Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 24, 2016
Volatility, oil and stock markets
“Down” is such a downer word. That’s why when prices fall for practically anything Wall Street wants to sell you, Wall Streeters talk about volatility instead.
Volatility allows for the possibility that prices will recover soon and go to new highs. Any setback is just temporary. The market turbulence, it seems, is merely designed by invisible market gods to test your character as a long-term investor. Don’t give in to panic, the investment people say, and you’ll be rewarded.
Until you aren’t!
A year ago I said the crash in commodity prices signaled a weak economy and that financial markets would eventually have to reflect this fact. The widely watched S&P 500 Index closed at 1,994.99 on January 30, 2015 just prior to the publication of the linked piece. Last Friday’s close was 1906.90. The U.S. stock market hasn’t exactly reflected the weakness in commodities, but it hasn’t gained any ground either.
In addition, last August I wrote that low oil prices were also a reflection of this weakness and that all the talk about cheaper oil giving a boost to the economy was misplaced because of the immediate loss of oil-related employment and of revenues to companies and to governments which, of course, tax the oil. The S&P 500 is down about 200 points since then, but any significant adjustment still looks like it lies in the future.
Of course, starting in August stock markets around the world began to fall. Central banks reacted with words of support, and the U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors put off a long-anticipated interest rate hike because of weak market conditions.
Stock prices then rebounded to near their previous levels and all was forgotten…until the beginning of this year. The continuing rout in oil prices began to underline not only the weakness in the global economy, but also the unclear situation at major banks holding large energy-related loan portfolios. The Dallas Federal Reserve Bank was reported to have encouraged banks in its jurisdiction to forebear on energy loans. Essentially, the Dallas Fed was telling banks to ignore losses in their energy portfolios until further notice so as not to cause a panic. The reserve bank quickly denied any such guidance to member banks.
The truth in this particular instance may not matter since what we do know–that energy-related junk bond losses are at 2008 crisis levels–could suggest that energy-related losses at the world’s banks may end up being the size associated with the subprime mortgage crisis that brought the global economy to its knees in 2008. It is worth remembering that in 2007 then-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke assured the U.S. Congress that “the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained.”
These and other anxieties moved stock markets and oil down sharply last week before a bounce that was in part inspired by central bankers in Europe, Japan and China who all signaled the possibility of more easing.
What many average investors don’t seem to know is that rallies in bear markets tend to be steep and dramatic, while rallies in bull markets tend to be more muted, taking place over longer periods. It should also be said that corrections in bull markets are often the kind we saw in August and January, dramatic and steep. But there comes a time in the life of every bull market when the dramatic, steep corrections just keep going and turn into a crash. Just ask those playing the oil market.
Perhaps we are not yet there for stocks. Bull market psychology is very hard to dent, especially after one of the longest positive runs in history. Even though stock prices have become detached from economic realities–crashing commodities being the reality I watch closely–stocks have continued to rally back after steep losses based on investors’ buy-the-dip psychology. The last recession began in December 2007, but the crash didn’t come until almost a year later.
Investors in oil and other commodities and in commodity-related companies have had their heads handed to them. Stock markets in commodity-exporting countries have also fallen steeply. The central banks can’t control commodity prices the way they control money and credit. For that reason, I think commodities are a better overall gauge of strength in the economy.
The question for investors this year will be something like this: Can central banks keep stock markets around the world afloat despite poor fundamentals? I’m doubtful. They didn’t prevent a crash in 2001 or 2008, the first the result of a tech bubble and the second the result of a housing bubble. Both bubbles were caused by easy credit due to low-interest rate policies by central banks that stoked overinvestment. With short-term interest rates near zero for seven years in major economies, central banks are repeating the same mistake again.
Contrary to popular belief, central banks are not omnipotent. The oil and commodity bubbles they helped to blow have already burst. Most of the world’s stocks markets are already in bear territory as of January 20. Before the late-week bounce, the U.S.-based S&P 500 Index was down 14 percent from its high in May last year. The Nasdaq Composite was off 16 percent. It’s doubtful that any major stock market will simply continue to ignore what is happening in the real economy for too much longer.
