Winter Reserves

Nature teaches through its seasons. There's a time to plant and a time to harvest and a time to let the land sleep.

The winter season demands some preparation. You see the squirrels running around gathering their nuts. The bears (less seen) forage to put on their winter fat during their long hibernation.

Humans need food for the winter, but so far, so good overall for humanity. This winter we're going to need fuel to keep our homes warm, at least up north where I live. We mostly use natural gas for heating. Some use electricity. Some homes and cabins further out from infrastructure may use propane tanks.

With a low supply already Hurricanes Katrina and Rita offered further drops in expected reserves this winter.

We're being reassured that we won't have a shortage in Minnesota, but prices are a record high at $1.31/therm in October, and who knows how high into the winter.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5643373.html Natural gas prices: Flamin' hot
******
The average Minnesota household can expect to pay 73 percent more for natural gas this October than it did in October 2004, assuming normal weather, state officials said Thursday.
...Nationwide, natural gas prices are expected to hover near record highs this winter -- even if production recovers quickly from Katrina and Rita, because the hurricanes took production off line when companies normally would have been building up gas inventories.
"We had a tight supply-and-demand situation before the hurricanes," Chavez said. "They have added an unknown factor that has the market just guessing on how much the damage will be. Nobody really knows, and the price is going up, just reacting to that unknown."
*****

What these articles don't talk about is "What if winter temperatures nationally are BELOW average?!"

Anyone with any common sense has to be asking "What's next?" and "Has something fundamentally changed that we need to know about?"

I think things have changed, and are changing, even if in fits and sneezes. I'm hopeful that these events, like Katrina and Rita will trigger more serious consideration of our dependence upon nonrenewable energy. Certainly the president, asking people to conserve gasoline is something rather amazing and different from his 9/11 advice of "Go shopping."

No I expect we can't "shop" our way out of an energy crisis.

Sadly, I shouldn't hope for bad things, but I do hope for a cold winter than challenges our natural gas supplies. Natural gas consumption has long been on an unwarranted rise, especially in new power plants. Sure, it's clean burning, but we need it now for heating, even if cogeneration is a good option too.

Gasoline up, Natural gas up, can electricity be far behind? For the longest time everyone said heating with natural gas was cheapest, but surely now electricity will become competitive in a hurry. People will fly to adding electric heaters in their homes, raising demand for electricity, raising need to go to "higher cost" sources for electricity.

Maybe winter time electricity usage isn't in danger of hitting capacity, but I wonder.

And when spring comes along, how much will anhydrous ammonia fertilize cost for farmers? We'd almost HAVE TO expect shortages on secondary uses for natural gas. Prices there will sky-rocket and some will have to make due with less, or import more I guess. World shortages could result in reduced yields and perhaps next winter we'll be looking at record low stores of grains and food.
http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/cses/2005-02/fertilizer.html
http://farmweek.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=8379&drvid=105&r=0.81831&r=0.6571924&r=0.4224207 Fertilizer Costs Soar; Farmers Face Tough Decisions Friday, September 23, 2005

In the bigger picture it's "all good", anything that raises awareness, but that doesn't make the decisions any easier to change just about everything.

I think we have a lot of room for further failure, but I think prioritizing is going to be a struggle.

Myself, I'm more seriously considering investing in more insulation and more efficient windows in the long term, and window coverings in the short term.

For me energy costs are "still low". Only $1000 to heat my home for a year? Maybe $1200? A bargain I'd say.

Public Funded Stadiums

I've long been on the fence over publicly funded stadiums. Overall I hang out on the "We've got the metrodome, good enough" crowd, not that I believe baseball ought to be played indoors, but there it is, you know?

The Metrodome seemed like a pretty good investment - used for some 8 Viking football games a year, maybe another 8 Gopher football games a year, 81 baseball games a year, and who knows what else. It's a central location, right on the "Light rail line", for easy public transportation.

