Friday, December 29, 2006

Resolutions for a Post-Peak (oil) New Year

by John Michael Greer
Published on 27 Dec 2006 by The Archdruid Report. Archived on 27 Dec 2006.

To my mind, the traditional habit of New Year’s resolutions has much to recommend it. Though it’s proverbial that most such resolutions are already on the endangered species list a week after the new year begins, and end up in the fossil record somewhere between the brontosaurs and last election’s campaign promises by the time February comes within sight, the idea of entering a new year with new aspirations is a good one. As 2007 approaches, worldwide conventional oil production remains noticeably below its 2005 peak, and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and elsewhere promises at least its share of oil crises and economic shocks in the months and years to come.

Thus a set of New Year’s resolutions for a world on the brink of the deindustrial age seems timely just now. There’s plenty of material on the web right now about the mechanics of peak oil, and a fair amount on what we can expect once industrial civilization starts tobogganing down the far side of Hubbert’s Peak, but too many of the suggestions for what can be done about it either remain fixated on survivalist fantasies of apocalypse or go chasing after equally unlikely dreams of large-scale political reform. Mick Winter’s excellent new book Peak Oil Prep (and the accompanying website www.PeakOilPrep.com) takes a large step in the right direction. Still, I have my own list of suggested resolutions.

For some people the following ideas will be impractical, and for almost everyone they will be at least a little inconvenient. All of them, however, will be an inescapable part of the reality most Americans will have to live with in the future – and quite possibly the very near future, at that. The sooner people concerned with peak oil and the rest of the predicament of industrial society make changes like these in their own lives, the better able they will be to surf the waves of industrial decline and help other people make the transition toward sustainability.

1. Replace your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents
2. Retrofit your home for energy conservation
3. Cut back on your gasoline consumption.
4. Plant an organic vegetable garden
5. Compost your food waste
6. Take up a handicraft
7. Adopt an “obsolete” technology
8. Take charge of your own health care
9. Help build your local community
10. Explore your spirituality Read the full article on Energy BulletinEnergy Bulletin, peak oil news clearinghouse

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

The Iranian petroleum crisis and United States

PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Roger Stern*
Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218
Edited by Ronald W. Jones, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, and approved October 31, 2006 (received for review May 16, 2006)

