mikguiruram

Daniel Saltman

Solar Phone Chargers? Really? Yes, really.
[info]mikguiruram


Solar phone chargers are the latest breakthrough to help preserve the environment, and reduce the dependence on fossil fuels to generate electricity. They are ideal for people who don’t have access to the mains all the time, or for those who want to cut down on their electricity consumption without giving up their phones.

Solar phone chargers are quite simple to use. All you need to do is to plug the charger into your phone, as you would do with any conventional charger, and leave the charger in a sunny place to let the power flow to the phone’s battery.

Your phone will be charged within a few hours or trickle charged to keep the battery topped up. Larger solar phone chargers will generate more power and charge times will vary accordingly, however even the smaller chargers can do the job quickly and efficiently.

Solar phone chargers have the following benefits:

         Environment friendly

         Reduce dependence on electricity

         Provide portable power

         Compact and easy to carry.

         Work wherever there is sunlight

         Compatibility with most cell phones

         Pollution-free

The sun’s energy is limitless and isn’t expected to be going anywhere soon. It is one of the best forms of renewable energy, and the best part is that it’s free.

Solar phone chargers use the energy from the sun and convert it into electrical energy which can be used to power up your cell phone. This makes solar charging devices clean and pollution free. If you have a solar charger you can not only reduce your dependence on electricity, but you can charge your phone anywhere during the daytime.

For those who are on the road throughout most of the day, such a gadget is ideal for us to stay connected with the rest of the world. Shifting to solar power also helps in reducing electricity bills and therefore saves money.

Solar phone chargers usually come with a variety of connectors to support many of the popular cellphone power cable formats. This means you will not have to change your phone to make your solar charger work. With detachable connectors now easily available on the market, just a single charger can be used to charge all different kinds of cell phones. Most of the newer chargers and devices have USB connectors, this adds to the ability to charge multiple devices.

Finding the right charger for your phone is as easy as doing a quick online search with your phone name and model. Within minutes you should be able to find a number of sources that will usually ship within one or two days for free.

If you are looking for the ideal combination of money saving, portability, and environmental responsibility, solar phone chargers are really the best idea out there. These days many people are using them every day to charge their phones, reducing their dependence on grid power.

Solar chargers are a fantastic technological development that are leading the movement towards people becoming environmentally friendly without having to give up electronic gadgets. They are proof that both technology and the environment can work together for a safe future.


Jared Lee Loughner's Family: Portrait of Isolation
[info]mikguiruram
 
 
TUCSON, Arizona, Jan. 11, 2011

The parents of Tucson shooting suspect Jared Lee
Loughner are reportedly coping with their son's
alleged rampage significantly as they've spent their recent
family life: alone and in private.

Randy and Amy Loughner have sealed themselves in
their suburban Tucson home, blocking access to the
front door with a piece of wood to presumably keep
individuals off their property.

The couple did not attend their son's arraignment in
federal court in Phoenix Monday, and one neighbor
who's been in contact with them, but asked not to be
identified, said they are distraught and grieving.

Randy Loughner is reportedly preparing to release a
public statement, the initial since their son was charged
in connection with shooting Arizona Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords and 19 other individuals.

Meanwhile, in the search for clues to understanding
why Jared Loughner allegedly plotted an attack on
Giffords' constituent event Saturday, his relationships
with his parents and home environment are of
increasing interest.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Monday that
he couldn't comment specifically on Loughner's
upbringing or mental health, but he noted that his
was a "somewhat dysfunctional family."

And neighbors painted a picture of a single-child
house that was intensely private and increasingly
insular and standoffish as Jared Loughner grew older.

George Gayam, who has lived next door to Randy
Loughner for 30 years on North Soledad St.,
described their early relationship as amicable and
engaging, like "average neighbors." Lanyards.

Randy married Amy Totman in 1986 and two years
later they had their initial and only son, Jared. He then
became a stay at home dad, although Amy worked for
Pima County, neighbors said.

 
Gayam, 82, recalled how his grandchildren interacted
with the Loughners as they had been growing up, playing
with Jared in the yard and later sharing a passion for
cars with Randy.

"When I was probably 16 or 17, I had a Mustang.
Randy had his hot rod. We'd talk shop. He'd assist me
out. I'd assist him out, and everything was fantastic," said
Gayam's grandson Rick Dahlstrom.

But around 15 years ago the dynamic abruptly
changed, Dahlstrom said.

"There was times when we'd be out with other
neighbor children, and Jared wouldn't be allowed out.
He'd be watching from the window or door," he said.
"They all became very isolated. Randy was isolated,
Amy wasn't out anymore. Something changed. They
just kept to themselves."

"We utilized to talk, you know, though not a great deal," said
Gayam. "But recently there was usually some option
words said at times or gestures when somebody was
driving by. There's no real rhyme or reason as to
why."

Other neighbors said the Loughners' behavior
perplexed them and made them uncomfortable.


Corporation Says It Will Run for Congress
[info]mikguiruram
Following the Supreme Court decision implicitly granting corporations the right to free speech (by determining that political spending is a kind of speech), a corporation has decided to take what it believes to be “democracy’s next step”: It is running for Congress.

With more than a twinge of irony, Murray Hill Incorporated, a liberal public relations firm, recently announced that it planned to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.

 




SEC and FINRA regulations
[info]mikguiruram


FINRA Compliance

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA – created in July 2007 through the consolidation of the NASD and the regulation enforcement and arbitration functions of the New York Stock Exchange) are regulatory agencies for the financial services industry. Message storage, retrieval and surveillance solutions need to be in place in order for member firms to be compliant with a number of regulatory guidelines – a number of which overlap and/or reinforce each other - including:  SEC 17a-3 and 17a-4, NASD 3010 and 3110, NYSE 342, 440 & 442 and SEC RIA 204-2 and 206(4)-7.

Highlights of these rules include:
  • Firms must preserve electronic business records and retain for 3-6 year retention period. (SEC 17a-4)
  • Messages must be stored in their original form on tamperproof, non-rewriteable and non-erasable media and must be stored in duplicate in separate locations. (SEC 17a-4)
  • Archived messages must be time/date stamped and serialized. Messages must be indexed and searchable. (SEC Rule 17a-4)
  • Firms must have an auditing system in place and store audit records. (SEC 17a-4)
  • Firms must appoint an independent third party downloader to access the organization’s electronic records, if the firm is unable or unwilling to do so. (SEC 17a-4)
  • Policy and procedures should be in place to supervise, review and sample registered representatives’ electronic communication. Supervisors must have the ability to review outgoing email for noncompliant language. (NASD 3010)
  • Firms need to be able to show that supervisory procedures are being enforced with documented records. (NASD 3010)

The Smarsh Solution

Developing messaging-compliance solutions for the financial services industry is where it all started for Smarsh, and in parallel, where the email archiving service industry had its initial flux of activity.

