Former California governor Arnold Schwarzegger gave an interview to India´s NDTV television company during his recent visit to Delhi. The transcript of the interview shows that the warmist ex governor seriously thinks that India is going to achieve energy independence by installing solar panels developed by the former railway engineer R.K. Pachauri! Schwarzenegger also had some interesting things to say about the US dependence on foreign fuel.
This is what Indians should do according to the great energy and security "expert" Schwarzenegger:
We are going to go and create energy independence. We are not going to do this like the developed countries, where everyone has to beg for the grid to work, for electricity to arrive or for some power company to say, alright six weeks maybe we will install some energy in your part. No, I am going to go and develop a solar panel like Dr Pachauri is, where he took out a whole idea where to light a billion lives. That whole programme where he wants to go get people off kerosene lamps and have a solar panel, so they can have a light, they can have a stove and refrigerator etc. That's a whole new way of going that gives you energy independence, which other people don't have. They have to be slaves to the power companies now. And also India has a way of looking at the rest of the world and saying, why is for instance, America is relying 60 percent on fuel to come from outside? That makes the United States very vulnerable. So the national security goes down, as you rely more and more on this outside power.
The Terminator has probably been busy with too many greenie cocktail parties lately, because otherwise it is difficult to understand where he got his information about the "very vulnerable" US "relying 60 percent on fuel to come from outside".
A fact check could have spared Schwarzenegger from misinforming Indian television viewers. (But maybe the truth would have spoiled his environmentalist message?):
U.S. Energy Information Administration:
The United States imported about 49% of the petroleum, which includes crude oil and refined petroleum products, that we consumed during 2010. About half of these imports came from the Western Hemisphere. Our dependence on foreign petroleum has declined since peaking in 2005.
And some more facts:
The U.S. has reversed a two-decade-long decline in energy independence, increasing the proportion of demand met from domestic sources over the last six years to an estimated 81 percent through the first 10 months of 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from the U.S. Department of Energy. That would be the highest level since 1992.
“For 40 years, only politicians and the occasional author in Popular Mechanics magazine talked about achieving energy independence,” said Adam Sieminski, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to head the U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Now it doesn’t seem such an outlandish idea.”
The transformation, which could see the country become the world’s top energy producer by 2020, has implications for the economy and national security -- boosting household incomes, jobs and government revenue; cutting the trade deficit; enhancing manufacturers’ competitiveness; and allowing greater flexibility in dealing with unrest in the Middle East.
U.S. energy self-sufficiency has been steadily rising since 2005, when it hit a low of 70 percent, the data compiled by Bloomberg show
PS
Schwarzenegger´s description of R.K. Pachauri´s appearance in California some years ago is also interesting:
But I have seen him in California. He is like a rock star over there. People were listening to him like this, leaning forward, kind of inhaling and taking in every word that he said, because he is an extra ordinary human being, that has taken it upon himself, that I am going to lead an environment crusade, and go around the world and make sure we are going in the right direction, that is going to protect us from an international disaster.
It is of course possible that some of Pachauri´s most ecstatic followers in California were "kind of inhaling".
Saturday, 18 February 2012
The BBC reruns Jonathan Dimbleby´s uncritical "An African Journey"
The BBC is currently rerunning Jonathan Dimbleby´s "An African Journey". The three part series shows Dimbleby uncritically praising "not a continent of beggars but of industrious people". Barely a word about dictatorship, corruption or crime in Dimbleby´s fawning presentation.
Just one example:
At a party celebrating the Year of the Tiger, he learns how China's billion dollar deals have rebooted African economies, once dependent on Western aid and investment.
China´s biggest interest in Africa is in her natural resources and not in her people. Oil from Sudan, Nigeria, Angola and Gabon and minerals from South Africa and Zimbabwe, timber and agriculture products from everywhere, to name but a few. China’s sudden interest in Africa is therefore not only in oil-rich countries, but rather in all forms of raw materials. In return for natural resources, Africa is offering China a lucrative offset market for her cheap manufactured products. These products, such as textiles, are replacing domestic industries.
In essence, Africa is exporting her mineral wealth to act as fuel and much needed materials for the Chinese expansion, while importing manufactured products that outcompete with domestic alternatives, leaving Africa’s trade balance with China in a deficit! This is not altogether a new phenomenon – it has happened over a many decades in Africa’s trade with North America and Europe, the only difference now is that Africa imported technologically advanced products from the West she did not produce herself whereas Chinese products do replace local products and undermine local industries and companies.
