Democrats & Liberals Archives

Very Bloody Oil

Many people have been saying that the invasion (and occupation) of Iraq is about oil. I believe that there is more than oil involved, but certainly oil was a driving motivator. Now we can add Alan Greenspan to the list of those who reinforce that claim.

Greenspan writes in his new book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World:

'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

Yes, it is sad indeed, "politically inconvenient" or not, that we invaded, decimated, and continue to occupy a nation to control its oil reserves. Or to perhaps be a bit more specific, to turn over control of that oil to private oil corporations.

How much is it costing? Well there are the measurable costs, such as $10 Billion a month, or the almost 3,800 U.S. troops that have given their lives, or the almost 38,000 U.S. troops who are casualties, or the 144 who have taken their own lives. But all of that pales in magnitude to the estimated 1.2 million Iraqi's who have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and the dominoes that has set falling.

According to a recent poll by Opinion Research Business (ORB), it is estimated that 1,220,580 Iraqi's have lost their lives as a direct consequence of the conflict since 2003. Almost 50% of the households in Baghdad have lost at least one family member.

ORB notes that the murder rate in Iraq now exceeds the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The poll also revealed the displacement of Iraqi's. While roughly 52% are displaced within Iraq, 48% have crossed into Syria or Jordan with the majority going to Syria.

Oil has often been a bloody business, and it continues to get more so as the resource becomes scarcer. Now we have word from the horse's mouth that peak oil is on the way. Lord Oxburgh, former CEO of Shell oil predicts oil prices at $150 a barrel with production peaking within the next 20 years. Oxburgh was interviewed by the Independent. He is scheduled to address the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) meeting in Ireland this week. In the Independent interview he stated:

"We may be sleepwalking into a problem which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time we are fully aware."

The argument against oil being the motivator for the invasion of Iraq has been that Iraqi oil production has shrunk dramatically since the invasion. And indeed this is true. However, there is as much (if not more) profit from restricting the flow of oil as there is in increasing the flow of oil. All one has to do is to look at the major oil company profits since the "instability" in Iraq has manifested itself in the market. Namely record profits one quarter after another. The continued U.S. armed presence in Iraq, has been linked to Iraq's "government" making headway on Iraq's oil. Namely, that it approves highly biased PSAs (Production Sharing Agreements) put in place by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority shortly after the collapse of Hussein's government.

Recognizing the centrality of oil in the Iraq occupation, Oil Change International has started an fundraising campaign to Support Iraqi Resistance to the Oil Law. The also have a number of informational and local action links that I recommend. I highly applaud and support their efforts. They have a sad but true short video on the issue called Addicted to Oil.

Increasingly, the people of the United States are calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This weekend there was a march in Washington D.C. of almost 100,000 people calling for withdrawal and for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Approximately 200 protesters were arrested. Across the country there have been marches, demonstrations, and campaigns to inform our elected representatives. To date, those representatives have shown more talk than action on the issue. It is critically important - both for the people of Iraq as well as the people of the United States - to continue applying pressure to representatives and the White House. However, it is also critically important to recognize the driving forces in the current occupation - controlling increasingly scarce oil resources.

All too often, recognition of this central issue gets expressed as "ending our dependence on foreign oil. No. We need to end our dependence on oil. There are not adequate reserves in the United States to meet the continued U.S. levels of consumption. This was acknowledged by Shell President John Hofmeister. We need (and the world needs) to refoot our life styles and our expectations. The cost of the path we are on is simply too high.

Posted by Rowan Wolf at September 16, 2007 6:38 PM
Comments
Comment #233105
We need to end our dependence on oil.
You would think the D.O.E.’s $27 Billion annual budget could have produced something.

Initially, in 2003, I did not want to believe that my federal government would do such things for oil.

Now it’s damn hard to deny.
Back in 2004, I said if we are still in Iraq by 2006, then it will be hard to argue that it is not for the oil. Here it is now; late 2007.

