Rattled investors respond to woes of housing sector
Stock markets plunged yesterday as the deepening subprime mortgage crisis and a disappointing US retail sales report magnified fears that US consumers may finally have hit the wall. In the latest sign of trouble for the shaky housing market, the Mortgage Bankers Association said delinquencies among subprime borrowers - those with rocky or no credit histories - climbed to 13.33% in the fourth quarter from 12.56% in the previous three months. The report, which also showed foreclosures at a record 0.54% of all homes, came on the heels of an anemic 0.1% increase in February retail sales - half the gain that was expected. Excluding sales of cars and gasoline, retail sales fell 0.3%, the biggest drop in nearly three years. “We saw mortgage delinquencies were up and on top of that retail sales were light. When you put it together, the market starts to wonder about the strength of the consumer,” said Jay Susskind, director of trading at Ryan Beck in Florham Park, NJ. “There's real concern over . . . how strong the housing market is going to come back, if at all, and how much more trouble is out there that Wall Street hasn't seen yet.” If yesterday's rout on stock markets is any indication, the answer may be plenty. The Dow Jones industrial average plummeted 242.66 points, or 2%, to 12,075.96 as all but one of its 30 members declined, underscoring the extent of investors' anxiety. With worries mounting about the staying power of the US economy, Canada's stock market also got hammered. The benchmark S&P/TSX composite index fell 255.55 points, or 2%, to 12,809.6. Chyanne Fickes, a portfolio manager with Stone Asset Management in Toronto thinks the US economy is probably a lot more vulnerable than people thought. She is less concerned about the Canadian economy, however, because mortgage lending - even of the subprime variety - is more conservative here. As well, Canada's strong resource sector, expanding trade with Asia and fiscal prudence - both on a government and personal level - should work in this country's favour, she said.
(Globe and Mail 070314)
A growing number of analysts and economists have been touting online that only the tip of the iceberg of the subprime mortgage debacle in the U.S. is visible today. Some predict this could get much, much worse, and possibly even trigger more economic woes later in 2007.
14 March 2007
13 March 2007
Delusional Emissions
We'll never get to Kyoto by transit
Opinion - Wendell Cox, a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, says there is a popular perception that transit is an important strategy for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, in the expectation that drivers will abandon their cars en mass. Thus, the Association of Canadian Municipalities and big city mayors have called for a national transit program. However, things are not that simple. Predominant views do not establish reality and the mayors' program is a prime example. If every car were to be retired, the nation would fall far short of achieving its Kyoto Accord greenhouse-gas reduction objectives. More importantly, there is little potential for transit to replace automobile travel. Automobiles increased affluence by increasing exponentially the jobs, shopping and other destinations that can be reached in a fixed period of time. The irony is that, in the modern, sprawling urban area, traffic congestion is less intense than in the more dense urban areas, because traffic is diluted. For example, in the New York area, the most sprawling urban area in the world, work-trip travel times are the shortest to jobs in the outer suburbs and the longest to jobs in the core, despite its being served by one of the best transit systems in the world. Remy Prud'homme and Chong Wong Lee of the University of Paris have shown the substantial economic growth gains that occur when people can reach more jobs in a fixed period of time.
To replace automobile travel with transit would require automobile-competitive transit systems -- service that is as fast and convenient as the car. Transit is automobile competitive for some trips to the largest downtown areas, such as Tokyo, New York, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and works very well in these locations. But large downtown areas are geographically small and generally represent less than 20% of metropolitan employment. For example, in the US, Bureau of the Census data indicates that nearly one-half of all transit commuting is to downtown areas, which represent less than 0.1% of the urban (developed) land area. Transit service is woefully slow and often not even available to other destinations. Transit travel takes too long. Statistics Canada data indicates that worktrip travel by transit is 80% longer than by car. This means people have less time and, indeed, were they to switch to transit, the economy would be less productive. It might be argued that the answer is more transit service. This is infeasible. In most urban areas, the required automobile-competitive systems would cost more annually than the gross income of the entire population.
It is thus not surprising that there are virtually no proposals (much less serious plans) anywhere in the world to establish the automobile-competitive transit systems that would be required to attract significant numbers of drivers from their cars. It is also why there have been no successes in attracting material numbers of drivers from their cars anywhere in the world. The reason is simple. For the most part, transit does not go to where people need to go from where their trips begin. And it cannot for a price that can be afforded. The mayors' national transit program would be costly and ineffective, because money from afar is simply not used as carefully as local taxes. European nations have devolved transit funding and programs back to the local level, principally for this reason. Again, the national transit program model is the United States, where costs have quadrupled relative inflation. Canada can expect the same result: a lot more expenditure and little more service. The first step in reducing greenhouse- gas emissions with transit would be less hot air and more reality from its naive advocates, with their hopeless proposals.
(National Post 070313)
Sure, the options aren't perfect, but it's almost like everyone is scared to talk about the big elephant in the room...that dealing with lowering CO2 emissions might just possibly require a hit to the economy. I know, b'gosh and b'gorrah - it might actually happen! Nobody said cleaning up this mess was going to be easy or pleasant. This still appears to be quite an unconscionable idea for The Powers That Be. Who'd want to be the messenger to deliver that good news to the sheepling public? The public has been coddled so long with happy thoughts and a challenge-less existence, this would be bordering on heresy.
"How dare they expect me to live with less? Those economists and politicians told us that everything would forever grow and be forever good! Off with their heads!"
I do believe that economic stimulation will be created by the implementation of alternative energies and control technologies, but we have to start somewhere and we have to start now. People can bitch and moan all they want that this solution or that solution won't work or will be a hit to the economy. They can't associate that the health and sustainability of our environment, atmosphere and resources IS the basis of our economy. The sooner we realize that you can't look at all these factors in isolation from each other, the sooner we'll realize that we most likely will have to make concessions for the sake of the planet.
$12 billion greenhouse gas emissions trading market in Canada: report
CIBC World Markets foresees an inter-provincial market in greenhouse gas emission credits that could be worth as much as $12 billion annually. The new study predicts that the economies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick would be big buyers of emissions credits, with provinces that generate most of their electricity with hydro-electric power, such as British Columbia, being likely sellers. The report notes that BC has driven 10% of emissions growth in the country since 1990 but is the third lowest province in emissions per unit of real GDP. Saskatchewan and Alberta account for 60% of national GHG emissions growth while representing less than 15% of the country's population. Relative to GDP, the two provinces are the most emissions- intensive in the country. The report finds that electricity generation is often the single most important determinant of a province's potential exposure to carbon emission costs. Coal-fired generation is the chief offender, emitting roughly twice the GHG emissions per unit of power produced than gas-powered plants. Gas-plants themselves are relatively heavy emitters when compared to effectively emissions- free sources of electricity like hydro and nuclear. Given that BC and the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland & Labrador all rely heavily on emissions-free hydro power, they are less exposed to carbon costs. On the other end of the spectrum are Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia who rely on coal for at least 60% of their electricity needs.
