What is “our” oil doing in their economy? — Saudi oil consumption trends

What is “our” oil doing in their economy? — Saudi oil consumption trends

April 8, 2011. Jonathan Callahan

Oil importing nations have long treated Saudi Arabia as an infinitely deep well of crude oil supplies. In 2005, Matt Simmon’s book Twilight in the Desert called attention to the possibility of diminishing production, recent cables released by Wikileaks reveal possible overstatement of Saudi oil reserves, as does this post on The Oil Drum.  Oil exports from Saudi Arabia depend on more than production – you also need to consider the energy consumption within Saudi Arabia .

[some excerpts from this article below]

Saudi net-exports of crude oil have entered terminal decline

Saudi Arabia’s rapid growth from a population of 5 million in 1965 to 25 million in 2010 and the population is still projected to reach 27 million in 2015 and 32 million in 2025.

This article makes the case that the Saudi economy will consume ever increasing quantities of the oil they are currently exporting. The hope that they will turn to solar or nuclear power is unlikely.  In the real world of existing infrastructure, existing know-how, existing finance and existing technology oil and natural gas will continue to fuel Saudi growth.  The Fukushima disaster in Japan makes the odds of nuclear power even less than before, and even if the Saudis decided to build a nuclear power plant, it takes 10 years to build one.

[My comment: Solar power is unlikely as well after Prieto and Hall’s book “Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution. The Energy Return on Investment”.

Internal consumption in Saudi Arabia was 27% of total oil production in 2009, up 50% since 2000, due to strong economic and industrial growth and subsidized prices. Contributing to this growth is rising direct burn of crude oil for water desalinization and for power generation, which reaches 1 million bbl/d during summer months, and the use of natural gas liquids (NGLs) for petrochemical production. Khalid al-Falih, CEO of Saudi Aramco, warned that domestic liquids demand was on a pace to reach over 8 million bbl/d (oil equivalent) by 2030 if there were no improvements in energy efficiency and current trends continued.

With no infrastructure for import/export of natural gas, the Kingdom consumes 100% of its own production. In 2008, natural gas accounted for 44% of total energy consumption with oil making up the rest.

Water Desalination

Providing fresh water to Saudi’s millions is a very high priority in their desert environment. To date, 27 desalination plants operate throughout the country, which provide 70% of the nation’s potable water along with 28 thousand megawatts of electricity from Integrated Water and Power Plants (IWPP). Unfortunately, this currently requires burning approximately 1.5 million barrels per day of crude oil.

Large cars

The strength of the Saudi economy, reflected in a higher per capita income, led to the increasing popularity of luxury cars and premium automobiles. In addition, Saudis have always opted for large SUVs that can accommodate large families. The market for GMC Suburbans and similar sized SUVs has remained relatively unaffected by the fluctuations in the economy.

Other countries exporting less too

Both Indonesia and Egypt have seen relatively moderate declines in their ability to produce oil. Yet they have been eliminated from the ranks of oil exporting nations because of rising internal consumption. Indonesia’s net exports of oil have fallen steadily since their secondary peak production year in 1992. Egyptian net exports of oil have fallen steadily since their peak production year in 1993 [my comment: and many experts believe that this is what fueled unrest the past few years because the revenue to buy food for Egyptians was no longer available once they stopped exporting oil]. So far, Saudi annual net exports of oil have fallen steadily since their peak production year in 2005.

Reviewing the population growth in figure 1) and all the evidence presented above it seems safe to predict that Saudi net exports of crude oil have entered terminal decline.

Posted in Exports decline to ZERO | Comments Off on What is “our” oil doing in their economy? — Saudi oil consumption trends

Grow Nut Trees in your backyard

Woody Agriculture – On the Road to a New Paradigm

July 27, 2012.  Philip A. Rutter et. al.

[snipped and some paraphrasing – do read the whole long article at the link above if you are interested in planting nut trees.]

You may be familiar with the Land Institute’s work and hopes for a perennial agriculture based on future domestication of wild perennial prairie grasses.  But very few are familiar with Badgersett Research Corporation (BRC) which has been around as long as the Land Institute, but their research is based on woody plants,not grasses.   We could get most of our food from woody crop plants.

[Note: there are many other universities and institutions doing research on hazelnuts and other nut crop trees for just as long as Badgersett who may have better (hybrid) trees that would do better where you live than Badgersett, I.e. Oregon State University has been researching hazelnuts since the 1950s. Also the Universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Rutgers, etc.]

Harvesting

Jeffery and I have never harvested our hazelnuts before the squirrels and scrub jays got them, now I know why:

One warning- the VAST MAJORITY of new hazel growers see their nuts developing, and ripening; and watch them very very carefully- until they are all gone off the bush.

Mice and bluejays jump on hazels the instant they show signs of ripeness (squirrels and chipmunks BEFORE then) – so you need to pick them before the critters; particularly on isolated bushes or plantings of just a few, where the animals can concentrate. This is a skill you can learn; we have hints here: http://weblogs.eos.net/WoodyAg/Stories/ there are 2 bits on “determining ripeness”. In general; there is a 2 week window where YOU can pick the nuts; before the critters do. But you have to jump before the bluejays- they will not forget.

Where do hazelnuts grow?

Be sure to research this before you buy any (zones, water requirements, fertilizer, etc). European varieties only produce in the Oregon area.  The do best in USDA zones 4-5, very well in 6, will grow but often not as well in zones 3, 7, 8, 9.

Badgersett

This company breeds hazelnuts, chestnuts, and hickory-pecan, for crops with wide adaptation and multiple uses, each with both food and biomass components. Both bush and tree forms are under development.

Hazels and hickories are “strictly” wind pollinated.

What we work on is distinct from the multiple versions of “Agroforestry”, which typically means growing timber with food crops, but no significant food from the trees themselves; and from “Tree crops”, the traditional practices described by J.Russell Smith in 1929, which do not include the potential for crop improvement using modern genetics. Agroecology and Permaculture are additional embodiments of progressive alternative agriculture; mainstream agronomists tend to feel both may deliver more ideologies than technologies, and so far can demonstrate few impacts on global problems. None of these alternatives have proven attractive to large scale farmers; and it is specifically large scale agriculture that has the most serious environmental impacts.

Long term inputs are dramatically smaller than for standard agriculture, and potential solar energy capture is very much greater; in the range of 3X more than single crop maize.

the US is in the grip of a broad and severe drought, already affecting crop prices and raising great concern. Our neohybrid hazels, growing under the same conditions which have destroyed neighboring corn fields, are nearly unaffected- except they are ripening their seed crop ahead of schedule. Experience in a similar drought in 1988 showed they could bear the crop, and also bear their crop in the next year.

Woody crops are also more tolerant than row crops to the other end of the weather spectrum; flood. Flood water that covers young annual plants will generally kill them; but woody plants, with their tops above water, are essentially unaffected.

One additional energy related advantage: woody agriculture can produce food; on the same scale as modern agriculture. But because of the 3X energy capture aspect the same crop can simultaneously produce a biomass fuel component. In the case of hazelnuts, our top recorded experimental yields, based on multiple single-bush data, indicates that food production exceeding soybean averages is attainable, with the nutshell component of the crop available for fuel, annually.

Dry neohybrid hazelnut shell is dense, with an energy content measured at 8,800 BTU/lb, at 1.8% ash. The wood component of the crop is harvested on a rotating basis, approximately once every 8-10 years. The entire energy picture for these crops is much more complex, and very importantly- flexible, within and between years, always with the potential to retain the food component.

For those with the interest, an hour-long video lecture is available on YouTube; the recorded introductory presentation from our annual 2 day Short Course. Be forewarned, this is an unhurried format, and starts out slow by internet standards; but the pace does pick up, and it is comprehensive.

Because woody perennial plants use energy stored from the previous year’s photosynthesis, they are able to deploy a full functional, deeply 3 dimensional solar collection array very rapidly, as soon as local average temperatures make physiological processes efficient. Annual row crops, of course, must build new collection capabilities out of current energy capture; and while perennial grasses also used stored energy to deploy collectors, they cannot achieve nearly the same depth or complexity.

Just a few reasons why tree nuts are so valuable:

•Non-perishable commodity foods (dry nuts are less perishable than grains.)
•Protein – avg 10%; nutritionally complete
•Oil
–Hazel kernel is 60% oil; the chemical twin of olive oil
–Hickory/pecan is 70% oil
–Biodiesel demonstrated
•Carbohydrate – chestnut 50%, comparable to maize
•High density nutshell (pelletize/gasify/burn, bioplastics feedstock, chemical extractives)
•Hardwood biomass (fuel, paper, OSB, lumber, etc.)

It’s a no-till crop

While these ultimate “no-till” crops are frequently cited by others as being suitable for “marginal” crop lands, we do not make that recommendation. Marginal soils are at best steep; making machine harvest and other management more expensive, and at worst dry with poor soils- meaning crop yields will also be poor. Woody crops are expensive to establish compared to annual crops; good returns are critical. The woody crops may eventually perform better than tilled crops on such soils, but marginal land is not a pathway to seriously improved food or biomass production.

No-till is a big deal, it causes far less erosion.  From my Peak Soil article:

  • Row crops like corn and soy cause 50 times more soil erosion than sod crops (Sullivan 2004) or more (Al-Kaisi 2000), because the soil between rows can wash or blow away. If corn is planted with last years corn stalks left on the ground (no-till), erosion is less of a problem, but only about 20% of corn is grown no-till.  Soy is usually grown no-till, but has insignificant residues to harvest for fuel.
  • Long before there was “Peak Oil”, there was “Peak Soil”. Iowa has some of the best topsoil in the world.  In the past century, half of it’s been lost, from an average of 18 to 10 inches deep (Pate 2004, Klee 1991).
  • Productivity drops off sharply when topsoil reaches 6 inches or less, the average crop root zone depth (Sundquist 2005).
  • Crop productivity continually declines as topsoil is lost and residues are removed.  (Al-Kaisi May 2001, Ball 2005, Blanco-Canqui 2006, BOA 1986, Calviño 2003, Franzleubbers 2006, Grandy 2006, Johnson 2004, Johnson 2005, Miranowski 1984, Power 1998, Sadras 2001, Troeh 2005, Wilhelm 2004).
  • On over half of America’s best crop land, the erosion rate is 27 times the natural rate, 11,000 pounds per acre (NCRS 2006). The natural, geological erosion rate is about 400 pounds of soil per acre per year (Troeh 2005).  Some is due to farmers not being paid enough to conserve their land, but most is due to investors who farm for profit.  Erosion control cuts into profits.
  • Erosion is happening ten to twenty times faster than the rate topsoil can be formed by natural processes (Pimentel 2006).  That might make the average person concerned.  But not the USDA — they’ve defined erosion as the average soil loss that could occur without causing a decline in long term productivity.
  • Troeh (2005) believes that the tolerable soil loss (T) value is set too high, because it’s based only on the upper layers — how long it takes subsoil to be converted into topsoil.  T ought to be based on deeper layers – the time for subsoil to develop from parent material or parent material from rock.  If he’s right, erosion is even worse than NCRS figures.
  • We’ve come a long way since the 1930′s in reducing erosion, but that only makes it more insidious.  Erosion is very hard to measure — very little soil might erode for years, and then tons per acre blown or washed away in an extreme storm just after harvest, before a cover crop has had a chance to protect the soil.  We need better ways of measuring and monitoring erosion, since estimates wildly differ (Trimble 2000).

Pest management: we have found that “ecosystem pest management”, the provision of diverse habitat for the maintenance of insect predators/diseases – works. We currently use no pesticides of any kind, and do not foresee a need. Besides habitat maintenance, genetic improvement of crop adaptations to pests is perpetual.

Fertilizer: yes, of course. The woody crops must establish large root systems and above-ground wood in order to function. Wild trees take decades to achieve maturity, partly because they must accumulate basic nutritional components in the very small increments normally available to unmanaged environments; a bird dropping here, nutrients from a dropped branch there. Establishing food producing crop plants in the human time frame requires considerable fertilizer inputs.

Our current belief is that providing fertilizer on the same order as that used for maize will be necessary for the first 10 years; following that, the necessary inputs decrease. Some ongoing inputs will prove necessary; to the extent nutrients are removed in harvested crops, they will inevitably have to be replaced.

