| Home | About | Arts | Sport | Travel | Politics | Philosophy | Technology | Finally... |
Oil oil everywhere... and not a drop to waste?
» By Jack Bennett
The first thing that was said by the vast majority when it was decided that the west should interfere with the events in Libya? “It’s got to be the oil.” And the arguments are compelling. After all, Robert Mugabe has been killing thousands of his own people in Zimbabwe for years and years, but the west did not intervene. Perhaps lessons have been learnt. Perhaps the motive is firmly based in the more “crude” area of oil. So what does that mean for the petrol-pumping, gas-guzzling, oil-occupying majority of us that need oil for transport, heat, and cooking? The good news is that, despite the recent rise in oil prices we aren’t quite at the same level that were seen in 2008. And of course, new policies on fuel duty have made an impact on those prices, although raised VAT could have something to say there. The bad news? Gaddafi, rebels, no fly zones, UN policies and Libyan oil fields. There is huge controversy around the U.K’s involvement in recent efforts to support revolutionaries in overthrowing the corrupt dictator. Mostly because our relationships with him have, up to recent developments, been friendly and lucrative. And partly because the infamous phrase “protecting oil concerns” has been thrown about.
Here’s how I see it. Britain needs to decide. Are we deeply concerned with steadily inflating oil and petrol prices? In which case “protecting oil concerns” isn’t a bad idea. Or are we the deeply charitable Britain that has recently donated record sums for comic relief? In which case the “collateral damage” (which has been suggested by the Libyan government) does not justify our oil needs. Or is it that we must help the up rising however we can? In this case, the help given to rebels through bombing is justifiable, and if cheaper or protected oil comes out in the wash, then that’s just a happy by-product.
I think most would choose the last option. Best of both worlds right? After all, the accusations of “unintended casualties” have been thrown by a panicking military government trying to win over western media and undecided potential revolutionaries. We want lower fuel prices (or those that stop increasing) and we want the interests of our fellow man to be championed. Don’t forget though, we are Britain. World-renowned pessimists, cynics and the masters of low self esteem. We all know that the primary interest will be oil and those that we help along the way is just a bonus. We all know that any efforts in Libya are for our own good, justified by the benefits of others.
So do we need to do anything? Can’t we just let others sort it out for us? A dangerous ploy. We can’t be sure our interests will be maintained. We are at a volatile point in the history of oil. The geophysicist, Marion King Hubbert, presented his Peak Oil Theory in 1956. This was a micro model for specific areas, to assess their likely oil production of the years. It factors in improving technology and increasing difficulty to reach oil to produce a bell curve that, often very accurately, predicts the year of peak oil production. The symmetrical curve usually shows a peak, with the same rate of increase at the start as the decrease at the end, and is regularly used by oil companies to produce product life cycles of oil produced from a given drill. When this model is increased to the macro, to contain the whole world, many business people’s fears are confirmed. We are essentially slap-bang in the middle of peak oil production. This means that as less oil is produced and demand is increased, prices will rise. This means we only have one option. Luckily it is two-fold. First we must “protect oil concerns” while we can. And secondly we must invest in alternative sources of energy that will be more sustainable in the future. We have already seen a huge increase in renewable energy in past years, with a 51% increase of offshore wind farms. My suggestion is for midsize to large companies to jump on the bandwagon. Invest in ways to provide internally produced energy, and pre-empt any negative effects that increased fuel will have to cash flow and profits. Do what you can to invest in pragmatic solutions. Take the initiative and look beyond the constraints of the tax year, and think about a long-term profitability, which is becoming increasingly affected by uncontrollable, external factors.
Here’s how I see it. Britain needs to decide. Are we deeply concerned with steadily inflating oil and petrol prices? In which case “protecting oil concerns” isn’t a bad idea. Or are we the deeply charitable Britain that has recently donated record sums for comic relief? In which case the “collateral damage” (which has been suggested by the Libyan government) does not justify our oil needs. Or is it that we must help the up rising however we can? In this case, the help given to rebels through bombing is justifiable, and if cheaper or protected oil comes out in the wash, then that’s just a happy by-product.I think most would choose the last option. Best of both worlds right? After all, the accusations of “unintended casualties” have been thrown by a panicking military government trying to win over western media and undecided potential revolutionaries. We want lower fuel prices (or those that stop increasing) and we want the interests of our fellow man to be championed. Don’t forget though, we are Britain. World-renowned pessimists, cynics and the masters of low self esteem. We all know that the primary interest will be oil and those that we help along the way is just a bonus. We all know that any efforts in Libya are for our own good, justified by the benefits of others.
