peak oil, global warming and the food crisis

As usual, and similarly as in the case of global warming, after
decades of denial the political and financial elites around the globe
realized that they can no longer ignore the physics, in this case the
geology of fossil hydrocarbons. Unfortunately it seems we lost too
much time (since the oil crisis in the '70s) that could have been used
for planning a transitional period. Now we see the results of the
first combined effect of the two phenomena: the food crisis. As oil
prices have gone through the roof, grain production was affected by
droughts, and even worse, as farmers switched to biofuel production as
a result of the euroamerican stupidity to subsidize this, millions
face starvation. Unfortunately, they still don't get it, it is
technofix and market solutions time all over again.

"The International Energy Agency was fully aware of Peak Oil some ten
years ago. Their World Energy
Outlook of 1998 showed that demand would outpace supply by 2010 save
for the entry of unidentified
unconventional which was a coded message for shortage. But when a
journalist decoded it, their masters in
the OECD Governments suppressed it such that the Unidentified
Unconventional became Conventional Non-
OPEC in the next issue.
Now they change their tune as the following makes clear. Presumably
the change of position reflects the
need of the OECD Governments to have an IEA umbrella under which to
face the uncomfortable reality,
which they can no longer ignore with oil trading above $100 a barrel
and production in most countries
running at capacity. The key IEA phrase is : we should leave oil
before it leaves us"

the whole ASPO newsletter is here:
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter88_200804.pdf

Where are the economists?

By Peter Pogany
Peak confirmed in spades
Mainstream economics hides behind the bush

The world is "effectively" in the throes of peak oil. Crude and
refined product prices trend upwards while markets become increasingly
sensitive to news and rumors.

Bad weather around ports, unrest in a third-world producer country or
populist grandstanding by its leader with geopolitical flourishes, a
pipeline accident, a closedown for repair, new worries about exchange
rates – any of these would be sufficient for the financial media to
report that "crude futures jump on supply concerns."

But then a single credible opinion (even if it is shrewdly calculated
and timed) can make the shadows vanish momentarily: "Crude prices
tumble. Is the oil bear market rally over? Past data support
pull-back."

What we are witnessing is heightened awareness to availability
combined with a growing potential to amplify small margins into major
gains or losses. This is what being "effectively" at the peak means –
the summary result of economic, business, technological,
institutional, and political realities upstaging the squabble over
geological uncertainties.

Economic dislocation (i.e., recession or worse) will not solve the problem.

As Keynes would remind us from beyond the grave, why would private
capital make huge commitments to building and expanding the
infrastructure for a more expensive substitute input (nonconventional
oil products) when aggregate demand is sluggish?

Perhaps public authority could help. Yes, but where would
industrialized country governments, already struggling with debt, get
the wherewithal to supply the world economy with the coveted
substitutes for conventional oil? New taxes could worsen growth
prospects (threat of deflation) and "priming the pump" (create and
spend money) could accelerate inflation. Sell national assets? (The
unattractiveness of either of these approaches does not, of course,
exclude their future application.)

The independent Energy Watch Group projects a major decline in global
oil consumption from the current level of over 80 million barrels per
day to 58 million by 2020 and 39 million by 2030 (not even half of
current consumption). Since presently observed trends exclude filling
the gap with nonexhaustible energy and green substitutes for refined
oil products, the upbeat predictions about vigorous economic growth
(accompanied by a slow but steady rise in oil consumption) during the
coming decades appear to be unrealistic. Will the straining of Middle
Eastern production capacities alter these projections, pushing out the
time of reckoning by a few years?

There is no precise answer but it is clear that already the current
generation will have to adapt to an oil-constrained world. Given all
this, wouldn't you expect to see the best and brightest of the
economics profession out there where menacing winds blow on the hectic
frontline of general human interest, fending for our civilization;
analyzing, passionately arguing, advising national governments and
international organizations, never letting the sense of urgency recede
from public consciousness?

If you entertained such expectations you would be speechless upon
looking at the Table of Contents of top journals in economics.

As robustly demonstrated by the latest editions of the American
Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Journal
of Economic Theory, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of
Econometrics, Econometric Theory, Review of Economic Studies, Journal
of Business and Economic Statistics, Journal of Monetary Economics,
Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Review
of Economics and Statistics, European Economic Review, and
International Economic Review, the looming oil emergency did not
unfetter the wings of creativity in the highest echelons of the
profession. (Ranking of journals was borrowed from Professor W.C.
Horrace, University if Syracuse.)

