/ Forside / Interesser / Andre interesser / Politik / Nyhedsindlæg
Login
Glemt dit kodeord?
Brugernavn

Kodeord


Reklame
Top 10 brugere
Politik
#NavnPoint
vagnr 20140
molokyle 5006
Kaptajn-T.. 4653
granner01 2856
jqb 2594
3773 2444
o.v.n. 2373
Nordsted1 2327
creamygirl 2320
10  ans 2208
OIL SHOCK - This Time, It's Different.
Fra : Jan Rasmussen


Dato : 04-08-08 14:13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601025.html

OIL SHOCK
This Time, It's Different.

Global Pressures Have Converged to Forge a New Oil Reality.

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 27, 2008;

The two events, half a world apart, went largely unheralded.

Early this month, Valero Energy in Texas got the unwelcome news that Mexico would be cutting
supplies to one of the company's Gulf Coast refineries by up to 15 percent. Mexico's state-owned oil
enterprise is one of Valero's main sources of crude, but oil output from Mexican fields, including
the giant Cantarell field, is drying up. Mexican sales of crude oil to the United States have
plunged to their lowest level in more than a dozen years.

The same week, India's Tata Motors announced it was expanding its plans to begin producing a new
$2,500 "people's car" called the Nano in the fall. The company hopes that by making automobiles
affordable for people in India and elsewhere, it could eventually sell 1 million of them a year.

Although neither development made headlines, together they were emblematic of the larger forces of
supply and demand that have sent world oil prices bursting through one record level after another.
And while the cost of crude has surged before, this oil shock is different. There is little prospect
that drivers will ever again see gas prices retreat to the levels they enjoyed for much of the last
generation.

Unlike the two short, sharp oil jolts of the 1970s, the latest run-up has been accelerating over
several years as ample supplies of crude oil have proven elusive and the thirst for petroleum
products has grown. The average price of a barrel of oil produced by the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries doubled from 2001 to 2005, doubled again by March this year and jumped
as much as 40 percent more after that.

For American motorists, a full tank of gas costs nearly twice what it did at the start of last year,
racing past the $4-a-gallon mark, and has begun cutting into other household spending.

"What can you do? You need gas," said Barry Modeste, a construction worker who stopped his van at a
Shell station in Takoma Park one recent morning to add $15 worth. It was enough, he said, to get him
to a cheaper station in Rockville. "If you don't have gas, you can't get to work. And if you can't
get to work, you don't get paid. And if you don't get paid, you can't buy food. We're at their
mercy."

Last month, 51 percent of the respondents in a Washington Post poll said rising gas prices were
causing a serious financial hardship for them or others in their household. It was the first time a
majority had said that since the poll began posing that question eight years ago.

The rising prices are also adding to inflation, aggravating the U.S. trade deficit -- oil now
accounts for about half of it -- and taking a toll on businesses already struggling with the
economic slowdown caused by the housing and financial crises.

"I'm a very small businessman. If I get any smaller, I'll be out of business," said independent
trucker Lee Klass, who was driving through the Texas Panhandle this month with a 33,000-pound load
of plastic containers bound for Colorado. Klass had just paid $636 for fuel, enough for the trip but
no more. Filling the tank would cost nearly twice that much.

Abroad, riots shook India after the government trimmed fuel subsidies. Truckers in Britain, France,
Spain and South Korea have clogged the roads to protest rising fuel prices. In the Philippines,
soaring prices for oil and petroleum-based fertilizer have derailed the economy and ignited calls
for a cut in the tax on oil imports. With her popularity at a record low, President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo is expected to confront the issue in a nationally televised speech scheduled for tomorrow.

Even after oil prices have tumbled more than $24 in the past two weeks, largely as the result of
easing tensions in the Middle East and slowing U.S. economic activity, crude is still trading near
historic highs.

In a series of articles starting today, The Washington Post examines the economic forces that have
unhinged oil prices from their longtime cyclical patterns, propelling fuel costs to once
unimaginable levels that are now both fraying the lifestyles of our recent past and speeding the
search for an energy source of the future.

* * *

Earlier oil shocks have had obvious causes. In October 1973, OPEC raised prices and declared an oil
embargo against the United States and other countries that had supported Israel in its war earlier
that month against its Arab neighbors. The embargo ended in March 1974, but pricing power had
shifted from the oil companies to the producing countries. In 1979, prices soared again after the
Iranian Revolution curtailed output and consumers and oil companies went on a spree of panic buying.