Now the Vikes want a Stadium in Blaine, and perhaps the Twins will get an open-air stadium in Minneapolis, and the Gophers will get their new Stadium somewhere near the U I expect.

It all seems so, well, extravagent! We take a perfectly good shared Metrodome and replace it with THREE separate stadiums.

The Viking stadium itself seemed most insane to me. I forgot how short the football seasons is - only 16 games apparently, 8 at home!? We're supposed to spend some $400 million dollars for 8 games a year? Say it lasts 25 years like the Metrodome, that's 200 games. That's $2 million dollars per game! Say a game holds 50,000 fans. That's $20/person/game just for the stadium construction! OF course this doesn't count interest on the debt, doesn't count maintenance costs.

Maybe with TV contracts and such, there's many more people benefitting from the Vikings, and advertising can expand the base for covering costs.

But let's go back to 8 games a year. WHY build a stadium that will only be used for 8 games a year? We've got a Metrodome with its costs divided among perhaps 150 events per year. How will a Viking Stadium way up in Blaine earn it's extra pennies on the 357 "off days"?!

The pro-stadium people talk about how sports brings in extra tax dollars. Probably the "pro-sports" people in general can talk about "Community pride" and "Diverting aggression into sports" and all that.

Some might argue that the state should invest in casinos as well because it will expand our tax-base. Seriously, it's true. Casinos can take in lots of money to pay off their construction costs. It's just a bit more tricky without as much "virtue" to claim in gambling.

Comparing Stadiums to Casinos, I see overall I disapprove of using tax money to build either, even if a claimed economic advantage is possible. If there's so much advantage, private enterprise would do it first.

I see if there's going to be public funding for buildings, they ought to have diverse uses, not just "8 events per year" in the middle of the country side.

I think of the Superdome or whatever in Louisana, taking in people during the hurricane. I guess it wasn't that useful place to store people, although maybe they just needed a few more bathrooms and food.

I see a stadium is a great place to bring people together, and there are events, beyond sports where collecting together thousands of people might be valuable. Well, I think of the Billy Graham event I attended a few years ago.

Back to "boonyland", I see that a metropolitan area ought to be designed to pull people into the center, not the outskirts. I see the Metrodome as central. Maybe football's 8 games per year doesn't need to be central, unlike everyday baseball.

I am still wondering what Stadiums "ought" to be used for, outside sports. I think that question should be asked before any state/county/city government money is spent on them.

I do like the thought of an open air stadium for baseball. Baseball with 162 games can afford to lose a few to weather. The "boys of summer" SHOULD play in sunshine when they can.

Well, I'm mostly still on the fence. I'll live if Minneapolis builds a Twins Stadium, and Anoka County builds a Viking Stadium, taxes and all.

But I do feel sorry for the nice Metrodome. We shouldn't be so quick to build, or so quick to destroy.

I'm sure times will come when we'll wish we invested our time and money better.

Just a taste of Nature's Power

While I anxiously wait for the Friday landfall of Hurricane Rita (Rising to 165mph winds today) in Texas, Minnesota and the Twin Cities gets our own little weather power to suggest we're not as safe as I would pretend.

Power off at home (at work now), and apparently a backyard spruce cracked off at the top according to my dad who stopped by my house tonight (in the dark).

Strong winds at my girlfriend's house in Crystal, claimed 68mph winds - doesn't sound that bad compared to 100+mph winds of Rita.

I'll stay at work a little longer, and perhaps it'll dry off enough to bike home in a few hours. I do wonder about my poor spruce tree. :(

Mother Nature, love her, hate her, she don't care. She wants respect though... I shall!

The challenge of the coming decades

It seems clear to me the primary challenge for civilization in the coming decades is to test our ability to function in an environment of reduced availability of energy and resources.

Personally I accept the "overshoot" theory, that population and consumption is now far beyond any sustainable level and as unsustainable resources are depleted, we'll better see what we're in for.

I accept the idea that "powerdown" of Richard Heinberg is ultimately our future reality whether we choose it or not.

