Falei que não voltava tão cedo, mas resolvi dar um alô rapidinho para divulgar dois eventos interessantes que acontecerão amanhã no Instituto de Estudos Avançados (IEA/USP),  com transmissão ao vivo pela web em www.iptv.usp.br. As informações abaixo foram extraídas do boletim quinzenal da instituição. Mais no site.

1) às 8h30: Eventos extremos no Brasil: causas e impactos

Carlos Nobre, do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (Inpe), fará a palestra de abertura, abordando o tema Mudanças Climáticas e seus Impactos em Áreas Estratégicas para o Brasil. Os outros expositores serão Gilberto Diniz, da Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Reinaldo Haas, da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, e Antônio Ocimar Manzi, do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (Inpa). O seminário será coordenado por Jacques Marcovitch, da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade (FEA-USP).

Após o debate serão apresentados o livro e o documentário “Conhecer para Sustentar: Um Novo Olhar sobre o Vale do Itajaí”, realizações da Fundação Bunge.

2) às 14h: Pré-sal e mudanças climáticas: avaliações das tecnologias de captura e armazenamento de carbono

Potencial fonte de riqueza ao tornar o país um grande produtor de petróleo, a exploração do pré-sal coloca em pauta a necessidade de o país encontrar formas de contribuir para o esforço comum de redução das emissões de carbono. Uma delas é evitar a emissão do CO2 presente no pré-sal. Diante disso, surge a necessidade de avaliar se as tecnologias de captura e armazenamento daquele carbono estão suficientemente maduras, quais se encontram disponíveis, com que eficiência e a que custo.

Para discutir essas questões, o evento terá exposição de Alberto Sampaio de Almeida, da Área de Exploração e Produção do Pré-Sal da Petrobras. Os debatedores serão João Marcelo Medina Ketzer (Cepac/PUC-RS) e Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho (IEA). A coordenação será de Célio Bermann (IEE e Grupo de Pesquisa de Ciências Ambientais).

The boom in unconventional gas production in the United States is an international game-changer that will have far-reaching implications to global supply and prices. At least that’s the word — and an intriguing one at that — from the International Energy Agency in its highly anticipated 2009 World Energy Outlook.

via IEA’s Chief Economist: U.S. Nat Gas Industry a Global Game-Changer | BNET Energy Blog | BNET.

IEA Prez Ken Swanson

Reverend Senator James Meeks.

Sunday’s anti-union blast from the Chicago Tribune suddenly found a way to praise Senator Meeks when just a year ago it was damning him. IEA Prez Ken Swanson responds:

We cannot support Sen. Meeks’ proposal for school vouchers; taking resources away from public schools will only hurt the students in the system. But we understand the frustration that has caused him to seek alternative solutions to the Illinois school funding crisis.

As a union, we stand with Sen. Meeks and with every other Illinois policymaker who supports the basic right for every student, no matter where that student lives, to attend a great public school.

We stand with Sen. Meeks against those politicians who prize power above principle, whose energies are devoted to the next election while ignoring the funding crisis that has damaged generations of children.

We agree with Sen. Meeks that the time has come for the government of our state to take care of the students and give them the opportunity to succeed.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), oil reserves are enough to spend the next years in a hunky-dory state of bliss and petrol-burning carefree habits. A senior official, however, says otherwise.

It certainly seems plausible that the U.S. has pressured the IEA into a bit of fibbing concerning the matter, and personally I don’t think the downplay is a bad idea, neither is the so-called “whistleblowing”. The downplay will avoid mass panic, doomsday prophetics and draconian measures suddenly curtailing emissions and what-not. The more alarmist version of the forecast will keep us on our toes and not let the movement toward what we now call alternative fuels lose momentum.

But having said that, I’d be slightly more inclined to go for the bleaker versions of forecasting fossil fuels in the future. Knowing we have twenty or thirty years reserves still to exploit and then actually going about exploiting them is a damn stupid thing to do. I hope in fifty years time, there’s still petrol around so I can drive a classic car, instead of knowing it’s been squandered. Yes, I know these things do and should take time, but it’s been an excessively slow process.

Take hybrid retrofitting, which I was always harping on about. That technology should be years old by now, not still trying to take off. Where are the second-generation biofuels? Where’s the emphasis on solar cells? Why aren’t governments in backwaters like here in Portugal cracking down on badly-made buildings that lose heat like radiators and waste cartloads of energy? Yes, the road to greenery is long and winding, but the crass morons parked in the middle of the road and blocking the way aren’t helping.

Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice appeared on CBC Radio’s “The Current” with guest host Susan Ormiston this morning.  He kept repeating the now standard Conservative mantra that Canada can’t do anything until the U.S. takes definitive action on capping its emissions and adopting green technology.  This brings into question our nation’s sovereignty.  Although Canada has always had the U.S. elephant as our neighbour, it hasn’t deterred us from taking independent stances in the past.  Mr. Prentice and Mr Harper just need to look into the Progressive Conservative Party’s history – whether it is former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s leadership role in curbing acid rain emissions or former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s refusal of nuclear arms for Canada.  If either of these Conservative leaders had taken the present Conservative Prime Minister’s stance of letting the Americans take the lead, our country would be a very different place.

To hear the whole interview, click here and go to Part 1 of today’s program.

In other coverage leading up to Copenhagen, Robert J. Kennedy Jr. wrote an interesting commentary in the Huffington Post yesterday on “The New Arms Race”.  In the article, Mr. Kennedy asserts that the Chinese are now spending as much on green energy technologies as on the military.  38 % of the recent Chinese stimulus package went to renewable energy, in comparison with just 12% of the U.S. stimulus package.  (Here in Canada, the Conservative government designated a whopping 8 % of the stimulus package to renewables in last January’s budget).

Also in yesterday’s Huffington Post, James Hoggan asserts that the climate denial industry should foot the bill for delayed action on addressing climate change (see my post yesterday on the CBC coverage of this issue). The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently announced that every year of delayed action to address climate change will add $500 Billion to the price tag of saving the planet.  

On Monday, November 23, the Council will be joined by Ambassador Richard Jones, Deputy Executive Director of the International Energy Agency. He will discuss the IEA’s current analysis of energy supply and demand and the implications for energy security and the environment. The Economist wrote about current and future demands for oil and included a chart displaying the IEA’s projections. Ambassador Jones will be speaking with energy expert David Victor, Professor at UC San Diego’s School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and Director of the School’s new Laboratory on International Law and Regulation.