Applied fertilizer does not escape into aquifers or drainages. The first infrastructure these woody crops build is a huge, permanent root system; according to actual experiment a 6 year old hazel field captures 100% of applied fertilizer.

Animals are being integrated, and we see this as a viable direction. We utilize horses, sheep, and poultry between the aisles of the crop plants, to “mow grass”, translate legumes to crop available nitrogen, and help in crop plant management. We are attempting to calculate animal inputs and costs, for direct comparison with machine alternatives, e.g. the use of diesel powered mowers to keep grass short enough to allow harvest and discourage rodents. This is very much a work in progress, but initial results are quite promising. Even large commercial vineyards/orchards may now hire sheep and goats to do careful work, replacing fossil fuel inputs with animals.

Periodic coppice, the practice of cutting the trees or bushes to the ground on a rotating basis, is the method used to manage the removal of old wood, or wood getting too tall for best management. Hazel rotations are approximately 8-12 years; chestnut coppice can be managed on a 20-30 rotation, depending on the wood products desired. On the longer rotation, harvest may yield poles for utilities or log cabin construction, both high value products, or small dimension lumber; the shorter rotation will yield fence post, vine props, charcoal and biochar. Rotations for hickory-pecan are not established, but first experiments show very strong coppice response.

Philip A. Rutter, B. L. Rutter-Daywater, and S. J. Wiegrefe. Phil Rutter is the Founding President of The American Chestnut Foundation; trained in ecology and evolution, he has been working in SE Minnesota for 35 years on domesticating several woody plant genera for commodity agriculture-style food production.

Comments of interest (PAR is the author commenting)

Wild and untended nut and fruit trees suffer from parasites much more frequently than tended ones. Here in California, the native hunter-gatherer population would burn the undergrowth in oak forests every few years to keep the pests down and acorn production high. (see “Tending the Wild” by M. Kat Anderson) In this way, they achieved one of the densest hunter-gatherer populations in the world, a population which was largely sedentary. And that was with wild species – and the huge variation in crop yield from year-to-year.

In France we rarely keep fresh chesnut for long time. Longer storage require caning freezing, making it into a paste that look like peanut butter (but is more sweet) or grinding it into a flour that can be used to make bread.

PAR: One of the primary reasons I started working with chestnuts is that they do NOT “mast” crop [i.e. don’t bear any acorns for a year or more], in the normal meaning of the word. Oaks do (temperate oaks; some tropical ones do not); and in oaks it is typical for wild acorn production to vary by as much as 2,000%, from on year to another. Wild chestnuts, by comparison, may vary only as much as 50% from year to year; orders of magnitude more stable. The neohybrid breeding path generates seedlings where “wild type” instruction sets are disrupted, allowing us to select for plants that bear every year; progress there with the hazels is quite advanced; initial variations in the hickory-pecans indicate it’s possible.

Posted in Farming & Ranching | Comments Off on Grow Nut Trees in your backyard

Oil Reserve Estimates are WAY too high

Old Math Casts Doubt on Accuracy of Oil Reserve Estimates

Asjylyn Loder. april 3, 2014. Bloomberg News

Jan Arps is the most influential oilman you’ve never heard of. In 1945, Arps, then a 33-year-old petroleum engineer for British-American Oil Producing Co., published a formula to predict how much crude a well will produce and when it will run dry. The Arps method has become one of the most widely used measures in the industry. Companies rely on it to predict the profitability of drilling, secure loans and report reserves to regulators.  The problem is the Arps equation has been twisted to apply to shale technology, which didn’t exist when Arps died in 1976. John Lee, a University of Houston engineering professor and an authority on estimating reserves, said billions of barrels of untapped shale oil in the U.S. are counted by companies relying on limited drilling history and tweaks to Arps’s formula that exaggerate future production. That casts doubt on how close the U.S. will get to energy independence, a goal that’s nearer than at any time since 1985, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  “Things could turn out more pessimistic than people project,” said Lee. “The long-term production of some of those oil-rich wells may be overstated.”

Posted in Reserves Lower than stated | Comments Off on Oil Reserve Estimates are WAY too high

Charles Hall on EROEI

[ For a full understanding of EROI, which Hall invented in 1973 as a way of evaluating which energy resources could best replace fossil fuels, see Hall’s latest book: Hall, Charles A.S. 2017. Energy Return on Investment: A Unifying Principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability.  It’s a shame that EROI studies are still not funded well now that we’re on the edge of the Net energy cliff.

Here’s a quick overview of what Energy Returned On Invested means. What happens when the EROI gets too low? What’s achievable at different EROIs? (since this was published in 2008 Hall has estimated an EROI of up to 14 is required)

  • If you’ve got an EROI of 1.1:1, you can pump the oil out of the ground and look at it.
  • If you’ve got 1.2:1, you can refine it and look at it.
  • At 1.3:1, you can move it to where you want it and look at it.
  • We looked at the minimum EROI you need to drive a truck, and you need at least 3:1 at the wellhead.
  • Now, if you want to put anything in the truck, like grain, you need to have an EROI of 5:1. And that includes the depreciation for the truck.
  • But if you want to include the depreciation for the truck driver and the oil worker and the farmer, then you’ve got to support the families. And then you need an EROI of 7:1.
  • And if you want education, you need 8:1 or 9:1.
  • And if you want health care, you need 10:1 or 11:1.

Civilization requires a substantial energy return on investment. You can’t do it on some a low EROI fuel like corn-based ethanol, which has an EROI of around 1:1.

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, 2015, Springer and “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Podcasts: Practical Prepping, KunstlerCast 253, KunstlerCast278, Peak Prosperity , XX2 report ]

Charles A. S. Hall.  2012. Energy Return on Investment. Post Carbon Institute.

Source: Hall, C.A.S., R. Powers, W. Schoenberg. 2008. Peak oil, EROI, investments and the economy in an uncertain future. Pimentel, D. (ed). Renewable Energy Systems: Environmental and Energetic Issues. Elsevier London

A short excerpt from this 24 page paper:

Real fuels must have EROIs of 5 or 10 or more returned on invested to not be subsidized by petroleum or coal in many ways, such as the construction of the vehicles and roads that use them. the scale of the problem can be seen by the fact that we presently use more fossil energy in the US than is fixed by all green plant production, including all of our croplands and all of our forests (Pimentel, D. Personal communication).

Energy and money are not the only critical aspects of development of energy alternatives. Recent work by Hirsch et al. (2005) has focused on the investments in time that might be needed to generate some kind of replacement for oil, should that be possible and peak oil occur.

They examined what they thought might be the leading alternatives to provide the US with liquid fuel or lower liquid fuel use alternatives, including tar sands, oil shales, deep water petroleum, biodiesel, high MPG automobiles and trucks and so on. They assumed that these technologies would work (a bold assumption) and that an amount of investment capital equal to “many Manhattan projects” would be available.

They found that the critical resource was time — once we decided that we needed to make up for the decline in oil availability these projects would need to be started one or preferably two decades in advance of the peak for there not to be severe dislocations to the US economy.  Given our current petroleum dependence, the rather unattractive aspects of many of the available alternatives, and the long lead time required to change our energy strategy the investment options are not obvious.

This, we believe, may be the most important issue facing the United States at this time: where should we invest our remaining high quality petroleum (and coal) with an eye toward insuring that we can meet the energy needs of the future.  We do not believe that markets can solve this problem alone or perhaps at all. Research money for good energy analysis unconnected to this or that “solution” simply are not available.

Human history has been about the progressive development and use of ever higher quality fuels, from human muscle power to draft animals to water power to coal to petroleum. Nuclear at one time seemed to be a continuation of that trend, but that is a hard argument to make today. Perhaps our major question is whether petroleum represents but a step in this continuing process of higher quality fuel sources or rather is the highest quality fuel we will ever have on a large scale.

Will Fossil Fuels Be Able to Maintain Economic Growth? A Q&A with Charles Hall

The inventor of the energy return on investment (EROI) metric argues that economic growth could soon stop—and that we need to get smart about incorporating the true cost of fuel in energy policies

Mar 19, 2013  By Mason Inman  Scientific American

“Drill, baby, drill” has become a slogan of those who want to produce more oil and gas and who scoff at alternatives to petroleum. But rarely mentioned is the expense required to get that oil and gas—and still more rarely mentioned is the energy required to access those resources.

Charles Hall, an ecologist at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, has spent most of his long career trying to get fellow researchers and the public to take a serious look at the energy required to get the energy we use. He is given credit for creating a measure known as the energy return on investment, or EROI—the ratio of energy output over energy input. (With oil, for example, the energy output would be the crude oil produced, and the energy input would be all that required to find the oil reservoir, drill the well and pump the oil out of the ground.) EROI is a crucial metric, Hall argues, because it helps us see which energy sources are high quality and which are not.

Hall and his students did pioneering work in this area, including a 1984 paper on the cover of Science. For many years, however, interest in the topic languished. But recent soaring oil prices and increasing difficulty of accessing new supplies have helped create economic hardships, leading to resurgent interest in EROI. Scientific American asked Hall to explain the basis of the EROI and how it pertains to our economy.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

You’re a self-described “nature boy” who became an ecologist. So how did you create the idea of energy return on investment (EROI)? I had this unbelievable doctoral advisor, H. T. Odum of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He said, “Well, Charlie, I don’t think anyone has thought about fish migration from a systems perspective.

I went down to the coast of North Carolina, looking for a place where I could do this research. And I found one: in this freshwater environment, where fish weren’t supposed to be migrating, they were migrating like crazy.

And you approached this migration mystery from an energy-use perspective. How did you do that? I measured the ecosystem productivity by the free-water oxygen technique. I measured it at five different places, upstream and downstream, and found some very clear patterns. The energy available to the fish was much more concentrated as you went upstream, and I developed this theory that the fish would migrate to capitalize on the abundance of energy for the first year or two of the life, and then the young fish would migrate downstream into a more stable but less productive environment.

The study found that fish populations that migrated would return at least four calories for every calorie they invested in the process of migration by being able to exploit different ecosystems of different productivity at different stages of their life cycles.

So from studying fish migration, was it a big leap to think about people and fossil fuels? No, probably because Howard Odum was evolving in his thought processes. He wrote a book Environment, Power and Society at about that time. An amazing thing working with Odum was, for him, there are just systems. It doesn’t matter if it’s a forested system or a stream system or an estuarine system, or whether people are there or not. It’s just a system—and systems have many similar patterns and many similar processes of consumption and production, and they often even have similar controls on them.

So, it was not difficult for me, because I was trained that way from Howard Odum. Also, when I was a graduate student there were a lot of very exciting things going on. Ecologists were much more involved—not just in biodiversity, which is where much of the focus is today, but in dealing with important issues of the relation of humans to resources. Paul Ehrlich [author of The Population Bomb (1968)], Garrett Hardin [known for his 1968 Science paper “The Tragedy of the Commons”], George Woodwell [founder of the Woods Hole Research Center], many other people—these were very influential to me as a graduate student.

For society’s energy sources, is it important to consider EROI? Is there a lot of oil left in the ground? Absolutely. The question is, how much oil can we get out of the ground, at a significantly high EROI? And the answer to that is, hmmm, not nearly as much. So that’s what we’re struggling with as we go further and further offshore and have to do this fracking and horizontal drilling and all of this kind of stuff, especially when you get away from the sweet spots of shale formations. It gets tougher and tougher to get the next barrel of oil, so the EROI goes down, down, down.

Is there some minimum EROI we need to have? Since everything we make depends on energy, you can’t simply pay more and more and get enough to run society. At some energy return on investment—I’m guessing 5:1 or 6:1—it doesn’t work anymore.

What happens when the EROI gets too low? What’s achievable at different EROIs? If you’ve got an EROI of 1.1:1, you can pump the oil out of the ground and look at it. If you’ve got 1.2:1, you can refine it and look at it. At 1.3:1, you can move it to where you want it and look at it. We looked at the minimum EROI you need to drive a truck, and you need at least 3:1 at the wellhead. Now, if you want to put anything in the truck, like grain, you need to have an EROI of 5:1. And that includes the depreciation for the truck. But if you want to include the depreciation for the truck driver and the oil worker and the farmer, then you’ve got to support the families. And then you need an EROI of 7:1. And if you want education, you need 8:1 or 9:1. And if you want health care, you need 10:1 or 11:1.

Civilization requires a substantial energy return on investment. You can’t do it on some kind of crummy fuel like corn-based ethanol [with an EROI of around 1:1].

