by Anonymous
Remember during Budget 2008 announcement last year, our Finance Minister (cum PM) announced that in order to assist KWSP members to reduce the burden in housing load repayment, KWSP will allow monthly withdrawal from members' A/C II for the purpose?
Sounds like a nice goodies!
When you apply for the monthly withdrawal, you only need to provide KWSP yr housing loan & instalment details from yr bank and the bank a/c # you like KWSP to bank the monthly withdrawal into it. KWSP will approve yr application based on the available amt in yr A/C II and compute the withdrawal period by dividing the approved amt with the monthly installment amt.
Application process takes about a month and you will receive the monthly payout promptly into yr bank a/c!Well everything appear to be nice and good. It was indeed a noble plan until you take to close look at yr KWSP Statement! The withdrawal plan is actually a SCAM!
This is how the KWSP SCAM works.......
Assuming you have RM100,000 in yr A/C II and yr housing loan's monthly instalment is RM2000/mth. KWSP will approve yr application of withdrawal from yr A/C II of RM100,000 and pay you RM2000/mth for the next 50mths. Everything appears to be in order BUT....... What KWSP didn't highlight to you is that when the application was approved, the TOTAL AMT (RM100,000) is removed from yr A/C II! It appears to be transfered to an unknown a/c to effect the monthly payment from therein.
The impact to the member are as follows :-
1. You just lost RM100,000 from yr A/C II. Assuming the KWSP Dividend is 5%, you will lose >RM4,000 in dividend during the 1st year. Based on the above example you will will lose >RM10,000 over the 50 mths period!
2. There is no statement to account for the amt approved vs amt paid, hence you would need to keep the monthly payment voucher to reconcile against the approved amt over the 50mths period to ensure there is no missing amt!
Assuming there are 100,000 members who innocently fell prey to this SCAM, based on the above example, KWSP would have cheated the members of 100,000 X RM10,000 = RM1,000,000,000 (that's RM1 BILLION) over the period! Furthermore, if you discovered this SCAM early and intend to stop the plan, KWSP would not allow any cancellation of the plan until at least 1 year. That would mean, once the application is approved, based on the above example, you would have lost >RM4,000.
100,000 members would have lost 100,000 X RM4,000 = RM400,000,000 (RM400 MILLION) in One Year!!! If you're a victim of this KWSP SCAM, would suggest you call yr MP to raise hell in Parliament!
For others who have not fallen into this SCAM, pls continue to watch out and alert yr family & friends about this.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Article 153 and the “Social Contract”
Admin
An excerpt of RPK's article published on 29 Oct. Written while in ISA detention, this is one of his best articles.
Those who support the imposition of quotas argue that there exists a “Social Contract” that allows them to do so. But while they mention this “Social Contract”, they fail to mention the terms of this “contract”, what it says, and who is bound by it.
In short, if I am not a party to that contract can I be bound by it? The contract was entered into by the Malays and the then immigrant Indians and Chinese; of course it is not really a written contract as much as a verbal contract and we all know that a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on.
Nevertheless, should Malaysian-born Indians and Chinese who have never even visited India and China be made to abide to a verbal “contract” made by their immigrant parents and/or grandparents? How long will this “contract” run? Will Indians and Chinese 1000 years from now still be made to abide to a “contract” made in 1957?
There should be a cut-off date. There must come a point of time when all Malaysians are regarded as equal. How can an Indonesian who migrated to this country a few years ago be regarded as Bumiputra when Chinese and Indians who come to this country in the 1400s are still second class citizens?
Yes, Article 153 accords Malays certain rights and privileges. But that same Article, and Article 8, do not allow imposing of quotas and permits which deny Indians and Chinese their rights in favour of the Malays. This, many people do not seem to understand.
We also seem to have forgotten that the New Economic Policy is a two-pronged attack. Other than reducing the gap between the different races it is also about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. And this would mean regardless of race.
When we talk about the Malay farmers and fisherman. We do not seem to realize that there are Chinese farmers and fishermen as well. Poverty does not recognize race.
It is time that the “Social Contract” be reviewed. A new “Social Contract” must be drawn up that looks into the SOCIAL structure and not RACIAL structure that the present “Social Contract” addresses. Only then can it be called a “Social Contract”. If not, then let us call it what it really is, a “Racial Contract”.
The poverty level also needs to be reviewed. The new “hardcore” poverty level should be RM1200. Anyone earning below RM1200 per month should be considered poor. That would mean a high percentage of Malaysians. Then the NEW “Social Contract” should address the needs of those who live below the NEW poverty level of RM1200.
And the NEW “Social Contract” should no longer be a verbal contract but chiseled in stone. And it should be a contract to take care of Malays, Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Ibans, Dayaks, etc. As long as you are poor, meaning earning below RM1200 then you are taken care of. That should be Malaysia’s NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Before I sign off, I would like to apologise for the quality of my articles. It is not so convenient to type from where I currently live so I need to just get my points across without much focus on the presentation. I hope this will not be for long and that I may soon be back with you. Anyway I was told that Malaysia Today is under control and in good hands. Till we speak again.
An excerpt of RPK's article published on 29 Oct. Written while in ISA detention, this is one of his best articles.
Those who support the imposition of quotas argue that there exists a “Social Contract” that allows them to do so. But while they mention this “Social Contract”, they fail to mention the terms of this “contract”, what it says, and who is bound by it.
In short, if I am not a party to that contract can I be bound by it? The contract was entered into by the Malays and the then immigrant Indians and Chinese; of course it is not really a written contract as much as a verbal contract and we all know that a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on.
