As most of us will have noticed by now when it comes to fuel (energy) prices they can go up and down a little in the short-term, but the longer term trend is always (at least for hydro-carbons) upwards. This is unavoidable due to increasing demands for more energy (particularly from energy hungry India and China), a growing planetary population and the short term nature of our planet's hydro carbon fuel reserves. This trend is easy to plot (even in the short term) and the medium and long-term consequences of being dependent upon energy resources that you don't actually control is pretty self evident.
Primary energy is energy supplied without being transformed e.g. crude oil, natural gas, and coal. Around two thirds of UK primary energy demand is met from domestic production. Coal accounted for barely 4% of final energy consumption by fuel in 2010. Virtually all UK oil and gas production occurs under the seas surrounding the UK. UK oil production peaked in 1999, and gas production peaked in 2000. Since then the UK has moved from a position of self-sufficiency to one of increasing dependence on imported oil and gas.
By 2009, imported gas accounted for around 32% of the total gas used. 58% comes from Norway, 25% from liquefied natural gas (LNG) from various different countries, some 16% came from the Netherlands, and 2% came via the Belgian inter-connector pipeline. The increased reliance on imported oil and gas leaves the UK more open to supply risks associated with global supply constraints and price volatility. The UK Government plans to reduce the need for oil and gas imports, by pushing primary energy production, and by developing low-carbon alternatives such as electric vehicles, biofuels and fuel efficiency.
Sadly this is a case of better late than never, as the previous New Labour Westminster Government and the current Con Dem government should have been working with the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to develop an energy strategy to end these isles dependency on unstable overseas energy sources and dubious suppliers and lead to energy independence. In recent years, Vladimir Putin's periodic squeeze on gas exports to the Ukraine, through which 80 per cent of Russian gas exports to the EU flows, should have highlighted the real dangers of relying on imported energy from unreliable sources.
President Putin's Russia with full coffers and rode out the consequences of fluctuating oil prices and appears to have managed to avoid any real consequences of declining cash reserves and having its economy is heavily reliant on oil and gas exports. Some countries subsidise their fuel prices (how sustainable that is over the medium to longer term is open to debate), in the UK this does not happen, everybody wins, Government gets vastly more tax revenue, the oil companies get more profit, and us the ordinary punters get regularly fleeced.
When it comes to gas, some countries made efforts to protect themselves against external shocks to their energy needs; France was able to store 122 days of gas and Germany able to store 99 days worth (2009 figures). Here in the UK the almost entirely market driven approach turned out to be entirely inadequate, in the UK had a storage capacity which would have lasted for only 15 days (2009 figures). Some countries discuss the issue of energy independence at the highest level here I get the impression that here in the UK it is best avoided, with the occasional exception.
The New Labour Government took the best part of a decade to recognise the need to increase storage capacity and the UK has been playing catch up ever since. One consequence of the lack of storage capacity was that UK had to sell gas during the summer and purchase gas again when it is needed in the winter. The Conservatives headlong dash to gas in the 1980’s was compounded by an abject failure in strategic energy planning. The situation has been made worse by the current Government's perverse decision to half-heartedly look at developing diverse reliable alternative energy sources.
The last New Labour Government and the current Con Dem Government largely ignored repeated warnings that the lack of sustainable energy has set the UK on a path towards higher prices and blackouts. Over the next four to six years almost all of our old nuclear reactors, along with nine major coal and oil-fired power stations, will be run down and closed, with nothing ready to replace them. We are now in the situation where we will become even more dependent upon imported gas from either unstable regions or dubious suppliers.
The Con Dem’s solution to this is to rush to go Nuclear and to effectively hand the Nuclear industry lock stock and barrel over to French energy companies who are busy paying off large loans to the French government. Since 1997, what successive Westminster Governments should have done was to work with the devolved governments and the Irish Government to make these islands entirely self sufficient via renewable non market driven energy resources run by not for profit companies. They should have developed a flexible self-sufficient energy development strategy that encourages decentralised micro-generation. This could create jobs, useful skills and bootstrap the economy out of the recession as well as helping consumers by delivering community beneficial energy schemes.
Wales needs real direction not Carwyn's platitudes when it comes to the development of safe and secure energy resources and full control of energy planning. The renewable energy sector can play an immensely important role in creating more green energy jobs. We need to create sustainable long-term jobs for local people, not damage the environment and to provide our communities with a long-term viable economic energy future, that's the real future dividend for our communities rather than the shareholders in the City.