Eliminating compliance loopholes and adding functionality became essential because SEC and FINRA regulatory audits for our growing customer base were commonplace and the price for noncompliance is high. Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, where immediate results are expected, needed our services to operate with high reliability. Investment advisors, handling private client information and their clients’ financial investments, needed message and infrastructural security to be a paramount priority.

Smarsh customers are prepared with the necessary tools to meet regulatory obligations. Solutions are bolstered by a commitment to detail, eliminating potential compliance risks and offering peace of mind.

The Smarsh Management Console

As part of our full-service offering, your privacy and/or security official(s) or system administrator will have access to our web-based toolkit. The Smarsh management console allows companies to facilitate their need for both retrieval and surveillance of their archive. The enhanced search capabilities coupled with our hierarchy functionality make it easy for companies of any size to review their internal and external electronic communication.

In addition:
  • The management console can flag messages by set criteria and search by individual or multiple fields (using Boolean "and/or" logic). Fields include: date range, sender, recipient, subject, body text, and header fields (i.e. servers and other technical/forensic fields).  Messages can also be searched attachment names, contents and file types.
  • The tool is capable of saving selected search criteria, a useful best practice in establishing supervisory policy.
  • An auto-scan functionality allows for a continuous search for selected keywords.
  • The tool easily tracks chains of emails from multiple individuals using customized criteria.

Message Integrity

Incoming, outgoing and internal messages are instantly captured by the Smarsh mail server to ensure that any message sent or delivered by the customer’s users will be archived and processed by Smarsh software.  Messages are then:

  • Scanned for keyword, phrase or rule (established by the customer) violations.
  • Indexed using a full-text index/catalog to permit searches in the Smarsh management console.
  • Archived to redundant WORM (write-once read-many) storage.
  • Replicated to remote Smarsh datacenters.

Working copies of attachments and email files are also stored to a file server to facilitate immediate access and searchability.

Archive Availability & Retrievability

Your messages are ALWAYS readily accessible - they never go offline unless a specified retention period is indicated. Archived emails can be retrieved using the Smarsh management console. Once the desired email(s) have been identified in the archive search, they can be immediately viewed online, downloaded directly to a PC, or burned to a CD/DVD. A client can always make a request to the Smarsh support team to supply requested information.

Reporting Center

All messages are time-stamped, serialized and indexed in the Smarsh archive database, and all administrator actions within the Smarsh management console are documented as evidence of supervisory policy in practice.

The Smarsh management console allows users to generate hundreds of reports that can be completely customized over a dozen tracking systems. Administrators can produce useful and necessary information to assist during both internal and regulatory audits and/or investigations.

Example uses of the reporting center include:
  • Review historic searches by compliance/legal department.
  • Demonstrate email supervision and fulfillment of corporate policy.
  • Identify "worst" (biggest risk) email senders.
  • Identify highest risk emails (compliance, legal, HR).
  • Identify most common violations in messages.
  • General email usage (number of messages, size of archive).
  • Ensure end-users are using corporate email addresses.

Third Party Downloader

As part of our email archiving service, Smarsh will produce the documentation signifying that it serves as an independent third-party downloader that can produce a client’s electronic records for the SEC, if the firm is unable or unwilling to do so.

Prevent Identity Theft with a Paper Shredder
[info]mikguiruram
We generate an enormous amount of waste, either in our homes or at work and paper forms a large part of that. Since identity theft became a recognized phenomenon there has been a massive surge in the purchase of paper shredders. People from all walks of life have been educated to the risks of throwing paper away without checking it first.

Any post or paper document that contains any kind of information about you should never, ever be thrown into the garbage whole. While the chances of being a victim of identity theft through garbage sifting is slim, why take the chance?

If someone wanted to steal your identity, they would wait until you put your garbage out and take it before the collection arrived. The garbage could then be sifted and any personal information used against you. Bank statements, general mail, even junk mail has information a identity thief can use. Your name and address are the foundations of an investigation into you and you would be surprised indeed to see what kind of things that information alone can unearth.

Add to that any mention of bank accounts, your social security number, employer, even the type of car you drive can all be collected to build a picture of you, and be used to acquire services in your name. If you’re unlucky enough to have your social security number acquired by someone then they can get credit in your name.

Preventing this is pretty straightforward. Do not thrown out anything with any kind of detail on it without shredding it first. Paper shredders are now commonplace, and are now quite inexpensive to acquire. Get yourself one as soon as possible and shred anything with any personal information on it. It only takes a few minutes, and could save you thousands of dollars.

Preventing this kind of crime is the responsibility of all of us. It’s something that can be easily prevented and if we all did it could wipe out the garbage sifting type of identity theft. Shredded paper is almost impossible for all but a dedicated thief to reassemble. Get a shredder that shreds finely or better still, a cross cut one that will cut a sheet of paper diagonally in two ways. This is a more secure way of shredding, making it almost impossible to reassemble the pieces.

If you want even more security, once shredded, separate the paper between two garbage collections. That way if your stuff gets sifted, chances are the criminals won’t get all the information in one go. If you only put your garbage out just before the collection is due, there is far less chance of it being taken away for sifting.

Identity theft is a thriving business. Banks and credit card companies are having to shell out millions of dollars a year because of it, which makes personal banking more expensive. By doing something as simple as shredding your personal documents before throwing them out, you could do your bit to prevent this crime altogether.

Labour 'resigned to losing general election'
[info]mikguiruram

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Published Date: 11 January 2010
 
By Christopher Mackie
 
THE Labour Party is resigned to an election defeat under the stewardship of Gordon Brown, following last week's shambolic coup attempt and yet more damaging revelations about the Prime Minister's leadership style.
 


Senior Labour sources said the party had no confidence it would emerge victorious from a general election campaign, despite widespread expectation among its ranks that the Conservatives could be beaten with a different leader.

Following last week's abortive bid to unseat him as leader, the news put more pressure on Mr Brown and came as a former Labour Party general secretary described the Downing Street operation under him as "a shambles" and "completely dysfunctional".

Peter Watt, who was forced to resign from his party position in 2007 following a scandal over political donations, undermined Labour's electoral chances yet further, by lifting the lid on the "chaos" behind the scenes of Downing Street after Mr Brown assumed the premiership.

In an extract from his memoirs, Mr Watt claimed Mr Brown is widely derided by senior Cabinet colleagues and came to power in 2007 with no strategic leadership plan.

The revelations were met with dismay by Labour MPs, already reeling from the events of the past week, which saw former ministers Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt call for a secret ballot on Mr Brown's leadership.

The Prime Minister was forced to make a string of concessions to Cabinet colleagues in order to head off the coup, and a consensus seemed to have formed in the party that he would lead them into the forthcoming election.

But one senior Labour source yesterday told The Scotsman: "I haven't met anybody who thinks we are going to win. My colleagues are divided. They think – and I agree – that David Cameron is beatable, that the Tories are not loved. But on the other hand they know we can't beat him with Gordon – and they are stuck in this dilemma."

He added: "It clearly is damaging – to have instability without actual resolution of the issue."

