Branson warns that oil crunch is coming within five years

. Virgin chief and fellow business leaders call for action
. Energy crisis threatens to be more serious than credit crun

By Terry Macalister
Guardian - UK,
Sunday 7 February 2010

Sir Richard Branson and fellow leading businessmen will warn ministers this
week that the world is running out of oil and faces an oil crunch within
five years.

The founder of the Virgin group, whose rail, airline and travel companies
are sensitive to energy prices, will say that the -coming crisis could be
even more serious than the credit crunch.

"The next five years will see us face another crunch - the oil crunch. This
time, we do have the chance to prepare. The challenge is to use that time
well," Branson will say.

"Our message to government and businesses is clear: act," he says in a
foreword to a new report on the crisis. "Don't let the oil crunch catch us
out in the way that the credit crunch did."

Other British executives who will support the warning include Ian Marchant,
chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy group, and Brian Souter,
chief executive of transport operator Stagecoach.

Their call for urgent government action comes amid a wider debate on the
issue and follows allegations by insiders at the International Energy Agency
that the organisation had deliberately underplayed the threat of so-called
"peak oil" to avoid panic on the stock markets.

Ministers have until now refused to take predictions of oil droughts
seriously, preferring to side with oil companies such as BP and ExxonMobil
and crude producers such as the Saudis, who insist there is nothing to worry
about.

But there are signs this is about to change, according to Jeremy Leggett,
founder of the Solarcentury renewable power company and a member of a peak
oil taskforce within the business community. "[We are] in regular contact
with government; we have reason to believe their risk thinking on peak oil
may be evolving away from BP et al's and we await the results of further
consultations with keen interest."

The issue came up at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos where Thierry
Desmarest, chief executive of the Total oil company in France, also broke
ranks. The world could struggle to produce more than 95m barrels of oil a
day in future, he said - 10% above present levels. "The problem of peak oil
remains."

Chris Skrebowski, an independent oil consultant who prepared parts of the
peak oil report for Branson and others, said that only recession is holding
back a crisis: "The next major supply constraint, along with spiking oil
prices, will not occur until recession-hit demand grows to the point that it
removes the current excess oil stocks and the large spare capacity held by
Opec. However, once these are removed, possibly as early as 2012-13 and no
later than 2014-15, oil prices are likely to spike, imperilling economic
growth and causing economic dislocation."

Skrebowski believes that Britain is particularly vulnerable because it has
gone from being a net exporter of oil, gas and coal to being an importer,
and is becoming increasingly exposed to competition for supplies.

"This is likely to put pressure on the UK balance of payments and in a world
of floating exchange rates is also likely to put downward pressure on the
valuation of sterling. In other words, the positive benefits to the
valuation of the pound as a petrocurrency are now eroding," he said.

The question of peak oil came to centre stage last November when a
whistleblower told the Guardian the figures provided by the IEA - and used
by the UK and US governments for much of their planning scenarios - were
inaccurate.

"The IEA in 2005 was predicting that oil supplies could rise as high as 120m
barrels a day by 2030, although it was forced to reduce this gradually to
116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source. "The 120m figure always
was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified
and the IEA knows this."

But Saudi Arabia launched a counter-strike at Davos, insisting the issue was
overblown. "The concern about peak oil is behind us," said Khalid al-Falih,
chief executive of Saudi Aramco.

Tony Hayward, the BP chief executive, downplayed fears about dwindling
supplies in an interview with the Guardian last week.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/07/branson-warns-peak-oil-close

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

At 07:59 AM 2/8/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>How many people think this kind of backlash is due to corporate
>influencers making sure to blow the climategate and related issues
>out of proportion to the point that they seem like a scandal?
>
>In the most recent Radio Ecoshock one of the interviewed suggested
>that the backlash might be enormous.

Ergo one learns the lesson of how really to influence people. Lie
publicly to get your way.

Public loses faith in climate change science after leaked emails scandal

Surveys show increase in number of people who believe claims are exaggerated

By Jo Adetunji
The Guardian - UK
February 7, 2010

The number of Britons who believe the science of climate change has fallen
over the last 12 months, according to recent polls. Although the vast
majority of people still believe the planet is heating up, there has been an
increase in those who believe climate change claims are exaggerated.

Public perception could have been influenced by the recent scandal of leaked
emails between climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia.
The emails, which appeared to encourage data to be kept from Freedom of
Information requests, have been seized upon by climate change sceptics -
although none of them dispute the science behind the "greenhouse effect" of
gases such as carbon dioxide, which traps solar heat and warms the
atmosphere.