Now, however, there is no one culprit and no single international crisis to blame. Instead, world
demand has been increasing faster than supply, steadily squeezing oil markets.

This in turn has signaled to investors that prices are inevitably heading higher. Financial players,
such as Wall Street banks and hedge funds, have bet just that, investing tens of billions of dollars
in oil futures. Critics on Capitol Hill and elsewhere say this speculation has turbo-charged the
market, helping lift prices even more.

The tightening of the oil market reflects decisions made a decade ago, when conditions looked
radically different. Regular unleaded gas was less than a dollar a gallon. Oil was little more than
$10 a barrel. And the Economist magazine, predicting prices could soon be half that, ran a cover
story with the headline: "Drowning in Oil."

Those low prices sent the wrong signals to consumers and oil companies alike.

Demand for oil jumped as U.S. sales of gas-guzzling cars soared and China's breakneck economic
expansion picked up pace.

Daniel Yergin, a historian of the oil business and head of Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
said that over the five years from 1998 to 2002, world oil demand grew 1.1 percent annually, raising
daily consumption by 4.2 million barrels. But in the following five years from 2003 to 2007, world
oil demand grew 2.1 percent annually, boosting consumption by about 8.2 million barrels per day.

The low prices of the late 1990s also dampened the impetus for finding new supplies. Oil companies
delayed exploration for new fields. Capital spending dropped 15 percent at the biggest oil companies
in late 1998 and plunged as much as 70 percent at the smaller ones. Too few drilling rigs were
built. And refineries weren't expanded or upgraded, making it hard for them to use the lower-quality
crude oils that have become a larger portion of supplies or to produce the right balance of products
as gasoline use is stagnating and diesel fuel use growing.

Investment slackened just as finding new supplies was becoming more difficult and costly. Most of
the world's big, easy-to-tap fields have already been discovered and largely drained.

Some analysts argue that peak oil production has already been reached. Others say the peak remains a
ways off but perhaps not very far. Though capital spending by big oil companies has again picked up
pace in the past couple of years, spurred by higher prices, exploration is still falling short.

"It's not that we're going to run out of oil or hydrocarbons, but it's not going to become available
as fast as uninhibited, unrestricted demand," said Sadad Husseini, a consultant and former petroleum
geologist at Saudi Aramco.

Just two decades ago, the world could pump 15 percent more oil than it needed. Today, that spare
production capacity has practically vanished -- it's now about 2 percent beyond the world's total
daily consumption of 85.5 million barrels. That makes the market very sensitive to rumors about
anything that might endanger existing production.

Earlier, oil-rich nations opened their spigots to prevent run-ups in prices. In the early 1980s, oil
from the British and Norwegian North Sea started to flow in large volumes and helped push down
prices even as war raged between Iran and Iraq, disrupting Mideast supplies. During the Persian Gulf
War after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Saudi Arabia increased production to head off a spike in oil
prices.

But now, the cushion is all but gone. And Saudi Arabia, which is home to what little spare capacity
remains, has become reluctant to temper price increases by boosting production. Quite the reverse,
the kingdom and its fellow OPEC members have trimmed production on those few occasions when prices
showed signs of slipping, most recently in late 2006.

That has left the global oil market particularly vulnerable to threats as varied as hurricanes in
the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico, the potential for war with Iran and pipeline attacks by small groups of
insurgents in remote parts of the Niger Delta.

* * *

At the beginning of the pipeline, high oil prices have been a gusher of good news.

Any company that owns oil in the ground or a share of what's pumped out of it is swimming in profit.
Exxon Mobil, the biggest of the independent oil giants, last year broke records for U.S. corporate
profits, chalking up $40.6 billion. This year, it is on track to earn even more.

Thanks to the rapid and sustained rise in prices, oil-producing countries are also accumulating vast
reservoirs of money in one of the most massive transfers of wealth in history. Every day, oil
consumers pay $6 billion to $7.5 billion more for crude oil than they paid six years ago. At the
current rate, they will pump more than $1.5 trillion a year into the coffers of OPEC, Russia and
other oil exporting countries.

Some Middle Eastern countries are already on a shopping spree: indoor ski facilities on the edge of
the desert, water-borne hotel complexes, new industrial cities.

The new balance of petro-power was evident at a meeting of oil producers and consumers in late June
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The body language and setting said it all.

Grim-faced, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown followed a half-step behind a smiling Saudi King
Abdullah as they entered a palatial conference room with marble walls and glittering chandeliers.