Last May, thousands of teachers flooded the capitol in Springfield and forced the governor and legislature to withdraw their plan to destroy the state’s teacher pension system for future generations of teachers.

Instead, a task force was established to study the pension system and report out the findings.

This is what the task force found:

When the findings of the task force turned out to be in contradiction to what powerful business interests in the state wanted, the report was rejected.

But you can bet IEA members will be sharing the facts with legislators this coming session.

The IEA recently released their 2009 version of the World Energy Outlook.  However, a “whistleblower” has claimed that the US exerts pressure on the IEA, and thus their numbers are unrealistically optimistic.

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

Pretty strong stuff.  Though I don’t think it should be too surprisingfor those who watched the projections of maximum supply go from 120 million barrels per day to 116 then 105 last year.  It is interesting to hear someone within IEA use the term “peak oil”:

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was “imperative not to anger the Americans” but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. “We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad,” he added.

Comments about the situation from the Energy Bulletin.

A whistleblower has said that the IEA has purposefully overestimated the future availability of oil.  Furthermore, the US has played a major role in the effort.

My take: I wouldn’t be surprised if the whistleblower is correct.  New fields have come online and have produced longer than previous estimates due to technological advances.  But that won’t last forever.  The biggest problem: we’ve put every egg in the oil basket.  There are no other sources of energy that could take oil’s place tomorrow if oil ran out today.  That’s not to say that that situation can’t ever change – we’re taking small but steady steps to alleviate our over-dependence on the finite dirty energy sources we depend on.  But if we’re as close as this whistleblower and other credible sources say we are, the price shocks and resultant massive economic disruptions that we’re trying like mad to avoid could still occur sooner than anyone would like to admit.

We need to develop our renewable energy infrastructure today, for multiple reasons.  Catastrophic climate change is the most important reason, followed by basic energy security as it relates to geopolitical stability.

On a related tangent: if peak oil is staring us in the face, it really makes the Iraq invasion and occupation look stupid.  How many trillions of dollars will we have wasted to secure a resource that is ever-dwindling?

I admit it.  I was one of those people who flippantly dismissed the ‘Peak Oil’ crowd, those dogged army of researchers and activists who have been crying out for years that we have crossed the threshold of remaining oil reserves.  I stupidly thought of them as alarmists.  After seeing Michael Ruppert and Chris Smith’s riveting, eye-opening documentary ‘Collapse’, however, I’m changing my tune.

Some people might say that we couldn’t possibly be on the brink of societal collapse, that it couldn’t possibly be as bad as the peak oil crowd says it is–despite news reports like this and this, quoting an International Energy Agency whistle-blower who says “…the agency is responding to U.S. pressure to downplay how fast existing oilfields are being depleted while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.”

Couple the above news clipping with the reality that Saudi Arabia is now turning their oil extraction strategy to off-shore drilling, which is notoriously more expensive than land based drilling and inevitably requires more resources than what is ultimately yielded–not to mention conservatives here at home beating the drums for offshore drilling and the pillaging of A.N.W.R.–and it’s no longer a leap to assume that we ARE running out of oil.

Yet, maybe those nay-sayers are right.  Maybe we do have more years than the worst-case scenario says we do.  It still doesn’t negate the fact that we need to change our paradigm or way of thinking–even IF the industrialized world isn’t in dire straits yet, with a finite resource like oil, it’s only a matter of time.

Think about how dependent we are on oil for everything from food production to automobiles (and not just for vehicle propulsion–even those electric cars need oil to be built and shipped) and everything in between.  For all the miracles that industrialized civilization has performed, our Achilles heel is oil.  And there can be no question that it will be our downfall.  To paraphrase a scene from the film: Will you be the person on the Titanic who wants to build a lifeboat?  Or will you continue to deny that your ship is sinking?

Watch Collapse and then make up your mind.

I sent the letter below to Sarah Teather MP and a slightly reworded version to the following elected representatives of my constituency, Brent East

London Assembly Members

• Navin Shah (my London Assembly Member, Labour)
• Murad Qureshi (list member, Labour)
• Dee Doocey (list member, Liberal Democrat)
• Victoria Borwick (list member, Conservative)
• Mike Tuffrey (list member, Liberal Democrat)
• Caroline Pidgeon (list member, Liberal Democrat)
• Nicky Gavron (list member, Labour)
• Jenny Jones (list member, Green)
• Darren Johnson (list member, Green)
• Richard Barnbrook (list member, BNP)
• Andrew Boff ( list member, Conservative)
• Gareth Bacon (list member, Conservative)

Members of the European Parliament

• Gerard Batten (UK Independence)
• Marina Yannakoudakis (Conservative)
• Mary Honeyball (Labour)
• Syed Kamall (Conservative)
• Charles Tannock (Conservative)
• Claude Moraes (Labour)
• Jean Lambert (Green)
• Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

Last of all I sent the same letter to Lord McKenzie of Luton who seems to have spoken often about oil related issues. I will post each and every response that I receive (if I receive any) on this blog as they arrive.

Dear Sarah Teather,

First of all thank you again for all of your support and continued correspondence,  for dilligently and faithfully answering each of my letters.

I must now bring your attention full circle to the first letter I sent you some 16 months ago with a particular emphasis on peak oil. I said then that time is already short to prepare adequately for the impact of a decline in oil production. In the year that’s followed I can safely say that not nearly enough has happened in the UK neither to make the public aware of the realities of peak oil nor to make real provisions in anticipation of imminent energy shortages and a transition away from hydrocarbon dependency. I do not hold you responsible for this nor am I writing merely to winge about it. You are my only approachable representative within the UK government and it is all I can do to place as great an emphasis on these matters as I possibly can speaking not just for the sake of your constituents but for the entire UK and mankind as a whole.

Figures published in the latest IEA World Energy Outlook have reportedly been distorted in order to massage US interests and keep global markets calm. I have corresponded with the head of energy diversification regarding this matter and he has not engaged with the allegations other than to say that they have been warning for years that projected demand will not be met with current investment levels in exploration and development. The point is that peak oil is a reality and it is merely a question of when the decline will begin – at what point will the supply fail to keep up with the demand. According to the more pessimistic accounts it will begin in 2013 (Uppsala University’s study entitled The Peak of the Oil Age), and the optimistic accounts put the date back to between 2020-2030 (International Energy Agency). This doesn’t leave us much time in any case.

