New York City, January 31, 2006.

OK, President Bush got today his man, Judge Alito, onto the US
Supreme
Court - he has now a win in his hand when going to face the nation
tonight; he could afford to say things his bosom supporters do not
like.

Exxon Mobil announced that in the fourth quarter of 2005 they earned
$10.7 billion (after tax), for a world record $36.1 billion for the
year (after tax). This was a shameless 42% increase over the 2004
figure.

The company’s turnover in 2005 was $371bn up from 4298bn in 2004.
Exxon is thus the 17-th largest economy in the world - just below
Russia, but well ahead of Taiwan and the whole Country of Sweden; not
bad for a company that sells us the poison that ruins our environment
and the World’s future. They say that they sell us the juice that goes
through our veins - but would you trust the pharmaceutical company to
prescribe you the remedy for your ailment? Why should we get information
about our energy needs from the oil company? This is really heavy stuff
to understand.

Ah! For complete fairness, let us also say that before tax, the
profits
came in at $59.3bn for 2005 and $41.2bn for 2004.
$59.3bn - $36.1bn = $23.2bn, if even all of it was indeed the total
of
federal, state, and local taxes, how many days did this cover the
deployment of US forces to Iraq?

So! Is this profiteering? Does it call for a windfall tax? Or, to
make
it easier we wait for OPEC to decide on raking in this excess money by
raising further the price of oil? Now, this idea would make us sound
very stupid - there is no one more happy then Exxon when the price of
oil in the world market gets higher - that is how they made these
windfall profits - they make more when we make less - that is how our
Congress and our President like it to be. Strange! Not so? The
alternative could have been for us to put a serious tax on oil and/or
oil products. Then use the money to develop the alternatives - this
would have made us happy in the long run, but would have made Exxon and
its stockholders unhappy in the short run - terrible thing for
politicians that get their juice from the oil pipeline. So, is there a
real difference between Exxon and Enron except the fact that Exxon
distributes its gains somewhat more widely then Enron did?

Exxon’s obscene gains and its mind boggling public relations
campaigns, as sampled in www.SustainabiliTank.info articles and
cartoons, are tonight a political loss to the President - even the
social conservatives that back him understand that they are being
cheated and their future is being jeopardized that is unless the second
coming happens before petrocollapse or global environmental meltdown.

So what is the President going to say tonight?

A preview, or perhaps a testing of the ground, happened last week on
CBS TV when the President answered questions from anchor, and excellent
interviewer, Mr. Bob Schieffer. to quote the President:

“I AGREE WITH AMERICANS WHO UNDERSTAND BEING HOOKED ON FOREIGN OIL AS
AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM AND A NATURAL SECURITY PROBLEM.”

That is an amazing statement because it says “natural security
problem” and not what I would have believed he would say - National
security problem.”

The economic word in that statement is probably plain talk for the
folks that are hurting from higher price of gasoline and diesel fuels.
This is the expected muddling of the actual meaning of economics. Yes,
it is the low price of oil that will destroy our economy by not
allowing it to come up with alternative energy sources. That is
something that Sheik Yamani was much more understanding about then this
White House.

The National Security problem is the problem that we support with our
own funds those that are intent on destroying us - yes, we must come
back and repeat this - we are the financial supporters of terrorism.
Just today the European Union has decided that it can not completely
distance itself from a Hamas led Palestine, because if they would do
so, it would lead to Iranian and Saudi money to come into the void left
behind. And guess, how do the Iranians and Saudis get their money? From
what sales?

The natural security issue is what we are talking about - the
destruction of the environment from the extensive use of fossil fuels
including oil. Is that what the President is fearing now? If so, he may
start to budge - he may even evolve eventually, and that could become a
feat of intelligent evolution. Will this lead to reconsideration of
America’s stand on the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change? Is the US bound to rejoin the rest of this planet? I
will be all ears tonight to this particular issue. Will it be National
and natural - in tandem?

The President continued in his answer to Bob Schieffer that he wants
to “ADVANCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHANOL, THE FUEL MADE OF CORN, AS WELL
AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FUEL MADE FROM WASTE PLANT ORIGIN. I AM
CONVINCED WE COULD DO THAT WITH A GOOD PUSH, A TECHNOLOGICAL PUSH.”

This statement has also some problematic substance in it - the
ethanol
from corn starch and the ethanol from cellulose are the same chemical;
the difference in source of starting material calls for different
approach in technology - we know very well how to make it from starch
and sugar, but we do not have yet good technology how to make it from
cellulose. In our article of yesterday, January 30, 2006: “Ethanol
Education in Washington DC Tri-State Area” we dealt with agricultural
potential in the US and the possibility to make lots of ethanol from
corn within two years. This is just as effective a policy as the
production of synthetic rubber at the time of WWII, when the West was
cut off from the sources of natural rubber. If you are serious about
tackling a problem you start by doing things with the technologies in
hand. There are no oil wells near Washington DC, but our article of
yesterday talked of ethanol wells in the Cumberland Valley, an hour’s
drive from the White House.

Even better technology: look at a gallon saved as if that was a
gallon
produced - believe me Mr. President, it is just as effective and even
easier to produce. Yes, that is something your friends from big and
small oil told you that it is of no use to their concept of the economy
- the growth model that makes EXXON bigger then Sweden. Now, I will be
listening for this even more then anything else because it is a very
fast starter. You made some references to Bob Schieffer, but I do not
want to expand on this here, not to preempt to much of your speech
tonight.