Dignitaries in flowing robes and business suits from 35 nations, seven international agencies and 25
companies were seated in a horseshoe arrangement. The king, flanked by Brown and China's vice
president, was perched on a dais in the center and politely listened to entreaties from U.S. Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman and others for higher oil output. In the end, Abdullah bestowed only modest
assurances while admonishing consuming countries for "selfish interests, increased consumption."

This exercise in oil diplomacy did nothing to stop the relentless rise of petroleum prices. If
anything, the summit showed the inability of consuming nations to change today's prices and the
relative indifference of producing countries, who blame high prices on Western "speculators."

But Bodman insisted that high prices were a question of supply and demand, and he urged the Saudis
to boost output. "I believe that most of us agree on one thing: Prices are too high at present," he
said. "And unless we act, the situation will remain unsustainable."

* * *

What makes it unsustainable is that cheap oil has been a building block of the American economy and
society, from big cars and big planes to interstate highways and commuters living in remote exurbs.

For the better part of a century, U.S. policy contributed to this pattern of development. Taxes on
gasoline were set aside for highways, which opened up more vistas for new communities. This in turn
promoted even more driving, more gasoline consumption and more tax revenue for highways. Today U.S.
automobiles use more than 9 million barrels of gasoline a day, more than any other country.

The high price of oil has sparked recent efforts by technology experts, venture capitalists,
alternative energy firms and even some oil companies to come up with ways to wean the world economy
off its addiction.

Developing countries like China and India, however, are in no hurry to embrace this new vision. They
want to join the ranks of economic powerhouses and question why they should be forced to temper
their aspirations, why their oil use should be more constrained than those who came before.

A century after Henry Ford's Model T revolutionized American life, Tata's Nano could do the same for
India. Unveiling his company's concept for the car early this year, Chairman Ratan Tata placed the
Nano in a narrative of technological endeavors that led from bicycle to jet. He called it "a journey
that embodies the human spirit of change . . . the drive to stretch the envelope . . . the quest to
lead and the quest to conquer."

But in an era of scarce oil, the Nano could take the world down a rough and costly road.


Jan Rasmussen



 
 
Frank (04-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Frank


Dato : 04-08-08 14:25

Hej

"Jan Rasmussen" <1@1.1> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4896feea$0$56785$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601025.html
>
> OIL SHOCK
> This Time, It's Different.

Mange tak for dit indlæg - det er noget helt nyt og noget der burde have
været bragt op i gruppen tidligere og gerne igen og igen og igen og igen og
igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen
og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og
igen og igen.

Bare så ingen går glip af det.....

Mvh
Frank



Ukendt (04-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Ukendt


Dato : 04-08-08 22:45

"Frank" <frank@nosmap.dk> wrote in message
news:4897033f$0$56776$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
> Mange tak for dit indlæg - det er noget helt nyt og noget der burde have
> været bragt op i gruppen tidligere og gerne igen og igen og igen og igen
> og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og
> igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og
> igen og igen og igen.
>

Ja indtil folk forstår alvoren - og der er lang vej endnu.

/Kim


Bo Warming (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Bo Warming


Dato : 05-08-08 01:54

"Kim Frederiksen" <kim snabel-a the bindestreg coffeeshop punktum dk> skrev
i en meddelelse news:48977844$0$90263$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> "Frank" <frank@nosmap.dk> wrote in message
> news:4897033f$0$56776$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>
>> Mange tak for dit indlæg - det er noget helt nyt og noget der burde have
>> været bragt op i gruppen tidligere og gerne igen og igen og igen og igen
>> og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen
>> og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen
>> og igen og igen og igen.
>>
>
> Ja indtil folk forstår alvoren - og der er lang vej endnu.

Alvor ved oliemangel er til at overse.

Vi kan nøjes med at varme mindre boligareal op og bruge bil lidt mindre.

At Kina viser hvordan man holder et muslimsk mindretals værre-end.Stalin
ondskab nede - fx deres antiolympiade-terror er LANGT ALVORLIGERE AT AT LÆRE
AF, og konfuzianismen er ren Glistrup-politik og et af verdens lyspunkter
idag.

At vi er respekteret for HC ANDERSEN OG DANSK DESIGN i Kina er
værdifuldere end at amerikanerne tror at vi var mere jødevenlige i WW2 end
Holland og derfor elsker os overfladisk.





