tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2009-11-12:/One man's voyage through a life he never really expected.MokoFeed2009-11-12T02:05:47+01:00tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2008-08-27:/2008/08/27/the-speculators-big-win-4646521/JohnBKelly2008-08-27T23:34:50+02:002008-08-27T23:34:50+02:00 <p>£1000 invested in the commodities market at the begining of the year is now worth £3000. Great news for hedge funds pretty dire for you and me.</p> <p>This year has been significant for its endless stream of economic scare stories. Milk, oil, metals, nothing has been safe. They have all been manipulated for the profit of the big investors.</p> <p>Why? Because the banking sector did itself so much harm with the credit crunch that no-one sees there shares as a safe investment. Instead the money men have generated huge price rises on basic commodities using old fashioned rumours.</p> <p>The good news is the bubble is about to burst. The much vaunted explosion in demand in Asia for everything has not materialised. Commodity prices will start to drop very soon. Sadly in the process the world economy has been hammered by this extremely cynical exercise. When you lose your job and/or home over the next year spare a thought for the Hedge Fund gurus who caused this mess. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2008/08/27/the-speculators-big-win-4646521/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2008-03-12:/2008/03/12/commodity-speculation-the-modern-plague-3867494/JohnBKelly2008-03-12T22:27:15+01:002008-03-12T22:28:58+01:00 <p>Oil at $100 plus per barrel, grain prices doubling. There must be shortages of everything these days!</p> <p>Strangely there isn't. There is plenty of oil getting produced but the price just keeps rising. Australia has had a bad harvest but the rest of the world didn't. Despite this the price of wheat is soaring. Strangely farmers aren't rushing to plant more wheat. Lamely the rising food prices have been blamed on all the Chinese and Indian's eating too many cakes and buns. Nonsense. </p> <p>The current sky high commodity prices are the direct result of market speculation. The stock market is yielding dismal returns so our financial friends have turned their attention to the less prestigious but potentially lucrative Commodities market. Huge stockpiles of basic commodities have been bought as investments by Hedge funds and venture capitalists. </p> <p>The producers get little of the benefit of the soaring prices thats why farmers aren't rushing to plant wheat. Oil companies are benefiting because they are selling their oil for a significant profit and watching happily as the high price of grain is blamed on crops being grown for biofuel production. A very similar thing happened during the 1970's energy crisis just as the biofuels market looked like taking off.</p> <p>The planet's future has always been prey to financiers seeking a fast buck. Governments need to step in and re-balance the commodities market before our speculator chums push us into a recession like the 1970s. Control of the financial sector is key to maintaining a stable economy. In the past five years Western governments have lost control of the financial levers. The sub-prime debacle is a classic example of just how little we can trust the financial sector. The very existence of a prime and sub-prime market in the US is the product of an earlier US Govt intervention into the financial sector. The prime mortgage market in the US is ultimately underwritten and financed by the Federal government because the US banking sector proved to be extremely unreliable throughout its history. Despite this level of control and security the US financial industry chose to sell sub-prime mortgages to high risk customers and attempt to offset the debt by selling it in bundles to other institutions. Borderline fraud in simple terms. Northern Rock copied the approach and paid the price. Debt proved to be a dangerous commodity to trade.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2008/03/12/commodity-speculation-the-modern-plague-3867494/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2007-12-18:/2007/12/19/brown_s_folly~3463128/JohnBKelly2007-12-19T00:51:15+01:002007-12-19T00:51:59+01:00 <p>Gordon Brown was a great Chancellor of the Exchequer able to keep his charismatic friend and rival Tony Blair in check. Sadly Gordon dreamt he was made for better things, he should be the PM.</p> <p>Sometimes we should never try to fulfil our most cherished ambitions because they have a bad habit of turning into nightmares. Gordon has everything he ever wanted and like a kid at Christmas who discovers that he isn't all that good at Scalextric racing he is not enjoying himself.</p> <p>Gordon probably dreams of halcyon days as a Finance minister with nothing to worry about except budgets and the odd banking collapse. Dead soldiers, european treaties, election dates, floods, lost data these are all things his old mucker Tony would have looked after.</p> <p>The lesson for all of us is to remember that walking a tightrope looks easy until you try it. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2007/12/19/brown_s_folly~3463128/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2007-07-22:/2007/07/22/how_to_solve_the_british_army_s_manpower~2683444/JohnBKelly2007-07-22T22:50:29+02:002007-07-22T22:50:29+02:00 <p>The British Army is desperately short of recruits.  Young Britons it seems are not too keen on getting shot at by wild eyed Muslim fanatics.  </p> <p>At the same time Britain is apparently being swamped by a tidal wave of illegal immigrants.  Call me a crazed right wing fascist but surely the simplest way to solve both problems is to give any illegal immigrant the option of being sent home or serving 5 years in her majesty's forces.  At the end of their 5 year term they would qualify for British citizenship.</p> <p>The genuine migrants would I'm sure jump at the chance of representing their chosen homeland in battle.  The fraudsters would chose to go home pretty sharpish rather than end up patrolling in Kabul.</p> <p>Go on Mr Brown and Ms Smith take up this idea, it'll win the next election.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2007/07/22/how_to_solve_the_british_army_s_manpower~2683444/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2007-07-15:/2007/07/15/colonial_adventures_are_never_easy~2641925/JohnBKelly2007-07-15T23:59:57+02:002007-07-16T00:00:40+02:00 <p>Almost a year after my last post on the challenges facing Britain and the US in Afghanistan things have not changed in the slightest. The country is still unstable with western troops fighting a classic colonial war.</p> <p>When will it end? Never unless we pull out. However pulling out is not going to be easy as the Afghan rebels would do their best to destroy the retreating forces in the manner of Akbar Khan back in 1841. I woonder how the American public would react to a re-run of the last stand at Gandamak. It certainly wouldn't win a presidential election for the Republicans.</p> <p>So unable to pull out the only thing to do is stay and aggressively defend our position. This means garrisons in every town and multiple patrols every day and rough justice for any rebels encoutered.</p> <p>A 19th century solution for a 21st century problem. not very palatable is it? </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2007/07/15/colonial_adventures_are_never_easy~2641925/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-09-04:/2006/09/04/afghanistan_the_university_of_combat_whe~1097695/JohnBKelly2006-09-04T23:14:40+02:002006-09-04T23:14:40+02:00 <p>In Afghanistan the British and Americans are honing their military skills to levels they haven't reached since the 1960s during their adventures in Malaya and Vietnam. The question now is which military philosophy will prevail; the British concept of taking and holding ground or the American approach fast attacks and equally rapid withdrawals.</p> <p>In Afghanistan the British approach born of generations of experience as an occupying power has the potential to succeed but only if the garrisons they install are sufficiently large to deal with any assault by Afghan irregulars. Leaving garrisons of two or three platoons to hold a town merely invites attack as a force of this size doesn't have enough firepower. If this strategy continues there is a genuine danger of a 'Fort Zinderneuf' style situation where a whole garrison gets wiped out. The easy solution would be to put brigade size garrisons in every town in Helmand province. Unfortunately this would commit the entire British Army to the operation.</p> <p>The American approach limits casualties and enables the maximum force to be delivered against the enemy. The downside is that just like Vietnam once the Americans pull out, the other guys move back in no matter how much damage the US forces cause. Like the Viet Cong the Afghan warlords will not commit their forces to a set piece battle with the full might of the Americans and British, that would be suicide. Instead they will continue with the guerilla tactics that served them so well against the Soviets.