A friend recommended reading an opinion piece on the UK’s shambolic policy on nuclear energy. I stopped reading after “The facts on nuclear are pretty clear. It is far and away the safest means of generating a given amount of electrical energy known to man”. Idiot.
Back in March 2008, I put down my prediction that later that year the oil price would reach $145 – from the $110 it had reached then – and bring an end to world economic growth. Now we’re back at $90, will it happen again?
A quarter or two where the GDP manages a dribble of growth isn’t “out of recession”. If I’m right about the likely oil price reaction to any sustained return to growth, we possibly never will be.
If the mainstream science is wrong, we need to reduce GHG emissions even more than is currently planned. Simple really. Now let’s get on with it.
The Stockholm Network’s Carbon Scenarios describe 3 plausible futures resulting from 3 different approaches to climate policy at the international level. Worryingly, none of the scenarios provides a policy which achieves climate ‘success’ as defined by the UK, EU and UN (a greater than 90% chance of no more than 2°C warming above preindustrial levels).
Robert Manne’s collection Dear Mr Rudd: Ideas for a Better Australia covers some interesting ground, if relatively superficially (or “readable”, according to the blurb). But what I find more interesting is what it doesn’t cover.
I’m interested by the claim repeated in numerous news analyses that “investors are buying oil to hedge against the sliding greenback” – it seems to me to be a tad more significant that world oil demand has exceeded world oil supply for the last several months, and looks like doing so for at least the rest of this year. My forecasts for year end 2008: $145 barrel; A$1=US$1; ULP at $1.87 per litre. Enjoy.