Nevertheless, should Malaysian-born Indians and Chinese who have never even visited India and China be made to abide to a verbal “contract” made by their immigrant parents and/or grandparents? How long will this “contract” run? Will Indians and Chinese 1000 years from now still be made to abide to a “contract” made in 1957?
There should be a cut-off date. There must come a point of time when all Malaysians are regarded as equal. How can an Indonesian who migrated to this country a few years ago be regarded as Bumiputra when Chinese and Indians who come to this country in the 1400s are still second class citizens?
Yes, Article 153 accords Malays certain rights and privileges. But that same Article, and Article 8, do not allow imposing of quotas and permits which deny Indians and Chinese their rights in favour of the Malays. This, many people do not seem to understand.
We also seem to have forgotten that the New Economic Policy is a two-pronged attack. Other than reducing the gap between the different races it is also about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. And this would mean regardless of race.
When we talk about the Malay farmers and fisherman. We do not seem to realize that there are Chinese farmers and fishermen as well. Poverty does not recognize race.
It is time that the “Social Contract” be reviewed. A new “Social Contract” must be drawn up that looks into the SOCIAL structure and not RACIAL structure that the present “Social Contract” addresses. Only then can it be called a “Social Contract”. If not, then let us call it what it really is, a “Racial Contract”.
The poverty level also needs to be reviewed. The new “hardcore” poverty level should be RM1200. Anyone earning below RM1200 per month should be considered poor. That would mean a high percentage of Malaysians. Then the NEW “Social Contract” should address the needs of those who live below the NEW poverty level of RM1200.
And the NEW “Social Contract” should no longer be a verbal contract but chiseled in stone. And it should be a contract to take care of Malays, Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Ibans, Dayaks, etc. As long as you are poor, meaning earning below RM1200 then you are taken care of. That should be Malaysia’s NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Before I sign off, I would like to apologise for the quality of my articles. It is not so convenient to type from where I currently live so I need to just get my points across without much focus on the presentation. I hope this will not be for long and that I may soon be back with you. Anyway I was told that Malaysia Today is under control and in good hands. Till we speak again.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Calm Like A Bomb: The Impending Food Crisis
by Alex Wong
This is a continuation of my article "Calm Like A Bomb" published on 25th Sept 2008 and "Calm Like A Bomb Part 2" published on 6 oct 2008.
What happens when oil supply begins to run out? The below article which I've compiled and edited from various sources, looks into its effect on the most basic human need: FOOD.
It may come as a surprise to many that the world’s industrial food supply system is one of the biggest consumers of fossil fuels. Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production.
Fossil fuels are also essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads. Just consider that currently agriculture accounts for 17% of the US annual energy budget.
Industrial, green revolution-style agriculture is particularly energy intensive. Every calorie of food produced today requires between 10-16 calories of hydrocarbon energy (from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging). This style of agriculture increased world grain production by 250%, and was almost entirely attributable to fossil fuel input.
Food production will become a problem of extreme urgency
Modern agriculture is merely a way of converting petroleum into food. Without energy, food supplies decrease and the current world population of 6+ billion has no hope whatsoever of sustaining itself at current levels.
It has been estimated that, without hydrocarbons to provide energy, fertilizers and pesticides, agriculture could not support a population greater than two billion. This reduction would take us back to pre-20th century levels but the disruption to society and its infrastructure would probably mean a reversion to pre-industrial revolution.
The example of North Korea shows us what happens to agriculture when oil products are removed. After the Korean war, it had developed a modern farming system depending on machinery and oil-based fertilizers. After the Soviet Union fell, Communist aid to the country stopped and they were unable to purchase oil and supplies.
Without oil, farm machinery was sitting idle and large proportions of the people had to return to the agriculture. Unfortunately the soil had been drained of nutrients over the years and, without fertilizers, it was unable to produce the same output as before. Crop yields fell by 60% over the period 1989-1998.
US congressmen and others who have visited North Korea tell stories of people eating grass and bark. Other reports talk of soldiers who are nothing more than skin and bones. Throughout the country, there is starvation to rival the worst found in Africa. Chronic malnutrition has reached the point where many of the effects are irreversible. Unless it can get access to oil and fertilizers again, the population will decline until it reaches a sustainable level and civilization will be faced with the delicate task of determining who survives. The history of North-Korea (DPRK) demonstrates how an energy crisis in an industrialized nation can lead to complete systemic breakdown.
This is a continuation of my article "Calm Like A Bomb" published on 25th Sept 2008 and "Calm Like A Bomb Part 2" published on 6 oct 2008.
What happens when oil supply begins to run out? The below article which I've compiled and edited from various sources, looks into its effect on the most basic human need: FOOD.
It may come as a surprise to many that the world’s industrial food supply system is one of the biggest consumers of fossil fuels. Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production.
Fossil fuels are also essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads. Just consider that currently agriculture accounts for 17% of the US annual energy budget.
Industrial, green revolution-style agriculture is particularly energy intensive. Every calorie of food produced today requires between 10-16 calories of hydrocarbon energy (from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging). This style of agriculture increased world grain production by 250%, and was almost entirely attributable to fossil fuel input.
Food production will become a problem of extreme urgency
Modern agriculture is merely a way of converting petroleum into food. Without energy, food supplies decrease and the current world population of 6+ billion has no hope whatsoever of sustaining itself at current levels.
It has been estimated that, without hydrocarbons to provide energy, fertilizers and pesticides, agriculture could not support a population greater than two billion. This reduction would take us back to pre-20th century levels but the disruption to society and its infrastructure would probably mean a reversion to pre-industrial revolution.