Oversupply in the oil market may explain much of the drop in the oil price from $100 per barrel to $40. Some will say that recent additional weakness was due to the lifting of sanctions against Iran, a move that opens the way for substantially higher oil exports.
But oil traders have known about this for months, and it was already priced into futures markets. In my view, only exceptional weakness in the global economy explains oil dipping into the $20 range. In doing so, the oil market has provided a warning for anyone who is willing to see it.
80 Comments on "Volatility, oil and stock markets"
Kenz300 on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 11:55 am
Fossil fuels are the past………wind and solar are the future…
100% electric transportation and 100% solar by 2030 – AltCars Expo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBkND76J91k
———
How Is Climate Change Affecting the Philippines?
http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/climate-change-affecting-the-philippines/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=da3a287be1-Top_News_1_22_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-da3a287be1-86023917
Apneaman on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 12:42 pm
“central banks are repeating the same mistake again.”
No mistake. Their policies are benefiting exactly who they are intended to. No mistake at all.
JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon Has Been the Best Big Bank CEO, Measured by Shareholder Returns
Since taking over at the beginning of 2006, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon has generated a total shareholder return of 119.5%, which is better than any of his peers at competing banks.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/10/jpmorgan-chases-jamie-dimon-has-been-the-best-big.aspx
Oxfam says wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 2:11 pm
Kenz, it is interesting to think about wind and solar vs. fossil fuels in terms of volatility. wind and solar behave so much more like utilities than commodities and are likely to act much less volatile in the medium and long term. although they may not be truly “renewable”, there is a big difference between a frack well which lasts a couple years and a solar array which can last decades with minimal upkeep.
makati1 on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 5:45 pm
twocats, how many can afford a solar system on their roof if they don’t have a roof? How many affordable rental homes have a solar array? Apartments? Mobile homes?
If you read the news around the world, commercial arrays and wind farms are being blocked or allowed to decay because of cash flow problems and/or commercial electric seeing them as a loss of profit. Governments are removing their financial support. The US talks about it but does little to actually provide support.
Solar is a nice thing to maybe extend your personal use of some electric in the near future,(<20 years) but only if you are among the few who actually own (no mortgage) your home and have the financial resources to put a modest system on your roof without commercial ties or subsidy from taxpayer money. And, also live where you may not be forced to relocate when the SHTF. With those requirements, very few would be able to take advantage of "renewables" even if the wanted to. Most don't even give it a thought as they expect BAU to go on forever.
GregT on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 5:56 pm
“there is a big difference between a frack well which lasts a couple years and a solar array which can last decades with minimal upkeep.”
A very big difference. One fuels modern industrial society, while the other powers some of the gadgets that modern industrial society produces.
Davy on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 6:24 pm
“China’s ‘Pentagon’ building lies empty”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35359776?OCID=twitterasia
“Chinese ghost towns are a well documented phenomenon – completely built up cities with very few people living in them.
But the Pentagonal Mart has now gained the dubious title of Shanghai’s largest empty building.
This shopping mall in Shanghai was built in 2009 – inspired by the Pentagon in the United States.
But despite its massive size – 500,000 sq m – there are very few shoppers in sight. The BBC takes a look inside.”
Boat on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 7:51 pm
GregT,
In BTU’s nat gas is used more in industry than oil. Electricity is used more than nat gas.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 8:53 pm
twocats, how many can afford a solar system on their roof if they don’t have a roof? How many affordable rental homes have a solar array? Apartments? Mobile homes? [mak]
that makes no sense. I was comparing solar to a utility. how many people can afford a conventional electrical grid?
A very big difference. One fuels modern industrial society, while the other powers some of the gadgets that modern industrial society produces. [gregt]
wow, its sad that boat sounds more on point here than you and mak. are you going to say claim that oil and natural gas aren’t used for utilities like heating and electricity?