</p> <p>This leaves the Americans and British trapped in a war they can't win or afford to lose. There is no viable exit strategy, any kind of withdrawal would be regarded as a defeat unless they left behind a government in Kabul that was in full control of the whole country. I think there is more chance of apples growing on an ivy tree than there is of that happening in the next 10 years. </p> <p>It took Britain about 100 years before she finally gave up trying to subdue the Afghans first time around. It looks as if they didn't learn from that experience. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/09/04/afghanistan_the_university_of_combat_whe~1097695/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-08-22:/2006/08/23/does_the_oil_price_really_matter_any_mor~1061216/JohnBKelly2006-08-23T00:06:50+02:002006-08-23T00:06:50+02:00 <p>Five years ago crude oil cost 20 or 30 dollars a barrel. The prospect of a $50 dollar barrel would have been considered terrifying. We passed that mark after the Iraq invasion, people said the Iraq war would bleed the US dry just like Vietnam did. Now in 2006 we are edging towards $80 per barrel. The world economy is still ticking over. Oil companies are now so rich they can afford to fund all the alternative fuel research they can think of. Not for the public benefit but simply as a profit maximisation exercise. No point in focusing too much on oil these days, the profits roll in whatever they do. If the black stuff runs out then BP and their buddies will simply start selling us more bio-diesel and bio-ethanol from the plants the current high oil prices have paid for. </p> <p>Adam Smith's invisible hand strikes again. Back at the ranch the risk of increasing oil prices no longer worries the cowboys in the Whitehouse, oilmen to their fingertips. $80 a barrel is a price they have dreamt of all their lives. Now does this mean they will have any concern about attacking Iran if the chance arises, nope they'll go in with all guns blazing. </p> <p>High oil prices doesn't hurt the West like it used to. Our manufacturing base has shrunk, we don't need the same volume. China and India on the other hand need millions of gallons of the stuff to run their emerging industries. Maybe the sabre rattling in the Middle East is really a cunning tactic to take some of the force out of Chinese and Indian economic juggernauts. The big conflict of the future will be between China, India and the USA for the status of the world's most powerful nation. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/08/23/does_the_oil_price_really_matter_any_mor~1061216/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-08-21:/2006/08/21/iran_back_in_the_limelight~1058238/JohnBKelly2006-08-21T22:23:28+02:002006-08-21T22:23:28+02:00 <p>Disappointed by Hisbollah's failure to sort out Israel Iran have now decided to take centre stage in the crisis riven Middle East. We will have nuclear weapons and we will use them if we want is their message. Like their great enemy Israel the Iranians want to become a mini-superpower.</p> <p>Sadly unlike Israel they don't have the USA as their best pal. Bush and co have been waiting for this moment for 27 years, a chance to legitimately act against Iran. Every since the Shah fell and the students stormed the US embassy in Tehran this day has been dreamt of by the US right wing. A chance to teach the Islamic revolution a direct lesson. </p> <p>Don't be surprised if we see the first use of a nuclear weapon in anger since 1945. There has been a lot of venom spouted by both sides which won't be vented by a few minor firefights and botched commando raids. Bush and Ahmadinejad are two guys who want to fight and they are fed up being held back by the coat holders. They will do whatever they think is necessary to win.</p> <p>How did we get here? Well blame it on 9/11 because it gave the US the one thing it has lacked since 1979, direct access to Iran's borders. With Saddam and the Taliban out of the way Iran can be invaded from the East and West. A prospect which may attract support from Sunni Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who have always regarded the Shia as heretics.</p> <p>Will destroying Iran bring peace to the Middle East? No but it will fulfil another of Mr Bush's ambitions, all he will have left to do is sort out North Korea and his campaign against the "Axis of Evil" will be complete. Can Iran win? No this time the US will go for the throat, they have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that limited force doesn't work.</p> <p>What does it mean to us, possibly the end of the world as we know it. Destroying Iran will not stop terrorism, Al Quaeda are of course Sunnis. The price of oil will not go down. The World economy will be severely disrupted. We will suffer from a backlash against Bush and his allies. A gloomy forecast that is dependent of Bush and Ahmadinejad realising that they are in a no-win situation if they come to blows. Do you believe either man has enough sense to realise the danger they are in? </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/08/21/iran_back_in_the_limelight~1058238/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-08-16:/2006/08/17/ceasefire_in_lebanon_and_the_end_of_the_~1045501/JohnBKelly2006-08-17T00:22:52+02:002006-08-17T00:22:52+02:00 <p>The ceasefire between Israel and Hisbollah is one of those diplomatic manoeuvres that everyone knows is doomed to failure. Hisbollah have no intention of going away peacefully, Israel are determined to crush them and the UN can't cobble together anything like the size and strength of force required to enforce the deal. The Lebanese Army will be forced to go hunting Hisbollah alone or face a full scale Israeli invasion. Those of us with reasonable memories will recall that the Lebanese Civil War lasted over 25 years and is not long finished. </p> <p>The Oslo Accords promised peace in the Middle East but were ultimately torn up by the very people who would have benefited most; the Arabs and the Israelis. The rest of the world just can't stop meddling in the Middle East's affairs without every doing any real good. A rational approach would be to allow Israel to use her full military might to crush Hisbollah. Like the US in Vietnam, Israel is handicapped by its leadership's reluctance to strike with full force against Hisbollah regardless of the impact on world opinion. </p> <p>The Israeli campaign in Lebanon was relatively limited, villages were destroyed and then the Israeli's pulled out leaving Hisbollah to re-occupy the territory and attack Israel again. Guerilla forces thrive on this kind of conflict. </p> <p>To defeat them Israel needs to occupy Lebanon and impose a police state which has a huge presence in every village and a network of informants loyal to the Israeli cause. A dramatic change in strategy and a massive investment in manpower would be required to achieve this objective. However if the fighting breaks out again, expect an Israeli invasion force to push Hisbollah back north of Beirut with no concern for the casualities.</p> <p>As for the UN, the Bush Administration has effectively killed it in the same way that Hitler and Mussolini destroyed the League of Nations. By treating the UN as an irrelevance Bush and Co have made the world a dangerous place where any country is fair game for an assault by an envious neighbour.</p> <p>I suspect that within the next ten years we will be in the grip of a new world order. The sad thing is that the utopian ideals of the UN will not be a part of it. Welcome to a re-run of the nineteenth century, the Age of Empire is back. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/08/17/ceasefire_in_lebanon_and_the_end_of_the_~1045501/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-08-05:/2006/08/05/are_we_watching_the_start_of_world_war~1016823/JohnBKelly2006-08-05T23:14:08+02:002006-08-05T23:14:08+02:00 <p>Watching the tv and reading the newspapers these days is depressing. Oil is running out, western civilisation is in decline and the bulk of the worlds population is overweight and brain dead, apparently!</p> <p>In the middle east things are a little less sedentary but just as worrying, Israel has finally cracked and turned on its Islamic tormentors. Like the big kid at school Israel has dominated the region for years with ever really unleashing his full force. Hamas and Hezbollah benefited greatly from Israel's reticence, taking their enemies reluctance to massacare them as a sign of weakness. Now things have changed, Israel doesn't really care about world opinion any more. The failed peace of the last ten years is proof that the weight of world opinion doesn't have the power to stop islamic terrorism. Israel is now following a rational foreign policy option for a sovereign state; i.e. taking military action to prevent attacks on its territory. I suspect Israel will not stop until they achieve their objective of neutralising Hezbollah permanently.