The oil and gas industry is also a large contributor to GHG emissions. Since 1990, the growth in oil and gas emissions has exceeded 50%, easily twice as brisk as growth from remaining GHG sources combined. The carbon profile of Canada's oil industry will worsen materially in the next decade as oil sands production rapidly eclipses conventional oil production. Due mainly to heating requirements, producing a barrel of synthetic oil from the oil sands generates three times as much GHG emissions as an equivalent amount of conventional crude. Alberta already accounts for roughly two-thirds of direct emissions from fossil fuel industries, and that figure will rise meaningfully given the planned doubling or even tripling in oil sands production over the next decade. "The regional disparities in emissions growth could lead to some pretty hefty inter-provincial flows of emissions credits under any future cap and trade system established along the lines currently being implemented by a growing number of US states," notes the report. "It remains to be seen how a cap and trade system would be implemented in Canada - or how much of that $12 billion in emissions credits would be traded across provincial borders," adds the report. "But with an already-skewed distribution of GHG emissions looking to become even more unbalanced in coming years, it's easy to envision a healthy inter-provincial trade in carbon permits. "Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick could be the biggest buyers of emissions credits, with the Manitoba and Québec economies the most obvious sellers, given their already low emissions intensity and planned expansion of emission-free electricity generation."
(Canada News-Wire 070313)
I don't see emissions trading as solving much of anything since it only shifts the true costs of emissions from those that have the money to afford to buy the credits to those already-proven, lighter-emission energy generators, yet the high emitters might still be the biggest contributors and this program simply may not give them enough incentive to clean up their own acts quickly enough. It will keep the economists and politicians happier than if there weren't any of this sort of thing going on at all. WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE ECONOMISTS ANYWAYS? Despite the fact that they are wrong most of the time (foretelling the future? Puh-leaze...infinite growth in a finite system. Give me a break...), they're largely responsible for the plans and designs that got us into this fucking mess in the first place.
Opinion - Wendell Cox, a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, says there is a popular perception that transit is an important strategy for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, in the expectation that drivers will abandon their cars en mass. Thus, the Association of Canadian Municipalities and big city mayors have called for a national transit program. However, things are not that simple. Predominant views do not establish reality and the mayors' program is a prime example. If every car were to be retired, the nation would fall far short of achieving its Kyoto Accord greenhouse-gas reduction objectives. More importantly, there is little potential for transit to replace automobile travel. Automobiles increased affluence by increasing exponentially the jobs, shopping and other destinations that can be reached in a fixed period of time. The irony is that, in the modern, sprawling urban area, traffic congestion is less intense than in the more dense urban areas, because traffic is diluted. For example, in the New York area, the most sprawling urban area in the world, work-trip travel times are the shortest to jobs in the outer suburbs and the longest to jobs in the core, despite its being served by one of the best transit systems in the world. Remy Prud'homme and Chong Wong Lee of the University of Paris have shown the substantial economic growth gains that occur when people can reach more jobs in a fixed period of time.
To replace automobile travel with transit would require automobile-competitive transit systems -- service that is as fast and convenient as the car. Transit is automobile competitive for some trips to the largest downtown areas, such as Tokyo, New York, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and works very well in these locations. But large downtown areas are geographically small and generally represent less than 20% of metropolitan employment. For example, in the US, Bureau of the Census data indicates that nearly one-half of all transit commuting is to downtown areas, which represent less than 0.1% of the urban (developed) land area. Transit service is woefully slow and often not even available to other destinations. Transit travel takes too long. Statistics Canada data indicates that worktrip travel by transit is 80% longer than by car. This means people have less time and, indeed, were they to switch to transit, the economy would be less productive. It might be argued that the answer is more transit service. This is infeasible. In most urban areas, the required automobile-competitive systems would cost more annually than the gross income of the entire population.
It is thus not surprising that there are virtually no proposals (much less serious plans) anywhere in the world to establish the automobile-competitive transit systems that would be required to attract significant numbers of drivers from their cars. It is also why there have been no successes in attracting material numbers of drivers from their cars anywhere in the world. The reason is simple. For the most part, transit does not go to where people need to go from where their trips begin. And it cannot for a price that can be afforded. The mayors' national transit program would be costly and ineffective, because money from afar is simply not used as carefully as local taxes. European nations have devolved transit funding and programs back to the local level, principally for this reason. Again, the national transit program model is the United States, where costs have quadrupled relative inflation. Canada can expect the same result: a lot more expenditure and little more service. The first step in reducing greenhouse- gas emissions with transit would be less hot air and more reality from its naive advocates, with their hopeless proposals.
(National Post 070313)
Sure, the options aren't perfect, but it's almost like everyone is scared to talk about the big elephant in the room...that dealing with lowering CO2 emissions might just possibly require a hit to the economy. I know, b'gosh and b'gorrah - it might actually happen! Nobody said cleaning up this mess was going to be easy or pleasant. This still appears to be quite an unconscionable idea for The Powers That Be. Who'd want to be the messenger to deliver that good news to the sheepling public? The public has been coddled so long with happy thoughts and a challenge-less existence, this would be bordering on heresy.
"How dare they expect me to live with less? Those economists and politicians told us that everything would forever grow and be forever good! Off with their heads!"
I do believe that economic stimulation will be created by the implementation of alternative energies and control technologies, but we have to start somewhere and we have to start now. People can bitch and moan all they want that this solution or that solution won't work or will be a hit to the economy. They can't associate that the health and sustainability of our environment, atmosphere and resources IS the basis of our economy. The sooner we realize that you can't look at all these factors in isolation from each other, the sooner we'll realize that we most likely will have to make concessions for the sake of the planet.