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
THIS LAND IS NOT FOR SALE!
In the end it always comes down to the land, Who owns it? Who farms it? And who lives on it? Or who makes a living from it? Since Humans have been living in relatively settled communities land has been bought, sold and stolen fuelling grievances both real and imaginary. What is a relatively new in recent years is that land deals have become a new form of international trade. In recent years, sub Saharan Africa has been the public focus for this trade (the reality is that is been going on around the world for many years). A combination of commercial companies and the various commercial arms of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have been chasing profits (and land) in Africa pursing profits and (in the case of the PRC) foodstuffs for the world (and the Chinese) market.
Between 2008 and 2009 the World Bank noted media reports of land deals that added up to something like 60 million hectares. The traditional UK media unit of measurement, Wales, won't help to illustrate the scale of the issue, that all adds up to something like the land equivalent to the Ukraine – some two-thirds of the land acquired happens to be in Africa. The evidence points to the fact that land deals are taking place on an unprecedented scale and at an increasing rate. Some of the specific land deals are pretty big, a recent deal in Liberia involved some 220,000 hectares.
The western media has tended to focus on the land deals signed by Middle Eastern and Asian government-backed operators but in reality Western commercial companies and Hedge Funds have also been heavily involved in the process – they don’t like the glare of publicity. One of the reasons why commercial companies are seeking to acquire land is because there is potentially big money to be made with cash crops as world food and commodity prices are expected to increase because of increasing demand for foodstuffs and also bio-fuels from China and India. Some of this is being driven by governments who are chasing land acquisitions abroad as a way to secure affordable food for their people at home.
In 1961 at or on the edge of independence Africa largely fed itself and even managed to export surplus crops. This is no longer the case, partially due to a neglect of the agricultural sector in many African countries, political instability, corruption and a chronic lack of investment to improve productivity and the means of getting surplus crops to both local and international markets. It goes without saying that not all types of investment is good and evidence is beginning to pile up that suggests that large scale land deals have a detrimental impact on indigenous local farmers.
Research by the International Land Coalition suggests that a growing number of these large scale land deals are failing due to a combination of poor soil types, financial problems, local resistance and unrealistic business plans. Some of these land acquisitions have resulted in some pretty raw deals for local people and as a consequence have fuelled dissent and resistance (in Ethiopia and Madagascar to name but two).
Now this does not mean that African states and peoples should steer clear of all land deals. What is needed is for land deals to be implemented properly, transparently, with safeguards for local people and local involvement. Some of the world's poorest people are losing the land, water and natural resources that have supported their livelihoods and their communities for generations. In Uganda, Oxfam has noted that some 20,000 people who claim to have been evicted from their land have taken their case to court seeking redress.
Part of the problem is because of the massive power imbalance between multinational companies, African governments and local farmers and landholders. Many of these land deals are negotiated behind closed doors without transparency, without local consultation something which fuels local dissent and anger. Across much of Sub Saharan Africa, as noted by the International Institute for Environment and Development, there is lack of secure land tenure which affects local farmers, herders and gatherers. This is partially down to a lack of written documentation and also because a great deal of land is owned by the state, which can obviously allocate it to outside investors even against fierce local opposition.
There are some pretty successful business models out there that show what can be done by local people, one co-operative of 60,000 cocoa farmers (in Ghana) has been in business for almost twenty years and owns 45% of a UK company that manufactures and distributes chocolate. There are ways to improve productivity and market access that can support local farmers or at least give them a realistic chance of competing.
Many international companies are able to successfully source agricultural produce from local family farmers, and have invested in other activities along the production line to help secure their supplies and improve local livelihoods. Some farmers associations (in Mali and Zambia) own shares in the company they collaborate with, which gives them monetary benefits and a greater say. Co-operatives have reduced their costs by working with large numbers of farmers.
Some land deals could bring many benefits including increased food production; access to improved agricultural skills, secure land tenure for indigenous farmers and more sustainable development in rural communities. This is something that could help to slow one of sub Saharan Africa's greatest problems rural to urban migration. Civic groups in sub Saharan Africa are demanding far greater transparency and openness from their governments and from investors. If this is done right then local indigenous communities can be helped to become equal partners rather than ending up as victims.
