[GJM] Fw: Fwd: This is very good and current information all in one place. Time for fearless positive action!!

Fri Feb 9 16:56:47 MST 2007

 Well, what did anyone expect?  For the life of me, I cannot believe that
this information was 
not available in the months leading up to the November election.  But then,
same old system 
same results.  If nothing changes, nothing changes. 

  Thanks Janaia. 

eco

-------Original Message-------

From: Janaia Donaldson
Date: 02/08/07 23:55:06
To: undisclosed-recipients:,
Subject: Fwd: This is very good and current information all in one place.
Time for fearless positive action!!

Friends, you're on my "Relocalization" list. Let me know if you want off.  
Janaia

If your email program cannot properly view html emails, you can view today's
e-letter here: http://www.greenchipstocks.com/newsletter
php?date=2007-02-08&eac=true 

In order to ensure that you receive future emails from Green Chip Review,
please add gcr-eletter at angelnexus.com to your address book or to your safe
list in your spam settings.

Thursday, February 8th, 2007
The Desperation of George W. Bush
By Chris Nelder 

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation
is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate
country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats
 A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are
called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for
this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do
desperate things.
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
Last week, CommonDreams published a clever, hard-left article titled "Game
Over: Thirty-Six Sure-Fire Signs That Your Empire Is Crumbling" by David
Michael Green. One of them was, "You know your empire's crumbling when a
massive environmental nightmare is looming around the corner, and your
emperor not only ignores it, but claims it isn't real while taking steps to
exacerbate it."
Hard criticism, but true.
And then, wonder of wonders, after a career spent casting doubt on global
warming science and favoring Big Oil at all times and at all costs,
President Bush changed his tune in his recent State of the Union speech,
claiming that new energy technologies "will help us to confront the serious
challenge of global climate change."
That's the first time he has mentioned "climate change" as if it were real.
He went on to acknowledge the great risks inherent in our dependence on
foreign oil and the necessity of developing energy alternatives-specifically
mentioning solar, wind, clean coal, nuclear, biodiesel and cellulosic
ethanol.
He also requested a doubling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And he pledged to push for fuel economy standards to cut gasoline use "by 20
percent in the next ten years."
You might think that a renewable energy champion and peak oil worrier such
as I would have cheered aloud, or at least breathed a sigh of relief.

Follow the Money
Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it.

One year ago in his SOTU speech, Bush famously declared that "America is
addicted to oil." But a few weeks later, the budget he sent to Congress
actually cut $100 million from federal energy conservation programs.
And one year later our oil dependency is worse than before, by any measure.
In this year's SOTU speech he championed solar and wind energy. But in the
budget he sent to Congress a couple of weeks later, investment in
wind-energy research was actually cut by $9 million, down 26%, and money for
solar energy was cut by $7 million, a 10% decrease from last year
The proposed fiscal 2008 budget for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
is $181.5 million-$6.1 million less than last year's budget request.
In fact, Bush has pledged to work toward energy independence in every single
one of his previous State of the Union addresses . . . while our dependence
on imports grew from 53% to 66%.
Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical. The $9 billion that he requested in his
2008 budget for alternative energy, especially cellulosic ethanol, is money
badly needed and well spent. I'm all for it, and betting big on it!
And at least I can take some comfort from his finally having dropped that
nonsense about the "hydrogen economy." After being the centerpiece of his
glowing vision for the future in previous years, in this year's speech the
word "hydrogen" wasn't uttered once.
Oops: The budget request for hydrogen technology research is up 25%, to $18
4 million.
That's right, the hydrogen economy snipe hunt just garnered more of a
budgetary increase than the cuts to solar and wind put together. One has to
wonder how that made sense to anybody.
And there was zero money in the budget for geothermal energy, arguably the
cleanest and greenest of all land-based energy sources.
Yes, the President did an excellent job of sounding like he was strongly in
support of renewable energy . . . while in the actual budget, fossil fuels
and nuclear energy each got more than a 30% increase.

Advertisement

The Oil Industry's Unlikely Hero
The world's oil titans are running from the reaper. From Venezuela to
Nigeria to Iraq, the situation is grim.
Now, Libya's Col. Muammar Qaddafi has come in from the diplomatic cold and
brought the cleanest oil in the world with him.
One tiny Canadian firm was early on the scene, and Orbus Investor research
analyst Sam Hopkins spotted them in time for his subscribers to reap stellar
returns (over 90% in 2 months!).
But there's more. Sam thinks this stock could return 456% before 2008. 
To read the report that is already making Orbus Investor subscribers rich,
click here. 