$12 billion greenhouse gas emissions trading market in Canada: report
CIBC World Markets foresees an inter-provincial market in greenhouse gas emission credits that could be worth as much as $12 billion annually. The new study predicts that the economies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick would be big buyers of emissions credits, with provinces that generate most of their electricity with hydro-electric power, such as British Columbia, being likely sellers. The report notes that BC has driven 10% of emissions growth in the country since 1990 but is the third lowest province in emissions per unit of real GDP. Saskatchewan and Alberta account for 60% of national GHG emissions growth while representing less than 15% of the country's population. Relative to GDP, the two provinces are the most emissions- intensive in the country. The report finds that electricity generation is often the single most important determinant of a province's potential exposure to carbon emission costs. Coal-fired generation is the chief offender, emitting roughly twice the GHG emissions per unit of power produced than gas-powered plants. Gas-plants themselves are relatively heavy emitters when compared to effectively emissions- free sources of electricity like hydro and nuclear. Given that BC and the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland & Labrador all rely heavily on emissions-free hydro power, they are less exposed to carbon costs. On the other end of the spectrum are Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia who rely on coal for at least 60% of their electricity needs.
The oil and gas industry is also a large contributor to GHG emissions. Since 1990, the growth in oil and gas emissions has exceeded 50%, easily twice as brisk as growth from remaining GHG sources combined. The carbon profile of Canada's oil industry will worsen materially in the next decade as oil sands production rapidly eclipses conventional oil production. Due mainly to heating requirements, producing a barrel of synthetic oil from the oil sands generates three times as much GHG emissions as an equivalent amount of conventional crude. Alberta already accounts for roughly two-thirds of direct emissions from fossil fuel industries, and that figure will rise meaningfully given the planned doubling or even tripling in oil sands production over the next decade. "The regional disparities in emissions growth could lead to some pretty hefty inter-provincial flows of emissions credits under any future cap and trade system established along the lines currently being implemented by a growing number of US states," notes the report. "It remains to be seen how a cap and trade system would be implemented in Canada - or how much of that $12 billion in emissions credits would be traded across provincial borders," adds the report. "But with an already-skewed distribution of GHG emissions looking to become even more unbalanced in coming years, it's easy to envision a healthy inter-provincial trade in carbon permits. "Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick could be the biggest buyers of emissions credits, with the Manitoba and Québec economies the most obvious sellers, given their already low emissions intensity and planned expansion of emission-free electricity generation."
(Canada News-Wire 070313)
I don't see emissions trading as solving much of anything since it only shifts the true costs of emissions from those that have the money to afford to buy the credits to those already-proven, lighter-emission energy generators, yet the high emitters might still be the biggest contributors and this program simply may not give them enough incentive to clean up their own acts quickly enough. It will keep the economists and politicians happier than if there weren't any of this sort of thing going on at all. WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE ECONOMISTS ANYWAYS? Despite the fact that they are wrong most of the time (foretelling the future? Puh-leaze...infinite growth in a finite system. Give me a break...), they're largely responsible for the plans and designs that got us into this fucking mess in the first place.
12 March 2007
08 March 2007
Take that!
Carbon tax would ease pollution
Bay Street is weighing in on how Canada should protect the environment, and one of its top economists believes a well-designed carbon tax is at the heart of a comprehensive solution. Reducing greenhouse gases will require radical changes in the way the economy works, says Don Drummond, chief economist of Toronto-Dominion Bank, but costs to the economy can be mitigated if governments use market-friendly solutions to control emissions. “Pollution must have a price tag,” says his report released yesterday, as Ottawa wrestles with the best way to approach global warming. “Currently it is too cheap to pollute, and too expensive not to.” He wants to see “a taxman dressed in green” - taxes levied not just on oil companies (in the traditional sense of a carbon tax), but on any firm or consumer that produces pollution. Such a tax system would mean that any industries that emit pollution during production would pay a tax, but so would people who drive cars or use refined oil to heat their homes. Such a tax system would go a long way toward putting a price on pollution, and would force companies and consumers alike to account for environmental degradation every time they make a spending decision, Drummond argues. The revenue gained from such tax measures should then be “shifted” to cutting taxes in other areas, or used as subsidies that help the environment.
(Globe and Mail 070308)
Finally, a good idea! It's been completely unfair that Eastern Canada has been wagging their finger at Alberta over their GHG emissions while they continue to suck the oil into their industries and vehicles as quickly as they can -- like being the producer of the product in demand is any worse than being the ultimate consumer. A tax structure like this will certainly help to get everyone culpable for the problem paying their fair share for what they contribute. I'd like to see them model a tax structure much the same way as Paul Hawken suggested in "The Ecology of Commerce".
Bay Street is weighing in on how Canada should protect the environment, and one of its top economists believes a well-designed carbon tax is at the heart of a comprehensive solution. Reducing greenhouse gases will require radical changes in the way the economy works, says Don Drummond, chief economist of Toronto-Dominion Bank, but costs to the economy can be mitigated if governments use market-friendly solutions to control emissions. “Pollution must have a price tag,” says his report released yesterday, as Ottawa wrestles with the best way to approach global warming. “Currently it is too cheap to pollute, and too expensive not to.” He wants to see “a taxman dressed in green” - taxes levied not just on oil companies (in the traditional sense of a carbon tax), but on any firm or consumer that produces pollution. Such a tax system would mean that any industries that emit pollution during production would pay a tax, but so would people who drive cars or use refined oil to heat their homes. Such a tax system would go a long way toward putting a price on pollution, and would force companies and consumers alike to account for environmental degradation every time they make a spending decision, Drummond argues. The revenue gained from such tax measures should then be “shifted” to cutting taxes in other areas, or used as subsidies that help the environment.
(Globe and Mail 070308)
Finally, a good idea! It's been completely unfair that Eastern Canada has been wagging their finger at Alberta over their GHG emissions while they continue to suck the oil into their industries and vehicles as quickly as they can -- like being the producer of the product in demand is any worse than being the ultimate consumer. A tax structure like this will certainly help to get everyone culpable for the problem paying their fair share for what they contribute. I'd like to see them model a tax structure much the same way as Paul Hawken suggested in "The Ecology of Commerce".
07 March 2007
Umm...hello? Consequences?
