Great article on The Daily Galaxy discussing the distribution of oil in the world.
Read the article here: ➡
Archive for 2008
Oil Map of the World
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008Warning on rising Med Sea levels
Monday, January 21st, 2008The level of the Mediterranean Sea is rising rapidly and could increase by up to half a metre in the next 50 years, scientists in Spain have warned.
A study by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute says levels have been rising since the 1970s with the rate of increase growing in recent years.
It says even a small rise could have serious consequences in coastal areas.
The study noted that the findings were consistent with other investigations into the effects of climate change.
The study, entitled Climate Change in the Spanish Mediterranean, said the sea had risen “between 2.5mm and 10mm (0.1 and 0.4in) per year since the 1990s”.
If the trend continued it would have “very serious consequences” in low-lying coastal areas even in the case of a small rise, and “catastrophic consequences” if a half-metre increase occurred, the study warned.
More… ➡
A New, Global Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories
Saturday, January 19th, 2008KUANTAN, Malaysia — Rising prices for cooking oil are forcing residents of Asia’s largest slum, in Mumbai, India, to ration every drop. Bakeries in the United States are fretting over higher shortening costs. And here in Malaysia, brand-new factories built to convert vegetable oil into diesel sit idle, their owners unable to afford the raw material.
This is the other oil shock. From India to Indiana, shortages and soaring prices for palm oil, soybean oil and many other types of vegetable oils are the latest, most striking example of a developing global problem: costly food.
The food price index of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, based on export prices for 60 internationally traded foodstuffs, climbed 37 percent last year. That was on top of a 14 percent increase in 2006, and the trend has accelerated this winter.
In some poor countries, desperation is taking hold. Just in the last week, protests have erupted in Pakistan over wheat shortages, and in Indonesia over soybean shortages. Egypt has banned rice exports to keep food at home, and China has put price controls on cooking oil, grain, meat, milk and eggs.
According to the F.A.O., food riots have erupted in recent months in Guinea, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen.
“The urban poor, the rural landless and small and marginal farmers stand to lose,” said He Changchui, the agency’s chief representative for Asia and the Pacific.
A startling change is unfolding in the world’s food markets. Soaring fuel prices have altered the equation for growing food and transporting it across the globe. Huge demand for biofuels has created tension between using land to produce fuel and using it for food.
A growing middle class in the developing world is demanding more protein, from pork and hamburgers to chicken and ice cream. And all this is happening even as global climate change may be starting to make it harder to grow food in some of the places best equipped to do so, like Australia.
In the last few years, world demand for crops and meat has been rising sharply. It remains an open question how and when the supply will catch up. For the foreseeable future, that probably means higher prices at the grocery store and fatter paychecks for farmers of major crops like corn, wheat and soybeans.
There may be worse inflation to come. Food experts say steep increases in commodity prices have not fully made their way to street stalls in the developing world or supermarkets in the West.
More… ➡
– research thanks to Rolf A.
– This article is from the NY Times and they insist that folks have an ID and a PW in order to read their stuff. You can get these for free just by signing up. However, recently, a friend of mine suggested the website bugmenot.com 
as an alternative to having to do these annoying sign ups. Check it out. Thx Bruce S. for the tip.
Obscure information anyone? The Treaty of Svalbard
Friday, January 18th, 2008I’ve been a nut about remote islands ever since I was a kid. I would pore over maps and spin the globe looking for every remote place I could find and then try to look things up about it to see what I could learn.
Unfortunately, growing up in the 60’s well before the internet, there was not very much around. If the encyclopedia in our house didn’t having anything and the local library didn’t, then that was it – dead end – no information available.
Places like Kerguelen and Bouvet were my friends for a very long time before I actually got to know much about them. I had a pen pal in Tasmania in 1959 for a year or so.
Since then, I’ve actually been to a few of these islands such as Juan Fernandez, Easter, Pitcairn, Ducie and Henderson and, with luck, I’ll set foot on a few more before I’m done.
But, that’s not why I’m writing this piece and I’ve only told you all of this to provide some general background so you’ll have a sense of how I might have come up with the information. 
This piece is about the Svalbard Archipelago and The Treaty of Svalbard and what it means to the citizens of 39 countries. if that’s not obscure enough for you, please raise your hand now – you have permission to leave.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In 1925, the League of Nations Treaty of Svalbard came into effect. It was called, “Treaty between Norway, the USA, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland and the British Overseas Dominions and Sweden with regard to Svalbard”.