The example of North Korea shows us what happens to agriculture when oil products are removed. After the Korean war, it had developed a modern farming system depending on machinery and oil-based fertilizers. After the Soviet Union fell, Communist aid to the country stopped and they were unable to purchase oil and supplies.
Without oil, farm machinery was sitting idle and large proportions of the people had to return to the agriculture. Unfortunately the soil had been drained of nutrients over the years and, without fertilizers, it was unable to produce the same output as before. Crop yields fell by 60% over the period 1989-1998.
US congressmen and others who have visited North Korea tell stories of people eating grass and bark. Other reports talk of soldiers who are nothing more than skin and bones. Throughout the country, there is starvation to rival the worst found in Africa. Chronic malnutrition has reached the point where many of the effects are irreversible. Unless it can get access to oil and fertilizers again, the population will decline until it reaches a sustainable level and civilization will be faced with the delicate task of determining who survives. The history of North-Korea (DPRK) demonstrates how an energy crisis in an industrialized nation can lead to complete systemic breakdown.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
America Needs Another Bubble
by The Onion
WASHINGTON—A panel of top business leaders testified before Congress about the worsening recession Monday, demanding the government provide Americans with a new irresponsible and largely illusory economic bubble in which to invest.
"What America needs right now is not more talk and long-term strategy, but a concrete way to create more imaginary wealth in the very immediate future," said Thomas Jenkins, CFO of the Boston-area Jenkins Financial Group, a bubble-based investment firm. "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution."
Enlarge Image A prominent finance expert asks Congress to help Americans rebuild their ficticious dreams.The current economic woes, brought on by the collapse of the so-called "housing bubble," are considered the worst to hit investors since the equally untenable dot-com bubble burst in 2001. According to investment experts, now that the option of making millions of dollars in a short time with imaginary profits from bad real-estate deals has disappeared, the need for another spontaneous make-believe source of wealth has never been more urgent.
"Perhaps the new bubble could have something to do with watching movies on cell phones," said investment banker Greg Carlisle of the New York firm Carlisle, Shaloe & Graves. "Or, say, medicine, or shipping. Or clouds. The manner of bubble isn't important—just as long as it creates a hugely overvalued market based on nothing more than whimsical fantasy and saddled with the potential for a long-term accrual of debts that will never be paid back, thereby unleashing a ripple effect that will take nearly a decade to correct."
Enlarge Image "The U.S. economy cannot survive on sound investments alone," Carlisle added.
Congress is currently considering an emergency economic-stimulus measure, tentatively called the Bubble Act, which would order the Federal Reserve to† begin encouraging massive private investment in some fantastical financial scheme in order to get the nation's false economy back on track.
Current bubbles being considered include the handheld electronics bubble, the undersea-mining-rights bubble, and the decorative office-plant bubble. Additional options include speculative trading in fairy dust—which lobbyists point out has the advantage of being an entirely imaginary commodity to begin with—and a bubble based around a hypothetical, to-be-determined product called "widgets."
The most support thus far has gone toward the so-called paper bubble. In this appealing scenario, various privately issued pieces of paper, backed by government tax incentives but entirely worthless, would temporarily be given grossly inflated artificial values and sold to unsuspecting stockholders by greedy and unscrupulous entrepreneurs.
"Little pieces of paper are the next big thing," speculator Joanna Nadir, of Falls Church, VA said. "Just keep telling yourself that. If enough people can be talked into thinking it's legitimate, it will become temporarily true."
Demand for a new investment bubble began months ago, when the subprime mortgage bubble burst and left the business world without a suitable source of pretend income. But as more and more time has passed with no substitute bubble forthcoming, investors have begun to fear that the worst-case scenario—an outcome known among economists as "real-world repercussions"—may be inevitable.
"Every American family deserves a false sense of security," said Chris Reppto, a risk analyst for Citigroup in New York. "Once we have a bubble to provide a fragile foundation, we can begin building pyramid scheme on top of pyramid scheme, and before we know it, the financial situation will return to normal."
Despite the overwhelming support for a new bubble among investors, some in Washington are critical of the idea, calling continued reliance on bubble-based economics a mistake. Regardless of the outcome of this week's congressional hearings, however, one thing will remain certain: The calls for a new bubble are only going to get louder.
"America needs another bubble," said Chicago investor Bob Taiken. "At this point, bubbles are the only thing keeping us afloat."
WASHINGTON—A panel of top business leaders testified before Congress about the worsening recession Monday, demanding the government provide Americans with a new irresponsible and largely illusory economic bubble in which to invest.
"What America needs right now is not more talk and long-term strategy, but a concrete way to create more imaginary wealth in the very immediate future," said Thomas Jenkins, CFO of the Boston-area Jenkins Financial Group, a bubble-based investment firm. "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution."
Enlarge Image A prominent finance expert asks Congress to help Americans rebuild their ficticious dreams.The current economic woes, brought on by the collapse of the so-called "housing bubble," are considered the worst to hit investors since the equally untenable dot-com bubble burst in 2001. According to investment experts, now that the option of making millions of dollars in a short time with imaginary profits from bad real-estate deals has disappeared, the need for another spontaneous make-believe source of wealth has never been more urgent.
"Perhaps the new bubble could have something to do with watching movies on cell phones," said investment banker Greg Carlisle of the New York firm Carlisle, Shaloe & Graves. "Or, say, medicine, or shipping. Or clouds. The manner of bubble isn't important—just as long as it creates a hugely overvalued market based on nothing more than whimsical fantasy and saddled with the potential for a long-term accrual of debts that will never be paid back, thereby unleashing a ripple effect that will take nearly a decade to correct."
Enlarge Image "The U.S. economy cannot survive on sound investments alone," Carlisle added.