A BBC poll, which surveyed 1,000 people, revealed that 25% of adults did not
believe in global warming - a rise of 8% since a similar poll in November -
and the percentage of those who thought climate change was a reality fell to
75%. Of those who believed, one in three felt climate change had been
exaggerated. Only 26% of people thought climate change was "established as
largely manmade".

Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser for the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said the results were "very
disappointing". "The fact that there has been a very significant drop in the
number of people that believe that we humans are changing the Earth's
climate is serious," he told the BBC. According to an Ipsos poll of 1,048
people, the proportion of the public who believe in climate change has
dropped from 44% to 31% in the past year.

It has been claimed most Tory MPs are sceptical about the party's focus on
climate change policy. Tim Montgomerie, editor of the ConservativeHome
website, said at least six shadow cabinet ministers were sceptical about the
economic consequences of a low-carbon policy.

The polls come as Professor Phil Jones, the director of climate research at
the University of East Anglia who is at the centre of the leaked emails
scandal, said he had received death threats since the correspondence was
published online. He told the Sunday Times: "There were death threats. I was
shocked. People said I should go and kill myself."

Allegations about the accuracy of a 2007 report produced by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - including a claim that global
warming could cut north African crop production by 50% by 2020 - could
damage public perception further. The claim, used in a speech by Ban
Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, has since been questioned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/07/climate-change-science-public-\
trust

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

On Feb 6, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Dennis Brumm wrote:

> Most Prius drivers
> should just admit it, they save a bit of money
> buying a bit less gasoline than they would
> otherwise, but the end result is they can spend
> it elsewhere.

A lot of Prius drivers I know have enormous commutes.  It's almost as if driving
a Prius justifies it.  Another case of efficiency = more consumption.

At 04:37 PM 2/5/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Denis,
>Ahern isn't alone.  I knew a woman in Eugene who
>actually thought that whenever she drove her
>Prius she was helping the environment.  I think
>she was the spiritual offspring of HAL.


Another example of Green Religion© (patent
pending) again. The need to believe usurps any
sort of rational thought. Most Prius drivers
should just admit it, they save a bit of money
buying a bit less gasoline than they would
otherwise, but the end result is they can spend
it elsewhere. In all but the teensiest number of
instances, that uses more fossil fuels.

And of course the resource use and environmental
damage caused in making a Prius compared to
"normal" cars might take more than the life of the car to offset, regardless.

Now if Prius owners they took all the gas money
they saved out of the bank in cash and composted
it (first I was going to suggest "burn it" what
was I thinking of?), it would show their hearts
were pure and help offset the American Money
Printing Press business leading us toward hyper-inflation, right?

I shall not hold my breath for this.

At 02:14 AM 2/6/2010, you wrote:
>Just how we might exploit the ability to teleport energy isn't clear
>yet. Post your suggestions in the comments section if you have any.

What we can do is teleport it to distant places to kill our enemies.
Or more likely that is the sort of thing we WOULD do with this if it
ever were to go anywhere, which it may, but I sort of doubt.

Another nice thing would be to teleport it from somewhere to Colorado
Springs' street lights.

Dennis,

Does that mean you have finally joined with PG&E, small businesses,
labor, and community organizations to back a sensible energy policy? :-)

