Tony K's Blog

Ezra Klein recently published a blog post in response to a NY Times piece by David Brooks, the conservative on staff there. It was called "T he sad history of climate policy, according to David Brooks." It's interesting on some levels. It shows that the Republicans used their influence to kill initiatives to reduce carbon footprint, forcing the Democrats, who really wanted to do something about carbon into the corner of funding green startups as the only remaining available option. When some of those startups inevitably failed, the Ds became the bad guys on many levels. It is a sad story of the conversion of a bipartisan consensus going away for political gain. Klein makes the point that it is really quite clear who the bad guys are, the Rs. But there is a big assumption behind all this:  Catastrophic  global warming is happening. All the scientists say so. I sent this response to his column: "First, I completely agree with the premise that if Obama is for it, th...

--> I have mentioned previously that I am a big fan of Andrew Tobias. Recently, he posted on his blog  the claim that climate "deniers" were massively funded by corporate interests.  I sent him the following note. "You said, "The connection between the climate-change deniers and the Republican budget enthusiasts is that both are massively funded by corporate interests , now entirely unleashed by the Republican Supreme Court and its Citizens United decision.  That’s the one that stacks the political system even more heavily in favor of the rich and powerful, and allows their influence to be hidden. " "For the record, I am a big fan and we are on the same side politically. Scientifically we differ, and this thing about climate-change deniers being funded by corporate interests is simply not true as far as I can tell. People point to XOM funding someone for 25 M illion dollars or so. Compare that to the forces of climate change "proponen...

I will call people who believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), warmists, those who are less certain, denialists. I hope it insults both sides equally. My BS degree is in earth science. I work for an oil company. I believe in the scientific method. I believe that government has a legitimate role to play in society. I am not a Neanderthal. I have biases. Some may think that because I work for an oil company, I desperately want to see the warmists fail. Look, I'm too close to retirement for anything that happens now to have an effect on my personal earnings or career, so I don't think that comes into play. And by the way, I live on this planet. If humans are doing something to damage the planet, I want it to stop. I want us to take action to fix and reverse the harm. I may be retiring within fifteen years, but I hope to live a lot longer than that, and I want my kids to inherit a good place. I have read a lot about the science, politics, and economics of the CO2/glob...

First a disclaimer. I work for Chevron. Nothing I say here has been endorsed by Chevron, it is simply my opinion. I believe that Proposition 87 on the California Ballot in November 2006 is overall a bad idea. Most oil production in the United States and the world carries a "royalty." That is not unusual. California was one of the few exceptions. However, California has some of the stiffest taxation in the nation, which I suspect more than makes up for it. So this is, in essence, California enacting a new "windfall profits" tax. Is this good or bad then? Well the structure of the tax is such that the highest payments happen when prices are high. That kind of graduation is good. there is also a limit on the total amount that will be brought in, so the tax goes away at some point. That's fine in theory. Once a tax is in place, it often gets extended or rates changed. The royalty might result in fewer barrels reduced ultimately. It depends on prices and timing. Ther...

First off, if you drive a car that gets less than 20 MPG, you have no cause to protest high prices. You are the problem. The current high prices at the gas pumps are driven by factors that work all the way back to really basic supply and demand issues. People often say that oil is a finite, non-renewable resource. I'll buy the non-renewable part, but not the finite part. OK, oil is technically not infinite, but practically speaking we will never run out of oil. The issue is how fast can it be produced? Today the world is producing about 85MM barrels per day. By all accounts that is with all production going full out. Here's what will happen. When demand for oil and the world's ability to supply it are out of balacne, prices go up because demand is pushing the limits of supply capacity. Two things will happen in response. Consumers will make choices that will curtail their usage of enrgy--short and longer term structural changes; producers will ramp up efforts to deliver mor...

A strange scene is unfolding in Richmond, CA on San Francisco Bay tonight. A tribe of Indians (Native Americans), those nature loving stewards of our planet, are trying to open a casino on some vacant wetlands. ChevronTexaco, an integrated oil company, those rapers and pillagers of our planet, are opposing them because they want to build a nature preserve. Go figure.