Oilsands to supply 90% of nation's crude output
Alberta's oilsands projects are expected to account for 90% of Canada's total crude oil output by 2030, replacing the conventional sources which are already in terminal decline, a National Energy Board official said Tuesday. "Total oil output will increase to 4.6 million barrels per day and, of this, nearly 4.14 million will be from the oilsands," said John McCarthy, business leader for commodities, while unveiling preliminary results of the Canada Energy Futures project at the CERI 2007 Natural Gas conference. In 2005, Canada's total oil production was 2.509 million bpd, said a report prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. This is the first time that such a forward-looking statement has been made of Alberta's total oilsands output. Until now, FirstEnergy Capital has released figures of 3.5 million bpd, while CAPP has estimated 3.9 million bpd from the mining and in-situ processes. Both projections are for 2020. By 2020, according to CAPP, conventional light and heavy oil output in Western Canada are projected to stand at 309,000 bpd and 263,000 bpd, respectively. Offshore East Coast oil production will be 160,000 bpd. The NEB announcement came amidst nationwide economic growth of an average 2.4% and a rise in energy demand of 1.65%. Put statistically, total demand for energy will be 12,000 to 17,000 petajoules. McCarthy said he considered various scenarios while making the projections, with long-term oil price estimates ranging from $35 to $85 per barrel. The results of the projections will be made public in October, he said.
(Calgary Herald 070307)
Alberta keeps emitting unabated
The province once again tops all others for industrial greenhouse gas emissions, new federal government figures show, as a countrywide poll reveals strong support for stricter controls in Alberta - even at a cost. In an inventory of 2005 emissions from 336 large facilities across Canada, Alberta accounted for about 39% of total industrial greenhouse gases, its figures largely unchanged from the year before. In fact, Alberta companies occupy seven of the top 10 spots, most of them involved in generating coal-fired electricity or mining the oilsands. While vehicles account for a large percentage of greenhouse gases in other provinces, industry dominates in Alberta, contributing nearly three-quarters of the province's emissions, which have increased 40% from 1990 levels. "We're not seeing any tangible action in Alberta," said Dan Woynillowicz, a senior policy analyst with the Alberta-based environmental think-tank the Pembina Institute. "Not only are we not seeing anything in the 2005 results to show that Alberta is on the right track to address global warming, but in the ensuing period we've had a lot of activity that's putting us even further behind the 8-ball."
The rapid pace of development and its impacts on global warming is worrying Canadians, an Ipsos Reid poll released Tuesday shows. When 1,000 people were recently asked whether Alberta should be subjected to stricter emission standards, even if it means a significant increase in the cost of producing oil and gas, 68% said yes. Support was highest in Quebec, at 86%, and lowest in Alberta, where 51% of people surveyed were in favour of more stringent controls. Pierre Alvarez of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers doesn't put much stock in the survey. If coming rules from both the provincial and federal governments are too tough too quickly, he said, Canadians will have to ask themselves how much more they're willing to pay to fuel their vehicles and homes. "We're prepared to act," Alvarez said. "We understand that there are going to be some costs associated with that." Those costs should crystallize in about a week when the Alberta government unveils its intensity-based greenhouse gas targets for industry, likely ahead of Ottawa's rules The provincial regulations is expected to take effect in July. Soon afterward, Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner said the province will ask Albertans directly what else should be done about climate change.
(Calgary Herald 070307)
Why is no one challenging the potentially faulty and dangerous 'logic' that unabated development of the oilsands and emissions from the industry may not have, in the long-term, the intended results for Alberta? Why are we leaving this decision up to the small group of people who are most likely to benefit the most financially from this -- most of whom don't even live here? I guess it's like any other race to develop as quickly as possible -- we're poor planners, the consequences aren't fully thought out.
Why can't this development be done in a systematic, incremental way? Are we prepared to have a large chunk of this province (and everything downstream to Hudson Bay) left as an unfortunate ecologic wasteland by-product of this development just because we can't let go of our pathetic addiction to fossil fuel energy? Crap, that's bad, man.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Alberta's oilsands projects are expected to account for 90% of Canada's total crude oil output by 2030, replacing the conventional sources which are already in terminal decline, a National Energy Board official said Tuesday. "Total oil output will increase to 4.6 million barrels per day and, of this, nearly 4.14 million will be from the oilsands," said John McCarthy, business leader for commodities, while unveiling preliminary results of the Canada Energy Futures project at the CERI 2007 Natural Gas conference. In 2005, Canada's total oil production was 2.509 million bpd, said a report prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. This is the first time that such a forward-looking statement has been made of Alberta's total oilsands output. Until now, FirstEnergy Capital has released figures of 3.5 million bpd, while CAPP has estimated 3.9 million bpd from the mining and in-situ processes. Both projections are for 2020. By 2020, according to CAPP, conventional light and heavy oil output in Western Canada are projected to stand at 309,000 bpd and 263,000 bpd, respectively. Offshore East Coast oil production will be 160,000 bpd. The NEB announcement came amidst nationwide economic growth of an average 2.4% and a rise in energy demand of 1.65%. Put statistically, total demand for energy will be 12,000 to 17,000 petajoules. McCarthy said he considered various scenarios while making the projections, with long-term oil price estimates ranging from $35 to $85 per barrel. The results of the projections will be made public in October, he said.
(Calgary Herald 070307)
Alberta keeps emitting unabated
The province once again tops all others for industrial greenhouse gas emissions, new federal government figures show, as a countrywide poll reveals strong support for stricter controls in Alberta - even at a cost. In an inventory of 2005 emissions from 336 large facilities across Canada, Alberta accounted for about 39% of total industrial greenhouse gases, its figures largely unchanged from the year before. In fact, Alberta companies occupy seven of the top 10 spots, most of them involved in generating coal-fired electricity or mining the oilsands. While vehicles account for a large percentage of greenhouse gases in other provinces, industry dominates in Alberta, contributing nearly three-quarters of the province's emissions, which have increased 40% from 1990 levels. "We're not seeing any tangible action in Alberta," said Dan Woynillowicz, a senior policy analyst with the Alberta-based environmental think-tank the Pembina Institute. "Not only are we not seeing anything in the 2005 results to show that Alberta is on the right track to address global warming, but in the ensuing period we've had a lot of activity that's putting us even further behind the 8-ball."
The rapid pace of development and its impacts on global warming is worrying Canadians, an Ipsos Reid poll released Tuesday shows. When 1,000 people were recently asked whether Alberta should be subjected to stricter emission standards, even if it means a significant increase in the cost of producing oil and gas, 68% said yes. Support was highest in Quebec, at 86%, and lowest in Alberta, where 51% of people surveyed were in favour of more stringent controls. Pierre Alvarez of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers doesn't put much stock in the survey. If coming rules from both the provincial and federal governments are too tough too quickly, he said, Canadians will have to ask themselves how much more they're willing to pay to fuel their vehicles and homes. "We're prepared to act," Alvarez said. "We understand that there are going to be some costs associated with that." Those costs should crystallize in about a week when the Alberta government unveils its intensity-based greenhouse gas targets for industry, likely ahead of Ottawa's rules The provincial regulations is expected to take effect in July. Soon afterward, Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner said the province will ask Albertans directly what else should be done about climate change.
