cheap oil

Published on Jan 21, 2016In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the latest news and developments with the low price of oil, how it happened and most importantly why it happened. We mention how elites like the Rockefeller and Rothschild family along w…


Published on Jan 21, 2016
In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the latest news and developments with the low price of oil, how it happened and most importantly why it happened. We mention how elites like the Rockefeller and Rothschild family along with the fight for the U.S dollar holding world reserve currency status has affected the price of oil.

Peak prosperity

by Chris Martenson, Gail Tverberg, originally published by Peak Prosperity Actuary Gail Tverberg explains the tight correlation between the rates of GDP growth and growth in energy supply. For decades, energy has been becoming more costly to obtain, and instead … Continue reading

Actuary Gail Tverberg explains the tight correlation between the rates of GDP growth and growth in energy supply. For decades, energy has been becoming more costly to obtain, and instead of accepting lower GDP growth, we have been using debt to fund further energy exploration and extraction.

That strategy has diminishing returns, Tverberg warns. And we are close to the moment of reckoning:

The more we look at it the more we see that the rate of growth and energy supply is very closely correlated with the rate of GDP growth. And I know on some of my recent posts I’ve included a chart that goes back to 1820 that shows the same correlation. You have to have an increasing supply of energy in order to get GDP growth. The GDP growth tends to be a little higher than the energy growth. That’s especially the same when we made the change in the mid 70’s, when we had the big first oil crisis and we realized that Japan had already started making small cars, and so we could make smaller cars, too, and save quite a bit of oil very quickly. And we realized then that we didn’t have to burn oil to create electricity; there were a lot of other alternative approaches, including nuclear. So we pulled those off line, and where home heating had been done by oil it was easy to transfer that to other types of energy. So we had a number of different things we could do very quickly back then — and I think people got the idea that because we could pick the low-hanging fruit, then somehow or other we could do the same thing again. But we’re not getting that same kind of effect any more.

I think the thing that people don’t realize is how closely the growth in debt is tied to the growth in the economy.

China v US energy consumption

China’s energy use has more than doubled over the last decade to overtake the United States as the word’s biggest user, according to preliminary data from the International Energy Agency. As the data from the IEA shows, China has gone … Continue reading

China’s energy use has more than doubled over the last decade to overtake the United States as the word’s biggest user, according to preliminary data from the International Energy Agency.

As the data from the IEA shows, China has gone from using 1,107 million tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe) in 2000, to 2,131 Mtoe in 2008 and is estimated to have consumed 2,265 Mtoe in 2009.

Meanwhile, US energy consumption was only marginally higher in 2008 (at 2,281 Mtoe) than it was in 2000 (2,270 Mtoe), and will actually be shown to have fallen last year (to 2,169 Mtoe).

As Jonathan Watts writes is his news story from Beijing, this is a major turning point. The US has been the world’s biggest energy user since records began.

Energy use and carbon emissions in developed countries approximately leveled off over the past 35 years, where developed countries are defined as Europe, the U.S., the former Soviet Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia. The leveling of emissions from developed countries is in part a result of outsourcing of manufacturing to developing countries.

International trade affects global air pollution and transport by redistributing emissions related to production of goods and services and by potentially altering the total amount of global emissions. Here we analyze the trade influences by combining an economic-emission analysis on China’s bilateral trade and atmospheric chemical transport modeling. Our focused analysis on US air quality shows that Chinese air pollution related to production for exports contributes, at a maximum on a daily basis, 12–24% of sulfate pollution over the western United States. The US outsourcing of manufacturing to China might have reduced air quality in the western United States with an improvement in the east, due to the combined effects of changes in emissions and atmospheric transport.

The world’s richest countries are increasingly outsourcing their carbon pollution to China and other rising economies, according to a draft UN report.

Outsourcing of emissions comes in the form of electronic devices such as smartphones, cheap clothes and other goods manufactured in China and other rising economies but consumed in the US and Europe.

A draft of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by the Guardian, says emissions of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases warming the planet grew twice as fast in the first decade of the 21st century as they did during the previous three decades.

Much of that rise was due to the burning of coal, the report says. And much of that coal was used to power factories in China and other rising economies that produce goods for US and European consumers, the draft adds.