The U.S. case against Iran is based on Iran’s deceptions regarding
nuclear weapons development. This case is buttressed by assertions
that a state so petroleum-rich cannot need nuclear power to
preserve exports, as Iran claims. The U.S. infers, therefore, that
Iran’s entire nuclear technology program must pertain to weapons
development. However, some industry analysts project an Irani oil
export decline [e.g., Clark JR (2005) Oil Gas J 103(18):34–39]. If such
a decline is occurring, Iran’s claim to need nuclear power could be
genuine. Because Iran’s government relies on monopoly proceeds
from oil exports for most revenue, it could become politically
vulnerable if exports decline. Here, we survey the political economy
of Irani petroleum for evidence of this decline. We define
Iran’s export decline rate (edr) as its summed rates of depletion and
domestic demand growth, which we find equals 10–12%. We
estimate marginal cost per barrel for additions to Irani production
capacity, from which we derive the ‘‘standstill’’ investment required
to offset edr. We then compare the standstill investment to
actual investment, which has been inadequate to offset edr. Even
if a relatively optimistic schedule of future capacity addition is met,
the ratio of 2011 to 2006 exports will be only 0.40–0.52. A more
probable scenario is that, absent some change in Irani policy, this
ratio will be 0.33–0.46 with exports declining to zero by 2014–
2015. Energy subsidies, hostility to foreign investment, and inefficiencies
of its state-planned economy underlie Iran’s problem,
which has no relation to ‘‘peak oil.’’
The U.S. has projected military force in the Persian Gulf for two
decades. The policy aims to preempt emergence of a regional
superpower (1). However, preemption of Iraq has been accomplished
only after two wars and an occupation. These costly
exercises have not slowed Iran’s procession toward regional superpower
status but rather may have accelerated it (2).
Iran’s rise illuminates a flaw in preemption policy. The flaw is
that force projection is not a remedy for the underlying economic
problem, market power. Oil cartel states exert market power to
collect monopoly rents. In a lawless region such as the Gulf, each
states’ rents are a potential war prize to another. If rents could be
aggregated by wars of seizure, a Gulf superpower would emerge, as
was Iraq’s aim in invading Iran and Kuwait. Yet, although U.S. force
projection prevents wars of seizure, rents still flow.
Force projection thus keeps a peace in which cartel states can
collect monopoly rents sufficient to attain near-superpower status,
evenwithout wars of seizure. Market power thereby perpetuates the
need for force projection, whereas force projection protects the
cartel states that exert market power. This paradox guarantees that
the U.S. militarywill remain in the Gulf until some policy is adopted
to reduce market power.
U.S. failure to confront market power is not an oversight,
however. It is a policy whose premise is that cartel states must be
appeased to secure their oil exports (3). This conception is based in
turn on the perceived threat of an ‘‘oil weapon’’ (4), a fiction U.S.
officials have believed for five decades. Whatever the shortcomings
of past policy, the present concern is how to prevent a terror sponsor
from attaining nuclear weapons or contain it if it does.
The U.S. case for action against Iran is based on its deceptions
with respect to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT). However, this case is buttressed with assertions
about Irani petroleum:
Finally, there is Iran’s claim that it is building massive
and expensive nuclear fuel cycle facilities to meet future
electricity needs, while preserving oil and gas for export.
All of this strains credulity. Iran’s gas reserves are the
second largest in the world. [Yet] Iran flares enough gas
annually to generate electricity equivalent to the output
of four Bushehr reactors.†
Given the historic difficulties that U.S. policymakers have had with
petroleum economics, it seems possible that these assertions are
wrong. Iran is guilty of NPT deceptions, but it cannot be inferred
from this that all Irani claims must be false. The regime’s dependence
on export revenue suggests that it could need nuclear power
as badly as it claims. Recent analyses by former National Iranian Oil
Company (NIOC) officials project that oil exports could go to zero
within 12–19 years (5, 6). It therefore seems possible that Iran’s
claim to need nuclear power might be genuine, an indicator of
distress from anticipated export revenue shortfalls. If so, the Irani
regime may be more vulnerable than is presently understood. Here
we survey Iran’s petroleum economy for evidence of oil export
decline that might suggest such vulnerability.‡
Petroleum Sector Overview
Most Irani oil export revenues are monopoly rents, which comprised
63% of Irani state revenues in 2004 (4). Rents derive from
the difference between market price and competitive price, which
is the sum of marginal production cost plus return to capital. For
states like Iran that subsidize domestic petroleum demand, such
dependence can be problematic. If subsidies call forth demand
growth in excess of production growth, the exportable fraction of
production will decline.

Click hear to read the complete article in PDF

Monday, December 25, 2006

Basquiat -- A tribute

A video collage with Velvet Underground's Heroine playing in the back ground

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Akira Kurosawa

Considering that these trailers were originally produced to advertise the films, they are offered here with the belief that there is no copyright infringement -- please contact me if you think otherwise.

French trailer for Ran

Madadayo

Rhapsody in August

Seven Samurai

Dodesukaden

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Monday, December 11, 2006

The Roman Empire Is Falling - So It Turns To Iran and Syria (n Empire)

By Robert Fisk Independent
December 7, 2006

The Roman Empire is falling. That, in a phrase, is what the Baker report says. The legions cannot impose their rule on Mesopotamia. Just as Crassus lost his legions' banners in the deserts of Syria-Iraq, so has George W Bush. There is no Mark Antony to retrieve the honour of the empire. The policy "is not working". "Collapse" and "catastrophe" - words heard in the Roman senate many a time - were embedded in the text of the Baker report. Et tu, James?

This is also the language of the Arab world, always waiting for the collapse of empire, for the destruction of the safe Western world which has provided it with money, weapons, political support. First, the Arabs trusted the British Empire and Winston Churchill, and then they trusted the American Empire and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Truman and Eisenhower administrations and all the other men who would give guns to the Israelis and billions to the Arabs - Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush...

And now they are told that the Americans are not winning the war; that they are losing. If you were an Arab, what would you do?