Another Labour MP said: "There is a mood of resignation in the party that Gordon will now lead us into the election. People accept that changing leaders now would be pointless, and the best candidates don't want to lead us to a defeat."

He said the leadership bid had been "cack-handed" and "came too late to change anything", adding: "Until a senior cabinet minister comes out in support of the rebels, the infighting will achieve nothing, except destabilising the government."

Mr Brown yesterday dismissed the leadership ballot bid as "silliness", insisting he would be at the helm of the party at the next election.

"I'm sorry it happened. I think it was a form of silliness," he said. "I am the Prime Minister and am determined to remain so. I am determined, I am resolute."

But any thoughts Labour MPs may have had about a period of calm before the election campaign began in earnest were blown away in spectacular style with Mr Watt's incendiary disclosures and further reports that a senior Cabinet minister was still considering his position under Mr Brown.

Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth was said to be on the verge of quitting, claims he denied as Mr Watt launched a serialisation of his forthcoming book – Inside Out: My Story Of Betrayal And Cowardice At The Heart Of New Labour.

Mr Watt said: "Downing Street was a shambles. There was no vision, no strategy, no co-ordination. It was completely dysfunctional. Gordon was simply making it up as he went along.

"There were mutterings across Whitehall about what a mess Number 10 was in. Decisions about the most trivial things would take weeks, because nobody felt confident enough to sign anything off themselves."

Mr Watt, who praised Mr Hoon and Mrs Hewitt for raising the leadership question, accused the Prime Minister of "weird behaviour", claiming that Mr Brown walked out of a dinner held for US Democrats after guests took their seats without his permission.

Mr Watt said: "For the rest of the meal he was monosyllabic, sulking because he had lost control of the seating plan. The plates had not even been cleared when quite suddenly, without saying anything, he just got up and left."

Elsewhere, he cast light on the confusion of Mr Brown's plans to hold a snap election in the months after he became leader. The former general secretary claimed senior party members were desperate to hold the poll, suspecting that Mr Brown would eventually become extremely unpopular among the electorate.

He claimed Douglas Alexander – who some say Mr Brown used as a scapegoat for the election debacle – told him the Prime Minister was disliked by senior Cabinet colleagues and recalled a conversation he had with Mr Alexander in the run-up to the abandoned poll: "The truth is, Peter, we have spent ten years working with this guy, and we don't actually like him," Mr Alexander was reported to have said. "We have always thought that the longer the British public had to get to know him, the less they would like him as well."

Mr Watt added: "Though Douglas said it with a smile on his face, the sentiment was repeated many times in discussions among senior Labour figures at the time."

That version of events was strongly denied by Mr Alexander yesterday, and the Labour party accused Mr Watt of having an agenda after he was forced from his job in the wake of the "donorgate" scandal that saw the party receive £600,000 in illegal proxy payments.

A Labour MP yesterday indicated he did not believe the news would lead to further coup attempts.

"Gordon Brown's leadership is never under threat until such time as David Miliband or Alan Johnson actually enter into the race," he said. "Over and over again, the various plots have had the same script, which is you try and invoke a process in the hope a candidate will emerge.

"That is simply not how it will ever happen."

But the fallout continued among Mr Brown's political opponents.

Opposition leader David Cameron said the events of the previous week "demonstrates that we need to have strong, determined leadership from a united government".

"We can't get that from Labour and Gordon Brown, and an increasing number of people in the Labour Party even seem to be saying that," he said.

In Scotland, Alex Salmond said there was "exceptional rift and exceptional division" in the Labour Party.

"I don't think you could be much weaker than Gordon Brown's government – there are deep divisions within the Labour Party," he said.

BROWN'S WEARY WEEK IN POLITICS

Monday 4 January: THE Tories were accused by Chancellor Alistair Darling of a £34 billion credibility spending gap in the party's latest policy document. Gordon Brown and Children's Secretary Ed Balls announced extra tuition for pupils struggling with numeracy and literacy, pictured.

Tuesday 5 January: LORD Mandelson warned that Labour will lose the election if it focuses only on its core vote. The Business Secretary, pictured visiting a port construction site near Thurrock, said he would oppose any strategy abandoning the bid to woo Middle Britain.

Wednesday 6 January: GORDON Brown's prospects of leading Labour to victory in a forthcoming general election were dealt a devastating blow when two former Cabinet ministers, Patricia Hewitt, pictured, and Geoff Hoon, called for a secret ballot on his leadership.

Thursday 7 January: DAVID Miliband finally backed Gordon Brown as leader after a febrile 24 hours in which the Foreign Secretary was accused of supporting a plot to oust the Prime Minister. Later, David Cameron took the heat off the Prime Minister after admitting he "messed up" over the Tories' commitment to a marriage tax break.

Friday 8 January: MR BROWN, seen here visiting a day centre in Southwark, London, was back in the dock after a YouGov survey revealed that the Conservatives' lead over Labour had grown by two points to 12 per cent.

Sunday 10 January: PETER Watt, a former general secretary of the Labour Party, stepped forward to complain that Number 10 had been reduced to a "shambles" under Mr Brown. In his memoirs he painted a highly critical portrait, saying: "There was no vision, no strategy, no co-ordination. It was completely dysfunctional."

AP: Tiger Woods Is Racist - He Only Cheats With White Women
[info]mikguiruram
The article that followed labeled the golfer racist not only for "declin[ing] to identify himself as black," but also because of "the race of the women" he's involved with.

On top of this, the AP made the case that America's fascination with Woods's philandering is only because he's cheating with white women (h/t NB reader Matthew Noll):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓Amid all the headlines generated by Tiger Woods' troubles — the puzzling car accident, the suggestions of marital turmoil and multiple mistresses — little attention has been given to the race of the women linked with the world's greatest golfer.

Except in the black community.

When three white women were said to be romantically involved with Woods in addition to his blonde, Swedish wife, blogs, airwaves and barbershops started humming, and Woods' already tenuous standing among many blacks took a beating.

The article continued with this theme:

As one blogger, Robert Paul Reyes, wrote: "If Tiger Woods had cheated on his gorgeous white wife with black women, the golfing great's accident would have been barely a blip in the blogosphere."

Wow! So America is also racist because we're only interested in this story due to the color of Woods's mistresses.

But it gets worse:

The darts reflect blacks' resistance to interracial romance. They also are a reflection of discomfort with a man who has smashed barriers in one of America's whitest sports and assumed the mantle of the world's most famous athlete, once worn by Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan.

But Woods has declined to identify himself as black, and famously chose the term "Cablinasian" (Caucasian, black, Indian and Asian) to describe the racial mixture he inherited from his African-American father and Thai mother.
So Woods is wrong for not considering himself black even though he is one quarter Chinese, one quarter Thai, one quarter African-American, one eighth American Indian, and one eighth Dutch?
But there was yet more racial absurdity in this piece:

This vexed some blacks, but it hasn't stopped them from claiming Woods as one of their own. Or from disapproving of his marriage to Elin Nordegren, despite blacks' historical fight against white racist opponents of mixed marriage.