Still, it is fun to believe humanity is adaptable and perhaps we can "backstep" our livelihood without a massive dieoff of humanity this century.

As individuals our most fundamental mission is to challenge ourselves to live with less, need less, and see what we really need to live acceptable lives.

Not happy, but it is opportunity for SOMEONE, even if it may not be humanity!

Conservation drills

A not-so-crazy idea occurred to me today - partly in response to the article a:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1557/5617738.html
Many expect that the shut-in gas will only slowly become available. At the current recovery rate, within a little more than three weeks, the industry's normal "cushion" of gas that's stored for the winter will be exhausted, leaving an undesirably low level of gas stored for the winter home-heating season.
Natural gas is stored in the spring, summer and fall because winter demand exceeds the gas that can be produced on a daily basis. The stored gas normally is withdrawn starting about Nov. 1. If there is not enough stored gas, prices will skyrocket; and more importantly, there might not be enough gas at any price.
...
this winter is warmer than average, like the past three, a crisis will not occur. However, an average or colder-than-average winter combined with below-average supplies of natural gas could be extremely serious.

Scary predictions to say the least. The article seems a flawed call for action since at the end its primary point seems to be to encourage everyone to invest in energy, while the "public good" will benefit the most from a united conservation effort.

So it seemed to me that in times of shortages, we're not particularly prepared for it. We have no government policy for rationing or how to handle price spikes under any shortages.

It seems to me that times of high prices are "good" in the sense of encouraging efficiency and conservation, but at a rather high cost which we all pay to our "providers". SURE, we should all be humble and grateful for the competitive production of nonrenewable energy for cheap prices much of the time, we're under no moral code to reward them with unlimitedly high prices under shortages.

It is funny to see that we do have a great power to affect prices. A 4% shortage of supply can cause a 100% rise in prices. However no one seems to think that also implies unde short supply tha a 4% drop in demand can reverse this unfriendly price increase.

Thus it seems to me that as consumers we ought to make ourselves available for creating a more elastic market under times of shortages.

It might be too late already to seriously face the expected high prices for natural gas this winter, but still I'm sure we can do something. Heating homes wih natural gas is efficient and usually cheap, but when supplies are short, there's not a great deal of immediate response people can make. Still there's more than we might think.

It is interesting that a "perfectly efficient" society has the least tolerance for shortages because it's already done all that it can to reduce demand. However if times of surplus lead to cheap prices which lead to unnecessary demand expansion and wasteful use, then we've got room for reducing demand when things get harder.

So on the one hand, I see a value in increasing energy taxes when prices are low, and a need in rewarding efficiency and conservation in times of high prices. I don't necessarily think high and low are absolutes - next year we might consider our record highs now as low! So obviously taxing nonrenewable energy all the time is useful to encourage conservation.

Getting people to react on the conservation side appears easy under high prices, but we might need some practice in easier times.

I just imagine some sort of "emergency system" of artificial shortages to test our ability to react. For instance, the government might set a ration limit of X total Natural gas usage in a given state or the entire U.S, setting the limit below demand, and letting the market and individuals respond.

Well, just an idea, probably "too early" since there's still a lot of optimism in "the system" to magically provide us with all we need.

Perhaps we'll need some more serious shortage risks to seriously consider such actions as this.

Starving the Beast? What's the plan?

The president is certainly surprising. I've never heard of so many hundreds of billions of dollars flying everywhere before Bush took office.

What do we have on our plate? 1. $200+ billion for Iraq/Afghanistan/war on terror
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/iraq.poll/ $300 Billion?
2. $200+ billion to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars
http://www.geocities.com/marsterraforming/mannedmissions.html $400 Billion?
3. $200+ billion to rebuild New Orleans and the delta region from Katrina
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9281409/ $200 Billion

Nation building, world building, colonizing the universe!?

Vision or diversion?

How do we pay for all of this? I'm not sure the president knows, but he sure seems to have fun spending "someone's money".