A big problem we have facing the alternatives is they’re all so low EROI. We’d all like to go toward renewable fuels, but it’s not going to be easy at all. And it may be impossible. We may not be able to sustain our civilization on these alternative fuels. I hope we can, but we’ve got to deal with it realistically.

Do you think we’re facing limits to growth now? I think if you correct the U.S. GDP for debt—in other words, the debt is some kind of not-real growth—then I think the GDP hasn’t grown at all since 2005. It’s just grown through debt. I think clearly growth has declined; it’s possible that growth has either stopped or may soon stop.

We know that the middle class has not increased its income now for 20 years. Behind that—not always the immediate cause, but looking over the shoulder of the causes—I find the decline in the availability of energy.

It’s terrifying to people—politicians and economists—who base everything on growth. I think they won’t talk about it because the concept is terrifying.

Most economists think economic growth can continue indefinitely, right? It was easy to make economic theories that worked while we pumped more and more oil out of the ground, because whether you’re a capitalist or a communist or a this-ist or a that-ist, they’d work—because there was more oil to make them work. We could afford all the corruption and inefficiencies in the past and still have quite a lot trickle down.

But now the pie is not getting that much bigger. Now, it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of economic theories that aren’t working very well.

How do these economic arguments relate to people’s day-to-day lives? Doesn’t it mean food on the table, a roof over your head, gas in your car—a car itself? So economics isn’t really about money. It’s about stuff. We’ve been toilet trained to think of economics as being about money, and to some degree it is. But fundamentally it’s about stuff. And if it’s about stuff, why are we studying it as a social science? Why are we not, at least equally, studying it as a biophysical science?

Hall recently co-authored a book on this biophysical perspective with economist Kent Klitgaard, Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy (Springer, 2011).

 

This is also a chapter in The Energy Reader: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth, Tom Butler, Daniel Lerch, and George Wuerthner, eds. (Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media, 2012).

Posted in Charles A. S. Hall, EROEI Energy Returned on Energy Invested, EROEI remaining oil too low | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Charles Hall on EROEI

Economics 101: Liquidity is a Loan, Why prices can go UP in a Deflation, do not buy Gold, and Much More

December 29, 2007. Karl Denninger. The Year In Review And a Look Ahead for 2008. market-ticker

[I’ve snipped out a lot of this article, which is no longer available on the internet.  It was very prescient, and even though some of his predictions didn’t come to pass, they might in the next crash.  This is one of the best explanations I know of about what happened].

The residential real estate bubble – is real.   But the cause is not so simple.

The Federal Reserve does not set interest rates and don’t claim to.  Their official language is that The Fed sets the “Fed funds Target rate”, and you can not borrow at a target rate.

The target is a lending rate – their “intended” overnight lending rate between banks. They “defend” this target by either injecting liquidity (cash) into the banking system, or withdrawing it from the banking system. To inject “cash” they temporarily take in various debt securities (Treasuries and others) from banks, and issue them cash – much like you’d pawn your Rolex, diamond ring or handgun.

These “repos” have a relatively short term (typically from 1-30 days) and when they expire, you are required to give The Fed back the cash, with, of course, interest. These “TOMOs” (or “Temporary Open Market Operations”) are conducted daily in the normal course of operation of the banking system. If the actual “trading rate” of overnight money between banks is too low, The Fed will either refuse to “roll over” some of the expiring TOMOs (thereby reducing the amount of “sloshing”, or free cash, in the system) or, if necessary, will actually do a reverse TOMO, effectively “putting” some of its Treasuries (that it holds itself) out into the marketplace.

When the manipulations of this sort become overly burdensome to maintain the target rate, because the demand for overnight money has either fallen or risen too strongly to be defended, the target is changed.

There is also a second operation called a “POMO”, or Permanent Open Market Operation. These are far more rare; they are literally outright purchases (or sales, if a reverse) of these securities. Typically The Fed will do a handful of these per year to cover the increase in the actual demand for hard currency that accrues in the system over a year. These are very small, usually in the neighborhood of $10 or 20 billion in total in a given year, and really ARE “printing” of money, in that The Treasury is the source of the T-bills, and when they are “permanently” taken off the market and exchanged for dollars, those dollars are, effectively, “printed”. The Fed did not do the printing – Treasury did – The Fed was merely the conduit.

Let’s be absolutely clear here folks – “Liquidity” is not “printing money”. It is not “inflationary”. In addition, the actual monetary inflation conducted by injections of real, hard, CASH into the system has been miniscule all through 2007 (and prior years as well.)

Liquidity is a loan!

Here’s why: Let us say that you have some diamonds, a Rolex, and a couple of handguns and a job that pays $5,000 a month. You spend basically all of this, having only a few hundred dollars in the bank in cash. Now assume your car has no collision or comprehensive insurance, just the legally-required liability insurance.  Late one night Joe Thug ssteals your car. This is a disaster. You need to get to work, or you will soon not have that $5,000 a month in income.

You could go to the bank, but the bank is likely to look askance at your request for a loan. After all, you don’t have a house, and they’re not all that interested in your Rolex.

So you go down the street to the local pawn shop. Here you find “liquidity.” You execute the equivalent of a personal TOMO with the pawnshop owner. He gives you cash, and you give him your Rolex, your diamonds, and all but one of your handguns (you need the last one in case Joe Thug shows up again!)

Now you are actually in a worse financial situation than you were before! Yes, you’re “liquid”, but you have an interest payment to make.

When The Fed “injects liquidity” they have not created money; in fact, they have made the bank’s balance sheets more encumbered because the interest has to be paid too!

But of course, just like the bank, you use that $2,000 to buy yourself a car. This allows you to go to work and keep your job. A month passes, you tighten your belt, and the “TOMO” matures – you pay the Pawnshop owner back (with interest) and retrieve your Rolex, guns and diamonds.

When you hear that The Fed has injected “liquidity” into the system, this is what has happened. Further, what is almost always not reported in the media is that amount of maturing TOMOs on the same day or those bordering the action. So you will hear reported that “The Fed (or ECB) has injected a record amount of liquidity into the system” as if this is some “bullish” thing, but what they fail to mention is that the same – or even more, in many cases, TOMOs have matured on the same day, making the net injection zero!

Just remember folks – “liquidity” isn’t hard cash. It’s a loan, it carries interest, and it has to be paid back – on a short term basis.

Ok, so we’ve dispensed with this foolishness that “The Fed can save us. In fact, they cannot.   They want people to believe they can, however, because from that belief derives literally all of their power. Should people actually come to understand the above paragraphs – the fact that “liquidity” is just really a loan much like a pawnshop gives you, and that The Fed is powerless to impact what is going on in this fashion in the end, as loans always have to be paid back, they would lose the only real weapon they have: The power of the mouth.

You’ve seen it. Some Fed Governor speaks and the market moves, often dramatically. The public and investors believe that The Fed is omnipotent, and that results in the market moving when they talk. The power is, in fact, illusory, just like The Wizard of Oz.  Understand the above and you’re ahead of 99% of all investors on Wall Street – including so-called professionals.

Inflation and deflation

Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon, as is deflation. The effects of inflation or deflation are usually found in prices for goods and services, but they may show up in various items in different ways.

The monetary supply, to maintain balance, must grow at a rate which approximates the growth in productive output, otherwise the money system will eventually starve itself of liquidity. An example will make this clear.

Let’s assume the world has only two people in it, you and your neighbor, and $100 in total.

You have some farmland, and some corn. You plant the corn and it grows. You now have more corn than you started with; you began with some kernels as seeds, they grew through the input of your labor, rainfall and the sun’s radiation, and now you have more corn kernels than you started with.

You and your neighbor, however, have been eating some of the corn during the year. This “essential consumption” must be subtracted out from the whole. (Clearly, if you planted no corn, eventually you would eat it all and you’d both starve to death.)

So let’s say that at the end of the year there is 10% more “stuff” in the world than there was at the beginning, where the only “stuff” that we’re counting is, in fact, corn.

If the amount of cash (money) remained at $100, you would suffer deflation. The monetary base has not grown, but the amount of “stuff” has. Each dollar buys more “stuff”, but that’s an effect – not the cause. The cause is that the monetary base has not expanded.

To maintain parity you would have to issue $10 more in money. This money was “printed”, in that you just literally fired up your printing press and made it. But because it exactly matched the increase in “stuff”, there is no inflationary or deflationary change.

Price for corn would remain stable, all other things being equal.

But let’s say you printed another $100. Now the price for corn would likely rise, because the total amount of money has increased by more than the amount of “stuff”. Therefore, the balance on prices shifts to the right, and the price-per-kernel (or bushel) for that corn rises.

This is “how money and inflation really works”, but it’s not what you are taught.

In reality, of course, there are all sorts of different kinds of “stuff”. Oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, corn, wheat, pork, beef, houses, TVs, computers, cars, haircuts, lawn mowing services, electricity and more. The system is thus very complex, but it still works the same way – in total.

So when you hear that “inflation” is rampant because oil has gotten more expensive, that’s not necessarily true. Oil is more expensive, perhaps, because oil is scarce while people who wish to buy oil are not. That is, the supply and demand component on any particular item in the economy may change while the total monetary base compared to the increase in global output may or may not.

See, money isn’t just cash. We think of “money” as Federal Reserve Notes – or what I like to call “Dead Presidents”. In point of fact that’s true – hard money, or cash, is indeed these “FRN”s and deposits denoted in them. That is, if you have $2,000 in your bank, even though that $2,000 is just an entry in a book somewhere (electronic these days) you can show up at your bank and demand it, and they will give you $2,000 in dead presidents with which you can then walk around.

But what about that pawn shop up above?  Ah, now we’re getting to where the problem is.  See, The Pawn Shop doesn’t start with much, other than the building the owner is sitting in.

He is, however, in fact a debt merchant. That is, his job is to siphon off some of your productive output and keep it for himself. He does this by giving you FRNs – cash – for things that currently aren’t cash but represent some past productive output of yours. In your case these things are diamonds, handguns and your Rolex.

But in doing this he takes some of your hard-earned future output, because when you go to redeem those items you must pay him more than he gave you.  Is he “manufacturing money” when he does this?  No.

He in fact borrowed the actual money he gave you himself! He went to his bank (or someone else) and pledged his business assets in exchange for some money. They charged him interest!

So he must charge you more than he pays; if he manages to do this, he can pocket the difference and make a profit. If not, he eventually goes bust. But what happens if you can’t pay him?  He seizes your collateral and sells it.  Now what?

Well, if he manages to get more for the collateral than he gave you, he has turned a profit.

But what if he gets less?

Then money is effectively destroyed – and this, my friends, is deflation!

Let’s say that he gave you $1,000 for that Rolex. You spend it and can’t pay him back. He goes to sell the Rolex and discovers that either nobody will pay HIM $1,000 for it, or worse, it’s not a real Rolex! Let’s say he can get only $500 for the watch when he sells it.

What happened to the other $500? It has been destroyed, along with the interest that he paid to the bank to borrow the $1,000 in the first place when he loaned it to you!

To keep this sort of thing from getting out of control the banking regulators are supposed to enforce reserve requirements, and the markets are supposed to enforce margin requirements. This is done because although there are deflationary pressures in any market, if they ever get out of control asset prices will fall and quite rapidly this becomes a self-fulfilling spiral.

If you wish to buy a car (or house), but see that the prices for cars are going down rather than up or remaining stable, assuming you do not immediately need the car (your old one still runs) and you have the cash you are well ahead of the game to wait! After all, if cars will be cheaper in six months, why buy now? This destroys demand, which in turn means that the guy who makes cars can’t pay his suppliers because he hasn’t sold his stock of vehicles. That results in more defaults on debt which further deflates the money supply. This, in turn, causes prices to fall further, and on it goes!

So why are house prices deflating?  Well, the short version is “because they overly inflated in the first place.  The long version is a bit more complicated.

After 9/11 Greenspan not only followed the demand for credit down but he also “winked and nodded” at banks and others, especially those on Wall Street, who were in effect cheating the system.

Let’s say that you have 1,000 mortgages that you’ve written to all sorts of people. Their actual risk if defaulting on their mortgages is reasonably low, especially when you look at all 1,000 of them as a pool, instead of each individual mortgage. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the actual “risk premium” – that is, the reasonable cost of the money compared to a “risk free” investment such as US Treasury bonds, is 200 basis points – that is, a 2% higher interest rate “fairly” compensates for the risk you won’t pay.