Congress is currently considering an emergency economic-stimulus measure, tentatively called the Bubble Act, which would order the Federal Reserve to† begin encouraging massive private investment in some fantastical financial scheme in order to get the nation's false economy back on track.
Current bubbles being considered include the handheld electronics bubble, the undersea-mining-rights bubble, and the decorative office-plant bubble. Additional options include speculative trading in fairy dust—which lobbyists point out has the advantage of being an entirely imaginary commodity to begin with—and a bubble based around a hypothetical, to-be-determined product called "widgets."
The most support thus far has gone toward the so-called paper bubble. In this appealing scenario, various privately issued pieces of paper, backed by government tax incentives but entirely worthless, would temporarily be given grossly inflated artificial values and sold to unsuspecting stockholders by greedy and unscrupulous entrepreneurs.
"Little pieces of paper are the next big thing," speculator Joanna Nadir, of Falls Church, VA said. "Just keep telling yourself that. If enough people can be talked into thinking it's legitimate, it will become temporarily true."
Demand for a new investment bubble began months ago, when the subprime mortgage bubble burst and left the business world without a suitable source of pretend income. But as more and more time has passed with no substitute bubble forthcoming, investors have begun to fear that the worst-case scenario—an outcome known among economists as "real-world repercussions"—may be inevitable.
"Every American family deserves a false sense of security," said Chris Reppto, a risk analyst for Citigroup in New York. "Once we have a bubble to provide a fragile foundation, we can begin building pyramid scheme on top of pyramid scheme, and before we know it, the financial situation will return to normal."
Despite the overwhelming support for a new bubble among investors, some in Washington are critical of the idea, calling continued reliance on bubble-based economics a mistake. Regardless of the outcome of this week's congressional hearings, however, one thing will remain certain: The calls for a new bubble are only going to get louder.
"America needs another bubble," said Chicago investor Bob Taiken. "At this point, bubbles are the only thing keeping us afloat."
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Fallacy Of Alternative Energies
by Alex Kuhlman
The public, business leaders and politicians are all under the false assumption that oil depletion is a straightforward engineering problem of exactly the kind that technology and human ingenuity have so successfully solved before. Much of our existing technology simply won't work without an abundant underlying fossil fuel base.
With crude oil energy base dwindling, there is simply not enough time to replace a fluid so cheap, abundant and versatile. It is rich in energy, easy to use, store, and transport. Nothing can replace it in time - either separately or in combination. Wind, waves and other renewables are all pretty marginal and also take a lot of energy to construct and require a petroleum platform to work off.
Natural gas is a diminishing resource as well and cannot satisfy the growing demand for energy. US Gas supplies were so low in 2003 after a harsh winter that to preserve life and property supplies were close to being cut off to manufacturers, electric plants and lastly homes.
Ethanol has a net energy value of zero (not accounting for soil and water damage and other costs due to unsustainable agricultural practices) - it is subsidized as a boon to agribusiness and would have a negligible effect (Prindle, ACEEE).
Solar energy produces marginal net energy, but are still decades away at best from being a viable substitute given the recent rate of progress in efficiency and costs (averaging about five percent a year) and is nowhere ready to meet the world's energy needs. More importantly, solar photovoltaic cells (PVC) are built from hydrocarbon feed stocks and therefore require excess resources. It is estimated that a global solar energy system would take a century to build and would consume a major portion of world iron production (Foreign Affairs, Rhodes).
The widespread belief that hydrogen is going to save the day is a good example of how delusional people have become. Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source at all, but are more properly termed a form of energy storage. Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet. It requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than will ever be garnered from that free hydrogen. The current source of hydrogen is natural gas - that is, a hydrocarbon. In the envisioned system of solar PVC & hydrogen fuel cells, every major component of the system, from the PVC to the fuel cells themselves will require hydrocarbon energy and feedstocks. The oil age will never be replaced by a hydrogen fuel-cell economy.
Coal is abundant, but its net energy profile is poor compared to oil and its conversion process to synthetic fuels is very efficient. Coal would have to be mined at much higher rates to replace declining oil field. In addition, coal production is extremely harmful to the environment. One large coal burning electric plant releases enough radioactive material in a year to build two atomic bombs, apart from emitting more greenhouse gases than any other fuels. Coal is implicated in mercury pollution that causes 60.000 cases of brain damage in newborn children every year in the USA. Resorting to coal would be a very big step backwards and what we may face then may be more like the Dim Ages.
More importantly, coal is distributed very unevenly with the top three countries (China, USA, USSR) possessing almost 70% of total. Much of the current oil and gas supply is in low-population countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that cannot possibly use all of the production for themselves. They are hence quite willing, indeed eager, to sell it to other countries. When oil and gas are gone, and only coal remains, and the few (large-population) countries that possess it need all of it for their own populations, it will be interesting to see how much is offered for sale to other countries.
Obtaining usable oil from tar sands requires huge amounts of energy, as it has to be mined and washed with super hot water. From an energy balance, it takes the equivalence of two barrels of oil to produce three, which is still positive but poor in terms of energy economics. In the early days of conventional oil, this ratio used to be one to thirty.
Nuclear power plants are simply too expensive and take ten years to build, relying on a fossil fuel platform for all stages of construction, maintenance, and extracting & processing nuclear fuels. Additionally, uranium is also a rare and finite source with its own production peak. Since 2006, the uranium price has already more than doubled.
Nuclear fusion is the kind of energy that the world needs. However, mastering it has been 25 years away for the past 50 years, and still is...
