is a non-starter. Simon's dealt well with the fallacy of government tinkering with taxation to fix a problem. I'll confine my remark to the fallacy of relying on government to steer the alternative energy developments. I can't think of a worse course of action. The last people in the country that I trust with the task is an expanded government bureaucracy with Congress setting their direction and holding their purse strings.

We have no US fossil fuel energy shortfall. We have enough fossil fuels in this country for 200 years at about present rate of consumption. What we have is insane policies foisted off on us by the government. We need to get the bureaucrats and environmentalists the hell out of the way, open our resources to development, and let the market set the prices. In the meantime the nuclear plants needed to power industry and a growing fleet of electrical commuter vehicles can come on line, as well as innovations like polywell fusion. Wind power is a myth favored by rent seekers like T.Boone Pickens, who's only seeking to maximize his natural gas profits for standby electrical power when his subsidized windmills can't meet demand. Solar will contribute, but ultimately only at the margins.

Heavy transportation will be dependent on gas and diesel for the foreseeable future.

You don't want to hear what I think of incorrigible CO2 alarmists. You seem reasonably articulate, indicating there's some intelligence behind your comments. I suggest you put that intelligence to work examining the evidence against the CO2 myth.

jj mollo said...

If AGW turns out to be a false hypothesis, then either there is no problem or global cooling is the problem as some skeptics like to suggest. Global cooling, however, is easily addressed. One possible approach would be to release, or economically encourage the release, of methane into the atmosphere. It's a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Remediation for global warming is much more complicated, involving things like space shields, or increased particulate releases into the stratosphere (causing acid rain perhaps), or direct scavenging of CO2 from the atmosphere. The iron dumping scheme was the most hopeful, but current thinking is that it would not be extremely effective, and a lot of folks are scared to try it anyway.

Since the effort involved is asymmetric, it makes the most sense to plan for the more difficult scenario. The scenario of no plan whatsoever is irresponsible, akin to the response of a teenager who refuses to go to college because McDonald's already pays a pretty good wage.

Personally I think that the current solar situation is cooling the planet -- temporarily. IMO, we have a reprieve. We'll see soon enough.

The fact is that absolutely nothing is going to happen with US policy because of the political deadlock. The environmentalists will do everything they can to sabotage new oil, coal, dams, or sometimes even windmills. The conservative opposition will simply thwart the greens' efforts for reduced usage. The result is that we will continue on the path we are on, using more and more foreign oil. The oil monoculture will continue to narrow our options. Both sides will be unhappy and neither goal will be met.

If you want to actually accomplish something, use a compromise policy. The greens' weak point is nuclear energy. Their arguments against it are unscientific, hysterical and conspiratorial. It can be changed, and has been with select individuals. Even Al Gore, I suspect, is a closet nuclear supporter. He can't say it for fear of offending his base.

So offer them something. Offer an anti-oil policy combined with moderate conservation efforts. Make them feel like they have their foot in the door. In exchange, demand freedom to rapidly expand coal-gasification and nuclear power, and take the trouble to convince them that nuclear is safe and effective. (You may have to use Harry and Louise for that. Maybe having a picnic outside at TMI.) There is also very little harm in promoting wind and solar to a reasonable extent.

M. Simon said...

The uber greens object to wind AND coal. Solar covers too much area.

And then there is the problem of price. If China energy is $2.50 a unit and America's is $5 a unit guess who gets the business?

BTW re: releasing methane: who will pay for it?

The Republican energy plan is: everything. The Democrat plan is no carbon and the rest where there are no objections.