Chart of the Day (Oil Edition)

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 12:55 PM EST

CHART OF THE DAY (OIL EDITION)....The International Energy Administration has released its latest projections for oil production over the next couple of decades. They report that the average annual decline in existing oil fields will accelerate to about 8.6%, a very high number, but that overall production will continue to increase anyway. No peak oil for these guys! — but only if we invest $13 trillion in drilling and exploration infrastructure between now and 2030, mostly in OPEC countries.

I have my doubts about that, but I really have my doubts about this:

These projections are based on the assumption that the IEA crude oil import price averages $100 per barrel (in real year-2007 dollars) over the period 2008-2015, rising to over $120 in 2030....In nominal terms, prices double to just over $200 per barrel in 2030.

I know that oil fell below $60 yesterday, but I'm still willing to take on all comers on a bet that oil will be selling for only $200 per barrel in 2030. I just don't believe that. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if oil were selling for $1000 per barrel by then.

In any case, this report, which is paired up with another report about carbon emissions, makes our choice stark. We can invest many trillions of dollars in oil infrastructure, which might keep oil prices relatively low and greenhouse emissions high, or we can do the opposite: allow oil prices to rise, thus reducing demand, and spend trillions of dollars on green power generation instead. The IEA's preference seems to be for both, somehow, which must mean I'm misreading something. I'll try to give the report a more careful read later. In any case, their estimate is that a global program to limit CO2 to 450 ppm would cost a bit less than 1% of world GDP, which includes a cap-and-trade system that sets a price of $180 per ton of CO2. If that's really true, then hallelujah. That's really not such a big number. But as they say, "Time is running out and the time to act is now."

UPDATE: A correspondent emails to point out that in 2004 IEA projected oil demand in 2030 of 121 million bpd, in 2005 lowered that to 115 million bpd, and this year lowered it again to 106 million bpd. Likewise, in 2005 their projection for oil prices was $65 per barrel in 2030. Today it's $200.

Those are huge changes. Like my correspondent, I don't think IEA has fully faced reality yet, but they're getting there.

Advertise on

Application for Bailout Funds Now Available Online - Go Get Some!

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 12:40 PM EST

The Treasury Department is all about efficiency these days. The original bailout plan that Secretary Paulson proposed, which has been quietly dumped, was just three pages. I guess it's no surprise, then, that the application to get some sweet, sweet bailout bucks from the TARP Capital Purchase Program is just two pages. No joke, Taxpayers for Common Sense actually got a hold of the thing. If you're interested in landing a spare billion, give it a shot. It won't take you more than five minutes.

Wasn't one factor in the housing crisis the fact that lenders gave home loans to people without checking credit and obtaining documentation of assets, salary, and other signs of financial health? And yet you get piles of cash from the Treasury with less paperwork than what goes into car loans, student loans, and most credit cards?

Was Obama Economic Envoy Part of the Problem?

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 12:17 PM EST

The Obama transition office announced on Wednesday that the president-elect will send two representatives to meet with delegates attending the G-20 economic summit being held this weekend: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a Democrat, and former Congressman Jim Leach, a Republican. The pair, according to a press release, will hold "unofficial meetings to seek input from visiting delegations on behalf of the President-elect and Vice President-elect." Afterward, Albright and Leach will brief Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Leach is both a curious and obvious choice. First, the obvious: he's a Republican who led the Republicans for Obama effort during the presidential campaign. By calling on Leach, who had a long career in the House as a liberal GOPer, Obama can show he does believe in bipartisanship. Now the curious: during part of his stint in Congress, Leach chaired the House banking committee and shared responsibility for passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation, which broke down the wall between commercial banks and investment banking.

Since the current Wall Street collapse began, policy wonks have debated whether this 1999 law led to the present troubles. But let's look at an Obama campaign statement released last March (when he gave a speech on financial regulation) that referred to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act:

Instead of finding the right level of government oversight in a vibrant free market, we've let the special interests set the agenda. Changes in the financial landscape, driven by technology and globalization, made the 1930's era Glass-Steagall Act--the New Deal era law that required that investment banking be kept separate from commercial banking--increasingly inefficient. While reform was desirable, the banking, insurance and securities industries spent over $300 million lobbying Congress to shape that reform to meet their own interests. In the two years before Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, financial service industries gave $58 million to congressional campaigns; $87 million to political parties; and spent $163 million lobbying Washington. But though the regulatory structure was outdated, the need for oversight was not. Unfortunately, in the rush to repeal the law to create immediate opportunities for certain Wall Street firms, little effort went into modernizing the government's supervision of the financial industry--to guard against the potential for conflicts of interest, to insist on transparency, or to ensure proper oversight of new and complex financial products or the dramatic rise of investment banks and non-bank financial institutions, like hedge funds and Structured Investment Vehicles. Nearly a decade later, our financial markets--and everyday Americans--are paying the price.

Paying the price--for a bill that Leach helped to usher through Congress. That's a tough critique.

Rumors and Reports of Rumors

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 12:05 PM EST

RUMORS AND REPORTS OF RUMORS....I'm a little torn about whether I should blog more about transition scuttlebutt. On the one hand, this stuff matters a lot for the future course of the administration. If Robert Gates is Secretary of Defense or Tom Vilsack is Secretary of Agriculture, that says a lot about the tone and direction of Obama administration policy.

On the other hand, I'd guess that about 99% of these rumors are completely bogus, just random guesses from people with only a tenuous connection to the transition team. In that sense, reacting to the rumors is just dumb. It's the kind of thing that makes us all stupider, not better informed.