Fossil fuels allowed us to operate highly complex systems at gigantic scales. Renewables are simply incompatible in this context and the new fuels and technologies required would simply take a lot more time to develop than available and require access to abundant supplies of cheap fossil fuels, putting the industrial adventure out of business.
In a recent interview with The Times, Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer calls for a “reality check” and warns that the world’s energy crisis cannot be solved by renewables. “Contrary to public perceptions, renewable energy is not the silver bullet that will soon solve all our problems. Just when energy demand is surging, many of the world’s conventional oilfields are going into decline. The world is blinding itself to the reality of its energy problems, ignoring the scale of growth in demand from developing countries and placing too much faith in renewable sources of power”, according to van der Veer.
Alternative energies will never replace fossil fuels at the scale, rate and manner at which the world currently consumes them, and humankind's ingenuity will simply not overcome the facts of geology & physics.
The public, business leaders and politicians are all under the false assumption that oil depletion is a straightforward engineering problem of exactly the kind that technology and human ingenuity have so successfully solved before. Much of our existing technology simply won't work without an abundant underlying fossil fuel base.
With crude oil energy base dwindling, there is simply not enough time to replace a fluid so cheap, abundant and versatile. It is rich in energy, easy to use, store, and transport. Nothing can replace it in time - either separately or in combination. Wind, waves and other renewables are all pretty marginal and also take a lot of energy to construct and require a petroleum platform to work off.
Natural gas is a diminishing resource as well and cannot satisfy the growing demand for energy. US Gas supplies were so low in 2003 after a harsh winter that to preserve life and property supplies were close to being cut off to manufacturers, electric plants and lastly homes.
Ethanol has a net energy value of zero (not accounting for soil and water damage and other costs due to unsustainable agricultural practices) - it is subsidized as a boon to agribusiness and would have a negligible effect (Prindle, ACEEE).
Solar energy produces marginal net energy, but are still decades away at best from being a viable substitute given the recent rate of progress in efficiency and costs (averaging about five percent a year) and is nowhere ready to meet the world's energy needs. More importantly, solar photovoltaic cells (PVC) are built from hydrocarbon feed stocks and therefore require excess resources. It is estimated that a global solar energy system would take a century to build and would consume a major portion of world iron production (Foreign Affairs, Rhodes).
The widespread belief that hydrogen is going to save the day is a good example of how delusional people have become. Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source at all, but are more properly termed a form of energy storage. Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet. It requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than will ever be garnered from that free hydrogen. The current source of hydrogen is natural gas - that is, a hydrocarbon. In the envisioned system of solar PVC & hydrogen fuel cells, every major component of the system, from the PVC to the fuel cells themselves will require hydrocarbon energy and feedstocks. The oil age will never be replaced by a hydrogen fuel-cell economy.
Coal is abundant, but its net energy profile is poor compared to oil and its conversion process to synthetic fuels is very efficient. Coal would have to be mined at much higher rates to replace declining oil field. In addition, coal production is extremely harmful to the environment. One large coal burning electric plant releases enough radioactive material in a year to build two atomic bombs, apart from emitting more greenhouse gases than any other fuels. Coal is implicated in mercury pollution that causes 60.000 cases of brain damage in newborn children every year in the USA. Resorting to coal would be a very big step backwards and what we may face then may be more like the Dim Ages.
More importantly, coal is distributed very unevenly with the top three countries (China, USA, USSR) possessing almost 70% of total. Much of the current oil and gas supply is in low-population countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that cannot possibly use all of the production for themselves. They are hence quite willing, indeed eager, to sell it to other countries. When oil and gas are gone, and only coal remains, and the few (large-population) countries that possess it need all of it for their own populations, it will be interesting to see how much is offered for sale to other countries.
Obtaining usable oil from tar sands requires huge amounts of energy, as it has to be mined and washed with super hot water. From an energy balance, it takes the equivalence of two barrels of oil to produce three, which is still positive but poor in terms of energy economics. In the early days of conventional oil, this ratio used to be one to thirty.
Nuclear power plants are simply too expensive and take ten years to build, relying on a fossil fuel platform for all stages of construction, maintenance, and extracting & processing nuclear fuels. Additionally, uranium is also a rare and finite source with its own production peak. Since 2006, the uranium price has already more than doubled.
Nuclear fusion is the kind of energy that the world needs. However, mastering it has been 25 years away for the past 50 years, and still is...
Fossil fuels allowed us to operate highly complex systems at gigantic scales. Renewables are simply incompatible in this context and the new fuels and technologies required would simply take a lot more time to develop than available and require access to abundant supplies of cheap fossil fuels, putting the industrial adventure out of business.
In a recent interview with The Times, Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer calls for a “reality check” and warns that the world’s energy crisis cannot be solved by renewables. “Contrary to public perceptions, renewable energy is not the silver bullet that will soon solve all our problems. Just when energy demand is surging, many of the world’s conventional oilfields are going into decline. The world is blinding itself to the reality of its energy problems, ignoring the scale of growth in demand from developing countries and placing too much faith in renewable sources of power”, according to van der Veer.
Alternative energies will never replace fossil fuels at the scale, rate and manner at which the world currently consumes them, and humankind's ingenuity will simply not overcome the facts of geology & physics.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Malaysia's Father of Deadlines
by Lim Siow Kuan
Anwar has allegedly set a new deadline of December 8 for crossovers. September 16 and October 13 have come and gone, and now we're waiting for another deadline?
Anwar must be aware of the repercussions of failure to honor his promise to form the government on September 16 given the high hopes he has stirred up in the Peninsula. Even if he did not have the necessary numbers to do so, he would surely have produced a few names to appease his supporters. Till now, he still had not revealed a single defecting BN MP.