Game Over: Nine Sure-Fire Signs that Your Leaders are Panicking
If you just listen to the rhetoric, it certainly sounds like Team Bush has
finally come around on renewable energy and climate change.
But the reality is it's just a "modified limited hang out." The phrase dates
to a conversation between President Nixon and his cronies, and refers to "a
strategy of mixing partial admissions with misinformation and resistance to
further investigation."
Bingo.
The reality is that Bush & Co. are in a state of quiet desperation, slowly
and deliberately making partially misleading, partially true statements to
show that they know the truth about oil and global warming without it
actually costing them too much politically, and without having to actually
do anything differently.
They're just trying to get out ahead of the issues so they don't get crushed
by them.
Because it pays more to follow the money and the facts than the rhetoric,
let's review the case for the desperation of George W. Bush.

Exhibit A: Crude Prices Bounce Back
After an 18% plunge to the $50s in the first half of January, WTI crude has
bounced back to within a buck of where it started. That's odd, isn't it,
considering that it's the world's biggest and most vital commodity and
nothing special happened?
Not really. As I have argued before, I believe the recent low price of crude
was simply due to the groupthink of Wall Street, having little to do with
the underlying value of the commodity. In the low 50s oil was oversold, and
now we're going to follow a similar trajectory to where we were this time
last year . . . only, as we will see shortly, I think it will go well past
last year's highs.

Exhibit B: Passing the Peak
The first reason is simply that the world's number-one oil field, Saudi
Arabia's Ghawar, is in decline.
According to Jeffrey J. Brown, an independent petroleum geologist, the
well-respected Hubbert Linearization Method of oil field production analysis
shows that Saudi Arabia is 58% depleted and the world is 48% depleted . . .
about where Texas and the lower 48 states peaked and started irreversible
declines in production. "Based on the HL method and historical models," he
says, "I believe Saudi Arabia and the world are now on the verge of
irreversible declines in conventional oil production."
This is something that Matthew Simmons, founder and chairman of the world's
largest energy investment banking company and author of Twilight in the
Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, has been saying
for several years now. He has been running himself ragged traveling the
globe and warning about a Saudi production collapse.
Well, in a January 31 interview on Bloomberg television, he dropped the
bomb: "We have hit peak oil."
That's it. The party is officially over.
He also said that oil is "unbelievably inexpensive" and that we're "giving
it away" at ten cents a cup. In some countries, he explained, they're
already paying the equivalent of $300 a barrel, and there's no reason it
couldn't happen here: "I think the most important thing to realize is that
if demand is accelerating, and there seems to be nothing on the horizon to
slow down oil demand, and supply can't . . . then prices don't sort of
stabilize at ten cents a cup!"
A $300 barrel of crude equates to $9 a gallon gas. Ready for your next $180
fill-up?
And we now know that our second largest oilfield, Mexico's Cantarell, is in
a catastrophic 28% annual decline. The U.S.'s number-two source of imports
could be finished in less than four years.
As if to prove the point, the Saudi oil company (Aramco) and the Mexican oil
company (Pemex) are both cutting their deliveries of crude-selling less oil
to refineries than they have asked to buy. 
On balance, falling production in Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Norway-a loss
totaling up to one million barrels-will not be made up by new production
coming on line in 2007.
With Ghawar, Cantarell and Forties & Burgan in terminal (and very rapid)
decline, it's game over. Game over. Commence the slow crawl up the other
side.
Of course, none of this is a surprise to us. We knew that we had reached the
peak before the Simmons interview. And we knewthat the other major fields of
the world could hardly be counted upon to make up the losses.

Exhibit C: Begging Canada
Last month the Bush administration sent a team from the Department of Energy
to meet with Canada's natural resources agency, to ask them to bypass
environmental rules in order to ramp up production from oil sands by a
factor of five . . . even though, as has been well recognized already, they
have neither the natural gas nor the fresh water to do it.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the good sense to say no, refusing to
implement the fast-track method for environmental assessments that would
have been needed in order to meet the Bush administration's timetable.
How desperate are you when you come begging to Canada, little ol' weak
Canada, asking them to wantonly destroy their environment without a second
thought in order to meet your energy needs, and you get denied? That's gotta
sting.

Exhibit D: Doubling the SPR
At maximum capacity, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently sports a
grand total of 56 days' worth of import protection, according to the DOE.
Given that we're past peak and that all five of our top suppliers have
serious problems, two months' worth doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies
 Apparently, the Bush administration agrees. You don't double your SPR when
you're feeling secure.
And we're not the only ones. China and India are quickly building their own
strategic reserves.
All of which adds up to security of demand, if nothing else. Hello, higher
prices.