Still, chatting about who might go where, and what it all means, isn't such a bad conversation to have, even if the spark is sort of random and poorly sourced. So I dunno. What do you all think of the possibility of Gates staying on as SecDef or Vilsack being appointed Secretary of Agriculture?

TARP is Dead, Long Live TARP

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 11:15 AM EST

TARP IS DEAD, LONG LIVE TARP....Henry Paulson has apparently given up completely on buying up troubled assets, the original rationale for the $700 billion bailout fund, and instead wants to inject yet more capital into the banking system and expand the bailout program to other sectors:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said he wants to expand the government's $700 billion bailout program to include credit card, student loan and car loan companies, part of an effort to ensure that households and businesses have access to a broad array of borrowing options.

...."This market, which is vital for lending and growth, has for all practical purposes ground to a halt," Paulson said.

But has this market ground to a halt because of capital losses among the lenders, or has it ground to a halt because there's no demand for new loans among consumers? If it's the latter, all the capital injections in the world won't make any difference.

Treasury: We Can Haz Do-Over?

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 9:59 AM EST

The Treasury Department will not buy any troubled assets from banks as part of the bailout, according to the Wall Street Journal, thus negating the central premise behind Secretary Paulson's original rescue plan for Wall Street. It's almost as if Paulson was unprepared for the crisis and that his three-page plan put forward to Congress wasn't particularly well thought out. Who would have expected incompetence from the Bush Administration?

Advertise on

What Color is the Sky in Red Republican World?

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 8:38 AM EST

Less than a week after Obama's win, the unreconstructed were already out to play in this new, racism-free world of which that victory is undeniable proof. Don't believe me? Well, believe George (there he goes again) Will: "...the election of Barack Obama is an American majority's self-emancipation: We are free at last from the inexpressible tedium of the preoccupation with skin pigmentation."


This from those who were so preoccupied with race as to take the time to "scientifically" coin and enforce categories like mulatto, quadroon, and octaroon? To individually mark a huge nation's water fountains, doorways and, like, entire parts of town 'Colored' and 'Whites Only.' To sail for months to a specific continent for specifically pigmented people to pick their cotton, whip, and rape. Oh well. I guess 'preoccupation' is in the squinted eye of the beholder. Mr. Will: I know it's a waste of both your time and mine to say this, but we're only preoccupied with race because our lives revolve around your preoccupation with it. Being white and decrying non-whites 'preoccupation with pigment' is like thieves decrying non-thieves preoccupation with locking their doors.

Wearily predictable and annoying as this is, the nerd in me finds it best to spend her time wondering about the following minutiae.

Chart of the Day - 11.12.2008

| Wed Nov. 12, 2008 1:27 AM EST

CHART OF THE DAY....According to a new CNN poll, 59% of the public thinks one-party rule by the Democrats is a dandy idea. Furthermore, 62% have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, vs. 38% for the Republican Party. "When has the Republican Party image ever been that bad?" asks CNN political analyst Bill Schneider. "Answer: when the Republican Congress impeached President Clinton at the end of 1998."

Pesticide Cocktails Kill At "Safe" Doses

| Tue Nov. 11, 2008 8:47 PM EST

591px-Rana_sphenocephala.jpg Combinations of ten of the world's most popular pesticides decimate amphibian populations even if the concentrations are within EPA safe limits for each chemical individually. These supposedly safe low-dose cocktails kill 99 percent of leopard frog tadpoles. One pesticide alone—endosulfan, a neurotoxin banned in several nations but still used extensively in US agriculture—killed 84 percent of the leopard frogs all on its own.

Obviously we can't get a new EPA chief fast enough.

Biologist Rick Relyea at the U of Pittsburgh exposed gray tree frog and leopard frog tadpoles to small amounts of the 10 most widely used pesticides on Earth. He chose five insecticides (carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, endosulfan, and malathion) and five herbicides (acetochlor, atrazine, glyphosate, metolachlor, and 2,4-D). He then administered: each of the pesticides alone, all the insecticides combined, a mix of the five herbicides, or all 10 of the poisons.

West Coast Offense

| Tue Nov. 11, 2008 5:49 PM EST

WEST COAST OFFENSE....Adam Serwer writes today about the pros and cons of class-based affirmative action (vs. race/gender-based AA), and Atrios offers some advice:

If, say, a left of center magazine or some other Washington institution wanted to engage in a bit of class-based affirmative action, I have a fairly simple suggestion. Just make sure you reach out beyond elite schools. I've attended and taught at a variety of institutions, and some excellent students can be found most places. And while I don't know the hiring practices of random left of center magazines, or for Congressional staffs, or for the Washington Post, it wouldn't surprise me if first round resume weeding is frequently done based on the college the applicants attended.

I'll second that. Sure, the East Coast centrism of opinion magazines is easy to understand, since they're almost all based on the East Coast. But while I can't say for sure that things haven't changed recently, a few years ago I was noodling around on this subject and was astonished at the hegemony of the Ivy League in the mastheads of most progressive magazines. I expected it to be heavy, but my recollection is that my (admittedly unscientific) sample was something like three-quarters Ivy League. Considering the number of top notch universities elsewhere in the country, that's pretty hard to defend.

So yeah: recruit on the West Coast. Lots of smart liberals out here! And at public universities, which might produce a wider range of sensibilities. It's true that East Coast weather sucks and us Californians are more than a little crybabyish about snow and sleet and whatnot, but Ezra Klein managed to make the transition. I'll bet plenty of others can too.

UPDATE: But not just California! Recruit from all the other states too!