</p> <p>Why does Israel feel able to act in a rational manner without fear of retribution from the rest of the world? Simply because Britain and America have led the way by knocking out Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The traditional apologist nations like Russia and France have been rendered impotent by George W Bush and his 'Wild Bunch in the White House'. The politics of the Old West have been resurrected. If a man calls you names or insults your 'Maw' its ok to shoot him or invade his country, depending on whats most effective. France and Russia's favoured approach of maintaining a balance of power by subtly arming anyone who fancies a crack at the Anglo-Saxons and the Israelis whilst demanding a ceasefire at the UN is not working this time. The angry giants have had enough of being stung by ants, this time they are going to burn the ants nest. Or to continue the western anology 'the posse is gonna hunt down every single one of that damn Apache raiding party!' </p> <p>If Syria tries to intervene in Lebanon do not be surprised if the US/UK invades Syria from Iraq. We are at a tipping point in the 'War on Terror'. Israel will be allowed to crush Hezbollah, regardless of the cost. The US will watch and see who comes to Hezbollah's aid, whoever it may be,Syria or Iran, they will suffer. The US with its presence in Iraq is able to strike quickly at either state.</p> <p>World War 3 will begin the day that the US attacks Iran, because that will be when Iran's shadowy friends in the world community will have to act to prevent the US achieving total hegemony over the Middle East oil reserves. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/08/05/are_we_watching_the_start_of_world_war~1016823/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-07-27:/2006/07/27/lebanese_tourism_takes_a_blow~994282/JohnBKelly2006-07-27T22:58:48+02:002006-07-27T22:58:48+02:00 <p>Israel angered by the prospect of Lebannon muscling in on the Middle Eastern tourism market have done their best over the past few weeks to make ski-ing holidays in the Bekaa valley impossible this winter. Beirut's application for jet set status will have to be withdrawn as its hard to water ski when the Israeli Navy are blockading the harbour.</p> <p>Life in the Middle east never changes. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/07/27/lebanese_tourism_takes_a_blow~994282/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-07-03:/2006/07/04/business_is_a_hard_game~930907/JohnBKelly2006-07-04T00:47:51+02:002006-07-04T00:47:51+02:00 <p>A while ago I had dinner at an expensive hotel with some colleagues and a very senior manager. As a relatively recent addition to the team it ws the first time I had met this gent. On first glance he wasn't too impressive, a bit like a slightly debauched Dermot O'Leary (yes the big brother guy).</p> <p>Not surprisingly things started pretty amicably with the usual who de dos. Then in full earshot of the hotel staff he rattled off a list of everything that was wrong with our part of the organisation; you are probably familiar with this kind of rant which covers bad morale, poor relationship with the customer, not hitting targets, too much overtime, engineers spending too much on parking. The usual crap.</p> <p>It was clear the meal was no treat this was a butt kicking. Then suddenly the dynamic changed Dermot the Barrow Boy, since The Apprentice every boss tries to sound like Alan Sugar but ends up more like Terry Venables, started to get drunk. The little kid inside started to emerge, petulant and a little tearful. We weren't bad we were actually pretty good, so good in fact that we delivered a gross profit of almost 60%! Unfortunately that wasn't good enough for Dermot's bosses they wanted an increase in revenue too!! He couldn't hold them back for long, he was under pressure. I began to have visions of him using his arm to bar the castle gates as a battering ram thudded against it.</p> <p>By this stage he was almost sobbing and begging please generate some more revenue, we must have it. Across the table one colleague growled, "How? Costs are cut to the bone staff are working longer for less pay, benefits and bonuses have been withdrawn. You swapped my merc for a kangoo last year. We are cracking up with all the pressure you're putting on us. And now you want more revenue, we'll bankrupt the client if we fleece them any more."</p> <p>Dermot peered at him and swigged on his bottle of wine before retorting "Bollocks you guys don't know what pressure is. try fighting the Taliban or fixing a nuclear reactor ready to melt down! Thats really stressful. As for your bloody client they are a pain in the arse bunch of nobodies."</p> <p>At this point dessert arrived and Dermot ordered a liquer to go with his third bottle of wine. We watched him carefully awaiting his next gambit. So far he had been the hard ass boss, the put upon little guy, the cynical business man and now he became the sad sack messenger. "Look lads its not me its them upstairs, they've had enough of pussy-footing around your client. It's time they really paid for our services. They don't care how you do it but you must increase revenue and profits in the next six months or they'll shut you down."</p> <p>This killed the conversation we finished our coffees and left quietly. I've always understood that capitalism is based on continous improvements in productivity and profits. I never realised until this meal that ultimate aim of corporations was 100% profit plus all the revenue they can get regardless of customer needs. So any one of you reading this who thinks they have a great relationships with a supplier, think again that bastard is robbing you blind and won't stop until you're broke. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/07/04/business_is_a_hard_game~930907/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-06-05:/2006/06/05/what_a_year~856397/JohnBKelly2006-06-05T22:31:23+02:002006-06-05T22:31:23+02:00 <p>This time last year eradicating world hunger was on everyone's lips. Blair and his G8 pals pledged to sort it out. Geldof and Bono made lots of noise and then promptly disappeared back to their hidey holes. Bits of Scotland got wrecked. </p> <p>The funny thing is people are still starving in Niger and Darfur. Natural disaster and civil war have increased suffering worldwide. Not a lot has been achieved on the poverty front at all.</p> <p>Meanwhile the oil price has gone through the roof and Britain seems to be running out of gas. Fuel poverty is our new fear. Nuclear reactors our future saviours. The Nimbys want renewal power as long as it doesn't involve unsightly pylons or wind farms. The only impact on the man in the street is higher fuel bills.</p> <p>Well where do we go from here? Poverty won't go away, the price of oil is not going down. I say build a few reactors and be done with it </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/06/05/what_a_year~856397/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-03-30:/2006/03/30/closing_the_energy_gap~685625/JohnBKelly2006-03-30T14:17:27+02:002006-03-30T14:18:08+02:00 <p>Energy shortage has become the big fear topic in the British media over the past few months fuelled by upwards surge of domestic gas prices. The conventional wisdom is that Britain is now a net energy importer and we face a genuine risk of the gas supplies from continental Europe being cut off. </p> <p>The truth of course is not quite so black and white. The UK is not currently short of oil or gas supplies, we are short of gas storage facilities. The recent hikes is the wholesale gas market are the product of some rather unscrupulous but not illegal activity in the commodities market where open market gas is being purchased by traders with a view to restricting supply and pushing up prices. Nothing new there that is what these guys in the stock exchange are paid to do; ie make money for their investors. </p> <p>What is unusual is that Britain's gas suppliers have chosen to pass the increase in wholesale prices directly on to consumers despite the fact that the gas they are purchasing will not be used for some time. A cynic would suggest that the british gas suppliers are using the spike in wholesale prices as an opportunity to inflate profits and finance the building of extra gas storage facilities. </p> <p>Overall there is no shortage of gas reserves worldwide and no likelihood of suppplies running out in the next 50 to 100 years. The problem at the moment is that the world wholesale gas market does not perform in a fair and transparent manner. Consumers are being fleeced by supply companies because there are no rules to protect them. Maybe Mr Blair could make reform of the wholesale gas market one of his legacy projects.</p> <p>Fuel self sufficiency is something Britain must aim at, in order to protect the country for future generations. Progress is being made a debate of sorts is underway on the most effective sources of fuelling this self sufficiency. The Green argument is that renewable sources are the way forward and I agree that wind, hydro, wave, biomass and solar power projects need to be pursued as a matter of priority. The problem we have here is that on one hand everyone accepts the need for cleaner sources of energy the NIMBYs among us are not prepared to pay the price of impaired views in return for a healthier more secure future. If the current debate about a new Pylon line from Northern Scotland to connect windfarms to the national grid is anything to go by then the renewable energy movement is finished before it starts.