Nice, you say? Well, don’t laugh yet.
You see, the Svalbard Islands, which are north of Norway in the arctic, are one of the very few places in the world, which are truly international territory. Read the following to get the drift:
Svalbard is part of Norway
The treaty establishes Norway’s full and undivided sovereignty over Svalbard. Svalbard is part of the Kingdom of Norway, and it is Norway that ratifies and enforces the legislation that is to apply for the archipelago. Nevertheless, the treaty does include some conditions restricting the enactment of Norwegian sovereignty, and Norwegian authorities are required to see to it that Norwegian legislation and administration respect these conditions.
Non-Discrimination
Citizens and companies from all treaty nations enjoy the same right of access to and residence in Svalbard. Right to fish, hunt or undertake any kind of maritime, industrial, mining or trade activity are granted to them all on equal terms. All activity is subject to the legislation adopted by Norwegian authorities, but there may be no preferential treatment on the basis of nationality.
Parties to the Treaty
A total of 39 countries are registered as parties to the Svalbard treaty: Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, India, Iceland, Italy, Japan, China, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, South Africa, Germany, Hungary, the USA, Venezuela, Austria.
– – – – – – – – –
Postscript: I don’t want to make it sound like anyone can just throw some clothes and a warm coat into a rucksack and take off to Svalbard to live. While the Norwegian government cannot restrict access to Svalbard according to one’s nationality (for those from the 39 signatory nations), it can and does impose rules for residence in Svalbard that affect everyone equally. These rules are quite strong and are intended to protect the environment. You can read about them here: ➡
Given the harshness of the climate, the limited economic opportunities there and the strong regulations about what can and cannot be done, it could be quite difficult to relocate to Svalbard unless you had a lot of financial resources and a strong desire to do so.
– Thanks to Ingunn at the Spitsbergen Airship Museum for much of the information I used to write this piece.
Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica
Friday, January 18th, 2008Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming
Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.
While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth’s ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years — as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world.
“Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it’s losing more,” said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula.
More… ➡
Biofuels ‘are not a magic bullet’
Friday, January 18th, 2008Biofuels may play a role in curbing climate change, says Britain’s Royal Society, but may create environmental problems unless implemented with care.
In a new report, the Society suggests current EU and UK policies are not guaranteed to reduce emissions.
It advocates more research into all aspects of biofuel production and use.
The report says the British government should use financial incentives to ensure companies adopt cutting-edge and carbon-efficient technologies.
“Biofuels could play an important role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions from transport, both in Britain and globally,” said Professor John Pickett from Rothamsted Research, who chaired the Royal Society’s study.
“But it would be disastrous if biofuel production made further inroads into biological diversity and natural ecosystems.
“We must not create new environmental or social problems in our efforts to deal with climate change.”
Variable savings
Biofuels – principally ethanol and diesel made from plants – are one of the few viable options for replacing the liquid fuels derived from petroleum that are used in transport, the source of about one quarter of the human race’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Vehicles, and the infrastructure for delivering fuel through filling stations, can be modified at marginal cost – certainly compared with the price of a large-scale switch to hydrogen or electric vehicles, even if they were to prove technologically and economically worthwhile.
Hence the adoption by Europe and the US of policies to stimulate biofuel production and use.
But a number of recent scientific studies have shown that the carbon savings from using biofuels compared with petrol and diesel vary hugely, depending on what crop is grown and where, how it is harvested and processed, and other factors.
More… ➡
EU Rethinks Biofuels Targets As Criticism Mounts
Friday, January 18th, 2008The EU has admitted that it failed to foresee problems raised by its policy to encourage motorists in Europe to drive vehicles which run on fuels derived from plants as part of efforts to cut carbon emissions.
The European Union’s environment chief said the bloc would rethink new draft rules on boosting the production of biofuels amid growing criticism by green campaign groups that the move could lead to rainforest destruction and social dislocation.
“We have seen that the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than we thought they were. So we have to move very carefully,” Stavros Dimas told the BBC on Monday, Jan. 14.
It would be better to miss the target than achieve it by harming the poor or damaging the environment, Dimas said.
In March last year, EU leaders agreed that 10 percent of the bloc’s road fuels should come from biofuels by 2020 as part of wider efforts to combat climate change and slash CO2 emissions. That goal was to be anchored in concrete legislation.