Larry


On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:24:15 -0800, "Dennis Brumm" <brumm@...>
said:
> RISKY, DANGEROUS....... "Think of the children!"
> - well, almost. Just arrived ala email. Obviously
> radical green terrorists are trying to cut into PG&Es profits...:
>
>
>
> Dear San Francisco Resident,
>
> The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) is
> moving forward with a risky plan known as
> Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). Under the
> plan, CCSF is expected to create a new government
> energy bureaucracy, and spend hundreds of
> millions of dollars entering the complex power
> industry to purchase and sell electricity. It
> will do all of this without your vote.
>
> <http://m1.politicalinfomail.com/fs/d:l/xyhw2v9bw1t4hy/ylyi796bp54qqa/1>Learn
> more about how this might affect you on the Common Sense San Francisco
> website.
>
> Created by Sacramento legislation, CCA will
> automatically enroll you – without your consent –
> unless you proactively opt out.
>
> <http://m1.politicalinfomail.com/fs/d:l/xyhw2v9bw1t4hy/ylyi796bp54qqa/2>Get
> all the facts on Community Choice Aggregation here.
>
> Unless San Francisco politicians reject this
> risky scheme, you will be locked into the CCA
> system and you could be charged unspecified “exit
> fees” should you choose to leave after the initial opt-out period.
>
> We formed the
> <http://m1.politicalinfomail.com/fs/d:l/xyhw2v9bw1t4hy/ylyi796bp54qqa/3>San
> Francisco Common Sense Coalition to educate
> voters about the risks associated with
> government-run energy bureaucracies. Over 40,000
> San Franciscans have already joined our
> coalition. We are working to make sure that San
> Francisco electric consumers aren’t penalized by CCA.
>
> There's still time to make a difference. Tell the
> politicians right now: San Francisco should opt
> out of this risky plan. Call the Board of
> Supervisors (415) 554-5184 or email them at
> <mailto:board.of.supervisors@...>board.of.supervisors@....
>
> <http://m1.politicalinfomail.com/fs/d:l/xyhw2v9bw1t4hy/ylyi796bp54qqa/5>Join
> our coalition today and we'll keep you informed on this risky program.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> The Members of the San Francisco Common Sense Coalition
>
>
> P.S.
> <http://m1.politicalinfomail.com/fs/d:l/xyhw2v9bw1t4hy/ylyi796bp54qqa/6>Join
> the San Francisco Common Sense Coalition here and
>
<http://m1.politicalinfomail.com/fs/d:l/xyhw2v9bw1t4hy/ylyi796bp54qqa/7>forward
> this email to a few friends to make sure they are informed.
>
>
>
> This information was provided by Coalition for
> Reliable and Affordable Electricity, a coalition
> of concerned consumers, small businesses, labor,
> community organizations and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Cal wrote:

> In glancing over the proposed increases and decreases in department budgets
> by Obama et al, I noticed this severe drop for DoL (other departments have
> much smaller percentage increases or decreases):

The broadest measure of money supply growth, M3, has recently turned negative. 
Historically, the payroll employment number lags M3 by about 6 months (see
chart).  In other words, unemployment is set to explode higher in the months
ahead.


---
Chart is from shadowstats.com, article #268
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sfbayoil/photos/album/1787974048/pic/1985822906/vi\
ew

On Thu, February 4, 2010 1:36 pm, Dennis Brumm wrote:
> At 11:34 AM 2/4/2010, you wrote:
>
> I think it worships profit (and so do most of "the masses"). We
> define power through money. There is no morals about it, just
> accumulation of it. Funny thing is, the people I know who accumulated
> the most of it were generally some of the most miserable I've
> encountered. Maybe in a different way than those hungry on the
> streets, but nonetheless, their paradigm is askew and they couldn't see
> that.

Must of the rich people I know are quite happy.  They are appear to me
to be disconnected from the experience of most people (and that may
in part contribute to their happiness).

> I've come to think that anarchism as a system could never begin
> to work in an overpopulated planet of 7 billion. I don't think group
> concensus is of much use in groups above about 20 in size, but
> sometimes even that is too many. We cooperate, but not so well really.

I'm involved in an effort take a community (definitely larger than 20)
that's been primarily a hierarchy (mostly from a single leader) and
transform it into a collaborative community.  We use something a little
higher-grade than consensus that has each of us "owning" and "aligning
with" the decisions we agree to.  A question I've raised is "How much
hierarchy will we retain?"  (This comes from the sense that neither
extreme, hierarchy or flat structure, by itself works all that well.)
I'll let you know how all this turns out.  (I acknolwege that this is
definitely easier is a self-selected community.)

> I'm going to stick with the Unreformed Pastafarianism movement for
> the moment. All of life's meaning can be understood on the tip of a
> piece of spaghetti.

Yeah, I've never quite understood the quest for the meaning of life.
(Though I do think having some clarity of the sense of one's purpose
can be helpful, but it's not for everyone.)

Yours,
Cal

In glancing over the proposed increases and decreases in department budgets
by Obama et al, I noticed this severe drop for DoL (other departments have
much smaller percentage increases or decreases):

Agency: Labor

Spending: $117.5 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 43 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: $103.5 billion

Highlights: The Labor Department would see a major drop in spending for
its unemployment insurance programs. That's because the administration
forecasts an economic rebound and expects fewer people to claim
unemployment benefits.