</p> <p>In the median term to control domestic fuel prices and protect the UK economy we will need to consider some measures to protect us from world oil and gas market. Coal now looks like a viable alternative to Gas twenty years after Thatcher and friends destroyed the market for domestic coal by converting a significant chunk of UK power generation to Gas. The dash for gas was a cynical exercise designed to break the power of the miners. It worked and for a while made Britain greener but it didn't take account of the fact that one day North Sea gas might run out. As for nuclear power it works well and is relatively safe but it costs a fortune to implement and people just don't trust it. Amidst all of the renewable power debate Hydro-electric power the original renewable energy source is barely mentioned, why? Maybe its just not sexy enough or maybe the NIMBYs don't want anymore unsightly dams. </p> <p>In vehicle fuels it looks like we are moving towards a transition to alcofuels and bio-diesel in the short term with an ultimate aim of introducing Hydrogen power. Increasingly bio-ethanol is being promoted as a valid vehicle fuel. Hopefully this trend will be repeated across all the energy sectors and those Luddite NIMBYs will simply fade away or start enjoying the spectacle of huge windfarms, wave barriers and pylon lines. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/03/30/closing_the_energy_gap~685625/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-02-20:/2006/02/20/oil_companies_are_just_reacting_to_marke~577082/JohnBKelly2006-02-20T13:19:55+01:002006-02-20T13:19:55+01:00 <p>The recent furore over the European Commission's discovery that the market price for gas in Britain had been artificially boosted over the winter was quite entertaining. Commentators expressed shock over the behaviour of oil and gas suppliers who clearly were not acting in their customers best interests. Shell and BP have reported huge profits over the past couple of years but they insist it is not a direct result of the artificially high price of crude oil. </p> <p>The war in Iraq has provided oil companies and commodities speculators with an unprecedented opportunity to manipulate the world oil price and make huge profits. I could be accused of being cynically naive but we have been here before many times in the past 100 plus years. Oil companies have a long track record of manipulating markets and acting as cartels. The Standard Oil case back in 1911 is a classic example of just how far oil companies will go to maximise profits at any cost. Back in the early 1900s the US public finally cracked and forced their politicians to act against the major corporations that were increasinsly dominating US Society.</p> <p>Today we are in a very similar situation Big Oil is dominating the world economy with the tacit support of the US Government which is dominated by leading oil men. Back in 1960 when Eisenhower warned or the threat from the military industrial complex he was talking about the oil industry and the arms industry. The US would be a relatively peaceful nation if it did not have such a ferocious thirst for oil. A change in the US Presidency in 2008 may lead to a backlash against the 'Oil Mafia' but it may be too late for the rest of us by then.</p> <p>For the rest of the world the only means of escape from the current economic rollercoaster ride which has not peaked yet is to transfer our fuel generation to non oil based methods. The case for alternative fuels has always been dependent on oil being more expensive. As a result big Oil has consistently managed to head off any major developments in the alternative fuel industry by nudging the oil price back down enough to make the alternative fuels no longer economically viable. To secure our future we need to accept that the risks associated with oil are too great to continue.</p> <p>The problem is that the start up costs of Alternative fuel sources appears to be too high to justify in the short term compared to oil at any price below $100 per barrel. In the long term alternative fuels will deliver product costs in line with oil but only usage reaches a similar level to oil. So we face a serious choice continue with oil and the turmoil it brings or invest heavily in a future based on alternative fuels. As consumers and voters we can influence this situation by making it clear to fuel retailers and politicians that we are no longer prepared to generate profits for the Oil cartels. Maybe one day soon the Oil Tycoon will be as redundant as the 19th century Coal Barons. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/02/20/oil_companies_are_just_reacting_to_marke~577082/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-01-16:/2006/01/16/bio_fuels_move_up_the_news_agenda~475928/JohnBKelly2006-01-16T13:07:30+01:002006-01-16T13:07:30+01:00 <p>With the current Iranian nuclear crisis having a significant impact on oil prices Biofuels are now attracting increasing media attention. The BBC website has a piece on the introduction of a pilot Bio-ethanol fuel scheme in Somerset. This article can be accessed via the link below.</p> <p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4498934.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4498934.stm</a></p> <p>At the Detroit Motor Show Ford have introduced their latest flagship pick-up truck the Ford F-250 Super Chief for the US market which has a ‘Tri-flex’ engine designed to run on multi-fuels hydrogen, ethanol or petrol without any deterioration in performance. The current Ford F-150 Pick-up Ford’s top selling vehicle in the US domestic market is already available as dual fuel vehicle capable of running on any combination of gasoline and bio-ethanol E85. E85 is a vehicle fuel which is 85% ethanol. The link below is to a press release from Ford on the F-250.</p> <p><a href="http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=22295">http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=22295</a></p> <p>Ford are directing their future development on bio-fuel vehicles. GM and Toyota are concentrating more on petrol/electric hybrids such as the Prius. The important thing from the consumer angle is that we will soon have the opportunity to do our bit for the environment by driving bio-ethanol fuelled vehicles.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/01/16/bio_fuels_move_up_the_news_agenda~475928/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2006-01-13:/2006/01/13/irana_8217_s_nuclear_programme_a_8211_an~466608/JohnBKelly2006-01-13T11:18:04+01:002006-01-13T11:18:04+01:00 <p>The current crisis concerning Iran’s Nuclear programme is a clear sign of the dangers the West faces in the 21st Century. Iran a major oil producing nation should have no real need to resort to Nuclear generated power. Of course like everyone else in the world the Iranians may simply be concerned about the environmental impact of using petroleum based fuels and is simply seeking a cleaner and more reliable alternative. If this were the case then I am sure Iran could purchase cheap reliable nuclear technology from France, Germany, Britain or the USA rather than re-invent the wheel by pursuing their own development programme. Unfortunately it is almost certainly true that Iran like Iraq under Saddam embarked on the nuclear road with the aim of developing weapons. </p> <p>If Iran successfully develops nuclear weapons than they have potential to take control of the whole Persian Gulf. Of course the oil hungry west would never allow this, which will almost certainly mean that a conflict with Iran is likely in the very near future. As the Iraqi experience has shown invading countries and toppling governments is relatively straightforward but occupation of large countries by land forces is extremely difficult and expensive in resources and manpower. Iran is two to three times larger than Iraq with a potentially far more hostile population. </p> <p>A UN backed invasion of Iran is extremely unlikely, which leaves the West and Israel with the option of delivering a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites or learning to live with a nuclear armed Iran that is subject to economic and political sanctions. Unsurprisingly the doomsday option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike is not one that anyone seriously wants to pursue in public. The fallout from an Iran, which has been the victim of a nuclear attack would be disastrous in terms of lives lost in the attack and the likely terrorist retaliations against the west. Unfortunately attack by conventional bombing is unlikely to have a significant effect on the Iranian nuclear programme due to the difficulty of identifying the relevant sites.