Perhaps it is all a republican conspiracy to bankrupt thje federal government?
It is just strange to me how the republicans can have any credability at all over fiscal conservatism.

I wonder where the "real" conservatives are supposed to be now? Do we go with the "tax-and-spend" democrats or the "cut-taxes-and-spend" republicans?

I just can't imagine this nation has any direction to go but down, and I just wonder how many politicians KNOW this.

I don't have answers myself. I imagine supporting higher fuel costs, like Europe, yet, I see as well all the extra money in the government does seem to just prop up unsustainable government growth in entitlements anyway.

Sure, I'm not against the government funding rebuilding from Katrina. I mean constrained by a long term picture of keeping the next disaster from costing as much - abandoning the lowest lands from development, rebuilding and protecting the natural flood regions.

But whatever the "bill" is for the federal government, I'd demand accountability for paying for it. That means raising taxes Mr. President. It means paying for our own candy store.
Perhaps I should not be such a pessimist?

P.S. At least the Concord Coalition agrees with me! (And they're a smart group!) http://www.concordcoalition.org/press/2005/050916release.htm CONCORD COALITION CALLS FOR “PORK” RESCISSION AND TAX CUT FREEZE IN RESPONSE TO KATRINA

P.P.S. Such a nice president, always looking out for the people's short term interests!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9367762/
Some estimates have put the cost at more than $200 billion. The White House and Congress already have rushed $62.3 billion in emergency funds to the region.
The president made clear raising taxes was not an option to help cover the costs. “We got to maintain economic growth, and therefore we should not raise taxes,” Bush said, noting Americans were already paying “a tax in essence” because of higher gasoline prices. “And we don’t need to be taking more money out of their pocket.”

President Bush challenged world leaders on Wednesday to abolish all trade tariffs and subsidies

I read an article today about Bush promoting the elimination of trade barriers as a way to reduce world poverty.

I suppose there must be economic theory which suggests this as true. I am definitely on the side for concern over trade reducing security and increasing world poverty, even if I can't defend my fears.

At one level it is clear that a nation that subsidizes its food production and then sells excesss production onto the global market at "below cost" is having a negative impact on the world because it can undersell smaller producers who don't have such subsidies to reduce their prices.

Beyond simple economic subsidy, I'd also consider something I'd try calling "unsustainable resource" subsidy. A nation that "uses up its top soil" through erosion or any natural resource, most especially energy, is creating a market that will someday fall, and discourages more sustainable production elsewhere.

For example, the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil. We can take that oil and produce things we can sell to others, including food, and scale our activity to cut costs because of our cheap energy. So because we've got the technology to exploit cheap energy, we can undersell others who depend on cheap labor which might be more sustainable.

For example, small farmers in Mexico were put out of business by NAFTA imports from the U.S. So these subsistence farmers go from independent economics on the land to the cities to find work which may or may not exist. Of course it's never so simple, and perhaps many small farmers are "inefficient" and deplete the soil and such in their own unsustainable ways. Still I worry when we encourage more and more people to abandon agriculture and there's no clear reason to believe that "modern" high-energy/technology/input methods will be sustainable as fossil fuels (Oil and Natural gas) become more scarce and expensive.

I think that nations (and regions) ought to consider local food production as a necessary condition for freedom and security, even at a greater cost. I guess subsidies begin as an effort to make local production competitive, and then have a side effect of encouraging overproduction which lowers prices and encourages market expansion and more subsidies.

I am amazed that markets work as well as they do. However I have no faith that they ultimately serve our best interests at least unmoderated. Lower prices now can mean destroying cultures and lives. If the future were indeed only "higher and faster", perhaps we can afford to reduce the world farming to ownership by a dozen super transnational companies, run by 0.001% of humanity. I just don't believe it.

I would support and end of subsidies within the U.S. IF it meant farmers could get a fair price for their production. I would support consumers paying 50% more for food, in exchange for reduced government spending on subsidies. Of course this would be a "regressive" policy for hurting the poor, but I guess the government can increase "food stamps" or whatever program to help the poor.

