Good News and Bad News About Oil Prices

by Larry Smith

There's good news and bad news on the energy front these days. The bad news? Prices are up. The good news? Prices are up. Analysts are forecasting $200-a-barrel oil, which could put a gallon of gas close to $10 for Bahamians.

Goldman Sachs, the New York investment bank, says a barrel of oil will "spike” at $200 next year, with prices remaining above $100 for the medium term. The underlying assumption is that, unlike the oil shocks of the 1970’s, today's prices are demand driven by the huge emerging economies of China and India, with supplies threatened by geopolitical instability in producing countries.

Skeptics say that Goldman Sachs is part of a speculative frenzy that is driving prices up, but the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which advises 27 rich countries on energy policy, has a more fundamentalist view. Here is what the IEA's chief economist had to say this month:

"I expect that for the next years to come, we will have a high price trajectory. There may be zigzags, but I would be very surprised if prices go down to the levels we saw three or four years ago, in the long term."

So what's to like about high oil prices? Well, here are six of the best reasons.

1. High prices send a message to consumers that they should buy fuel-efficient cars and otherwise conserve energy. American automakers have already noticed a "permanent and structural" shift to smaller cars, while Bahamian dealers are just beginning to see a trend as oil prices filter through the economy.

For the first four months of this year sales of the smallest, least expensive cars were up 33 per cent in the US, while sales of all other vehicles were down. In the Bahamas, both Honda and Toyota dealers have noted a greater interest in vehicles with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, even if this has not yet translated into actual sales.

Over 11,000 new and used vehicles were sold in the Bahamas last year, adding to the crazy congestion on our roads. Now that the price of a gallon of gas is approaching $6 in Nassau, we can expect the trend towards smaller, more sensible cars to continue.

2. The government recently cut duty rates on hybrid gas-electric vehicles to 25 per cent. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean much because hybrids aren't available for sale here for technical reasons, and they are still likely to cost close to $40,000 if they do become available. But it's a psychological step in the right direction.

And the likelihood is that the government's energy policy committee will recommend further steps to make it easier for Bahamians to reduce their transportation carbon footprint - electric vehicles being one option. There are a few electric cars (not golf carts) in production now that could be sold at reasonable prices here if the duty was eliminated. These would be especially useful in small out island communities like Hope Town.

Meanwhile, mainstream automaker GM will launch the Chevrolet Volt in 2010 at a price of under $40,000. It will have a top speed of 100 mph and a range of 40 miles in standard driving conditions, with overnight charging. The Volt also has a small gasoline engine to charge the battery pack and extend the driving range to 700 miles.

3. In the US, more commuters are resorting to public transportation rather than driving their cars. Ridership is higher than it has been in 50 years according to a recent study, although Americans have a long way to go to catch up with European and Japanese mass transit usage. More importantly, a big majority of Americans now want more investment in transit systems.

Bahamians with access to a car are still wary of using the local jitney system due to safety and reliability issues, but this could change quickly if the government and the bus operators get together to make some essential improvements.

The much ballyhooed rationalisation of the jitney system, which began early in the term of the previous government, has led nowhere, and the current administration has launched a 100-day "quality challenge" to improve bus service in the capital. The initiative includes special training for bus drivers who will follow an advertised route schedule.

4. Higher gas prices can also lead to leaner waistlines. "An additional dollar in real gasoline prices would reduce obesity in the US by 15 per cent after three years," suggests Charles Courtemanche, an economics researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. "If the price of gas rises, the cost of driving also rises, which may affect body weight in two ways."

"First, people may substitute from driving to walking, bicycling, or taking public transportation. Walking and bicycling are forms of exercise, which increase calories expended, decreasing weight. Second, since the opportunity cost of eating out at restaurants rises when the price of gas increases, people may substitute from eating out to preparing their own meals at home, which tend to be healthier."

Similar research found that European countries with higher gasoline prices also tend to have lower rates of obesity. In fact, we burn more gallons of gasoline in our cars each year just because we weigh more. It will be interesting to see if this prediction plays out in the Bahamas, where obesity and poor eating habits are huge problems.

5. Less driving also equates to fewer accidents, and many US states are reporting big declines in car crashes. Some people apparently realise that the faster and more aggressively they drive, the more fuel they will waste. Again, it remains to be seen whether Bahamians will respond to this incentive to modify their driving habits, which can only improve the chaos on our congested roads.

According to a poll for CreditCards.com, less driving is also discouraging the plague of drop-in guests. The survey found that more than half of American drivers are curbing visits to friends and family to keep driving costs down. Whether Bahamians will cut back on their aimless roving around town is another matter. If they do, we could see another big improvement in traffic congestion and a consequent reduction in road rage.

