The War On Hair Gel  

Grist has an interesting piece on "The Priest and the Prophet", which contrasts the "cradle to cradle" green industrial revolution vision of Bill McDonough that Viridian types advocate, versus the apocalyptic vision of ecological collapse promoted by Derrick Jensen in his book "Endgame" (which I noted being promoted at Cryptogon, of all places, replacing his nifty "President Death" logo).

To be, or not to be -- that is the age-old question, and civilization today faces its own dire version of it. As the negative social and ecological effects of 150 years of industrialization are becoming impossible to ignore, people are asking whether we can maintain our standards of living. But very few are asking if we should.

There are, however, two contemporary thinkers for whom this question is primal: William McDonough, green architect and designer, and Derrick Jensen, neo-tribal environmentalist and philosopher. They epitomize the vanguard of the new green zeitgeist. They are the elemental planners of a future sustainable society.

Both visionaries are mythically Shakespearean in the quirk, richness, and lyrical beauty of their respective evangelizing characters. But one is Establishment, the other Counterculture. One wears a bow tie, the other wears beads. One comes from the corporate aristocracy, educated at Dartmouth and Yale; the other from working-class Spokane and the Colorado School of Mines. One founded three revolutionary companies; the other keeps the company of revolutionaries.

One was named Time Magazine's "Hero of the Planet" and is the only recipient of the Presidential Award for Sustainable Development. The other lists more modest encomiums, but to many in the movement, he is every bit as much a hero.

Though these two men share a common belief -- that industrial civilization, with its outrageous fortune, is killing the planet, plunging all life into a veritable sea of troubles -- they represent two sides of the most important question of our age: Is civilization worth saving?

McDonough says "yes," and is prepared to suffer the slings and arrows required to make it work. Jensen says "no," and is prepared, in a manner of speaking, to take up arms and end the whole experiment.

The Papua New Guinea to Australia gas pipeline is back in the news again today - this time instead of some of the locals trying to get a bit of kickback action happening in order for the pipeline to go through unmolested we seem to have some commercial politics being played out between AGL and Santos. In the meantime my Oil Search shares are suffering so I'm taking a dim view of all these shenanigans.

Politics, profit, posturing and public relations. The battle between energy groups, Santos and AGL over whether the mammoth project to build a gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea to Australia's east coast will proceed has all four elements.

It would be great to be able to make a definitive judgement as to who has the commercial or moral high ground or even just who was more liberal with the facts.

For 10 years there has been a desire to build a gas pipeline from PNG to supply much of the east coast of Australia.

It's been ditched and revived a few times but in recent times it seemed there was sufficient customer interest, the political will and the impending need to begin replacing some of the dwindling gas reserves on which the east coats now relies.

AGL had an option to build the pipeline, it had an agreement to take almost half the output to supply its retail network and it had bought an interest in the actual gas reserves in PNG.

Santos once had a small interest in the PNG reserves but it also has gas reserves in South Australia. Unlike AGL, it hasn't signed up to take any of the PNG pipeline gas.

According to AGL, this is where the problem starts. AGL says that this project is one of national importance and is being held up (or even killed) because Santos won't sign as a customer even though Santos knows it will need to replace its own reserves in less than 10 years.

It seems that Santos's chief executive, John Ellis-Flint, is lacking a bit of the national fervour that Paul Anthony, the newly arrived Welshman who's now AGL's chief executive, has acquired in his short time on our soil.

Santos takes the view that this is a load of bollocks. Why should its custom be the deciding factor in whether this project is built?

Both companies have agendas and both are commercial.

For Santos's part, it needs to replace some gas - but not for a few years so it suits it to continue to supply gas without competition on price or supply from the PNG gas through the AGL pipeline. So this reluctance to sign on as a customer could be an understandable delaying tactic.

It seems the pipeline project is behaving just like every other large oil and gas project I've been keeping an eye on this year - large cost blowouts are hampering development in spite of ever rising energy prices.

ExxonMobil acknowledged that the recent announcement of a $1 billion cost blowout in the downstream portion of the project must have weighed on AGL's decision.

In an environment of rapidly rising construction costs, including those of fuel, labour and equipment, keeping the $US2.5 billion upstream portion of the project on budget seems unlikely.

"Both the upstream and downstream projects have been subject to significant cost pressure," ExxonMobil spokeswoman Anna Schulze said. "We're working on cost optimisation and scope optimisation."

Both ExxonMobil and Oil Search reiterated their commitment to the project yesterday and revealed they might be willing to participate in the downstream end if it ensured the pipeline would be built.

Mr Botten suggested that Oil Search could take a stake in the $3.5 billion to $4 billion Australian onshore component temporarily to get the project off the ground and then sell it to an infrastructure company or a specialist pipeline company. That would be a very strong demonstration of the importance of the project to the future of Oil Search.

