No Economic Recovery; Prepare For Inflationary “Meltup”

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Your government is lying to you. We are not in economic recovery. We are merely experiencing a cash bubble through printing—inflation—and every day that bubble is in greater danger of bursting. When it does, the American people will face national bankruptcy.

The following video comes to me on the recommendation of Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Research Institute, and The Trends Journal. For those of you who have not already subscribed to his journal, he is one of the best economic forecasters in the world.

To my friends in the Tea Party, this is why you are marching. Simply getting Republicans elected will not be enough to save this nation from economic collapse. Any politician, Democrat or Republican, who does not understand what is in this video must go.

In addition to Mr. Celente, this documentary, "Meltup," features some of the best economic experts available including:

• Peter Schiff, Austrian School economist, bestselling author of Crash Proof, owner of Euro Pacific Capital, former economic advisor to Ron Paul, and current candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut
• Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas , former presidential Candidate, bestselling author and voice of the Austrian School economists on Capitol Hill
• Marc Faber, renowned Austrian School economist.
• Jim Rogers, investor, author, and financial commentator
• Tom Woods, historian, bestselling author, and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
• And several others.

The National Inflation Association has done a fine job in producing "Meltup." Our liquid fuels crisis, the manipulations and fraud in the precious metals markets, the debt problems and the looming threat of dollar collapse through inflation are all covered in detail. As Celente points out, we are on the verge of the second American Revolution. This video will give you a better understanding of what we face, and what the Tea Party and its supporters MUST achieve if it is to be successful.

Global Warming: Policy Change, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Danger

By Julian Dunraven, J. D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

Global warming does indeed seem to be a pervasive problem. Yesterday it plagued me in my morning paper, harangued me from radio and television broadcasts, and even managed to insinuate itself into the conversation of irksome social acquaintances. Although I have become accustomed to bad policy masquerading as good science, and even look forward to reading my Global-Warming-Article-of-the-Day in the paper, yesterday’s news was particularly insufferable.

Todd Hartman of The Rocky Mountain News started it off, trumpeting Dr. Susan Solomon’s new pronouncement that CO2 emissions “will irreversibly change the planet,” for centuries to come no matter what we do. I suppose someone should suggest to Dr. Solomon that, if she has noticed human behavior has little to no impact on climate change, it might be because the whole things is part of the earth’s natural and periodic cycles. However, I was rather hoping her pronouncement might end the climate change squawking; after all, she does not seem to have much hope that there is anything more to be done. Alas, fortune is not so kind.

True believers never lose hope, and so NPR did its best to keep the faith alive by broadcasting proposed solutions. It seems a few members of the scientific community were watching “The Simpsons” and drew a bit too much inspiration from Mr. Burn’s attempt to block the sun by raising a giant metal disk over Springfield. Of course, the earth is a lot bigger than the town of Springfield, and thus there would have to be quite a few of these disks launched into orbit before we could block enough sunlight to begin cooling the earth. The disks would also have to be replaced occasionally as they fell out of orbit. The real sticking point is the cost, which is currently several trillion dollars. It is always unfortunate when mere economics gets in the way of good Simpsons . . . or science rather.

Another absurd proposal NPR and others have deigned to promulgate, involves launching sulfur particles into the atmosphere. This, would be far cheaper than the Mr. Burns plan, and would sufficiently darken the sky to promote global cooling. Unfortunately, it may also severely change weather patterns, increase acid rain, and—oh yes—darken the sky. No one quite knows how many species of animal and plant life would be devastated from a decrease in light sufficient to cool the earth. It might eventually leave the world a barren wasteland, but everyone agrees it would be a cooling barren wasteland.

Fortunately, it is only bureaucrats like those running the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who seem to use middle school science fair projects as the standard for publishable research. The IPCC’s report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists, was widely touted as representing the final and absolute conviction among the scientific community that Global Warming is the result of human produced CO2 emissions. Instead, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has soundly refuted this in its Minority Report, which cites over 650 scientists, all contesting the IPCC’s claims.

One of the more interesting dissenters is Dr. Don Easterbrook, whose study of the climate indicates normal and alternating periods of warming and cooling stretching back for millennia. Not only does Dr. Easterbrook contest the idea that Global Warming is caused by humans, after looking at the sun’s recent activity and the Pacific Ocean’s decadal oscillation, he has staked his reputation on his theory that we are now entering a period of Global Cooling, and the Warming advocates will soon see their arguments collapse.

Whether or not he turns out to be correct will be largely irrelevant for the next four years. President Barack Obama’s cabinet selections clearly indicate the he accepts the idea of human caused Global Warming absolutely, and intends to write policy with that in mind. In his January 2009 Monthly Review, Richard Loomis of World Energy gives a thorough analysis of “President. Obama’s Energy Picks.”

As. Mr. Loomis explains, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees Global Warming as a national security threat and, during her campaign, advocated for strong carbon cutting measures. Steven Chu, as Secretary of Energy, has expressed great distaste for oil, dislikes nuclear power for the waste it generates, and refers to coal as, “my worst nightmare.” Solar, wind, and natural gas power and natural gas fuel seem to be his preferences. Carol Browner, the “Energy Czar,” comes to us from the EPA, where she argued that California should be granted a waiver from the Clean Air Act to allow it to more strictly regulate carbon emissions. Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, pushed a moratorium on new coal plants as the EPA head for New Jersey. Then there is Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior who, while not joining the rest in his hatred of coal, is strongly opposed to expanding oil drilling whether on land or off shore.