6. But the real reason to welcome higher oil prices is that they will encourage the world to move away from a polluting carbon-based economy to one that is cleaner and more sustainable. It will take time and a lot of investment, but the end result is that renewable technologies will become much more cost-effective.

The website Renewable Energy Online says that the world's leading investors recognize that a transition to a clean energy economy is "the single biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century — and possibly the biggest economic opportunity ever....The political and economic landscape is now perfect for strong, sustainable industry growth: The scientific debate over climate change is over; the price of oil will probably not fall dramatically, if it falls at all."

Currently, renewables account for less than 4 per cent of global power generation. And the International Energy Agency recently issued a report estimating that an investment of $45 trillion in renewable technologies and energy efficiency was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half over the next few decades. Why, even that old fossil BEC is looking at renewable energy.

Let's face it, when oil prices spike the world turns green. And at $200 for a barrel of oil just about every alternative\ technology makes sense, experts say. So policymakers should resist any temptation to lower taxes on, or subsidise, fossil fuel. In fact, rather than worrying about a price ceiling we should be setting a price floor that takes account of all the real environmental costs of burning oil and coal.

We have to prepare for a fundamental shift in the global economy. So look forward to many creative suggestions from the national energy policy committee.

Comments

[EB Christen]

Reason #7:

If we are very, very lucky, then higher oil prices may slow down global warming enough to allow our little islands to stay above sea level for a little longer... Wrestling with a tiger shark on my way to work doesn't sound fun.

[TT]

There won't be any tiger sharks left to wrestle EB!

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/05/05/02/163143.html

http://www.greendiary.com/entry/shark-population-dwindling-in-the-mediterranean-another-alarm-bell-ringing/

[joan thompson]

Good column.

After looking at the website below you may want to reassess linking energy prices and climate change.

Yes, there are good reasons to find alternative energy sources for the legitimate purpose of improving living standards - not to reduce CO2. or Global Warming.

Global Warming hysteria is cooling off as the duped or fellow travelers are challenged. This is a must read/hear for a journalist writing about Climate and attendant issues.

The Video “Dispelling the Myth of consensus” - is a must watch. Many articles also paint a different picture from that of contemporary media myths.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

[Gerald]

The oil companies are, like the tobacco companies before them, spending money to try to discredit the science that threatens them.

Most of the global warming dissenters can be found to be funded by the oil companies, don't actually do climate science, and conveniently ignore the actual scientific data.

In particular you may want to check out http://www.sourcewatch.org to find out who funds many of these people and organizations, as well as http://www.realclimate.org where scientists actually discuss the research data being generated.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/ is an example of how the climate change dissenters work.

[larry smith]

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

Source: Grist, a nonprofit organization funded by foundation grants, reader contributions, and just a touch of advertising.

Grist: it's gloom and doom with a sense of humor. So laugh now -- or the planet gets it.

[EB Christen]

I am really tired of people with a very obvious 'agenda' denying global warming. It is exhausting.

CO2 levels are climbing. The planet's temperature is rising. The ice at the poles is melting. We are responsible. Just because these facts don't fit one's theory of economic development and private property rights doesn't make them any less true. Get over it already. Global warming is real. The UN and the world's top climatologists all agree. Who cares how many studies the oil companies and right wing nut jobs finance now? Let them preach their lies, but the time for calling them lies has come. The world's leading scientists on the issue have spoken. The issue is done.

The question now is and should only be: how do we use free market economics to find solutions? How do we get alternative energy into the free market as a viable option? STOP DENYING WARMING! All it does is put the NI's agenda, which has very valid concerns, way out of touch. Young people want free markets, but they also want an understanding of environmental concerns. Blind ideological loyalty to the free market is just as destructive as blind ideological loyalty to socialism or any other set of beliefs. Scientific, realistic, open minded and problem solving minds are needed now. The rest should get out of the way before humanity chokes and drowns on its own exhaust.

[Rick]

Etienne:
You have so much to offer, yet when Global Warming is questioned you seem to revert to ad hominem attacks.
Surely the debate is more important than bashing each other?
"Solutions" if you will, are starting to emerge with Fuel cell and electric vehicles.
However, these will not impact your crisis in any meaningful way, any time soon.
Why not spend the time educating people, leading by example and drive a fuel efficient vehicle, install solar panels in your house etc.
The more if us that do these things, if only to save on our fuel/electricity bills, less CO2 will be emitted and we can move on to resolving The Bahamas economic and political problems.