If the project is permanently scuttled, Oil Search has other - albeit less attractive - options for commercial sales of some of its gas reserves in PNG. The company is already in negotiations with Mitsubishi and Itochu about supplying gas to a petrochemical plant in Port Moresby and it will examine selling compressed natural gas to the Australian and New Zealand markets.

Nevertheless, its share price plunge yesterday showed that investors obviously preferred the pipeline option. And it's worth noting that coal-seam methane producers - the biggest competition to PNG gas in the east coast market - experienced strong gains yesterday.

I suspect the pipeline will go ahead sooner rather than later, as the Australian east coast will need that gas as time progresses (even though Bass Strait has a way to go yet and coal seam methane will pick up some of the slack as the Cooper basin depletes entirely) - and the last thing we would want is someone else signing up to build an LNG plant and shipping the gas off to Asia instead of piping it south to us.

PeakOil.com points to a pair of articles demonstrating the trouble north america is having finding enough gas for its needs.

Gas trapped between sand particles and under hard rock will be the next place to drill for the commodity while offshore Gulf of Mexico production dwindles, analysts and gas executives said Tuesday at an oil and gas conference in Denver.

Natural gas is scarce in "conventional" gas wells and companies who want to maintain an edge in gas production will have to fracture shale rock to extract the gas that lies beneath. Gas stranded between tight sands in Wyoming will also be taken out and brought to the market, executives said.

"Unconventional gas will eventually make up way over half the reserve base," said Mark Urness, director of oil services research with Calyon Securities in New York, speaking on the sidelines of The 11th Oil and Gas Conference hosted by Enercom in Denver Tuesday.

Woodside hasn't had much good news lately, but their latest profit result showed a big turnaround and there is more talk about developing the Pluto field. CEO Don Voelte notes there is no shortage of gas on the west coast - and nor is there a shortage of buyers.

Burgeoning cash flows - up 34 per cent to $908.6 million in the June half - and confidence that oil prices will stay as high as $US60-70 a barrel have given new impetus to the group's growth ambitions.

Those include the $6 billion development of Woodside's wholly owned Pluto gasfield offshore Western Australia as an "open access" liquefied natural gas export project.

Woodside's board this week approved a budget of $192 million for initial engineering and design work on the project, with first production possible at the end of 2010. Because it is wholly owned, the 5 million tonnes a year LNG production from Pluto is considered a game changer for Woodside.

Woodside is operator of the existing North-West Shelf project but owns only one-sixth of its production. Even after the expansion of that project is complete in the fourth quarter of 2008, Woodside's annual share of the LNG will still fall well short of Pluto at 2.7 million tonnes.

The group's aggressive timetable for Pluto's development comes as some in the market question whether its reserves are sufficient. But further exploration by Woodside and the plan for the project to buy gas from "stranded" gasfields in the region is aimed at alleviating those concerns. Its managing director, Don Voelte, said yesterday that Asian demand for LNG was "extreme".

He also renewed the debate on the West Australian Government's push for 20 per cent of new gasfield developments like Pluto to be reserved for the lower-return domestic market.

"We have never said that we're against [domestic gas] per se," Mr Voelte said. "I am absolutely happy to provide domestic gas but it depends what price we get for it. If I get the same price back at the wellhead on a per molecule basis as I do selling it as LNG, hey, bring it on. No problems at all. "The last thing that people have to worry about in WA is running out of gas. This place is blessed with gas."

The other area in the region blessed with gas is East Timor, though it doesn't seem to be much of a blessing for them. Our stranglehold on our small northern neighbour is coming under question in the UN, with parts of the international community seemingly buying into conspiracy theories that our military presence in the country may not be entirely altruistic.

The views of the 15-member Security Council emerged during a debate on the UN's role in East Timor. A report by the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, recommended a UN military force back up a bigger police contingent, a view endorsed by East Timor itself.

Australia's ambassador to the UN, Robert Hill, told the Security Council the UN should concentrate on the roles it could fulfil efficiently, such as providing a policing presence and helping to build East Timorese institutions, and leave the military role to a multinational force headed by Australia.

Australia, he said, was willing to lead the force at its own expense, saving the UN money and providing a flexible force which had already proven itself on the ground and had the mobility to respond to any crisis. He said a new UN mission should have the authority of Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which authorises the use of force to maintain international peace and security.

The British ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, said putting together a new UN force would be time-consuming and unnecessary, given the presence of Australia and others already there.

In an oblique reference to Australia's relationship with East Timor, the Brazilian ambassador, Piragibe Tarrago, warned of the "dangers of neo-trusteeship".

The Secretary-General's special envoy, Ian Martin, told the Security Council that it was important to demonstrate to the people of East Timor that international support would be there in the long term.