A "fair price" is a messy idea to support. If the government promises $1/gallon for milk, and there's an oversupply, then the government must be willing to buy the surplus. Once you have a surplus, what do you do with it? How can the government guarantee a fair price without encouraging possible overproduction?

Anyway, I guess I don't know WHAT the president is talking about, or possibly myself either!

Bring 'em On

News seems to imply that oil prices will be on a slow decline in the coming weeks.

It seems a shame to stop the show so early. Just one more little disaster? No, not flooding cities by hurricanes, but something relatively harmless, besides to the world oil reserves?

I still wonder how calm people are until we really know how much production will be lost from the gulf. How much production was lost? How long will it stay down? I've not heard the answer to any of these questions.

I know one thing - if there's an interest by "terrorist" to attack oil production facillities now, they've got our rapt attention.

Maybe I'm a fool for thinking "one more disaster" will make a difference in changing our ways. If what's happened isn't enough, perhaps nothing short of economic collapse will do it? Who knows?

For me, I'm willing to stop hoping for disasters when:
1) There's gasoline shortages and serious talk of rationing
2) There's laws passed to reduce consumption:
a) Increased gasoline tax
b) Reduced Speed limits
c) New CAFE standards for vehicle fuel efficiency
3) An "Apollo mission"-type vision for cutting U.S. oil consumption 20% by 2015.

I wonder what I'm missing. I mean I'm sure I can't think of everything at once, but this is a good start. Any combination, and any one of these three would be a grand start.

Rising boats in declining energy?

Just a quick thought...

If you want to "measure" the costs of our continued failed energy policy, watch the bottom. Watch the economic measures for poverty.

In my pessimism I say individuals are screwed, and it's true. If you're in a place of dependency upon debt and deciding which overdue bills to pay each month, you main gain some sympathy as things continue to get harder, but don't expect government handouts to save you.

My message must by necessity start with "You're on your own" whether you're on the top or the bottom.

On the other side, I'm sure the government will have to respond to increased poverty and hardship in some way. I think it makes sense to start NOW to analyse the finances of america and project which failings are most dire under further costs, so we can respond now if possible.

I suppose there can be no policy in a free county that demands savings, demands reduction of debt, especially high interest debt.

Personally I'd judge credit cards as a convenience under times of abundance and a liability in times of increased hardship. Really credit cards are a subject worthy of a very long essay. Credit cards can be seen as a "financial grease" that keeps the economy humming. We hum through the "soft patches", but we also hum far too deeply into unavoidable recessions and surely make things worse because of it.

If I were an economist, I'd do a wide analysis of credit card access and usage.

If I were the government, I'd develop an analysis that determined cost/benefit to short term credit access and develop policy that directly or indirectly limited access to credit to degrees that their costs exceeded their benefits.

Perhaps an impossible question, but seems vital to me. What's the cost of 1% of the population accumulating unpayable debt? How about 5%? How about 20%?

It seems very tricky. You can have individuals who are honorable and who treat debt with due reserve and weight, and yet put themselves over their heads when job loss or medical bills knock them over the edge. ALL DEBT offers risk to those who sponsor it. In some ways I would say let the loaners be warned they'll lose more when things turn down. High interest rates themselves ought to convince people to beware.

A paternalistic government can just set limits on interest rates and that alone will destroy the market for risky loans, and the whole credit card market.

Overall I'm happier to call credit cards as necessary evil. I would tell people they are playing games with the devil when you play games with short term credit. It is hard for me to ultimately tell people they can't be fools with their money.

It is a funny reality where a family member is judged "too risky" for a family-sponsored loan, while they can find greed-oriented strangers willing to loan them money. It is a real mystery to me. Wealthy family members "invest" in distant stock markets. Poor family members "borrow" from distant loaners. It seems wrong. I know some of the dynamics - moral judgements of family outweigh the interest payments to strangers.

So much for quick...