Too many negative consequences?
But criticism has grown steadily in past months about the negative impact of large-scale production of biofuels.
Critics have warned that expanding the growth of agricultural products such as corn, soybeans and rapeseed to make biofuels can lead to environmental damage, drive up food prices and lead companies to drive poor people off their land to convert it to fuel crops.
More… ➡
Pakistan army guards scarce grain
Friday, January 18th, 2008The authorities in Pakistan have deployed paramilitary troops to guard wheat supplies around the country amid fears of a massive shortfall.
The government has blamed hoarders and smugglers for the problem.
Wheat is a staple food in Pakistan and shortages have led to large scale rioting in the past.
Flour shortfalls initially pushed up market prices. Later flour ran out on the open market when officials fixed prices and warned against violations.
Now Pakistan’s national disaster management authority has deployed thousands of paramilitary troops at wheat stores.
The head of the authority said the aim was to ensure that store owners did not sell more than allowed by the government.
More… ➡
Thieves Target Kansas Grain Elevators
Friday, January 18th, 2008– One of the predictions I’d be willing to stand strongly behind now is that food prices from here on out are going to rise.
– The subject of rising food prices is just one of the aspects of The Perfect Storm hypothesis. But it is one that is beginning now to manifest, like rising oil prices and shrinking glaciers.
– These ‘theoretical’ problems are beginning to transition into tangible problems.
– I’ve been seeing the odd article here and there now about food stocks being guarded or being stolen. I’d predict these are going to increase, as are articles describing food riots.
– I’ll be watching for these and reporting on them from here on out.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The high cost of corn, wheat and soybeans is leading to a rash of thefts from grain elevators in western Kansas.
The thieves have driven big rigs to the grain elevator, filled the truck with cash crops and then sold the grain somewhere else.
“There’s incentives there for the wrong people,” said Adrian Derousseau, who runs the Ottawa Coop grain elevator.
sponsor
Derousseau said he suspects the grain thefts are inside jobs.
“Some of the people that are actually stealing the grain probably know how to run the elevator as well as our own people. And that’s where it becomes very scary,” Derousseau told KMBC’s Martin Augustine.
Augustine reported that a thief could fill up a semi-trailer with 1,000 bushels of corn in about five minutes. That load would be worth $5,000.
The owners of grain elevators are the ones whose profits are swept away.
“When you start losing a $12,000 load of soybeans, it takes a lot of bushels to make up for that,” Derousseau said. “It all comes out of our bottom line. It hurts us.”
Derousseau said he’s so concerned about the grain thefts that he’ll hold a meeting later this week with staff from 14 elevators around Ottawa, encouraging them to be on alert and to review security measures.
Globalization
Friday, January 18th, 2008
There are a lot of ways to look at the topic of Globalization. And which way you choose to look at it depends on which aspect of it you focus on.
One way to see Globalization is as a leveling process wherein the world’s resources are redistributing themselves. Poorer nations can do the work for richer nations cheaper than the richer nations could have it done at home, so the rich nations send the work offshore and money flows into the poorer nations while increased profits flow into the stockholder’s pockets in the richer nations. People in the rich nations pay less for the products, people in the poor nations have higher incomes and the corporations in the richer nations deliver better returns to their stock holders. So what’s not to like?
For one thing, the well paying jobs in the richer nations are being sent offshore to be done for less and this reduces the income of the folks who previously worked in the rich nations. This in turn increases the gap between the wealthy folks in the rich nations who own the stocks and are getting richer and the folks in the rich nations who used to do the work (which is now outsourced) who are now getting poorer.
Some folks imagine the rich nation is better off for all of this but I don’t think so. The money sent overseas to pay the workers doing the outsourced work is money that has left the country. The increased profits made by the stockholders in the rich country is money that remains in the rich country. So, if the folks overseas have more money and the stockholders have more money, then who has less? Yes, the folks who used to work in the well paying jobs in the rich country.
So, one way to look at globalization is to say that the stockholders in the rich country, in order to increase their wealth, have sold the workers in their own country down the river.
People say that globalization is better because is it distributing wealth more equitably between the richer and poorer countries but that’s not really the point. If the stockholders in the rich countries were not getting richer in the process (which is the point), there would be no redistribution of wealth. But, these stockholders are quite willing to give away the wealth of the workers in their own country if it will increase their own personal wealth.