GregT on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 8:57 pm
Very good Boat,
And industry is also another product of modern industrial society. No modern industrial society, no industry.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 9:05 pm
Granted some of this is “woulda-coulda” territory, but the amount of (not able to be substituted) fuel needed in a scaled down industrial society might actually be very low such that solar and wind could have extended it for quite a while. Agreed that its much too late for any transition other than “nightmare of unheard of proportions”, but doesn’t mean we can’t talk theory once in a while. Obviously Kenz believes in a future, so I don’t mind engaging those views once in a while. No need to carry every comment into the stark light of current realities.
GregT on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 9:16 pm
“No need to carry every comment into the stark light of current realities.”
Sorry twocats, that’s what realists do. There is no point in pretending.
makati1 on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 9:27 pm
But reality is where we live and to ignore it is just denial in another form. If you do not live in the real world 99.99% of the time, you will not survive to see the future we all talk about. Some escape the real world with TV, others alcohol, others drugs, others denial.
As for the chance of solar/wind keeping even a minute portion of BAU going for a few more years…
To recycle/melt one ton of pure aluminum = ~296,000 Watts for 1 hour. It can take up to 10 times that amount if the scrap is not pure.
http://www.heattreatconsortium.com/MetalsAdvisor/aluminum/recycle_and_scrap_melting/recycle_and_scrap_melting_energy_consumption.htm
How many solar panels in direct sunlight would it take? Somewhere between 3,000 and 30,000 panels. And that is just to melt it into ingots, not the finished product.
https://www.business.directenergy.com/understanding-energy/energy-tools/conversion-calculator
The US uses about 5 million tons of aluminum per year. The world about 45 million tons.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf
Do the math.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 9:35 pm
But I never said any of the things you guys are claiming. i never said solar and wind would replace fuel. you just attack and attack, and make claims as reality that are based on future events ALL THE TIME. like all the fucking time. so just give it a rest and have a beer or toke up or get bit by a cobra or something. My comments weren’t denial based, they were a casual observation. don’t throw the “more reality based than you thing”. I could claim that the reality is that mak is ready to die and so moving to the phillipines is really just significant grave preparation. How are you going to dispute that reality?
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 9:37 pm
“No need to carry every comment into the stark light of current realities.”
Sorry twocats, that’s what realists do. There is no point in pretending.
no that’s what overbearing people do. because not every comment needs to be dragged through the “worst case scenario” you take as inevitable.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 9:39 pm
But reality is where we live and to ignore it is just denial in another form. If you do not live in the real world 99.99% of the time, you will not survive to see the future we all talk about. Some escape the real world with TV, others alcohol, others drugs, others denial.
As for the chance of solar/wind keeping even a minute portion of BAU going for a few more years… [mak]
then get off the fucking computer!
GregT on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 9:53 pm
” because not every comment needs to be dragged through the “worst case scenario” you take as inevitable.”
Best case scenario? We learn to live within the confines of our natural biosphere. We learn to live sustainably, using less renewable resources than what the Earth can naturally replenish. We stop polluting the air, land, and seas. We take care of one another and all other species on this planet in a fair and equitable manner.
Worse case scenario? More of what we are currently doing.
This isn’t exactly rocket science twocats. We already face a dire enough future. The choices we make going forward, in all likelihood, will determine whether we drive the planet to extinction or not. Watching current events unfold, it might already be too late to stop. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 10:03 pm
GregT,
absolutely agree. but by that measure you really should unplug your computer because its wasting energy and polluting the atmosphere. don’t you live in new york? you preserving a lot of your garden to eek through the winter? deer? how are you making it through? I’ll agree with you that its not rocket science, but its not for certain how this puppy is going to play out. we are already 10 years past “peak oil” and (most of us) we are still here. you guys seem to be completely opposed to installing any wind or solar under any circumstance gauging just by the extremeness of your responses of “wailing doom” to pretty casual comment, sooooo, I’m not really sure what the hell you guys are talking about? I wasn’t advocating any position to begin with so I’m just not sure where you guys are going with this other than to say “we’re doomed” Okay, when, when does this magic time happen and how many years out is it? it’s gotta be a moment that’s significantly different than this one because things still look pretty normal to me, or else you guys are hyperbolizing the f out of this doom thing.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 10:05 pm
why not just type, “we’re doomed”, ctrl-c that shit, and then any time you feel like making a comment just ctrl-v that shit, and you’ll save yourselves and us a lot of trouble.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 10:08 pm
The choices we make going forward, in all likelihood, will determine whether we drive the planet to extinction or not. [gregt]
but you are talking about a choice which includes no wind or solar, essentially dismantling all industrial civilization as soon as possible a la Derrick Jensen which puts you in some pretty rare company.
