Rejected by the Wall Street Journal

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)

From: Pincas Jawetz PJawetz@aol.com

Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004

To: <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>

Subject: FROM MOSCOW TO KYOTO.

To: The Editor

The Wall Street Journal

New York, N.Y., October 3, 2004

Dear Sir,

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 up.

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

Sincerely yours,

Pincas Jawetz

New York, NY 100150-6297

- - - - - -

From: Pincas Jawetz PJawetz@aol.com

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004

To: <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>

Subject: possibly AREMCO ?

The Editor,

The Wall Street Journal

New York City, USA

New York, NY. August 18, 2004

Dear Sir,

"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 gasoline stations.

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 Peninsula.

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 USA.

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.

Sincerely yours,

Pincas Jawetz

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 piece:

"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 policies".

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.

- - - - - -

From: PJawetz@aol.com

Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2004

To: wsj.letters@wsj.com

Subject: MISUSING STATISTICS - THIS IS AN OLD PLOY.

Dear Sir,

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.

Sincerely yours,

Pincas Jawetz

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 <pj16@nyu.edu>

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004

To: <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, <henninger@wsj.com>

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.

Dear Gentlemen:

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 so.

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,

Sincerely yours,

Pincas Jawetz

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 USA.
Pincas Jawetz - further notes, August 4, 2004
New York, NY 10150-6297