Keywords: input–output analysis, emission control, international collaboration

oil prices plunge

Published on Dec 14, 2015 The Russian economy, which is heavily reliant on oil prices, is bearing the brunt of the low oil prices. For more on the falling oil and what it means for the Russian and Saudi economies … Continue reading

Published on Dec 14, 2015
The Russian economy, which is heavily reliant on oil prices, is bearing the brunt of the low oil prices. For more on the falling oil and what it means for the Russian and Saudi economies – RT is joined by Michael Klare, an expert on natural resources, and author of ‘Resource Wars, Blood and Oil’

a shady and illegal pipeline expansion

In August the State Department quietly posted documents revealing that it is allowing Canadian pipeline company Enbridge to move ahead with a shady and illegal pipeline expansion project that could nearly double the amount of tar sands crude pumped into the U.S. through its Alberta Clipper pipeline, in clear violation of its existing permit.1
Enbridge is responsible for the Kalamazoo tar sands disaster, the largest inland oil-spill in U.S. history.
But shockingly, the State Department is green-lighting this scheme without giving public notice of its decision, without conducting a detailed environmental review, and without a finding of “national interest,” as required for Keystone XL and other new pipeline projects.
Expanding tar sands production, by any means, will lead to “essentially game over” in our fight against climate change. So it is crucial that we strongly challenge this decision.
Enbridge has been trying since 2012 to get a presidential permit to expand the Alberta Clipper from its current permitted capacity of 450,000 barrels per day to 800,000 barrels per day.
Thanks in large part to our public pressure, activists have stalled approvals for this tar sands project and others, like the Keystone XL pipeline. So Enbridge concocted a dangerous scheme that essentially amounts to smuggling to get their filthy product across the border.
Instead of carrying tar sands across the border on the Clipper pipeline directly, Enbridge is diverting the tar sands flow to an adjacent 47-year-old pipeline, where it will travel 20 miles across the US border into Minnesota, then back to the Clipper pipeline. Disturbingly, the aging “Line 3” was not designed to carry toxic and corrosive tar sands crude, yet would be operating at more than double its current capacity.
Yes, this is a proven recipe for disaster: The 2013 Mayflower Arkansas spill was caused by a rupture of the similarly aging Pegasus pipeline, which had been also co-opted to carry tar sands crude.
The quiet State Department approval of Enbridge’s pipeline scheme stands in clear violation of the process required to approve new tar sands infrastructure, and the National Interest Determination test the President set for Keystone XL: If the project significantly increases carbon pollution, it should not be approved.
This project, which could carry about half as much crude as Keystone XL, clearly fails that test.
It’s possible that President Obama and Secretary Kerry did not know about this decision, in which case they could intervene and put a stop to it. But if they do nothing, it will seriously call into question the President’s commitment to fighting climate change, and commitment to the test he himself set for ensuring that tar sands pipeline projects do not make climate change worse.
Thanks for taking action.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Take action now ►
  1. State Department Approves Illegal Scheme for Doubling Tar Sands Flowing through the Great Lakes,” National Wildlife Federation, 8/25/14
In August the State Department quietly posted documents revealing that it is allowing Canadian pipeline company Enbridge to move ahead with a shady and illegal pipeline expansion project that could nearly double the amount of tar sands crude pumped into the U.S. through its Alberta Clipper pipeline, in clear violation of its existing permit.1
Enbridge is responsible for the Kalamazoo tar sands disaster, the largest inland oil-spill in U.S. history.
But shockingly, the State Department is green-lighting this scheme without giving public notice of its decision, without conducting a detailed environmental review, and without a finding of “national interest,” as required for Keystone XL and other new pipeline projects.
Expanding tar sands production, by any means, will lead to “essentially game over” in our fight against climate change. So it is crucial that we strongly challenge this decision.
Enbridge has been trying since 2012 to get a presidential permit to expand the Alberta Clipper from its current permitted capacity of 450,000 barrels per day to 800,000 barrels per day.
Thanks in large part to our public pressure, activists have stalled approvals for this tar sands project and others, like the Keystone XL pipeline. So Enbridge concocted a dangerous scheme that essentially amounts to smuggling to get their filthy product across the border.
Instead of carrying tar sands across the border on the Clipper pipeline directly, Enbridge is diverting the tar sands flow to an adjacent 47-year-old pipeline, where it will travel 20 miles across the US border into Minnesota, then back to the Clipper pipeline. Disturbingly, the aging “Line 3” was not designed to carry toxic and corrosive tar sands crude, yet would be operating at more than double its current capacity.
Yes, this is a proven recipe for disaster: The 2013 Mayflower Arkansas spill was caused by a rupture of the similarly aging Pegasus pipeline, which had been also co-opted to carry tar sands crude.
The quiet State Department approval of Enbridge’s pipeline scheme stands in clear violation of the process required to approve new tar sands infrastructure, and the National Interest Determination test the President set for Keystone XL: If the project significantly increases carbon pollution, it should not be approved.
This project, which could carry about half as much crude as Keystone XL, clearly fails that test.
It’s possible that President Obama and Secretary Kerry did not know about this decision, in which case they could intervene and put a stop to it. But if they do nothing, it will seriously call into question the President’s commitment to fighting climate change, and commitment to the test he himself set for ensuring that tar sands pipeline projects do not make climate change worse.
Thanks for taking action.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Take action now ?
  1. State Department Approves Illegal Scheme for Doubling Tar Sands Flowing through the Great Lakes,” National Wildlife Federation, 8/25/14