(Calgary Herald 070307)
Why is no one challenging the potentially faulty and dangerous 'logic' that unabated development of the oilsands and emissions from the industry may not have, in the long-term, the intended results for Alberta? Why are we leaving this decision up to the small group of people who are most likely to benefit the most financially from this -- most of whom don't even live here? I guess it's like any other race to develop as quickly as possible -- we're poor planners, the consequences aren't fully thought out.
Why can't this development be done in a systematic, incremental way? Are we prepared to have a large chunk of this province (and everything downstream to Hudson Bay) left as an unfortunate ecologic wasteland by-product of this development just because we can't let go of our pathetic addiction to fossil fuel energy? Crap, that's bad, man.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
06 March 2007
Rage
Why have I been so angry lately? I think I've been disappointed by a lot of events, outcomes and people lately. I know that being angry about it or taking these things personally is not productive or healthy. I know better than this. I think it came to a head this weekend when I realized that the relationships I have with the people closest to me might be becoming compromised because of my outlook on life, society, my community, and myself lately, which have been 'less than' optimistic or inspirational. I should be taking time to look forward and plan for the changes about to come in my life in a positive, adaptive way, but instead I am overwhelmed by the tasks at hand and the despair I feel about the state of the world. I want so much for things to work out okay, and very recently there have been a few positive developments on the world stage but not enough to pull me out of this despondency.
It's like I said, the more I learn about what's really going on in the world, the more confused I get about the decisions I need to make regarding the long-term future and my security in the short, medium and long term. I know this is an exercise that everyone needs to undertake (well, at least those that plan ahead), but it seems more and more a futile exercise.
I have to stop taking things so personally. Very difficult. I have to stop looking at problems at such a macro level and focus on things that are within my locus of control to change. Also very difficult. I have to start treating the people I care about most better. They deserve so much better from me.
I just hope I can figure this all out before I succumb to hopelessness. I know I am strong and resilient enough, I just can't find the branch to grab onto to pull me out of the this chaos. I think that's what makes me angry.
It's like I said, the more I learn about what's really going on in the world, the more confused I get about the decisions I need to make regarding the long-term future and my security in the short, medium and long term. I know this is an exercise that everyone needs to undertake (well, at least those that plan ahead), but it seems more and more a futile exercise.
I have to stop taking things so personally. Very difficult. I have to stop looking at problems at such a macro level and focus on things that are within my locus of control to change. Also very difficult. I have to start treating the people I care about most better. They deserve so much better from me.
I just hope I can figure this all out before I succumb to hopelessness. I know I am strong and resilient enough, I just can't find the branch to grab onto to pull me out of the this chaos. I think that's what makes me angry.
A Gargantuan Task
Oil ceos launch green task force
Canada's top corporate executives have launched a national task force on climate change, looking at ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote cleaner technology. As the federal government prepares to release its emissions reduction blueprint, the Canadian Council on Chief Executives says it will seek "responsible solutions" to the country's climate change challenge. "We want to contribute to debate about options and costs that we think up until now has been paper thin," Thomas d'Aquino, the council's ceo said Monday. "We're going to have reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average of 30% a year - each year - from 2008 to 2012. When you ask people to try to translate what that means, very, very few people have really thought it through." The council has long argued the tough emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol would result in an economic slowdown and penalize companies that take the lead in developing new technologies. Canada has committed to reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels, but the Conservative government has said those targets are unreachable. Environment Minister John Baird is expected to introduce his own set of short-term regulations and targets in the coming weeks and months.
The 25-member task force will be co-chaired by d'Aquino, and Alcan ceo Richard Evans and Rick George, ceo of Suncor Energy. Members of the task force include the top executives some of Canada's largest oil and gas producers, including Petro-Canada's Ron Brenneman, Canadian Oil Sand's Marcel Coutu, Shell Canada's Clive Mather, Imperial Oil's Tim Hearn, Pengrowth Energy Trust's Jim Kinnear and Guy Turcotte, chairman of Western Oil Sands. Other participating ceos include Ron Mannix of Coril Holdings, CP's Fred Green, Steve Snyder of TransAlta and Mike Wilson of Agrium. It will also assisted by a group of experts in environmental sustainability. Environmental groups remained skeptical, however, pointing out that a third of the executives involved come from the fossil fuel industry and that the council has a history of opposition to government action against greenhouse emissions. "This is a long-overdue initiative for industry to finally take seriously the economic and environmental threats posed by climate change," said Stephen Hazell, executive director of Sierra Club of Canada. "Industry must accept hard caps, not fake intensity-based caps, which would allow emissions to rise."
(Calgary Herald, National Post 070306)
Long overdue, but definitely a positive step.
Canada's top corporate executives have launched a national task force on climate change, looking at ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote cleaner technology. As the federal government prepares to release its emissions reduction blueprint, the Canadian Council on Chief Executives says it will seek "responsible solutions" to the country's climate change challenge. "We want to contribute to debate about options and costs that we think up until now has been paper thin," Thomas d'Aquino, the council's ceo said Monday. "We're going to have reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average of 30% a year - each year - from 2008 to 2012. When you ask people to try to translate what that means, very, very few people have really thought it through." The council has long argued the tough emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol would result in an economic slowdown and penalize companies that take the lead in developing new technologies. Canada has committed to reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels, but the Conservative government has said those targets are unreachable. Environment Minister John Baird is expected to introduce his own set of short-term regulations and targets in the coming weeks and months.
The 25-member task force will be co-chaired by d'Aquino, and Alcan ceo Richard Evans and Rick George, ceo of Suncor Energy. Members of the task force include the top executives some of Canada's largest oil and gas producers, including Petro-Canada's Ron Brenneman, Canadian Oil Sand's Marcel Coutu, Shell Canada's Clive Mather, Imperial Oil's Tim Hearn, Pengrowth Energy Trust's Jim Kinnear and Guy Turcotte, chairman of Western Oil Sands. Other participating ceos include Ron Mannix of Coril Holdings, CP's Fred Green, Steve Snyder of TransAlta and Mike Wilson of Agrium. It will also assisted by a group of experts in environmental sustainability. Environmental groups remained skeptical, however, pointing out that a third of the executives involved come from the fossil fuel industry and that the council has a history of opposition to government action against greenhouse emissions. "This is a long-overdue initiative for industry to finally take seriously the economic and environmental threats posed by climate change," said Stephen Hazell, executive director of Sierra Club of Canada. "Industry must accept hard caps, not fake intensity-based caps, which would allow emissions to rise."