Advertisements -> Fort Myers Transportation | Naples Commercial Real Estate

So, blacks have historically fought against "white racist opponents of mixed marriage":

"But at the same time we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference," said Johnson Cooper, a 26-year-old African-American from New York City. "There's just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other."

Wow! So, on the one hand, blacks have fought against "white racist opponents of mixed marriage." BUT, they're against black men marrying white women.

Not only did the AP miss this hypocrisy, it actually defended it:

This tendency may be more prominent due to a relative lack of interracial marriages among average blacks. Although a recent Pew poll showed that 94 percent of blacks say it's all right for blacks and whites to date, a study published this year in Sociological Quarterly showed that blacks are less likely to actually date outside their race than are other groups.

"There is a call for loyalty that is stronger in some ways than in other racial communities," said the author of the study, George Yancey, a sociology professor at the University of North Texas and author of the book "Just Don't Marry One."

The color of one's companion has long been a major measure of "blackness" — which is a big reason why the biracial Barack Obama was able to fend off early questions about his black authenticity.

"Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him," Johnson Cooper said.

So do Woods' women say something about the intensely private golfer's views on race?

"I would like to say no, but I think it garners a bit of a yes," Johnson Cooper said.

Wow!
So if Michelle Obama was white, blacks wouldn't have voted for her husband?

Somehow the AP missed this racist hypocrisy as well.
Add it all up, and Woods is racist for cheating with white women, Americans are racist because they wouldn't be interested in this story if his mistresses were black, and it's okay for blacks to resent black men that are involved with white women.
Any questions?
  • Leave a comment
  • Add to Memories

Gore Vidal's United States of fury
[info]mikguiruram

Gore Vidal's United States of fury

At 84, the writer and activist may be confined to a wheelchair, but his rage – at his country, its leaders and citizens – burns as fiercely as ever. Johann Hari watches the sparks fly

In Russian, the phrase "gore vidal" means "he has seen grief". As Gore Vidal is wheeled towards me across an empty London hotel lobby, it seems for the first time like an apt translation. In the eight years since I saw him last, he has lost his partner of 50 years, most of his friends, most of his enemies, and the use of his legs. The man I met then – bristling with his own brilliance, scattering witticisms around like confetti – has withered. His skin is like parchment, but the famous cheekbones are still sharp beneath the crags. "It is so cold in here," he says, by way of introduction. "So fucking cold."

Gore Vidal is not only grieving for his own dead circle and his fading life, but for his country. At 83, he has lived through one third of the lifespan of the United States. If anyone incarnates the American century that has ended, it is him. He was America's greatest essayist, one of its best-selling novelists and the wit at every party. He holidayed with the Kennedys, cruised for men with Tennessee Williams, was urged to run for Congress by Eleanor Roosevelt, co-wrote some of the most iconic Hollywood films, damned US foreign policy from within, sued Truman Capote, got fellated by Jack Kerouac, watched his cousin Al Gore get elected President and still lose the White House, and – finally, bizarrely – befriended and championed the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

Yet now, he says, it is clear the American experiment has been "a failure". It was all for nothing. Soon the country will be ranked "somewhere between Brazil and Argentina, where it belongs." The Empire will collapse militarily in Afghanistan; the nation will collapse internally when Obama is broken "by the madhouse" and the Chinese call in the country's debts. A ruined United States will then be "the Yellow Man's Burden", and "they'll have us running the coolie cars, or whatever it is they have in the way of transport".

A Scotch is fetched for him as he is wheeled into the corner of the bar. "I was like everyone else when Obama was elected – optimistic. Everything we had been saying about racial integration was vindicated," he says, "but he's incompetent. He will be defeated for re-election. It's a pity because he's the first intellectual president we've had in many years, but he can't hack it. He's not up to it. He's overwhelmed. And who wouldn't be? The United States is a madhouse. The country should be put away – and we're being told to go away. Nothing makes any sense." The President "wants to be liked by everybody, and he thought all he had to do was talk reason. But remember – the Republican Party is not a political party. It's a mindset, like Hitler Youth. It's full of hatred. You're not going to get them aboard. Don't even try. The only way to handle them is to terrify them. He's too delicate for that."

When he compares Obama to his old friend Jack Kennedy, he shakes his head. "He's twice the intellectual that Jack was, but Jack knew the great world. Remember he spent a long time in the navy, losing ships. This kid [Obama] has never heard a gun fired in anger. He's absolutely bowled over by generals, who tell him lies and he believes them. He hasn't done anything. If you were faced with great problems in chemistry – to find the perfect gas, to gas a population – you won't know for a long time whether it works. You have to go by what people tell you. He's like that. He's not ready for prime time and he's getting a lot of prime time on his plate at once."

Is there any hope? "Every sign I see is doom. But then people say" – he adopts a whiny, nasal voice – "'Oh Mr Vidal, you're so negative, can't you say something nice about America? It's a wonderful country, everybody wants to live here.' Oh yes? When was the last time you saw a Norwegian with a green card who wanted to come here because of the health service? I'll pay you if you can find one."

But there is, he says with sudden perkiness, some "good news. Afghanistan will be terminal for the American empire, yes. Which is a happy way of looking at it. We'll be out of the empire game, rapidly. But it's too late for the country and the constitution." He raises his drink, and smiles ironically. "To a better republic," he says, and drinks in one long gulp.

I. The death of America

The current spasming death of America was foretold at its birth, Vidal says, and it can only be understood by whirling back there. It has been his mission to explain the past to the "United States of Amnesia," through his novels and essays. When he speaks, he sweeps over two millennia of history – from Caesar to Obama – as if he was there, forever spraying one-liners from the back row. Today, he was stopped time in Philadelphia, at the birth of the republic. "Benjamin Franklin saw all this coming," he says. "I quote him because most Americans don't even know who he was now. You'll have to explain to your readers." Franklin was a writer, scientist and soldier who became one of the founding fathers of the United States. "In Philadelphia in 1781, when the constitution was being put together, he was an observer. He didn't want to have any part of it, and as he was leaving the Constitution Hall in Philadelphia a couple of old ladies said, 'Ah, Mr Franklin, what is going to happen?' He told them: 'Well, you're going to get a Republic, if you can keep it. But every constitution of this sort has failed since the beginning of time due to the corruption of the people.'"

So the American people are corrupt? Americans weren't good enough for America? "Precisely. They were only good enough to be a restive colonial power – or the dregs of one."

Vidal's politics began here – almost. He was born at the United States Military Academy in West Point to a wealthy family at the apex of American power. His grandfather was Thomas Pryor Gore, the Senator for Oklahoma. He was blind, so from the age of five, little Gore was reading letters and books for big Gore and guiding him discreetly through Washington DC parties. The Senator was a populist, fighting to rally the people against the concentrated power of Wall Street and Big Finance. He represented the cotton farmers who emerged battered from the Civil War, only to be destroyed by Wall Street financiers playing roulette with the global cotton price. Yet there was always a strange contradiction to his life: "My grandfather couldn't stand his constituents," Vidal says. "And they loved him for it. Figure that one out."