So do we need to do anything? Can’t we just let others sort it out for us? A dangerous ploy. We can’t be sure our interests will be maintained. We are at a volatile point in the history of oil. The geophysicist, Marion King Hubbert, presented his Peak Oil Theory in 1956. This was a micro model for specific areas, to assess their likely oil production of the years. It factors in improving technology and increasing difficulty to reach oil to produce a bell curve that, often very accurately, predicts the year of peak oil production. The symmetrical curve usually shows a peak, with the same rate of increase at the start as the decrease at the end, and is regularly used by oil companies to produce product life cycles of oil produced from a given drill. When this model is increased to the macro, to contain the whole world, many business people’s fears are confirmed. We are essentially slap-bang in the middle of peak oil production. This means that as less oil is produced and demand is increased, prices will rise. This means we only have one option. Luckily it is two-fold. First we must “protect oil concerns” while we can. And secondly we must invest in alternative sources of energy that will be more sustainable in the future. We have already seen a huge increase in renewable energy in past years, with a 51% increase of offshore wind farms. My suggestion is for midsize to large companies to jump on the bandwagon. Invest in ways to provide internally produced energy, and pre-empt any negative effects that increased fuel will have to cash flow and profits. Do what you can to invest in pragmatic solutions. Take the initiative and look beyond the constraints of the tax year, and think about a long-term profitability, which is becoming increasingly affected by uncontrollable, external factors.
Obama: Is he really a dream come true?
» By Elizabeth Buckley
Obama; the man with the perfect political persona. He stole the hearts of the world’s media with his hard-hitting words and gave the Americans someone to believe in. For years after JFK, they had waited for the man with the perfect smile, the perfect family…who gave them the glitz, the glam and promised them only the best. And the rest of the world could only watch in jealousy as the Americans gained the leader of everyone’s dreams. The Canadians went to bed dreaming that he just might decide to hop across the border and kick out old Stephen Harper. I know, I was one of them. How could we not love the man who promises a puppy to his daughters if he wins the election, or dresses in exquisite suits? So how is it, that despite his huge popularity and rise to power, many Americans are now complaining about the ‘changes’ that Obama promised during his presidential campaign? Has the President delivered on his promises, or revealed a secret agenda? The real question is still: Has Obama been good or bad for America?
1. Pro: His commitment to improving jobs for Americans. "It's the independent American spirit that built this country - hard-working entrepreneurs who believe in the reality of their dreams." Robert E. Hughes It’s no secret to the rest of the world that the American economy has been in the gutter for some time. But Obama seems determined to drag his country out of the dirt and relive the glory days they once enjoyed. And so Obama has created the American Jobs Act. The act calls for an increase in tax incentives for businesses, as well as increased investment in infrastructure projects. Obama, unlike many of his predecessors (Bush anyone?) seems to understand that the way forward is through action, not just words. The Act also includes a fifty percent reduction in payroll taxes for small businesses, because Obama wants to make the American Dream achievable for everyone, not just the rich. Through these drastic measures, Obama plans to create jobs for some of the 14 million citizens who are currently unemployed in America. However, the huge cost of the project has put many Americans off it, even some of those who could benefit from it. So how can this be? Despite his ferocious optimism, Obama seems to have forgotten that this gutter has higher walls than he has predicted. And one man’s arm cannot reach far enough down to pull everyone out. The cost of the project is a massive 789 billion dollars, but even that could not create the demand for the jobs that would be needed for the plan to work in the long run. But you cannot condemn the man for trying and the President’s concern not only for large scale projects, such as bridges, but small businesses who need a little boost in the current economic climate, shows that he intends for no one to be left behind in the country’s improvements, and that is a refreshing change for everyone involved.