The impending energy crisis and 9/11

It just happens to be September 11 today that I happen to write, so I'll have to connect this interesting date to my contents, perhaps.

Just 4 short years ago the World Trade Towers and Pentagon were hijacked by some rather bold passengers and rammed by civilian jets.

Some believe this event was somehow known and "allowed" by U.S. leadership, perhaps in a similar way of the U.S. knowing about the 1941 attack of Pearl Harbor, and accepted as an acceptable risk to mobilize the American people to accepting a war they didn't want. I'm saying nothing in my own behalf. I don't much like guessing or at least not extrapolating many steps beyond my guesses.

I also guessed that History wasn't on Bush's side for reelection a year ago, and I was proven wrong. Similar beliefs exist that Bush wasn't honestly relected, that corruption in the ballots of Ohio and Florida pushed victory to Bush, but come on, on the "moral victory" of a national majority of the vote, I've heard none say even this victory was false, so I surrender the unknown truth and say sometimes a half failure doesn't teach the full lesson, and so we must let Bush even convince the majority that we're strongly off track.

It is hard even to say that the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq was initially a bad thing. I mean in the sense that the FIRST gulf war never really ended and only the people of Iraq were seriously suffering and dying because of our sanctions. Of course Bush and Company blew the occupation. So civilians of Iraq continue to suffer because of our mistakes.

In my mind we own the people of Iraq much retribution for the suffering we've caused, but political reality doesn't seem likely that we'll do much. It is very sad we're willing to spend whatever $400 billion in Iraq to fight and who knows how little on reconstruction. Similarly for Afghanistan where we also owe much. I know money alone isn't sufficient, and is easily wasted as well.

The lesson of War is this. Those that suffer, innocent or not, are on their own. Those who get in the way when the gods of hatred fight deserve what they get. If there's war near your home, and you do not leave, you accept your fate. If you DO leave, you will be unwanted anywhere else and you accept your fate. There is no justice for individuals who unfairly suffer from political action. If you spend your life demanding compensation for your loses, you will live a wasted life.

Sorry for my pessimism. Not the world I'd like. Individuals are screwed. Families who stay together might stand a little better odds, if only because they can help each other. Maybe communities as well. Just don' expect the wider world to care.

In this pessimism, I perhaps come back to my original topic, the impending energy crisis.

Do we (those alive now) care that the next generation won't have half the abundance and opportunity that the last generation had? Is there any sacrifices now that we are willing to make that will give the next a chance for something?

Sure, oil will be with us for the century in some quantity, in some locales, in some applications, but the era of unlimited economic growth appears to me to be coming to an abrupt end in the next zero to 30 years depending on your optimism. (My bet is under 10 years)

I accept the premise that economic growth is directly proportional to "energy consumption growth" and when our available energy declines, our economy must decline, and along with that everything we assume from the past is under threat.

For myself the threat seems imminent and unavoidable, an approaching storm, like Katrina. Our economy stands "below sealevel" and the weight of our dikes are sinking us further. The economy ought to be abandoned and we ought to "move to higher ground". The longer we try to defend the undefendable, the more hardship we'll face later when we have to abandon everything under force of flood.

Given such pessimism I'm tempted to wonder "Why not just enjoy what we have now and we can leave lighter later when we must. They we can start clean and rebuild with the manidate of survival a our backs, no question over why we're suffering."

It's true, there's so much opportunity within our system now, that to turn our backs on it before the crash seems hopelessly heroic. A strange phrase, but I can' think of anything better.

I'm really not one of those pioneers, willing to pack up and abandon the past. I'd rather build from what's here, and rebuild as I can. The REALITY is that 300 million Americans will not be able to "pack up and leave", so whatever "new" appears from the "old", it would seem that 90% of it will happen from within.

I must continue to put some hope that giving us more time will give us a bit better chance of managing the transition to what's next. I can't give up on technology to save us, even if I accept perhaps 90% of the development may not be in a direction that is sustainable. But who can say?

