Culture Change Media
Rejected by the
Wall Street Journal
Have a letter you think should
have been printed by the Wall Street Journal, that pertains to changing
mainstream culture away from petroleum dependence? Send it to us for
placement on this page! (email ccl
@ culturechange.org -- close up the spaces)
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004
Subject: FROM MOSCOW TO KYOTO.
To: The Editor
The Wall Street Journal
New York, N.Y., October 3, 2004
Thinking of what I heard at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.,
Friday October 1, 2004, I would like to note that the Wall Street
Journal news about Russia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the WSJ, September 30
and October 1, 2004, were rather overoptimistic.
At the NPC, Dr. Andrei Illarionov, head of the Moscow International
Economics Academy, and Senior Economic Advisor to President Putin, made
it clear that there is no self-interest in a ratification of Kyoto.
Dr. Illarionov contends that Russia could have a short time gain
of just $300-350 million from the sale of CO2 emission credits, rather
then the $5 billion mentioned in the WSJ. After that, in order to
continue its development, Russia will become a net importer of such
credits, and it will cost Russia billions of dollars. He explained
the Kuznets curve to prove that only well developed economies could
switch to lower carbon systems. Developing countries, in medium
stage in their development, would be the main losers. To
strengthen his case he even mentioned the recent hurricanes in Florida
and the fact that there was little mortality involved - this thanks to
the high level of past carbon based technological innovation. On
the other hand in Haiti there was a large number of deaths because of
the local low level of technology, based on the fact that they have not
had the chance for using fossil carbon in the past.
Dr. Illarionov contended that the the decision taken by the Cabinet was
political and not based on science and economics. In effect the
decision was only to pass the subject to a vote in the Duma (the Russian
Parliament) the seat of power when it comes to ratification of
international treaties. He did not say that the Duma could bottle
up the resolution but made it pretty clear that it ought to bottle it
It seems, that what Russia has decided is to play it both ways - to move
the ratification away from the Presidency, and then send Dr. Illarionov
to explain that it clearly has no strong feelings for the treaty.
Possibly, one could extend the Russian dilemma over a wait and see
period at least until November 3rd. Then the Duma will eventually
weigh the opposing points of view on this subject held by the European
Union and the United States Administration. It is all politics and
no decision can be taken before they have a chance to study their self
interests in the light of these opposing demands. Eventually the
news will appear on www.iea.Ru
New York, NY 100150-6297
- - - - -
From: Pincas Jawetz PJawetz@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004
Subject: possibly AREMCO ?
The Wall Street Journal
New York City, USA
New York, NY. August 18, 2004
"ExxonAramco", Opinion page, WSJ 08/18/04, is interesting.
It suggests combining the two third global oil reserves owned by the Saudi
government, via ARAMCO with the largest multinational ExxonMobil, the oil
hungry supplier to the US market. In other words, the article
suggests the formation of ExxonAramco that will trade access to ExxonMobil
network of gasoline stations, for the Saudi State owned oil to supply the
Above seems not to realize that hungry gasoline stations are no
asset. The real asset is the oil, so, lets be humble, and rather
call the new company - AramcoExxon. Now, this is also unfair,
because it has left out Mobil, quite known thanks to its sponsoring for
years the quarter page on the Opinion page of the Journal, as well as it
used to do the same in all other important dailies. The US partner
is ExxonMobil and the company name must then be AramcoExxonMobil.
This is very long - so lets try for the short version AREMCO.
Now I get to the real points of this story, first just mentioning the well
known facts that the Saudi/Wahhabi entanglements led to the establishment
of the House of Saud as the accepted largest government in the Arab
The Wahhabis are against any corrupting of the 1400 years old Muslim moral
system. They sent us the Al Qaida presents and will probably have
something to say to the further suggested involvement in their affairs.
The article may mean that ExxonMobil engineers and members of the joint
board will come to Arabia, and Saudi gas station workers will come to the
The two points I would thus want to make:
(1) Al Qaida may like this new arrangement as it will facilitate travel to
the US for their operatives.