Be sure, they are not asking this question in Washington. The Middle East - so all-important (supposedly) in the "war on terror" - in itself, a myth - doesn't really matter in the White House. It is a district, a map, a region, every bit as amorphous as the crescent of "crisis" which the Clinton administration invented when it wanted to land its troops in Somalia. How to get out, how to save face, that's the question. To hell with the people who live there: the Arabs, the Iraqis, the men, women and children whom we kill - and whom the Iraqis kill - every day.

Note how our "spokesmen" in Afghanistan now acknowledge the dead woman and children of Nato airstrikes as if it is quite in order to slaughter these innocents because we are at war with the horrid Taliban.

Some of the same mindset has arrived in Baghdad, where "coalition" spokesmen also - from time to time - jump in front of the video-tape evidence by accepting that they, too, kill women and children in their war against "terror". But it is the sentences of impotence that doom empires. "The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing." There is a risk of a "slide towards chaos [sic] [that] could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe."

But hasn't that already happened? "Collapse" and "catastrophe" are daily present in Iraq. America's ability "to influence events" has been absent for years. And let's just re-read the following sentence: "Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency. Shiite [Shia] militias, death squads, al-Qa'ida and widespread criminality. Sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability."

Come again? Where was this "widespread criminality," this "sectarian conflict" when Saddam, our favourite war criminal, was in power? What do the Iraqis think about this? And how typical that the American media went at once to hear Bush's view of the Baker report - rather than the reaction of the Iraqis, those who are on the receiving end of our self-induced tragedy in Mesopotamia.

They will enjoy the idea that American troops should be "embedded" with Iraqi forces - not so long ago, it was the press that had to be "embedded" with the Americans! - as if the Romans were ready to put their legions amid the Goths, Ostrogoths and Visigoths to ensure their loyalty.

What the Romans did do, of course - and what the Americans would never do - is offer their subjects Roman citizenship. Every tribe - in Gaul or Bythinia or Mesopotamia - who fell under Roman rule became a citizen of Rome. What could Washington have done with Iraq if it had offered American citizenship to every Iraqi? There would have been no insurrection, no violence, no collapse or catastrophe, no Baker report. But no. We wanted to give these people the fruits of our civilisation - not the civilisation itself. From this, they were banned.

And the result? The nations we supposedly hated - Iran and Syria - are now expected to save us from ourselves. "Given the ability [sic] of Iran and Syria to influence events and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage [sic] them constructively."

I love those words. Especially "engage". Yes, the "influence of America" is diminishing. The influence of Syria and Iran is growing. That just about sums up the "war on terror". Any word yet, I wonder, from Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara?

The Strategies

The Baker panel considered four options, all of which it rejected:

Cut And Run

Baker believes it would cause a humanitarian disaster, while al-Qa'ida would expand further.

Stay The Course

Baker accepts that current US policy is not working. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The US is spending $2bn (�1bn) a week and has lost public support.

Send In More Troops

Increases in US troop levels would not solve the cause of violence in Iraq. Violence would simply rekindle as soon as US forces moved.

Regional Devolution

If the country broke up into its Shia, Sunni and Kurd regions, it would lead to ethnic cleansing and mass population moves.

Baker outlines a fifth option - 'responsible transition' - in which the number of US forces could be increased to shore up the Iraqi army while it takes over primary responsibility for combat operations. US troops would then decrease slowly.