N_B_DK (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : N_B_DK


Dato : 05-08-08 07:31

"Bo Warming" <bwng@bwng.dk> wrote in message
news:1xNlk.1372$w01.1366@fe63.usenetserver.com
> Vi kan nøjes med at varme mindre boligareal op og bruge bil lidt
> mindre.

Du mener kun olie benyttes til opvarmning af huse ?

--
MVH. N_B_DK
KVM consol købes (1024X768 eller højere)
Pioneer CLD-D925 købes.


Ukendt (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Ukendt


Dato : 05-08-08 20:15

"N_B_DK" <admin@spamme.dyndns.dk> wrote in message
news:4897f3ac$0$90273$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> Du mener kun olie benyttes til opvarmning af huse ?
>

Det er én af de helt store farer ved Peak Oil. De fleste er enten ude af
stand til at kapere problemstillingen, eller også skyder de det fra sig
fordi det piller for meget ved deres naive søvn.

mvh.
Kim Frederiksen


Frank (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Frank


Dato : 05-08-08 08:59


"Kim Frederiksen" <kim snabel-a the bindestreg coffeeshop punktum dk> skrev
i en meddelelse news:48977844$0$90263$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> "Frank" <frank@nosmap.dk> wrote in message
> news:4897033f$0$56776$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>
>> Mange tak for dit indlæg - det er noget helt nyt og noget der burde have
>> været bragt op i gruppen tidligere og gerne igen og igen og igen og igen
>> og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen
>> og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen og igen
>> og igen og igen og igen.
>>
>
> Ja indtil folk forstår alvoren - og der er lang vej endnu.
>
> /Kim



Frank (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Frank


Dato : 05-08-08 09:01

Hej

"Kim Frederiksen" <kim snabel-a the bindestreg coffeeshop punktum dk> skrev
i en meddelelse news:48977844

> Ja indtil folk forstår alvoren - og der er lang vej endnu.

Ja - det er jo meget alvorligt - så alvorligt at vi må kigge tilbage og se
om vi har været i samme situation før:

"In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the
city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York
prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would
rise to Manhattan's third-story windows. "

Det er alvorligt - meget alvorligt.......

Så lad os høre om det igen og igen og.....

Mvh
Frank



N_B_DK (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : N_B_DK


Dato : 05-08-08 18:06

"Frank" <frank@nosmap.dk> wrote in message
news:489808b8$0$56786$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk
> Hej
>
> "Kim Frederiksen" <kim snabel-a the bindestreg coffeeshop punktum dk>
> skrev i en meddelelse news:48977844
>
>> Ja indtil folk forstår alvoren - og der er lang vej endnu.
>
> Ja - det er jo meget alvorligt - så alvorligt at vi må kigge tilbage
> og se om vi har været i samme situation før:
>
> "In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in
> the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York
> prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse
> droppings would rise to Manhattan's third-story windows. "
>
> Det er alvorligt - meget alvorligt.......

Fantastisk, du har fundet et par forudsigelser der ikke passede, og så
kan selv fakta ikke trænge ind hos dig.

--
MVH. N_B_DK
KVM consol købes (1024X768 eller højere)
Pioneer CLD-D925 købes.


Ukendt (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Ukendt


Dato : 05-08-08 20:13

"Frank" <frank@nosmap.dk> wrote in message
news:489808b8$0$56786$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
> Ja - det er jo meget alvorligt - så alvorligt at vi må kigge tilbage og se
> om vi har været i samme situation før:
>
> "In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the
> city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York
> prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings
> would rise to Manhattan's third-story windows. "
>

Samme situation? Sammenligner du den globale afhængighed af olie med
hestelort?

/Kim


Frank (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Frank


Dato : 06-08-08 08:57

Hej

"Kim Frederiksen" <kim snabel-a the bindestreg coffeeshop punktum dk> skrev
i en meddelelse news:4898a643$0$90269$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

> Samme situation? Sammenligner du den globale afhængighed af olie med
> hestelort?

Nej, jeg sammenligner den manglende forståelse for ny teknologi som en
løsning af vores problemer.

Der er mange forskellige nye teknologier i udvikling der kan være med til at
afhjælpe den øjeblikkelige afhængighed af fossile brændstoffer. Og på sammme
måde som med forbrændningsmotoren for 120 år siden kan vi ikke iøjeblikket
forudse hvilken teknologier der vil modnes og hvilken ændringer af samfundet
det vil medfører.