Between 2008 and 2009 the World Bank noted media reports of land deals that added up to something like 60 million hectares. The traditional UK media unit of measurement, Wales, won't help to illustrate the scale of the issue, that all adds up to something like the land equivalent to the Ukraine – some two-thirds of the land acquired happens to be in Africa. The evidence points to the fact that land deals are taking place on an unprecedented scale and at an increasing rate. Some of the specific land deals are pretty big, a recent deal in Liberia involved some 220,000 hectares.
The western media has tended to focus on the land deals signed by Middle Eastern and Asian government-backed operators but in reality Western commercial companies and Hedge Funds have also been heavily involved in the process – they don’t like the glare of publicity. One of the reasons why commercial companies are seeking to acquire land is because there is potentially big money to be made with cash crops as world food and commodity prices are expected to increase because of increasing demand for foodstuffs and also bio-fuels from China and India. Some of this is being driven by governments who are chasing land acquisitions abroad as a way to secure affordable food for their people at home.
In 1961 at or on the edge of independence Africa largely fed itself and even managed to export surplus crops. This is no longer the case, partially due to a neglect of the agricultural sector in many African countries, political instability, corruption and a chronic lack of investment to improve productivity and the means of getting surplus crops to both local and international markets. It goes without saying that not all types of investment is good and evidence is beginning to pile up that suggests that large scale land deals have a detrimental impact on indigenous local farmers.
Research by the International Land Coalition suggests that a growing number of these large scale land deals are failing due to a combination of poor soil types, financial problems, local resistance and unrealistic business plans. Some of these land acquisitions have resulted in some pretty raw deals for local people and as a consequence have fuelled dissent and resistance (in Ethiopia and Madagascar to name but two).
Now this does not mean that African states and peoples should steer clear of all land deals. What is needed is for land deals to be implemented properly, transparently, with safeguards for local people and local involvement. Some of the world's poorest people are losing the land, water and natural resources that have supported their livelihoods and their communities for generations. In Uganda, Oxfam has noted that some 20,000 people who claim to have been evicted from their land have taken their case to court seeking redress.
Part of the problem is because of the massive power imbalance between multinational companies, African governments and local farmers and landholders. Many of these land deals are negotiated behind closed doors without transparency, without local consultation something which fuels local dissent and anger. Across much of Sub Saharan Africa, as noted by the International Institute for Environment and Development, there is lack of secure land tenure which affects local farmers, herders and gatherers. This is partially down to a lack of written documentation and also because a great deal of land is owned by the state, which can obviously allocate it to outside investors even against fierce local opposition.
There are some pretty successful business models out there that show what can be done by local people, one co-operative of 60,000 cocoa farmers (in Ghana) has been in business for almost twenty years and owns 45% of a UK company that manufactures and distributes chocolate. There are ways to improve productivity and market access that can support local farmers or at least give them a realistic chance of competing.
Many international companies are able to successfully source agricultural produce from local family farmers, and have invested in other activities along the production line to help secure their supplies and improve local livelihoods. Some farmers associations (in Mali and Zambia) own shares in the company they collaborate with, which gives them monetary benefits and a greater say. Co-operatives have reduced their costs by working with large numbers of farmers.
Some land deals could bring many benefits including increased food production; access to improved agricultural skills, secure land tenure for indigenous farmers and more sustainable development in rural communities. This is something that could help to slow one of sub Saharan Africa's greatest problems rural to urban migration. Civic groups in sub Saharan Africa are demanding far greater transparency and openness from their governments and from investors. If this is done right then local indigenous communities can be helped to become equal partners rather than ending up as victims.
Friday, 11 November 2011
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS...
A report by Human Rights Watch has called on the Arab League to suspend Syria, saying the abuses against civilians in Homs are crimes against humanity. The US-based group's report makes grim reading documenting arbitrary detention, deaths in custody, torture, enforced disappearances, and systematic unlawful killing of civilians in the city of Homs (and elsewhere in Syria) by Syrian Government forces. Homs is the focus for anti-government demonstrations and the effective capital of the revolt against the brutal and repressive Syrian dictatorship. Some forty people were killed there on Thursday.
The UN says at least 3,500 people have been killed in Syria in protests against President Bashar al-Assad. Syria continues to benefit from China and Russia's veto on the UN Security Council, where a resolution which condemned the crackdown in Syria (back in October) was a serious blow to attempts to develop an international consensus on how to grapple with President Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime. Western diplomats tweaked the resolutions wording (which had been proposed by Britain, France, Germany and Portugal, in co-operation with the USA) to try to take account of Chinese and Russian concerns.