Prior to September 16, the Anwaristas had been going around on the ground claiming that Anwar’s previous trusted lieutenant Muhyiddin Yassin will lead an exodus of BN MPs to Pakatan Rakyat. Muhyiddin is now the front-runner for the Deputy Presidency of UMNO.
Anwar could easily call on the Agong to present his list of MPs to him. That will solve the political impasse once and for all. That has not happened either.
Though his credibility has been severely dented, Anwar’s entourage of diehard fans are still willing to wait for him to fulfil an impossible dream.
The anti-establishment sentiment amongst the grassroots especially the Chinese and Indian community is so strong that they will support any leader who promises them to remove the BN from power. Anwar is the only source of hope to them, even if it is just a false hope.
Those who are familiar with Anwar will know that he is not much better than Najib. The only difference between the two men is that Anwar polishes his keris secretly behind our backs while Najib is foolish enough to brandish it wide in the open when he infamously threaten to “wash his keris with Chinese blood” as UMNO Youth Chief in 1988. The Chinese will never forget and forgive him.
What has Anwar done since the March elections other than to destabillize the country with his empty threats to change the government ? Even when he finally remembered he is the opposition leader, all he does is to call for a fresh budget on October 13.
I am truly amazed at the tolerance of my fellow Malaysians to put up with Anwar’s nonsense for so long.
Anwar has allegedly set a new deadline of December 8 for crossovers. September 16 and October 13 have come and gone, and now we're waiting for another deadline?
Anwar must be aware of the repercussions of failure to honor his promise to form the government on September 16 given the high hopes he has stirred up in the Peninsula. Even if he did not have the necessary numbers to do so, he would surely have produced a few names to appease his supporters. Till now, he still had not revealed a single defecting BN MP.
Prior to September 16, the Anwaristas had been going around on the ground claiming that Anwar’s previous trusted lieutenant Muhyiddin Yassin will lead an exodus of BN MPs to Pakatan Rakyat. Muhyiddin is now the front-runner for the Deputy Presidency of UMNO.
Anwar could easily call on the Agong to present his list of MPs to him. That will solve the political impasse once and for all. That has not happened either.
Though his credibility has been severely dented, Anwar’s entourage of diehard fans are still willing to wait for him to fulfil an impossible dream.
The anti-establishment sentiment amongst the grassroots especially the Chinese and Indian community is so strong that they will support any leader who promises them to remove the BN from power. Anwar is the only source of hope to them, even if it is just a false hope.
Those who are familiar with Anwar will know that he is not much better than Najib. The only difference between the two men is that Anwar polishes his keris secretly behind our backs while Najib is foolish enough to brandish it wide in the open when he infamously threaten to “wash his keris with Chinese blood” as UMNO Youth Chief in 1988. The Chinese will never forget and forgive him.
What has Anwar done since the March elections other than to destabillize the country with his empty threats to change the government ? Even when he finally remembered he is the opposition leader, all he does is to call for a fresh budget on October 13.
I am truly amazed at the tolerance of my fellow Malaysians to put up with Anwar’s nonsense for so long.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Peak Oil: The Apocalyptic Scenario
Admin
The Peak Oil theory (as explained in this blog's article dated 6th Oct: Calm Like A Bomb Part 2) argues that in the near future, the world is going to face a permanent and irreversible decline in global oil production.
Read the below article which I've compiled from various sources:
The following is quoted from Dr. Schlesinger, the former US Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defence and CIA Director: "It's no longer the case that we have a few voices crying in the wilderness. The battle is over. The peakists have won." This quote tells us how seriously the theory is taken at the highest levels of decision-making.
Nowadays, we only found three leading and loud opposing voices to Peak Oil in the energy market, namely the OPEC, ExxonMobil and the CERA consulting group. As we can see, neither OPEC nor ExxonMobil are renowned for their scientific integrity and objectivity. Regarding CERA, their predictions in the evolution of oil prices made since 2002, were wrong seven times in a row. In light with these appalling projections, the legitimacy and strength of CERA's denial of an imminent peak are at best mistrustful.
Before going further, aren't their any alternatives? Hydrogen, ethanol or electric cars? Well here the problem comes from timing, as the decline in oil production is expected to happen in 2008 according to the ASPO. A report requested by the US Department of Energy, known as the "Hirsch Report", concludes:
"Over the past century, world economic development has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal, coal to oil, etc.) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary… The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation at least a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and long lasting."
Unfortunately, we don't have ten years and world leaders do not even understand the crisis. From this point how is the situation going to evolve? Michael Meacher, a British Labour MP and former Environment Minister identifies the Peak Oil crisis as "an apocalyptic scenario"
A Deutsche Bank paper on oil depletion goes in the same direction: "The end-of-the-fossil-hydrocarbons scenario is not a doom-and-gloom picture painted by pessimistic end-of-the-world prophets, but a view of scarcity in the coming years and decades that must be taken seriously."
To come back to the financial crisis, we have witnessed an impressive fall in oil prices over recent weeks under fears of an imminent global recession. However, the massive US bailout plan and similar European supports to the banking sector are likely to maintain an artificial growth at high costs and to the detriment of states' debts. Once we realize oil demand will not decline and will even continue to grow, as mentioned last week by the IEA, oil prices will once again surge.
Regrettably, when facing the next crisis which is likely to be unprecedented, the world will no longer afford an emergency plan. In fact, the US bailout makes an emergency plan to develop alternatives to oil improbable. We have used our last bullets, and missed the target.
Recent events have showed us how officials and mainstream commentators failed to forecast the current crisis. It is time to finally take the Peak Oil movement seriously, failing to do so would result in a nightmare scenario, Dr. Campbell and others have been desperately warning for too long.