He was a populist with no faith in the populace – precisely what his grandson has turned into. Gore Vidal shares the populist belief that the people are being shafted by the rich – but he thinks the population is too cretinous and drugged by television and fast food to figure it out. "It is always to be hoped that the people will mysteriously be educated, somehow. Well, that's the link. But the people don't know anything. As soon as we became an empire, we stopped teaching geography in the schools, so nobody would know where anything is. It's not the people's fault – they have been perverted them into imperial ways of thinking so that they would be docile workers and loyal consumers. That was the dream and it has come true."

As a child, Vidal loved spending time with his Senator-grandfather, not least because it meant he could escape for a time from his alcoholic mother Nina. When I raise the topic, he adopts the nasal whine of a mock-interviewer again and says: "'Oh Mr Vidal, your poor mother can't have been as awful as you say [in your memoirs].' She was a lot worse. I don't go after other people's mothers, but my own was quite enough to attack."

She was constantly drunk, and when she wasn't savaging him or threatening suicide, she would tell her son the full details of her life in an obsessive angry blather. When he was 10, "she told me that rage made her orgasmic. I didn't think to ask her if sex did the same." When he appeared on the cover of Time magazine years later, she wrote a long letter to the magazine denouncing him. The magazine headlined it: "A Mother's Love." Vidal seems to have inherited his bitter wit from her. Asked why she didn't marry for a fourth time, she said: "My first husband had three balls, my second two, my third one. Even I know enough not to press my luck." Does he think of her often? "No." He gives me an icy stare. After all these years, can he feel any compassion for her? "No." The ice becomes a glacier.

Does he think, at least, that she shaped his personality? His old friend Kenneth Tynan, the theatre critic, wrote in his diaries: "What superb and seamless armour he wears, as befits one for whom life is a permanent battle for (social and intellectual) supremacy ... Gore could never surrender (ie, expose) himself to anyone." Could his mother's cruelty explain his lifelong sweeping dismissal of everything around him – the constant goring by Gore? As soon as I ask this, I realise how Vidal has changed since I last saw him. Then, he would have responded with a witty put-down, or reasserted his supremacy with an obscure classical reference, quoted in the original Greek. Now he looks a little hurt – his eyes flicker sadly – and he says: "Well, it's the last thing I'd like to think about." Then he is silent. I suddenly feel rude and cruel.

His grandfather became increasingly furious that Franklin Roosevelt was – he believed – dragging the United States into an unnecessary war against Germany and Japan. He was opposed to all foreign wars, which he believed were drummed up by big business to serve their interests. "He thought that no foreign war was worth the life of any American," Vidal says, with a smile of pride. But this – combined with his opposition to the New Deal – meant he was voted out of office. As a little act of revenge, Vidal says he has never visited Oklahoma.

He joined the army at the age of 17, glad to escape his mother. He spent the war posted in Italy and, for three years, Alaska. He is not surprised that this "frozen hell" has produced Sarah Palin, "the latest idol in America's long cult of stupidity". Alaska was, he says, "the place where all the crooks in America went to hide. And they produced her."

He says he realises now that he was part of an army sent to build a global empire by "America's Augustus, Roosevelt". The old America was replaced by a military octopus with a metal arm on every continent, and the old constitution was replaced by a "National Security State. I wouldn't have enlisted if I knew where it was going to lead", he says. "But there it was, and we ended [the war as] an empire and slammed the door behind us. Then we fucked it up."

He left the army with no money. "My father and grandfather, as self-made men, were not going to make any other man. I knew that," he says. So he sat down and wrote a novel about the war called Williwaw. At the age of 20, he was suddenly a hard-boiled realist bestseller. He was lauded as a tough young soldier, and his grandfather talked of setting him up with a Congressional seat – but Vidal wanted to write another, bolder novel, based on the only person he had ever loved. It pulled any hope of a political career down behind him – but made him a defining figure in American life.

II. An Interrupted Love Story

When Vidal was 14, a boy called Jimmy Trimble moved into Vidal's dorm at his Washington boarding school. He was a blond, built jock; Vidal was a bookish intellectual. "His sweat smelled of honey, like that of Alexander the Great," he wrote years later in his memoir, Palimpsest. They fell in lust and perhaps in love, and had sex in the forest at the edge of the school grounds. "It was the first human happiness I had ever encountered," Vidal wrote. He saw Trimble as his other half, the person who finally made him complete. Then Trimble was, at the age of 19, blown up by a hand grenade on the beaches of Iwo Jima.

For years, thoughts of Trimble still made Vidal tremble. I think they still do: his eyes turn distant and a little watery when we talk about him. So he wrote a novel – The City and The Pillar – imagining what would have happened if they had met again after the war. It's a dark, bitter book: the sex is a failure and one kills the other. But in 1950s America, to show two all-American boys – manly, self-assured – having sex was wildly bold. He was subject to a blackout in the "respectable" press and any hope of elected office died, but the book became a best-seller.

Vidal resolved that he would never again find what he had lost with Jimmy: "It would be greedy to expect a repetition. I was aware of my once-perfect luck, and left it at that." He says he had sex with more than a thousand "anonymous youths" by the age of 25. He never saw them twice; he never pretended there was any affection there. He was what they labelled "trade" – he did nothing (deliberately, at least) to please them. He was pleasured; that was all. "When I got too old, I paid for it gladly." After the death of Trimble, he seems to have emotionally cauterised himself. Even his closest friends have said there is an isolation at the core of his character. He once said: "I have known so many people, but it seems I have known nobody at all."

Strangely, though, Vidal has always resisted the idea that he is a "gay" champion. "I never said I was gay, because I don't think anyone is." He says he finds "these restrictions tiresome. In the centuries of Rome's great military and political success, there was no differentiation between same-sexers and other-sexers; there was also a lot of crossing back and forth. Of the first 12 Roman emperors, only one was exclusively heterosexual." The US today is, for all the fussing, full of sodomy, he says. "Did you see [Colonel] Gaddafi [at the UN] complaining that American soldiers have been sodomising Arab boys? I thought, well that's been the case since the very beginning of the republic. They blamed the sodomy on those great forests out there which they said made them horny. There was nothing else to do but bugger boys, they said."

So homosexuality and heterosexuality are fictions? "Yes, of course." He adopts a camp voice and adds: "But it makes a lot of girls happy." Why do so many people believe it to be true about themselves if it's false? "They believe in Jesus, and that's a much bigger fiction, with more money spent on it. Prettier clothes too."

When he was 25, Vidal met a younger man called Howard Austen, and they settled down together, on one condition – they agreed to never have sex, nor be romantic in any way. He and Austen were together for 50 years. He died last year in a hospital in the Hollywood Hills. "He had lung cancer and he wouldn't stop smoking and then it went to his brain and he had brain cancer. That's ... that's what happened," he says. Once, in an essay, he quoted the critic Edmund Wilson, who said of his dead wife: "After she was dead, I loved her." Can he say that of Howard? He affects not to hear. "Now I'm a gimp. I can't walk. I need hospitals. You know I have a knee made out of titanium." He taps his knee. "So you see, I need hospitals." And he looks away, a little absently, as if thinking of something else.