The clear diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signals a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. This move has only heightened divisions on the Security Council, where Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon quietly abstained; this suggests that any idea of a new era of intrusive diplomacy which was brought in by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March is effectively over, perhaps overwhelmed by self-interest.
It's natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. Russia has other concerns, spreading democracy not being among them, so an anxiety about a potential lack of future arms sales may be a driving concern. It’s a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty.
The UN says at least 3,500 people have been killed in Syria in protests against President Bashar al-Assad. Syria continues to benefit from China and Russia's veto on the UN Security Council, where a resolution which condemned the crackdown in Syria (back in October) was a serious blow to attempts to develop an international consensus on how to grapple with President Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime. Western diplomats tweaked the resolutions wording (which had been proposed by Britain, France, Germany and Portugal, in co-operation with the USA) to try to take account of Chinese and Russian concerns.
The clear diplomatic rebuff to the West, perhaps signals a much stronger stance from Beijing and Moscow who are unhappy to see the weight of the Security Council ranged against the Syrian authorities. This move has only heightened divisions on the Security Council, where Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon quietly abstained; this suggests that any idea of a new era of intrusive diplomacy which was brought in by the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya last March is effectively over, perhaps overwhelmed by self-interest.
It's natural for the Peoples Republic of China itself a brutal repressive dictatorship to side with the Syrian Government. Russia has other concerns, spreading democracy not being among them, so an anxiety about a potential lack of future arms sales may be a driving concern. It’s a little odd that some of the states indirectly supporting the Syrian dictatorship have themselves been involved in liberation struggles themselves, perhaps they might well have once had a degree of sympathy for the Syrian people who are laying down their lives for freedom and liberty.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
TAKING ON THE ELITE?
 |
| Anna Hazare |
In India, one of those people is Anna Hazare, a 74 year old man, who leading India's anti-corruption campaign and, who is seen increasingly, as a thorn in the government's side, by ordinary Indians and their own Government.
Over the last few years, dozens of Indians have been killed or badly injured as they have tried to expose corruption. Mr Hazare's calls for passive resistance have struck a chord among millions of Indians, who are disgusted by unprecedented levels of corruption that plague many areas of Indian government and beyond. Much to the embarrassment of the Indian government comparisons have been drawn between Mr Hazare and Gandhi.
 |
| India Against Curruption (Associated Press) |
The Indian authorities said Mr Hazare was being held for a week, but, once confronted by thousands of Mr Hazare's supporters who came out on the streets of New Delhi and other cities, the Indian government rapidly backtracked and quickly announced that he would be freed.
The problem for the Indian Government is that arresting him did not solve the problem, as now (despite being freed) he won't leave and has gone on hunger strike until the police guarantee that his original protest (which led to his arrest) will be allowed to go ahead. There have been protests at New Dehli's India Gate, with thousands of supporters shouting slogans and holding placards demanding Mr Hazare's release and that the government act on corruption. There have been protests across India in Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, Calcutta and elsewhere.
Recently India has been hit by a string of high-profile corruption scandals, which have included a multi-billion dollar alleged telecoms scam, alleged possible financial malpractices in connection with the Delhi 2010 Commonwealth Games. There have also been allegations that houses allocated for war widows have been diverted to civil servants.
Indian government critics have said that the scandals point to a pervasive culture of corruption in Mr Singh's administration. A recent survey said corruption in India cost billions of dollars and threatened to derail growth. As the tentacles of corruption spreads, one question that might be asked is who is India being run for, the elite or the people?
Thursday, 4 August 2011
AFTER THE FAFF...
The UN Security Council has finally come around to condemning the Syrian government for its deadly crackdown on protesters. This is the first clear condemnation issued by the Security Council, which includes longstanding allies of Syria such as Russia not to mention Brazil, India and South Africa who all have close ties to Syria.
The UN Security Council has after much faffing about finally condemned "the widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities". And has said that those who are responsible for the violence should be held accountable. EU members of the 15-nation council had pushed for a strong resolution condemning the Syrian government and calling for a rights inquiry.