Det eneste der kan forudses er at en bevistløs fremskrivning af vores
nuværende samfund unden ændringer nok er det eneste der ikke vil ske.

Mvh
Frank



Ukendt (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Ukendt


Dato : 06-08-08 18:47

"Frank" <frank@nosmap.dk> wrote in message
news:48995963$0$56781$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
> Nej, jeg sammenligner den manglende forståelse for ny teknologi som en
> løsning af vores problemer.
>
> Der er mange forskellige nye teknologier i udvikling der kan være med til
> at afhjælpe den øjeblikkelige afhængighed af fossile brændstoffer.

Og hvad er det for teknologier? Mig bekendt er det en energikilde vi står og
mangler. Mange forveksler en energikilde som f.eks. olie eller naturgas, med
en energiBÆRER som f.eks. brint eller elektrisitet. Hvad er det for en
energiKILDE som du mener vi har til rådighed, der i længden skal tage over
for olien, som på nuværende tidspunkt står for 85% af Verdens
energiforsyning? Husk på at det skal være en skalérbar løsning der skal være
klar inden for 5-7 år for at afhjælpe katastrofen.

> Og på sammme måde som med forbrændningsmotoren for 120 år siden kan vi
> ikke iøjeblikket forudse hvilken teknologier der vil modnes og hvilken
> ændringer af samfundet det vil medfører.
>
> Det eneste der kan forudses er at en bevistløs fremskrivning af vores
> nuværende samfund unden ændringer nok er det eneste der ikke vil ske.
>

Sandt nok.

mvh.
Kim Frederiksen


Jan Rasmussen (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Jan Rasmussen


Dato : 06-08-08 19:53

"Kim Frederiksen" <kim snabel-a the bindestreg coffeeshop punktum dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4899e3a5$0$90266$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...

> olien, som på nuværende tidspunkt står for 85% af Verdens energiforsyning

Ubs,,Der er noget galt, det er verdens fossilt brændstof forbrug der er på 85%
olien er guskelov 'kun' på 37%, men de udgør 95% af verdens transport energi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_energy_usage_width_chart.svg


Jan Rasmussen



Ukendt (07-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Ukendt


Dato : 07-08-08 16:18

"Jan Rasmussen" <1@1.1> wrote in message
news:4899f1bd$0$56795$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
> Ubs,,Der er noget galt, det er verdens fossilt brændstof forbrug der er
> på 85%
> olien er guskelov 'kun' på 37%, men de udgør 95% af verdens transport
> energi.
>

Ok, min fejl.

mvh.
Kim Frederiksen


Jan Rasmussen (05-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Jan Rasmussen


Dato : 05-08-08 18:31

http://www.alternet.org/story/93170/

In the 1990s, North Korea was the world's canary. The famine that killed as much as 10% of the North
Korean population in those years was, it turns out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the
globe -- though few saw it that way at the time.

That small Northeast Asian land, one of the last putatively communist countries on the planet, faced
the same three converging factors as we do now -- escalating energy prices, a reduction in food
supplies, and impending environmental catastrophe. At the time, of course, all the knowing analysts
and pundits dismissed what was happening in that country as the inevitable breakdown of an archaic
economic system presided over by a crackpot dictator.

They were wrong. The collapse of North Korean agriculture in the 1990s was not the result of
backwardness. In fact, North Korea boasted one of the most mechanized agricultures in Asia. Despite
claims of self-sufficiency, the North Koreans were actually heavily dependent on cheap fuel imports.
(Does that already ring a bell?) In their case, the heavily subsidized energy came from Russia and
China, and it helped keep North Korea's battalion of tractors operating. It also meant that North
Korea was able to go through fertilizer, a petroleum product, at one of the world's highest rates.
When the Soviets and Chinese stopped subsidizing those energy imports in the late 1980s and
international energy rates became the norm for them, too, the North Koreans had a rude awakening.

Like the globe as a whole, North Korea does not have a great deal of arable land -- it can grow food
on only about 14% of its territory. (The comparable global figure for arable land is about 13%.)
With heavy applications of fertilizer and pesticides, North Koreans coaxed a lot of food out of a
little land. By the 1980s, however, the soil was exhausted, and agricultural production was
declining. So spiking energy prices hit an economy already in crisis. Desperate to grow more food,
the North Korean government instructed farmers to cut down trees, stripping hillsides to bring more
land into cultivation.