So I have a pool of mortgages that was made when the 10 year Treasury bond was yielding 5%, and the “fair” return on that pool is 7%. All is good.   Or is it?

Well, no. See, everyone who touches that pool wants a piece of the action. If I’m an investment bank I can’t possibly do this work for free, so I want 25 basis points of that 200 for my profit in “putting all these together and managing them.

Then there is the company that services the loans. They take the payments from each homeowner and make sure that they’re correctly accounted for. This requires staff, phones, computers, etc. They too want to be paid – let’s call that another 25 basis points.

So now we have 150 basis points left of “margin” over the 10 year Treasury rate. If we sold “slices” of this debt off, at best we could “allow” a coupon that reflected that 150 basis points.

Unfortunately greed got into the equation.

The banks figured out that they could structure these 1,000 mortgages into different “tranches” with different characteristics. If you take all the money coming in and look at this as one big pool, that gives everyone only one thing to buy. But if we take that pool and split it up into a bunch of different levels of risk, we can now offer slices that have different levels of return.

For instance, we could draft some documents that say that if the total amount of money due isn’t paid (by everyone) that the first risk of people not paying would fall on a certain class of the buyers. These buyers would get a much higher coupon payment, but they’d take much higher risk, because no matter which “Joe” doesn’t pay their mortgage, these people would eat it preferentially, while those above them with a “lower” grade of risk would keep getting their payments.

This is the essence of the “Mortgage-backed security”, or MBS.

But remember – no matter how you slice this whole deal up only 200 basis points of profit is in there over treasuries to make. You can change who eats the losses and how much the various “fingers in the pie” get to siphon off, but you can’t change the total amount of profit available. OR CAN YOU?   Wall Street figured out that YOU CAN IF YOU ARE WILLING TO CHEAT.

All you have to do is find someone who will run your “deal” through a computer program and “grade” the quality of its debt. If you can find someone who will claim that the total risk of the deal is lower than it actually is, you make out like a bandit, because instead of 200 basis points of actual profit you suddenly “find” another 50 or 100!

The problem is that the real risk DID NOT CHANGE.

So how do you go about trying to “massage” the deal?

One of the ways is that you find someone who will write you what is called a “Credit Default Swap.” In its simplest form this is an insurance policy; you pay someone a small amount of money and they issue a contract that says that if the bond defaults you give them the bond and they give you the face value. They then have the defaulted bond and can try to recover whatever is still there (remember that the house that was pledged didn’t go to zero – it has some value, so the “defaulted” mortgage money is not entirely lost.) Now, with this “CDS”, the ratings agency “sees” that your risk of actually losing money has gone down, and they issue you a better grade – after all, if the bond does default, the swap-writer will pay you.

Didn’t we just find a free lunch?   NO – We found a scam!    Why?

Because nobody gives money away; everyone always expects to make a profit.

If the CDS writer has charged you an amount of money necessary to actually cover the risk of a default, plus their profit, the total amount of money available off that 200 basis points decreases. That is, the total profit available in the deal must decrease for each component that is added to the complexity of the transaction and for each person who has some “finger in the pie.

The common law of business balance prohibits it from being otherwise in fact, no matter what you are told.

THERE IS NEVER A FREE LUNCH!

But by intimating that there is, which can be as simple as finding someone who will “misprice” risk, either out of their own stupidity (in other words, greed) or outright intentional deception, we make money “cheap”, and suddenly, people can buy houses they could otherwise not afford.

Why?

Because the person who writes that swap at a lower-than-actual-risk premium has effectively “created” money. They have made a promise to pay they cannot keep at the actual price of risk; in effect, they have “grown” the monetary base via cheating!

A person who is a hairdresser and makes $8/hour ($16,000 a year @ 2,000 hours annually) cannot possibly afford a $500,000 house. But a lot of $8/hour hairdressers bought $500,000 houses! If those loans were properly priced to reflect the odds of default the interest rates on those loans would have been astronomical. But they were not, and in fact they were priced in many cases with “teaser” and “negative amortization” rates that were as low as 1 or 2%, with the rest of the interest and principal being “capitalized” – or put back into the loan balance!

This was all justified by the belief that house prices would never go down and so if the Hairdresser could not pay, the bondholder would not really take any loss. Yes, they’d default, but the recovery would be near perfect, since the house would be worth more than the mortgage outstanding.

The problem is that house prices cannot increase forever at a rate which exceeds the rate of productive output increase in the economy as a whole! Eventually you run out of suckers – and the scheme collapses.

So why did the banks do this if they knew that eventually they’d run out of suckers?  Primarily because their biggest source of income was the fees from making all these deals! That is, that 25 or 50 basis points that they extracted from passing the money through their hands.

Clearly, the original intent was not to keep any of this risk on their own books – they intended to pass it off to others just like the pumpers did in the 90s with the hundreds of Internet Companies who never had a prayer in Hell of turning a profit.

Unfortunately in their zeal they started to eat their own cooking, and kept some of these deals on their own balance sheets! Some of them got even more clever and set up “off balance sheet” conduits and “Special Investment Vehicles” to buy this paper, which allegedly were not “responsibilities” of the bank. But the “wink-wink-nod-nod” reality was that they were, because without that responsibility the ratings agencies would never give them the credit rating they NEEDED to be able to sell it.

Let’s take just one example of “eating your own cooking” – Washington Mutual (WaMu).

Back in April I noted that their first quarter 10Q showed that they had less cash income than their dividend payout. That is, they had less than their 50 cents/share dividend in actual cash earnings. The rest of their “earnings” were in fact “capitalized interest.” That is, these negative amortization loans which are increasing in outstanding balance were actually being booked as profit as the face values went up! The two obvious problems with this (although its legal under US accounting rules) are that (1) you can’t spend “capitalized interest” as it is not cash you have received and (2) if the “increased balance” is not paid because it results in a default you wind up taking a monstrous write-down and restatement in the future. And oh, by the way, this trend has continued in both the 2nd and 3rd quarters for WaMu.

The stock market thought this was great in the first, second and third quarters, and their stock price hovered around $30, making people like me who had bought PUTs very unhappy.

But eventually, “Mr. Market” figured it out, and now they trade at under $20 – a more than 30% “haircut” – as people have come to realize that you can’t spend negative amortization “income” and that collecting it might be doubtful as well!

What about the monoline insurers? They are at ground zero of this mess because they wrote “swaps” for which there is no prayer in hell of being able to actually pay.

All of this “credit” was in fact extremely inflationary. The monetary basis did not grow much in terms of actual cash, but the rub here is that cash, credit and debt are called “fungible” – that is, you can exchange one for the other, almost without limit. You can spend credit as if it was cash, essentially without limit!

When you go into a store and swipe your credit card you are in fact taking on debt. When you pay it off at the end of the month you swap cash for debt. If you pay it off at the end of the money there is no “discount” charged to you – that is, from your perspective, credit, debt and money (actual cash) are all the same thing. Of course the truth is that there was a discount charge – the merchant ate it in his “discount rate” for credit card purchases – but its invisible to you as a consumer to maintain the illusion that cash = credit = debt.

In reality they are not, because credit and debt have interest (either owed or paid) while cash does not, but in the economy they are essentially the same thing from a standpoint of purchasing power and the impact on prices that come with it.

Remember that bit above about “deflation” when you can’t pay the pawnbroker?

Well now we are seeing it on a global scale as people can’t pay their mortgages!

As this debt defaults, the money that it represents is destroyed.

As money is destroyed it becomes scarce while goods and services (especially the goods that were being bought with defaulted debt like houses) get much less expensive, because there are too many of them compared to the dollars available. This is the effect of deflation – prices on those items tend to go down.

How much money is going to be destroyed, in total?

It is not possible to know exactly how far down the rabbit hole this goes, but we do have some information to base a reasonable guess upon.

One of these facts is that about $6.5 trillion has been “withdrawn” from home equity over the last four years and spent. Most of that was spent not on home improvements (which at least have some residual value) but on things like computers, plasma TVs, cars and exotic vacations (directly or indirectly by paying off credit card debt accumulated purchasing those things.)

Of this $6.5 trillion perhaps one third of it is now “underwater”, in that it is represented by “Home Equity” loans (HELOCS) on houses that are now worth less than the total of the mortgage and HELOC outstanding. This debt will almost certainly eventually default in large part if not in total.

This is somewhere between $1 and $2 trillion dollars.

Nor is this stupidity limited to mortgages.  It reaches through essentially all of consumer finance; auto loans and credit cards are the other two biggies.

In auto finance dealers have, for years, allowed you to drive up in your “old” car which has a note on it, and roll the remaining balance of the loan (less the radically-depreciated “trade in” value) into the new car loan. This results in you being instantaneously “upside down” by thousands of dollars – plus the instant 10-20% hit on a new car when driven off the lot! This has been a tremendously profitable business for dealers, but remains one only until you can’t make the payments. Oh, and car loans have been securitized just like mortgages.

In the credit card space the flood of “0% balance transfer” deals has allowed consumers to stay just ahead of default by rolling balances from one company to another. The problem with all of these is that the fine print says that as soon as you charge $1 on that new card your payment goes first against your “0% transfer”, and the $1 charge accrues interest until the entirety of the transfer is paid off. Almost nobody sticks the card in the drawer, and this is how the card companies make money on you, the sheep. When the payments start to get tight you do it again.

Unfortunately there is a limit to this, and it happens when your creditworthiness is exceeded by the balance outstanding or worse, you lose your job. This is now occurring and the default rate is spiking north. Credit card deals have also been “syndicated” like mortgages and car loans; there are “asset-backed securities” for them as well, and even CDOs!

As the debt defaults deflationary pressure will build precipitously. We have seen only $100 billion or so thus far in actual write-downs by banks and other institutions worldwide. This is 10% or less of the actual damage that has been already suffered, and we haven’t even gotten to the knock-on effects that come from people waiting for cheaper prices – that is, the effect of deflation instead of the cause!

What’s worse is that I haven’t even begun to examine if, or to what degree, this has impacted lenders and the economies of other nations – like, for example, Spain, which is known to have a huge property bubble, or England, which has also seen insane residential price appreciation. Have the same games been played there? I would not take a bet that they haven’t!

Why has only $100 billion been recognized and written down when far more than that has already blown up?

Simple – these banks and others are keeping their “marks”, or present value, of their holdings at artificially high levels because they hold these CDS “insurance policies” which claim to insulate them from the effects of the damage.

But as noted above, there is no chance that these companies can actually PAY the face values of these polices.  These firms typically have 0.1% or less of the “face” value of these written policies in available cash to pay claims.

In short the CDS policies are WORTHLESS TOILET PAPER.

The proof of this is found in the balance sheets of ANY of these “monoline” companies. Look at them yourself. Look at their cash position and then the total amount of underwritten business (the “face value” of the bonds they have written policies on.) Now tell me how these firms can possibly pay more than a tiny fraction of one percent in claims against these notes.

They cannot.

Yet the “ratings agencies” have, for the most part, maintained these firms’ “AAA” ratings! It was just in the last week that ACA, which had been delisted from the NY Stock Exchange, was cut to “junk” status! The deterioration in the credit markets, including the CDOs and mortgage-backed paper, has been known since February, yet the ratings agencies SAT ON ACA’S RATING UNTIL THEY WERE DELISTED BY THE NYSE!

While the others have been threatened with downgrades, at this point those downgrades have not been made, even though these other firms are said by these agencies to be in violation of the capital requirements for their ratings!

This entire charade is one of regulatory failure after regulatory failure. The Federal Reserve, the SEC, prosecutors everywhere (both State and Federal) and the bank regulators, including the OTS and OCC, should have been all over this back in the first quarter of this year when it became apparent that the credit qualify claimed for these instruments was blatantly inflated.

WHEN (not if), in the fullness of time, this becomes apparent there will be massive restatements of earnings by the financials in the S&P 500 and beyond. We will find that the S&P didn’t have 10% profit growth over the last two years; they in fact had flat to negative profit growth. We will find that the S&P is not trading at “14 times trailing earnings” it is trading at 30 and has been! We will find that many of these firms are well below regulatory capital minimums and some may be outright bankrupt.

This damage has already reached into investment pools run by the states such as Florida and California. It will in fact be found to have polluted pension funds and other supposedly “safe” investments all over the world.