GregT on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 11:11 pm
I already have two small solar systems installed twocats, and plan to install a third larger one this spring. I believe that stand alone solar/wind can be an excellent source of transitional electric power generation, in the right location. I have no delusions however, that it will allow the continuation of BAU for any considerable amount of time into the future.
Modern industrial society is not sustainable. In other words, it is not going to last. We face the choice of dismantling it ourselves, which we probably aren’t going to do, or waiting until it’s inevitable collapse. The longer that modern industrial society lasts, the more damage we will do to our natural environment, and the more serious the consequences will be down the road.
Derrick Jensen is a rational, intelligent, and considerate person twocats. Definitely a rarity these days. If you would like to lump me into the same “company” as him, I would consider that to be a compliment.
Thank you.
twocats on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 11:28 pm
Absolutely, agree with your comments, and i do love Derrick Jensen. Between him and other books and thinkers on civilization (imperial san francisco, gray brechin) the case is pretty strong that modern industrial civilization is by its very nature a bad thing, the sooner it ends the better, and to actively work towards dismantling it would be a positive position.
But I certainly wouldn’t expect everyone on the forum to believe that, and to have every comment go through that filter, well, the forum would get a little thin. and by the fact that you are installing solar as opposed to planning and executing attacks on energy infrastructure, well, reality is a slippery thing.
have a good one.
GregT on Sun, 24th Jan 2016 11:56 pm
First you accuse me of “talking about a choice which includes no wind or solar”, and then you accuse me of not being a part of the solution because I am not “planning and executing attacks on energy infrastructure”? Can you not see how irrational that is twocats?
There are no ‘filters’ on this forum. There is reality, and non-reality. We have already done irreversible damage to the Earth’s natural ecosystems, at least from the perspective of the human experience. The trends continue to grow exponentially in the wrong direction. Whether one chooses to believe that or not, is irrelevant. The data speaks for itself. To ignore the data, is to be in denial of reality.
makati1 on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 12:27 am
Twocats, I moved to the Ps to get away from Police State America not to die. I chose where I want to spend my last decades. We will all die somewhere. I chose here in the land of eternal summer and nice people.
BTW: If I spent 24/7/365 on my PC it would use about 1,000 KWh/year. I actually spend maybe 1/4 of that or about 250 KWh/year. How many KWh do you use in a year? I use less than 3,600 and my condo is total electric, including 12 months of A/C in the bedroom.
Davy on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 6:24 am
Two Cats I have been watching your comments and I was waiting for you to get slapped around by the squad. I was going to warn you. I too tried to befriend these extremist. These guys don’t allow any variation of their message. If you are not on their cue they attack. I am with you on your above comments. I feel a silent majority is against the extremism we see constantly from the squad. The silent majority is against the labels, attacks, and personal agendas.
Davy on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 6:44 am
We just don’t know how this is going to unfold, where the worst will be, and how long to a stable reset point is reached. This stable reset point may then be in another descent sooner or later. Those here like the board “Apocalypse Now’er” talk in agendas of winners and losers and absolutes of this or that. It is likely this descent into a new status quo of economic activity and social order will be a process and gradual with intermittent events of greater activity.
We can liken this process to war. We know most soldiers did not endure grueling battles daily. They would endure long periods of slow motion battles or monotonous boredom with a few events of greater magnitude that hit quick and strong. Sure we may have a global collapse of apocalyptic proportions “Apocalypse Now” preaches but we will more likely have a process with steps.