Big mistake. When heavy rains hit in 1995, this dragooning of marginal lands into agricultural
production only amplified the national disaster. The resulting flooding damaged more than 40% of the
country's rice paddy fields. Torrential rains washed away topsoil, while rocks and sand, dislodged
from hillsides, ruined low-lying fields. The rigid economic structures in North Korea were unable to
cope with the triple assault of bad weather, soaring energy, and declining food production. Nor did
dictator Kim Jong Il's political decisions make things any better.

But the peculiarities of North Korea's political economy did not cause the devastating famine that
followed. Highly centralized planning and pretensions to self-reliance only made the country
prematurely vulnerable to trends now affecting the rest of the planet.

As with the North Koreans, our dependency on relatively cheap energy to run our industrialized
agriculture and our smokestack industries is now mixing lethally with food shortages and the
beginnings of climate overload, pushing us all toward the precipice. In the short term, we face a
food crisis and an energy crisis. Over the longer term, this is certain to expand into a much larger
climate crisis. No magic wand, whether biofuels, genetically modified organisms (GMO), or
geoengineering, can make the ogres disappear.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, "We are all Americans" briefly became a popular expression
of solidarity around the world. If we don't devise policy choices that address energy, agriculture,
and climate, while replacing the idolatry of unrestrained growth at the heart of both capitalist and
communist economies, the tagline for the 21st century may be: "We are all North Koreans."

Jan Rasmussen



Jesper (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Jesper


Dato : 06-08-08 06:48

Jan Rasmussen <1@1.1> wrote:

> http://www.alternet.org/story/93170/
>
> In the 1990s, North Korea was the world's canary. The famine that killed
> as much as 10% of the North Korean population in those years was, it turns
> out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the globe -- though few saw
> it that way at the time.
>
> That small Northeast Asian land, one of the last putatively communist
> countries on the planet, faced the same three converging factors as we do
> now -- escalating energy prices, a reduction in food supplies, and
> impending environmental catastrophe. At the time, of course, all the
> knowing analysts and pundits dismissed what was happening in that country
> as the inevitable breakdown of an archaic economic system presided over by
> a crackpot dictator.
>
> They were wrong. The collapse of North Korean agriculture in the 1990s was
> not the result of backwardness. In fact, North Korea boasted one of the
> most mechanized agricultures in Asia. Despite claims of self-sufficiency,
> the North Koreans were actually heavily dependent on cheap fuel imports.
> (Does that already ring a bell?) In their case, the heavily subsidized
> energy came from Russia and China, and it helped keep North Korea's
> battalion of tractors operating. It also meant that North Korea was able
> to go through fertilizer, a petroleum product, at one of the world's
> highest rates. When the Soviets and Chinese stopped subsidizing those
> energy imports in the late 1980s and international energy rates became the
> norm for them, too, the North Koreans had a rude awakening.
>
> Like the globe as a whole, North Korea does not have a great deal of
> arable land -- it can grow food on only about 14% of its territory. (The
> comparable global figure for arable land is about 13%.) With heavy
> applications of fertilizer and pesticides, North Koreans coaxed a lot of
> food out of a little land. By the 1980s, however, the soil was exhausted,
> and agricultural production was declining. So spiking energy prices hit an
> economy already in crisis. Desperate to grow more food, the North Korean
> government instructed farmers to cut down trees, stripping hillsides to
> bring more land into cultivation.
>
> Big mistake. When heavy rains hit in 1995, this dragooning of marginal
> lands into agricultural production only amplified the national disaster.
> The resulting flooding damaged more than 40% of the country's rice paddy
> fields. Torrential rains washed away topsoil, while rocks and sand,
> dislodged from hillsides, ruined low-lying fields. The rigid economic
> structures in North Korea were unable to cope with the triple assault of
> bad weather, soaring energy, and declining food production. Nor did
> dictator Kim Jong Il's political decisions make things any better.
>
> But the peculiarities of North Korea's political economy did not cause the
> devastating famine that followed. Highly centralized planning and
> pretensions to self-reliance only made the country prematurely vulnerable
> to trends now affecting the rest of the planet.
>
> As with the North Koreans, our dependency on relatively cheap energy to
> run our industrialized agriculture and our smokestack industries is now
> mixing lethally with food shortages and the beginnings of climate
> overload, pushing us all toward the precipice. In the short term, we face
> a food crisis and an energy crisis. Over the longer term, this is certain
> to expand into a much larger climate crisis. No magic wand, whether
> biofuels, genetically modified organisms (GMO), or geoengineering, can
> make the ogres disappear.
>
> After the attacks of September 11, 2001, "We are all Americans" briefly
> became a popular expression of solidarity around the world. If we don't
> devise policy choices that address energy, agriculture, and climate, while
> replacing the idolatry of unrestrained growth at the heart of both
> capitalist and communist economies, the tagline for the 21st century may
> be: "We are all North Koreans."
>
> Jan Rasmussen