</p> <p>Learning to live with an Iran possessing overwhelming military superiority over its neighbours would be very difficult. There is no doubt that the price of oil would rocket particularly if Iran threatened Saudi Arabia. Add in the effect of China’s growing demand for oil and the West faces a very expensive future if we continue to rely on oil at our current rates. Imposing economic sanctions on Iran would have to focus on oil sales and would ultimately push up the price of oil further because preventing Iran from selling oil would basically reduce the amount of oil in circulation. </p> <p>At the moment the West is drawn into the nightmarish politics of the middle east because we appear to have no other source of fuel. If we didn't need oil the West would take as much notice of the Persian Gulf as it does of Africa or Latin America. I think there is no doubt that the best way to work towards world peace would be for the West to make Energy Self Sufficiency their main political and economic objective. </p> <p>Britain has enjoyed increasing prosperity over the last 20 years as a direct result of possessing our own oil reserves in the North Sea. We are now being told that these reserves will run out soon. With the disappearance of our oil income Britain will become a poorer nation precisely at a time when our fuel costs will become onerous. The only way to avoid this decline is to focus on fuel self-sufficiency. Now is the time for the government to introduce incentives for the production and use of plant based vehicle fuels. Migrating Britain’s fleet of motor vehicles from petrol and diesel to ethanol and bio diesel would have a dramatic effect on our daily oil consumption. </p> <p>Producing our own fuel would reduce our reliance on oil from the middle east. This in turn would reduce our need to ‘meddle’ in the affairs of that region. Walking away from the political quagmire in the middle east is something that would benefit everyone in the West. The cost of military involvement in the region is huge with the risk of disaster always high. It would be interesting to see what impact a Western drive towards fuel self-sufficiency would have on the price of oil. A serious committment is required to utilise all potential forms of renewable energy such as wind, wave and re-cyclables such dung power. </p> <p>The major barriers to fuel self sufficiency seem to be:</p> <p>- governments that in public who say they are committed to renewable energy but in practice fail to fund the implementation</p> <p>- the general media perception of renewable energy as the pre-occupation of hippy drippy types wearing knitted shoes</p> <p>- a general NIMBYism that suggests that preserving beautiful views is more important than building the infrastructure to provide heat and light for future generations.</p> <p>If we want to avoid fighting expensive wars in far off countries to protect our oil supplies then we need to make a concerted attempt to produce as much fuel as we can here in the West. Our farmers I am sure would welcome the chance to grow fuel crops for profit rather than receive subsidies to act as gardeners maintaining an artificial version of the coutryside.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2006/01/13/irana_8217_s_nuclear_programme_a_8211_an~466608/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-12-01:/2005/12/01/uk_energy_crisis~351954/JohnBKelly2005-12-01T13:29:36+01:002005-12-01T15:11:36+01:00 <p>In the past few weeks Britain has turned from a secure energy rich nation into an energy pauper relying on a drip feed of gas from our dodgy continental neighbours. Sounds odd doesn't it. It wasn't that long ago that they were trying to encourage us to us natural gas to fuel our cars. Now it would appear that it is in such short supply that we face winter blackouts.</p> <p>In response this "Energy Crisis" Tony Blair has announced a major energy review with a big focus on increasing the use of nuclear power. Wonderful stuff Nuclear Power, low emissions and kind to the environment as long as you don't mention the radioactive waste. You can't argue with the figures Nuclear Power Stations do produce more power than conventional stations but the cost of building and protecting them is enormous.</p> <p>The UK environmental lobby seems to be fixated on wind and wave power as a potential solution despite its numerous flaws. Particularly wind power which produces an irregular flow of power. The case for Wave power has yet to be proven.</p> <p>What I don't understand is why genuinely renewable energy sources such as alcohol, bio-diesel and dung are not taken more seriously by the British Government and environmental community. </p> <p>An increased use of ethanol alcohol in vehicle fuels will cut noxious exhaust emissions. Many American states are already using petrol which must be ten per cent ethanol. The Indy Car racing series is fuelled by 100% ethanol. Ethanol is a clean burning fuel which can be produced by from virtually any type of arable crop. The current EU subsidy for sugar beet production could be easily transferred to growing the same crop for ethanol production and keep the sugar beet growers happy whilst also stimulating the growth of ethanol production for vehicle fuels. </p> <p>Bio diesel is relatively easy to produce and is environmentally friendly. An effective means of using waste cooking oil and agricultural surplusses. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on any oil product, petroleum based diesel became popular because the oil industry manufactured it more cheaply than the alternatives. Now that oil is apparently becoming scare I would expect that oil based diesel will become a far less attractive option. This is why the UK should be working towards increasing its capacity to produce Bio diesel. Agricultural based Energy self sufficiency is certainly possible if the government is prepared to support the move.</p> <p>Dung power is deemed a joke in the UK yet the Germans have at least twenty dung powered Power Stations which make a significant contribution to their energy production. Germany is working towards the phasing out of their nuclear power stations permanently not building more. All countries have the potential to generate significant volumes of power from bio waste. A serious committment could lead to the utilisation of all bio waste in power generation. Every town in the UK has a sewage works or some kind of sewage outfall. Some serious investment could convert that useless waste and in the case of outfalls, environmental pollution, into usable energy. The German model of dung fuelled power station produces waste which is non harmful and can be utilised as fertiliser. Compare that to the spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor which remains a threat to life for several hundred years.</p> <p>I hope that Mr Blair's energy review actually considers the range of genuinely workable renewable energy sources available and compares them with the genuine costs and impacts of the petroleum and nuclear power options. I would also welcome a rational analysis of our existing oil and gas stocks which are either plentiful or non existent depending on the newspaper and TV station you watch. </p> <p>The UK has the potential to be energy self sufficient if money is invested wisely in renewable fuel sources. The precedents do exist, the German economy during both world wars was sustained by their domestic renewable fuels industry. If Britain is to have a bright warm future then the government needs to focus investment on using our natural resources and not funding tyrants or poisoning the environment for a short term gain. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/12/01/uk_energy_crisis~351954/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-11-07:/2005/11/07/is_france_facing_a_muslim_revolt~289083/JohnBKelly2005-11-07T13:08:54+01:002005-11-07T13:08:54+01:00 <p>The current wave of riots in French cities seems to be intensifying. The alleged reason, a reaction to youths being electrocuted whilst hiding from the police is pretty unlikely. </p> <p>France has always had a higher proportion of Muslim citizens than any other European country because of its North African empire. For a long period France has been perceived by the British public as a racially integrated country which has avoided the kind of inner city ghettoisation of minority groups that has occurred in Britain and the USA. The truth has always been a little different. Underneath the veneer of sophistication in French culture there has always been a lot of xenophobia. The native French have never been too fond of the immigrant population. The French have historic concerns over the the threat of Islam, after all it was only defeat at Poitiers in 732 that prevented the Arabs under Emir Abd El Rahman from invading Western Europe. </p> <p>Despite being initially welcomed France's minorities have found themselves trapped in large housing estates on the outskirts of the big French cities. Unemployment is high in these areas and economic or educational opportunities are few. The youth in these areas feel increasingly isolated from mainstream French society. French's complex security apparatus is viewed by young immigrants as a means of keeping them under control. Coupled with the popularity of Jean Marie Le Pen's Front National, it is no surprise these people feel under threat.</p> <p>French Republic's tend to fall when the people take to the streets. Chirac needs to take action to quell the rioting before it turns into to a full scale revolt. The risk he faces is that is if he tries to bargain with the Immigrants the French Right wing will take to the streets in protest, prompting even more violence. There is a real risk of political disaster which would have a serious impact across Europe. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/11/07/is_france_facing_a_muslim_revolt~289083/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-11-04:/2005/11/04/bush_nominates_conservative_judge_for_su~282548/JohnBKelly2005-11-04T12:52:21+01:002005-11-04T12:52:21+01:00 <p>George W Bush has bowed to pressure from the Republican Right and nominated a conservative judge for the Supreme Court vacancy. If Samuel Alito is approved by the Senate then it is likely that the US Supreme Court will have a Conservative Majority for the next two to three decades. We should all expect a significant change in the USA's cultural outlook over the next few years. There will be an an attempt by the Religous Right to overturn the Roe v Wade ruling which supports womens right to abortion and numerous other liberal laws.