[Joan Thompson]

Dr. Vincent Gray, Climate Consultant and IPCC Expert Reviewer, Wellington, New Zealand makes the following observation: "The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.

In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems :

To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved."

Readers of Larry Smith's column would do well to read objective comments by scientists whose work is subject to peer review such as work by that of scientists like Dr.Lewis.

[EB Christen]

Rick,

Good to see you the other day. The ministers weren't that enlightening, but it was a worthwhile experience either way.

As to your response to my post, my polemically styled response, while bordering on an ad hominem argument, actually refers to some pretty simple and clear cut facts that the world's leading climate scientists have virtually unanimously advocated. So, it may appear prima facie that I am making an ad hominem argument, but this isn't really the case.

As you know, I fully support free market solutions to the challenge, so we have no difference of opinion there. However, I strongly believe that the time for calling a spade a spade has come. Those who deny the reports of the world's leading scientists on climate change are doing so solely for the pursuit of their narrow agenda - be it economic 'freedom' or support of the oil industry.

The Nassau Institute's position on this matter hasn't changed, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and the strong statement supporting human induced global warming from over 3000 of the world's top scientists. If the world's 3000 top cardiologists came out tomorrow and strongly supported a statement pertaining to the heart and some narrow focused groups selling a product went against them... who would you listen to?

My final point is, free market solutions are what is needed, but if the Bahamas top free market institution is still denying warming, then free market solutions won't be pushed for as strongly and much stronger government involvement, far beyond what either you or myself would be comfortable with, will be the more likely result.

The choice is up to all of us to accept the reality and move forward in full consciousness of what is going on, so that the best solutions can be found to what is a very REAL problem. Again, stop denying warming, I implore the NI to be on the right side of history on this issue. They do too much good work to be so egregiously wrong.

A spade is a spade! Stating so is now essential to humanity's continued prosperity, happiness and possibly even survival.

All the best.

[EB Christen]

@ NI, Joan

This is precisely the sort of ridiculous information that is cited. The world's top climatologists are all in agreement. They found it important enough to go to the UN and make a very vocal and deliberate statement to that effect. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you persist in denying this.

Citing one 'rogue' scientist and making it sound like his evidence is credible simply because he gels with big oil and so called 'free' market thinking is exactly the problem. You do this only because it conveniently supports your 100% free market agenda, but what you don't realize is that you are doing more harm than good to your own cause.

In denying the reality, you run the massive risk that governments will intervene in the problem without keeping market considerations at the forefront. This is the primary problem I have with the big oil, right wing nut job agenda. They don't seem to appreciate the massive risk they are taking in adopting such a position. Every denial, leads to a popular backlash, as it should, so why adopt the position? It isn't the truth. The UN and the top climatologists have spoken. Is the NI actually advocating that they are lying, are wrong or have somehow made this up?

If the NI is, then the NI fully deserves strong arguments, ad hominem or otherwise, against their position. I say again, stop denying warming. It is harming the NI's credibility and that can only be harmful when it comes time to find solutions to these very real problems.

[EB Christen]

One more thing:

On your final point, suggesting that readers should read scientists who are peer reviewed, it is unbelievable that you can cite something like this.

It suggests that the UN's top climatologists were somehow not peer reviewed. This is a most egregiously fallacious argument. If anything, it is the scientists that you are citing who are usually not peer reviewed. Furthermore, being peer reviewed by your fellow peers in the employ of big oil and/or a right wing nut job organization doesn't count. Peer review refers to being published in an acknowledged and acredited scientific journal. The vast majority of these global warming dissenters are never peer reviewed in such journals. A few are published in such journals, but their views, while read, are summarily discredited by the majority of actual non-biased scientists who aren't in the employ of big oil or some right wing nut job organization. This is the key difference. They may be published in such journals, but their opinions are simply not the general scientific consensus and this is the crux of the matter.

Please, stop ignoring the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists. Have the intellectual honesty to admit that you don't have science on your side, what you have is an ideological agenda and there is nothing scientific about that.

If you truly care about preserving the free market, then you will advocate that global warming is real and you will use free market solutions that put the western world in the forefront of leading the transformation to renewables. Otherwise, you risk that communist regimes or dictatorships are the only governments leading for big change and this would reinforce the idea that free markets and democracy are incapable of tackling the 'big issues'. This is already a big perception problem in the world. Don't be on the wrong side of history. If you truly care for free markets and democracy, then you will choose to push for free market solutions to the very real problem of climate change. The tide is rising and the choice is ours. Don't squander the good work being done already by the NI, by defending the indefensible.

A spade is a spade.

Cheers.

[larry smith]

Joan's citation is meaningless. One can find so-called experts to present any point of view.