2. Con: Obama’s slow withdrawal of troops from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps a man who has never been in the field cannot understand what it is to be so far from home. But that is no excuse for Obama’s broken promise to his people to bring their sons, their husbands, their wives, and their daughters home, safe on American soil once more. This was something repeatedly promised by Obama during his presidential campaign and it is an issue that lies very deep in the hearts of the American public. It can be argued however, that it was foolish for Obama to promise this, as it ultimately would have invalidated the war in the first place. It is almost certain that had the troops left Afghanistan immediately, the Taliban would have taken control. And nobody wanted a repeat of 9/11. So Obama may have done the right thing, but at the cost of many American lives, and the lost trust of many a heartbroken parent.
3. Pro: Taking initiative and pioneering new laws.
American politicians are often labelled as narrow-minded by their European counterparts, and this is definitely true when it comes to the issue of Gay rights from the perspective of many. The topic of marriage, or legal partnership is never laid to rest and many gay people are abused by their societies. But recently, Obama made a move to change all this for good. Obama signed new legislature, such as the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation, which includes acts of violence against gays under the list of federal hate crimes. This means that no longer will people get away with pushing these people around, and passing it off as a joke, or even seeing it as alright. Obama also seems keen to have his states competing for his favour, like little children all hoping for a sweet if they are good. But will Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ really inspire the states to join the rest of the world with a more liberal way of thinking? The program consists of a competitive federal grant programme for states that develop innovative policies. Innovative being the operative word there, suggesting that Obama is tired of the same old arguments and the same old way of doing things. Whether his forward and admired way of thinking will rub off on the rest of the country is another question. The President can also gain credit for the amount of high-flyer points he has attained, because he visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any other president in the first six months in office. Obama seems set on pushing America to be the best it can be, by encouraging new ideas, new ways of thinking and by making it known that America is still a world power that has a lot to offer.
4. Con: Use of scare tactics. "In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly."- Coleridge To try to persuade Americans to back some of the legislation that he has put forward, Obama has resorted to scare tactics, as have many of his representatives. This is definitely something to be criticised, because in this way he is acting like his predecessors by trying to pass what he wants through pressuring public opinion. This was done in order to pass the legislation quickly, by making it seem that it would be devastating if the legislation were not passed now. An example of this is in a speech made by one of Obama’s representatives. She said, “There are 500 million Americans losing their jobs every month.” How odd, as only 300 million people live in America. The use of scare tactics is very foolish, as any important piece of legislature should not be rushed, as a lot of money goes into ones such as Obama’s stimulus package. However, it could be argued that many who would vote would either be interested or even understand the legislation and the only thing that might get them to that little box where they slip in their answer, is fear of what will happen if they don’t. But everyone deserves the right to make their own decision without the pressure of the person who is supposed to be representing their views. It would be better for Americans to make a well-informed opinion, than to be convinced that the situation is so dire that they have no choice.
5. Pro: Environmentally aware. America used to have a lot of trees, but just look at it now! The second biggest polluter in the world, releasing 5,416,014 metric tones of carbon dioxide annually, and hardly a tree in sight in most suburban areas of the country. Many other countries have minimized their carbon footprint, but America has not only been slow but aggressive in the defense of their way of life, totally reliant on the oil of the Middle East. As part of Obama’s stimulus plan, over 50 billion dollars are being dedicated to clean power and energy efficiency. By doing so, Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise he made to reduce the country’s reliance on oil. Some Americans are angry with this, but the rest of the world should be hopeful that improvement in this area would continue for a long time. The Americans love their 4X4 trucks, but perhaps Obama will also teach them to love solar panels and air free of pollution.
6. Pro: National health-care. For many years, people have wondered why America has not adopted the same Health Care System as countries such as Canada, where all citizens contribute so that they are all entitled to an equal quality of healthcare. Obama has claimed that this is because America's health insurance industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other proposed legislation. The campaign against health care reform has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians. This makes Obama’s success in implementing his medical plan even more impressive. For years, many Americans were privileged with the best, while most could not get the cover they needed for vital treatments. Finally, Americans will be equal with the medical cover that they receive, because the rich will be contributing to the health care of the poor, and the healthy will be contributing to help the sick. Some, who cannot be called anything except selfish and perhaps a little foolish, claim that they will never need the healthcare, so why should they pay for it? Have they forgotten that everyone gets old, or that life often throws us a surprise? For those who have welcomed the new system, we must commend them, for they understand the meaning of being a ‘team player.’ So whether the Americans like it or not, at some point in their lives, they will be grateful that they are not left alone to fend for themselves when paying for all of the help they need.
