Thoughts on Oilprice vs Climate Change

When the price of crude crossed $139 a barrel in June, it was the highest sign that the end of the Age of Oil was on the horizon. Hydrocarbons have had a remarkable run, fueling more than a century of economic expansion that has spread from the Old World to the New World, to the emerging powers of Asia and beyond. Geologists and economist may argue over exactly when global production of oil will peak, but few disputes that the era of cheap oil is over. Some say the peak is expected to happen within a couple of month, some in year 2012.

No companies will feel the dislocation more intense then the carmakers, and they have been slow to adjust. Their recent enthusiasm for hybrids and other fuel saving vehicles cant mask their continued obsession with gas-guzzling trucks and sport utility vehicles. “The car-based culture, the business-as-usual of building cars and trucks, is going to change dramatically” said Toyota Motor Corporations executive Bill Reinert earlier this year in an interview with Bloomberg.

The scarred earth will never recover from all the damage that humans have made trough driving cars and other vehicles. And as the price of oil rises, the cost to the planet in terms of environmental degradation also spirals unavoidably higher. Can car companies follow this?

Last year Environment was put as a subject in some school’s timetables around the United States, despite that fact, America is one of the worst countries when it comes to environmentally friendly policies and developments.

Can Al gore, and other politicians, with thier pro-environment policies help to recover the world’s environment? And can a result of this be lower oil prices?

A solution for the Financial Crisis in the States?

Last Friday, the American Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told the world he had a solution for the financial crisis in the States: that the American government is to buy all the bad loans. The congress has decided that there is an urgent need for a strategy like this one, in order to protect the taxpayer’s money and release the tense in their financial system. He also stated that it is important to let the money flow to the consumers while this is I progress. However he believes that this program will need plenty of money in order to get the best and maximum effect, maybe hundreds of billion dollars if it’s needed. Next wee the congress will make the more precise decisions.

There are many different aspects in this matter, and it raises many different opinions about the outcome this program might get. One way of looking at it is that the taxpayers will have to pay for this. Even tough Mr. Paulson states that it is important with credit flows and that the money that will go into this program will not be the taxpayers’, the money has to come from somewhere, and they FED can’t take all the reserves. The States all ready has a National debt of 9,5 trillion. This will eventually affect the taxpayers. At the same time there is an election coming up soon: Bush talks about cutting taxes, Obama talks about better medical aid, care and social security and Mc Cain talks about building up the army.

However there is another way to look at this financial salvation program. I believe it is highly unlikely that the FED will loose more money then they can win in the long run if nothing is done about this crisis, and it has to be done soon in order to prevent recession. However it is of high importance that these financial arrangements should aim to prevent the “sellouts” of the money market.

So the question to ask is whether the U.S. government is big enough to take on this whole problem themselves? Well, they have to start somewhere.