We are now deep into a recession. As a nation we have already spent our future under the assumption that the economy will continue to grow and we will be able to pay it all back over the next x decades. What will happen when the price of oil begins its permanent escalation? The financial system will collapse. Furthermore it isn’t only transportation that runs on oil but the entire food industry (10 calories of hydrocarbon energy per calorie of food produced), the pharmaceutical industry, all plastics, etc. The implications are staggering. Without proper oil conservation in the wake of the decline not only would few commodities including food be affordable to anybody but we would no longer be able to make or distribute sufficient quantities of medicine or vaccinations for instance. Most medicines are made possible by petrochemicals. The healthcare industry relies massively on disposable plastics. Another outbreak of a swine-flu like virus could quickly decimate the population under those conditions. If there is any risk of this scenario being as close as 4 years away then surely we should be doing everything possible to insure erring on the side of caution?

I am aware that the UK government has over the past few years continued to be dismissive of the fact that oil production is peaking imminently or has already peaked. I continue to be shocked at this attitude. At a certain point this will be construed as criminal negligence on an unprecedented level. Concealing the true motives behind our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan or trying to prevent panic on the stock markets are not good enough reasons for withholding information from the British public that is directly pertinent to its survival. These are also not good enough reasons to neglect preparing for what is to come, whether in 4 years or two decades.

There is much that can and should be done now. I refer you to Mike Ruppert’s work – particularly his book A Presidential Energy Policy. Visit http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/ for more information on Mike and one of the best collections of independent research on peak oil.

What worries me most is that our economic system is the greatest obstacle to a smooth peak oil transition. Required investment is stagnant when there is no profit to be made. In order to facilitate sufficient investment in renewables, demand destruction and improved public infrastructure the government will need to take extreme measures such as redistributing wealth by capping profits and levying severe penalties on polluting industries et al.

It is the overriding authority of profit that needs to be addressed immediately and the survival of our people and planet made the highest priority. I have no doubt that this will be a painful and arduous process with huge resistance from monied interests.

In short I urge you to raise your voice on preparing for oil shortages now. I urge you to continue demanding transparency along with uncompromising and swift energy reforms. I urge you to push for corporations to be made financially and legally accountable for their impact on the environment and cease to externalize their costs on the public.

The place to start is the call on the government from the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security ‘to reassess its dismissive views about the potential threat and impact of oil shortages.’ (The Guardian)

Yours sincerely,
Seth Mowshowitz

The row over whether the International Energy Agency has or has not nurdled its oil data to (a) prevent financial market panic or (b) appease the Americans or ‘(c) neither of the above, is interesting but a bit of a sideshow. What’s more interesting is how fast the notion that ‘peak oil’ is imminent has moved from being a contested minority view to being mainstream.

The IEA’s been stung by suggestions that its research lacks independence, and has taken the unusual step of publishing material normally only available to subscribers (opens in pdf) to try to demonstrate it. But the assumptions embedded in its projections tell their own story. By 2030, it suggests, the majority of world production will come from currently undeveloped (or not yet discovered) oilfields, even though the rate of discovery is falling and it takes typically 30 years to move from discovery to peak production. And unconventionals – the environmentally disastrous tar sands – grow, a lot.

The IEA’s view is not shared by other recent reviews of energy outcomes. The Oil Crunch, published this time last year and produced by a group which included a cross-section of British businesses, concluded that the problem of declining oil supply could hit Britain as early as 201, with serious consequences for the economy. (News story here, report downloads in pdf here).

Just a month ago the NGO Global Witness produced a report – “Heads in the Sand” – based on official data which concuded that by 2015 there could be a substantial daily shortfall in oil supplies. It summarises the argument as follows: the size of oil discoveries has been grending fownwards for forty years, and production has exceeded discovery since 1984; 17 of the world’s 20 largest fields are producing at below their historical highest levels; conventional oil production failed to grow between 2005 and 2008, despite high demand and high prices; and the IEA projects a drop in production from existing flelds of almost 50%. To hit its 2030 projection will require new capacity which is six times the current Saudi production levels to be develped and brought onstream. [Update: A thorough but high level analysis of the background data and the implications for the global economy has been posted at The Oil Drum since I wrote this blog post.]

Looking for miracles

It’s perhaps not surprising thatg investment banker Matthew Simmons, an energy sceptic, had this to say about the IEA’s general projections:

What the new IEA leadership is warning is that declines in mature super giant fields will make it necessary to add the equivalent of four new Saudi Arabias over the next two decades just to keep demand flat. They intentionally avoided saying “obviously, this is impossible.”

The IEA was set up in the wake of the 1970s OPEC crisis to provide the leading energy consuming nations with reliable information about oil reserves, production, and consumption, and to advise on policy. Critics have long accused it of being captured by oil industry assumptions, and closed to critiques of these. In turn, its worldview – generally repeating industry prognoses that there would be no pressure on oil supplies until 2030 – has over-influenced policy-makers, especially in the UK, which is one of the reasons why Britain’s energy policy is in poor shape.

The current production forecasts remind me of Pierre Wack’s story of Shell’s ‘preferred’ 1970s oil scenario, the one that most chimed with the company’s worldview. It would, Wack observed, take ‘Three Miracles’ to come about. Miracles will also be required for the IEA’s projections to come about in practice, and indeed much the same mirales – new reserves rapidly found and brought into production, large suppliers willing to produce at high levels, and no problems on the supply side.

The global energy unit at Uppsala University in Sweden last week produced its own 2030 Energy Outlook, in which it reckoned that  global production in 2030 was more likely to be 75 million barrels per day than the IEA’s 105 mpd (thanks to the Real World Economics Review blog for the reference; there’s also a handy couple of charts which show their competing production assumptions). As the Uppsala group says in its conclusion, “All our projections imply that the world oil production by 2030 will be lower than today.” This is one of the reasons why Kjell Aleklett, director of the Global Energy, unit has described the IEA’s report as a “political document”. But policy – certainly not in the medium-to-long-term, is not best-served by politicised research; in futures terms, such behaviour simply creates blindspots.

The most recent guidelines have been issued by the USDE regarding their Race to the Top requirements for states submitting applications for the $4. billion dollars in federal stimulus money.