gas and mortgage

The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth. As of 2013, it is estimated at 7.176 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB).[1] The USCB estimates that the world population exceeded 7 billion on March 12, 2012.[2]According to a separate estimate by the United Nations Population … Continue reading

The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth. As of 2013, it is estimated at 7.176 billion by the United States Census Bureau (USCB).[1] The USCB estimates that the world population exceeded 7 billion on March 12, 2012.[2]According to a separate estimate by the United Nations Population Fund, it reached this milestone on October 31, 2011.[3][4][5]

The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million.[6] The highest growth rates – global population increases above 1.8% per year – occurred briefly during the 1950s, and for longer during the 1960s and 1970s. The global growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, and has declined to below 1.1% as of 2012.[7] Total annual births were highest in the late 1980s at about 138 million,[8] and are now expected to remain essentially constant at their 2011 level of 134 million, while deaths number 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040.[9]

Current UN projections show a continued increase in population in the near future with a steady decline in population growth rate; global population is expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050.[10][11] UN Population Division estimates for the year 2150 range between 3.2 and 24.8 billion;[12] one of many independent mathematical models supports the lower estimate.[13] Some analysts have questioned the sustainability of further world population growth, highlighting the growing pressures on the environment, global food supplies, and energy resources

While everyone in the world could fit into a small chunk of America if they all lived in the density of New York, the world wouldn’t survive at all if everyone in the world decided to consume like those New Yorkers (or any Americans). While those of us in the U.S. consume enough resources to take up 4.1 Earth’s worth of resources, the only reason we haven’t eaten through everything is that the rest of the world is balancing us out by using far more reasonable percentages of the Earth.

If the Chinese and Indians were to use as much energy per capita as Americans use, their total power consumption would be 14 times as great as that of the United States.

Even if Asians were to restrict themselves to lower European levels of energy usage they would still consume eight to nine times as much power as America does today.

Spend a week in China and you’ll see why. Here’s a Shanghai Daily headline from Sept. 7, 2012: “City Warned of Water Resource Shortage.” The article said: “Shanghai may face a shortage of water resources if the population continues to soar. … The current capacity of the city’s water supply was about 16 million tons per day, which is able to cover the demand of 26 million people. However, once the population reaches 30 million, the demand would rise to 18 million tons per day, exceeding the current capacity.” Shanghai will hit 30 million in about seven years!

“Success in the ‘American Dream,’ ” notes Peggy Liu, the founder of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, or Juccce, “used to just mean a house, a family of four, and two cars, but now it’s escalated to conspicuous consumption as epitomized by Kim Kardashian. China simply cannot follow that path — or the planet will be stripped bare of natural resources to make all that the Chinese consumers want to consume.”