(2) My suggested name AREMCO, may be indistinguishable, when written in
Arabic letters, from the original ARAMCO, so there is a slight chance that
the Wahhabis may not notice that we managed to put our hand in their
pockets. Having even easier access to the US, may then even induce them to
enter this common bed Mr. Riad Ajami has suggested in his article.
Power to the thinking of good global business research.
New York, NY 10150-6297
NB: As no reaction was received from the WSJ, this further material was
added on Labor Day, September 6, 2004, before redirecting above to the
"RejectedbyWallStreetJournal" web page.
Despite the mention at the Republican Party Convention of the need to
reconsider oil imports from overseas, no reasonable alternative was put
forward by any of the speakers at the RNC.
On August 26, 2004, Andrew C. Revkin from the New York Times wrote a
"U.S. Report Turns Focus to Greenhouse Gases" in which he
mentioned as per www.climatescience.gov
the Administration's secretaries of energy and commerce and the science
adviser to President Bush, cosigned a submission to U.S. Congress dealing
with climate models, agriculture, and some other subjects. This report
makes it clear - for the first time - that the Administration recognizes
the reality of CO2 emissions and of the resulting climate change. The
report deals with loses to U.S. agriculture by enhancing the growth of the
most important species of invasive weeds, and by reduction of the nutrient
value of shortgrass prairies. In economic terms, is the Administration
ready to include now these losses into the cost of using the petroleum? Or
are we going to continue to be beholden to such opinions as expressed by
Myron Ebell, of the libertarian Competitive Institute, who saw in the
Administration's report , in his words, "another indication that the
administration continues to be incoherent in the global warming
Yes, it seems that the "ExxonAramco" opinion piece that caused
this writer's original reaction, is what our libertarian free traders may
consider as coherent thinking.
Someone must indeed have his head checked or we all will be put under
threats of home grown terrorism - that is terrorism funded by our own wise
guys - proponents of ExxonAramco.
- - - - -
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Subject: MISUSING STATISTICS - THIS IS AN OLD PLOY.
White "House Futures", the WSJ August 11, 2004, is of very poor
credibility. The market is down because the price of oil is up and
this Administration is dead sure that it intends to do nothing about
alternate sources of energy. But, also today, the IEA has released
that the lowering economic growth in the USA and China will decrease Global demand for oil - so, voila, the
market under the present Administration will level and the claims that
this is a success story will go up.
The fact that Kerry's futures are up is irrelevant to all of the above.
Actually, the best economic achievements in a Kerry Administration could
develop slowly, and be of a longer term. By developing the alternatives to
oil, by boosting conservation, by leading us to a process of culture
change so we live in a less energy intensive world, by making foreign wars
only when required for our defense, he would have freed funds for
investment in a whole new series of technologies, and restart growth for a
much more rational and economic stable future. This is the way to
create a real trend upwards in the curves shown in above article.
New York, NY 10150-6297
N.B. (comment added August 17, 2004) It is shocking to me that
part of the business sector expresses its opinion about economic factors
and then attributes the result to the mere possibility that Kerry will be
next President; first by lowering the DOW-JONES INDEX, and then
prints its biased analysis in daughter company paper -- The Wall Street
Journal. Is this not some sort of conflict of interest?
- - - - -
From: Pincas Jawetz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Subject: THE DREAM TICKET
This is addressed as a Letter to the Editor and, as well, by his own
invitation, as per the end of his column, to Mr. Henninger.
I do not believe that "Kerry-Edwards" is the dream ticket, but
then, Mr. Henninger's article shows that at least one main writer of
your paper does not understand the issue altogether, and his arrows are
telling. His disposition shows when he even descends to such pits as
writing about "Jolly Bill Clinton" — is he not aware that
the economy looks back with nostalgia to the days of that Administration?