The IEA seems happy with the new guidelines. A post on their web site today takes credit for some small and fuzzy agreements that are in the new guidelines.

Input provided by IEA, NEA and other state affiliates has positively impacted the final rules for the federal program that will have states compete for $4.35 billion to improve education quality and results statewide.

IEA was among more than 1,100 organizations and individuals that provided feedback to the Department of Education about how Race to the Top (RTTT) should work.

Why is the IEA so happy?

• There is now language that speaks of multiple measures to assess teachers rather than a single test.
• There is now language about high-performing traditional schools, which the IEA takes as a sign that the USDE is less in love with charter schools.
• There is now language that calls for greater input by teacher unions in the RttT applications.

These are admittedly good developments. The question remains: What is the ultimate aim of the Duncan administration of the USDE and the ultimate intent of RttT?

Are these changes simply tweaking in order to keep some of Obama’s progressive and union constituent groups at bay?

Those on the other side seem less than concerned.

Fordham’s blog, Flypaper says:

In other ways though, the document admirably withstood powerful centripetal forces. It still embraces invaluable reforms like data use, charters, and efforts to improve the teaching profession. Fans of national standards will also be pleased. The Department also deserves credit for properly emphasizing the need to have LEAs not just promise, but contractually commit, to executing reforms; ED even developed a draft MOU for states to use with their districts.

IEA’s pleasure with recent developments may be a bit premature.

(GiaVang.com.vn – Giá vàng Việt Nam và Thế Giới) – Thị trường Mỹ tăng điểm ngày thứ 5 liên tiếp. Dự báo nhu cầu dầu tăng cao khiến cổ phiếu năng lượng tăng điểm. Số người thất nghiệp lần đầu thấp nhất từ tháng 7. Thị trường chứng khoán châu Âu và châu Á phiên ngày hôm qua cũng đồng loạt tăng điểm.

USD đầu ngày thứ sáu rớt xuống mức thấp nhất trong vòng một năm qua  so với rổ tiền tệ sau khi số liệu của Trung Quốc đưa ra tốt hơn dự đoán và tiếp thêm hy vọng về đợt phục hồi kinh tế, khi nhà đầu tư chuyển tiền sang các đồng tiền rủi ro hơn và liên quan đến tăng trưởng.

USD rớt xuống mức thấp nhất trong tháng bảy so với đồng JPY và NZD.

Đồng AUD xoá đi mức giảm đầu phiên và tăng so với USD sau khi số liệu báo cáo cho thấy sản lượng công nghiệp của Trung Quốc tăng trong tháng 8 với tốc độ nhanh nhất trong 1 năm trở lại đây, số liệu công bố tốt hơn so với dự báo và cho thấy sản lượng rõ ràng đang trên đường hồi phục. Các giao dịch viên nói rằng áp lực bán USD trên Thị trường đã mạnh lên do số liệu kinh tế và lợi nhuận doanh nghiệp của Mỹ cải thịên hôm thứ năm, thậm chí trước khi số liệu của Trung Quốc thúc đẩy tâm lý mua tài sản mạo hiểm

Trong phiên giao dịch ngày hôm qua, đã có lúc giá Vàng chạm mức 1.000USD/ounce sau đó giảm xuống và đóng cửa không có nhiều thay đổi so với phiên trước.

Giá dầu thô tăng sau khi Cơ quan năng lượng quốc tế nâng dự báo về nhu cầu dầu thế giới năm 2010 và USD rớt giá so với EUro. IEA dự báo nhu cầu dầu sẽ đứng ở mức trung bình 85,7 triệu thùng/ngày trong năm sau. Mức này như vậy cao hơn 450 nghìn thùng so với dự báo công bố vào tháng 8/2009. Nguyên nhân khác khiến giá dầu tăng là trữ lượng dầu tại Mỹ hạ mạnh hơn dự báo và OPEC không thay đổi sản lượng. Ông Chip Hodge, một chuyên gia về Thị trường năng lượng, nhận xét dự báo của IEA hết sức có yếu tố hỗ trợ cho giá dầu, nhu cầu dầu dẫu sao cũng sẽ tăng bởi mùa đông sắp đến.

Thị trường Mỹ tăng điểm ngày thứ 5 liên tiếp. Dự báo nhu cầu dầu tăng cao khiến cổ phiếu năng lượng tăng điểm. Số người thất nghiệp lần đầu thấp nhất từ tháng 7. thị trường chứng khoán châu Âu và châu Á phiên ngày hôm qua cũng đồng loạt tăng điểm.

Bộ trưởng tài chính Mỹ Timothy Geithner cho biết chính phủ đang bắt đầu rút ra một số biện pháp hỗ trợ thị trường tài chính, ông cảnh báo đà phục hồi sẽ có nhiều thăng trầm. Phát biểu trước Ủy ban giám sát kế hoạch 700 tỷ USD của Quốc hội Mỹ, ông nói: “Chúng ta đã bước vào giai đoạn mới, đã đến lúc rút đi những biện pháp hỗ trợ đã được áp dụng. Chúng ta nên chuyển hướng chiến lược bởi chúng ta đã chuyển từ ứng phó với khủng hoảng sang giai đoạn hồi phục, từ cứu nền kinh tế sang điều chỉnh và xây dựng nền móng tăng trưởng cho tuonwg lai.”

Từ năm ngoái, Bộ tài chính đã đầu tư hơn 200 tỷ USD vào các ngân hàng Mỹ. Tính đến ngày 04/09, Bộ Tài chính đã nhận lại 70,4 tỷ USD. Những ngân hàng đã trả lại tiền cho chính phủ bao gồm Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. và Morgan Stanley. Bộ trưởng Tài chính Mỹ cho biết trong 18 tháng tới, các ngân hàng sẽ trả lại thêm khoảng 50 tỷ USD. Theo ông, một hệ thống ngân hàng với tiềm lực vốn tốt hơn sẽ có khả năng ứng phó tốt hơn với những giai đoạn khó khăn của ngành và nền kinh tế.