Okay, so what would I do? I would promote conservation and the highest principle of survival. We can't conserve ourselves out of an energy crisis, but it can delay and soften the hardships while we muddle to what's next.

Just thinking on the lowest economic and political terms:
1. The U.S. ought to make a 50 year projection of expected oil available to us, assuming a 3-5% decline every year after say 2010.
a. Project a transportation system that can run on these declining reserves - including investing on high-use road materials that minimize long term maintenance costs, possibly planned abandonment of roads that we can't afford to maintain, and lastly probably expanding railway networks for intercity travel.
b. Reduce roadway speedlimits to 55mph now.
c. Reduce average weight of passenger vehicles to lower power requirements.
d. Promote flexible fuel vehicles.
e. Expand transit in metro areas, promoting key corridors and encouraging higher density
housing and businesses along such corridors.
...
2. Diversification and rebuilding of rural america
a. Identify key towns and connect them with rail transit.
b. Diversify farming to meet primary food needs of local populations.
c. Analyze farm through-puts based on local resources and renewable energy.
...

All around, I see it ought to be possible to analyze energy use and reorganize to alternatives that reduce our need for fossil fuels.

I see there is a tension between "internal markets" and "wider trade markets" and I recognize that local wealth and abdundance in the short term is often connected directly to trade. Certainly if any region attempts to reduce consumption of cheap global energy resources, it will be less competitive in trading its products. Equally local production will often be more expensive than imported production.

Somehow analysis must be capable of measuring why local costs are higher. If local costs are higher because we're not depending as much on nonrenewable energy, then we're better off. If local costs are higher because we're better protecting our soil and natural resources, then we're better off.

It seems very hard to understand enough how our larger economy affects us, how it destroys our local self-reliance, and how it weakens our long term survival. Over and over I judge cheap energy in terms of addiction. While we are unwilling to admit we are dependent, we can't see the alternatives.

For the time being, at least high oil and gasoline prices (and Natural gas as well) are the warning signals. We are fortunate to have them come "early". I'll settle for a price plateau now as optimal, but up up and away is my call if we don't change our ways in the coming months and years.

Muddling Towards the Cliff

The possible economic consequences of Hurricane Katrina that hit Louisanna and Mississippi last week are still unknown.

Some are claiming the reconstruction could cost $100B, which certainly is a economic "bargain" compared to the quadmire of Iraq. Only about $1000/household in America, and we'll put on credit anyway, so no biggie.

The damage to the gulf oil and natural gas production, and oil refineries might be another story, as well halted/reduced shipping through the Mississippi river. I wonder if the $100B counts reimbursment to businesses who lose money because of the destruction?

Seeing events progress and seeming between scary-doomsday and "just a BIG cleanup", it is hard to imagine the future. Times of crisis are times of hard decisions. Financial discipline, and directing energy and focus to problems that need addressing now.

It is amazing President Bush actually suggested people conserve their driving, not "top off their tanks", and such.

Overall, it seems likely to me that we may yet be in a collective denial over the seriousness of our situation. Only time will tell.

When do shortages and projected shortages become "serious" enough to demand drastic action?

How many "crises" will we have to face before we decide to "get serious" about our oil dependency and the shakiness of that support system?

My idea of "denial" considers that things will get worse before they get better, and individuals ought to get a clue and do whatever they can for their own financial stability. I've said that for months of course.

Yes, it's good we have "Strategic oil reserves" to tap, but even if we manage to muddle our way again through this disaster, it's like walking in a hail storm without a hat - the big one is coming, and there's no more room for business as usual.

I suppose it is just ambitious for me to suggest that we are capable of conserving oil NOW, and that the government ought to be leading the way.

Democracy requires 51% to feel pain for it to be acknowledged as real, so we have to keep waiting.

It's a good show at least. Never boring. Much more fun to fight impossible battles against nature than impossible battles against terrorists at least.

"The War against Nature" - Can we declare this? I mean formally? Who can we bomb to win that one?