This is arguably the worst financial scandal of all time. It has reached into the American Household in ways that no scandal has before it. During the Tech Boom the pumpers were out there with their conflicts of interest telling you to buy tech stocks, ignoring the fact that the claimed “30% monthly expansion in the Internet” was a total fraud. Those who were actually in that space and could see the internals of the network – thousands of us – knew. A few (myself included) wrote about it. This does not mean that there were no viable businesses in the space – there most certainly were. But those who depended on “never-ending exponential growth” were doomed to failure, and fail they did, taking trillions of investor’s money with them.

This time it is far worse because these debt instruments were sold almost literally to every corner of the market. The underlying “assets” are American homes which have been inflated to twice their “true value”. As these values contract back to reality the damage this collapse will spawn will spare nobody who is exposed to this toxic waste, and our economy will contract to meet the new reality of actual earnings power, production, and shrinkage of the homeowner’s “house” line on his balance sheet by an average of 30-50% from 2005 values.

These indicators tend to lead what happens in the “consumer” economy, and trouble arrives when input price increase cannot be offset by productivity gains. This inevitably results in pass-through to the consumer in the form of increased prices yet at the same time applies increasing downward pressure on wages as companies struggle to remain profitable. This, of course, feeds into consumer sentiment.

Labor is weakening significantly. The issue is not the “headline” layoff number but continuing claims, which gives you a good handle on not just how many people are being laid off but how hard it is for them to find replacement jobs. This number is awfully close to “recession” territory, and what is particularly troubling about labor market indicators is that they lag the economic situation, so by the time you get a clean “recession” indication from this series you’re already in one!

In short, consumer spending is tracking consumer sentiment and the housing market, which is in the ditch. In addition the deterioration in the business environment has arrived quite sharply and markedly. Simply put, high energy and food prices, along with a shrinking consumer balance sheet as a consequence of the housing market downturn, are forcing people to stop spending beyond their means, while at the same time input price pressure from expanding demand in developing nations exerts fundamental pressures into the manufacturing space that tend to push affordability of finished products the wrong way.

Historically-speaking there is a very strong correlation with consumer sentiment and consumer behavior and, when both decline like this, recession.   During recessions equities typically lose 30% of their value.

Are some people “in the know” and preparing for this?  You bet your bottom dollar.

Chief among them are banks and The Federal Reserve itself. If you look at the Fed’s most recent balance sheet and the Fed’s most recent bank report you will find that The Fed has been de-leveraging its own balance sheet, and banks are hoarding “vault cash” (that is, actual MONEY!) while their regulatory reserve are below minimums.

Why?  THEY KNOW WHAT IS COMING.

Why has Goldman Sachs been shorting the very mortgage securities that another part of their firm packages and sells?

THEY KNOW WHAT IS COMING.

Why aren’t the folks on CNBS telling YOU what is coming, and giving you an honest appraisal of the effects of several trillion dollars worth of direct impact to the financial markets in the United States alone, along with the deflationary pressure that cannot be avoided or overcome?

That’s a damn good question.

Remember that back in 1999 and the first months of 2000, the news was overwhelmingly bullish, and people were buying stocks with both fists, in no small part because the “financial media” said that there would be no recession, there was no economic problem and stocks were “reasonably priced.

In fact stocks were, as we found out in the coming months, horribly overvalued, there was a recession, and those who listened to these “analysts” were crushed, with many investors losing EVERYTHING.

Does anyone remember Jim Cramer’s infamous rant on February 29th of 2000, in which he listed 10 stocks “you must buy today for his ‘New World'”? They were SNVX, ARBA, ISLD, EXDS, INSP, INKT, MERQ, SNRA, VRSN and VRTS.

Of those SNVX, ISLD, EXDS, INKT, SNRA and VRTS are no longer are listed under their original ticker symbols. Some were outright business failures, others were bought or merged in the collapse that followed – just a couple of months after Cramer’s “buy buy buy” call.

Of the “survivors”, ARBA traded for $800 back then. It now trades for $11. INSP traded for $1150. It now trades for $18.90. MERQ traded for about $90; it now is $51 (and has the ignobility of being the “best of the bad” on a total return basis!) VRSN traded for $238; it now sells for $37.88.

If you listened to Jim on 2/29/2000, you lost more than 90% of your money.

NINETY PERCENT!

Nor was he alone in his “less-than-correct” calls. In fact, the list of people who were calling for a meaningful decline in the markets in the major media could be counted on your fingers.

Yet almost without exception these people went unpunished for the hundreds of billions of dollars of investor losses that resulted DIRECTLY FROM THEIR SLANTED, BIASED, WILLFULLY-BLIND AND JUST PLAIN WRONG “ANALYSIS”!

Such it will be again, I’m sure.

Are these shows, newspapers, and others reporters on the financial markets, entertainers, or worse, puppets of those who know and who need someone – anyone – to unload their shares to before the markets take a huge plunge, lest they get stuck with them?

Now there’s something to think about.

Ok, so there’s the background, but I promised “A Look Ahead” too.

Here’s my view on what you can expect in 2008:

* The US will enter a recession, if it has not already done so. It will be consumer spending driven, with its genesis found in the Housing market. The slowdown will become evident once the “real” holiday sales data is posted, and accelerate into the first quarter.

* Unemployment will increase significantly, rising to north of 5% by the middle of next year. This will of course cascade back into consumer default rates (mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, etc) and cause yet more layoffs. The “virtuous cycle” will turn vicious. * Housing will not turn in 2008. The total damage to prices will exceed a cumulative 15% from 2005-2008, and it will not be over. At least one, and probably several, national home builders will be cut to the single digits on their stock price or go bankrupt and be reorganized. Residential Real Estate will NOT be a buy in 2008; you’re still at least one and probably two years too early.

* The story in the housing space in ’08 will be the defaults on “prime” mortgages – which in reality were nothing of the kind (e.g. “Option ARMs”), and on the piggyback seconds and HELOCs behind them. “Jingle Mail” will become common as homeowners that are deeply – 20% or more – underwater simply mail in the keys and say “screw the credit rating.” This will result in a near-total overhaul of the “FICO” system in the next couple of years, as these people will have defaulted on mortgages but nothing else, essentially forcing risk premiums higher for consumer credit and decoupling FICO from actual consumer credit (other than mortgage) behavior. I expect there will emerge a “shadow” FICO system which ignores mortgages but rates everything else.

* The stupidity in the rest of the consumer lending space (rollovers in auto loans and 0% balance transfer hell for plastic, primarily) will come crashing down on these companies and bring a crushing wave of defaults there as well, along with yet more downgrades in the asset-backed paper market.

* Recreational sectors (e.g. boats, RVs, etc) will get smashed. If you’re in the market for high-dollar recreational assets and have cash, late ’08 and into ’09 will present some incredible buying opportunities.

* Government will, as is usual, try to meddle in the market’s adjustment of risk and price. The depth of this meddling will be the determinant on whether this is a deep but sharp and reasonably-short recession or whether it morphs into something far more serious. With 08 being an election year the temptation to engage in SEVERE tampering will be significant, and if they do, the risks rise materially. There is a serious risk of an all-out deflationary depression, and if we get one, it will almost certainly be the government’s fault. Whoever wins the Presidency may wish they had lost come ’09 and ’10.

* Buffett just announced he is setting up a Municipal Bond insurance company. This will put a stake into the Monolines’ hearts, taking all their business away that is profitable, and leaving them with structured finance which has huge embedded – and unrecognized – losses. The announcement, which showed up on the 28th, didn’t send shockwaves through the market – but it should have. Effectively, Warren threw a grenade (minus pin) into the magazine of structured finance. This is the death knell for the few trillion in CDSs that are out there can’t be paid; there is no longer any reason to believe that the companies writing these things will be able to be recapitalized off “profitable” sides of their business! This is how fortunes are made (for Warren) and lost (for everyone who did imprudent things.) The “big story” in the financial markets for 2008, and the likely trigger for major turmoil, will be the implosion of the CDS marketplace and how Buffett profited from it. This will stabilize the municipal bond marketplace which has been positively hammered.

* Equity prices will be choppy in the first couple of months and will experience a peak to trough swing of at least 20% during the year in total. I expect the S&P 500 to at least touch 1220 in 2008 and my current downside target is 1070. Note that should we get a “parabolic” sort of move in the first quarter, which is possible, the potential for an even louder “boom” (collapse) goes up dramatically; in that case I would not be surprised to see a three-digit handle on the S&P 500 sometime during the 2008-2010 time period.

* Return OF capital will be far more important in 2008 than return ON capital.

* I do not expect the central banks to “hyperinflate” anything. Metals, in a protracted, serious deflationary selloff will get smashed. (If you’re a “Gold Bug”, read below for why I think you’re nutty to hold metals – there’s a better play if you believe in hyperinflation.)

* Debt will be paid down when possible and when not, defaulted. This, of course, prevents deploying capital towards consumption and production. Expect this to show up in the first quarter in ways that cannot be refuted, and for the market to “get it” some time before the end of the second quarter.

* Commercial Real Estate will collapse. The leverage in these deals has actually exceeded that in residential, if you can believe it. This will prove to have been totally insane and the losses taken there will be immense. It will also put a fork into the “this is contained” thesis, and validate the fact that generally, commercial R/E lags residential by 12-18 months. Guess what – time’s up!

* Business CapEx will slow precipitously and may go negative. This will be “spun” for the first quarter or so, but by the middle of the second quarter it won’t be able to be spun any more, and the truth will have to be faced. That “truth time” will likely mark the start of the second big leg down in the equity markets.

* The Dollar will bounce all over before starting to take off when it becomes apparently that the rest of the world is going to get it worse than we will.

* The “market callers” who are (almost to a man!) calling for big moves northward in 2008 will be coming to the public “hat in hand” as we get into the latter part of the year. These people will be roundly discredited and yet another wave of so-called “analysts” will disappear from the scene, along with all the money the chumps who listened to them lost.

So what CAN you do to make “Return OF Capital” your goal?

For 95% of long-term investors, this is a time to be in cash or close to it.

There is nothing wrong with insured CDs. Nothing at all. In fact, you can find them yielding close to 5% or even a little above. Six month CDs, with no more than $100,000 in any one bank, are not a bad idea.

Next up would be the short end of the US Treasury curve. Emphasis again – SHORT END! What’s “short”? 2 years or less. You can buy these through Treasury Direct. Yield is lower, but they’re even safer in that the US Federal Government would have to go under for them to be worthless. For an ETF that holds these, look at “SHY”.

Finally, quality municipals look interesting here. Note that municipal bond income is federal tax exempt and in many cases AMT-exempt as well (doesn’t count towards AMT income.) Be careful with municipals however as if this really gets bad defaults in the municipal sector are likely.

What do you stay away from?

* Equities, and especially momentum stocks! This means nothing in the tech space of any sort. No banks, no broker-dealers, no consumer discretionary. At all. If you must buy equities for some reason, utilities might be reasonably safe, but even there the losses may be significant.

* UNSECURED or UNSUBORDINATED debt of ANY KIND. Especially dangerous are “demand notes” from various institutions. These have been pushed hard to many seniors and others; don’t be a sucker! They have no insurance and if the company defaults, you just plain eat it.

* Any sort of corporate debt is dangerous, and the junkier it is, the more dangerous it is. EXCEPTION: If you’re really good at picking through the fundamentals of the issuing company, you can make some great buys in this space. For nearly everyone, however, you’re playing Roulette here. DON’T!

* Any bank account that has more than $100,000 in it. Don’t do it. Just don’t. Yes, I know there are exceptions (you can have $200k in a joint account.) If you’re absolutely certain you can keep an eye on this to the degree required to insure you’re covered by the exceptions, have at it. Just don’t cry if you’re wrong.

* Any money market which holds any sort of asset-backed commercial paper or SIV assets of any sort. These funds are extremely dangerous if there is a blowup in that your principal is potentially at risk

There will be many who say “oh, that’s way, way too conservative.”

To which I answer – “so what?” If there is no meltdown and no sign of one in six months, what have you missed out on? 5, maybe 10% appreciation?  But what if this really is as bad as it appears to me, and you miss out on 40% of decline instead?

There are also a number of people who believe, despite all the evidence above, that the government (or “The Fed”) will “hyperinflate” to “save the economy” (or at least try.) Typically these people also believe that the rest of the world will fare better than we will, and will come in to snap up assets in America that are “dirt cheap” as our dollar is debased.