Liên hợp quốc cho rằng nên giảm bớt vai trò của USD trong thương mại quốc tế bằng việc đưa ra một đồng tiền quốc tế mới để bảo vệ thị trường các nước mới nổi khỏi ảnh hưởng tiêu cực từ việc đầu cơ tài chính. Báo cáo mới nhất từ Hội thảo về thương mại và Phát triển của UN đồng thuận về mục tiêu những nước thành viên nên lập nên một ngân hàng dự trữ toàn cầu để phát hành và kiểm soát tỷ giá hối đoái tại các nước thành viên. Năm 2009, Trung Quốc, Ấn Độ, Brazil và Nga đã kêu gọi về một đồng tiền thay thế cho USD trong vai trò đồng tiền dự trữ chính của thế giới, khủng hoảng tài chính bắt nguồn từ việc thị trường thế chấp dưới chuẩn Mỹ sụp đổ đã dẫn đến suy thoái kinh tế toàn cầu tệ hại nhất từ Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ Hai. Trung Quốc, nước nắm giữ dự trữ USD nhiều nhất thế giới, cho rằng đồng tiền tiêu quốc gia như quyền rút tiền đặc biệt của Quỹ tiền tệ quốc tế (IMF) hay còn gọi là SDRs sẽ có thể khiến sự ổn định tăng cao.

Source: Bản tin Thị trường Tiền tệ Ngân hàng Eximbank ngày 14/9/09

(GiaVang.com.vn – Giá vàng Việt Nam và Thế Giới) – Thị trường Mỹ tăng điểm ngày thứ 5 liên tiếp. Dự báo nhu cầu dầu tăng cao khiến cổ phiếu năng lượng tăng điểm. Số người thất nghiệp lần đầu thấp nhất từ tháng 7. Thị trường chứng khoán châu Âu và châu Á phiên ngày hôm qua cũng đồng loạt tăng điểm.

USD đầu ngày thứ sáu rớt xuống mức thấp nhất trong vòng một năm qua  so với rổ tiền tệ sau khi số liệu của Trung Quốc đưa ra tốt hơn dự đoán và tiếp thêm hy vọng về đợt phục hồi kinh tế, khi nhà đầu tư chuyển tiền sang các đồng tiền rủi ro hơn và liên quan đến tăng trưởng.

USD rớt xuống mức thấp nhất trong tháng bảy so với đồng JPY và NZD.

Đồng AUD xoá đi mức giảm đầu phiên và tăng so với USD sau khi số liệu báo cáo cho thấy sản lượng công nghiệp của Trung Quốc tăng trong tháng 8 với tốc độ nhanh nhất trong 1 năm trở lại đây, số liệu công bố tốt hơn so với dự báo và cho thấy sản lượng rõ ràng đang trên đường hồi phục. Các giao dịch viên nói rằng áp lực bán USD trên Thị trường đã mạnh lên do số liệu kinh tế và lợi nhuận doanh nghiệp của Mỹ cải thịên hôm thứ năm, thậm chí trước khi số liệu của Trung Quốc thúc đẩy tâm lý mua tài sản mạo hiểm

Trong phiên giao dịch ngày hôm qua, đã có lúc giá Vàng chạm mức 1.000USD/ounce sau đó giảm xuống và đóng cửa không có nhiều thay đổi so với phiên trước.

Giá dầu thô tăng sau khi Cơ quan năng lượng quốc tế nâng dự báo về nhu cầu dầu thế giới năm 2010 và USD rớt giá so với EUro. IEA dự báo nhu cầu dầu sẽ đứng ở mức trung bình 85,7 triệu thùng/ngày trong năm sau. Mức này như vậy cao hơn 450 nghìn thùng so với dự báo công bố vào tháng 8/2009. Nguyên nhân khác khiến giá dầu tăng là trữ lượng dầu tại Mỹ hạ mạnh hơn dự báo và OPEC không thay đổi sản lượng. Ông Chip Hodge, một chuyên gia về Thị trường năng lượng, nhận xét dự báo của IEA hết sức có yếu tố hỗ trợ cho giá dầu, nhu cầu dầu dẫu sao cũng sẽ tăng bởi mùa đông sắp đến.

Thị trường Mỹ tăng điểm ngày thứ 5 liên tiếp. Dự báo nhu cầu dầu tăng cao khiến cổ phiếu năng lượng tăng điểm. Số người thất nghiệp lần đầu thấp nhất từ tháng 7. thị trường chứng khoán châu Âu và châu Á phiên ngày hôm qua cũng đồng loạt tăng điểm.

Bộ trưởng tài chính Mỹ Timothy Geithner cho biết chính phủ đang bắt đầu rút ra một số biện pháp hỗ trợ thị trường tài chính, ông cảnh báo đà phục hồi sẽ có nhiều thăng trầm. Phát biểu trước Ủy ban giám sát kế hoạch 700 tỷ USD của Quốc hội Mỹ, ông nói: “Chúng ta đã bước vào giai đoạn mới, đã đến lúc rút đi những biện pháp hỗ trợ đã được áp dụng. Chúng ta nên chuyển hướng chiến lược bởi chúng ta đã chuyển từ ứng phó với khủng hoảng sang giai đoạn hồi phục, từ cứu nền kinh tế sang điều chỉnh và xây dựng nền móng tăng trưởng cho tuonwg lai.”

Từ năm ngoái, Bộ tài chính đã đầu tư hơn 200 tỷ USD vào các ngân hàng Mỹ. Tính đến ngày 04/09, Bộ Tài chính đã nhận lại 70,4 tỷ USD. Những ngân hàng đã trả lại tiền cho chính phủ bao gồm Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. và Morgan Stanley. Bộ trưởng Tài chính Mỹ cho biết trong 18 tháng tới, các ngân hàng sẽ trả lại thêm khoảng 50 tỷ USD. Theo ông, một hệ thống ngân hàng với tiềm lực vốn tốt hơn sẽ có khả năng ứng phó tốt hơn với những giai đoạn khó khăn của ngành và nền kinh tế.

Liên hợp quốc cho rằng nên giảm bớt vai trò của USD trong thương mại quốc tế bằng việc đưa ra một đồng tiền quốc tế mới để bảo vệ thị trường các nước mới nổi khỏi ảnh hưởng tiêu cực từ việc đầu cơ tài chính. Báo cáo mới nhất từ Hội thảo về thương mại và Phát triển của UN đồng thuận về mục tiêu những nước thành viên nên lập nên một ngân hàng dự trữ toàn cầu để phát hành và kiểm soát tỷ giá hối đoái tại các nước thành viên. Năm 2009, Trung Quốc, Ấn Độ, Brazil và Nga đã kêu gọi về một đồng tiền thay thế cho USD trong vai trò đồng tiền dự trữ chính của thế giới, khủng hoảng tài chính bắt nguồn từ việc thị trường thế chấp dưới chuẩn Mỹ sụp đổ đã dẫn đến suy thoái kinh tế toàn cầu tệ hại nhất từ Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ Hai. Trung Quốc, nước nắm giữ dự trữ USD nhiều nhất thế giới, cho rằng đồng tiền tiêu quốc gia như quyền rút tiền đặc biệt của Quỹ tiền tệ quốc tế (IMF) hay còn gọi là SDRs sẽ có thể khiến sự ổn định tăng cao.

