Arjun Murti, who is an analyst at Goldman-Sachs who has predicted the last few spikes in oil accurately, predicts a "super spike" soon before or after the election that will drive oil prices above $200/barrel and prices at the pump to over $6-7/gallon. The New York Times has an article about his prediction today.

An Oracle of Oil Predicts $200-a-Barrel Crude

Some analysts also disagree:
"But many analysts are no longer so sure where oil is going, at least in the short term. Some say prices will fall as low as $70 a barrel by year-end, according to Thomson Financial."

But, even though prices have been high for a while, consumption in the US has only just started to fall. And global consumption now is so high that the US consumer's decisions, no longer effect oil prices as they used to. So changes, legislation, etc. enacted here with the aim of lowering prices at the pump may have only limited effect on the price of gas, which is driven by supply AND demand - global demand.

"The U.S. gasoline consumer is no longer driving world oil prices- this is a monumental event,"

High prices, he says, "send a message to consumers that you should try your best to buy fuel-efficient cars or otherwise conserve on energy."

I can't help but wonder what will happen in areas where the cost of driving is inherently very high, such as in the far West. Will people carpool to get to jobs, or will they simply have to move when they can no longer afford travel? These are questions we need to be asking ourselves.

Because oil prices may never go down.

(Cross-posted at EENR)

Alhough ever since my childhood I dreamed of being close to animals, I never thought I'd share my house with two mischievous ravens.  In 1995 my husband Jim and I had two of these most intelligent birds in our care under an educational permit for the Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network.

Kong was estimated to be between 25-30 years old.  He spent much of his life in a small wire rabbit hutch against the side of a house, and was rescued from that situation by a kind neighbor.  We acquired him to keep Bertram (then 2 years old and imprinted) company during the day.  In the evening we brought them both into the house to break up their boredom - provided Jim and I were BOTH available to watch them, since, as you will soon discover, it takes plenty of attention to watch two ravens.

There is some discussion on this and other political blogs about the wisdom of Obama's embrace of nuclear power, at least in principle.  For instance, enviro posted a diary earlier today highlighting Senator Obama's close ties to the nuclear power industry (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/10574 6/1916).

If accurate, those ties greatly trouble me, at least if they demonstrate President Obama would increase nuclear power, but that is not the point of this diary.  Instead, this diary is an appeal to progressives to avoid being suckered by nuclear power.

Some folks argue nuclear power deserves another look by progressives and environmentalists because of the undeniable risks of climate catastrophe.  My strong view is that we must not let very legitimate concerns about warming provide cover for revitalizing a corrupt and dangerous industry.  Turning to nuclear power is the energy equivalent of shooting heroin to solve marijuana addiction.

Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit organization (one of many) dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Yesterday afternoon, they sent out this news and a call for support.

You can tell a lot about the character of person by the way he/she treats his/her animals or pets. I think this truism extends to political parties. You can tell a lot about the character of a political party by the way it advocates for the environment, nature, and the animals we share this planet with, including those we eat. Even buying cage-free eggs helps to free some chickens from a tortuous life crammed in a cage.

Supporting organizations like Defenders of Wildlife is liberal-socialism at its symbolic best.

So, there's been a lot said on here in the past about who was the best candidate on the environment.  A lot of people have said Edwards, in fact, there was a diary on the rec list yesterday about how Gore should endorse him.

Well, the League of Conservation Voters thinks he'd choose Obama.  Here's their rankings, based on their votes in congress and their profiles they personally submitted to the group:

> Obama - 96
> Kucinich - 92
> Clinton - 90
> Biden - 84
> Richardson -82
> Dodd - 77
> Edwards - 59
> Paul - 30
> McCain - 26
> Brownback - 14
> Thompson - 12
> Tancredo -11
> Hunter - 9

You can go here: http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/ to see the numbers and read their profiles.  I don't know about you, but I choose substance over rhetoric, and I trust the league of conservation voters quite a bit.

So, it would seem that based on actual votes in congress, Obama is your choice.  If Obama is your choice, and you can spare some change, consider donating.  Your donation can be as small as $5.  Thanks.

Disclosure:  I am a mom of four in Albuquerque, and I typically diary at Daily Kos, but also at my own blogs.  I have been a vocally supporting Bill Richardson for president since the primary season of 2004.  I work part time in the health care field, am passionate about the environment, education, health care, energy, public transportation, economic growth and pay equity, and I believe in my heart that Bill Richardson is the candidate to get America back on track.  This is my story, and why I support Bill Richardson for the democratic nomination...

Late Friday night, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, released a revised version of the 2007 Farm Bill. It will go to the full committee for mark up (further revision) and voting July 17th-19th. Below, some highlights from five programs included in the Farm Bill's Conservation Title.

Conservation Reserve Program: The USDA currently lists 36.8 million acres of farmland as enrolled in CRP contracts and currently being held in wildlife habitat, wetlands, or tree cover. The new mark would expand the program to allow another 2.4 million acres to be enrolled, for a total of 39.2 million acres. Retiring farmers with land enrolled in CRP are encouraged to transfer their land to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, or to a low-income farmer or rancher intending to practice sustainable grazing or cropping practices. That's really among the best news.

Conservation Security Program: A notable Farm Bill program getting the cold shoulder is the Conservation Security Program, which rewards conservation practices on working farm lands. The Committee fact sheet on the program lists the oft-repeated and valid complaint about this very popular (among its limited recipients) program that the "USDA has not implemented the program nationwide, as the original law required and has restricted CSP participation by limiting program enrollment each year to producers in specified, priority watersheds. This has been controversial and has prevented many eligible farmers from accessing the program."

Peterson's new version addresses this flaw by allocating no new funding for the program until 2012, when Congress is expected to pass a new Farm Bill. Existing contracts could be funded, though the appropriations process has not always fully funded the honoring of these contracts, but no new signups would be allowed until that time.

United States

A couple days ago, the New York Times posted an article about the debate on farm subsidies, leaving readers with a rhetorical query about whether substantial progress was going to be made on cutting them. Umm, probably not. Unless, that is, every single member of the House Committee on Agriculture gets hundreds of phone calls from their constituents asking for caps on farm subsidies pronto. And even then, frankly, the odds are slim.

Consider that the Bush administration's secretary of agriculture got accused of instigating class warfare for some of his stances against farm subsidies, though it must be granted, there are issues with the Bush administration's proposals, as well.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman, Rep. Collin Peterson has yet to publish his revised Farm Bill, but when he does, he says there will be two of them. One will include policies with budget allocations, the other will include policies that will only be funded if offsets are found. Which is to say, they probably won't be funded. My mentors at the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition have put together an action alert highlighting four agricultural sustainablility policies that should go in the real Farm Bill, the one that will be funded. They include support for new farmers and ranchers, conservation incentives for working farmlands, improving local food distribution infrastructure, and support for transitions to organic and sustainable farming.