Does the bulk of academe still believe in the simplistic myth that,
thanks to the never-ceasing interaction between always-ready Mr.
Backstop Technology and irresistible Ms. Unregulated Market, the world
is already pregnant with a solution to its oil predicament, that the
everlasting neediness of material goods will never ever meet
unalterable physical constraints?

Dominant neo-classically (roughly neo-liberally) flavored core
convictions in economics imply that preoccupation with "peak oil" is
nothing more than fearing fear intensified into dreading dread. But if
you insist on an answer you may get it in a form of reproach: "You
don't have enough faith in the invisible hand." What young assistant
professor aspiring for tenure would risk such an explicit reprimand
from the department chairman?

Despite its ostensible diversity and seeming contentiousness,
economics remains stuck uniformly in a Newtonian worldview of
idealized cyclicality that shows the future as a symmetric reflection
of the past. Roland Barthes' "The Death of the Author" became
applicable to the Economist. The bottom line is that if a poll were
taken across mainstream professionals (a category that excludes the
refreshingly awakened group of ecological economists), it would
probably indicate an expected decline in crude prices to the vicinity
of $45/b by 2010.

The explanation that economic science is an ideology in the service of
vested interest does not hold. Encouraging policymakers in the belief
that nibbling on the margins, moral suasion, and lofty goal setting
can substitute for never-before-seen deep policy changes and drastic
programs harms everybody, including vested interest.

The global oil issue is perhaps more imminent and directly threatening
than the "environment." But where is the "Al Gore" of peak oil? At
least now we know where not to look.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter Pogany is an economist and author of the book "Rethinking the
World." Other articles by Pogany on Energy Bulletin.

-BA
Article found at :
http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=43046

The demolition of society

"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of
human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount
and use of purchasing power, would result in the demolition of
society. For the alleged commodity "labor power" cannot be shoved
about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting
also the human indvidual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar
commodity. In disposing of man's labor power the system would,
incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity
"man" attached to that tag. Robbed of the protective covering of
cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the effects of
social exposure, they would die as the victims of acute social
dislocation through vice, perversion, crime, and starvation. Nature
would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes
defiled, military safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and
raw materials would be destroyed. Finally, the market administration
of purchasing power would periodically liquidate business enterprise,
for shortages and surfeits of money would prove as disastrous to
business as floods and droughts in primitive society. Undoubtedly,
labor, land, and money markets are essential to a market economy. But
no society could stand the effects of such a system of crude fictions
even for the shortest stretch of time unless its human and natural
substance as well as its business organization was protected against
the ravages of this satanic mill."

Polanyi, Karl (1944) The Great Transformation.

Exposed: the great GM crops myth

Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less
food than its conventional equivalent

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor, independent.co.uk
Sunday, 20 April 2008

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an
authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a
switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing
world food crisis.

The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of
Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10
per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting
assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.

Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy,
said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops –
because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed
that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal
conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I
don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"

He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional
variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels
of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.

The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup
– recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions
that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential
element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's
yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing
it.

The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska,
which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less
than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the
best non-GM soya available.

The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it
takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better
conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by
the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted
that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.

But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM
counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that
the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new
Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.

A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US,
where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over. (See
graphic above.)

Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the
decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields
had dropped. It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase
yields, and that it was now developing one that would.

Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it
requires more complex modification. And Lester Brown, president of the
Earth Policy Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to
predict the current food crisis – said that the physiology of plants
was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be
achieved.

A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with
human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile
more than 50 years ago, the best time has improved only modestly .
"Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a
three-minute mile."

Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for
Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.

Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if
GM could solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."

Original article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html?service=Print

Unbewusste Entscheidungen im Gehirn

Ein Team von Wissenschaftlern entschlüsselt den neuronalen Prozess der Entscheidungsfindung

Schon etliche Sekunden bevor wir eine Entscheidung bewusst treffen, können erste Anzeichen der Absicht aus dem Gehirn ausgelesen werden. Dies zeigt eine aktuelle Studie von Wissenschaftlern des Max-Planck-Instituts für Kognitions- und Neurowissenschaften in Leipzig, der Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin sowie des Bernstein Zentrums für Computational Neuroscience Berlin. Die Forscher um John-Dylan Haynes haben mithilfe der Magnetresonanztomographie Veränderungen im Gehirn untersucht, die einer bewussten Entscheidung vorausgehen. "Viele Prozesse im Gehirn laufen unbewusst ab - wir wären sonst schon mit alltäglichen Aufgaben der Sinneswahrnehmung und Bewegungskoordination völlig überfordert. Von unseren Entscheidungen aber glauben wir in der Regel, dass wir sie bewusst fällen. Diese Annahme ist mit unserer Studie in Frage gestellt", sagt Haynes. (Nature Neuroscience, 13. April 2008)