Thursday, December 7, 2006

Sunday, December 3, 2006

party of the century


or The night the beautiful people died
Forty years ago Truman Capote threw a party that was meant to announce his arrival in society's best circles. Instead, he unwittingly made it clear that the world he so desperately wanted to be part of was in its death throes, writes Richard Ouzounian
They danced through the night, then walked out into the dawn and discovered that the world they knew was gone.This Tuesday, Nov. 28, will mark the 40th anniversary of The Black and White Ball, a vain caprice that Truman Capote conceived one June night in the Hamptons, only to see it escalate six months later into the seismic social event of its decade.By the time the last plate of scrambled eggs was cleared away the next morning by the bleary-eyed staff at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, and the last of the 540 revellers had weaved homeward up Fifth Avenue, not just a party but a way of life had come to a close.Never before had "The Beautiful People" seemed to matter so much, and never would they matter so much again.The growing discontent over the war in Vietnam and the racial tensions simmering just beneath the surface of America's cities were about to take centre stage, turning the haute-coutured denizens of Capote's soirée into so many dress extras from a film they couldn't begin to understand.And while society bandleader Peter Duchin played Irving Berlin tunes and the guests drank their way through more than 500 bottles of vintage Taittinger champagne, there was a younger generation outside rattling the gates, chanting "sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll."When Capote first dreamed of the evening, he had no idea of the repercussions it would eventually have. He never set out to prove that theworld he so desperately wanted to be a part of was empty and meaningless; it just happened that way.In the words of T.S. Eliot, he somehow managed "to do the right deed for the wrong reason."Capote's good friend Slim Keith understood his real motives. "I think it was something a little boy from New Orleans had always dreamed of doing," she told Capote biographer Gerald Clarke. "He wanted to give the biggest and best goddamned party that anybody had ever heard of. He wanted to see every notable in the world absolutely dying to attend a party given by aCandice Bergen funny-looking strange little man — himself."Capote was riding high in the summer of 1966. His "non-fiction novel" In Cold Blood was at the top of the bestseller lists and his name was on the tip of everyone's tongues.His fly-on-the-wall account of how two sociopaths brutally killed a family of four in small-town Kansas, then made their way to the gallows, had earned Capote over $2 million.But even more importantly, it had bought him credibility. The diminutive Southern jester with the voice that sounded like Scarlett O'Hara on nitrous oxide had suddenly fulfilled the promise he'd been flaunting for decades. He was no longer just a witty gadfly with a few magnolia-scented novellas to his credit. He was the real thing now, a writer of substance, with money, power and reputation — the three things New York's elite would always bend a knee to.So it was payback time for Truman, in every sense of the word. He would thank those who had helped him on the way up, he would embrace those whose rarefied world he felt he had now entered, and he would sneer at those who were somewhere below him on the rickety ladder called celebrity.But before the guest list, he would pick a venue.The choice was easy. From the moment it opened its doors in 1907 till the day it shut them in 2005, the Plaza at the ballHotel was the place where Manhattan gathered to celebrate.Alfred Vanderbilt had stayed there on its first night, F. Scott Fitzgerald had burnished it with the gold of his pen to stand as a symbol for "the Lost Generation," and later everyone from Marilyn Monroe to The Beatles had claimed it as their own.No other place would do for Mr. Capote.Once he had booked the Grand Ballroom for Monday night, Nov. 28, he settled on the style. A formal event, of course. But costume? Too campy. Yet he wanted something just a bit out of the ordinary...Masks, of course! Let all the gods and goddesses hide their identity until midnight, and then watch the revels ensue.And it was always good to be a bit stringent in matters of style, so Capote borrowed a page from the "Ascot Gavotte" scene in My Fair Lady and decreed that the colour scheme for the evening would be black and white.Food would be simple. In the wee small hours, there would be the obligatory breakfast buffet, but before that, Capote's sense of wicked whimsy would hold forth.Chicken hash would be served, despite its plebeian origins, because it was Capote's favourite dish at the Plaza's Oak Room Bar. And spaghetti and meatballs would also find their way onto the menu, because — as Capote later devilishly admitted — he wanted to see all those high society ladies trying to avoid getting red sauce on their glistening white gowns.To drink, there would be vintage French champagne, a bottle per person, and Peter Duchin to provide the music.Now, on to the guest list.