III. Isolation

By his mid-20s, Vidal was a best-selling author, and rich. He rented a property in Guatemala – far from his mother – and settled down to write his next novel. But in that small tropical central American country, he found he was going to have to dramatically reassess the country he had just fought for – and pull his grandfather's abandoned philosophy from the gutter of history.

Just before Vidal arrived, the poverty-wreathed Guatemalan people had elected a left-wing president called Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán. They wanted him to introduce a minimum wage and start taxing the US mega-corporation, the United Fruit Company, that dominated the country's only industry, banana-growing. The outraged United Fruit Company acted to preserve its profits – by getting Washington to topple Árbenz and install a dictator. The phrase "banana republic" entered the language.

"I was astonished," Vidal says. "I had known vaguely about our numerous past interventions in Central America. But that was the past." He discovered that Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was leading the charge, and "I didn't believe it. Lodge was a family friend; as a boy I had discussed poetry with him". He says he realised then he had been fighting "for an Empire, not a republic". His grandfather, he resolved, had been right all along: wars only serve elites.

He rapidly became the leading left-wing critic of American foreign policy. He warned against every war from Vietnam to Iraq, often with extraordinary prescience. At the height of George W Bush's post-9/11 popularity, he said: "Mark my words – he will leave office the most unpopular President in history." His essays on this subject are often great flares of truth and anger. His horror at US foreign policy can be summarised in one little scene. In the 1980s, the Sistine Chapel was being restored, and some VIPs were invited to view it on an elevated platform. He spotted that old serial killer Henry Kissinger inspecting the section depicting Hell, and said: "Look, he's apartment hunting."

Vidal started preaching his grandfather's gospel of isolationism. "I am a patriot of the old republic that has slowly vanished during the expansionist years and disappeared completely in 1950 when the National Security State replaced it," he says. "I want us to go from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, and restore the constitution. We should leave the world alone, before they make us."

The US is only menaced, he says, because it menaces others. "In geopolitics as in physics, there is no action without reaction." He stirs his Scotch and says: "There was no 9/11. I mean – our policies were such that we were going to have a lot of crazy people out there in the Arab world who were going to try to blow us up, because of crimes they feel we committed against them. Any fool could see it coming. And I'm sufficiently a fool to have seen it."

He sees his job as expressing "the unacceptable obvious", and says he is always ready to "turn the other fist". I tell him that while I agree with many of his criticisms of US foreign policy, it seems that to keep his isolationism pristine and pure, he has to go further than the truth. He has to imply every attack on the United States' power was provoked, and therefore justified – when some were not. He looks coldly at me. "Okay – name one." Pearl Harbour, I say. If the US can be an expansionist empire, so can other countries. The Japanese empire attacked the US, just as the US expansionists attacked Guatemala, Vietnam and others. It was unprovoked aggression.

His face tightens into a scowl. "Roosevelt saw to it that we got that war!" he snaps. "He taunted the Japanese so they would have to hit us, at Pearl Harbour, and they did ... We have conveniently forgotten because we don't teach American history to anybody, but he sent an ultimatum to the Japanese telling them to get out of China, which they'd been trying to conquer for years. He was laying down the law to them, [saying they had to] surrender their rather proud nation's empire. And they said fuck you. And the next thing we knew the fleet was moving towards Pearl Harbour."

That's not how most historians read it – but I move on to an even more contested example. He says the Soviet Empire was "purely reactive" to American power, and only committed atrocities and invasions because the US "goaded them". Can that be true? Couldn't they be independently cruel, just as the US sometimes was? "They had a whole continent to play with, they didn't need any more space," he says, and changes the subject, rather oddly, to talk about the Dutch.

I try to pull him back. Yes, it's clearly the case that 9/11 was in part a blow-back response to US crimes in the Middle East, but he goes much further, and says the Bush administration was "probably" in on it. Where is the evidence for this huge claim? "It would certainly fit them to a T, so you can't blame the rest of us for starting to think on slightly conspiratorial grounds. They did steal the great election of the year 2000 and they somehow fixed the Supreme Court of the United States, that sacred place, and got them to go along with it, with the selection, not the election, the selection of George W Bush as president. He wasn't voted for, people didn't want him. And were somewhat mystified that he ended up with it."

But there was an earlier attack on America that he wants to discuss now – one he says was carried out by a "sane" and "noble" man.

IV. A Noble Boy

On 19 April 1995, a former US soldier called Timothy McVeigh planted a massive truck bomb outside a government building in Oklahoma City, at the heart of Vidal's grandfather's old constituency. Some 168 people died, including a kindergarten full of children. McVeigh wrote to Vidal, saying he had been motivated, in part, by studying his work. He said he believed the US Constitution had been usurped by a National Security State that had to be defeated by force. Vidal wrote back – and they became friends. He started mounting passionate defences of the bomber in public. He says he was not crazy, but "too sane for his place and time".

"He was a dedicated student of the American way, of the Constitution itself," he says. "You should read his writings – they're very good. Particularly on the Posse Comitatus Act of 1876, which forbids the Federal government ever to use its troops against the American people – but which they proceeded to do at Waco [a compound used by a religious cult that was attacked by federal troops in 1993]. They killed more people than he managed to kill when he blew up that building in Oklahoma City. He was a noble boy."

Noble? The man who consorted with far right militia groups and blew up all those children? Vidal scowls again, and almost hisses: "He didn't kill them deliberately! But the American government killed all those people at Waco, men, women and children deliberately! It was his gesture against the government he loathed. You know, he swore to me he had no idea there were children there. He said, 'How would I know? I walked by the place once and I knew that there was some kind of dining room, families might be there, or they might not be there,' and he wasn't counting, he wasn't out for a big count. But he was trying to tell the government – look, you have done this arbitrarily, contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act, contrary to American law, you've killed American citizens. Remember he was an army boy, and he loved it, and he was longing to get back in the army and the army was longing to get him back, he was the best sharpshooter they'd seen in years. But it was not meant to be."

But he knew he would kill scores of innocent people: that was the point. Doesn't that show a callous disrespect for human life? "So did Patton, so did Eisenhower!" he says angrily. "Everybody's rather careless about it once you start getting involved in wars. He saw this as a war to preserve the Constitution! You know what he said? But you don't, so I'm going to tell you. The judge [at his trial] quite liked him, and he was intrigued by the fact that this rather talkative kid who wrote tons of pieces for the press had not defended himself. So he said – Mr McVeigh, could we hear more from you? [McVeigh] said, 'Well, your honour, I will base my case on Justice Brandeis, one of our most brilliant jurists, in his opinion in Olmstead. There, he writes that when government ceases to lead by example and actually provides a bad example, anything can happen. Government is the last teacher. Everything I did, I learned from my government."

