Whale Oil vs. Mineral Oil

This post suggests a number of interesting things about the economics of oil:

1. There is no precedent for depletion of a mineral resource. This is unbelievably surprising, given how long we've been extracting minerals. One might infer that this will add to the bumpy ride when oil runs out because we lack prior experience of running out of juice on this scale.


2. If one uses the history of whale oil as a proxy, price rises start at the inflection point of the production curve, i.e. when the *rate* of increase in production peaks. According to this, that point occured around 1970. Shortly after, the oil price started its upward trend as seen here. Of course the initial triggers were geo-political but the oil price has never recovered.


3. If the post is correct in saying that the demand for oil is extremely inelastic (i.e. price changes have a limited effect on demand), oil price hikes will have little effect on how much carbon we pump into the air. I have my doubts: surely ever higher oil prices will make alternative fuels increasingly viable economically, if not technically ? Or perhaps reserves will run out before we have technically viable alternatives to oil, which is a doomsday scenario.

Hybrid + biodiesel: the panacea?

Finally the automakers are sticking electric motors and diesel engines in the same chassis, as reported by Wired News. It is also heartening to hear the US EPA plans to enforce stringent emissions standards from 2007. Better late than never.

Now combine that with biodiesel fuel blends and I get even more excited.

"They come in any colour, as long as it's green!"

Iraq today - the BBC's John Simpson summarises

John Simpson, liberator of Kabul and veteran BBC journalist, summarises the situation in Iraq. I think this is quite even handed.

The irony is palpable: Iraqi's are liberated but suffer 20 civilian casualties per day, the US pours $5 billion into Iraq PER MONTH even though Wolfowitz said the campaign would pay for itself but best of all: Iraqi's can't get fuel at their own forecourts.

South Africans able to influence UK Elections

Consider that the electorate in England totals 37 million (according to Parliament's website). Then consider that we South Africans squatting these fine islands number a cool 1.5 million according to the UK Independent newspaper. And according to Keele University voter turnout in the 2001 national elections was 59%. And finally consider the bizarre rule that while we have no automatic right to be here we may vote for HM Government provided we are here.

What this means is that, assuming we Saffas really are all of voting age, eligible, we all register and we all cast our vote in May, our joint vote could constitute as much as 7% of all votes cast. That is almost as much as the gap between the Lib Dems and the Tories last time round.

I suggest we start lobbying HM Government for public braai areas, subsidised boerewors, tax credits for mag wheels, more TV coverage of rugby and cricket AND BETTER WEATHER!

Letter to the editor: New Zealand Herald

Sent this to the New Zealand Herald this morning:

Dear sir,

I am writing in relation to your article "No kidding, South Africa is a completely different country".

I find several points made quite offensive. Singling out Afrikaners as having "bad breath" because they eat putrefied meat (by the way, "putrefication" is spelled putrification) is a parochial and factually inaccurate characterisation of a minority group in the new South Africa. It is not surprising that the author spouts such nonsense given that he never ventured beyond a hotel except for, by his own admission, rugby and discos. Perhaps this lack of any perspective qualifies him uniquely to write for the New Zealand Herald.

Yours,

Louis Joubert

Perhaps a day will come when I do not feel mysteriously injured when someone says something unflattering about Afrikaans-ness.

When is enough enough, and what then?

Here follows my rant about the hugh-ess-ay, our beloved global superpower.

• They refuse to sign up to the Convention on Biological Diversity. They do so because sharing the benefits of global biological diversity is contrary to their environmental security strategy (their words, basically!!)
• They attempt to railroad a UK proposal to outlaw illegally logged timber from developed world markets. If successful this could shrink the markets that illegal loggers rely on to flog their timber logged from old growth forests. They (the hugh-ess) do so because it would increase red tape for their poor suffering legal loggers.
• They attempt to block a UN programme for women's rights. They do so to block any right to abortion. In fact the programme merely suggests that states "consider reviewing laws containing punitive measures against women who have undergone illegal abortions"
• Bush nominates Paul Wolfowitz, the leading Neo-Conservative and Deputy Secretary of Defence, to run the World Bank. Which goes to show how similar helping and bombing the 3rd world is to them.

When will it stop ? Where are the pipe-wielding anarchists when you need them ! What to do about this ? Write to your MP ? Start a blog ?

... but I love Americans !