Over the weeks and months since the unrest / uprising for democracy (take your pick) India, Brazil and South Africa have been dragging their heels on a Security Council resolution that would have allowed for strong international action on Syria. Despite the heel dragging they remain committed to democracy and peace and have called for an end to the brutality of Assad's regime.
The UN statement was adopted despite the concerns of some members that any action could lead to Libya-style intervention. The Syrian army is continuing to attack the city of Hama, a centre of opposition protest, with reports of much loss of life.
So far dozens of people may have been killed in the action against Hama, with residents saying that tanks have shot their way into Assi (Orontes) Square, in the centre of the city of 800,000 people. Human rights groups are suggesting that some 140 people may have been killed in the Syrian unrest since Sunday, mainly in Hama, adding to a civilian death toll believed to be more than 1,600 since March.
So far, no matter how hard the Assad regime tries to crush the demonstrations it does not seem to be working. There were reports of further large demonstrations in several Syrian cities late on Wednesday evening and Syrian activists told AFP news agency that 50,000 people demonstrated in the eastern city of Deir al-Zour, 20,000 in Duma, north of Damascus, and 40,000 in Homs.
What comes next? I wonder what the UN will do next? Where does the UN go from here? In this case, I suspect that not a lot will happen, especially as the European element of NATO appears to be bogged down in Libya. Not to mention that Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa won't go along with anything close to intervention in Syria.
The UN Security Council has after much faffing about finally condemned "the widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities". And has said that those who are responsible for the violence should be held accountable. EU members of the 15-nation council had pushed for a strong resolution condemning the Syrian government and calling for a rights inquiry.
Over the weeks and months since the unrest / uprising for democracy (take your pick) India, Brazil and South Africa have been dragging their heels on a Security Council resolution that would have allowed for strong international action on Syria. Despite the heel dragging they remain committed to democracy and peace and have called for an end to the brutality of Assad's regime.
The UN statement was adopted despite the concerns of some members that any action could lead to Libya-style intervention. The Syrian army is continuing to attack the city of Hama, a centre of opposition protest, with reports of much loss of life.
So far dozens of people may have been killed in the action against Hama, with residents saying that tanks have shot their way into Assi (Orontes) Square, in the centre of the city of 800,000 people. Human rights groups are suggesting that some 140 people may have been killed in the Syrian unrest since Sunday, mainly in Hama, adding to a civilian death toll believed to be more than 1,600 since March.
So far, no matter how hard the Assad regime tries to crush the demonstrations it does not seem to be working. There were reports of further large demonstrations in several Syrian cities late on Wednesday evening and Syrian activists told AFP news agency that 50,000 people demonstrated in the eastern city of Deir al-Zour, 20,000 in Duma, north of Damascus, and 40,000 in Homs.
What comes next? I wonder what the UN will do next? Where does the UN go from here? In this case, I suspect that not a lot will happen, especially as the European element of NATO appears to be bogged down in Libya. Not to mention that Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa won't go along with anything close to intervention in Syria.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
CRISIS OR OPPORTUNITY?
Here in Wales, we have over the years suffered from the loss of jobs overseas, as unscrupulous employers have (chasing higher profits by squeezing wages) moved their business overseas in search of cheaper labour leaving some of our more vulnerable communities up against it after years of loyal service. One thing that may change this unhappy state of affairs is the fact that as oil prices rise distance costs money.
This simple fact could have a significant impact on our country's economy as increased fuel costs will impact on company profits and indirectly provide an opportunity to revitalise our economy. Trade patterns change constantly, they will be altered by increased transportation costs, which will bite deeply into profits made by finding cheap labour in distant lands.
It is worth sparing some thought as to how we got to where we are; between 1960 and 1973 the percentage of exports as a share of world GDP rose by over 50%. This can be partially put down to to a combination of relatively cheap fuel (oil was around $14 dollars a barrel during this period) and an aggressive effort by the West to reduce trade barriers around the world.
Even factoring the effects of the 1973 oil crisis and the (with retrospect) the somewhat heated final lingering spasm of the cold war in the late 1970's/1980's there was a spectacular growth in world trade and further removal of tariff barriers between 1987 and 2002, when the average price of oil remained around $25 dollars a barrel.