--
Judging from the past, China is ultimately likely to begin to use its significant economic power for political ends. In other words, using political and economic
ties and contracts, it could pressurise African countries to support China’s political agenda - as it has done and continues to do to isolate Taiwan.
Coming now to the downright ugly side of the Chinese-Africa trade boom is China’s dubious human rights and environmental legacy, a legacy that is likely to blow over to Africa as China’s involvement in Africa increases. China’s close association with Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, for example, is a testimony of China’s seeming indifference to human rights abuses.
Neither does Dimbleby interview somebody like Raymond Hu, writing in Princeton´s American Foreign Policy:
Dissatisfaction with China’s close ties to corrupt African authorities also extends to other countries in an international context. Because China grants aid packages with “no strings attached”, oppressive dictatorial regimes have been able to subvert and survive Western efforts to initiate political reform. While Western nations have attempted to pass a UN arms embargo on the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur, China has sold $24 million worth of arms and $57 million worth of vehicles and equipment to Sudan. In Zimbabwe, Western sanctions to bring about reform were likewise undermined by China’s support to President Robert Mugabe’s regime in the form of $200 million worth of military vehicles and equipment.
Moral argument aside, the long-term political consequences of current Chinese investment practices in Africa will also be adverse. Already, signs of malcontent indicate that China needs to change its ways if it is to sustain its investment interests in Africa. In 2006, an opposition presidential candidate in Zambia ran his campaign on the idea of “Zambia for Zambians,” a platform in favor of expelling Chinese influence from the country. The disconnect between the official Chinese government rhetoric of “win-win” agreements and local realities will only entrench and perpetuate distrust of the Chinese. It will not take long for the common public to see through the veiled Chinese rhetoric of win-win situations that belies its real quest for natural resources and political control. China’s support of these rogue governments will inevitably harm its reputation on the global stage, reduce its credibility in international affairs, and degrade relations with its neighbors.
PS
Dimbleby´s uncritical approach is very typical for the BBC´s present Africa coverage in general. For some reason the BBC reporters also often treat Africans almost like children. One wonders why?
Just one example:
At a party celebrating the Year of the Tiger, he learns how China's billion dollar deals have rebooted African economies, once dependent on Western aid and investment.
Dimbleby does not interview people like the South African professor and economist James Blignaut, who know that China’s African safari has a flip side:
China´s biggest interest in Africa is in her natural resources and not in her people. Oil from Sudan, Nigeria, Angola and Gabon and minerals from South Africa and Zimbabwe, timber and agriculture products from everywhere, to name but a few. China’s sudden interest in Africa is therefore not only in oil-rich countries, but rather in all forms of raw materials. In return for natural resources, Africa is offering China a lucrative offset market for her cheap manufactured products. These products, such as textiles, are replacing domestic industries.
In essence, Africa is exporting her mineral wealth to act as fuel and much needed materials for the Chinese expansion, while importing manufactured products that outcompete with domestic alternatives, leaving Africa’s trade balance with China in a deficit! This is not altogether a new phenomenon – it has happened over a many decades in Africa’s trade with North America and Europe, the only difference now is that Africa imported technologically advanced products from the West she did not produce herself whereas Chinese products do replace local products and undermine local industries and companies.
--
Judging from the past, China is ultimately likely to begin to use its significant economic power for political ends. In other words, using political and economic
ties and contracts, it could pressurise African countries to support China’s political agenda - as it has done and continues to do to isolate Taiwan.
Coming now to the downright ugly side of the Chinese-Africa trade boom is China’s dubious human rights and environmental legacy, a legacy that is likely to blow over to Africa as China’s involvement in Africa increases. China’s close association with Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, for example, is a testimony of China’s seeming indifference to human rights abuses.
Neither does Dimbleby interview somebody like Raymond Hu, writing in Princeton´s American Foreign Policy:
Dissatisfaction with China’s close ties to corrupt African authorities also extends to other countries in an international context. Because China grants aid packages with “no strings attached”, oppressive dictatorial regimes have been able to subvert and survive Western efforts to initiate political reform. While Western nations have attempted to pass a UN arms embargo on the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur, China has sold $24 million worth of arms and $57 million worth of vehicles and equipment to Sudan. In Zimbabwe, Western sanctions to bring about reform were likewise undermined by China’s support to President Robert Mugabe’s regime in the form of $200 million worth of military vehicles and equipment.