The Peak Oil theory (as explained in this blog's article dated 6th Oct: Calm Like A Bomb Part 2) argues that in the near future, the world is going to face a permanent and irreversible decline in global oil production.
Read the below article which I've compiled from various sources:
The following is quoted from Dr. Schlesinger, the former US Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Defence and CIA Director: "It's no longer the case that we have a few voices crying in the wilderness. The battle is over. The peakists have won." This quote tells us how seriously the theory is taken at the highest levels of decision-making.
Nowadays, we only found three leading and loud opposing voices to Peak Oil in the energy market, namely the OPEC, ExxonMobil and the CERA consulting group. As we can see, neither OPEC nor ExxonMobil are renowned for their scientific integrity and objectivity. Regarding CERA, their predictions in the evolution of oil prices made since 2002, were wrong seven times in a row. In light with these appalling projections, the legitimacy and strength of CERA's denial of an imminent peak are at best mistrustful.
Before going further, aren't their any alternatives? Hydrogen, ethanol or electric cars? Well here the problem comes from timing, as the decline in oil production is expected to happen in 2008 according to the ASPO. A report requested by the US Department of Energy, known as the "Hirsch Report", concludes:
"Over the past century, world economic development has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal, coal to oil, etc.) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary… The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation at least a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and long lasting."
Unfortunately, we don't have ten years and world leaders do not even understand the crisis. From this point how is the situation going to evolve? Michael Meacher, a British Labour MP and former Environment Minister identifies the Peak Oil crisis as "an apocalyptic scenario"
A Deutsche Bank paper on oil depletion goes in the same direction: "The end-of-the-fossil-hydrocarbons scenario is not a doom-and-gloom picture painted by pessimistic end-of-the-world prophets, but a view of scarcity in the coming years and decades that must be taken seriously."
To come back to the financial crisis, we have witnessed an impressive fall in oil prices over recent weeks under fears of an imminent global recession. However, the massive US bailout plan and similar European supports to the banking sector are likely to maintain an artificial growth at high costs and to the detriment of states' debts. Once we realize oil demand will not decline and will even continue to grow, as mentioned last week by the IEA, oil prices will once again surge.
Regrettably, when facing the next crisis which is likely to be unprecedented, the world will no longer afford an emergency plan. In fact, the US bailout makes an emergency plan to develop alternatives to oil improbable. We have used our last bullets, and missed the target.
Recent events have showed us how officials and mainstream commentators failed to forecast the current crisis. It is time to finally take the Peak Oil movement seriously, failing to do so would result in a nightmare scenario, Dr. Campbell and others have been desperately warning for too long.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Britain Saves The World
Admin
Britain is leading the world out of the current financial turmoil. Now other European countries are following suit. Read this article by Krugman.
The Brown government has shown itself willing to think clearly about the financial crisis, and act quickly on its conclusions. And this combination of clarity and decisiveness hasn’t been matched by any other Western government, least of all the US.
The British government went straight to the heart of the problem — and moved to address it with stunning speed. On Wednesday, Mr. Brown’s officials announced a plan for major equity injections into British banks, backed up by guarantees on bank debt that should get lending among banks, a crucial part of the financial mechanism, running again. And the first major commitment of funds will come on Monday — five days after the plan’s announcement.
At a special European summit meeting on Sunday, the major economies of continental Europe in effect declared themselves ready to follow Britain’s lead, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into banks while guaranteeing their debts. And whaddya know, Mr. Paulson — after arguably wasting several precious weeks — has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities (although he still seems to be moving with painful slowness).
We still don’t know whether these moves will work. But policy is, finally, being driven by a clear view of what needs to be done. Which raises the question, why did that clear view have to come from London rather than Washington?
Luckily for the world economy, Gordon Brown and his officials are making sense. And they may have shown the world the way through this crisis.
Britain is leading the world out of the current financial turmoil. Now other European countries are following suit. Read this article by Krugman.
The Brown government has shown itself willing to think clearly about the financial crisis, and act quickly on its conclusions. And this combination of clarity and decisiveness hasn’t been matched by any other Western government, least of all the US.
The British government went straight to the heart of the problem — and moved to address it with stunning speed. On Wednesday, Mr. Brown’s officials announced a plan for major equity injections into British banks, backed up by guarantees on bank debt that should get lending among banks, a crucial part of the financial mechanism, running again. And the first major commitment of funds will come on Monday — five days after the plan’s announcement.
At a special European summit meeting on Sunday, the major economies of continental Europe in effect declared themselves ready to follow Britain’s lead, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into banks while guaranteeing their debts. And whaddya know, Mr. Paulson — after arguably wasting several precious weeks — has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities (although he still seems to be moving with painful slowness).
We still don’t know whether these moves will work. But policy is, finally, being driven by a clear view of what needs to be done. Which raises the question, why did that clear view have to come from London rather than Washington?
Luckily for the world economy, Gordon Brown and his officials are making sense. And they may have shown the world the way through this crisis.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Malaysia's Father of all Worms
by Daniel YKL
Koh Tsu Koon can be rightly called the “Father of all Worms.” He is just plain spineless. Like a worm, he will crawl to lick the shoes of Badawi and for that matter Najib, who is soon to become the Premier. Koh has shamelessly proclaim the below statement:
Koh said that Pak Lah had initated reforms and was an advocate for democracy and greater space for open discussions.
“He can be rightly called the ‘Father of Democracy’ for Malaysia,” he said.
Koh said that reforms in the government and BN should continue after the transition of power from Abdullah to Najib.
“In Najib, we have an intellectual, experienced and dynamic leader to build on the foundation Pak Lah has laid,” he added.