The overall position is that the peer-reviewed scientific literature supports the reality of global warming.

And as noted above, so do all the major scientific institutions and most of the world's leading climate scientists.

And just for the record, Dr Gray is an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, which is funded by Exxon (not that there's anything wrong with that).

All of the scientific work that has been done over the years is dismissed as a conspiracy by wild-eyed, hairy environmentalists seeking to take over the world.

I just don't get it.

Especially when there are so many other excellent reasons to end our reliance on fossil fuels.

[Rick]

Lomborg's recent column on this subject is worth a read:

He points out:

"The answer is to dramatically increase research and development so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050: We would have solved the problem of global warming, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn't be the preserve of rich Westerners."

Here's a link to the full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html

[larry smith]

The global warming sceptics cited by Joan and others allege a global conspiracy by Al Gore and the UN to force the world to accept energy rationing.

To my mind, this is worse than the Marxist perception that the world is being run by a handful of capitalists! Why not add Elmer Fudd to the list of conspirators?

The Oregon petition so often cited by sceptics as evidence that a scientific consensus does not exist was co-sponsored by the Oregon Institute and the Marshall Institute.

Frederick Seitz initiated the petition in 1998 and it has recently been re-issued. Seitz has ties to both the tobacco industry and ExxonMobil. He was hired by R J Reynolds as a scientific propaganadist in 1979 and his name appeared on a variety of overlapping boards for groups that are funded by Exxon. He died in March.

Seitz co-authored a report asserting that carbon dioxide emissions pose no warming threat. The report was not peer reviewed, But it was formatted to look like an article from The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a leading scientific journal.

The National Academy of Sciences had this to say about the Oregon petition and Seitz' report:

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."

It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

There are said to be 31,000 names attached to the petition but no indication of how those names are verified. There have been many challenges to the petition signatories.

Scientific American estimated that approximately one per cent of the signatories might actually have a Ph.D in a field related to climate science.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil funneled millions between 1998 and 2005 (the most recent year for which company figures are publicly available) to a network of 43 ideological and advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Many of these organizations have an overlapping—sometimes identical— collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors.

That sounds like a more realistic conspiracy to me.

Here is more evidence that the science of global warming is generally accepted:

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
—JOINT STATEMENT By THE SCIENCE ACADEMIES OF 11 NATIONS, JUNE 7, 2005

[EB Christen]

Thank you for citing these most pertinent sources. Generally, you can also access good information on the matter on the UN's website.

The following link is useful.
http://www.un.org/climatechange/

The science is clear.

[Rick]

Your readers might wish to look at these discussions as well.

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

[Rick]

Sorry.
This site is worth a review as well.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=788
Thanks,

[EB Christen]

These are precisely the bogus citations that Larry and I are referring to. Why is it that ideologically motivated people always cite 'evidence' that is so obviously not the best source of information? Oh yeah, I know, silly me, let's ignore the UN and the world's top scientists and go listen to Bozo the Shell/Exxon/BP paid clown, because he clearly is concerned with the truth and his big pay check has nothing to do with his results.

Why do you all persist in ignoring the world's best climatologists? What is so hard about accepting their consensus? What arrogance! To think, that more than 3000 of the people who dedicate their lives to studying something, who put hours, days, weeks, years of their lives into thinking about only one problem, can be so trivially dismissed because of a bogus political agenda or very narrowly focused greed. And people wonder why the young are just fed up with the old and the entire 'democratic' system? It is a joke and the worst part is, in the long run, the joke is on all you free marketeers, because reality will catch up with us all and the very precious western democratic and capitalist system that you try so hard to defend will actually collapse because of your own short sighted greed. This is the sad reality. Stop denying warming and embrace the solution in a free market manner or run the risk of defeating precisely what you work so hard to defend - the free market.

This is precisely what is wrong with humanity and why we honestly deserve our own doom. We willfully ignore the very people who know best. That is both the height of ignorance and arrogance, but in the end... it can only be said that it is our collective human stupidity that will be our undoing. Shame on us!

[Rick]

You have obviously not read the Copenhagen Consensus site Etienne.
Too bad that you so readily dismiss it like that.

[EB Christen]

While I acknowledge that for science to work, skepticism must always be maintained – that goes without saying, the main point is that the right balance is required. If 99% of the world’s top climate scientists are in agreement that human induced warming is real and you have a dissenting 1%, that is great, that is science working. My problem is that many politicians and advocacy groups make it appear as if the matter is 50/50 when they point to that 1 % of scientists. This is totally unacceptable and this is the real intellectual intimidation at play in the world today.