Det forklarer stadigvæk ikke hvorfor nordkoreanerne sulter og
sydkoreanerne lever i overflod.
Det er velkendt, at stats-og kollektivbrug i socialistiske lande er dybt
ineffektive. I de "go'e gamle dage" under kommunismen, da leverede
småbønder fra deres private smålodder, der udgjorde en forsvindende
lille del af landbrugsarealen, en fjerdedel af fødevarerne i
Sovjetunionen.
--
Jesper
A dollar in aid to the third world not spend on
family planning is a dollar wasted!
htp://theextract.blogspot.com/

Jan Rasmussen (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Jan Rasmussen


Dato : 06-08-08 07:16

"Jesper" <spambuster@users.toughguy.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1il8qkn.109h8v91n9ahxcN%spambuster@users.toughguy.net...
> Jan Rasmussen <1@1.1> wrote:
>
>> http://www.alternet.org/story/93170/
>>
>> In the 1990s, North Korea was the world's canary. The famine that killed
>> as much as 10% of the North Korean population in those years was, it turns
>> out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the globe -- though few saw
>> it that way at the time.


> Det forklarer stadigvæk ikke hvorfor nordkoreanerne sulter og
> sydkoreanerne lever i overflod.

Sydkoreanerne er jo integreret i verdenssamfundet, har masser af hård valuta,
der giver dem mulighed for at købe energi og fødevare til verdensmarkedsprisen.
jeg har ikke indtrykket af nordkoreanerne har mulighed for det.


> Det er velkendt, at stats-og kollektivbrug i socialistiske lande er dybt
> ineffektive. I de "go'e gamle dage" under kommunismen, da leverede
> småbønder fra deres private smålodder, der udgjorde en forsvindende
> lille del af landbrugsarealen, en fjerdedel af fødevarerne i
> Sovjetunionen.

Jeps, deres styreform gjore tingene værrer, og ikke bedere,
men var ikke årsagen.

Jan Rasmussen



Jesper (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Jesper


Dato : 06-08-08 11:44

Jan Rasmussen <1@1.1> wrote:

> "Jesper" <spambuster@users.toughguy.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1il8qkn.109h8v91n9ahxcN%spambuster@users.toughguy.net...
> > Jan Rasmussen <1@1.1> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.alternet.org/story/93170/
> >>
> >> In the 1990s, North Korea was the world's canary. The famine that
> >> killed as much as 10% of the North Korean population in those years
> >> was, it turns out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the globe
> >> -- though few saw it that way at the time.
>
>
> > Det forklarer stadigvæk ikke hvorfor nordkoreanerne sulter og
> > sydkoreanerne lever i overflod.
>
> Sydkoreanerne er jo integreret i verdenssamfundet, har masser af hård
> valuta, der giver dem mulighed for at købe energi og fødevare til
> verdensmarkedsprisen. jeg har ikke indtrykket af nordkoreanerne har
> mulighed for det.

Og nordkoreanerne er ikke integreret i verdenssamfundet og mangler hård
valuta fordi hvad?
>
>
> > Det er velkendt, at stats-og kollektivbrug i socialistiske lande er dybt
> > ineffektive. I de "go'e gamle dage" under kommunismen, da leverede
> > småbønder fra deres private smålodder, der udgjorde en forsvindende
> > lille del af landbrugsarealen, en fjerdedel af fødevarerne i
> > Sovjetunionen.
>
> Jeps, deres styreform gjore tingene værrer, og ikke bedere,
> men var ikke årsagen.
>
> Jan Rasmussen

Dvs du mener ikke deres styreform har nogen betydning, selvom det er
dokumenteret, at netop denne styreform har medført hungersnød i
Sovjetunionen, Kina, Burma og en lang række andre lande?
--
Jesper
A dollar in aid to the third world not spend on
family planning is a dollar wasted!
htp://theextract.blogspot.com/

Jan Rasmussen (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : Jan Rasmussen