This will likely involve the hybrid activity of the salvage of the world of industrial man and the building out of new infrastructure from materials and labor we knew pre-industrial man. So we will be a hybrid species of the last elements of industrial man as they decay and are cannibalized along with the pre-industrial man technologies and materials. We are talking 18th, 19th, and very early 20th century combines with what we can salvage from the late 20th and early 21st century. This will vary by region and local. It will vary by where the worst conflicts and decay occurs in the descent process. It will likely involve excess deaths over births over many years until we reach a realistic carrying capacity of 1BIL or less. How that rebalance unfolds is all over the board.
Anything of value for this new time of cannibalization with salvage and rebuilding of pre-industrial tech will be of huge value. Alternative energy is of huge importance. I am a doomer and prepper and I can tell you I buy and collect materials, equipment, and knowledge that will have a future after the current status quo has been transformed. These items last long term. They are simple and easy to repair. They revolve around home economics and perma-culture food production. They are great materials, hardware, and tools.
So many people on this board want to believe this coming collapse will play out like a Hollywood doom movie. We have so many here with creative minds that are too creative. They see the future per their fantasies. They try to say they are realist but who can know what is coming. Who here can know real from fantasy in absolutes? We can know possibilities and scenarios that is it.
Sure we are likely going to see ugly situations in all of those mega population regions and dense urban areas but that is not all of the world. We have so many possibilities because we have so much variation in climate, topography, and human populations. After the status quo implodes we will have a new reality. Maybe many people will have died in a region and that region is resettled. Maybe that region becomes a wasteland maybe not. Recoveries are a possibility.
We may or may not have the worst. We may or may not survive this. We just don’t know. This is why I recommend anyone who can to evaluate their local and their employment now while the status quo is functional. If you can’t change your basic situation. Know your risks and have plans. Have some basic survival rations and equipment to help you make good decisions if that time ever comes.
If we are all slaughtered in a global conflagration it won’t matter. If you want to give up and believe we are all doomed to a quick and violent death fine but at least realize this is worst case and nothing says it must happen. I am choosing to live for a future of much lower economic activity with most of the survivors in poverty compared to life today but life none the less. It is those who are giving up in belief of the great end of civilization that will likely not survive a collapse process. Surviving a collapse process requires effort and motivation not ambivalence and laziness. It requires realistic understanding of the risks and humility to know you can’t know the future.
onlooker on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 7:26 am
I would like to highlight one particular aspect of this great contraction. Throughout our history we have either chosen to cooperate with each other or to quarrel with each other. Either a zero sum game or a non zero sum game. My opinion for what it is worth is we are always stronger when we unite and cooperate. This will be particularly evident now when the planet is so populated. Lifeboat ethics stresses that only some can survive not all. That still does not mean conflict it simply means acceptance that certain people cannot make it. It is Darwin and survival of the fittest. That does not mean we become murders and horrific sadistic beings. Just the opposite we show compassion even if that compassion involves letting go of those near you or around you.
makati1 on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 8:33 am
What we should do is not likely what we will do. There are a lot of countries where “Sharing” is still the culture. The US is NOT one of them. It is a “Me and Mine” culture and has been for at least the last 50 years. It is even more so today. Sure there is a small percentage of good folks in America, but the number is shrinking, not growing. I don’t need some reference article to tell me that or prove my point.
Conflict is in our genes, not acceptance. War is our future, not peace. There is no place safe from either these days, just relative degrees of each.
If you live in the Us, you see it everyday. but may not notice the changes because they are slow to happen. I do because they build over the year between my visits until they are very visible and obvious. I still think I made the correct choice with the Ps. For my kid’s sake, I hope I am wrong, or at least less correct.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 9:15 am
Makati, I have scene a Trouse (trailer house) in Maine with solar, very Diy and fairly impressive looking. When you have utility bills that are similiar to your mortgage one can use that as a big incentive. A lot of large project buildings were some of the first large scale solar hot water projects. Large apartment buildings are perfect for alt energy, steady local demand and roof space.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 9:18 am
My ideal commercial farm set up without fossil fuels. Plow fields in a circular pattern using a winch at the center of the field, one modest solar panel with a charge controller and a couple good batterys, now just need to grow the right crops to keep it fertile without fossil fuels. I see starvation as more likely to be caused by monsanto and lack of responsibility by todays mega farms than fossil fuel constraints.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 9:34 am
Makati, where did you live in the US? Suburbs? Where no one actually knew anything of survival? A lot of areas off the beaten path there is a combination that is naturally set up better for survival. Those that have money and those that don’t being neighbors, one has the monetary and material needs, the other has the survival know how and mental toughness of already being on the fringe.