Take evolution for example. No serious scientist questions evolution as the overall process that drives nature, but… they have a lot of debate about the devil in the details of it all. That is perfectly legitimate. Having the creationists in the picture is harmless as well, so long as they are never able to influence the actual scientific debate – non-scientific ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ cannot be allowed to influence the scientific process. The creationists can say what they want, but they don’t get to use science to defend their points, because they didn’t arrive at their points by doing scientific research. It is all about the intention. By virtue of the fact that the creationists have a non-scientific motivation to defend the bible and make the ‘facts’ conform to that defense, they are ruled out. The same factors are at play on the warming issue.

The main problem I have is that non-scientific ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ are brought to bear on what is otherwise a scientific question. Also, very often, people cite some ‘scientist’ or some ‘report’ that questions warming, but when you go and check the source, you find that the science or the report was either entirely bogus, funded by an institute with a purely free market, zero regulation agenda or financed by big oil and/or the car companies. None of these can be considered legitimate sources for counter arguments because their employers are obviously going to finance and create studies that boost their view. That is how the world works. To embrace the Exxon report on global warming over the UN report is like reaching for McDonald’s in the middle of a heart attack instead of calling a cardiologist. If you compare such a report with the non-biased consensus of the UN’s climate change panel, which comprised 3000 of the world’s leading climatologists, there simply is no comparison. End of story.

What has most of us environmentally minded people in a tizzy is that we aren’t winning the warming debate fast enough. The evidence is there, the scientists have spoken, but ‘agendas’ are in the way of the truth. While these agendas are still strong enough to confuse and bamboozle the majority, environmentally minded people must begin to systematically attack any and all positions that deliberately cloud the issue on warming. Or, to use the McDonald’s analogy again, we need to philosophically and publicly ‘slap’ the selfish bastard selling Big Macs by claiming that they have healing properties to the fools with freshly inserted pace makers exiting the ER. It is that serious now. Nothing wrong with selling Big Macs, but there is something wrong with preaching them as good for you - that is false advertising. Science shows that Big Macs and heart attack victims don’t mix. Science has shown that human induced global warming is real. If a person with a political agenda wants to argue for business as usual, come what may, that is fine, but they don’t get to say that sea levels won’t rise, that the ice isn’t melting, that coastlines will remain intact as we know them or that stronger hurricanes aren’t a risk. The science has decidedly spoken against them. They can argue that we shouldn’t worry about warming, that we can solve that problem when we get there or that technology will solve the day, but they don’t get to deny that it is happening anymore.

In terms of the NI’s position, my argument is simple. You are arguing against global warming in a country where warming will have one of the most profound effects as compared to any other nation in the world. To do so, against the more considered and much better judgment, on this particular matter, of the 3000 climatologists who issued the UN report is intellectually criminal at this point. The science is there for the world to see; the only thing in the way is the agenda groups parsing the data and deluding the masses. For what? An ideology? Big oil? The bankrupt American car industry? This is our planet. We only have one of these. We don’t get a second chance and if we don’t do it right, I am not inclined to think that some ‘big guy’ is going to show up and set it all back in order for us in 7 days or less or your money back.

[Rick]

Fair enough, but the scientists themselves invoke doubt with their less than perfect models and solutions. They will get them perfected at some stage I'm sure and we will see just how right or wrong they have been.

And the devil is in the details of the climate change debate still. Just like anything, certain people/companies/advocacy groups can be dismissed as quacks. Does that mean you dismiss any and all people that are sceptical?

I'm not sure that there are many people left that question the fact that there is climate change and the temperatures are warming. To do so would be folly. The questions in my mind is what's causing it, what to do about it and when.

I guess what adds to my scepticism is I lived in Toronto from 1976 to 1982. That's when we had Global Freezing as the new ice age was upon us.

There may be people deliberately trying to cloud the debate. I don;t think Joan and I fall in that category. In fact, I'm not sure the entire Board agrees with us or not.

I don't think the Nassau Institute is winning the economic and fiscal debate fast enough either, but we must keep forging ahead. I'm told I can't win friends and influence people with a hammer, so I'm trying to learn the power of persuasion, or as the Chinese say; constant dripping wear away stone. Maybe the environmentalists are expecting too much too soon?

The questions remaining is what do we do about it and when? Some scientists are suggesting adaptation as things will not be reversed over night. So maybe we'll have to move to higher ground. I don't know.

In other words, the solutions are not near term and will only be incremental no matter what is done. But should economies be put under even more strain until there is a clearer picture on how to handle things?

Calling me or Joan fanatical does not advance your argument, nor does it change these questions.