NOTE: This is in no way a denigration of our fine troops that have suffered the most.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 16, 2007 7:43 PM
Comment #233109

We do need to dependence our dependence on oil. A carbon tax is the elegant way to do this. The price of fuel will need to rise. Price is the only thing that really makes a difference.

I am glad that all of us rational and good people support higher prices for carbon based fuels. You do need to mention the necessity of us paying more for gas. Otherwise you are not serious about reducing dependence on oil. We also cannot make exceptions for the “poor” or the worthy and not only SUVs will pay more.

Using less oil with mean…using less oil. No magic will save us from that.

Re oil as the basis of war, yes, but not for the reasons you think. Oil provides money. In the case of Middle East despotisms, it provides money for governments that they do not have to earn. It is very close to a windfall for them. They do nothing but reap the rewards. This discourages democracy and encourages a very pernicious type of state ownership and socialism. The oil money also provides the wherewithal to be dangerous. A megalomaniac despot in a small poor country is just a local menace, maybe even a bit of a joke (i.e. Lukashenka). Add billions in unearned oil revenue and this same local menace becomes an international threat and terror sponsor.

It was very unfortunate that most of the easily obtained oil lies under some of the worst places in the world. Or maybe they are among the worst places BECAUSE of the oil. Remember that the despots of the Middle East did little or nothing to earn the revenues. For them it is like winning the lottery w/o even buying a ticket. This kind of quick wealth corrupts even the best. It can fuel lots of fanatical activities. It makes nightmares a reality.

Beyond all this, oil runs the world economy. Some guys whose grandfathers counted their wealth in the dozens of goats, or whose perspectives on philosophy evolved no further than the eleventh century and who knew almost nothing of the world outside their desert strongholds are now able to squeeze the entire world economy just by acting crazy.

So this war IS about oil, who controls it and how they use the revenue But it is not primarily about oil profits, as those with a more limited perspective believe.

Posted by: Jack at September 16, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #233110

Sorry

Wrote dependence twice instead of “reduce our dependence …”

Posted by: Jack at September 16, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #233122

Greenspan is correct up to a point, and it’s not at all surprising that somebody like him would be focused chiefly on the economic dimensions of all of the world’s issues. If it wasn’t for oil and oil wealth, it’s hard to see why we would care—or even need to care—about the Middle East and its problems. Without oil, the Middle East would probably look a lot like Sub-Saharan Africa. Someone like Saddam Hussein, or the current Iranian regime, would not be anywhere near as dangerous—even to their own people—without oil resources.

As Jack points out, however, securing oil-profits is not the primary goal here: if it was, it would have been easier and more profitable to simply cut deals with Saddam (as the French and Russians were doing).

That’s not to say that the oil-factor doesn’t cause America (and the West in general) to have deeply disfunctional relationships with Middle Eastern countries, and vice versa.

Personally, I don’t think the best solution is either tapping our oil reserves (which wouldn’t solve the problem) or developing “new” energy sources for which we don’t yet have the technology. I think we should be developing and perfecting safe and efficient nuclear technology on a massive scale, something for which current and almost totally unsused technologies are already available.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 16, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #233123

At least someone from the Republican party is beginning to speak the truth.

G.H.W. Bush made one comment in a news conference during the first Gulf War, responding to a reporter’s question if it was about oil. He asked what the reporter thought the price of oil would be if they hadn’t intervened on behalf of Kuwait and the Saudi’s.

There was never any further reference to it again, neither by the administration, Congress, or the press.

The push for cheap oil drives our economy, is a form of colonialism and the source of much of our problems in the middle east.

It would be nice if foreign policy discussions returned to reality rather than fictional freedom and berayal issues.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 16, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #233129
We need to end our dependence on oil. There are not adequate reserves in the United States to meet the continued U.S. levels of consumption.

No, Rowan, but there are ways to get more oil in our country by drilling in places there is oil but we can’t drill in now.

But are you ready to support nuclear? To cripple our economy by no longer using oil to fuel our transportation industry?