It is worth noting (largely unnoticed in Europe where where we had our our problems) that the oil crisis of 1973/74 increased five fold the cost of shipping goods across the Atlantic and the Pacific and led to a 6% drop in US non fuel related imports and a corresponding growth in imports from Latin America and the Caribbean. I mention this because we have all lived with the rise in fuel prices over the last few years, there has also been a corresponding rise in shipping costs, something that will make manufacturing in distant lands increasingly uneconomic.
Over the last twenty years container ships have got bigger, they spend more time at sea than in port (85% in 2009 as compared with 55% some 15 years previously). The average container ship has also grown considerably larger along with the amount of goods carried by container has also grown from 35% to 75%. They have also become considerably faster something that has led to greater fuel consumption, which when combined with rising fuel prices begins to eat into profit margins of companies and organisations that relocated their manufacturing enterprises to distant lands.
Any economist will tell you that there is a direct link between transport costs and the price of the goods that we buy. The increase in oil prices between 2002 and 2009 roughly from £30 dollars a barrel to over $100 dollars a barrel increased the shipping companies costs and reduced the profits of their customers. The daily fuel bill for an average cargo ship increased from $9,500 dollars to $32,000 dollars and import costs (for the USA) rose on a standard 40 foot container travelling across the Pacific from China to the USA from $455 dollars to $1,100 dollars (between January 2007 and the end of 2008).
Despite a relative drop in fuel prices since the recession triggered by the World banking crisis we face a result of the consequences of peak oil in the near future a radical change in the way the world trades. There is a distinct possibility that it may become cheaper to manufacture goods closer to the market place rather than in more distant lands - the future energy and food crisis's aside for the moment - the real question that needs to be asked and answered is how we in Wales can take advantage of this situation and reboot our manufacturing economy in a sustainable way?
This simple fact could have a significant impact on our country's economy as increased fuel costs will impact on company profits and indirectly provide an opportunity to revitalise our economy. Trade patterns change constantly, they will be altered by increased transportation costs, which will bite deeply into profits made by finding cheap labour in distant lands.
It is worth sparing some thought as to how we got to where we are; between 1960 and 1973 the percentage of exports as a share of world GDP rose by over 50%. This can be partially put down to to a combination of relatively cheap fuel (oil was around $14 dollars a barrel during this period) and an aggressive effort by the West to reduce trade barriers around the world.
Even factoring the effects of the 1973 oil crisis and the (with retrospect) the somewhat heated final lingering spasm of the cold war in the late 1970's/1980's there was a spectacular growth in world trade and further removal of tariff barriers between 1987 and 2002, when the average price of oil remained around $25 dollars a barrel.
It is worth noting (largely unnoticed in Europe where where we had our our problems) that the oil crisis of 1973/74 increased five fold the cost of shipping goods across the Atlantic and the Pacific and led to a 6% drop in US non fuel related imports and a corresponding growth in imports from Latin America and the Caribbean. I mention this because we have all lived with the rise in fuel prices over the last few years, there has also been a corresponding rise in shipping costs, something that will make manufacturing in distant lands increasingly uneconomic.
Over the last twenty years container ships have got bigger, they spend more time at sea than in port (85% in 2009 as compared with 55% some 15 years previously). The average container ship has also grown considerably larger along with the amount of goods carried by container has also grown from 35% to 75%. They have also become considerably faster something that has led to greater fuel consumption, which when combined with rising fuel prices begins to eat into profit margins of companies and organisations that relocated their manufacturing enterprises to distant lands.
Any economist will tell you that there is a direct link between transport costs and the price of the goods that we buy. The increase in oil prices between 2002 and 2009 roughly from £30 dollars a barrel to over $100 dollars a barrel increased the shipping companies costs and reduced the profits of their customers. The daily fuel bill for an average cargo ship increased from $9,500 dollars to $32,000 dollars and import costs (for the USA) rose on a standard 40 foot container travelling across the Pacific from China to the USA from $455 dollars to $1,100 dollars (between January 2007 and the end of 2008).
Despite a relative drop in fuel prices since the recession triggered by the World banking crisis we face a result of the consequences of peak oil in the near future a radical change in the way the world trades. There is a distinct possibility that it may become cheaper to manufacture goods closer to the market place rather than in more distant lands - the future energy and food crisis's aside for the moment - the real question that needs to be asked and answered is how we in Wales can take advantage of this situation and reboot our manufacturing economy in a sustainable way?
