Researchers at Duke University´s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions have used models to simulate the effects of climate change on beach size, beach attendance and beach-goer spending at 51 public beaches in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
The researcher have found that small beaches are the losers if there is a 1-meter rise in the sea level a hundred years from now:
“We found, as relatively small beaches shrink more due to sea level rise, people will stop visiting them, opting for wider beaches.”
Fortunately the researchers have made some exciting new findings about how small beaches can fight back - a hundred years from now:
Adding lifeguards, convenient parking and improving water quality could help make up for some of the lost sand.
Read the entire article here
Who could have guessed?
We should probably be grateful that the Duke modellers at least seem to think that there still are people and cars around in the year 2112. Maybe global warming will not after all cause the kind of apocalypse that Gore and his likes are saying if you you can beat it with a couple of lifeguards and more convenient parking?
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Gazprom under Putin´s rule: "more like an organized crime syndicate than a legal corporation"
The eminent Swedish economist Anders Åslund, who knows Russia extremely well, has written a damning account of how Vladimir Putin has misused and mismanaged Russia´s energy giant Gazprom:
Gazprom has been Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's main preoccupation since 2001, but it has been a spectacular failure. possesses huge natural resources, however, it is extremely inefficient because of poor management and massive corruption. In addition, it pursues an aggressive foreign policy that harms both the company and Russia. In reality, Gazprom in many ways is more important in advancing the Kremlin's foreign policy than the Defense Ministry or the Foreign Ministry.
In short, the way Gazprom is run is an accurate model for how Putin rules Russia.
---
As a result of poor management and corruption, Gazprom's production has been stagnant for the last two decades, and its share of Russia's gas output has fallen to 76 percent. It enjoys a monopoly on gas exports, but its net exports have declined for the last decade. The company's strategy is problematic. Essentially, Gazprom just sits on its giant fields that comprise a quarter of global reserves of traditional gas, and it pipes this gas from western Siberia to Europe. It maintains its old strategy with remarkable conservatism and does not stand up to new opportunities or challenges.
---
Meanwhile, the gas industry is going through a revolution with a huge new supply of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and shale gas, but Gazprom barely participates in this game. It gained some LNG production after it muscled in on Royal Dutch Shell's Sakhalin project, whereas it has largely ignored the shale gas market. Gas prices have fallen sharply in the United States and decoupled from high oil prices, while Gazprom insists on high prices linked to the oil price. It also persists with long-term contracts, trying to avoid spot markets. As a result, Gazprom's export volumes to Europe have fallen and are likely to decline further despite the gas bonanza.
---
Gazprom's largest preoccupation is to build pipelines that are not needed. It is building both Nord Stream (55 billion cubic meters) and South Stream (63 bcm). South Stream is likely to cost at least $30 billion, while Nord Stream may cost half as much. This capacity is not needed because the Ukrainian pipeline system can transit at least 120 bcm of natural gas to Europe and only needs limited repairs for $3.5 billion. Why throw away $45 billion? The reason is not cost efficiency. Gazprom's pipelines cost two to three times per kilometer more to build than similar projects.
---
the total amount of sheer waste and corruption may have amounted to $40 billion last year, almost equaling Gazprom's net profit of $44.7 billion. That sounds more like an organized crime syndicate than a legal corporation. If Gazprom were one-tenth as large, due diligence would prevent major international financial corporations from dealing with it.
Read the entire article here
PS
Russia is a country with enormous natural resources, which - well used - could help make life for ordinary Russians much better. But it will not happen as long as Vladimir Putin is in charge. Fortunately, though, more and more Russians have become aware of the true state of affairs in their country and are demanding an end to the disastrous Putin regime.
Gazprom has been Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's main preoccupation since 2001, but it has been a spectacular failure. possesses huge natural resources, however, it is extremely inefficient because of poor management and massive corruption. In addition, it pursues an aggressive foreign policy that harms both the company and Russia. In reality, Gazprom in many ways is more important in advancing the Kremlin's foreign policy than the Defense Ministry or the Foreign Ministry.