From this list, Mr. Loomis is correct to fear some sort of cap and trade mechanism being forced on the U.S. by executive order. And herein lies the real danger of Global Warming. In his January 24th broadcast of “the Big Picture,” Jim Puplava warns that the U.S. will have a difficult time convincing the rest of the world to join in such an initiative during this economic crisis. Europe especially will be disinclined to rely more on natural gas when Putin has consistently demonstrated his willingnes to use the gas supply as political leverage. Thus, the U.S. will be forced to pursue carbon reduction policy alone. The high energy costs of such a policy would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to Europe, China, and our other major trading partners. This is especially worrisome at a time when tax revenues are declining and government spending is increasing, and Mr. Puplava is right to wonder how much more of our debt the world will continue to finance when other nations are beset with their own economic problems.

Then there is peak oil. The recent IEA World Energy Outlook reports a 9.1% annual depletion rate in the world’s oil reserves. All major oil fields are in decline, virtually no new discoveries are being made, and oil demand continues to rise across the world—despite the economic crisis—especially in China, India, and oil producing nations developing their own economies. We are set for an oil supply crisis to hit between 2012-2015. Our own oil reserves are not sufficient to avert this problem, but they can help buy more time for us. However, as developing an oil field takes anywhere from 4-6 years, we would need to start investing today. Instead, low oil prices, and the refusal of the Obama administration to expand drilling while it considers actually raising taxes on oil produces has all but killed capital investment in this vital field.
Natural gas fuel is also a viable stop gap measure while we search for something to more permanently replace oil. However, it is not unlimited, and if we insist on squandering it to supply our electricity, it will not be of much help to us when we face the coming oil supply crisis.

As I have said before, Global Warming is something science is still vigorously debating as it attempts to fully understand the causes of climate change. However, to the Obama administration, the debate is over. In the midst of an economic crisis, it is willing to tax coal and nuclear power into extinction—despite an already overburdened grid. It is willing to put our nation’s entire economy in peril of the worst oil supply crisis ever seen and squander the natural gas resources that could help protect us. And it is willing to do all of this solely on the basis of its faith in human caused Global Warming. Whether climate change is a real problem caused by humans is still up for debate. However, the dangers of policy change based on that premise are very real and imminent.

They Don't Understand Energy: It's a Liquid Fuels Crisis

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

In the last presidential debate, we heard a great deal from the candidates about the "energy crisis," and how they would solve it. They gushed so enthusiastically about wind, solar, biodiesel and nuclear power that you might have thought that the "crisis" we face was a shortage of coal. Of course, we know we have plenty of that, so perhaps they were trying to demonstrate how we could be more environmentally conscientious. What they most assuredly did not do, however, is offer any suggestions for solving the real energy crisis or, more appropriately, the liquid fuel crisis called Peak Oil.

Our cars, trains, ships, and planes, in short the vehicles maintaining our global economy, all run on oil. No number of windmills, solar panels, and nuclear plants will change this. The problem is that oil is running out and becoming more difficult to produce, but demand for oil continues to grow at an alarming rate.

Currently, oil production stands at about 86 million barrels/day. Most long term predictions say that oil demand will reach 125 million barrels/day over the next 20 years. This incredible increase will be pushed not only by continuing growth in the West., but by the rapidly developing economies of Eastern Europe, China, India, and the Middle East.

Unfortunately, we cannot meet the demand. Most of the world's mature oil fields have already peaked in production and have been in decline since 2005. OPEC nations are struggling to simply maintain their current production despite the best efforts of technological improvements in oil extraction which have taken decades to create. If we can believe that we still have 1.2 trillion barrels in proven reserves, then it is likely we can last 5-15 years before demand exceeds supply and oil becomes unavailable at any price. If we reach that point, then the global economy comes crashing to a halt in a disaster which will make our current economic crisis seem mild by comparison.

To avoid this unpleasant fate, the first step is to understand what we are facing. The articles, and interviews of Matthew Simmons, perhaps the leading scholar in this field, would be good places to start. Obviously, we need to find a viable alternative to oil and set up an infrastructure to match. Though there are many theoretical possibilities, none have been perfected for industrialization. To buy ourselves urgently needed time, we will have to drill for any drop of oil we can feasibly access. Unfortunately, it takes about 3-4 years minimum to set up, and most of the rigs we have now are dilapidated. Thus, we are under incredible pressure to increase what oil supplies we do have access to, as well as finding some alternative to oil. If we run out of time, the only option we will have for accessing the oil we need is war, war for a resource the whole world will be seeking.

Though our presidential candidates both seem to have a poor understanding of this issue, Barack Obama is clearly the more dangerous of the two. He opposes expanding drilling domestically and off-shore unless it proves necessary in the future. Just to buy time, we need it now. He also calls for a $1,000 tax rebate to every family for energy costs. Add this to the additional stimulus check he supports for the middle class, huge tax increases on 70% of all businesses, and countless new spending proposals he has refused to cut despite the hard economy. Though he has not said where he intends to get the money for this, I expect him to announce a merger of the Treasury and Hasbro any day now. After all, they can print Monopoly Money far more efficiently than we print dollars, and they will have about the same worth by the time Obama stops spending. Unfortunately, we cannot begin to deal with the liquid fuel crisis if we bankrupt the nation before it even hits.