</p> <p>Whether this will have a significant influence on the USA's foreign policy is difficult to predict. Before the 1960s liberalisation the USA favoured an isolationist, non-interventionist approach in foreign affairs. It may be that a more socially conservative USA will choose to retreat from its current quasi imperialist role. Alternatively we may find that an enhanced sense of religous zeal will prompt even more aggressive foreign policy initiatives.</p> <p>The Bush Presidency is likely to be a significant turning point in history of the USA. The twentieth century is now well and truly over. A new set of internal and external political challenges have emerged. The next president will require intellectual, diplomatic and political skills of Thomas Jefferson plus Ronald Reagans ability to communicate in a folksy unthreatening manner. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/11/04/bush_nominates_conservative_judge_for_su~282548/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-11-04:/2005/11/04/bush_nominates_conservative_judge_for_su~282546/JohnBKelly2005-11-04T12:51:41+01:002005-11-04T12:51:41+01:00 <p>George W Bush has bowed to pressure from the Republican Right and nominated a conservative judge for the Supreme Court vacancy. If Samuel Alito is approved by the Senate then it is likely that the US Supreme Court will have a Conservative Majority for the next two to three decades. We should all expect a significant change in the USA's cultural outlook over the next few years. There will be an an attempt by the Religous Right to overturn the Roe v Wade ruling which supports womens right to abortion and numerous other liberal laws.</p> <p>Whether this will have a significant influence on the USA's foreign policy is difficult to predict. Before the 1960s liberalisation the USA favoured an isolationist, non-interventionist approach in foreign affairs. It may be that a more socially conservative USA will choose to retreat from its current quasi imperialist role. Alternatively we may find that an enhanced sense of religous zeal will prompt even more aggressive foreign policy initiatives.</p> <p>The Bush Presidency is likely to be a significant turning point in history of the USA. The twentieth century is now well and truly over. A new set of internal and external political challenges have emerged. The next president will require intellectual, diplomatic and political skills of Thomas Jefferson plus Ronald Reagans ability to communicate in a folksy unthreatening manner. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/11/04/bush_nominates_conservative_judge_for_su~282546/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-10-31:/2005/10/31/bush_faces_trouble_on_all_fronts~273351/JohnBKelly2005-10-31T15:18:13+01:002005-10-31T15:20:11+01:00 <p>George Bush is rolling closer to disaster with each passing day. The cracks in his administration are becoming ever more visible. The indictment of Scooter Libby was a clear sign that the rumours about the Bush Team's propensity for political dirty tricks are true. It would appear only a matter of time before evidence directly linked to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove the chief tricksters emerges.</p> <p>If either man resigns then prepare for one of the most incompetent periods of government in US history as without these men to support him I suspect George W Bush will implode. We already know the president's judgement is suspect, that he copes poorly with pressure even when his two sidekicks are around to straighten his tie and brief him on what to say and do. Without them he would be like a two year old who has lost his mother. Foreign policy the traditional safety valve for presidents with domestic problems will offer no escape chute this time.</p> <p>Meanwhile in Congress the right wing of the Republican Party, which probably considers the president to be to liberal, have destroyed his Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. That Miers withdrew her nomination was no surprise, as she had no judicial experience. The position of Supreme Court Judge should be reserved for people with lengthy Judicial experience and a strong track record of interpretating legal issues. Miers was too inexperienced and lacked the intellectual equipment for this role. What was surprising was that her nomination was most strongly opposed by the Republican party who regarded her as too moderate and unlikely to support their views such opposition to Abortion. The Democratic Party were noticeably quiet on the subject of Miers.</p> <p>What the Bush presidential election victory camolflaged was the splits within the Republican Party between the Religous Right and the political mainstream. The USA is heading for a major cultural watershed in the next five to ten years. If the Religous Right gain full control of the Republican Party then they will seek to reverse much of the liberal legislation on abortion,welfare provision, civil rights and gay rights that has been passed in the last four decades.</p> <p>Bush is pretty much a "lame duck" president with three hard years to go before he leaves the White House. Without the support of Congress he will struggle to pass any legislation and if he loses his top advisors he is unlikely to be able to develop any valid legislation. Throw in the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan plus the growing threat from Iran and suddenly we have a world that would tax the abilities of FDR, Jefferson and Lincoln combined. A Nixon style resignation may seem attractive if things don't improve in the next six months. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/10/31/bush_faces_trouble_on_all_fronts~273351/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-10-28:/2005/10/28/renewable_energy_sources~267079/JohnBKelly2005-10-28T13:47:41+02:002005-10-28T13:47:41+02:00 <p>It’s strange the way certain energy sources are more popular than others. Governments seem to love Nuclear and Oil based power generation. Maybe its because they are tried and tested. They are however pretty rough on the environment and expensive to run and source. In an effort to bow to the Environmental lobby the UK Government talks of Wind, Wave and Solar power with an additional interest in Hydrogen fuel cells as a future option.</p> <p>Now Wind, Wave and Solar are certainly potentially great sources of energy but they are inconsistent. I don’t think we could shut down all our oil and gas stations rely solely on Wind, Wave and Solar energy. The weather is simply not reliable enough for that.</p> <p>In the background and somewhat neglected lies fuel sources that may be slightly more expensive but are certainly renewable such as bio diesel, alcohol based fuels (entanol & methanol), methane and dung. All of these products can be generated using raw materials from the UK agricultural sector. At present we pay farmers to set aside land and let it lie fallow. Would it not be better to use our full agricultural potential aim to be as self sufficient in fuel as we possibly can? </p> <p>The Blair government talks about renewable fuels but the focus is too much on wind farms and not simple projects such as the building of small dung fired power stations, which are relatively easy to set up and recycle waste into valuable energy. These stations are not vulnerable to the weather and the fuel source is unlikely to every dry up!(please pardon the pun).</p> <p>Similarly alcohol based fuels for motor vehicles, is easy to produce and would significantly reduce our reliance on oil. In the past the only thing that has prevented alcohol being a major vehicle fuel has been the comparative cheapness of oil. I suspect the era of cheap oil is well and truly over. A move towards alco-fuel might have initial start up costs but the major benefit of a reduced reliance on external fuel sources would be a major benefit. The UK would save a fortune by not having to involve itself in oil based conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere if we produced the bulk of our fuel at home. </p> <p>I believe we need to start building pressure on western governments to take active steps to reduce our reliance on oil and nuclear power and genuinely start working on sustainable fuel sources that can be developed locally. Prince Charles would be able to spend less time worrying about Climate Change and the future of farming if we focused the agriculture sector on the production of both food and fuel. </p> <p>If the UK government is serious about renewable energy then I want them to start actively supporting the production of fuel sources that are reliable, viable and require limited changes to our existing fuel distribution system. Transporting Alco-fuels or Bio-diesels could be done using our existing tanker fleets and service station network unlike hydrogen, which would require a significant investment in new infrastructure because it is a far more complicated material to deal with. Several Dung fired power stations are already in operation in Germany and Denmark and one has been operating for three years in the UK.</p> <p>My question is why is more money not being spent on these initiatives. The latest reports of a bad winter have prompted suggestions that UK oil and gas stocks may not be sufficient to meet potential mid winter demand. If this is not an incentive to start generating power using easily sourced fuels I don’t know what is. Petroleum based fuels have caused no end of problems in the past 60 years it is time to move on.