However we look at it, the world cannot expect to see its energy usage grow by such an extent. Conventional forms of power generation will produce carbon in such volumes that our planet will be condemned to unmanageable climate change, while the alternatives — even nuclear power — are simply not viable within the time frames mentioned.

Or take cars. Estimates suggest that if China, India and other developing countries reach Western levels of car ownership, there could be 3 billion cars in the world, four times the current total, within four decades. Where will the fuel come from for these vehicles, and what about their environmental impact?

Similar calculations can be made for everything from chickens to iPads. Quite simply, this world just does not have enough for two more consumption-driven Americas.

Politicians, economists and businessmen remain in denial, using the crutch of technology, free markets and finance to spin messages about innovation and hope. But hope is not a plan.

This is misleading. She didn’t say she thought Obama’s government would pay for her gas and her mortgage. She said she wouldn’t have to “worry” about them anymore, probably meaning she hoped that she’d have enough income to cover those things. And she expected an increase in income due to some grand policy she mistakenly thought Obama would institute. The guy brings her ruby slippers before they met and she would later go on to compare Obama to the Wizard of Oz. Probably a preset script.

Energy policy

    This July 4, the price of gasoline in the US is expected to be at its highest level in six years – at $3.704 per gallon according to the Energy Information Commission. Separately, this week, the Obama Administration lifted a … Continue reading

 

 

This July 4, the price of gasoline in the US is expected to be at its highest level in six years – at $3.704 per gallon according to the Energy Information Commission.

Separately, this week, the Obama Administration lifted a 40-year-old ban on the exporting of crude oil. Steve Mufson of The Washington Post noted, “The Commerce ruling initially clears the way for as little as 20,000 barrels a day of new condensate exports (minimally processed super-light oil) but that could rise to as much as 200,000 barrels a day, the estimated Gulf coast capacity of stabilization units, according to an analyst report by Citigroup.”

Superman

Published on Jun 13, 2013 Gain more muscle with AsapSCIENCE: http://bit.ly/11ikJxw Subscribe! It’s Free: http://bit.ly/15NrBqa *** CLICK “SHOW MORE” FOR LINKS *** DC Superman Wiki: http://goo.gl/qBltO Wolfram Alpha is the greatest tool on the internet:http://goo.gl/nk1pX Largest Nuclear Bomb: http://goo.gl/P85QC Article on how the brain puts together an image:http://goo.gl/FPGjW Amazing photos of the initial nuclear explosion:http://goo.gl/KoMdU Archive footage of nuclear […]


Published on Jun 13, 2013

Gain more muscle with AsapSCIENCE: http://bit.ly/11ikJxw
Subscribe! It’s Free: http://bit.ly/15NrBqa
*** CLICK “SHOW MORE” FOR LINKS ***

DC Superman Wiki: http://goo.gl/qBltO

Wolfram Alpha is the greatest tool on the internet:http://goo.gl/nk1pX

Largest Nuclear Bomb: http://goo.gl/P85QC

Article on how the brain puts together an image:http://goo.gl/FPGjW

Amazing photos of the initial nuclear explosion:http://goo.gl/KoMdU

Archive footage of nuclear tests: http://goo.gl/KEkbi

More footage of nuclear tests: http://goo.gl/tAunk

Duck and Cover video: http://goo.gl/AZcUO

Great video about particle acceleration and quark-gloun particles:http://goo.gl/TxCCi

The awesome Jefferson Lab: http://goo.gl/h8PeX

Nuke Map: http://goo.gl/KMQP3

Thanks to NYU Professor of Physics Kyle Cranmer (also works on the LHC!) and UMN Professor of Physics Jim Kakalios for discussing this topic with me! http://goo.gl/oHYna

****************************************­*******************************
Vsauce Links

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Vsauce3
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/vsauce3
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/vsaucethree

T-Shirts: http://www.districtlines.com/vsauce

Music By Jake Chudnow:http://www.youtube.com/user/jakechudnow
Vsauce Animation by Rickonami:http://www.youtube.com/user/rickonami

Vsauce: http://www.youtube.com/Vsauce
Vsauce2: http://www.youtube.com/Vsauce2
Vsauce3: http://www.youtube.com/Vsauce3
WeSauce: http://www.youtube.com/wesauce