How do we eliminate our dependance on oil, Rowan? I am on board, I want to have no need for oil ever again because I am tired of having to deal with the idiots that have power in the Middle East only for the single reason that they have oil. But we need a plan. One that makes sense and doesn’t cripple our ability to implement it.

Do you have one? Are you ready to step up and tell us what that is? Or are you just someone who wants to complain about the realities of life without finding a solution for those realities?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 16, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #233139

It would seem to me that the left in this country is complicit with the “war for oil” theory as they are the majority in both houses and can stop this war at any time; but choose not to. If the war is for oil (and I don’t follow that line of thinking) then perhaps the Democrats are making too much money off it to stop it. It is for this very reason that I don’t buy this argument and it seems to be sustained based on conjecture and theory and no real proof.
A major stumbling block in the quest for oil independence in this country is the wacko environmentalist who yells and screams every time we try to build a nuclear energy facility; drill for oil reserves in the Gulf, etc. Yet, the Cuban government can drill all it wants in the Gulf and not a peep out of the environmental left wing. Do you trust the safety standards of the Cuban government as it pertains to building oil rigs, or the United States government? I will go with the good old USA anytime. This country will not be able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil until we wake up and tell the extreme left wing environmental radicals, enough is enough.
The ‘war for oil theory’ isn’t a serious theory for people who pay attention to foreign policy. It’s really nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan that through parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don’t like Bush, and those who don’t really understand foreign policy.

Posted by: Captain Right at September 17, 2007 5:51 AM
Comment #233143
…parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don’t like Bush, and those who don’t really understand foreign policy.

So which group does Alan Greenspan belong to?

Jack,

Oil is sold for a profit. You can’t separate the oil from the profits.

Posted by: Woody Mena at September 17, 2007 9:09 AM
Comment #233145

To end our dependence on foreign oil you can start by banning big oil companies from controlling our government!!!!!!! Do you not remember they shaped our energy policies!!!!!! How do you like the results!!!!!!! Has there been enough bloodshed and no bid contracts???????

I am so sick of hearing drill for more oil; we got to drill for more oil!!!!!!!! There is not just one solution to the problem; it will take a combination of alternative energy sources combined with conservation and energy efficient products and transportation alternatives. Oil is the problem remember!!!!!!!! Drilling will not solve the problem, using your head will!!!!!!! I don’t know how many posts there have been on this blog about solutions to this problem. There have been a lot of good ideas discussed, when combined together would create a solution to this problem!!!!!!! We can not get the bush crime family to do the right thing!!!!!! We will have to wait till 2009 to get some real cooperation from our government. Until then we will be using the blood for oil plan now in have!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 9:20 AM
Comment #233146

Outraged,

Again, AND THEN WHAT? Do we make technology out of whole cloth? What technology are we going to use that doesn’t rely upon oil? There are very few out there and none of them are either ready for full scale implementation or cost effective enough not to cripple our economy during forced migration.

Please tell me what you see as the solution, don’t just keep telling me that dependance on foreign oil is bad because almost EVERYONE will agree with you! It’s an easy position to take. The hard part is figuring out a solution, one that I notice is abscent from your rant.

Oh, and BTW —

“Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.” — Terry Pratchett.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #233147

Rhinehold

Read my post over and over till you get it!!!!!!!!!

I did not say forced alternatives any where in my post. Force is the rightwing way not mine!!!!! Is that the only way to do things is buy force??????? Yes lets all bear down on those #&%@$*!!!!!! Yes when we converted from using hay for fuel to gas it crippled our economy, or did it?????? If you are a true supply side supporter, think of all the new technology businesses this conversion will create!!!!!!! The economy will catch on fire!!!!!!!!!! Force is not the way to solve this problem!!!!!!! That is what we are using now and it has not worked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offer people a better way!!!!!! How many people would rather have an alternative to the blood for oil plan the bush crime family has forced on us???????? This is the modern civilized world!!!!!! We have science, engineering, and technology on our side!!!!!! Throw down your killing machines and try a new method!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 9:54 AM
Comment #233148

Outraged,

Again, you don’t provide a plan, just maniacal rantings that come nowhere close to my views or my point.