To show you that I am trying to be helpful — please look up the July 10,
2004 New York Times. See in the METRO section "In Search of New
Power Source, City Looks Underwater". You will find there ideas
that could make us less dependent on imports of oil. This may harm
Saudi Arabia by decreasing its markets. But then, here is the rub — only a
White House that its inhabitants do not come from the oil industry could do
something about the real problems. Now about the dream ticket — any
ticket not greased by oil will do.
I spent June 2004 at a series of events in Europe: the Renewables 2004
meeting in Bonn, the unveiling of the world biggest Energy Wind Mill in
Aurich, a meeting on Sustainable Development Governance at IIASA in
Laxenburg, an afternoon meeting of the monthly "Stammtisch" of
folks involved in Sustainable Energy in Austria.... I wish Mr.
Henninger would get inspiration by having attended at least one of these
events — as a matter of fact, I wish anyone from the WSJ would have done
Further, I am not anti-business. Actually I am very much
pro-business. The difference is what sort of business. Look,
also in today's New York Times, in the National section you can read
"U.S. Moving To New Ban For Mad Cow, Officials Say".
Actually I predicted in writing on the CultureChange.org web-site that the U.S. National Cattle Business Association dominated
Department of Agriculture will destroy the meat industry by being stubborn
in their denials of the problem. This is what has become now crystal
clear and the Administration seemingly will continue to keep the lid on the
subject at least until after November. Then, the NCBA is for the
beef industry what the American Petroleum Institute is for the oil industry.
The "dream ticket" can not have either of their representatives.
Now, check out the other departments of the Administration and continue this
elimination process. You may eventually reach the conclusion that a
good trial lawyer may indeed be an asset to any new President who will come
to clean up the present mess.
With my best regards,
Consultant to Mr. Hermann Kahn of the Hudson Institute when
we wrote, what actually became the only ever US Energy Policy —
the creation of the Synfuels Corporation.
PS: Mr. Daniel Henninger, the author of the Op-Ed column
mentioned above, is DEPUTY EDITOR EDITORIAL PAGE at the Wall Street Journal
— so this is not an OP-ED article but rather the clear official opinion of
the news-paper editors. This seems to me at least simply dishonest.
It is also clear to me that after this is published on the web I will never
ever be printed by the WSJ.
Many years ago they did print letters of mine like the one on the importance
of the Soviet Union gas pipeline to Western Europe. That pipeline was
being opposed by the United States government, I assume, on behalf of oil
industry. My letter explained why the Europeans preferred rather to be
dependent directly on the Soviets for part of the energy supplies, then
being dependent on deliveries from the Middle East. As the dangers in
those days of the Cold War where from Soviet manipulations of the Middle
East satellites, i.e. Iraq, or sabotage of US dependencies in the region, it
was clear to the Europeans that the Soviets would rather never disrupt the
flow of money to their own treasury. That letter was seemingly quite
important to the WSJ because of its oil industry implication, that the WSJ
tracked me down to Mexico City in order to verify its content. I wish they still
had those editors on board.
Also, the American Petroleum Institute, as I mentioned in the article, is well
ahead of the WSJ in its judgment of what is in the cards for the future of
the energy industry. I just was informed by them of an upcoming conference,
September 29-30, 2004, in Arlington Virginia, in reach of the Washington oil
lobby and the pro-environment advocates, titled: "3rd API Conference on
the Oil and Gas Industry's Voluntary Actions to Address Climate
Change". Not that I believe this issue can be handled without a
government leading hand, but I clearly see in this the sign that the
industry is being pushed to take a stand ahead of the government.
Perhaps this is a sign of the importance they attribute to what goes on in
Europe as well as in the State of California. A Kerry-Edwards White
House could thus help the oil industry formulate policies that link with the Europeans as well as they do not break
up the unity of the Federation of North American States we casually call the
Pincas Jawetz - further notes, August 4, 2004
New York, NY 10150-6297
To support Culture
Change/Sustainable Energy Institute and its projects, make a