So, in conclusion, a man cannot truly be labelled as good or bad. Popular opinion of Obama depends on what kinds of people judge him. For those Americans who are too used to the kind of leader who would lead them based on his own religion or personal opinions rather than what is best, Obama has come as a shock. But others are relieved that Obama is pushing America in the right direction and showing that he is both aware of the changes that need to be made and willing to fight so that they happen. I believe you must judge a man by his actions, and not by his words. Obama promised everything to the Americans during his presidential campaign, not all of this has been fulfilled, but it cannot be denied that Obama has worked very hard to make his country proud. Perhaps the best way to view Obama’s presidency is as a risk and only time will tell if it was one worth taking. From the perspective of the rest of the world, I think many would agree that Obama has been a blessing. It will just take a little longer to charm those inside America who defend their traditions aggressively. As Obama himself once said “Our responsibility is to test things out. Take risks. Work hard and engage with the world around you.”
1. Pro: His commitment to improving jobs for Americans. "It's the independent American spirit that built this country - hard-working entrepreneurs who believe in the reality of their dreams." Robert E. Hughes It’s no secret to the rest of the world that the American economy has been in the gutter for some time. But Obama seems determined to drag his country out of the dirt and relive the glory days they once enjoyed. And so Obama has created the American Jobs Act. The act calls for an increase in tax incentives for businesses, as well as increased investment in infrastructure projects. Obama, unlike many of his predecessors (Bush anyone?) seems to understand that the way forward is through action, not just words. The Act also includes a fifty percent reduction in payroll taxes for small businesses, because Obama wants to make the American Dream achievable for everyone, not just the rich. Through these drastic measures, Obama plans to create jobs for some of the 14 million citizens who are currently unemployed in America. However, the huge cost of the project has put many Americans off it, even some of those who could benefit from it. So how can this be? Despite his ferocious optimism, Obama seems to have forgotten that this gutter has higher walls than he has predicted. And one man’s arm cannot reach far enough down to pull everyone out. The cost of the project is a massive 789 billion dollars, but even that could not create the demand for the jobs that would be needed for the plan to work in the long run. But you cannot condemn the man for trying and the President’s concern not only for large scale projects, such as bridges, but small businesses who need a little boost in the current economic climate, shows that he intends for no one to be left behind in the country’s improvements, and that is a refreshing change for everyone involved.
2. Con: Obama’s slow withdrawal of troops from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps a man who has never been in the field cannot understand what it is to be so far from home. But that is no excuse for Obama’s broken promise to his people to bring their sons, their husbands, their wives, and their daughters home, safe on American soil once more. This was something repeatedly promised by Obama during his presidential campaign and it is an issue that lies very deep in the hearts of the American public. It can be argued however, that it was foolish for Obama to promise this, as it ultimately would have invalidated the war in the first place. It is almost certain that had the troops left Afghanistan immediately, the Taliban would have taken control. And nobody wanted a repeat of 9/11. So Obama may have done the right thing, but at the cost of many American lives, and the lost trust of many a heartbroken parent.
3. Pro: Taking initiative and pioneering new laws.
American politicians are often labelled as narrow-minded by their European counterparts, and this is definitely true when it comes to the issue of Gay rights from the perspective of many. The topic of marriage, or legal partnership is never laid to rest and many gay people are abused by their societies. But recently, Obama made a move to change all this for good. Obama signed new legislature, such as the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation, which includes acts of violence against gays under the list of federal hate crimes. This means that no longer will people get away with pushing these people around, and passing it off as a joke, or even seeing it as alright. Obama also seems keen to have his states competing for his favour, like little children all hoping for a sweet if they are good. But will Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ really inspire the states to join the rest of the world with a more liberal way of thinking? The program consists of a competitive federal grant programme for states that develop innovative policies. Innovative being the operative word there, suggesting that Obama is tired of the same old arguments and the same old way of doing things. Whether his forward and admired way of thinking will rub off on the rest of the country is another question. The President can also gain credit for the amount of high-flyer points he has attained, because he visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any other president in the first six months in office. Obama seems set on pushing America to be the best it can be, by encouraging new ideas, new ways of thinking and by making it known that America is still a world power that has a lot to offer.