If there is a technological business opportunity out there because a method of energy that is cheap and available is developed, it will get implemented with or without government intervention. I’m not sure why you are ranting against our current administration, they are not doing anything good or bad in this area other than the normal grants and tax breaks for new energy technology companies, so they are not hindering this at all.

What *is* hindering getting off of our dependance of foreign oil is a viable, cost effective, mass producable alternative that does not currently rely on foreign oil and is not so dirty as to put us back 100 years environmentally (read: coal). That is not because of the government, it is not because of Bush, it is because it doesn’t exist atm. And unless you can point me to a technological alternative that we can turn to, then your rantings are just as I have described them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #233151

Rhinehold

You need to just stick with your plan (Stay the Course). The rest of us will do our part as I have pointed out in my post!!!!!! Some people need leadership to point them in the right direction when solving problems. The right-wingers’ hand book says drill for oil, so go with that. Or you could read my post where I explain how to solve the problem by using alternative solutions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #233154

Outgraged,

Start making some sense! What is my plan exactly? Because I don’t think you have a clue what it is.

I’ve read your post and NOWHERE do you mention to to solve the problem by using alternative solutions. Which solutions? How do we implement them if they aren’t implementing themselves? How do we implement them without it damaging our economy beyond repair?

Until you can answer any of those questions you are, just as I stated, posting nothing but maniacal rantings that do nothing to server your view, whatever that is (other than Bush sucks, which I agree with but doesn’t get us closer to a solution, does it?)

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #233155

BTW, I don’t know why you are so against drilling for more domestic oil to get us of foreign oil while we develop actual alternative energy sources that will provide us in the future. It seems to make sense if the goal is getting off of foreign oil… unless that isn’t your goal?

To be honest, it is hard to tell because you won’t actually write anything that details ANY of this…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Comment #233159

Rhinehold

If you can not understand anything other than force this or force that, you will not be able to understand the information I have posted. If you are worried about the economy you should be worried!!!!! Our American car companies are building monster trucks to help solve the energy problems. Foreign companies have concentrated on fuel economy and they are taking over market shares from the US monster truck companies who are concentrating on bigger and more power!!!!!

I guess you are one of the monster truck people who can’t see a problem here!!!!!! I think there are a lot of us that have lost touch with reality like the US car companies. I don’t know how long it will take people to realize that they are spending most of there paycheck on fuel for their monster truck!!!!! Maybe one day when we run out of gas or it cannot be supplied to them fast enough, then we can do something.

If you are worried about the economy this is a perfect example of why you should worry!!!!!! But don’t you worry some one from a foreign company/country will solve our problems while we sit on our hands and rant DRILL FOR OIL!!!!!!!!!!! Drill FOR OIL!!!!!!!! DRILL FOR OIL!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #233160

In the meantime, this war has used more mercenaries than any in history supposedly. Here is the result:

Blackwater license being revoked in Iraq

The wartime numbers of private guards are unprecedented — as are their duties, many of which have traditionally been done by soldiers. They protect U.S. military operations and diplomats and have guarded high-ranking officials including Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad.
Posted by: womanmarine at September 17, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #233168

Outraged,

Again, you make no sense. I’ve stated quite clearly that we need to get off of dependancy of foreign oil, have for decades. I grew up knowing that, the problem is HOW TO DO IT, in which you have no answer. There is no answer or we would be implementing it.

The rest of your rantings are just as before, making no sense at all. Let’s break it down, shall we?

If you can not understand anything other than force this or force that, you will not be able to understand the information I have posted.

I understand a lot more than force, which is why I stated clearly early on that when the technology is there we will embrace it, that is what a free market economy does. The cheaper, more readily available alternative will win out against the more costly one, especially if negatives are attached to it like allowing despots control over foreign affairs just because they have a chemical compound under the soil. I’m not sure what you don’t think I’m getting, since you have stated anything but ‘I hate Bush and the oil companies’ then complain that the price of oil is too high… but I’m getting ahead of myself.