Source: Bản tin Thị trường Tiền tệ Ngân hàng Eximbank ngày 14/9/09

The International Energy Agency released their latest World Energy Outlook this week. It’s a crucial report, as these are the ones that the US and UK governments, among others, base their energy projections around. Bizarrely, the IEA are the most optimistic of all the energy agencies. While other experts warn and wring their hands over the state of oil reserves, the IEA confidently predicts that we can not only carry on as normal, but actually grown our oil production to 105 million barrels a day by 203o.

Forget peak oil prophets, even oil company CEOs are on record saying the industry will never increase production beyond 100 million barrels a day. Experts poring over the report since its release are baffled. “We find the production outlook made by the IEA to be problematic in the light of historical experience and production patterns” says one expert from the University of Liverpool. “The IEA is expecting the oil to be extracted at a pace never previously seen without any justification for this assumption.” The IEA’s figures seem to be from some fantasy land of infinite oil, which is music to the ears of the oil-addicted US and UK governments.

So do the governments choose to follow the IEA because they say the things we want to hear, or do they say the things we want to hear because they’re the ones the governments listen to? Hard to say, but either way, their reports are deeply compromised.

Earlier this week former IEA staff blew the whistle on the report, saying that the agency was under pressure from the Americans to ignore the issue of depletion. “Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further.”

In other words, the figures are massaged to keep the oil price down. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy – the end of cheap oil will come the moment we recognise it. All it would take is Barack Obama or Gordon Brown to say that peak oil is real and is here, and the oil price goes through the roof within minutes. Since the economy is so linked to the oil price, that would prolong the recession or even send it in to full-blown depression. Do you see the problem here? Depressing isn’t it?

Like debt in the financial system, we’ve managed to create a system that can only run until it breaks. It cannot slow down. The government is unable to take it seriously. The only thing we can do to prepare for peak oil is to prepare ourselves for it as best we can, and our towns and communities.

As you can see in my previous post below, I specifically asked Mr Cronshaw if the IEA would provide some clarification on the alleged differences of opinion regarding achievable oil production targets within the organization. This was his reply:

Again all I can say is we continue to note that to achieve the output levels needed to meet the demand projected we need considerable investment in exploration and development, investment which we see as essential to energy security, and affordable energy, and investment that we are worried is not happening at the pace needed. This has of course got worse since the global recession. We have said this loudly and often, I don’t know how often we can say this. This is not about peak oil, but about investment. We also note that under almost any forseeable scenario, OPEC increases market share and absolute oil output, with consequences for energy security. The reference scenario is unsustainable, in the truest sense of that word.

Ian’s response does not directly address the main issue that I raised. However, reading between the lines he is clearly saying – with an undertone of frustration – that any bickering within the IEA is irrelevant because we are heading for a global crisis of epic magnitude by 2030 as long as investment in exploration and development fails to reach adequate levels. If I understand correctly his emphasis in this context does seem to be on meeting the demand projected rather than a policy of demand destruction, but perhaps that isn’t even relevant here.

Ian’s point that more investment is an absolute requirement and is not happening at the pace needed is absolutely crucial. Why the lack of investment? Investment will only happen if it is profitable to do so. As oil becomes more scarce the price goes up but it also becomes more expensive to recover. The figure to watch out for is the cost of bringing a barrel of oil out of the earth in any specific location. The ratio of the cost of a barrel of oil and the cost of extracting a barrel of oil keeps shifting and investment shifts along with it.

What’s becoming more and more obvious is that our way of life, the economic system, is being exposed at last for what it is – a pyramid scheme. The economic system places the accumulation of private wealth above all other priorities and considerations. This is the glorification and institutionalization of Greed. It has facilitated the vast accumulation of our collective wealth into a small number of hands in no small part through the mass exploitation of fossil fuels and through institutions such as corporations and banks over a relatively short period of time.

In the long run it is profitability that we must question as a form of overriding authority. We do need investment, particularly in development of alternative energies, and it will not in all likelihood be profitable. That which benefits us collectively is seldom profitable. Take the example of schools, national health care and public transportation. If these services are managed properly and treated as services to people rather than businesses for profit then they tend not to profitable. Profit from business benefits the few, public services benefit the many. They are not compatible so long as profit is accumulated privately.

Herein lies the clash between the need to preserve and protect our world – the real world of mankind and the planet we depend on for life – and the need to protect this artificial world of self-motivated proftiteering. This in my opinion is the essence of our time.

Dear Ian,

Thank you for responding. I have read last year’s World Energy Outlook and of course we all agree that drastic action is required across the board both to meet increased fuel consumption and to simultaneously make efforts to reduce it. Your report was not regarded as alarmist by the same media, specifically the Guardian, when it came out last year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/12/oil-gas-companies-credit-crunch

The whistleblowers and other independent researchers (and now a number of MPs here in the UK) are questioning whether the figure of 104 mb/d by 2030, the result of an increase of at least 40-45 mb/d that you cited, is attainable.

The whistleblowers suggest that many inside the IEA believe that we can only feasibly achieve an absolute maximum of 90-95 mb/d. If there is any reasonable doubt about achieving 105 mb/d by 2030 then we need to collectively revise our targets and policies immediately.

Surely of all the decisions in human history this is the one in which we would be wisest to err on the side of caution?

Forgive me for stating the obvious but you are the energy watchdog and your role is extraordinarily pivotal in the world political theatre. My government relies on your assessment to create or adjust energy policy. As a concerned constituent and as a human being I have cause to sound an alarm when I read in a trusted publication that there is disagreement within your organization as to the reliability of your own assessment.

I believe I speak for many when I ask that the IEA publicly address these suspicions as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Seth Mowshowitz

As far as I can tell there hasn’t yet been any public address by the IEA to shed light on the suspected internal disagreement.