Moral argument aside, the long-term political consequences of current Chinese investment practices in Africa will also be adverse. Already, signs of malcontent indicate that China needs to change its ways if it is to sustain its investment interests in Africa. In 2006, an opposition presidential candidate in Zambia ran his campaign on the idea of “Zambia for Zambians,” a platform in favor of expelling Chinese influence from the country. The disconnect between the official Chinese government rhetoric of “win-win” agreements and local realities will only entrench and perpetuate distrust of the Chinese. It will not take long for the common public to see through the veiled Chinese rhetoric of win-win situations that belies its real quest for natural resources and political control. China’s support of these rogue governments will inevitably harm its reputation on the global stage, reduce its credibility in international affairs, and degrade relations with its neighbors.
PS
Dimbleby´s uncritical approach is very typical for the BBC´s present Africa coverage in general. For some reason the BBC reporters also often treat Africans almost like children. One wonders why?
The shale gas revolution forces Gazprom to reduce prices in Europe
Russia´s Gazprom has been forced to lower the price it charges for the gas delivered to European Union customers and Turkey:
Deputy chairman of Gazprom Aleksandr Medvedev said "our partners asked us to revise our prices and…what we did is correct the parameters of our formula, which lead to the relative price reduction of 10 percent on the average."
Medvedev said "the new price will ensure Russian gas remains competitive."
---
Complaints by some EU countries that Gazprom was charging too high a price have been strengthened recently by the success in the U.S. of shale gas production.
The U.S. canceled plans to import liquefied natural gas from Russia after it became clear domestically produced shale gas could fill U.S. needs.
Russia reoriented that gas intended for the U.S. to markets in Europe but Poland, for example, is going ahead with exploration for shale gas Gaand Ukraine has already produced small amounts in its initial stage of development.
Gazprom continues to cast doubts on the viability of shale gas with Gazprom chief Aleksei Miller saying in his blog on the Gazprom website earlier this month "the so-called shale gas revolution is one and the same thing as American Hollywood."
Read the entire article here
PS
Miller may still continue to belittle the importance of shale gas. But the fact that Gazprom - which was hoping to dominate the European gas market - now has been forced to reduce the price in Europe, speaks volumes about the credibility of its childish denial of reality. And this is only the beginning of the shale gas revolution ...
Deputy chairman of Gazprom Aleksandr Medvedev said "our partners asked us to revise our prices and…what we did is correct the parameters of our formula, which lead to the relative price reduction of 10 percent on the average."
Medvedev said "the new price will ensure Russian gas remains competitive."
---
Complaints by some EU countries that Gazprom was charging too high a price have been strengthened recently by the success in the U.S. of shale gas production.
The U.S. canceled plans to import liquefied natural gas from Russia after it became clear domestically produced shale gas could fill U.S. needs.
Russia reoriented that gas intended for the U.S. to markets in Europe but Poland, for example, is going ahead with exploration for shale gas Gaand Ukraine has already produced small amounts in its initial stage of development.
Gazprom continues to cast doubts on the viability of shale gas with Gazprom chief Aleksei Miller saying in his blog on the Gazprom website earlier this month "the so-called shale gas revolution is one and the same thing as American Hollywood."
Read the entire article here
PS
Miller may still continue to belittle the importance of shale gas. But the fact that Gazprom - which was hoping to dominate the European gas market - now has been forced to reduce the price in Europe, speaks volumes about the credibility of its childish denial of reality. And this is only the beginning of the shale gas revolution ...
Friday, 17 February 2012
EU institutions and agencies waste enormous sums of taxpayers´ money
The huge bureaucracy called the European Union has 31 agencies, which are supposed to provide studies on issues ranging from drug addiction to trademark registration and police co-operation. Like most other EU institutions, these overstaffed and overpaid agencies, located in different member countries, live in a fantasy world of their own, without any connections to the real world of crisis and austerity measures.
Finally though, the European Court of Auditors is putting some pressure on these mostly useless institutions. According to a report sent by the Court to the European Parliament 11 of the 22 surveyed agencies could e.g. not properly account for half of their expences!