In short, the way Gazprom is run is an accurate model for how Putin rules Russia.
---
As a result of poor management and corruption, Gazprom's production has been stagnant for the last two decades, and its share of Russia's gas output has fallen to 76 percent. It enjoys a monopoly on gas exports, but its net exports have declined for the last decade. The company's strategy is problematic. Essentially, Gazprom just sits on its giant fields that comprise a quarter of global reserves of traditional gas, and it pipes this gas from western Siberia to Europe. It maintains its old strategy with remarkable conservatism and does not stand up to new opportunities or challenges.
---
Meanwhile, the gas industry is going through a revolution with a huge new supply of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, and shale gas, but Gazprom barely participates in this game. It gained some LNG production after it muscled in on Royal Dutch Shell's Sakhalin project, whereas it has largely ignored the shale gas market. Gas prices have fallen sharply in the United States and decoupled from high oil prices, while Gazprom insists on high prices linked to the oil price. It also persists with long-term contracts, trying to avoid spot markets. As a result, Gazprom's export volumes to Europe have fallen and are likely to decline further despite the gas bonanza.
---
Gazprom's largest preoccupation is to build pipelines that are not needed. It is building both Nord Stream (55 billion cubic meters) and South Stream (63 bcm). South Stream is likely to cost at least $30 billion, while Nord Stream may cost half as much. This capacity is not needed because the Ukrainian pipeline system can transit at least 120 bcm of natural gas to Europe and only needs limited repairs for $3.5 billion. Why throw away $45 billion? The reason is not cost efficiency. Gazprom's pipelines cost two to three times per kilometer more to build than similar projects.
---
the total amount of sheer waste and corruption may have amounted to $40 billion last year, almost equaling Gazprom's net profit of $44.7 billion. That sounds more like an organized crime syndicate than a legal corporation. If Gazprom were one-tenth as large, due diligence would prevent major international financial corporations from dealing with it.
Read the entire article here
PS
Russia is a country with enormous natural resources, which - well used - could help make life for ordinary Russians much better. But it will not happen as long as Vladimir Putin is in charge. Fortunately, though, more and more Russians have become aware of the true state of affairs in their country and are demanding an end to the disastrous Putin regime.
Germans do not believe that the Greek bailout will work
German taxpayers are not stupid:
A majority of Germans believe the bailout (of Greece) won't work. According to a survey conducted by pollster Emnid and published on Sunday, 62 percent said they wanted parliament to vote "No" on Monday. Only 33 percent were in favor. Almost two-thirds said they were convinced that Greece can't be rescued from state bankruptcy.
But the Merkel Government (with the help of a clear majority in the German parliament) continues its disastrous bailout policy despite of the will of the people and the opinion of a growing number of economists.
And when a minister dares to disagree, he is immediately rebuked by the Chancellor:
Chancellor Angela Merkel was forced to rebuke one of her cabinet ministers, Hans-Peter Friedrich, for breaking ranks with the government's line and saying Greece should be encouraged to quit the euro.
Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said she "doesn't share this view" and believed that the priority was to stabilize Greece within the euro zone.
Seibert added that the center-right coalition government had a unified position on the €130 billion ($175 billion) package for Greece.
Merkel's move prompted Friedrich, who is interior minister, to distance himself from his own statements. "We assume as the federal government that Greece can be reformed and made more competitive within the euro zone," he told reporters ahead of a meeting of conservative leaders in parliament on Monday. "I have no doubts about the chancellor's bailout course." He added that his own support for the second bailout package for Greece had never been in question. The package, he said, was for the time being the "best alternative, otherwise I wouldn't vote for it."
However, in an interview with SPIEGEL published on Monday, Friedrich had said: "Greece's chances to regenerate itself and become competitive are surely greater outside the monetary union than if it remains in the euro area."