Full story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_budget_agency_highlights

"Those of my readers who haven't already been beggared by the unraveling of what's left of the economy, and have some hope of keeping a roof over their heads for the foreseeable future, might be well advised to stock their pantries, clear their debts, and get to know their neighbors, if they haven't taken these sensible steps already. Those of my readers who haven't taken the time already to learn a practical skill or two, well enough that others might be willing to pay or barter for the results, had better get a move on. Those of my readers who want to see some part of the heritage of the present saved for the future, finally, may want to do something practical about that, and soon. I may be wrong – and to be frank, I hope that I'm wrong – but it looks increasingly to me as though we're in for a very rough time in the very near future. "

John Michael Greer

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/endgame.html

He used to be somewhat optimistic

At 11:34 AM 2/4/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>Yeah, Jung was the apostate. And the system pretty much shut him
>down.  It wasn't until the humanist movement, in stark reaction to
>the Ivory Tower's fascination with Behaviorism brought him out of
>the closet did he really start to shine.  Or should I say, his books
>and ideas became popular with the rebels of the 60's, especially as
>the psychedelic movement expanded.  It was, of course from the
>humanist critique that gave us Esellan, Harbin Hot Springs and the
>whole Buddhist/Asian spiritual perspective.  Until that open took
>place, the US was a black and white duality.  Lots of pompous
>christians and a growing, capitalist dark side.

According to that documentary I posted a link to it was Wilhelm Reich
who inspired the humanists in the younng generation in the 60s. Hell
if I know that for sure. (He was a Freudian apostate too.)

>Its official the US military is now a believer in NLP, and its
>probably not gonna be too long before somebody finally outs the car
>and advertising industry as the first major user of psychology to
>brainwash people.  How oddly uncomfortable it is that Edward Bernay,
>the biggest PR expert of the 20th century would be a cousin of Freud
>and his Coke ridden ideas.

I don't believe Freud was necessarily wrong. His ideas about how to
reign in the subconscious (used by Bernays to "sell to" it) seem to
have worked exactly as planned.

But it's sort of like "we've split the atom, but don't make a bomb..."

Anyway, most of the people I know who did a lot of coke never came up
with any great ideas, mostly concern about whether or not there was
more coke available.


>This society is the most perverted culture on the planet.  The
>corporate media worships the dark side, as a means to entertain and
>promote its Darwinist, or may I restate perverted sense of power it
>employs upon the masses.

I think it worships profit (and so do most of "the masses"). We
define power through money. There is no morals about it, just
accumulation of it. Funny thing is, the people I know who accumulated
the most of it were generally some of the most miserable I've
encountered. Maybe in a different way than those hungry on the
streets, but nonetheless, their paradigm is askew and they couldn't see that.

>Anarchist values is a good starting point, however, it has mostly
>de-evolved into a post punk working class narcism.

Yep. I've come to think that anarchism as a system could never begin
to work in an overpopulated planet of 7 billion. I don't think group
concensus is of much use in groups above about 20 in size, but
sometimes even that is too many. We cooperate, but not so well really.

>I've spent my entire adult life dealing with computer programming
>and logic.  Its this kind of process that has allowed us to create
>the most amazingly complex system of tools like the computer we are
>doing this on.  Maybe some day we will be able to use it to truly
>sort out what our core reality is. It certainly has the potential
>the transmit ideas and potential change unlike any 100th Monkey theory.

I'm going to stick with the Unreformed Pastafarianism movement for
the moment. All of life's meaning can be understood on the tip of a
piece of spaghetti.

>I've spent years watching the behavior of squirrels along the
>coastline of the bay area.  We have a lot to learn yet about the
>natural world.

They used to go into biological overshoot and die off too, at least
in the midwest in the 1800s. Took death marches or something. I read
that in a dentist's office in some pop science magazine about 10 years ago.

From Medi-cal this morning. Increasing state desperation in "dire
economic times!"

On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:34 AM, roger Herried wrote:

> I've spent my entire adult life dealing with computer programming and logic. 
Its this kind of process that has allowed us to create the most amazingly
complex system of tools like the computer we are doing this on.

Don't forget David F's potato analogy.  Abundant usable surplus energy enabled
us to reach this level of complexity.  In permanent energy decline this
complexity is ultimately doomed.  The chaotic nature of decline will likely mask
the relationship though.

I guess an exception would be if our technology was self-replicating, adaptable,
and capable of harvesting its own needed energy.  But then, on an already
overtaxed planet we would have to compete for survival against our own
technology, heh.

 

Roger wrote, etc. etc.:

>I think we are closer together than on some of this than farther
>apart on the human condition. But what the hell do you mean by
>
>apostate Jungian Sect??!!!