The EUobserver has more on the report:
The report - sent on Wednesday (15 February) to the European Parliament and seen by EUobserver - analyses the costs, financial management and "operational efficiency" of 22 out of the EU's 31 autonomous agencies.
--
As most of the bodies' budgets are based on EU subsidies, the Court of Auditors looked at their book-keeping practices and found that "increased vigilance is required in respect to the establishment of an agency's budget."
Eleven out of the 22 surveyed could not properly account for half the expenses they filed in 2010, the auditors found.
--
Another problem are the large "management boards" of some agencies - normally comprising around 30 representatives of member states, the European Commission, industry stakeholders and observers.
Three agencies mainly dealing with social and labour-related studies employ 84 members each on their respective management boards, as each country sends one government representative and two more representing employers and workers.
The auditor's report comes only a few days after Belgian eurosceptic MEP Derk Jan Eppink wrote a stinging analysis of how two other mini-institutions - the Brussels-based Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) waste huge sums of taxpayers´money.
Here is a summary of Mr. Eppink´findings:
Over the last eight years, the budgets of the EESC and CoR will have increased by some 50 percent, reaching €130 million and €86.5 million, respectively. There are around 50 officials at each committee with a minimum salary of €123.890 and six officials at each committee earning over €180,000 - more than the Dutch or UK prime minister.
Over half of the EESC's and the CoR's annual budgets are devoted to their members' expenses, travel costs and staff salaries and pensions.
In 2010, the 344 EESC members produced 181 opinions, which when divided with the annual budget means each opinion came at an average cost of €660,000, while no information is made available regarding how these opinions influenced legislation. If they did so at all.
Average travel expenses per member were €49,000, while a scheme whereby members receive 'lump sums' per meeting attended - without the need to prove they actually incurred the expenses - will still be in use until 2015. Why not now? The EESC remains elusive.
The main mandate of both committees is to "engage participation" from citizens. But there are many indications that neither committee is successful in this.
PS
This is the kind of information that mainstream media should provide to their readers in the various EU member countries. Regrettably the majority of media mainly follow the agenda set by the Brussels spin doctors. Kudos to the EUobserver for highlighting these important reports!
Finally though, the European Court of Auditors is putting some pressure on these mostly useless institutions. According to a report sent by the Court to the European Parliament 11 of the 22 surveyed agencies could e.g. not properly account for half of their expences!
The EUobserver has more on the report:
The report - sent on Wednesday (15 February) to the European Parliament and seen by EUobserver - analyses the costs, financial management and "operational efficiency" of 22 out of the EU's 31 autonomous agencies.
--
As most of the bodies' budgets are based on EU subsidies, the Court of Auditors looked at their book-keeping practices and found that "increased vigilance is required in respect to the establishment of an agency's budget."
Eleven out of the 22 surveyed could not properly account for half the expenses they filed in 2010, the auditors found.
--
Another problem are the large "management boards" of some agencies - normally comprising around 30 representatives of member states, the European Commission, industry stakeholders and observers.
Three agencies mainly dealing with social and labour-related studies employ 84 members each on their respective management boards, as each country sends one government representative and two more representing employers and workers.
The auditor's report comes only a few days after Belgian eurosceptic MEP Derk Jan Eppink wrote a stinging analysis of how two other mini-institutions - the Brussels-based Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) waste huge sums of taxpayers´money.
Here is a summary of Mr. Eppink´findings:
Over the last eight years, the budgets of the EESC and CoR will have increased by some 50 percent, reaching €130 million and €86.5 million, respectively. There are around 50 officials at each committee with a minimum salary of €123.890 and six officials at each committee earning over €180,000 - more than the Dutch or UK prime minister.
Over half of the EESC's and the CoR's annual budgets are devoted to their members' expenses, travel costs and staff salaries and pensions.
In 2010, the 344 EESC members produced 181 opinions, which when divided with the annual budget means each opinion came at an average cost of €660,000, while no information is made available regarding how these opinions influenced legislation. If they did so at all.
Average travel expenses per member were €49,000, while a scheme whereby members receive 'lump sums' per meeting attended - without the need to prove they actually incurred the expenses - will still be in use until 2015. Why not now? The EESC remains elusive.
The main mandate of both committees is to "engage participation" from citizens. But there are many indications that neither committee is successful in this.