The interior minister does not seem to be the only member of the government who has doubts about Merkel´s policy:
the center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported on Monday that Friedrich may not be the only government member to have major doubts about the strategy to rescue Greece.
The newspaper reported that other ministers, among them Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and Economics Minister Philipp Rösler, had privately voiced doubts that the crisis management strategy can work. The newspaper gave no further details.
Read the entire article here
PS
It is, of course, possible that all this is just political theatre. Mrs. Merkel could in the end turn out to be the greatest eurosceptic of them all.
.
A majority of Germans believe the bailout (of Greece) won't work. According to a survey conducted by pollster Emnid and published on Sunday, 62 percent said they wanted parliament to vote "No" on Monday. Only 33 percent were in favor. Almost two-thirds said they were convinced that Greece can't be rescued from state bankruptcy.
But the Merkel Government (with the help of a clear majority in the German parliament) continues its disastrous bailout policy despite of the will of the people and the opinion of a growing number of economists.
And when a minister dares to disagree, he is immediately rebuked by the Chancellor:
Chancellor Angela Merkel was forced to rebuke one of her cabinet ministers, Hans-Peter Friedrich, for breaking ranks with the government's line and saying Greece should be encouraged to quit the euro.
Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said she "doesn't share this view" and believed that the priority was to stabilize Greece within the euro zone.
Seibert added that the center-right coalition government had a unified position on the €130 billion ($175 billion) package for Greece.
Merkel's move prompted Friedrich, who is interior minister, to distance himself from his own statements. "We assume as the federal government that Greece can be reformed and made more competitive within the euro zone," he told reporters ahead of a meeting of conservative leaders in parliament on Monday. "I have no doubts about the chancellor's bailout course." He added that his own support for the second bailout package for Greece had never been in question. The package, he said, was for the time being the "best alternative, otherwise I wouldn't vote for it."
However, in an interview with SPIEGEL published on Monday, Friedrich had said: "Greece's chances to regenerate itself and become competitive are surely greater outside the monetary union than if it remains in the euro area."
The interior minister does not seem to be the only member of the government who has doubts about Merkel´s policy:
the center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported on Monday that Friedrich may not be the only government member to have major doubts about the strategy to rescue Greece.
The newspaper reported that other ministers, among them Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and Economics Minister Philipp Rösler, had privately voiced doubts that the crisis management strategy can work. The newspaper gave no further details.
Read the entire article here
PS
It is, of course, possible that all this is just political theatre. Mrs. Merkel could in the end turn out to be the greatest eurosceptic of them all.
.
Monday, 27 February 2012
The German solar madness: "Chinese boom has been generously supported by German financial aid"
Having read the Der Spiegel article about the total failure of the Merkel government´s solar energy and climate change policy , one wonders how long the German taxpayers are going to accept the madness:
Germany long aimed to be a front runner in the solar energy industry, but waning subsidies and rising competition from China have clouded its outlook. To add insult to injury, the Chinese boom has been generously supported by German financial aid.
It was a bad week for Germany's crisis-ridden solar industry. First the government announced plans to slash subsidies for electricity from solar energy. Then the share prices of solar-panel makers plunged. Finally, after several rainy days in a row, the outlook for Germany's solar economic miracle, long enthused about by Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, now seems worse than ever before.
It is indeed true that Asian low-wage manufacturers have access to funding sources to which German companies do not. Those sources include the German government's budget for development aid, as well as the budgets of government institutions that aim to promote what the environment ministry calls "global climate justice" in its brochures. More than €100 million ($134 million) in government subsidies have already reached China from Germany, partly along circuitous routes, to bolster an industry that has already become the dominant global market player in some areas.
Germany long aimed to be a front runner in the solar energy industry, but waning subsidies and rising competition from China have clouded its outlook. To add insult to injury, the Chinese boom has been generously supported by German financial aid.
