11th September 2004 - The US election and the Democratic Party's failure
The latest opinion polls in America must be a worry for most of the rest of the world, as we are told the great majority of other nations wishes to see John Kerry elected. Bush seems to be striking out ahead now and it is my opinion, which I have held for a few weeks now, that Bush will win quite comfortably, certainly much more comfortably than he won his first term.
Why is this? Well the simple answer is that the Democrats themselves have lost this election, and more than that, they deserve to lose this election, and more than that I hope they do lose this election. The Democrats will lose this election simply because they chose the wrong candidate, and in choosing this wrong candidate demonstrated an absence of political honesty and integrity. The Democrats had a great candidate, Howard Dean, a vigourous campaigner, a passionate speaker, a great rouser of the people, especially the young, and and a man of simple liberal virtue. In fact he represented more than any other recent presidential candidate, the liberal face of American politics, not seen in those parts for too many years. In the pusillanimous discarding of their best hope, Democrats in America deserve what they get. Dean lost out mainly because he was seen as "too liberal" especially in the conservative southern states. In any rational examination of his policies in any other progressive western nation, he would be seen for what he is, in the mainstream of progressive political thinking that has advanced all other western nations for the last one hundred years. But in America, especially in the Bible Belt, a man such as this is seen as endangering family values, a renegade, non-patriotic and soft on terror.
But he would have still been the candidate if the leadership of the Democratic Party had wished him to be. But they wavered, they saw the inherent conservatism of the South, and the difficulty that a Northern liberal might have. But rather than support him, getting a southerner on the ticket, as they have done with Kerry in any case, they believed the media, a media which is almost entirely conservative and republican. As the media character assassinated Dean, e.g. "I Dreamed a Scream" speech, instead of seeing through this character assassination, the Democrats actually went along with it themselves, and got cold, cold feet. Without the backing of the top echelons of the party, Dean's campaign was doomed.
It is hard to win a presidency against an incumbent, history tells us this, though it can be done, after all Bush senior lost. So it was vitally important that the Democratic push to get a Democratic president should be focussed and populist. In Dean the had they had such a candidate, in Kerry they haven't. At almost every turn the Democrats have been outsmarted by the Republicans. The Democrats chose a candidate who had a record in the Vietnam war of great courage and bravery, hoping to contrast that with Bush's less illustrious past. But basically this isn't important, after all Clinton got in with a less than brave war record.
The turning point of the election for me, and when I realised that the Democrats could loose this election, was Kerry's Democratic Convention speech, where he opened with a salute and the words "My name is John Kerry, and I am reporting for duty". This was cringe making stuff, crass, out of place and out of time, and plainly demonstrated that Kerry was not presidential material. Can you imaging any truly great leader demeaning himself in this way? I have no doubt that some Democratic back-room boy came up with this idea, probably someone who previously worked in the advertising industry. Shamefully, Kerry went along with this dross , rather than kicking this man in the backside, and saying "I am going to run this campaign my way, and my war record is that of a young man of thirty five years ago, and has nothing to do with who I am now, or what I represent now and is not going to get in my way of winning this election now"
Instead we have the absurd and unedifying wrangling from one side or the other about issues that should have been consigned to dusty tomes years ago, interfering with proper debate, and justifiable anger, about yet another unnecessary war that is happening now. The Republicans love this of course. Anything that deflects attention from the Iraq war, the economy, the climate or the cronyism of Bush's regime. Dean would not have let this happen. The choices under his candidacy would have been clearer and sharper, much more divisive certainly, but much more exciting and ultimately much more honest.
But I wonder if something truly prosaic, such as the weather, might become a deciding factor in this election? It could do. Bush senior is supposed to have lost his election because of his apparent disinterest in the effects of hurricane Andrew. Two hurricanes have hit Florida just recently. If Ivan were to hit, and hit very hard indeed, or even another one still unformed out in the Atlantic, then there are two things that could happen. One, Bush could appear statesmanlike and calm, and offer the support and concern that his father didn't, and gain some credit. But, two, Kerry could counter this by saying, "to have one hurricane is not unusual, to have two is a misfortune, but to have three, is God trying to tell us something?" Bush's environmental record is appalling, it might just be the chance for Kerry to exploit this and suggest that environmental matters are probably the single most important issue facing the American people, and the world, and that if Americans don't wish to see more of such damaging storms and much worse, there are some truly urgent matters to attend to. It could be Kerry's chance to show vision and leadership. However this is pipe dreaming, Kerry so far has displayed no such qualities, and it is getting a little late in the day for him to do so.
12th August 2004. - Oil Prices - Dinosaurs and Ostriches
Today (12 August 2004) world oil prices reached a record of over US$45 per barrel. There is concern that such high prices could cause a downturn in the world economy, and with record balance of payments deficits in the USA, this concern is real. Indeed New Zealand's balance of payments too will deteriorate further, so we have a very direct interest in this matter. But what is strange is that no-one generally seems that surprised about this, there is no rioting in the street or lobbying of parliament. The efforts over many years by politicians and business to play down the importance of energy efficiency and in not taking adequate regulatory action to reduce our excessive consumption of power, whether oil, gas or electricity, have now brought the ecological chickens home to roost. I think in their collective heart of hearts the general public realise this, and that the enjoyment of cheap fuel costs was eventually going to end, and that is why there is no surprise.