PS
This is the kind of information that mainstream media should provide to their readers in the various EU member countries. Regrettably the majority of media mainly follow the agenda set by the Brussels spin doctors. Kudos to the EUobserver for highlighting these important reports!
The harsh reality of wind and solar energy
The harsh reality of green energy does not match its spin. Gary Lamphier, writing in the Edmonton Journal, tells us a story that the greenies want to sweep under the rug:
After all, when it comes to job creation, the green lobby isn't exactly dealing from strength. The renewable energy sector it so avidly promotes is full of investor disaster stories, bankruptcies, plant closures, job losses, red ink, foregone taxpayer loans, and allegations of political meddling.
It ain't a pretty picture, and it's one the enviro activists would rather sweep under a rug, safely out of public view. After all, the gritty truth undercuts their utopian dream of a clean, green energy future, one without fossil fuels.
Consider. Last year, the Wilderhill New Energy Index - a global index of nearly 100 green energy companies - plunged by 40 per cent. And that was no blip. Since the index was formed in January 2006, it has lost a third of its value.
Meanwhile, the Bloomberg Wind Energy Index, which includes 64 global companies, slumped by 22 per cent in 2011.
Denmark's Vestas Wind Systems, the world's largest wind turbine maker, shed two-thirds of its value last year. After turfing its CEO last fall, the company has repeatedly slashed its sales forecasts in the face of stiff competition from China.
Early this month, after Vestas posted a 2011 loss of $220 million US - four times bigger than analyst estimates - the company's chief financial officer quit. The company's stock closed Wednesday at just over $3, down from a 2008 high of nearly $50.
Solyndra, a California-based solar panel maker the U.S. administration enthusiastically supported - with Obama staging photo ops at the plant to affirm his green credentials - went bankrupt last fall, leaving taxpayers on the hook for a cool $535 million.
"Since the failure of the company, Obama's entire $80 billion clean-technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising re-election campaign," the Washington Post reported in December.
Read the entire article here
PS
The truth is that the wind and solar industries are totally dependent on tax subsidies for its existence. Fortunately the US Congress is beginning to realize that it is not worth wasting more tax payers´ money on these unprofitable and useless technologies. On Thursday it was reported that Congress would not be renewing a tax credit deal for wind energy projects.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
"The arrest of Vladimir Putin"
This video could vey well become reality in Russia in the not too distant future ...
PS
Here is some background information:
"The Arrest of Vladimir Putin: A Report From The Courtroom" has been watched almost 2 million times on YouTube and republished to dozens of Russian blogs and websites.
Viewers have left more than 18,000 comments, including calls that the producer be awarded an Oscar for film editing.
The startlingly realistic clip, in the style of a Russian television news report, purports to show "former" Prime Minister Vladimir Putin being hauled into a Moscow courtroom to face charges including large-scale corruption and participating in a terrorist act with the purpose of intimidating the public and influencing the government.
The charge apparently refers to the 1999 apartment-building bombings that rocked Moscow and other Russian cities in the run-up to Putin taking over the presidency in 2000.
Viewers have left more than 18,000 comments, including calls that the producer be awarded an Oscar for film editing.
The startlingly realistic clip, in the style of a Russian television news report, purports to show "former" Prime Minister Vladimir Putin being hauled into a Moscow courtroom to face charges including large-scale corruption and participating in a terrorist act with the purpose of intimidating the public and influencing the government.
The charge apparently refers to the 1999 apartment-building bombings that rocked Moscow and other Russian cities in the run-up to Putin taking over the presidency in 2000.
Free trade is not working
I used to be an eager believer in international free trade. Not anymore. The kind of free trade that has led to huge unemployment, with industrial production moving to cheap labour countries in Asia, has not benefited the great majority of people in the western countries.
More and more people in the U.S. and Europe are beginning to realise what is happening. The American economist Ian Fletcher, who´s book "Free Trade Does Not Work" has received a lot of positive attention recently, here explains what is wrong with the present cult of free trade:
More and more people in the U.S. and Europe are beginning to realise what is happening. The American economist Ian Fletcher, who´s book "Free Trade Does Not Work" has received a lot of positive attention recently, here explains what is wrong with the present cult of free trade:
PS
Free trade between e.g. the U.S. and Europe - possibly including countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand - where the economic, political and cultural systems are close to each other, could very well be a good option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)