It was a bad week for Germany's crisis-ridden solar industry. First the government announced plans to slash subsidies for electricity from solar energy. Then the share prices of solar-panel makers plunged. Finally, after several rainy days in a row, the outlook for Germany's solar economic miracle, long enthused about by Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, now seems worse than ever before.
The environment minister with the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is aware who is principally to blame for the plight of the German solar industry: the Chinese. The emerging economy's dumping policy has led to ruinous competition in the global market for solar panels, Röttgen said last Thursday, when he accused the Chinese of pursuing a "pricing policy designed to displace German companies." Thanks to generous Chinese government subsidies, he added, the competition is able to "obtain almost unlimited capital."
It is indeed true that Asian low-wage manufacturers have access to funding sources to which German companies do not. Those sources include the German government's budget for development aid, as well as the budgets of government institutions that aim to promote what the environment ministry calls "global climate justice" in its brochures. More than €100 million ($134 million) in government subsidies have already reached China from Germany, partly along circuitous routes, to bolster an industry that has already become the dominant global market player in some areas.
Warmist professor of international law tries to make AGW a human rights issue
Warmists are getting more and more desperate as the UN promoted climate cult is fastly losing support among both decision makers and the general public worldwide. Dinah Shelton, professor of international law at the George Washington University Law School, is now trying to make global warming a human rights issue, "because nothing else is working":
Dinah Shelton, who chairs the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, said various regional treaties – to which over 100 countries are signatories – enshrine the “right to a safe and healthy environment”.
“Why take a human rights approach to climate change? First, in a rather cynical way because nothing else is working,” said Shelton, of the George Washington University Law School.
“We have seen efforts through the environmental law regime, we’ve seen 25 years of sustainable development since the Brundtland Commission, and the emphasis has been much more on ‘development’ than ‘sustainable’; the climate change situation does not seem to have improved.
“Can human rights address some of these issues in a more effective manner? I think the answer is yes, partly because of the very high place that human rights law plays in the global community.”
Read the entire article here
Professor Shelton is right about the cynicism (in her own approach) and the fact that human rights still has a high place in the (western part) of the global community. But her suggestion that the AGW religion should have some direct link to human rights is preposterous. By openly promoting the global warming scam, professor Shelton is seriously weakening the "high place that human rights law plays in the global community". But that does not seem to bother this climate cultist, who apparently is intent on destroying the credibility of her own field of research.
What is fortunate, however, is that professor Shelton´s approach to global warming is most certainly going to end up in the same heap of rubbish where we find the rest of the fake AGW science propaganda.
Dinah Shelton, who chairs the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, said various regional treaties – to which over 100 countries are signatories – enshrine the “right to a safe and healthy environment”.
“Why take a human rights approach to climate change? First, in a rather cynical way because nothing else is working,” said Shelton, of the George Washington University Law School.
“We have seen efforts through the environmental law regime, we’ve seen 25 years of sustainable development since the Brundtland Commission, and the emphasis has been much more on ‘development’ than ‘sustainable’; the climate change situation does not seem to have improved.
“Can human rights address some of these issues in a more effective manner? I think the answer is yes, partly because of the very high place that human rights law plays in the global community.”
Read the entire article here
Professor Shelton is right about the cynicism (in her own approach) and the fact that human rights still has a high place in the (western part) of the global community. But her suggestion that the AGW religion should have some direct link to human rights is preposterous. By openly promoting the global warming scam, professor Shelton is seriously weakening the "high place that human rights law plays in the global community". But that does not seem to bother this climate cultist, who apparently is intent on destroying the credibility of her own field of research.
What is fortunate, however, is that professor Shelton´s approach to global warming is most certainly going to end up in the same heap of rubbish where we find the rest of the fake AGW science propaganda.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
What will happen in South Africa after Mandela dies?