Also did you know that you can take the plastic lens out of an old big screen tv and use it as a Fresnel lens? It would take a long time to smelt a ton of aluminum, but why do you need so much aluminum?
Boat on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 9:52 am
mak,
Lol, why do you need souch aluminum.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:08 am
🙂 I have followed this website and Mak for a long time. I agree with a lot of what he says but after years of believing his predictions of imminent doom, I feel it is my personal responsibility to antagonize him. I think the debates between people with an accurate yet gloomy outlook of the world, and those who hope that a combination of people waking up to the harsh reality’s, embracing current technology and more sustainable habits is more productive then we give it credit for.
Boat on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:15 am
PracticalMania,
That’s the problem with imminent doom. It loses credibility as the years pass by.
Boat on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:23 am
Why is Monsanto so unpopular. Dow chemical sells as much seed and has basically similar products. No one forces the farmers or tells them what to plant, when to plant or what seeds to use.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:23 am
True boat, but the metaphorical shit storm is getting worst all the time. I think oil is only required for us to live easy, and technology is coming around all the time (or has already existed) to slightly alleviate that suffering. I currently work in a job that is more service sector and an aspect which is completely unnecessary, I would be happier growing food and prepping firewood, but that is not an easy way to pay rent. On the other hand the Earth is required for life period, and every day we are more screwed when it comes to that.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:28 am
Boat, they both suck IMHO. These large scale mergers should be blocked as these companys all have profited off poisoning us. Monsanto is killing bees and there food has no real nutrition. These hybrid and GMO crops cannot give you the micronutrients because there are no microbes alive in the soil to help the plant process them. Also the US had a worst year in cerial crops than any other this year. The crops they have bread have short roots and are not weather hearty, which is going to fuck us over when it comes to global warming. This is another example of how we are weakening the earth before we are really going to need it to be healthy to sustain us, chemically tainted sterile soil. The only way monsanto can feed the world is by making it so no one else can.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:36 am
Boat, saying Monsanto doesn’t force product on people is not accurate at all IMO. They cross contaminate then sue, they get so much coddling from the current A holes in charge it makes me sick.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:42 am
No response on why we need them huh? A company that started off making agent orange should not be allowed anywhere near our food.
twocats on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 10:44 am
🙂 I think the debates between people with an accurate yet gloomy outlook of the world, and those who hope that a combination of people waking up to the harsh reality’s, embracing current technology and more sustainable habits is more productive then we give it credit for. [practicalmaina]
oh, i never realized your name isn’t practical mania! what does maina refer to? Anyway, I appreciate some of the other posters chiming in. I love GregT and Makati, I really do, but yes, you expressed it exactly. Whenever we are talking (even about facts) they will inevitably be colored with our general outlook and opinions and on this forum we’ve got a range of outlooks and opinions. Respect and space for those opinions would certainly be appreciated by me. I don’t always abide by this either, just a expressing a desire.
Boat on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:00 am
twocats,
Respect and space for those opinions would certainly be appreciated by me. I don’t always abide by this either, just a expressing a desire.
Of course you don’t abide or respect. Your human. You have many faults just as the Canadians do. Basically your down right rude. lol I may be wrong but it seems doomers have trouble with their emotions. They often lash out at others with a different view. Name calling is another trait. It’s ok twocats, this is why you feel at home here.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:10 am
Saying Mainer with a heavy accent.
I agree TwoCats, lively respectable debate is good for society.
Boat on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:11 am
Pracital,
Monsanto and Dow make their money by increasing yields. Their crops use much less water, fertilizer and chemicals for diseases and bugs.
Farmers use this seed to survive in the marketplace.