Abb. Aus den grün markierten Regionen lässt sich die freie Entscheidung eines Probanden für einen linken oder rechten Knopfdruck vorhersagen. Dazu wird eine Mustererkennungssoftware darauf programmiert, aus den micro-Mustern der Hirnaktivität vorherzusagen, wie sich der Proband entscheiden wird. Der früheste Vorhersagezeitpunkt liegt sieben Sekunden vor dem "gefühlten" Zeitpunkt, zu dem sich der Proband zu entscheiden glaubt.

Bild: Prof. Dr. John-Dylan Haynes

Die Testpersonen konnten sich frei entscheiden, ob sie mit der rechten oder der linken Hand einen Knopf betätigen. Anhand einer vor ihren Augen abgespielten Buchstabenfolge sollten sie anschließend angeben, zu welchem Zeitpunkt gefühlsmäßig ihre Entscheidung gefallen war. Ziel des Experiments war es, herauszufinden, wo im Gehirn solche selbstbestimmten Entscheidungen entstehen und vor allem ob dies geschieht, bevor es uns bewusst wird. Bereits sieben Sekunden vor der bewussten Entscheidung konnten die Wissenschaftler aus der Aktivität des frontopolaren Kortex an der Stirnseite des Gehirns vorhersagen, welche Hand der Proband betätigen wird. Zwar ließ sich die Entscheidung der Probanden nicht mit Sicherheit voraussagen, die Häufigkeit richtiger Prognosen lag aber deutlich über dem Zufall. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass die Entscheidung schon zu einem gewissen Grad unbewusst angebahnt, aber noch nicht endgültig gefallen war. Nach der Vorbereitung des Entscheidungsprozesses im frontopolaren Kortex, werden die Informationen zur Ausführung der Tätigkeit und zur Festlegung des Handlungszeitpunkts in andere Hirnbereiche übermittelt.

Mit ihrer Studie untersuchten die Wissenschaftler Situationen, in denen eine Entscheidung zu einem selbst gewählten Zeitpunkt stattfindet. "Bisher hat die Forschung in der Regel Prozesse betrachtet, bei denen der Proband sich sofort entscheiden muss. Viele interessante Entscheidungen erfolgen aber in einem eigenen, selbstgewählten Tempo", erklärt Haynes. Die lange Zeitspanne, die seine Untersuchung umfasst, ist beispiellos. "Normalerweise untersucht man die Hirnaktivität einer Person, während sie eine Entscheidung trifft und nicht schon Sekunden vorher", sagt Haynes. "Dass selbstgewählte Entscheidungen vom Gehirn schon so früh angebahnt werden, hat man bisher nicht für möglich gehalten."

Schon vor über 20 Jahren ist es dem amerikanischen Neurophysiologen Benjamin Libet gelungen, ein Gehirnsignal, das sogenannte "Bereitschaftspotential" zu messen, das einer bewussten Entscheidung um einige hundert Millisekunden vorausgeht. Libets Experimente lösten eine heftige Debatte um die Willensfreiheit aus. Wenn Entscheidungsprozesse unbewusst ablaufen, so argumentierten einige Wissenschaftler, ist der freie Wille eine Illusion - das Gehirn entscheidet, nicht das "Ich". Andere hingegen bezweifelten die Aussagekraft der Daten, vor allem wegen der kurzen Zeitspanne zwischen Bereitschaftspotential und bewusster Entscheidung.

Da Haynes und seine Kollegen die Vorbereitung der Entscheidung über weit längere Zeiträume beobachteten, konnten sie diese Zweifel an Libets Experimenten nun aus dem Weg räumen. Einen endgültigen Beweis gegen die Existenz eines freien Willens sehen sie darin noch nicht. "Nach unseren Erkenntnissen werden Entscheidungen im Gehirn zwar unbewusst vorbereitet. Wir wissen aber noch nicht, wo sie endgültig getroffen werden. Vor allem wissen wir noch nicht, ob man sich entgegen einer vorgebahnten Entscheidung des Gehirns auch anders entscheiden kann", sagt Haynes.

[KW/BA]

Originalveröffentlichung:

Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze & John-Dylan Haynes (2008):
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain
Nature Neuroscience, 13. April 2008