(Excerpt from Malaysiakini)
He can call for any reforms, but they're all just words to prove that Gerakan is doing something. Whether they will all be implemented is another matter.
At the rate Gerakan is going, I don’t see any hope of it making a return in the next GE. Who would want a spineless party? Gerakn will probably be wiped out completely. Why do you think so many members have left and joined the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, including several key leaders? Even Chia Kwang Chia prefered not to contest in any Gerakan leadership position. Why? I think these leaders and members are smart and brave enough to make their point. Gerakan has lost all credibilities, thanks to their spineless leader.
Koh Tsu Koon can be rightly called the “Father of all Worms.” He is just plain spineless. Like a worm, he will crawl to lick the shoes of Badawi and for that matter Najib, who is soon to become the Premier. Koh has shamelessly proclaim the below statement:
Koh said that Pak Lah had initated reforms and was an advocate for democracy and greater space for open discussions.
“He can be rightly called the ‘Father of Democracy’ for Malaysia,” he said.
Koh said that reforms in the government and BN should continue after the transition of power from Abdullah to Najib.
“In Najib, we have an intellectual, experienced and dynamic leader to build on the foundation Pak Lah has laid,” he added.
(Excerpt from Malaysiakini)
He can call for any reforms, but they're all just words to prove that Gerakan is doing something. Whether they will all be implemented is another matter.
At the rate Gerakan is going, I don’t see any hope of it making a return in the next GE. Who would want a spineless party? Gerakn will probably be wiped out completely. Why do you think so many members have left and joined the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, including several key leaders? Even Chia Kwang Chia prefered not to contest in any Gerakan leadership position. Why? I think these leaders and members are smart and brave enough to make their point. Gerakan has lost all credibilities, thanks to their spineless leader.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Malaysia's Father-In-Law
by Alex Wong
Previous Prime Ministers of Malaysia have been granted sobriquets that are hallmarks of their legacies. But it seems that our fifth Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is unable to salvage any honourable legacy for Malaysians to remember him as.
Before we grant a sobriquet to Abdullah, let's review the legacies of previous Prime Ministers.
Bapa Kemerdekaan
Tunku Abdul Rahman was Father of Independence (Bapa Kemerdekaan). Both the formations of Malaya and Malaysia were two of Abdul Rahman's greatest achievements.
Bapa Pembangunan
Tun Abdul Razak was Father of Development (Bapa Pembangunan). He is renowned for launching the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP).
Bapa Perpaduan
Tun Hussein Onn was the Father of Unity (Bapa Perpaduan). Tun Hussein was renowned for stressing on the issue of unity through policies aimed at rectifying economic imbalances between the communities.
Bapa Pemodenan
Tun Mahathir Mohamad was the Father of Modernization (Bapa Pemodenan). Malaysia's longest-serving Prime Minister, and one of the longest-serving leaders in Asia was credited for engineering Malaysia's rapid modernization and promoting "Asian values".
Bapa ???
What about Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi?
His half-hearted effort of empowering anti-corruption agencies and providing more avenues for the public to expose corrupt practices has earn him little accolates because the people arrested were all considered as “small fries”.
His Islam Hadari concept, which advocates the intercompatibility between Islam and economic and technological development, has been ridiculed by many Islamic scholars.
Perhaps one of his more sucessful actions was the setting up of a Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police. Yet, his detractors said that he didn't go the distance to implement the commission’s suggestion to set up the IPCMC, due to internal revolt, among other things.
It won't be exagerating to say that Abdullah is considered by many as the weakest and most incompetent Prime Minister of Malaysia. And as the joke goes, our fifth Prime Minister will probably be most remembered only as: the Father-in-law of Khairy Jamaluddin (Bapa Mertua).
Previous Prime Ministers of Malaysia have been granted sobriquets that are hallmarks of their legacies. But it seems that our fifth Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is unable to salvage any honourable legacy for Malaysians to remember him as.
Before we grant a sobriquet to Abdullah, let's review the legacies of previous Prime Ministers.
Bapa Kemerdekaan
Tunku Abdul Rahman was Father of Independence (Bapa Kemerdekaan). Both the formations of Malaya and Malaysia were two of Abdul Rahman's greatest achievements.
Bapa Pembangunan
Tun Abdul Razak was Father of Development (Bapa Pembangunan). He is renowned for launching the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP).
Bapa Perpaduan
Tun Hussein Onn was the Father of Unity (Bapa Perpaduan). Tun Hussein was renowned for stressing on the issue of unity through policies aimed at rectifying economic imbalances between the communities.
Bapa Pemodenan
Tun Mahathir Mohamad was the Father of Modernization (Bapa Pemodenan). Malaysia's longest-serving Prime Minister, and one of the longest-serving leaders in Asia was credited for engineering Malaysia's rapid modernization and promoting "Asian values".
Bapa ???
What about Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi?
His half-hearted effort of empowering anti-corruption agencies and providing more avenues for the public to expose corrupt practices has earn him little accolates because the people arrested were all considered as “small fries”.
His Islam Hadari concept, which advocates the intercompatibility between Islam and economic and technological development, has been ridiculed by many Islamic scholars.
Perhaps one of his more sucessful actions was the setting up of a Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police. Yet, his detractors said that he didn't go the distance to implement the commission’s suggestion to set up the IPCMC, due to internal revolt, among other things.
It won't be exagerating to say that Abdullah is considered by many as the weakest and most incompetent Prime Minister of Malaysia. And as the joke goes, our fifth Prime Minister will probably be most remembered only as: the Father-in-law of Khairy Jamaluddin (Bapa Mertua).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)