Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
This Presidential campaign has been as ugly and as bitter as any in American memory. The ugliness has flowed mostly in one direction, reaching its apotheosis in the effort, undertaken by a supposedly independent group financed by friends of the incumbent, to portray the challenger—who in his mid-twenties was an exemplary combatant in both the Vietnam War and the movement to end that war—as a coward and a traitor.
At least nine provinces will face frequent power cuts this winter, the State Development and Reform Commission warned Monday.
The University of Calgary has recruited two international heavy oil experts to chase some oil sands dreams, notably ways to refine raw bitumen underground as “Canada cannot sustain for … more than probably 20 years the use of natural gas and diluent to produce bitumen.”
OIL at more than $50 a barrel concentrates the mind. What looked like a spike in prices is now taking on an air of permanence. Even when the price subsides, as it will, it will remain higher than seemed likely even a few months ago.
Renewable energy works almost solely on the basis of using local resources, and can’t contribute efficiently to a grid in the quantities desired. What Amory Lovins knows, deep down, is that the peak of oil extraction globally will not allow for a transition to a less-intensive energy diet. His plan would have made sense three decades ago, perhaps, when global warming seemed just a theory.
Why is science seemingly at war with President Bush? For nearly four years, and with rising intensity, scientists in and out of government have criticized the Bush administration, saying it has selected or suppressed research findings to suit policies, skewed advisory panels or ignored unwelcome advice, and quashed discussion within federal research agencies.
IT’S often said that truth is the first casualty of war. During a presidential campaign, that may be more apt than ever. Consider a seemingly simple question: What is the cost of the Iraq war to the United States?
No war for oil, says the Michael Moore branch of the antiwar movement, meaning that the United States shouldn’t fight to advance the interests of the petroleum industry.
The presidential candidates are touting their plans to reduce the USA’s reliance on foreign energy sources. Are the campaign promises simply running on empty?
While politicians in Washington appear to be making little headway in breaking the nation’s addiction to imported oil, California has made some real progress with innovative policies.
THE wild Atlantic sound that divides the Hebridean islands of Harris and North Uist may be bridged for the first time by a £30m structure that harnesses the power of the waves to produce electricity.
The guys on the campaign trail keep trying to ig nore the trillion-pound rhinoceros in the room. But soaring oil prices thunder the obvious: America had better prepare for a possible fall in world oil output if it doesn’t want to be left without affordable energy options.