East Timor's new Foreign Minister, Jose Luis Guterres, emphasised that nation's crisis was not yet resolved. "Many guns remain in civilian hands, and the underlying causes of the conflict remain to be fully addressed," he said.

In other local news, the Treasurer is warning us to "brace ourselves" for the economic fallout from "world record oil prices", Qantas is continuing to raise fuel surchages as their hedges unravel, a study suggests the world's forests may have less than a century left to live due to global warming and efforts by the states to put in place a cap and trade system for carbon emissions are running into some scare mongering by the Rodent over the expected costs.

A plan by the states and territories to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions and drive a switch to cleaner power will be released today, but it could add as much as $2.34 to the average weekly power bill in NSW.

All states and territories have tentatively approved a "cap and trade" scheme to limit emissions, although Queensland and Western Australia are wary about its effect on their mining industries.

The states would prefer the Federal Government to develop a national scheme, but given its opposition they have drafted a proposal they hope to agree by next year and have operating by 2010.

The NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, said: "The potential impact of climate change on our environment is alarming: higher sea levels, prolonged droughts and more severe storm and bushfire activity. He said a carefully designed emissions trading scheme would not damage the economy "while making sure that we keep our industry internationally competitive and protect households".

The Prime Minister, John Howard, warned last week of the high costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol, which attempts to address greenhouse emissions. He claimed such schemes would drive up petrol prices and hurt the economy.

But according to the modelling in the states' report, the scheme would have only minimal impact on economic growth.

TreeHugger has a post on a new biodiesel plant that claims to be carbon neutral - and it certainly sounds like they are focussing heavily on making the production more efficient.

Green Star Products, Inc. (GSPI) will build the first biodiesel plant to emit almost zero net greenhouse gases from direct plant production of biodiesel. We've been following the rise of biodiesel as an alternative to fossil fuels and gasoline (from the geography of the fuel to the celebs who use it to its addition to the dictionary), so we know that most production plants require heating input, usually from natural gas, require electricity from local utilities, which emit CO(2), and that the chemical processes uses 10% methanol (wood alcohol) made from natural gas, all of which contribute to our warming planet. GSPI has considered all of these factors in the design of their new plant; Joseph P. LaStella, P.E., President of GSPI, explains:

"First, our proprietary continuous flow waterless process requires less than one-third the electrical energy to operate versus existing batch plants. Therefore, we have decided to furnish our own electric generators, which will run on our own biodiesel. The existing electrical utility connections will only serve as an emergency backup service.

Second, biodiesel plants require heat for processing. Our boilers will run on biodiesel and will only serve as a backup heat source for the plant. Our biodiesel facility is located within 200 yards of a co-generation power plant. We are in negotiations to utilize some of the waste heat from that plant. Steam power plants must condense their steam through condensers before it can be reheated and returned to power the steam turbine. GSPI can extract all the heat it needs right before the power plant condensers. Therefore, not only does this utilize waste heat, it also increases the efficiency of the power plant.

Third, the entire biodiesel industry uses methanol in their process to chemically convert feedstock soy oil, canola oil, etc. to biodiesel fuel (which is a methyl ester). Almost all of the methanol used in the U.S. comes from South American countries and of course is not renewable because it is produced from natural gas. Methanol is used by the industry because it is less expensive and has some advantages over using ethanol, which can also be used to make biodiesel, except it is much more expensive. GSPI will use ethanol to process biodiesel and transform the Idaho facility into a 100% renewable one in which 100% of the products are made in the U.S."

Energy Bulletin notes that there is a push in Finland to follow Sweden's lead and aim to be oil free by 2020.

Opposition Leader Jyrki Katainen says Finland should break free from its dependency on oil. The chair of the National Coalition Party says he backs Finance Minister Eero Heinäluoma’s proposal which seeks to rid Finland of its oil dependency by the year 2030.

If the proposal is passed, Finland would follow in the footsteps of Sweden - the first country in the world to establish guidelines for replacing oil as a main energy source.

Katainen adds that Finland should invest in research and strive to become a bioenergy superpower.

This morning's news was all aflutter with some plane being forced through the standard terrorist drill because some poor woman had an attack of claustrophobia (ie. nothing actually happened - apparently we just needed our daily fear quota delivered through the headline news).

There is more than a little cynicism flowing around about the last round of terror arrests in the UK (and no - its not just mine) - the ex UK ambassador to Uzbekistan (the Englishman in the court of "Crockpot" Karimov) views the whole incidient as just another dose of blatant propaganda (or "terror theater" as Past Peak put it). "Seeing the Forest" asks "Was there really a plot ?".

this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot.

Boing Boing has more news on "The War On Hair Gel" (perhaps if the world's population ends up with less "product" in their hair this latest propaganda onslaught won't have been entirely without merit, if you'll forgive my curmudgeonly attitude towards excessive personal grooming).

