After reflecting on it over the vacation, I changed the subtitle of the blog from the old:
"BLOG FOR PRO-BONO RESEARCH ON ENERGY SUPPLY, BIOFUELS, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT BOTHERS ME..."
which was sort of a hastily assembled laundry list of things I knew I was interested in to
"RISKS TO GLOBAL CIVILIZATION"
which I think better captures what it is that really drives my interest and is much snappier.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind
This was a book that my Dad gave me for my birthday a couple of months back, along with several others, and it had sat somewhere towards the bottom of the big teetering pile of books-in-progress on my bedside table, which is a constantly churning, occasionally-overflowing-onto-the-floor, index of whatever I'm currently interested in. Somehow this book hadn't really caught my attention (I guess the cover-art didn't really work on me), but mainly out of a sense of duty to my Dad I threw it into my bag for this trip.
And Wow! This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. It's gripping, it's tears-down-the-cheeks heartwarming, it's inspiring, and it's must-read material for anyone who cares deeply about the shape of the ongoing collision between global civilization and global resource constraints.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations
Firstly, to state my prejudices on this issue - soil erosion is an issue that I've found difficult to form a clear opinion on (you can read as far as I'd gotten in the "Soil Loss" section of this Oil Drum piece. It's clearly important in the long term, it doesn't seem to be an acute crisis globally (though it's certainly serious in some places), and it's not easy to sort out the science and decide exactly how acute a problem it is. Conventional agriculture clearly discounts the problem and is focussed on short term profit over long-term health of the soil. On the other hand, there is clearly an over-alarmist wing of the environmental movement (epitomized by people like Lester Brown) that is prone to overstating the severity and immediacy of the issue. In between these extremes, I haven't really been able to figure out the situation to my satisfaction.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
al-Naimi expects no change in production quotas
Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- OPEC will make “no changes” in production quotas when it meets tomorrow in Angola, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said.Source: Bloomberg. Not a big surprise - $70-$75 oil is well inside OPEC's comfort zone.
“No, absolutely not,” al-Naimi said today as reporters asked if the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will adjust the output limits that have been in place all this year. Asked if he was happy with oil prices, he said, “Yes, absolutely.” Al-Naimi predicted “gradual, steady growth” in the economy next year.
OPEC has a consensus to extend the current production limit of 24.845 million barrels a day, Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri told reporters earlier today. Oil has gained 66 percent since the beginning of 2009, when production cuts agreed late last year took effect. The group left quotas unchanged for a third time when it last met in September.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
OECD Oil Demand in a Recovery
Ok, let's go about this differently - looking at correlations with employment (as yesterday and the day before) is not getting me anywhere. Let's do something simpler. In a non-oil-shock but post-financial-crisis world, what is a reasonable range of estimates for the growth in OECD oil consumption during a recovery?
To estimate this, we need to estimate two things - what will the growth of GDP be? And how will oil efficiency evolve - the ratio of GDP to oil consumption?
To estimate this, we need to estimate two things - what will the growth of GDP be? And how will oil efficiency evolve - the ratio of GDP to oil consumption?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Why the Federal Reserve will Not Stop Bubbles
Professor Jim Hamilton has an interesting post up about whether the Federal Reserve should try to put a stop to bubbles:
Before we can discuss this issue, we'd need to agree on what we mean by a "bubble". Here's one definition that a lot of people may have in mind: a bubble describes a condition where the price of a particular asset is higher than it should be based on fundamentals and will eventually come crashing back down.
If that's what you believe, then there's a potential profit opportunity from selling the asset short whenever you're sure there's a bubble. And if that's the case, my question for you would be, why don't you do put your money where your mouth is instead of telling the Fed to do it for you? Your answer might be that it could take years for the bubble to pop, and you're not willing to absorb the risk in the interim. Or maybe you don't have the capital to cover the necessary margin requirements while you're shorting the bubble on the way up.
Even so, posing the statement in this way should bring a dash of humility to those currently claiming to see a plethora of bubbles that the Fed supposedly needs to fight. What exactly persuades them that they are right and all the other players in the market are wrong? How much of their personal wealth are they staking on the strength of their convictions? And even if you're absolutely sure you know how to identify bubbles, raising interest rates as a response is, as Tim Duy observes, "a rather blunt weapon that kills indiscriminately".
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