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
THINK AGAIN MR PRESIDENT
President Obama, has gone and done it, as part of his new vision for space exploration as part of his $3.8 trillion (£2.4 trillion) budget proposal to Congress yesterday, he has called for a halt to Constellation, the project that aims to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and has already cost $9 billion.
One immediate side effect of this proposal is that the International Space Station, which would have been scrapped in 2016, will now get a five-year extension to its working life. Additionally the business of getting US astronauts there and back again will be effectively privatised, with a subsidy of some $6 billion of funding, while NASA continues to work on developing new technologies for longer-term space exploration.
In the wings stands China, which will not be unaware of how things will look if China beats America back to the Moon. US President George Bush when he vowed to return Americans to the Moon by 2020 was acknowledging that it was important not only for manned space flight to flourish; but also important for those humans in space to include a healthy number of Americans.
The Europeans have a space programme of sorts (admittedly largely French, Russia has retained (by the skin of its teeth) a space programme. What about the UK? well the Conservatives finally finished that dream off in the early 1970's when a Tory Minister saw no future for private satellite launches...which brought the remnants of the Blue Streak programme (originally cancelled in 1960) to an end.
The next historic landmark may well be that of the Peoples Republic of China putting a man on the Moon, which may help to rundown America’s technological supremacy. China, already produces more engineering graduates than America. If congress approves the budget then we may be seeing the moment when Washington’s sense of international supremacy begin to decline, as its global political and scientific stature also begins to diminish.
Manned space flight programme which can be viewed as an expensive luxury when the economy is on rocky ground, but, it is not. NASA needs to do more that merely to focus on long-range research and development. This would be a grave mistake, with financial, economic and political consequences.
The PRC has the ambition, the money and the determination to take the traditional Chinese long view. With its sights firmly set on the stars, the PRC, the world’s newest superpower is planning to put a man or woman on the Moon by 2020. Close behind is India, which launched its first unmanned mission to the Moon in 2008 and now aims to put an Indian astronaut into orbit within five years.
The curse of the modern political world may well be short-term thinking US President Obama needs to deal with the financial crisis and he also needs to be able to show the world that America knows where it wants to be several decades from now, and that the USA has the vision and will to get there.
While the proposed budget and NASA cuts will greatly irritate Congress with politicians from both sides of the political divide who see NASA’s manned space programme as vital component of US national pride, they are also important to the rest of us.
One immediate side effect of this proposal is that the International Space Station, which would have been scrapped in 2016, will now get a five-year extension to its working life. Additionally the business of getting US astronauts there and back again will be effectively privatised, with a subsidy of some $6 billion of funding, while NASA continues to work on developing new technologies for longer-term space exploration.
In the wings stands China, which will not be unaware of how things will look if China beats America back to the Moon. US President George Bush when he vowed to return Americans to the Moon by 2020 was acknowledging that it was important not only for manned space flight to flourish; but also important for those humans in space to include a healthy number of Americans.
The Europeans have a space programme of sorts (admittedly largely French, Russia has retained (by the skin of its teeth) a space programme. What about the UK? well the Conservatives finally finished that dream off in the early 1970's when a Tory Minister saw no future for private satellite launches...which brought the remnants of the Blue Streak programme (originally cancelled in 1960) to an end.
The next historic landmark may well be that of the Peoples Republic of China putting a man on the Moon, which may help to rundown America’s technological supremacy. China, already produces more engineering graduates than America. If congress approves the budget then we may be seeing the moment when Washington’s sense of international supremacy begin to decline, as its global political and scientific stature also begins to diminish.
Manned space flight programme which can be viewed as an expensive luxury when the economy is on rocky ground, but, it is not. NASA needs to do more that merely to focus on long-range research and development. This would be a grave mistake, with financial, economic and political consequences.
The PRC has the ambition, the money and the determination to take the traditional Chinese long view. With its sights firmly set on the stars, the PRC, the world’s newest superpower is planning to put a man or woman on the Moon by 2020. Close behind is India, which launched its first unmanned mission to the Moon in 2008 and now aims to put an Indian astronaut into orbit within five years.
The curse of the modern political world may well be short-term thinking US President Obama needs to deal with the financial crisis and he also needs to be able to show the world that America knows where it wants to be several decades from now, and that the USA has the vision and will to get there.
While the proposed budget and NASA cuts will greatly irritate Congress with politicians from both sides of the political divide who see NASA’s manned space programme as vital component of US national pride, they are also important to the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)