This is the central thesis of the “Gold Bug” paradigm; these folks all believe Gold is going to go to $1500 (or more) in the next year, and they urge you to buy some as a result.

The problem is that if their thesis is correct they’re total idiots to buy Gold!

Here’s why.

Let’s say that the dollar is debased by 50% from here and Gold doubles in price (in dollars.) You make 100%, right? Wrong – you are subject to a 28% collectables tax on the appreciation, so you in fact lose compared to inflation. Congratulations – you lost real purchasing power!  That isn’t so good.

Well, what could you do if you believe that the government will “hyperinflate” that would stay ahead of it?

In a hyperinflation paradigm where the rest of the world “does better than we do” stock markets will do a moonshot as foreign money comes in to buy all the “cheap” assets. The Dow will likely double if the dollar gets cut in half. But let’s say it doesn’t double – it only goes up by 30%, to 20,000 by the end of the year in 2008.

Why would you not buy Index CALLs instead of Gold?  A LEAP January 2009 DIA $160 CALL was selling for $2.00 Friday (Bid x Ask at $1.94/$2.10).   Let’s say you buy 100 of those contracts for $20,000 (each contract is 100 shares, so 100 x 100 x $2.00 = $20,000, plus commission of course).  If the Dow goes to 20,000 by the end of next year, your CALLs are worth $40 each! That is a 20x profit on your original investment; that $20,000 turns into $400,000!  Further, if the DOW DID double (ala China’s Shanghai Market) your little $20,000 wager would turn into a staggering $1,400,000 in one year’s time!

So tell me again – if you believe in “hyperinflation” – why do you want to buy the clear LOSER of an asset that metals represent, when you can buy index CALLs and, if your thesis is correct, you will make an absolute stinking FORTUNE!

(Of course if you’re wrong and the DOW is under 16,000 by the end of the year, that $20,000 is totally flushed. That’s the price of poker – but again – just how sure are you that “The Fed” is going to “hyperinflate”? And by the way, no, I don’t think they are – in fact, I don’t think they CAN.)

Posted in Gold & Silver, Inflation or Deflation, Money | Comments Off on Economics 101: Liquidity is a Loan, Why prices can go UP in a Deflation, do not buy Gold, and Much More

Why Deleveraging is so painful

Why a recovery is at least 7 years away: Economy Falling Years Behind Full Speed

6 Apr 2009. Louis Uchitelle. New York Times.

As the recession grinds on, more and more of the nation’s means of production — its workers, its factories, its retail outlets, its freight lines, its bank lending, even its new inventions — are being mothballed. This idled capacity, like baseball players after a winter off, takes time to bring back into robust use. The mathematics are daunting. The shortfall is running at more than $1 trillion in annual sales and other transactions. Only once since the Great Depression has there been such a severe loss of output — in the 1981-82 recession — and after that downturn, it was seven years before the economy regained the lost production.  Recovery from the current recession could be similarly sluggish.

[The downturn is FOREVER because energy makes everything happen, and peak world-wide production was reached in 2005, so 7 years is quite optimistic…]

A 10% price drop can lead to a loss of 50% or more

In 2008, money market funds stopped buying commercial paper issued by Structured Investment Vehicles.

This led to deleveraging:  less money and slow economic growth

Banking regulations require the structured investment vehicles to be brought their books, which in turn requires that they shore up their capital base by selling new shares or shedding other assets.

Every dollar that is used for this purpose is a dollar that can’t be used to make loans for corporate buybacks, commercial customers or hedge funds.

Without such loans, banks’ earnings and growth are very much reduced.

Worse yet, the buying power of the two main drivers of the last bull market — hedge funds and corporate Treasurys — is crippled because the leverage they’ve used to reap big profits has suddenly turned against them.

As hedge funds deleverage in fits and starts, much of their inventory is going back to bank balance sheets. This is known in the banking business as involuntary asset growth, and it isn’t good. It forces banks to issue more new equity to comply with international capitalization rules, further undermining current shareholders.

Deleveraging is going on among corporations and individuals as well, leading to less buying power for both. That leaves less money available for homes, cars, televisions and travel, further leading to the sort of buyers strike characteristic of long periods of slow or stagnant economic growth

How Deleveraging works

Assume a hedge fund has $20 of real capital.

If a bank allows it to leverage five times its capital, the fund can acquire $100 of risky assets with $20 of equity and $80 of debt.

Now the assets fall by 10% in value, or $10.

The hedge fund’s leverage suddenly increases to 9 times: $10 of equity (the original amount less the loss) and $80 of debt now supports $90 of assets.

If the permitted leverage stays constant at 5 times, the hedge fund must sell $50 of assets, or 50% of its holdings. If lenders reduce permissible leverage to 3 times the loss, then the hedge fund must then sell $70 of assets, or 70% of its holdings. This process is bad enough in normal markets, but when buyers are scarce, prices of these involuntary sales are knocked down to levels that can wipe out the fund.

[My comment: Quantitative Easing threw trillions at the 1% who’ve leveraged it into bubbles across the financial landscape in commodities, housing in select areas, stocks, and so on.  Consequently, in the next financial crash, the deleveraging will be even worse than the 2008 crash].

Posted in Economic Decline | Comments Off on Why Deleveraging is so painful

Bonuses and salaries way too high at Banks, Wall Street, Corporations

The “Paid-What-You’re-Worth” Myth

March 13, 2014. Robert Reich. New York Times and robertreich.org

It’s often assumed that people are paid what they’re worth. According to this logic, minimum wage workers aren’t worth more than the $7.25 an hour they now receive. If they were worth more, they’d earn more. Any attempt to force employers to pay them more will only kill jobs.

According to this same logic, CEOs of big companies are worth their giant compensation packages, now averaging 300 times pay of the typical American worker. They must be worth it or they wouldn’t be paid this much. Any attempt to limit their pay is fruitless because their pay will only take some other form.

Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker got paid $35 an hour in today’s dollars. Today, America’s largest employer is Walmart, and the typical Walmart workers earns $8.80 an hour.  [GM workers were paid that much because they had a strong union.  Back then over 33% of workers were in unions that raised wages and benefits for all, not just the union workers.  But Walmart workers can’t get a better deal — less than 7% of workers are unionized.]

The result has been a race to the bottom.

Today’s CEOs who rake in 300 times the pay of average workers aren’t “worth” it. [They’re paid that much because they appoint the boards that decide executive pay].

If you still believe people are paid what they’re worth, take a look at Wall Street bonuses. Last year’s average bonus was up 15% over the year before, to more than $164,000. It was the largest average Wall Street bonus since the 2008 financial crisis and the third highest on record, according to New York’s state comptroller. Remember, we’re talking bonuses, above and beyond salaries.

Wall Street paid out a whopping $26.7 billion in bonuses last year. [And guess what — You’re paying their bonuses and salaries!]

[Why? How? The money you’ve parked in small banks earns less than big banks because they’re perceived as being more risky and less likely to get bailed out than the huge “too big to fail” banks in the next financial crash.  So large banks can borrow money at a lower rate and at the same time charge you high interest, making money both coming and going].

How large is this hidden subsidy? [Enough to add up to $83 billion a year at the 10 biggest Wall Street banks].  Without the subsidy, no [$26.7 billion in bonus].

[Most of the $83 billion ($64 billion) goes to the top 5 banks — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo. and Goldman Sachs. [$64 Billion is roughly equals their annual profits — so no subsidy and both bonuses and profits disappear].

Wall Street bankers [didn’t work] harder or were more clever or insightful than most other Americans.

And why, exactly, do these institutions continue to have such privileges? Why hasn’t Congress used the antitrust laws to cut them down to size so they’re not too big to fail, or at least taxed away their hidden subsidy (which, after all, results from their taxpayer-financed bailout)? 

Perhaps it’s because Wall Street also accounts for a large proportion of campaign donations to major candidates for Congress and the presidency of both parties.

America’s low-wage workers … can’t afford to make major campaign contributions and they have no political clout.

According to the Institute for Policy Studies, the $26.7 billion of bonuses Wall Street banks paid out last year would be enough to more than double the pay of every one of America’s 1,085,000 full-time minimum wage workers. 

The remainder of the $83 billion of hidden subsidy going to those same banks would almost be enough to double what the government now provides low-wage workers in the form of wage subsidies under the Earned Income Tax Credit.

But I don’t expect Congress to make these sorts of adjustments any time soon.

The “paid-what-your-worth” argument is fundamentally misleading because it ignores power, overlooks institutions, and disregards politics. As such, it lures the unsuspecting into thinking nothing whatever should be done to change what people are paid, because nothing can be done.

Don’t buy it.

Posted in Corporate Welfare | Comments Off on Bonuses and salaries way too high at Banks, Wall Street, Corporations

FDIC Sues 16 Banks for Fraud by Manipulating Global Interest Rate

FDIC sues 16 Banks for rigging the Libor Rate

March 2014. New York Times.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sued 16 banks for fraud because they conspired to set a crucial global interest rate low to enrich themselves.   Many cities and municipal agencies in the United States have also filed suits,

The banks included some of the world’s biggest banks (i.e. Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase). Four of the banks, Britain’s Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland; Switzerland’s biggest bank, UBS; and Rabobank of the Netherlands, have paid about $2.6 billion to settle these charges.

The FDIC says that 10 banks they took over in the financial crisis failed due to this rate manipulation and the are suing to recover the losses they suffered.

The banks rigged the London interbank offered rate, known as Libor, from August 2007 to mid-2011 (or beyond).

The Global Banking Game Is Rigged, and the FDIC Is Suing

April 13, 2014 by Ellen Brown.  Web of Debt blog, ellenbrown.com
Posted in Banking | Comments Off on FDIC Sues 16 Banks for Fraud by Manipulating Global Interest Rate

Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization

This fantastic list is from March 2014, so to see the must up-to-date bibliography go here:

Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization bibliography

Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Costanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C.S. Holling, B. Jansson, S. Levin, K. Maler, C. Perrings, D. Pimentel. 1995. Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268: 520-521. link

Beck, R. and L. Kolankiewicz. 2000. The environmental movement’s retreat from advocating U.S. population stabilization (1970-1998): A first draft of history. Journal of Policy History 12:123-156. link

Beier, P., and R.F. Noss. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology 12:1241-1252. link

Brown, J.J., K. E. Limburg, J.R. Waldman, K. Stephenson, E. Glenn, F. Juanes, and A. Jordaan. 2013. Fish and hydropower on the U.S. Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from half-way technologies. Conservation Letters 6(4): 280-286. link

Camarota, S. R. Beck, and L. Kolankiewicz. 2003. Outsmarting smart growth: population growth, immigration, and the problem of sprawl. Center for Immigration Studies, Washington DC. 122 pp. link

Caraco, N. F. and J. J. Cole. 1999. Human impact on nitrate export: An analysis using major world rivers. Ambio 28(2):167-170. link

Cassils, J.A. and M. Weld. 2009. Why Canada needs a population policy. A presentation submitted to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada in 2001. Population Institute Canada, Ottowa, Ontario. link

Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R. Francis, J.F. Franklin, J.A. MacMahon, R.F. Noss, D.J. Parsons, C.H. Peterson, M.G. Turner, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6:665-691. Link

Cole, J.J. 2012. The carbon cycle, with a brief introduction to global biogeochemistry. Pp. 109-135, in K. C. Weyathers, D. L. Strayer and G. E. Likens (eds.). Fundamentals of Ecosystem Science. Academic Press, Waltham, Massachusetts. link

Cole, J.J., B.L. Peierls, N.F. Caraco and M.L. Pace.1993. Nitrogen loading of rivers as a human-driven process. pp. 141-157. In: McDonnell, M. and S. Pickett (eds.). Humans as components of ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York. link

Cole, J. J., N. F. Caraco, G. W. Kling and T.W. Kratz.1994. Carbon dioxide supersaturation in the surface waters of lake. Science 265:1568-1570. link

Cole, J.J., S.R. Carpenter, M.L. Pace, M.C. Van de Bogert, J.L. Kitchell, and J.R. Hodgson. 2006. Differential support of lake food webs by three types of terrestrial organic carbon. Ecology Letters. 9: 558-568. link