I can only assume you have not read last year’s World Energy Outlook. In it we thoroughly analysed depletion rates at existing oil fields, concluding that at least 40-45 mb/d new oil output was needed to 2030, just to offset depletion from existing fields, let alone allow for increasing demand from non OECD countries.  This is four times the output of Saudi Arabia.  At the time we were criticised for being too alarmist, by the same press who write this.

The era of cheap oil is over, we have been saying this for some time.

Climate Change Is Needed Now

The IEA has warned everyone to brace themselves for the biggest energy revolution the world has ever seen.  The economic crises gives us and the electricity suppliers the opportunity to make things right in the world by spearheading  a worldwide low carbon energy surge that will fight global warming and ensure we have enough energy supplies around the globe.

A Very little amount of people actually realize the size of the tasks we face in the next few decades to tackle global warming whilst still supplying the energy that we have become so reliant on over the last 100 years.

The International Energy Agency said:“But it can and must be met,” it said. “The time to act has arrived.”

The reality of the damages that climate change “will” cause is starting to became clear, yet while everyone is making a lot of noises about it and setting targets the question has to be asked: Are we doing enough? We all know the answer to that is no, but countries who laughed at the idea 10 years ago (including the United States of America) are starting to come round and year by year we have more and more countries signing up to agreements to reduce our carbon footprint.

Just next month (December 2009) the landmark international Conference will be held in Copenhagen. The IEA is expected to tell the top 30 industrialized countries that they along with the rest of the planet will face dire consequences if they continue with their current policies on energy and climate change.

Change is needed, and now.

Read and rewritten byGavin Boyd with his own views added.

Original Article

As readers of this blog know, biofuels are part of a set of solutions to address not only global warming to meet a growing demand for energy by developing countries. The Economist reminds of that when it reports:

“Global demand for oil is set to rise from 84.7m barrels per day (bpd) in 2008 to 105m bpd in 2030, says the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its latest annual energy report. Transport will account for 97% of this increase as rising numbers of cars hit the roads of the developing world. And demand from these countries will overtake that of the industrialised OECD nations by 2030. By then, America, Japan and Europe will be using less oil than in 1980. But the thirst for oil will balloon in Asia—and in India and China in particular—where demand is predicted to rise by as much as 400% compared with 2008.”

Un informatore racconta: i dati chiave relativi al petrolio sono stati distorti sotto la pressione degli Stati Uniti.

Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk,
Monday 9 November 2009 21.30 GMT

Secondo un informatore presso l’Agenzia dell’Energia Internazionale (IEA) il mondo è molto più vicino a rimanere senza petrolio rispetto a quello che dicono le stime ufficiali. L’informatore afferma che è stata deliberatamente sottovalutata la carenza di petrolio per paura di scatenare panico sugli acquisti.

L’alto funzionario sostiene che gli Stati Uniti hanno svolto un ruolo influente nel favorire la sottovalutazione del tasso di diminuzione dei giacimenti esistenti, mentre si è esagerato sulle possibilità di trovare nuove riserve di petrolio.

Le accuse sollevano seri interrogativi circa l’esattezza delle ultime stime  dell’organizzazione World Energy Outlook (nrd rapporto redatto annualmente dalla IEA, l’Agenzia Internazionale per l’Energia) sulla domanda e l’offerta di petrolio che sarà pubblicato domani (ndr 10 novembre 2009 scaricabile qui) e che viene utilizzato dal governo britannico e da molti altri governi per dare un indirizzo ai loro consumi di energia e per le loro politiche sui cambiamenti climatici.
In particolare si chiede che la previsione dell’ultimo World Economic Outlook si ripeta anche per quest’anno e che la produzione di petrolio possa essere aumentata dall’attuale livello di 83 milioni di barili al giorno a 105m di barili al giorno. Alcuni critici hanno sostenuto che questo non può essere suffragato da prove certe e dicono che il mondo ha già superato il picco della produzione petrolifera.

Ora la teoria del “picco del petrolio” sta guadagnando il sostegno delle istituzioni dell’energia globali. “L‘IEA (Agenzia Internazionale dell’Energia) nel 2005 ha predetto che le forniture di petrolio sarebbero potute aumentare ad oltre 120 milioni di barili al giorno entro il 2030, anche se l’anno scorso (2008) è stata costretta a ridurre gradualmente questa previsione prima a 116 milioni poi a 105 milioni”, ha detto la fonte IEA, che non ha voluto essere identificato per timore di rappresaglie all’interno della sua compagnia. “La previsione di 120 milioni di barili era una sciocchezza, ma anche il numero di oggi è troppo alto da poter essere giustificato dalla IEA”.

“Molti all’interno dell’organizzazione credono che mantenere le forniture di petrolio tra i 90 e i 95 milioni di barili al giorno sarebbe impossibile, ma si teme che possa diffondersi il panico sui mercati finanziari se le cifre fossero ulteriormente ridotte. Gli americani temono la fine della supremazia del petrolio perché metterebbe in pericolo il loro potere sull’accesso alle risorse”, ha aggiunto la fonte.
Una seconda fonte IEA (senior), che era anche disposta a dare il proprio nome, ha detto che una regola fondamentale presso l’organizzazione era che fosse “indispensabile non fare arrabbiare gli americani”, ma il fatto è che non c’era abbastanza petrolio nel mondo come era stato detto. “Siamo [già] entrati nella zona del ‘picco del petrolio’. Credo che la situazione sia davvero critica”, ha aggiunto.
L’IEA riconosce l’importanza dei suoi stessi dati, che vanta sul suo sito: “I governi IEA e l’industrie di tutto il mondo si affidano al World Energy Outlook per avere una base coerente su cui si possano formulare politiche e piani di attività di progettazione “.
Il governo britannico, tra le altre, usa sempre le statistiche IEA piuttosto che le proprie per sostenere che non vi è minaccia per le forniture di petrolio a lungo termine.

L’IEA ha detto stasera che i critici del picco del petrolio avevano spesso erroneamente messo in dubbio l’esattezza delle sue stime. Un portavoce ha detto che non era in grado di pronunciarsi in anticipo sul rapporto 2009 che sarebbe stato rilasciato domani.