If you are worried about the economy you should be worried!!!!!

I am

Our American car companies are building monster trucks to help solve the energy problems.

No, they are building them because we, as consumers, want them. If we didn’t want them they wouldn’t be built. So why be angry at the car companies, shouldn’t you be yelling at the people who want to drive them?

(BTW, I have been working on an electric only car for quite a few years now, trying to perfect it. Others are as well, but the problem is that most electricity we have is harnessed from coal and the second to last thing we need is a higher demand for dirty coal production that will further harm our environment)

Foreign companies have concentrated on fuel economy and they are taking over market shares from the US monster truck companies who are concentrating on bigger and more power!!!!!

Do you realize how that doesn’t make sense? What gas mileage are we talking, btw? Because my vehicles both get over 25 mpg, the hybrids we were looking at got little better than that… If no one were buying those vehicles they wouldn’t be made, so which is it? If they aren’t selling as many of them, then that is a good thing, isn’t it?

I guess you are one of the monster truck people who can’t see a problem here!!!!!!

More guessing and assumptions about me, whom you obviously don’t know anything about or care to find out by asking. No, I’m not one of ‘them’ and I already twice have admitted that we need to get off of foreign oil. I just want someone to tell me how we are suppose to do that when they post maniacal rantings about it instead of, well, just being outraged as a general state of being.

I think there are a lot of us that have lost touch with reality like the US car companies.

I am sensing that you are closer to the truth here than you realize…

I don’t know how long it will take people to realize that they are spending most of there paycheck on fuel for their monster truck!!!!!

I’m sure they are well aware of it, though any alternative would take MORE of their paycheck. The cost of newer hybrids like the Prius are more expensive, the difference being more than the savings on gas over the lifetime (usually 3 years while they own the vehicle before trading up). So they are making a market decision, not a foreign policy one.

Maybe one day when we run out of gas or it cannot be supplied to them fast enough, then we can do something.

If we choose to do something now, what would that be? PLEASE take a breath and tell me what we should be doing…

If you are worried about the economy this is a perfect example of why you should worry!!!!!!

There are a lot of reasons to worry, not just this.

But don’t you worry some one from a foreign company/country will solve our problems while we sit on our hands and rant DRILL FOR OIL!!!!!!!!!!! Drill FOR OIL!!!!!!!! DRILL FOR OIL!!!!!!!!

ok, even I can’t figure out this part… All I say is that it makes sense that while we develop alternate fuels, a way to help us get off of foreign oil in that meantime is to drill more domestically. I think that makes common sense, but for some reason this brings out the 8 exclamation point shouts? *shrug*

So much for rationality I suppose…


Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 11:50 AM
Comment #233172

Womanmarine:

I heard that this morning as well. It might just be grandstanding. Does it mean that Blackwater has to leave Iraq? I thought they were protecting some Iraqi government officials, though your piece seems to contradict that.

Outraged,

What Rhinehold is saying, reasonably, I think, is that there needs to be reasonable alternatives and transitions to oil dependence. If you were to outlaw imports tomorrow, David’s piece about a depression would come true. Nearly everything you use, including your computer, has petrochemical components.

As to monster trucks, I drive a 4WD Jeep Cherokee, and a full size Toyota. I work in a construction related field and need to haul equipment from site to site. I couldn’t do that with a mini-cooper or horse and buggy.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 17, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #233180

Rhinehold

Read What I have re posted for you below you must have missed it!!!!!

(There is not just one solution to the problem; it will take a combination of alternative energy sources combined with conservation and energy efficient products and transportation alternatives.)