In 1956 Hubbert, a geologist in the petroleum industry in the USA, predicted that within a year or so of 1969 that oil production in the USA would peak, and thereafter inexorably decline. His predictions were derided at the time, but in 1970 his prediction came true, and since then the USA has become ever more dependent on imported oil. Unfortunately the economic, strategic and political problems associated with such a loss of a strategic asset does not seem to have impinged on the majority of the USA legislature and business, or the public, although the invasion of Iraq could be seen as illegal attempt to secure that country's oil, and the USA and us are going to suffer rather more consequences of this than we yet realise. Using Hubbert's principals, Dr Campbell, a recognised world authority on global oil depletion, has said that the peak of ordinary, quality oil production is 2005, other oil by 2007, and terminal decline 2010. The period between 2005 and 2010 will be characterised by wildly swinging oil prices and thereafter a steady and terminal decline of production, with prices reaching US$100 per barrel by the end of this decade.
If you have read my article on global warming and the electricity industry you will have read mention of the NZ energy outlook to 2025. In it you will find a prediction for the cost of oil in 2025 as just US$25 per barrel!! That prediction was nonsensical in 2002 when it was published, and seems to have been directly copied from a US energy paper of the same time. Such lack of insight in what is an official energy document does not reflect well on our energy planners and it makes all their other predictions equally suspect. For instance another prediction is that geothermal power will make up 15% of electricity generation (more than double present geothermal generation.) It neither says where nor how this will be achieved; I would say such a predicted level of geothermal power is absurdly optimistic. It also provides good evidence that we just cannot trust our energy planners to get things right; which is what I, and many others, such as Molly Melhuish, have been saying for many years.Whilst it is likely that over the next few years oil prices might yo-yo in price again, the great difference between the high prices now, and the oil "shocks" of the seventies, is that the price is not being set by artificial restriction of output, but by the approaching balance of world oil consumption vs maximal oil output. This will be permanent, and will inexorably worsen.
There is only one solution. This is an urgent re-examination of our energy policy, a committment to entirely renewable electricity generation, an equal committment to improving energy efficiency in our transport sector, which includes issues such as public transport, taxation, town planning etc etc. There is no suggestion that our planners, business people or politicians have even begun to consider this. We, along with the populations of many other countries, are led by dinosaurs pretending to be ostriches.
An just to rub it in a bit more, here is a copy of a graph from the Hubbert Peak internet site, showing how how continued dependence on oil has grave implications for humanity. The green line shows the decline in human population following the inexorable decline of oil production.
10th August 2004 - Immigration
There is much news recently about a so-called skills shortage in New Zealand, (eg See this site) and how immigration is required to fix this. I have no doubt that this is a real phenomenon, but I don't agree with the need for ever increasing immigration to try to solve this. New Zealand's immigration policy has been one of boom and bust, with cycles of high immigration followed by a sharp cut back, this cycle has occured twice in the last fifteen years. This is not helpful to planning in New Zealand, and is unfair to prospective immigrants. There was a national scandal in the mid '90s when hundreds of highly qualified immigrants, eg doctors, found that their opportunities in New Zealand had been misrepresented. High rates of immigration are not in New Zealand's long-term interest. The rapid growth of urban areas has given a short term impetus to the local economy, especially building, which is such a large part of our internal economy, but it has put great stress on our infrastructure, which does not seem to have been adequately planned for. We are now finding out just how great this cost is with the recent announcement of $15 billion expenditure over ten years for transport, most in roading. The unplanned and unattractive enlargement of Auckland is causing a deterioration in the quality of life there. We are finding out too how this increasing population is putting stress on our energy needs.
New Zealand's internal economy is very dependent on the building industry, and we have had many booms and busts over the years. Much of the activity in building presently is related to high immigration. Asking yet more immigrants over here then seems a circular answer. If immigration is reduced to more manageable levels, this building boom will soon simmer down, and the supposed skills shortage will eventually evaporate. If there are still skill shortages it would seem more sensible to make sure our own population is trained sufficiently to provide these skills. The languishing of the apprenticeship system and the withdrawal of many large businesses from training was a feature of the economic reforms of the nineties. We are now paying the price for this shortsightedness. The present Labour administration has had to make up a large amount of lost ground in this sphere, to its credit it is making a reasonable fist of trying to do so.
I am very doubtful that high levels of immigration have made New Zealanders, as individuals, any richer, except in the short term by the temporary economic activity they import by their immigration. For instance, how much lower would interest rates be if the economy wasn't overheating as it is, with immigration a major factor. Every 1/4 percentage increase in interest is a cost to this economy of many hundreds of millions of dollars, apart from the pressure it continues to exert on an over-valued currency. This is not sustainable. But as long as politicians and business continue to take the short term view (and why shouldn't they, they don't have to explain themselves in twenty years time), we will continue to suffer the long term consequences of short-tem decision making. I also have concerns about the immigration consultancy industry, much stricter controls and supervision of this is an urgent need.