(Calgary Herald, National Post 070306)
Long overdue, but definitely a positive step.
The jump begins
Last Friday was the first post-workday pub gathering for those leaving the company. Today, the exodus continues. The lead support person on the EUAS side is leaving on Friday to another position in the company, leaving support of his 13 apps and respective servers to our group. Our new guy just accepted a position with CHR and will be leaving in two weeks. Our manager has taken him off our team immediately to finish up another project being done by another guy on the team who is leaving tomorrow. Good for them, bad for us. I knew this scenario was coming, now I just gotta live through it.
05 March 2007
My first meme (in a long time, okay?)
From Tidbits O'Chunks via Tornwordo:
YOUR REAL NAME: Reid
YOUR GANGSTA NAME (1st 4 letters plus izzle): Reidizzle (that's original)
YOUR DETECTIVE NAME (fave color + fave animal): Navy Crow
YOUR SOAP OPERA NAME (middle name + childhood street): Jonathan Ottawa
YOUR STAR WARS NAME (last 3 letters of your last name + first 2 letters of your first name + first 3 letters of Mom's maiden name): Dalrewal
YOUR SUPER HERO NAME (2nd fave color + fave drink): Black Water (?)
YOUR IRAQI NAME (2nd letter of your first name + 3rd letter of your last name + any letter of your middle name + 2nd letter of your Mom's maiden name + 3rd letter of your Dad's middle name + 1st letter of a sibling's first name + last letter of your Mom's middle name): Rloalor (I think my Star Wars name and Iraqi name are mixed up)
YOUR WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM NAME (Grandma/Grandpa's first name + Jones): William Jones
YOUR GOTH NAME (Black + name of one of your pets): Black Bandit
YOUR AMERICAN IDOL NAME (fav car and sea food) Eclipse Mackerel
NAME OF YOUR DREAM BAND (name of computer + printer): Cicero Canon
MOVIE STAR NAME (sibling's middle name + mother-in-law's maiden name): Marshall Arsenault
YOUR ALTER EGO NAME (name of one your childhood pets + popular brand of clothes when you were young): Boog Izod
YOUR LAWYER NAME (fav actor's last name + fav hard liquor): Law Gin (woah!)
YOUR HIP HOP NAME (fav candy + fruit): Chocolate Cherry
YOUR REAL NAME: Reid
YOUR GANGSTA NAME (1st 4 letters plus izzle): Reidizzle (that's original)
YOUR DETECTIVE NAME (fave color + fave animal): Navy Crow
YOUR SOAP OPERA NAME (middle name + childhood street): Jonathan Ottawa
YOUR STAR WARS NAME (last 3 letters of your last name + first 2 letters of your first name + first 3 letters of Mom's maiden name): Dalrewal
YOUR SUPER HERO NAME (2nd fave color + fave drink): Black Water (?)
YOUR IRAQI NAME (2nd letter of your first name + 3rd letter of your last name + any letter of your middle name + 2nd letter of your Mom's maiden name + 3rd letter of your Dad's middle name + 1st letter of a sibling's first name + last letter of your Mom's middle name): Rloalor (I think my Star Wars name and Iraqi name are mixed up)
YOUR WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM NAME (Grandma/Grandpa's first name + Jones): William Jones
YOUR GOTH NAME (Black + name of one of your pets): Black Bandit
YOUR AMERICAN IDOL NAME (fav car and sea food) Eclipse Mackerel
NAME OF YOUR DREAM BAND (name of computer + printer): Cicero Canon
MOVIE STAR NAME (sibling's middle name + mother-in-law's maiden name): Marshall Arsenault
YOUR ALTER EGO NAME (name of one your childhood pets + popular brand of clothes when you were young): Boog Izod
YOUR LAWYER NAME (fav actor's last name + fav hard liquor): Law Gin (woah!)
YOUR HIP HOP NAME (fav candy + fruit): Chocolate Cherry
Po-mo Sideshow
Cosby Sweater Days and everything!
From their store - For the wannabe statement-maker, SUV-driver who has everything. I wanna get some of these!
Nothing says irony, like being literal. We would love it if you support us, the new magnetic ribbon industry. The purchase of this lovely doo-dad says that you're a smart and savvy person about the world. You know that the "Support Our Troops" ribbons are only selling so that some jerks can line their pockets. You also know that by pointing out the capitalistic undertones of the saber rattling jingoists, you might just wake up a few people that have child-like notions of mustachioed villains and courageous heroes vanquishing the villains with their moral superiority and candid prison photos.
Lets face it. Millions of people in America voted for Bush because he says he's a Christian.Why none of those people can tell the difference between a Christian and someone who is just paying lip service for a power grab is beyond me. If Jesus were alive today, I think that he would care less about Homosexual marriage, and more about teaching tolerance and telling US speachwriters not to use words like "Crusade" and "Liberate" because it tends to piss off the rest of the world. Sporting this ribbon means you're calling a spade a spade, and pointing out the lack of OG God in our leadership and sheeplike followers.
These are sold out. Yup! The bumper magnet is back.Although we here at the Postmodern Sideshow care about the loss of life of everyone in the Iraqi Invasion, it seems that those with hardons for WMD and "liberation" seem to care only for the American Soldiers. Show them a little lesson in mathematics and economics. (Which, when you think about it, 2000 dead isn't that much. I can drive all summer on a fingertip. You however, you are driving on their eyeballs, you sick mother-flower).
From their store - For the wannabe statement-maker, SUV-driver who has everything. I wanna get some of these!
Nothing says irony, like being literal. We would love it if you support us, the new magnetic ribbon industry. The purchase of this lovely doo-dad says that you're a smart and savvy person about the world. You know that the "Support Our Troops" ribbons are only selling so that some jerks can line their pockets. You also know that by pointing out the capitalistic undertones of the saber rattling jingoists, you might just wake up a few people that have child-like notions of mustachioed villains and courageous heroes vanquishing the villains with their moral superiority and candid prison photos.