"U.S. authorities are advising women not to wear gel bras on airplanes as information developed in the foiled London plot points to an expanding role for women in smuggling explosives on to an aircraft."

Intelligence about the Hair-Gel Bombers was extracted through torture in Pakistan, as in "Please stop electrocuting my testicles! What? Only if I reveal a -- OWWWWWW -- terrorist plot -- AAAAAAHH? All right -- SCREEEECH! -- the terrorists will be blowing up a plane with, with, oh man, I don't know, hair gel! Yes! Hair gel!"

Billmon dragged out a classic movie from the 1970's as he pondered is it safe ?.

"America is safer than it has been, yet it is not yet safe."

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
August 15, 2006

_____________________

Szell: Is it safe?

Babe: Is it safe? Are you talking to me?

Szell: Is it safe?

Babe: Is what safe? I don't know what you mean. I can't tell you if something is safe or not unless I know specifically what you're talking about.

Szell: Is it safe?

Babe: Tell me what the "it" refers to.

Szell: Is it safe?

Babe: Yes, it's safe. It's very safe. So safe you wouldn't believe it.

Szell: Is it safe?

Babe: No, it's not safe. It's very dangerous. Be careful.

Szell: (soothingly) Relax. Come on. Open. Open. It's OK.

(Szell jabs his dentist's pick into Babe's cavity.)

Babe: AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!

Szell: That hurt? I should think it would.

William Goldman
Marathon Man
1976

Apparently there is only so much even a Fox "News" producer can take, with two of them quitting in disgust over the blatant bias in their middle east coverage.

Two weeks ago, two producers working for Fox News in Amman Jordan resigned in protest of the network's coverage. In their resignation letter, Serene Sabbagh and Jomana Karadsheh wrote "We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that." They went on to write "Not only are you an instrument of the Bush White House, and Israeli propaganda, you are war mongers with no sense of decency, nor professionalism."

Hard to argue with that analysis...

Digg pointed to an article today that noted - "We Have Met the Enemy in the War On Terror. . . and He Is Us".

The German people in the 1930s were happy to sacrifice their liberties to a leader who would keep them secure. They did this for 12 years. For the 8871st time, Bush II is not Adolf Hitler. However, the American people are in total denial that their own government, left unchecked, can do far more harm than any foreign terrorist.

I finally got around to watching "V for Vendetta" on the weekend, which I quite enjoyed - yes - its an anarchist comic book tale (which makes an interesting contrast to the usual borderline fascist theme underlying many comic book superheroes) and V isn't exactly a role model, but it had novelty value along with the familiar political landscape (which John Robb predicts will continue to get worse in "The Coming Conflagration" - he's also predicting a Nigerian meltdown in the near future).

Other upcoming movies include Oliver Stone's take on 911 "World Trade Center" and The Rolling Stones in Symapthy for the Devil (thrown in purely because of my recent detour onto the subject of "Gimme Shlter").

The TomDispatch review of WTC says its surprising that he's taken a non-conspiratorial turn with the movie, though tinfoil circles seem content with mysterious explosions happening long after the plane impacts and repeated takes of WTC 7 falling down (does anyone have a good explanation of what happened to that building ?).

When World Trade Center ended, I left the theater tense, my muscles aching. The superb directing and acting, coupled with still hardly imaginable scenes of death and destruction, had sent painful muscle spasms up my back, evoked tears, and left me, yet again, with searing and indelible images of that hellish morning.

I felt disoriented in the bright sunlight of a Northern Californian afternoon. As my mind regained its critical faculties, however, another kind of shock set in. I suddenly realized that Oliver Stone's movie reinforces the Big Lie -- endlessly repeated by Dick Cheney, echoed and amplified by the right-wing media -- that 9/11 was somehow linked to Iraq or supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

It might surprise you that this Oliver Stone film is neither ideological, nor conspiratorial, which in my view is just as it should be. Instead, it is a portrayal of what the men who braved hell and the families who anguished over their survival experienced.

World Trade Center gives 9/11 a distinctly human face by following two Port Authority policemen and their families. We watch the men muster their courage to help evacuate people in one of the towers; we gasp as they are buried alive; we wince as heavy slabs of cement crush their bodies; and we hold our breath as they struggle to keep each other going in the face of imminent death.

Expert editing brings us the anguish suffered by their wives, children, and relatives. Some are in denial, others in shock. Some have faith; others are resigned to the men's deaths. They live in their own hell and we empathize with their wrenching agony.

With a subtle touch, Stone shows us people all over the planet horrified by television images of the airplanes crashing into the towers. He reminds us that the people of the world expressed an outpouring of sympathy (since squandered by the Bush administration).