The latest scare about Nelson Mandela´s health raises questions about what will happen in South Africa when he dies. The British writer Fred Bridgland, who lives in Johannesburg, is worried:
The fear is that politics in South Africa will become much more raw and ruthless once Mandela dies. Already the extent to which the ANC, the organisation to which Mandela devoted his entire adult life, has lost its hold over its own stated core principles is astonishing. “The rot has been evident for some time, spreading ever deeper into the very soul of the organisation,” says veteran liberal journalist and ANC sympathiser Allister Sparks. “We have become a corrupt country. The whole body politic is riddled with it. We have reached a kind of corruption gridlock. When so many people in high places have the dirt on each other, no-one dares blow a whistle. When the President of the country (Jacob Zuma) has managed to get off the hook on a major corruption case (charges relating to bribes associated with the country’s multi-billion dollar arms deal with Britain and other European Union countries), how can he crack down on corruption anywhere else in his administration?
“We have gone backwards on the two core principles that carried the ANC through all the long years of its liberation struggle, through the tough constitutional negotiating process and into the dawn of the new South Africa – the principle of non-racialism and the principle of clean, honest government that would deliver a better life for all.”
The ANC under Zuma has tolerated toxic verbal assaults on the white minority by the firebrand ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, whose rants have poisoned the national atmosphere to a degree not seen since apartheid days. Whites’ resentment of reverse racial discrimination has been exacerbated by the way the policy of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) has been applied. BEE was meant to open up economic opportunities long denied to the black majority and level the economic playing field. Unfortunately, as designed by the ANC, it has involved re-instituting racial classification in a society that loudly proclaims to the world that it has non-racial principles. BEE has enriched only blacks at or near the summit of the ANC, creating multi-millionaires overnight, while driving abroad qualified young whites who had nothing to do with the dispossession, oppression and exploitation of blacks in the past and who see no future if they are to be discriminated against when job-hunting in “the new South Africa.” Moeletsi Mbeki, younger brother of former President Mbeki, says: “The trouble with BEE is that the guys who were given the shares (in former white-owned companies) are not creating jobs, they’re not creating new products, they’re not creating anything that will increase our exports. The fact is that BEE is a politicians’ Ponzi scheme. Black people, mostly the poor and working class, are being ripped off to enrich these guys.”
Read the entire article here
The fear is that politics in South Africa will become much more raw and ruthless once Mandela dies. Already the extent to which the ANC, the organisation to which Mandela devoted his entire adult life, has lost its hold over its own stated core principles is astonishing. “The rot has been evident for some time, spreading ever deeper into the very soul of the organisation,” says veteran liberal journalist and ANC sympathiser Allister Sparks. “We have become a corrupt country. The whole body politic is riddled with it. We have reached a kind of corruption gridlock. When so many people in high places have the dirt on each other, no-one dares blow a whistle. When the President of the country (Jacob Zuma) has managed to get off the hook on a major corruption case (charges relating to bribes associated with the country’s multi-billion dollar arms deal with Britain and other European Union countries), how can he crack down on corruption anywhere else in his administration?
“We have gone backwards on the two core principles that carried the ANC through all the long years of its liberation struggle, through the tough constitutional negotiating process and into the dawn of the new South Africa – the principle of non-racialism and the principle of clean, honest government that would deliver a better life for all.”
The ANC under Zuma has tolerated toxic verbal assaults on the white minority by the firebrand ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, whose rants have poisoned the national atmosphere to a degree not seen since apartheid days. Whites’ resentment of reverse racial discrimination has been exacerbated by the way the policy of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) has been applied. BEE was meant to open up economic opportunities long denied to the black majority and level the economic playing field. Unfortunately, as designed by the ANC, it has involved re-instituting racial classification in a society that loudly proclaims to the world that it has non-racial principles. BEE has enriched only blacks at or near the summit of the ANC, creating multi-millionaires overnight, while driving abroad qualified young whites who had nothing to do with the dispossession, oppression and exploitation of blacks in the past and who see no future if they are to be discriminated against when job-hunting in “the new South Africa.” Moeletsi Mbeki, younger brother of former President Mbeki, says: “The trouble with BEE is that the guys who were given the shares (in former white-owned companies) are not creating jobs, they’re not creating new products, they’re not creating anything that will increase our exports. The fact is that BEE is a politicians’ Ponzi scheme. Black people, mostly the poor and working class, are being ripped off to enrich these guys.”