`The French Revolution came to mind and our place in the tumbrels'Harold PrinceBroadway producer
For most of the summer, Capote sat by various pools up and down the Eastern seaboard and scribbled names in a simple black-and-white composition book, the kind school children then used.Friends recall seeing him wrapped in thought more intent than that which ever accompanied his creation of a piece of fiction, writing a name in pencil, erasing it violently, smiling wickedly, then adding another name instead.Of course, he would invite his "swans," the rich society women who lunched with him constantly, stroking his ego and feeding him gossip. Babe Paley, Slim Keith, Marella Agnelli — they would all be there.As a guest of honour, to tie the whole thing together, he chose Katharine Graham, president of The Washington Post Company, still dealing with the 1963 suicide of her flamboyant husband, Philip.Having nodded towards the nation's capital with Graham, Capote then decided not to invite President Lyndon Johnson ("He's such a bore!") but did ask his daughter, Lynda Bird ("much more fun"). The Mr. and Mrs. Norman Mailer daughters of former presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman made the cut, as did various lords, ladies, barons, baronesses, dukes, duchesses, counts, countesses, a maharaja and a maharani.(The closest thing America had to royalty, Jacqueline Kennedy, the late President Kennedy's widow, was of course invited, but she declined.)For the first time, but not the last, the metaphor of the French Revolution was summoned, as author Leo Lerman commented "the guest book reads like an international list for the guillotine."Storm clouds were gathering, but Capote, busy playing the happy host, either couldn't or wouldn't see them. He whizzed his way through the worlds of industry, politics, academia, fashion and show business, adding names like John Hay Whitney, Leonard Bernstein, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Richard Avedon, Frank Sinatra and Oscar de La Renta.Some people who found themselves off the list threatened suicide, though no one actually followed through on the threat.In this pre-Internet era, it was the various society columnists of the daily New York papers that helped billow the sails of rumour, and they spent September, October and November of that year devoting an almost immoral amount of space to Capote's upcoming event.Every time someone ordered a new gown or switched hairstylists because of the event, it became the occasion for another shrill headline.But other voices began to be heard as well. dance floor Respected political columnist Drew Pearson raised a chill when he wrote that a party funded by the success of In Cold Blood was, in effect, a party funded by the murder of the Clutter family.And designer Cecil Beaton (whose costume-design work on My Fair Lady inspired Capote's black-and-white motif for the evening) went further, invoking the spirits of Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, the murderers who gave Capote so much of the material for his book.Beaton asked, "While the band is blaring and the champagne drunk, who will remember the two murderers but for whose garrulous cooperation the book could not have been written?"
When the night finally arrived, a chill rain was falling, but it didn't stop thousands of people from clustering outside the Plaza.Some were there to gawk at the celebrities, but others had come toPenelope Tree protest an event like this taking place during the year in which Lyndon Johnson had increased the American military personnel in Vietnam from 205,000 to 385,000, with no end in sight.A 19-year-old Candice Bergen remembers being stopped by a reporter who asked her if attending an event like this wasn't inappropriate and hearing someone shout out, "The war's inappropriate."And inside, while some were content to smile as Lauren Bacall and Jerome Robbins glided around the dance floor to "Top Hat," author Norman Mailer and former national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, nearly came to blows discussing the war in Southeast Asia.The next day, the old-school journalists raved about the event, and The New York Times even printed the complete guest list. But Pete Hamill in the New York Post wrote a devastating column in which he alternated a tongue-in-cheek rave over the night's event at the Plaza with Truman at the Ball news reports of the casualties in Vietnam from the previous day.And Hamill wasn't the odd man out. The rest of the cultural world was moving far away from Capote and his ilk.Eight days before the party, Harold Prince's groundbreaking production of Cabaret — which linked the decadence of 1930s Germany with allowing the Nazis to come to power — opened on Broadway. (Prince was a guest at the ball, but he left after only half an hour saying, "The French Revolution came to mind and our place in the tumbrels.")As Capote's guests were arriving at the Plaza, Arthur Penn, Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were on location in Texas filming Bonnie and Clyde, the movie that would be released the following summer and make American audiences confront a new face of violence for the first time, one that couldn't be hidden behind the gossamer webs of Capote's prose.And while the New Yorkers who had stayed up all night at the Plaza were sleeping it off on the morning of Nov. 29, George Martin and the Beatles were in their Abbey Road studios, recording "Strawberry Fields Forever," the dense, multi-tracked masterpiece that would stand as a symbol of the new era of complexity in pop music.Seven years later, Capote was to publish a collection of short pieces with the title The Dogs Bark. He claimed his inspiration was the old Arabic proverb, "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."What Capote never realized on the night of his Black and White Ball was that the dogs may have been baying loudly at the late November moon, but the caravan had quietly moved on long before.