It's been so long I don't remember now. Was Jung an apostate Freudian
who simply refused to believe all human issues are sexual in nature?
Did Freud ruin as much of democracy as "The Century of the Self"
states? I don't think I was too serious at the time, actually. And it
had a ring to it.

>Personally, I think there is some kind of "Hundredth Monkey"
>phenomena out there, but I'm not gonna try and mystify it, other
>than maybe suggest that Jung's theories might actually have make
>some sense in this regard.

Everybody creates their own religion(s) and chooses their own beliefs.

>I still do have dreams and find that they do have an influence upon
>me whether I like it or not.

Is this "dreams" as in dreams of riches or "dreams" as in preludes to
nightmares?

>Its perfectly fine that you can make the claim that there are no
>gods in your universe. But then your universe doesn't appear to
>include the same world where most people on this planet come from,
>or act out either.

I guess I could say thanks for that compliment since I think humans
tend to be inherently flawed (When I was younger I fantasized I might
be Martian, alas, I didn't really believe it). Probably I should just
saythe whole design of nature is flawed in many ways.

Yes, I know, nature is beautiful, nature is "blah blah blah." I tell
you, you live with pain that nature can instill for 12 years
straight, then come to me and tell me how beautiful nature is. It's
dark side is pretty much what it's all about.

>I'm not a big fan of formal religion, but am wondering if there
>isn't just a bit of insecurity around this issue in how you tend to
>come back to it so often.

I'm glad you do so well at analyzing me. You could be an apostate
Freudian. I do this sort of thing in private over you too.

As a gay man (one hates having to start a sentence with such a self
definition, but I will) I absolutely detest virtually all the
organized ones, and have a history of battling them. I wasn't raised
with much of it, and, as the Catholics know, you have to "get em
before age 7." HOWEVER, that being said, I am not talking about
formal religion or even the general "informal religions" much here
when I accuse ideas of being "religion." (As in "Your DIET has become
religion.") It has nothing to do with gods or god, it has to do with
a belief substantiated on "magic" - synonymous or close to with
"religion" - or at least on shaky logic, or even maybe sometimes the
actions that have nothing to do with belief in facts. Maybe logic
doesn't really matter, but it may be my belief structure, the "magic" I choose.

So if one chooses magic that may work, regardless of being sleight of
hand, it may seem more useful... If one believes in abiotic oil I
would term that pretty much religion destined to failure. Does it
matter? Not unless others are influenced by the magical belief. That
makes it problematic.

One may hate industrial agriculture, but an honest assessment and one
would probably hate all corporations for the same reasons (don't they
follow the same laws and myths of their own) - say why wouldn't you
hate your cell phone manufacturer as much, just because you USE it?
As with "organized religion" people pick and choose their "magic."
(or "bible" verses)

So religion, magic, and other terms I use may not exactly be the best
(and it's not best I write emails at 6:24 in the morning, either, but
I couldn't sleep). But they fit better than anything I have come up
with at the moment.

Am I insecure over religion? I dunno. Are you a closet attack artist
looking for endorsement of the alpha males but kissing butt at times?
I could analyze that.

The thing is we all are subject to our "mythology." I don't think
there's much that can be done about that. If there were ever humans
that were more rational (doubtful), the religious ones nearby
probably slaughtered them like we did the do-do birds - they'd
probably have been too easy a target.

>Its funny that when you suggest that 2 million years of evolution
>are hard to change, you fail to see that a huge swath of that
>evolutionary time has been getting played out over religious wars.

Eh? This one lost me. Of course religion, especially when it
interacts over resources (mostly that is what it, and politics, do if
you get to the nitty gritty), fights wars. It's how those deluded
folks think they should act to get to heaven, after all.

>Might it be that such a mindset as your is more alien to adjust to
>than say some Jungian apostates peering into a closer reason why
>religious behavior might find an alternative to the current power structure?

Great, go to those groups and give them your money!

Sorry I didn't reply to this in an internet time frame. I got
inspired to go re-listen to the 4 hours of "Century of the Self" by
this post. (Do do it if you haven't. It's at google vids - 4 episodes
- and you tube - 24 chunks. I found just listening to it again while
doing other stuff worked fine... with occasional watching of the
video itself. I particularly liked the EST and Esslin stuff in the
70s when it hit.)

Any rate, I wish the Jungians good luck at influencing power.
Freudians certainly did, and for the non-betterment of humans. My old
anarchistic beliefs or viewpoints, pretty highly shaken anymore (a
form of religion that wouldn't work? who'd uh thunk) still influence
a lot of my thinking around a number of issues.