Cole, J.J., Y.T.Prairie, N.F. Caraco, W.H. McDowell, L.J. Tranvik, R.G. Striegl, C.M. Duarte, P. Kortelainen, J.A. Downing, J. Middleburg, and J. Melack. 2007. Plumbing the global carbon cycle: Integrating inland waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems 10: 171-184. link

Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260. link

Costanza, R., M. Daly, C. Folke, P. Hawken, C.S. Holling, A.J. McMichael, D. Pimentel and D. Rapport. 2000. Managing our environmental portfolio. Bioscience 50:149-155. link

Day, J.W. JR., C.A. Hall, A. Yañez-Arancibia, D. Pimentel, C.I. Marti, and W.J. Mitsch. 2009. Ecology in times of scarcity. Bioscience 59 (4):321-331. link

Day, J.W., M. Moerschbaecher, D. Pimentel, C. Hall, and A. Yañez-Arancibia. 2013. Sustainability and place: How emerging mega-trends of the 21st centurary will affects humans and nature at the landscape level. Ecological Engineering (in press). link

Downing, J.A., Y.T. Prairie, J.J. Cole, C.M. Duarte, L.J. Tranvik, R.G. Striegl, W.H. McDowell, P. Kortelainen, N.F. Caraco, J.M. Melack, and J. Middelburg. 2006. The global abundance and size distribution of lakes, ponds, and impoundments. Limnology and Oceanography. 51(5):2388-2397. link

Downing, J.A., J.J. Cole, J.J. Middelburg, R.G. Striegl, C.M. Duarte, P. Kortelainen, Y.T. Prairie, and K.A. Laube. 2006. Sediment organic carbon burial in agriculturally eutrophic impoundments over the last century. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 22:GB1018. link

Giampietro, M. and D. Pimentel.1993. The tightening conflict: population, energy use, and the ecology of agriculture. The NPG Forum, October. Negative Population Growth Inc, Teaneck, NJ. link

Hardaway, R. 1994. Population, Law and the Environment. Prager Publications, Westport, Connecticut.

Hardaway, R. 1997. Population and the environment: Toward a theory of environmental Malthusianism. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 7:8-25.

Hardaway, R. 1997. Environmental Malthusianism: Integrating population and environmental policy. Environmental Law 27: 1209-1244. link

Hardaway, R. 2003. Water crisis:  It’s the population, stupid. Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colorado, 28 March 2003 at A-46. link

Hardaway, R. 2006. Corporate greed fuels amnesty drive. The Denver Post, Denver, Colorado, 21 June 2006. link

Hardaway, R. 2007. Global warming debate ignores the 800-pound gorilla. The Toledo Blade, Toledo, Ohio, 9 February 2007 at A-9. link

Hardaway, R. 2007. Bush’s amnesty agenda actually anti-immigrant. Home News Tribune, Central Central New Jersey, 9 November 2007 at A10. link

Hardaway, R. 2008. Honesty the best policy for environmental rules. Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colorado, 20 July 2008.

Hardaway, R. 2008. Leaders should be honest about cost of climate action. Buffalo News, Buffalo, New York, 24 July 2008. link

Hardaway, R. 2010. Citizen by birth? Check the Constitution. Aol News, The Huffington Post, August 13, 2010. link

Hardaway, R. 2013. 10 immigration reform myths. The Blog, Huff Post Politics, 15 August 2013. link

Hardaway, R. 2014. As the world welcomes its seven billionth human: Reflections on population, law, and the environment. Sustainable Development Law & Policy 13: 4-14.

Hardaway, R., K. Dacres, and J. Swearingen. 1994. Tropical forest conservation legislation and policy: A global perspective. Whittier Law Review 5:919-948. link

Hayden, T.A., K.E. Limburg, and W.E. Pine, III. 2012. Using otolith chemistry tags and growth patterns to distinguish movements and provenance of native fish in Grand Canyon. River Research and Applications (online; DOI 10.1002/rra.2627). link

Hopfenberg, R. and D. Pimentel. 2001. Human population numbers as a function of food supply. Environment, Development and Sustainability 3:1-15. link

Hull, D. 1977. Life circumstances and physical illness: A cross disciplinary survey of research content and method for the decade 1965–1975. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 21: 115-139.  link

Hull, D. 1979. Migration, adaptation, and illness: A review. Social Science & Medicine. Part A: Medical Psychology & Medical Sociology 13: 25-36. link

Hull, D. 1981. By land and sea: Hispanic press at the southern borders of the United States. In: Strangers in the world. Edited by Leo Eitinger and David Schwarz. Hans Huber Publishers, Bern, Switzerland: 234-263.

Hull, D. 1998. Malthus in the sky with diamonds. The Social Contract 8(3): 227-230.  link

Hull, D. 1999. Cry, the overcrowded country. The Social Contract 9(4): 219-223.  link

Hull, D. 2000. Amnesty ad infinitum: How much are beaver skins worth? Santa Barbara News-Press, Santa Barbara, California. July 16, 2000, pp. G1-G2. link

Hull, D. 2003. Growth and the thirty pound hummingbird: A brief tribute to Garrett and Jane Hardin. The Garrett Hardin Society website, October 21, 2003.  link

Hull, D. 2004. The Sierra Club: Why the present leadership still needs to take a hike. The Social Contract 14(3): 194-196. link

Hull, D. 2007.  Unchecked immigration leaves blacks burdened. Santa Monica Daily Press, Santa Monica, California. March 8, 2007. link

Hull, D. 2010. Language and culture wars in the battle over amnesty: Where we are now and what we need to understand. The Social Contract 20(4): 253-255.  link

Hull, D. 2011. Many environmental scientists are wayward or cowed when faced with an Irrefutable truth: Too many people destroy natural resources. The Social Contract 21(3): 3-4. link

Hull, D. 2011. The Dream Act: How about a billion in scholarship funds from Carlos Slim Helu and five of His billionaire friends? The Social Contract 22(1): 38-41. link

Hull, D., L. Bouvier, and D.Schneider. 2003. California’s population growth 1990-2002: Study reveals virtually all growth from immigration. The Social Contract 13(4): 250-257. link

Hull, D. and M. Cutler. 2010. U.S. not up to task of screening 10 million amnesty applicants. Noozhawk, Santa Barbara, California. April 21, 2010.  link

Hurlbert, S.H. 1990. Immigration policy must be enforced. San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego, California. 3 October 1990. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2001. Wall Street Journal needs to open its eyes, not border. Salton Basin-Colorado Delta Mothersite, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 4 July 2001. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2001. The globalist copout. The Social Contract 10(3): 193-194. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2004. Water, population growth and regional (non)planning. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS News 45(2): 1. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2010. Boycott San Diego – not Arizona. The Arizona Republic, Tuscon, Arizona. 7 August 2010. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2010. Immigration numbers – A response to Hidinger. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:68.

Hurlbert, S.H. 2011. Wives of the Bishop of Worcester: the Ecological Society of America and globalist copoutism. The Social Contract 20(3): 7-13. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2011. Frontiers, immigration, and political censorship. The Social Contract 20(3):16-20. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2011. A symposium and a lake in multiple contexts: a prefatory essay on Salton Sea science and politics. The Social Contract 20(3): 27-36. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2011. Pacific salmon, immigration, and censors: unreliability of the cowed technocrat. The Social Contract 20(3): 42-46. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2011. Is the AAAS oblivious to U.S. overpopulation and its consequences, or is it just another censor? The Social Contract 22(1): 64-68. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2011. The Salton Sea Preservation Plan: a preliminary sketch. Salton Basin-Colorado Delta Mothersite, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 28 November 2011. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2011. Tribute to an ‘obnoxious’ ecocatalytical demotechnician: Jack Vallentyne on population. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 12: 21-34. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2012. Population camel gets its nose into ecologists’ tent: hopes are high that the rest will follow. The Social Contract 23(1): 68-76. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2013. Critical need for modification of U.S. population policy. Conservation Biology 27: 887-889. link

Hurlbert, S.H. 2013. Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization: who said academics are hopelessly timid or hopelessly globalist? Invited presentation, Progressives for Immigration Reform Annual Meeting, September 30, 2013, Arlington, Virginia. Slides PDFText PDF (These two pdfs should be viewed side-by-side; numbering of text paragraphs corresponds to numbering of slides).

Hurlbert, S.H., J.S. Dainer and A.C. Scholz. 2006. Environmental voting records of members of the U.S. Congress, 2006. Salton Basin-Colorado Delta Mothersite, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 34 pp. link

Hurlbert, S.H., J.S. Dainer, M.A. Tiffany, C. Trees, G.F. Gebler, and E.B. Small. 2000. Population growth and the Salton Sea: the major long-term issue, out from under the rug. Poster presentation, Salton Sea Symposium, Desert Hot Springs, California 13-14 January 2000. link

Hurlbert, S.H. and K.M. Doyle. 2002. Water policy, urban developers and monkey wrench gangs. San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego, California. 26 September 2002. link

Kelly, E.N., D.W. Schindler, P.V. Hodson, J.W. Short, R. Radmanovich and C.C. Nielsen. 2010. Oil sands development contributes toxic elements at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107:16178-16183. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2014. Farewell to Joyce Tarnow: Force of nature and a force for good. The Social Contract 24(3): 17-21 link

Kolankiewicz, L. 1981. British Columbia: Canada’s battleground on the Pacific. Sierra, July/August 1981, pp. 22-27. Washington DC

Kolankiewicz, L. 2000. Immigration, population, and the new Census Bureau projections. Center for Immigration Studies, Kolankiewicz, L. 2002.

Population growth: the neglected dimension of America’s persistent energy/environmental problems. NumbersUSA, Arlington, Virginia. 37pp. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2009. Immigration, population growth, and environmentalist hypocrisy on the border fence. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California, CAPS News 50(2): 3. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2010. Earth Day founder disappointed in followers for neglecting overpopulation. Mother Nature Network blog, 20 April 2010. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2010. From big to bigger: how mass immigration and population growth have exacerbated America’s ecological footprint. Progressives for Immigration Reform, Washington DC. Policy Brief #10-1. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2011. Conservation legends decry overpopulation. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. Opinion essay, 3pp. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2011. Analysis of 2010 census misses the mark: impact of population growth ignored. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS Issues, July 2011. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2012. Cassandra’s heirs: can we improve on her fate? Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS Issues. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2012. Overpopulation and the ocean. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS Issues. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2012. Overpopulation overwhelms salmon. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS Issues. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2012. Islands invaded, natives nuked. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS Issues. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2012. Too hot to touch? Global warming, population, and denial. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS Issues. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2012. Exploding Southwest population on collision course with water scarcity. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. CAPS Issues. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2013. Does the Sierra Club believe in borders? It depends. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. Blog post, 23 May 2013. 1p. link

Kolankiewicz, L. 2013. A biological holocaust in the making. Californians for Population Stabilization, Santa Barbara, California. Opinion essay, 11 March 2013. link

Kolankiewicz, L. and R. Beck. 2001. Weighing sprawl factors in large U.S. cities: a report on the nearly equal roles played by population growth and land use choices in the loss of farmland and natural habitat to urbanization. NumbersUSA, Arlington, Virginia. 47 pp. link

Kolankiewicz, L. and R. Beck. 2001. Sprawl in Florida. NumbersUSA, Arlington, Virginia. link

Kolankiewicz, L. and R. Beck. 2001. Population growth and sprawl in the Chesapeake Bay wWatershed. NumbersUSA, Arlington, Virginia. link

Kolankiewicz, L. and R. Beck. 2001. Sprawl in California: a report on quantifying the role of the state’s population boom. NumbersUSA, Arlington, Virginia. link

Kolankiewicz, L. and R. Beck. 2001. Forsaking fundamentals: the environmental establishment abandons U.S. population stabilization. Center for Immigration Studies, Washington DC. 68pp. link

Kolankiewicz, L. and S.A. Camarota. 2008. Immigration to the United States and world-wide greenhouse gas emissions. Center for Immigration Studies, Washington DC. Backgrounder, 10pp. link

Limburg, K.E., R.M. Hughes, D.C. Jackson and B. Czech. 2011. Human population increase, economic growth, and fish conservation: collision course or savvy stewardship. Fisheries 36(1): 27-35. link (abridged)

Limburg, K.E., R.V. O’Neill, R. Costanza, and S. Farber. 2002. Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics 41: 409-420. link