Dato : 06-08-08 15:03

"Jesper" <spambuster@users.toughguy.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1il94ff.1ff8btq1t6ku95N%spambuster@users.toughguy.net...
> Jan Rasmussen <1@1.1> wrote:
>
>> "Jesper" <spambuster@users.toughguy.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1il8qkn.109h8v91n9ahxcN%spambuster@users.toughguy.net...
>> > Jan Rasmussen <1@1.1> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.alternet.org/story/93170/
>> >>
>> >> In the 1990s, North Korea was the world's canary. The famine that
>> >> killed as much as 10% of the North Korean population in those years
>> >> was, it turns out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the globe
>> >> -- though few saw it that way at the time.
>>
>>
>> > Det forklarer stadigvæk ikke hvorfor nordkoreanerne sulter og
>> > sydkoreanerne lever i overflod.
>>
>> Sydkoreanerne er jo integreret i verdenssamfundet, har masser af hård
>> valuta, der giver dem mulighed for at købe energi og fødevare til
>> verdensmarkedsprisen. jeg har ikke indtrykket af nordkoreanerne har
>> mulighed for det.
>
> Og nordkoreanerne er ikke integreret i verdenssamfundet og mangler hård
> valuta fordi hvad?

Fordi de lever i et:
Fucked up "archaic economic system presided over by a crackpot dictator"

> Dvs du mener ikke deres styreform har nogen betydning, selvom det er
> dokumenteret, at netop denne styreform har medført hungersnød i
> Sovjetunionen, Kina, Burma og en lang række andre lande?

Som jeg forstår artiklens pointe med canariefuglen i kulminen, er, at det jo netop
var deres styreform der gør dem til dette.

Jan Rasmussen



' @ (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : ' @


Dato : 06-08-08 14:30

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:15:49 +0200, "Jan Rasmussen" <1@1.1> wrote:

>"Jesper" <spambuster@users.toughguy.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:1il8qkn.109h8v91n9ahxcN%spambuster@users.toughguy.net...
>> Jan Rasmussen <1@1.1> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.alternet.org/story/93170/
>>>
>>> In the 1990s, North Korea was the world's canary. The famine that killed
>>> as much as 10% of the North Korean population in those years was, it turns
>>> out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the globe -- though few saw
>>> it that way at the time.
>
>
>> Det forklarer stadigvæk ikke hvorfor nordkoreanerne sulter og
>> sydkoreanerne lever i overflod.
>
>Sydkoreanerne er jo integreret i verdenssamfundet, har masser af hård valuta,
>der giver dem mulighed for at købe energi og fødevare til verdensmarkedsprisen.
>jeg har ikke indtrykket af nordkoreanerne har mulighed for det.

det VALGTE styret at man ikke VILLE, så hellere leve i armod og
undertrykkelse på ægte socialistisk vis,


der er blot den hage ved dette, at selv en nok så "rigtig" politisk
parole ikke fylder meget i maverne på en sultende befolkning



>
>
>> Det er velkendt, at stats-og kollektivbrug i socialistiske lande er dybt
>> ineffektive. I de "go'e gamle dage" under kommunismen, da leverede
>> småbønder fra deres private smålodder, der udgjorde en forsvindende
>> lille del af landbrugsarealen, en fjerdedel af fødevarerne i
>> Sovjetunionen.
>
>Jeps, deres styreform gjore tingene værrer, og ikke bedere,
>men var ikke årsagen.
>
>Jan Rasmussen
>

--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends.
You talk to your enemies.
/Moshe Dayan/

' @ (06-08-2008)
Kommentar
Fra : ' @


Dato : 06-08-08 14:26

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:48:25 +0200, spambuster@users.toughguy.net
(Jesper) wrote:


>Det er velkendt, at stats-og kollektivbrug i socialistiske lande er dybt
>ineffektive. I de "go'e gamle dage" under kommunismen, da leverede
>småbønder fra deres private smålodder, der udgjorde en forsvindende
>lille del af landbrugsarealen, en fjerdedel af fødevarerne i
>Sovjetunionen.


mindre velkendt er det at før forbryderne kom til magten i Rusland var
Rusland verdens største korneksportør


men som alle andre steder lykkedes det for kommunisterne at sætte
ineffektiviteten så meget i system at folk sultede ihjel


--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends.
You talk to your enemies.
/Moshe Dayan/

Søg
Reklame
Statistik
Spørgsmål : 177511
Tips : 31968
Nyheder : 719565
Indlæg : 6408596
Brugere : 218887

Månedens bedste
Årets bedste
Sidste års bedste