This is what I did personally to make a difference. All of us can do something!!!! I sold my 2000 Buick Century $1,500. I got 10 mpg city 25 mpg highway. I purchased a 2000 Corolla $5,000. I get 30 mpg city 40 mpg highway I use cruise control (energy conservation). 10% of the fuel I burn in my Corolla is ethanol (alternative energy). I have all energy efficient appliances in my home. I have all compact florescent or LED lighting in my home (energy conservation). We have many wind farms in our area that we get our power from (alternative energy). Building coeds require 6 inch walls on our homes for more insulation (building code energy conservation). I see more and more solar panels in the area where I live (alternative energy). Science and engineering a presently working on solutions to the energy problems, new more energy efficient products, new storage batteries, bio fuels, methane from waste products. Wind power and new more efficient low cost solar panels just to mention a few things. We need to utilize nuclear energy!!!!!!!!!

IT WILL TAKE A COMBINATION OF METHEODS TO SOLVE THE ENERGY PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have to start now to implement them not when we run out of gas that will cause the economy to collapse!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #233181

alien from the planet zorg at September 17, 2007 12:13 PM said “I drive a 4WD Jeep Cherokee, and a full size Toyota”. That’s 2 large vehicles to support one lifestyle. Previously horse-power and ingenuity was all you had - obviously the ingenuity has disappeared - BTW greenspan’s “revelations” are NOT news in the non-US world

Posted by: otiose at September 17, 2007 12:48 PM
Comment #233185

alien from the planet zorg

If you need a monster truck to haul construction materials and equipment, you must have one to do your job. I do not need one so I do not have one. I will conserve fuel so you can have what I don’t need for your work. I would like to have that new Dodge Challenger or a Mustang but with things the way they are now with the blood for oil thing going on that would not make me happy to know I was contributing to the problem. No we can not all go out and buy a new prius!!!! But we can make some kind of effort to help the situation until we have good solutions to this big problem.

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #233186

Outraged,

That’s all great, and I do most of those things myself, but the even with these conservation efforts we cannot get completely off of foreign oil. The numbers just do not add up. New technologies will have to develop, nuclear energy plants will take time to build and have nasty waste issues to deal with, etc.

So, until that time, what it wrong with drilling more domestically in order to further lower our dependance on foreign oil?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #233190

Rowan, it’s obvious his interview was taken out of context. Yet, none of you want to talk about the Oil For Food Scandal; that’s been exposed for nearly 4 years now. That clearly showed the “Very Bloody Oil”; yet, that doesn’t have anything to do with Bush and so none of you are talking about it.

It’s ovbvious that the BDS crowd has been dealt a fatal blow with General Petraeus’ testimony last week; it’s a shame some of you just can’t get behind the US and the military and see this thing through. Oh well, your choice.

Posted by: rahdigly at September 17, 2007 1:15 PM
Comment #233193

We had the electric car in the 1970’s, research and working model corvairs at the Univ. of Mi.. Patents bought up. Decades later we had an electric car in Ca. Mfr. recalled them all, not for fault with them, but, because of intense customer satisfaction, to the point some tried to sue to keep them, and lost. Now, we have electric cars about to come from Europe. Shades of Toyota all over again.

As for the energy crisis, the government should fund R&D, which it already is, and demand the tax payers be contractually paid a .25% royalty on all profits resulting from the technology developed with government R&D dollars. This will yield handsome government revenues down the road to deal with ever growing national debt. A number of entrepreneurial companies would find that arrangement and contract perfectly acceptable. They in turn would be obligated to stipulate the same .25% profit in their contract with any patent purchaser and manufacturer, or they don’t get access.

Time to think smart, America, and stop giving your tax dollars away for nothing. Demand something back from them that will prevent our government politicians from passing their debts on to our children when they enter the work force. Demand your Congress person entertain the notion in a bill. If they refuse, don’t vote for them, vote for the challenger who will. It is in the voter’s hands to demand customer satisfaction for their tax dollars.

You get the government your silence and ignorance deserve, or, what your vote demands to prevent it from going to a challenger.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 17, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #233200

Rhinehold,

I think we must develop new energy technology first. We need to make that an urgent priority!!!!