Limburg, K.E., K.M. Stainbrook, J.D. Erickson, and J.M. Gowdy. 2005. Urbanization consequences: case studies in the Hudson Valley, pp. 23-37 In Brown, L.R., R.H. Gray, R.M. Hughes, and M. Meador, editors. The Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47. link

Limburg, K.E., and J. R. Waldman. 2009. Dramatic declines in North Atlantic diadromous fishes. BioScience 59: 955-965. link

Limburg, K.E., Y. Walther, B. Hong, C. Olson, and J. Storå. 2008. Prehistoric vs. modern Baltic Sea cod fisheries: selectivity across the millennia. Proceedings of the Royal Society – Section B 275: 2659-2665. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0711. link

Lindenmayer, D., R.J. Hobbs, R. Montague-Drake, J. Alexandra, A. Bennett, M. Burgman, P. Cale, A. Calhoun, V. Cramer, P. Cullen, D. Driscoll, L. Fahrig, J. Fischer, J. Franklin, Y. Haila, M. Hunter, P. Gibbons, S. Lake, G. Luck, C. MacGregor, S. McIntyre, R. MacNally, A. Manning, J Miller, H. Mooney, R. Noss, H. Possingham, D. Saunders, F. Schmiegelow, M. Scott, D. Simberloff, T. Sisk, G. Tabor, B. Walker, J. Wiens, J. Woinarski, and E. Zavaleta. 2008. A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters 11: 78-91. link

Machut, L.S., K.E. Limburg, R. E. Schmidt, and D. Dittman. 2007. Anthropogenic impacts on American eel demographics in Hudson River tributaries, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 1699-1713. link

Nachman, P. 2006. Let’s keep our eye on the prize. VDARE.com blog post, 3 August 2006. link

Nachman, P. 2006. Former Senator Alan Simpson ruefully recalls 1986 amnesty. VDARE.com blog post, 5 September 2006. link

Nachman, P. 2006. A VDARE.com reader talks to NC sheriff Jim (“Political correctness is going to cause us to lose this country”) Pendergraph. VDARE.com article, 25 October 2006. link

Nachman, P. 2006. Speaking up in a “nation of immigrants” audience. VDARE.com article, 7 November 2006. link

Nachman, P. 2007. Another branch of government is buckling under the load. VDARE.com blog post, 20 June 2007. link

Nachman, P. 2007. Realism from the trenches in Los Angeles. VDARE.com blog post, 24 Septermber 2007. link

Nachman, P. 2009. CCIR’s greatest hits: the reconquista rant audio clips. VDARE.com article, 14 January 2009. link

Nachman, P. 2009. A refresher on California’s illegal-alien tab. VDARE.com blog post, 2 June 2009. link

Nachman, P. 2010. Nachman’s short course on America’s immigration disaster. VDARE.com article, 2 January 2010. link

Nachman, P. 2010. Support Arizona by boycotting San Diego! VDARE.com blog post, 31 May 2010. link

Nachman, P. 2010. The anchor-baby issue: let’s keep it bubbling. VDARE blog post, 6 July 2010. VDARE.com blog post, 6 July 2010. link

Nachman, P. 2010. It’s sometimes immigrants who see most clearly what’s at stake. VDARE.com blog post, 19 October 2010. link

Nachman, P. 2013. Anti-amnesty preparation: see FAIR’s report and, thereby, know that EVERY enforcement promise is a lie. VDARE.com blog post, 31 January 2013. link

Nachman, P. 2013. Immigration reform bill won’t help the U.S. The Montana Standard, 4 June 2013. link

Nachman, P. 2013. NumbersUSA’s guides to the Senate’s horror bill (S.744) tell you what’s actually IN the bill. VDARE.com blog post, 17 June 2013. link

Nachman, P. 2013. Mass immigration and multiculturalism vs. freedom. VDARE.com blog post, 23 June 2013. link

Noss, R.F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700-706.   link

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355-364. link

Noss, R.F., and A. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. link

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Biological Report 28. USDI National Biological Service, Washington, DC. link

Noss, R.F., C. Carroll, K. Vance-Borland, and G. Wuerthner. 2002. A multicriteria assessment of the irreplaceability and vulnerability of sites in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conservation Biology 16: 895-908. link

Noss, R.F., J.F. Franklin, W.L. Baker, T. Schoennagel, and P.B. Moyle. 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:481-487. link

Noss, R.F. 2011. Between the devil and the deep blue sea: Florida’s unenviable position with respect to sea level rise. Climatic Change 107: 1-16.  link

Noss, R.F. 2013. Forgotten Grasslands of the South: Natural History and Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C. link

Pimentel, D., W. Dritschilo, J. Krummel, and J. Kutzman. 1975. Energy and land constraints in food-protein production. Science 190:754-761. link

Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J. Nelson, V. Lipner, S. Giordano, A. Horowitz, and M. D’Amore. 1992. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42(10):750 – 760. link

Pimentel, D., R. Harman, M. Pacenza, J. Pecarsky, and M. Pimentel. 1994. Natural resources and an optimum human population. Population and Environment 15(5): 347-369. link

Pimentel, D. and P.H. Raven. 2000. Bt corn pollen impacts on nontarget Lepidoptera: assessment of effects in nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(15). 8198-8199. link

Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 2006. Global environmental resources versus world population growth. Ecological Economics 59: 195-198. link

Pimentel, D., J.B. Gardner, A.J. Bonnifield, X. Garcia, J.B. Grufferman, C.M. Horan, E.T. Rochon, J.L. Schlenker, and E.E. Walling. 2009. Energy efficiency and conservation for individual Americans. Environment, Development and Sustainability 11:523-546. link

Pimentel, D. (ed.). 2008. Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems: Benefits and Risks. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 504 pp. link

Pimentel, D., M. Whitecraft, Z.R. Scott, L. Zhao, P. Satkiewicz, T.J. Scott, J. Phillips, D. Szimak, G. Singh, D.O. Gonzalez, and T.L. Moe. 2010. Will limited land, water, and energy control human population numbers in the future? Human Ecology, 38(5):599-611. link

Pimentel, D. (ed.). 2011. Biological Invasions: Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal, and Microbe Species, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. link

Pimentel, D. (ed.). 2012. Global Economic and Environmental Aspects of Biofuels. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida. link

Pimentel, D. and M. Burgess. 2013. Soil erosion threatens food production. Agriculture 3(3): 443-463. link

Raymond, P. A. and J. J. Cole. 2003. Increase in the export of alkalinity from North America’s largest river. Science 302:88-91. link

Reece, J.S., R.F. Noss, J. Oetting, T. Hoctor, and M. Volk. 2013. A vulnerability assessment of 300 species in Florida: threats from sea level rise, land use, and climate change. PLoS ONE 8(11): e80658. link

Rooney, R.C., S.E. Bayley and D.W. Schindler. 2012. Oil sands mining and reclamation cause massive loss of peatland and stored carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109:4933-4937. link

Schade, C. and D. Pimentel. 2010. Population crash: prospects for famine in the twenty-first century. Environment, Development and Sustainability 12:245-262. link

Schindler, D.W. 1999. From acid rain to toxic snow (Volvo Environmental Prize Lecture). Ambio 28: 350-355.

Schindler, D.W. 2001. The cumulative effects of climate warming and other human stresses on Canadian freshwaters in the new millennium. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 18-29. link

Schindler, D.W. 2006. Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 356-363. link

Schindler, D.W. 2012. Sustainable development: what is the role of universities? Powerpoint presentation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. link

Schindler, D.W. 2013. The ecological rights of humans. The Social Contract 23(3): 25-29. link

Schindler, D.W. and W.F. Donahue. 2006. An impending water crisis in Canada’s western prairie provinces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 7210-7216. link

Schindler, D.W. and P.G. Lee. 2010. Comprehensive conservation planning to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services in Canadian boreal regions under a warming climate. Biological Conservation143:1571-1586. link

Schindler, D.W. and J.R. Vallentyne. 2008. The Algal Bowl: Overfertilization of the World’s Freshwaters and Estuaries. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. link

Schindler, D., M. Weld and S.H. Hurlbert. 2012. American Association for the Advancement of Silence (on national population policies) muffles ‘obnoxious’ Canadians too. The Social Contract 22(2): 11-25. link

Smail, J.K. 1995. Confronting the 21st century’s hidden crisis: reducing human numbers by 80%. NPG Forum (Negative Population Growth), August. link

Smail, J.K. 1997. Averting the 21st century’s demographic crisis: can human numbers be reduced by 75%? Population and Environment 18(6): 565-580.

Smail, J.K. 1997. Beyond population stabilization: the case for dramatically reducing global human numbers. Politics and the Life Sciences 16(2): 183-192. (Includes 16 “Commentaries” by an international panel of scholars and public policy analysts.) Politics and the Life Sciences 16(2): 193-230.

Smail, J.K. 1997. Population growth seems to affect everything but is seldom held responsible for anything. Politics and the Life Sciences 16(2): 231-236.

Smail, J.K. 2002. Confronting a surfeit of people: reducing global human numbers to sustainable levels (An essay on population two centuries after Malthus). Environment, Development and Sustainability 4(1): 21-50.

Smail, J.K. 2002. Remembering Malthus: a preliminary argument for a significant reduction in global human numbers. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 118(3): 292-297. link

Smail, J.K. 2003. Remembering Malthus II: establishing sustainable population optimum. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122(3): 287-294. link

Smail, J.K. 2003. Remembering Malthus III: implementing a global population reduction. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122(3): 295-300. link

Smail, J.K. 2004. Global population reduction: confronting the inevitable. World-Watch 17(5): 58-59. link

Smail, J.K. 2008. Acknowledging and confronting the inevitable: a significant shrinkage in global human numbers and other inconvenient truths (full title as submitted). “Culture Change” website, May 5. link

Swaney, D.P., K. E. Limburg, and K. M. Stainbrook. 2006. Some historical changes in the patterns of population and land use in the Hudson River watershed. American Fisheries Society Symposium 51: 75-112. link

Tarnow, J. 2011. What’s driving Florida’s growth problems. The Gainesville Sun, 7 February 2011. link

Weld, M. 2012. Deconstructing the dangerous dogma of denial: the feminist-environmental justice movement and its flight from overpopulation. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 12: 53-58. link

Weld, M. 2013. The myth of Canada’s underpopulation: lay it to rest. The Social Contract 23(3): 37-38. link

Weld, M. 2013. Feeding the raging monster: how Canada promotes population growth at home and abroad. The Social Contract 23(3): 39-46. link

Weld, M., T. Murray and D. Schindler. 2013. Promoting a big Canada: the scientific arguments. The Social Contract 23(3):4-6. link

Weld, M. 2014. Canada’s immigration policy: Where is it taking us? The need for a cost benefit analysis. Presentation to a POGG (Peace, Order and Good Government) meeting, January 18, 2014, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Zuckerman, B. and S.H. Hurlbert. 2001. Is overimmigration in the U.S. morally defensible? San Diego Union Tribune, 3 August 2001. link

Posted in Other Lists | Comments Off on Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization

Gail Tverberg’s posts at Our Finite World

Gail, like Nicole Foss, writes about how the financial system and (energy) resources are intertwined at www.ourfiniteworld.com

Gail connects the dots of energy, networks, collapse, the economy, supply chains and much more with great charts and graphs, and writes beautifully about very complex topics.  Although her posts can be long, that’s necessary since there are so many issues networked together, each affecting the other areas.  By the end, it’s CHECK-MATE — there’s no way for a techno-optimist to escape the chain of logic.

These columns make the case for a FAST CRASH

Oil Limits and Climate Change – How They Fit Together

Reaching Limits to Growth: What Should our Response Be?

Limits to Growth–At our doorstep, but not recognized

Ten Reasons Intermittent Renewables (Wind and Solar PV) are a Problem

Why a Finite World is a Problem

Why Standard Economic Models Don’t Work–Our Economy is a Network

Oil Limits and the Economy: One Story, Not Two

Reasons for our Energy Predicament – An Overview

Diminishing Returns, Energy Return on Energy Invested, and Collapse

Discontinuity Ahead – Oil Limits will Adversely Affect the Economy

Oil and Gas Limits Underlie Syria’s Conflict

Oil Prices Lead to Hard Financial Limits

The Real Oil Extraction Limit, and How It Affects the Downslope

What’s Ahead? Lower Oil Prices, Despite Higher Extraction Costs

Posted in Gail Tverberg | Comments Off on Gail Tverberg’s posts at Our Finite World