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/10/28/renewable_energy_sources~267079/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-10-25:/2005/10/25/the_united_nations_is_60_years_old~260480/JohnBKelly2005-10-25T15:33:20+02:002005-10-25T15:33:20+02:00 <p>After 60 years the role of the UN is still not clear. Is it the World's Parliament? Is it the World's Court? Is it the World's Policeman? Who knows. It tries to help it crisis situations but it lacks power and money. It relies on its memebers for troops. In short it's current status is something like the Roman Catholic church, a moral force.</p> <p>Was this what Roosevelt and Churchill envisaged during World War II, a talking shop that says the right things but is unable or unwilling to censure members when they stray from the path of righteousness. The Cold War neutered the organisation with the superpowers manipulating the UN to suit their respective agendas. Since 1990 various attempts have been made to establish a new world order but so far all the UN has done is tidy up after countries implode. In Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Sudan, Niger, Iraq, the Indian Ocean and now Pakistan the UN has turned up to treat the wounded after a series of man made and natural disasters. </p> <p>This is laudable and valuable work but the organisation's main purpose ie to foster world peace and respect for international law is not being achieved. Bad governance, Human rights abuses and terrorism cause hardship and suffering to millions but the UN has never been able to address these issues directly because many of the worst cases are committed by members of the organisation. </p> <p>If the UN is to reach its 70th birthday then something needs to be done to make the organisation more effective. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/10/25/the_united_nations_is_60_years_old~260480/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-10-05:/2005/10/05/alternative_fuel_sources~217553/JohnBKelly2005-10-05T12:32:55+02:002005-10-05T12:32:55+02:00 <p>Last night's news made great play of Tony Blair's meeting with Vladimir Putin to secure a deal for the supply of Russian Natural Gas to the UK. This move is apparently a necessity because the UK's natural gas supplies are diminishing. The shortage of key fuels will have a long term effect on the prosperity of the Western World.</p> <p>In the UK's case the demand for Natural Gas has risen significantly as older generation Coal and Nuclear Power Stations have been decommissioned. Gas is a relatively clean fuel but it is clearly too expensive a product to base your long term power supply on. The alternative fuel options are not great, wind and solar power do not supply the consistent flow of power required for a national grid. This means that the current power stations would have to remain in place so no real reduction in Oil/Gas usage. Nuclear provides the best source of power but comes at a high cost in economic and environmental terms. What is needed is a fuel that can bridge the gap between the reliability of Petroleum based fuels and the more environmentally friendly alternatives. </p> <p>Maybe we need to revisit the case for Alcohol as a fuel. At various points throughout the past 170 years Alcohol has been touted as the fuel of the future but various factors have prevented it succeeding. Taxation, competition from oil companies and bad marketing have all contributed to the failure of alcohol as major fuel source except in countries like Brazil where it is the most popular fuel for vehicles.</p> <p>In the European Union which has significant infrastructural problems in the agricultural sector a move to the production of alcohol based fuel would be an efficient way of weaning farmers off subsidies and on to the concept of cash crops. Farmers would certainly benefit from a Fuel Alcohol industry which could operate in tandem with Bio-Diesel production. This year's spiralling oil prices are unlikely to go down in the near future so maybe the time is right to walk away from the oil industry before it destroys us.</p> <p>The prospect of my grandchildren living their lives in hock to the sort of despots who rule countries with significant oil reserves fills me with dread. I would prefer to create wealthy farmers in Europe and North America. The situation in Iraq and the instability in Iran and Saudi Arabia underline how difficult it is for the West to control the supply of Oil in the Modern World. The rise of China will only make the oil market more competitive. </p> <p>A long term solution to our energy supply needs requires investment now. The potential is there but it requires radical thinking and a preparedness to take risks. A combination of alcohol, solar, wind, wave and even nuclear power generation has the potential to replace Oil and Gas in the future. This is achievable just using our current technology all that is required is the investment. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/10/05/alternative_fuel_sources~217553/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-10-04:/2005/10/04/bush_is_he_the_new_nixon~215713/JohnBKelly2005-10-04T13:20:07+02:002005-10-04T13:20:07+02:00 <p>Watching the way the Bush administration lumbers from crisis to crisis managing each one worse than the last I am struck by the way Bush's Presidency is slowly beginning to resemble Richard Nixons. Like Nixon Bush and his chums specialised in working very close to the boundaries of legality. I have no doubt that the Bush tapes if they exist would be just as damning as the Nixon version.</p> <p>Nixon had a reasonably successful first term before things fell apart in the second term. Bush is having the same experience, his Federal Emergencies manager has turned out to be an ill qualified political appointment, someone in the Bush inner circle has leaked details of a CIA agent's identity, Bush's main ally in the House of Representatives Tom DeLay has been indicted on fraud charges. All we need now is a smoking gun that confirms that Bush authorised some form of crooked behaviour and he too will be saying goodbye on the White House lawn.</p> <p>With Iraq turning into the kind of political nightmare the US experienced in Vietnam, the big losers in all of this could be the Republican Party. Next years mid term elections could prompt a shift in the balance of power in Congress back to the Democrats. John Kerry is probably glad that he lost last year because Bush's travails are the best possible advert for a Democrat in the White House.</p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/10/04/bush_is_he_the_new_nixon~215713/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-10-03:/2005/10/03/bush_puts_another_buddy_on_the_supreme_c~214256/JohnBKelly2005-10-03T16:33:32+02:002005-10-03T16:33:32+02:00 <p>The culture of the United States is rarely changed by the actions of the House of Representatives or even the Senate. The big decisions get made by Presidents occasionally but the body that has the greatest impact on the life of the average American is the Supreme Court.</p> <p>All the big issues end up on the Supreme Court's doorstep eventually as the US constitution's separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary and complex arrangement of Checks and Balances makes it almost impossible for a government party to impose laws that are in any way controversial. </p> <p>The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in legal disputes particularly where there is any doubt over the constitutional status of a law. The Supreme Court since World War II has ruled on Civil Rights, Abortion, Presidential Impeachments and the outcome of a Presidential Election. The court is probably the single most powerful body in the country. Each member of the court is selected by the incumbent President, ratified by Congress and serves for life or until they choose to resign. This long term of service means that they can influence life in the USA for decades. Many Presidents never get a chance to appoint a member of the Supreme Court. Since World War II the bulk of Supreme Court appointments have occurred during Republican presidencies. Consequently the Court has a conservative make-up. </p> <p>The most depressing event in the past twenty years is the fact that George W Bush has had the opportunity to appoint two Supreme Court Justices in the past year. Bush owes his presidency to the Supreme Court who approved his victory in Florida on a dubious point of law. Now he has appoint two conservatives to the vacancies created by the death of William Rehnquist and the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. I can only hope that Bush is the kind of guy whose friends are more intelligent than he is. John Roberts and Harriet Miers at first glance do not sound like the kind of enlightened people that will support the creation of a liberal more equal USA. I can only hope that I am wrong. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/10/03/bush_puts_another_buddy_on_the_supreme_c~214256/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-09-30:/2005/09/30/global_warming_has_it_arrived~209462/JohnBKelly2005-09-30T15:34:31+02:002005-09-30T16:16:34+02:00 <p>Reading the news these days I am struck with the with the sheer volume of environmental disasters that happen each day. We are all reaching the stage of compassion fatigue as the hurricane season continues in the USA. Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas have all suffered serious damage in the past month or so.</p> <p>In Sub Saharan African drought appears to have become endemic with famine becoming commonplace. Typhoon Damrey has devastated nothern Vietnam and killed over 70 people. In Malaysia Dengue Fever is reaching epidemic levels due in part to wetter weather conditions encouraging the existence of numerous areas of standing water. The countries bordering the Indian Ocean continue to rebuild following the Boxing Day Tsunami.</p> <p>In the Antarctic scientists report higher levels of ice melt. In the Arctic things are worse with some experts predicting ice free summers for the region by the end of the century. The result is expected to be a significant rise in world sea levels which will threat numerous low lying coastal cities. In Venice the Italian Government is committing to build a flood barrier to protect the ancient city, against the advice of locals and environmentalists who believe that Venice would benefit more from a reduction in the volume of heavy shipping entering the lagoon. In London the much vaunted Thames Flood Barrier is already nearing maximum capacity with the danger that a future rise in the high watermark of a metre or more could overwhelm it.</p> <p>So are we in the grip of a global environmental disaster or is the planet simply doing its normal thing. How can we find out? Previous changes in global weather patterns like ice ages have taken centuries to develop. Periodic outbursts of freak storms have been recorded throughout history. Britain has been warm enough to grow grapes at various points over the past 2000 years of recorded history and cold enough for rivers like the Thames to freeze solid. Are current events a sign of permanent climate change or just unusual weather patterns that will eventually revert back to more stable conditions. I really don't know what to believe. </p> <p>The only people who can provide an answer is the science community. Unfortunately they are also a source of the problem. I have an issue with modern science and the current mode of operation within academic institutions which focuses scientists on the publication of research regardless of the degree of accuracy. Publications mean publicity which means ultimately more funding for the institution and the academic. The result for the public is an endless stream of lightly researched theories promoted as fact about climate change, the food we eat, the way we behave etc. </p> <p>If I believed everything I read about the threats to modern society I would need to live on a mountaintop constantly covered up with UV filtering clothing to avoid skin cancer whilst eating food made from pre 1914 animal and plant products which hopefully will be chemical and radiation free. Not exactly sustainable. All I really want is for science to put a break on self serving research and take a serious look at the way the world is going and give me an honest and reasoned assessment of the climatic and environmental threats we face. I know the science community will sneer at my rather naive request, mainly because their livelihood is at stake. The money paid by the likes of Halliburton, BP and BAT keeps a lot of PHd students in brown rice and sandals. Still it would be nice to be have some trustworthy analysis that dispassionately considers the evidence. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/09/30/global_warming_has_it_arrived~209462/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-09-28:/2005/09/28/usa_deals_with_the_hurricane_aftermath~205403/JohnBKelly2005-09-28T11:04:12+02:002005-09-28T11:05:08+02:00 <p>Now that Hurricane Rita has passed over with mercifully little destruction the USA has reverted back from disaster mode to politics as normal. Everyone who can be blamed is being blamed for the post Katrina nightmare. The New Orleans Police chief Eddie Compass is the first victim, resigning in the face of criticism of his force's performance in the hurricane aftermath. </p> <p>Michael Brown the former head of FEMA has placed the blame on the heads of the Louisiana Governer and the Mayor of New Orleans in a cringe inducing testimony to the Congressional panel investigating the disaster. Any man allegedly responsible for co-ordinating the US's Disaster relief efforts who excuses his own people's failures because they didn't realise that the State of Louisiana was 'dysfunctional' should be made to pay back his salary.</p> <p>As head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency it was his job to organise the relief effort and in advance ensure that the local authorities had contingency/mitigation plans in place. He should have had a detailed understanding of the Louisiana's preparations before the disaster struck, they had plenty of warning. If there was an obvious problem he should have escalated it to President Bush asap. The state of Texas is richer and supposedly more advanced than Mississippi or Louisiana yet they too were shown to be poorly prepared for the impact of a major hurricane. The huge traffic jam in Texas that occurred when a more effective evacuation plan was executed indicated that there are serious gaps in the US's Emergency Planning. If Hurricane Rita had landed with winds of 160 mph or more, the gridlocked highways could have become a scene of carnage on the same scale as the infamous "Road to Basra" was at the end of the first Gulf War.</p> <p>When disaster beckons a government needs to be able to disperse the population to places of safety as quickly and quietly as possible. This means that you require the capabability to set up emergency relief centres rapidly and have sufficient routes available to ensure a controlled evacuation. Now this is difficult in the USA with its limited infrastructure where roads etc are only built when someone pays for them. I very much doubt whether the displaced populations of Louisiana or Mississippi will see much of the Federal Aid which has been promised. There will be new roads and loads of gear for the emergency services but the people who lost family and property will have to rely on the generosity of their insurers. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/09/28/usa_deals_with_the_hurricane_aftermath~205403/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>tag:johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk,2005-09-28:/2005/09/28/usa_deals_with_the_hurricane_aftermath~205402/JohnBKelly2005-09-28T11:03:58+02:002005-09-28T11:03:58+02:00 <p>Now that Hurricane Rita has passed over with mercifully little destruction the USA has reverted back from disaster mode to politics as normal. Everyone who can be blamed is being blamed for the post Katrina nightmare. The New Orleans Police chief Eddie Compass is the first victim, resigning in the face of criticism of his force's performance in the hurricane aftermath. </p> <p>Michael Brown the former head of FEMA has placed the blame on the heads of the Louisiana Governer and the Mayor of New Orleans in a cringe inducing testimony to the Congressional panel investigating the disaster. Any man allegedly responsible for co-ordinating the US's Disaster relief efforts who excuses his own people's failures because they didn't realise that the State of Louisiana was 'dysfunctional' should be made to pay back his salary.</p> <p>As head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency it was his job to organise the relief effort and in advance ensure that the local authorities had contingency/mitigation plans in place. He should have had a detailed understanding of the Louisiana's preparations before the disaster struck, they plenty of warning. If there was an obvious problem he should have escalated it to President Bush asap. The state of Texas is richer and supposedly more advanced than Mississippi or Louisiana yet they too were shown to be poorly prepared for the impact of a major hurricane. The huge traffic jam in Texas that occurred when a more effective evacuation plan was executed indicated that there are serious gaps in the US's Emergency Planning. If Hurricane Rita had landed with winds of 160 mph or more, the gridlocked highways could have become a scene of carnage on the same scale as the infamous "Road to Basra" was at the end of the first Gulf War.</p> <p>When disaster beckons a government needs to be able to disperse the population to places of safety as quickly and quietly as possible. This means that you require the capabability to set up emergency relief centres rapidly and have sufficient routes available to ensure a controlled evacuation. Now this is difficult in the USA with its limited infrastructure where roads etc are only built when someone pays for them. I very much doubt whether the displaced populations of Louisiana or Mississippi will see much of the Federal Aid which has been promised. There will be new roads and loads of gear for the emergency services but the people who lost family and property will have to rely on their generosity of their insurers. </p> <p> <small> <a href="http://johnkelly-themanwhoknows.blog.co.uk/2005/09/28/usa_deals_with_the_hurricane_aftermath~205402/#comments">Comments</a> </small> </p>