Until proven dangerous for human consumption I see no problem with GMO seeds.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:19 am
Boat, ignoring the fact that I want to debate you about Monsanto could also be considered rude. 🙂 I wish I could have the moral high ground on this website and be able to honestly say I don’t pollute or consume things from the outside world, one day hopefully, if Monsanto, DOW and the FDA haven’t teemed up to make organic farming illegal.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:23 am
Well first off there is the study that I read last week about us losing more of our cereal crop than any other country, due to drought, how is that possible if the GMOs that are extremely prevalent in the US dont need as much water as others? Why is the Ogallala dropping so fast its going to cause huge problems. I grow food without any supplemental water fertilizer or chemicals, show me one farmer using monsanto or dow products who can say that.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:25 am
Less chemicals? the whole purpose of engineering them was so they could coat everything in roundup and essentially sterilize the soil. You must own there stock 2?
Boat on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:28 am
Pracital,
I am not well read on Monsanto, Dow and the problems they create. Am off to work but I will read some later and look for facts. Any links would be appreciated.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 11:28 am
They make there money by using political legal and intimidation forces to coerce people into buying there seeds, EVERY YEAR, instead of saving there own seeds. This is a dangerous monopoly, they are now starting to buy up heirloom seed company, scary stuff. If they are so much better than heirloom products, why buy those companys? Because they need to eliminate legitimate competition, there business model is conquer at all cost.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 2:01 pm
Some nice stuff there brewing for us, they clearly make it a priority, the safety of the public and employees.
I bet I could make a Davy length post of just recent poisonings they are involved in.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/11/16/gas-leak-kills-four-workers-agri-chemical-plant-texas
Kills 200 pound mammal no problem, one would assume a bee doesn’t stand a chance.
And as for the beneficial microbes that would not be able to exist in high concentrations of poison.
http://www.noble.org/ag/research/microbes/
It wasn’t GMOs that got us out of the dust bowl, it was more responsible farming. It wont be GMOs that save us when the Ogallala dries up.
GregT on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 2:44 pm
“I think the debates between people with an accurate yet gloomy outlook of the world, and those who hope that a combination of people waking up to the harsh reality’s, embracing current technology and more sustainable habits is more productive then we give it credit for.’
Strange that. I would be one of those people who woke up. I left the city, walked away from a good career, am embracing current technologies, and am working towards a more sustainable lifestyle. I spent the last three years of my life in the planning stages of this transition. I am now living it.
I also have an accurate yet gloomy outlook of the world. 7.4 billion people growing at a rate of 1 million more every five days, on a planet that is capable of sustaining a population of around one billion human beings. Changing weather patterns, dying oceans, food and water insecurity, and the human caused 6th mass extinction event that is currently already underway. Yet we continue to increase the usage of fossil fuels, adding even more stress to our natural environment, in the continued pursuit of the one thing that is mathematically and physically impossible. Infinite, exponential, economic growth.
It would appear to me that I am debating people who have not woken up, are not taking any steps towards sustainability, and are simply hoping that somebody somewhere is going to come up with some amazing new technology that will allow some semblance of the continuation of BAU.
Sorry, I don’t buy into that.
PracticalMaina on Mon, 25th Jan 2016 3:02 pm
GregT I cant argue that we are not destroying the environment. I can argue however that is 7.1 billion people didnt need anything plastic, didnt need to travel anywhere more than a few miles from there homes, and were perfectly comfortable using there own feces as a resource, (which billions of 3rd worlders already do) things wouldnt be hopeless.
When I mention technology I am addressing sustainability improvements that are technology based in my own life. I recently took a course on mini split heat pumps, something that I always considered more of a niche for more moderate climates. I was not up to date on the tech, the new models are still effective to-15, these are small units that have no more, probably much less, embodied energy in there manufacturing than any combustion based heat appliance. I also recently took a solar course where I learned a disturbing and telling fact….
The SRCC, which rates solar equipment in order for it to qualify for tax rebates, has years of backlog of new tech. This backlog may be declining now but think of all of the higher efficiency, lower raw material requiring solar tech that is in the pipeline. If solar follows any other semi conductor tech I think it may be 2 soon to call it over.