Lets face it. Millions of people in America voted for Bush because he says he's a Christian.Why none of those people can tell the difference between a Christian and someone who is just paying lip service for a power grab is beyond me. If Jesus were alive today, I think that he would care less about Homosexual marriage, and more about teaching tolerance and telling US speachwriters not to use words like "Crusade" and "Liberate" because it tends to piss off the rest of the world. Sporting this ribbon means you're calling a spade a spade, and pointing out the lack of OG God in our leadership and sheeplike followers.
These are sold out. Yup! The bumper magnet is back.Although we here at the Postmodern Sideshow care about the loss of life of everyone in the Iraqi Invasion, it seems that those with hardons for WMD and "liberation" seem to care only for the American Soldiers. Show them a little lesson in mathematics and economics. (Which, when you think about it, 2000 dead isn't that much. I can drive all summer on a fingertip. You however, you are driving on their eyeballs, you sick mother-flower).
Changing the way we live
Think urban density, not mpg, in energy war
Column - Gwyn Morgan, the retired founding ceo of EnCana, sayas that a major cause of escalating energy use is dysfunctional urban design. Canadian and US cities sprawl ever outward and, as suburbia eats up land, more roads and freeways create a paved labyrinth. Twice a day, most suburbanites get into their vehicles and become part of a massive gridlock of idling emitters. And for suburbia's homemakers, there are no nearby shops - only the mall, a traffic-filled drive away. There is a better way, and a better life: enhanced urban density. The late Jane Jacobs was a true visionary on the need to transform our cities into denser but more livable spaces. The case for urban density was eloquently argued in a recent article by Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan, who said: “Instead of telling Canadians to simply check their tires, or put energy-efficient light bulbs in their suburban homes, we should be talking about how better urban planning and densification of our cities can significantly reduce our impact on the environment.” When we talk about reducing our environmental footprint, most people think it's all about making sacrifices, and we do need to make some. The good news about densification is that it actually offers a better quality of life. My wife and I have constantly been struck by how some of the most compact cities in the world are also the most livable. For most of our working lives, we lived within walking or cycling distance of the office. We loved our proximity to the numerous amenities within walking distance, such as shops, restaurants and arts centres. No spending hours each day in traffic gridlock. Our neighbourhood actually had character, although not quite as much as some of the great old high-density European cities like Stockholm or Prague. I am a passionate defender of free markets, but also believe that laissez-faire urban planning is not planning at all -rather, it is both an environmental and quality-of-life disaster. Instead of city fathers patting themselves on the back for buying wind-generated electricity to fuel City Hall, how about some real vision that would change our cities from polluted gridlocked frustration zones into wonderful places to live?
(Globe and Mail 070305)
There is no doubt that denser communities are more walkable, have smaller, more numerous retailers and merchants, allow for better mass transit service, move people and goods with less total energy required, and thus become more liveable. Having been an "almost purist" pedestrian for almost ten years and witnessing rush hour insanity daily from the pedestrian point of view, I can safely say that I would prefer a setup like older areas of Montreal, where every block has a depanneur (corner store) and everyone lives a reasonable distance from their place of work, than a model resembling newer areas of Calgary where going to get the most basic items from the closest offering requires a car ride and traffic navigation, or a very patient wait for transit. I've noticed especially during the storms of the past few weeks where pedestrian traffic is in the pecking order of priority for snow clearing -- pretty much right at the bottom. Pedestrians must climb over snow banks, dodge icesheets or jump over seas of slush created by the snow clearing done to open roads for cars. I recall this metaphor I once read that jokingly said (but more tongue in cheek) that if aliens ever came to Earth and needed to determine what the dominant 'lifeform' on the planet was today, they would have a hard time deciding whether it was humans or cars.
The idea of communities and the aspects of humanism in urban design have been mothballed for the sake of the convenience of car culture. This has been going on for a long time, and we've all been more than willing to let it happen for the sake of our bottom lines and our convenience. Convenience and low immediate costs are not consequence-free either.
Over the past ten years, car drivers have become even more dominant, aggressive and careless around pedestrians and cyclists while navigating more congested streets that it's no wonder drivers are stressed to the max and that pedestrians and cyclists fear for their lives while venturing out where they are theoretically supposed to. I've seen this at the extreme in south Texas, where most new sprawled-out areas don't even bother to put in sidewalks anymore. What's the point? Everything is built so far apart from each other it leaves any travel from point-to-point available only through more and more limited means. We need to change the way we live for our own sanity without even considering all the other good reasons.
04 March 2007
OutGames
As some of you may or may not know, Calgary is hosting the GLISA First North American OutGames from April 5-8, 2007. The Event comprises of Western Cup, being organized by Apollo, the annual sports tournament that has successfully run over the Easter long weekend in Calgary for the past 25 years (the oldest continuing GLBT sporting event in North America), Outfest, being organized by the FairyTales Film Festival, and OutRights, a human rights conference being organized by Aids Calgary.
I am the Race Director for the Running Event, a 5k, 10k and Half Marathon event being run the morning of April 7th. The work to get this event going has been formidable, and I feel sometimes that I am shouldering a lot of the work myself. However I am set on having a successful, memorable event and luckily I have some good people working with me that have pulled out some impressive sponsorship and marketing outcomes!
Our next challenge is to grow our registration numbers and get our volunteers lined up. If any of you would like to volunteer, please email us at running@calgary2007.com. If you have any leads on businesses that might be interested in a sponsorship or donating prizes or gift certificates, please email as well.
Thanks!
Weakened Again
Friday night was the first of most likely quite a few farewell parties for co-workers as we begin to go through the Outsourcing (ooh - sorry, Bestshoring) Initiative. This weekend was the goodbyes for Chad, one of the guys who started with our group only nine months ago, young and single, so he decided to bail early and head to Toronto to see what possibilities lie for him there. I really like Chad -- him and I have had a lot of good conversations about a lot of things, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.
I got home around 9pm and proceeded to immediately crash on the couch. I'm not sure if it was the beers or the sleep deprivation I have had to endure this week due to the casinos, work, and the OutGames stress. Most likely it was a combination of both.
Got up Saturday and did my normal routine -- run, brunch, gym, groceries, nap, then got ready for the Mardi Gras party hosted by Different Strokes. We managed to get Calvin out with us which was nice since we haven't seen him in awhile. The party was fun, however we got there pretty late due to my typical underestimating of travel time. I figured it would be quick to walk to the Hall where the dance was held, however due to the chinook over the past few days, the sidewalks are oceans of ice and water. It was a shoe-messing trip and not everyone was happy.