John Hemming, il deputato che presiede il gruppo parlamentare All-Party sul picco del petrolio e del gas, ha detto che le rivelazioni hanno confermato i suoi sospetti e che l’IEA ha minimizzato che il mondo sta esaurendo rapidamente il petrolio e questo ha profonde implicazioni sulla politica energetica del governo britannico.
Ha aggiunto che era anche stato contattato da alcuni funzionari IEA non contenti del suo indipendente scetticismo sulle previsioni. “Il ricorso ai rapporti dell’IEA è stato usato per giustificare chi sostiene che le forniture di petrolio e gas non raggiungeranno il picco prima del 2030. E’ chiaro ora che questo non è vero e le stime IEA non possono essere invocate a sostegno”, ha detto Hemming.
“Tutto questo dà un peso ai colloqui di Copenaghen [cambiamento climatico] e un urgente necessità per il Regno Unito ad accelerare il passo verso un futuro con una economia più sostenibile [basso tenore di carbone] se si vogliono evitare gravi perturbazioni economiche”, ha aggiunto.

L’IEA è stato istituito nel 1974 dopo la crisi petrolifera nel tentativo di cercare di assicurare l’approvvigionamento energetico in occidente. Il World Energy Outlook viene prodotta ogni anno sotto il controllo del capo economista dell’IEA, Fatih Birol, che ha difeso le proiezioni da precedenti attacchi esterni. Alcuni critici spesso, sul picco del petrolio, hanno messo in dubbio i dati IEA. Ma ora fonti IEA, che hanno contattato il Guardian, dicono che Birol ha sempre più tenuto testa a domande sulle stime all’interno dell’organizzazione.

Matt Simmons, uno stimato esperto dell’industria petrolifera, ha da tempo messo in discussione i tassi di declino del petrolio e le statistiche fornite da Arabia Saudita per i suoi giacimenti. Ha sollevato interrogativi sul fatto che il picco del petrolio è molto più vicino di quanto molti hanno accettato.
Il mese scorso il rapporto Britannico “Energy Research Centre” (UKERC) diceva che il picco della produzione mondiale dell’estrazione di petrolio convenzionale potrebbe andare in declino prima del 2020 – ma che il governo non ha fronteggiato il rischio. Steve Sorrell, principale autore del rapporto, ha detto che le previsioni suggeriscono che il picco della produzione di petrolio non avverrà prima del 2030 “nella migliore delle ipotesi ottimistica e nella peggiore delle ipotesi plausibili”.

Ma già nel 2004 ci sono state persone che davano avvertimenti. Colin Campbell, un ex dirigente della francese Total ha detto in una conferenza: “Se il vere stime  [sulla riserva di petrolio] dovessero venir fuori ci sarebbe il panico sui mercati azionari … ciò alla fine non soddisferebbe nessuno”.

Peak oil international energy agenc (The Guardian)

Homepage World Energy Outlook (IEA)

Scarica il rapporto WEO del 2009

Metteri i miei soldi sul sole e sull’energia solare. Che fonte di energia! Mi auguro che non ci sia bisogno di aspettare fino all’esaurimento del petrolio e del carbone per affrontare il problema.
- Thomas Edison, 1931

“Non siamo bravi a riconoscere le minacce lontane, anche se la loro probabilità è del 100%. La società che ignora [il picco del petrolio] è come la popolazione di Pompei che ha ignorato le avvisaglie del Vesuvio”.
- James Schlesinger, ex Segretario Usa all’Energia

“[La relazione 'World Energy Outlook 2006'] rivela che il futuro energetico in cui ci troviamo di fronte oggi, basato su proiezioni delle tendenze attuali, è grossolano, insicuro e costoso”.
- Claude Mandil, direttore esecutivo dell’Agenzia Internazionale dell’Energia

“Il vero problema è che noi usiamo troppo petrolio. E’ così semplice e così difficile. Se vogliamo davvero ridurre la nostra vulnerabilità per l’aumento dei prezzi il modo migliore per farlo è quello di ridurre il consumo.”
- Richard Heinberg, autore di Peak Everything

Quotes

http://wp.me/plKDA-uh

I’ve taken lately to supplementing my reading of U.S. news with British news.  I like the different point of view, and I find it very interesting that some stories that can hit big in Britain never really seem to get picked up here.    Like this article at the Guardian on how the U.S.  has been pressuring the International Energy Agency to keep its figures of how much oil there is left artificially high.

What's our kids' energy future?

From the article, one senior official at the IEA said ‘a key rule at the organisation was that it was “imperative not to anger the Americans” but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. “We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad,” he added.’

There are a couple of things about this article that I think don’t bode well for our kids.  First, of course, peak oil, but that’s a topic for hundreds of posts.  Suffice it to say that our kids will need to learn to live in a lower-energy world, and that this lower-energy world is coming soon.

There’s a second thing about this article that doesn’t bode well for our kids.   We, and by extension, the next generation, need truthful numbers to best plan our future by.  If we can’t believe what major government officials and international agencies are telling us, it first undermines our faith in our country and in our world institutions.  It also undermines our ability to be able to handle upcoming problems if we aren’t told the truth about those problems.  So if our country is pressuring international agencies to overinflate how much oil is left, that begs the question of why?  And what kind of example is our country setting for our kids?  “Yes, wee lads and lassies, it’s important to always tell the truth.  Unless you are a major powerful government.”

Hmm… What do you think?

While some local IEA leaders seem vague about what stand our union should take on linking teacher salary compensation to student performance on test scores, the NEA is much sharper.

Says the NEA:

Legislators and elected officials are answering that charge and considering using student performance as a criterion in setting teacher pay. But such a move comes with serious, potential pitfalls. For example, when pay raises are based on student test scores, you’re only measuring a narrow piece of the teacher’s work. In addition, such plans can pit employee against employee, especially when there’s a quota for merit increases. What happens to teachers who do not teach tested subjects? How are they rewarded?

There are other potential problems with alternative compensation systems. Any educator whose district is considering or bargaining such a system, needs to ask these questions:

Is there adequate funding for the new pay system and is it sustainable?
Is it easily understood and transparent?
Are evaluations subjective or objective?
Have administrative and implementation costs been considered?
Are the sizes of incentives large enough to change behavior?

“We all must be wary of any system that creates a climate where students are viewed as part of the pay equation, rather than young people who deserve a high quality education that prepares them for their future,” says Bill Raabe, NEA’s director of Collective Bargaining and Member Benefits. “We can all do a better job of linking quality professional development and career opportunities directly to the pay system.”

Maybe IEA didn’t get the memo.