When did this happen to Gore Vidal? When did he go from righteous – and right – opposition to atrocities carried out by his own government, to justifying any atrocity against it, no matter how extreme? When I ask him, his scowl turns to a sneer, and he says I am ignorant and clearly haven't read anything. I decide to try a different approach. I ask him – if there were more people like McVeigh, would that be a good thing? There is a crack in his hauteur, and he says: "It strikes me as a perfect nightmare. Of course I don't want more people like McVeigh. Since Americans refuse to think about anything, being incapable I suspect of thought, then they're not going to come to any conclusions except mistaken ones."

I don't understand. I try again and again to tug him back and get him to say whether this means he thinks McVeigh was wrong to plant the bomb. He won't. Finally, he jeers: "You are trying my patience," and defies me – with a long stare – to change the subject.

V. Pale Moonlight

Vidal is one of the last of his generation of American intellectuals standing (or, at least, sitting). I ask him about some of his rivals who have died recently – John Updike, William Buckley, Norman Mailer – and he interrupts. "Updike was nothing. Buckley was nothing with a flair for publicity. Mailer was a flawed publicist, too, but at least there were signs every now and then of a working brain." Then he smiles to himself: "You know, he used the word 'existential' all the time, to the end of his life, and never even learned what it meant. I heard Iris Murdoch once at dinner explain to Norman what existential meant, philosophically. He was stunned."

There is a vulnerability to Vidal now that didn't exist eight years ago. Before, I felt like I was shouting questions up Mount Olympus: he conducted the interview from above and beyond me, impervious to anything I said. Now, when I laugh at his jokes, he looks pleased, and laughs too. When we argue, he looks genuinely thrown, and hurt, and angry. He seems keen to return to the calmer waters of his memories, and we paddle together in his Kennedy anecdotes. Jackie was really secretly in love with Bobby, he says. He used to call Jack the President-erect. Jack once had sex with an actress friend of his in a bath, and suddenly rammed her head underwater, so she would have a vaginal spasm, and he would have an orgasm. "She hates him still," he says. But when I ask him what he made of the late Teddy Kennedy as a person, he snaps: "Who cares what they were like as people? That's just show business."

He has had to abandon his second home in the high hills of Italy, and says he misses it. "Italy is such a civilised country. Unlike America." But is the gap so great? Is Silvio Berlusconi better than Barack Obama? He snaps again: "Who cares? This is showbiz you're worried about. I don't care who's on television telling jokes on the Late Show."

Vidal seems exhausted and alone, living out his days in the Hollywood Hills. After an amazingly full life – "I have tried everything but incest and folk-dancing," he says – he has no more books gestating. He has travelled to London to receive applause on stage for providing the recorded narration for the new production of Mother Courage at the National Theatre, but all his old London friends – Tynan, Tom Driberg, Princess Margaret – are dead. I ask what it's like to be here, and he says: "This isn't a country, it's an American aircraft carrier." He starts to talk about his old friends again. He is swimming with ghosts now – from Jimmy Trimble to Jack Kennedy to his drunken, scolding mother. As he declines, he announces that everything around him is declining – America, literacy, humanity itself.

In one essay, Vidal said the author William Dean Howells at 84 "lived far too long". He quoted a line Howells wrote to Henry James: "I am comparatively a dead cult with my statues cut down and the grass growing over me in pale moonlight." Does he feel this about himself? I stare at him and don't have the heart to ask. He tells me he is unafraid of death. "I'm the least primitive American you're going to meet, and you have to be pretty primitive to believe in hell. To me hell is the United States of today."

After two hours, his carer – a beautiful long-haired French boy who has been reading Céline in the corner of the hotel bar – indicates that our time is up. I tell Vidal I hope I will interview him in another eight years' time. "Another eight years? Oh, the monotony!" he exclaims, and begins to be wheeled away. The last thing I hear him say as he vanishes across the marble lobby is a curse to his carer: "It's still so f****ing cold in here!"

Gore Vidal is the narrator for "Mother Courage", which is part of the Travelex £10 season at the National Theatre and continues in the repertoire until 8 December. For tickets go to www.national theatre.org.uk


Ohio's Strickland can't win for losing
[info]mikguiruram

Last week was a bad week or Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a first term Democrat. His budget is under attack, principally from declining state revenues. His plan to place video slot machines at Ohio horse racing tracks is a long way from the finish line, as was demonstrated last week when only two race track owners of the seven who want VLTs to offset sagging customer traffic actually sent their licensing and application funds to The Ohio Lottery, which falls under the administrative umbrella of the governor and is saying VLTs are another kind of lottery game.

Strickland can only hope that this week passes quickly, too, as the news he received Monday will only monkey wrench his budget even further and may give his political opponents more headlines to use against him in next year's race for governor.

The news Monday, that the Supreme Court of Ohio dealt him another blow with a 6-1 ruling allowing his plan to bring VLTs to Ohio via its race tracks can be put to a statewide vote, will only make his life, and the budget being held together by presumptuous forecasts of gambling revenue that may or may not materialize, tougher and rougher.

One projection Strickland has been right in calling is that things will likely get worse before they get better. It didn't take a Nostradamus to make that prediction. Anyone remotely following today's economic news, especially the plight of Ohio, could have arrived at the same conclusion.


$20 Per Gallon Gasoline: Book Argument Plausible?
[info]mikguiruram
By Daniel Saltman

Forbes writer Christopher Steiner has a new book about the approaching era of declining world oil production entitled $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better. In it he takes an interesting approach toward explaining how declining oil production will change the world. Each successive chapter is named after a progressively higher price for a gallon of gasoline. At each higher price point he describes how our lives will change. This is a novel and interesting approach aimed at explaining to a broader public what Peak Oil means for us in our daily lives. He doesn't put a timeline on when the price points will get hit or predict how much the total economy will shrink. This is more of a lifestyle approach to Peak Oil.

In Chapter $8 he foresees the bankruptcy and liquidation (not reorganization) of most of the airlines in the United States and Europe. This assertion is plausible. Most people do not realize that US domestic flight seats have already shrunk 21% since 2001.

For the time being, analysts agree that the airlines, by cutting routes and employees, grounding planes and imposing fees, can weather the downturn. In fact, when the latest round of capacity cuts takes effect in September, the seats on domestic flights will drop to 66.5 million — down from a peak of about 84 million in 2001 and the lowest September figure since 1984, according to OAG Aviation, which tracks flight schedules.

We will, in time, return to 1970s and 1960s levels of air passenger transportation. I do not expect technological advances to prevent this because the aircraft need liquid fuels - no electrically powered substitutes available. Boeing's much ballyhooed 787 Dreamliner only boosts fuel efficiency 20%. Aircraft fuel efficiency would need to improve by multiples to compensate for Peak Oil and energy substitutes would have to be in the form of liquid fuels. Unless algae genetic engineering solves the problem we'll do a lot more of our travel on the ground. Robert Rapier has explained better than I can the problems of algae biofuels.