Read the entire article here
The Voice of America is also the voice of Putin?
This is really sad: U.S. taxpayers are funding pro-Putin Voice of America programs.
Ted Lipien, former VOA acting associate director reports about the "reset" of broadcasting policy at the VOA´s Russian service:
If American taxpayers had any idea what kind of messages Voice of America (VOA) is sending in their name and at their expense to Russia, they would be hopping mad.
Opposition leaders and independent journalists in Russia have warned that the VOA Russian website has a pro-Putin bias and downplays human rights reporting, but the latest scandal brings the harm to a new level. The VOA site posted a fake interview and embarrassed a leading Russian pro-democracy figure.
The VOA is funded by Americans to broadcast information programs to countries without free media. A leading Russian anti-corruption lawyer and Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, wrote a scathing Twitter comment accusing VOA of "going nuts."
He dismissed the purported interview with him on the Russian website as "100 percent fake." He further suggested that someone in Washington should start listening and "let all these guys go."
The VOA Russian Service removed the interview and apologized to Navalny, no doubt hoping the scandal would soon blow over.
But the story was picked up by RIA Novosti news agency and other Russian media, which reported on it in Russian and English. Significantly, the VOA English website ignored the whole incident.
What we have here is not just an isolated journalistic flop. Russian opposition leaders have known for quite some time there is something fundamentally wrong with the VOA Russian website.
In early 2011, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency that runs VOA, commissioned a study from a highly respected independent journalist living in Russia.
He warned that the website favored a pro-Putin line. It even downplayed a human rights speech delivered in Moscow by Vice President Joseph Biden.
The BBG bureaucrats did not highlight this damning assessment to members of the bipartisan board or to the new VOA director, David Ensor. They told them instead that the Russian Service was doing a terrific job.
On the day the Russian Service editors were getting ready to post their apology, Ensor praised them for being a model of innovation.
Read the entire article here
Ted Lipien, former VOA acting associate director reports about the "reset" of broadcasting policy at the VOA´s Russian service:
If American taxpayers had any idea what kind of messages Voice of America (VOA) is sending in their name and at their expense to Russia, they would be hopping mad.
Opposition leaders and independent journalists in Russia have warned that the VOA Russian website has a pro-Putin bias and downplays human rights reporting, but the latest scandal brings the harm to a new level. The VOA site posted a fake interview and embarrassed a leading Russian pro-democracy figure.
The VOA is funded by Americans to broadcast information programs to countries without free media. A leading Russian anti-corruption lawyer and Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, wrote a scathing Twitter comment accusing VOA of "going nuts."
He dismissed the purported interview with him on the Russian website as "100 percent fake." He further suggested that someone in Washington should start listening and "let all these guys go."
The VOA Russian Service removed the interview and apologized to Navalny, no doubt hoping the scandal would soon blow over.
But the story was picked up by RIA Novosti news agency and other Russian media, which reported on it in Russian and English. Significantly, the VOA English website ignored the whole incident.
What we have here is not just an isolated journalistic flop. Russian opposition leaders have known for quite some time there is something fundamentally wrong with the VOA Russian website.
In early 2011, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency that runs VOA, commissioned a study from a highly respected independent journalist living in Russia.
He warned that the website favored a pro-Putin line. It even downplayed a human rights speech delivered in Moscow by Vice President Joseph Biden.
The BBG bureaucrats did not highlight this damning assessment to members of the bipartisan board or to the new VOA director, David Ensor. They told them instead that the Russian Service was doing a terrific job.
On the day the Russian Service editors were getting ready to post their apology, Ensor praised them for being a model of innovation.
Read the entire article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)