Thankfully we had some en-route items to help us through the crisis. We stayed at the dance until it had pretty much cleared out, and of course by then we weren't going to get a cab so we decided to hoof it back downtown on foot again. The trip back seemed to go much more quickly than the trip there, go figure.
Today I went with my friend Doug to watch the World Cup Speedskating at the Olympic Oval. Today was the last day of the Essent ISU World Cup Series and the Men's 1500m, Women's 3000m, and 100M Sprints were the events on the schedule for today. It was fun to watch and great to see male speedskating glutes again. For Canadians, Steven Elm, Denny Morrison, Francois Olivier Roberge, Clara Hughes, Kristina Groves and Cindy Klassen were all in action. I tell you, Doug and Jeff, sports are where the hot men really are! I'm referring to the soccer game we watched last night between Liverpool and Manchester United. I swear, they grow all those men in a genetics lab somewhere...
I got home around 9pm and proceeded to immediately crash on the couch. I'm not sure if it was the beers or the sleep deprivation I have had to endure this week due to the casinos, work, and the OutGames stress. Most likely it was a combination of both.
Got up Saturday and did my normal routine -- run, brunch, gym, groceries, nap, then got ready for the Mardi Gras party hosted by Different Strokes. We managed to get Calvin out with us which was nice since we haven't seen him in awhile. The party was fun, however we got there pretty late due to my typical underestimating of travel time. I figured it would be quick to walk to the Hall where the dance was held, however due to the chinook over the past few days, the sidewalks are oceans of ice and water. It was a shoe-messing trip and not everyone was happy.
Thankfully we had some en-route items to help us through the crisis. We stayed at the dance until it had pretty much cleared out, and of course by then we weren't going to get a cab so we decided to hoof it back downtown on foot again. The trip back seemed to go much more quickly than the trip there, go figure.
Today I went with my friend Doug to watch the World Cup Speedskating at the Olympic Oval. Today was the last day of the Essent ISU World Cup Series and the Men's 1500m, Women's 3000m, and 100M Sprints were the events on the schedule for today. It was fun to watch and great to see male speedskating glutes again. For Canadians, Steven Elm, Denny Morrison, Francois Olivier Roberge, Clara Hughes, Kristina Groves and Cindy Klassen were all in action. I tell you, Doug and Jeff, sports are where the hot men really are! I'm referring to the soccer game we watched last night between Liverpool and Manchester United. I swear, they grow all those men in a genetics lab somewhere...
03 March 2007
March 3rd is 'What If Cats and Dogs Had Opposable Thumbs Day'!
(Click on the image to see the GIF in action!)Gizmo and Bandit would not need us anymore....
01 March 2007
Oh, just you wait
Stay calm, Bernanke urges markets
Ben Bernanke urged investors yesterday to relax in the wake of a global stock market meltdown that erased more than $1-trillion of gains, insisting that the US economy remains sound. The US Federal Reserve Board chief insisted that nothing material has changed in the two weeks since he issued a clean bill of health for the US economy. Like many economists, the US Federal Reserve Board chief is convinced the economy is on track for a soft landing - marked by tame inflation, low unemployment and slower growth. But in the aftermath of Tuesday's global stock market meltdown, investors are casting a more skeptical eye on some of the nagging problems that until now seemed little more than a nuisance to the overall economy. There's the housing slump, mounting defaults in the subprime mortgage market, sluggish business spending, the travails of the Detroit Three auto makers and a possible slowdown in China. Testifying before a congressional committee yesterday, Bernanke said the Fed is closely monitoring financial markets. But he concluded there wasn't any obvious trigger for the selloff. “Taking all the new data into account, there is really no material change in our expectations for the US economy since I last reported to Congress a couple weeks ago,” Bernanke assured members of the House of Representatives' budget committee. Bernanke also told lawmakers that there's no evidence that problems in the market for subprime mortgages - higher-rate mortgages aimed at high-risk borrowers - are spreading to other areas of the lending industry. And unlike his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, who warned Monday that the US might be headed for recession later this year, Bernanke is optimistic about the rest of the year. “There is a reasonable possibility that we'll see some strengthening of the economy some time during the middle of the year,” he told the committee.
(Globe and Mail 070301)
Of course Bernanke isn't going to tell the truth. The power elites that have his balls in a vice aren't going to let the status quo go down anyday soon, as much as they have control over things. The Federal Reserve is so removed from reality anyways, since it is concerned with the fiat currency financial system, which is adept at creating wealth out of thin air. I believe the housing downturn and the subprime mortgage fiasco still have a long way to go down before things stabilize yet.
Ben Bernanke urged investors yesterday to relax in the wake of a global stock market meltdown that erased more than $1-trillion of gains, insisting that the US economy remains sound. The US Federal Reserve Board chief insisted that nothing material has changed in the two weeks since he issued a clean bill of health for the US economy. Like many economists, the US Federal Reserve Board chief is convinced the economy is on track for a soft landing - marked by tame inflation, low unemployment and slower growth. But in the aftermath of Tuesday's global stock market meltdown, investors are casting a more skeptical eye on some of the nagging problems that until now seemed little more than a nuisance to the overall economy. There's the housing slump, mounting defaults in the subprime mortgage market, sluggish business spending, the travails of the Detroit Three auto makers and a possible slowdown in China. Testifying before a congressional committee yesterday, Bernanke said the Fed is closely monitoring financial markets. But he concluded there wasn't any obvious trigger for the selloff. “Taking all the new data into account, there is really no material change in our expectations for the US economy since I last reported to Congress a couple weeks ago,” Bernanke assured members of the House of Representatives' budget committee. Bernanke also told lawmakers that there's no evidence that problems in the market for subprime mortgages - higher-rate mortgages aimed at high-risk borrowers - are spreading to other areas of the lending industry. And unlike his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, who warned Monday that the US might be headed for recession later this year, Bernanke is optimistic about the rest of the year. “There is a reasonable possibility that we'll see some strengthening of the economy some time during the middle of the year,” he told the committee.
(Globe and Mail 070301)
Of course Bernanke isn't going to tell the truth. The power elites that have his balls in a vice aren't going to let the status quo go down anyday soon, as much as they have control over things. The Federal Reserve is so removed from reality anyways, since it is concerned with the fiat currency financial system, which is adept at creating wealth out of thin air. I believe the housing downturn and the subprime mortgage fiasco still have a long way to go down before things stabilize yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)