Steiner's lifestyle preferences are not my own. He celebrates what he sees as an expected return of the suburbanites to cities. Me, I think the people who left cities had good reasons for doing so. I like wide open spaces and I even like some suburbs. A retreat from the rural life and from exurbs doesn't strike me as a positive development. I think SWPL writers who live in cities do not appreciate that, no, not all people will enjoy cities like they do. City dwellers can be pretty damned provincial. (and why didn't he mention Vespa scooters?)

But I have a more fundamental disagreement with him over the idea of a coming urbanism: I'm not sure that by his own logic it makes economic sense. In Chapter $16 (yes, he thinks gasoline will go that high - I'll outline opposing arguments below) he argues that the cost of long range transportation will get so high that more food will be grown and consumed locally. Well, okay. But isn't that an argument against large cities? New York City needs to bring its food in from longer distances because it has so many people. The amount of land needed to feed them all has to stretch many miles away from it. This is made all the more problematic because NYC borders on fairly built up urban and suburban areas around it that also need to have their food brought it from distant places. So isn't the high transportation cost argument an argument for the spread of people out to places closer to where the food is grown? In the United States that would be places like Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas.

Is $20 per gallon possible? Steiner makes no attempt to prove this. I would like to know if it is possible. My biggest puzzle about Peak Oil is just how high can the price of oil go? We know that the utter outer limit for the price of oil at any given time is something well less than world GDP divided by the number of barrel of oil made in a year. World GDP is currently about $55 trillion by one measure. Also, world oil production is about 30 billion barrels per year. If all money was spent on oil then the max price would be $1800 per barrel. Of course that's not going to happen. What would the people who sold the oil do with the money? Buy other stuff. Why spend all your money on oil if you can't even afford a car to burn gasoline or a house to heat? You aren't going to spend even a quarter of your income on energy, let alone a quarter of your income on liquid hydrocarbons. You'll move into a very small apartment in a converted house and ride a bike before that happens.

Speaking of riding bicycles, rather than abandon suburbs for the big city why not follow Jeff Radtke's suggestion and convert bicycles to electric power and get around a lot on an electric-powered bicycle? No need to move to the big city. For people who have shorter commutes the price of gasoline ceases to be an obstacle when you get around on electric power.

How can we hit high price points on gasoline? How high gasoline prices can go depends on substitutes. Given no substitutes at all the economy will decline with the price of oil. Less energy will mean less economic activity. Imagine a large number of lower priced substitutes for all purposes and that these substitutes all became competitive by the time gasoline hits $8 per gallon. In that case gasoline would never hit $10 per gallon for any length of time. In order to hit high price points the economy has to have enough affordable substitutes to enable economic growth to provide the buying power to bid up oil and gasoline. This would have to happen even as some subset of economically valuable uses of oil turn out to have no effective substitutes. Only then could oil and gasoline hit high price points.

Steiner argues that international trade will plummet as the cost of fuel for ships skyrockets. Jeff Rubin develops this argument in greater detail in a recent book (which I have not read): Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization. Are Rubin and Steiner correct? At least up to some point. But what about substitutes? Steiner misses an opportunity here because in his $18 chapter he reports the US Navy believes nuclear cruisers become cost effective at $120 per barrel (which we hit for a few months in 2008) and nuclear destroyers become cost effective at $200 per barrel. The question here is obvious: at what price of oil does nuclear propulsion become cost competitive for ocean going cargo ships? Answer that question and you will know the long term ceiling on the prices for long range container shipping. Is the price of nuclear cargo shipping so high that Wal-Mart's business models falls apart (as Steiner claims)? Or is he just expressing SWPL prejudice against Wal-Mart?

In a similar vein Steiner claims that long range shipping of fruits and vegetables won't survive $16 per gallon gasoline. But a lot of vegetables and fruits move transcontinental via rail. Well, even as Steiner paints a bright picture for passenger rail in chapter 18 he fails to recognize the potential for electrified rail for freight as a way to put a ceiling on the cost of long range land-based cargo shipping. At what price of oil does fully electrified rail become cost competitive with diesel-electric train engines? That price (whatever it is) puts a ceiling on the long run price of rail cargo shipping. Suddenly rail becomes powered by nuclear reactors or wind turbines or hydro. Want to predict what'll happen with freight after Peak Oil? Ya gotta figure out the competitive prices for nuclear powered cargo ships and electrified transcontinental cargo rail. If anyone knows the answers post in the comments please.

While I obviously have some bones to pick with Steiner's book I recommend it. He covers a lot of territory in an accessible way for a broader public. If you expect lots of data to prove his assertions you'll be frustrated. But if you want to get a sense of just how much the future will change as a result of the lengthening list of countries whose oil production has peaked this book hits many of the ways our lives will change. It is not a precisely calculated set of predictions. Some of his guesses will turn out wrong due to substitutes and innovations that enable less disruptive adaptations. Others will happen at different price points than he predicts. But the value here is that his book causes the reader to picture a future that is not going to be business as usual.

Update: There's not a single oil price point at which nuclear powered cargo ships or electrified freight rail become cost competitive. Consider rail. The various rail lines have different levels of traffic per mile, the regions have different prices for electricity, cost of installation will vary depending on terrain and extent of surrounding industry and power lines. Plus, the cost of steel, copper, aluminum, and other construction materials varies over time. However, in an era of declining oil production rail electrification will probably make sense. Read Alan Drake and Phillip Longman on the potential to shift more freight to rail and to electrify rail. This would greatly reduce the transportation impact of Peak Oil. Also see Brian Wang on Nuclear Power For Commercial Shipping. If the optimistic numbers he provides there are anywhere near correct I do not see why Peak Oil has to cause a collapse of international trade.

Update II: One of the world's largest cargo ships, the Emma Maersk, has a 109,000 hp (81 MW) engine. The whole ship cost about $145 million to build. One analysis shows a nuclear powered equivalent as having lower total costs assuming $2500/KW of nuclear power and $500/ton diesel fuel. The $2500/KW cost estimate looks low. A recent MIT cost update put big land-based nuclear power plants at $4000/KW. How do smaller nuclear power plant costs differ from the costs at larger plants? For large nuclear plants here is a recent overview of an assortment of cost estimates for new nuclear power plants.

Update III: Brian Wang has put together even more useful links on nuclear-powered cargo ships. Costs for fossil-fuel powered cargo ships are going to surge because of regulated requirements for ship operators to shift to cleaner and more expensive fuels.

Based on current refining capacity and planned upgrades, Purvin and Gertz estimate bunker costs could soar by about $300 a metric tons as a result of the switch to gas oil.

Bunker fuel is already at $424 per ton in Singapore at the time of this writing. This price is already high enough to make nuclear-powered cargo ships cost effective according to some estimates. I do not expect global shipping to collapse due to higher fuel costs. Rather, the industry will just shift to nuclear power.

By Randall Parker at 2009 July 20 11:58 PM  Energy Peak Oil Adaptations

You are viewing [info]mikguiruram's journal