Exhibit E: Climate Change Disinformation
On February 2 the Bush administration found itself squarely, and very
publicly, on the wrong side of the issue when the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its much-anticipated report. Three
years in the making, the report is the most comprehensive, global and
peer-reviewed study on climate change ever written, bringing together the
work of more than 800 scientists, more than 450 lead authors from more than
130 countries and more than 2,500 expert reviewers.
In short, it's humanity's best try at getting the story right.
And the report said greenhouse gas emissions will continue to change the
climate over the next 100 years, causing sea levels to rise by a half-meter.
Millions will be displaced from their coastal and low-lying communities,
causing waves of environmental refugees. Snow in the mountains will
disappear, desertification will intensify, oceans will die-and so will
people, due to deadly heat waves, as world temps rise by some 3 to 5.8
degrees Celsius.
On the very same day that the IPCC report came out, another story broke: The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) had sent letters out to scientists
around the world, offering $10,000 to anyone who could undermine the IPCC's
report, asking for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of
climate model outputs."
And who is the AEI? A think-tank that has received more than $1.6 million
from ExxonMobil, with 20-plus staffers who have also worked as consultants
to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, former ExxonMobil CEO, is their
board's vice-chairman.
But Exxon's efforts go far beyond that. Last month the Union of Concerned
Scientists issued a report showing that Exxon had spent some $16 million
since 1998 to "seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
Maybe the best summation of all of the Bush team's denial of climate change
came just a few days ago in a letter to clients sent by the manager of Vice
President Cheney's own personal investments. You read that right. (As far as
I know, Mr. Cheney has not issued a response.)
In the GMO Quarterly Letter 2007, Jeremy Grantham had a sharply worded essay
titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006-A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global
Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data." He wrote:

Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil
substitution or climate change, and the current one has even seemed to have
a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is
uncertain. In fact, we have spent the last large chunk of time in this
country with a strong bias to feel-good data at the expense of accurate,
hard data in this field. This attitude seems to be reflected in the spin on
U.S. economic success, which we've commented on several times, exaggerating,
sometimes substantially, the absolute and relative performance of the U.S.
economy. It has certainly been reflected in the general desire for
environmental issues to be benign and optimistic or to simply go away. [ . .
. ]
The U.S. policy approach to climate change (and other environmental issues)
has been similarly casual in its unwillingness to plan for the long term.
There is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is
causing a rise in global temperatures [ . . . ] Yet the U.S. is the only
country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well funded
campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company). This
campaign has used and reused the solitary plausible academic they can dig up
 out of hundreds working in the field, plus one famous novelist-without
qualifications in the field, but, still, for heaven's sake, widely quoted by
the administration-and one Danish economist who really doesn't get Pascal's
Paradox, but does seem to have shares in The Wall Street Journal.
Clearly, Team Bush is desperate to get on the right side of the climate
change issue.
This is only the first half of our case. We'll explore the second half next
week.
Until then . . .
-Chris Nelder

www.greenchipstocks.com

You can manage your subscription and get our privacy policy here.

Green Chip Review, Copyright © 2007, Angel Publishing LLC, P.O. Box 84905,
Phoenix, AZ 85071. All rights reserved. No statement or expression of
opinion, or any other matter herein, directly or indirectly, is an offer or
the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell the securities or financial
instruments mentioned. While we believe the sources of information to be
reliable, we in no way represent or guarantee the accuracy of the statements
made herein. Green Chip Review does not provide individual investment
counseling, act as an investment advisor, or individually advocate the
purchase or sale of any security or investment. The publisher, editors and
consultants of Angel Publishing may actively trade in the investments
discussed in this newsletter. They may have substantial positions in the
securities recommended and may increase or decrease such positions without
notice. Neither the publisher nor the editors are registered investment
advisors. Subscribers should not view this publication as offering
personalized legal or investment counseling. Investments recommended in this
publication should be made only after consulting with your investment
advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of
the company in question. Unauthorized reproduction of this newsletter or its
contents by Xerography, facsimile, or any other means is illegal and
punishable by law. 

Please note: It is not our intention to send email to anyone who doesn't
want it. If you're not sure why you're getting this e-letter, or no longer
wish to receive it, get more infohere, including our privacy policy and
information on how to manage your subscription.

Personalize your Live.com homepage with the news, weather, and photos you
care about. Try it!

Janaia Donaldson
Yuba Gals Independent Media
janaia2004 at yubagals.com
530-265-4244 (California)
www.peakmoment.tv

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070209/bb2ed809/attachment-0001.html 