4. Con: Use of scare tactics. "In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly."- Coleridge To try to persuade Americans to back some of the legislation that he has put forward, Obama has resorted to scare tactics, as have many of his representatives. This is definitely something to be criticised, because in this way he is acting like his predecessors by trying to pass what he wants through pressuring public opinion. This was done in order to pass the legislation quickly, by making it seem that it would be devastating if the legislation were not passed now. An example of this is in a speech made by one of Obama’s representatives. She said, “There are 500 million Americans losing their jobs every month.” How odd, as only 300 million people live in America. The use of scare tactics is very foolish, as any important piece of legislature should not be rushed, as a lot of money goes into ones such as Obama’s stimulus package. However, it could be argued that many who would vote would either be interested or even understand the legislation and the only thing that might get them to that little box where they slip in their answer, is fear of what will happen if they don’t. But everyone deserves the right to make their own decision without the pressure of the person who is supposed to be representing their views. It would be better for Americans to make a well-informed opinion, than to be convinced that the situation is so dire that they have no choice.
5. Pro: Environmentally aware. America used to have a lot of trees, but just look at it now! The second biggest polluter in the world, releasing 5,416,014 metric tones of carbon dioxide annually, and hardly a tree in sight in most suburban areas of the country. Many other countries have minimized their carbon footprint, but America has not only been slow but aggressive in the defense of their way of life, totally reliant on the oil of the Middle East. As part of Obama’s stimulus plan, over 50 billion dollars are being dedicated to clean power and energy efficiency. By doing so, Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise he made to reduce the country’s reliance on oil. Some Americans are angry with this, but the rest of the world should be hopeful that improvement in this area would continue for a long time. The Americans love their 4X4 trucks, but perhaps Obama will also teach them to love solar panels and air free of pollution.
6. Pro: National health-care. For many years, people have wondered why America has not adopted the same Health Care System as countries such as Canada, where all citizens contribute so that they are all entitled to an equal quality of healthcare. Obama has claimed that this is because America's health insurance industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other proposed legislation. The campaign against health care reform has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians. This makes Obama’s success in implementing his medical plan even more impressive. For years, many Americans were privileged with the best, while most could not get the cover they needed for vital treatments. Finally, Americans will be equal with the medical cover that they receive, because the rich will be contributing to the health care of the poor, and the healthy will be contributing to help the sick. Some, who cannot be called anything except selfish and perhaps a little foolish, claim that they will never need the healthcare, so why should they pay for it? Have they forgotten that everyone gets old, or that life often throws us a surprise? For those who have welcomed the new system, we must commend them, for they understand the meaning of being a ‘team player.’ So whether the Americans like it or not, at some point in their lives, they will be grateful that they are not left alone to fend for themselves when paying for all of the help they need.
So, in conclusion, a man cannot truly be labelled as good or bad. Popular opinion of Obama depends on what kinds of people judge him. For those Americans who are too used to the kind of leader who would lead them based on his own religion or personal opinions rather than what is best, Obama has come as a shock. But others are relieved that Obama is pushing America in the right direction and showing that he is both aware of the changes that need to be made and willing to fight so that they happen. I believe you must judge a man by his actions, and not by his words. Obama promised everything to the Americans during his presidential campaign, not all of this has been fulfilled, but it cannot be denied that Obama has worked very hard to make his country proud. Perhaps the best way to view Obama’s presidency is as a risk and only time will tell if it was one worth taking. From the perspective of the rest of the world, I think many would agree that Obama has been a blessing. It will just take a little longer to charm those inside America who defend their traditions aggressively. As Obama himself once said “Our responsibility is to test things out. Take risks. Work hard and engage with the world around you.”