I would like to see what little domestic oil we have saved for a crisis or emergency. We must start to cut back on oil usage and get started with switching over to the methods I have listed for you in my posts. If things do not work out and we have to drill, so be it. That alone will not solve our energy problems. I am hoping in 2009 that we will have a government that can use common sense to begin to solve this problem!!!!!! To get us started in the right direction. We have to keep working on this problem it is costing thousands of lives with the present plan!!!!!!

There is not one single solution that will work to solve this problem, not at this point and time anyway.

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 2:01 PM
Comment #233203

Outraged, you insistence that we not drill for domestic oil now is entirely opposed to your ‘there is not one single solution that will work’. We must try them all, and drilling domestically is one of them. You are making no sense. It will take a couple of years before we start seeing oil from new drilling, we need to start now or when we find we need it it won’t be there for us and we will STILL be dependant upon foreign oil.

Btw, I’m curious what a change in 2009 will do to help? If you are talking about volunatry conservation, which I assume you are since you said before that we should not be using FORCE, then how will it matter who is in office? By the very fact of government, any law or solution that they have to offer incurres the use of force along with it. Shouldn’t you be bypassing the government all together and instead directly appeal to the people to use conservation if you don’t want force to be a part of the equation?

And you do realize that conservation, as you have suggested, will only reduce our rate of consumption, but not force it in decline, at the rate our powerhunger is growing, right? Conservation methods that you have listed will stave off the inevitable, by taking sensible reasonable solutions off of the table as you are suggesting, you are encouraging our dependance on foreign oil. Or is that not your real concern at all?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 17, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #233205

Rhinehold,

You have a problem with understanding what I have listed for you in my post. How many times do I have to explain to you, conservation is only one thing!!!!!!! How many did I list for you??????? Do not play games with me!!!!!! This is about blood for oil people are dying. Do not cherry pick what you want and leave out what you do not want. If you want to play games. Do it with someone else!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #233212

Rhinehold,

This is a very complicated problem it takes more than a simple solution to drill for oil!!!!!! It takes scientists and engineers to solve the hard problems. Rush and bush do not like these kind of people because they deal with facts. You can stick with rush and bush. I will stick with science and engineering!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 17, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #233214

Rhinehold,In order to break our addiction to oil I wouldnt consider it wise to continue to look for oil. Nor would I consider it wise to go to war for oil as the war effort expends oil as well as money that could be used to find alternative forms of energy.
Did you have the same negative attitude about globalization as you do about alternate forms of energy when it comes to destroying our economy? We did not wait until all the problems with globalization were worked out before we jumped on that horse yet the righties seem to want to wait until the alt. energy problems are completely solved before we jump.
When the oil corporations are the ones dictating energy policy it stands to reason that we are where we are today mired in battle for the oil, no plans for reducing our needs for oil, and disinformation campaigns regarding climate change.
Nuclear energy must be looked at (and implemented , in your neighborhood of course not mine) which should get the big corporations and free market types salivating but at least they are doing something. We need to start with wind and solar where feasibile, on a small scale, and an a larger scale by the energy companies to reduce our need for coal. We need to rethink fertilizers, plastics and such to remove the oil from them. Perhaps we can replace the oil in plastic with cotton or peanut oil. Perhaps we use glass containers instead of throwaway plastic containers, perhaps we add more taxes to gas and oil products to use for R&D costs.
In addition to what outraged has said we need to start using electric cars, water power, hand cranked consumer items, the list just goes on. We should insist that Federal state and local governments contribute as David has stated, as well as green building codes and grants for conservation.A drop saved here and a drop of oil saved there will become a barrel, a barrel here and a barrel there and we have a ship load of oil we dont need to export. You may suffer economically if you own the ship or the foreign oil but we as a country gain economically because the energy is produced in this country. The dire predictions of economic collapse due to energy issues could be just that much more disinformation from the oil companies.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 17, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #233224

Re fuel

We use oil today because it makes sense to do so. Oil is a cheap, easy and available alternative. It is so because it does not account for all the external costs. At the prices we paid over the last 30 years, we would have been stupid not to use oil. In 1998, gas was selling for less than $1 a gallon. Why would you bother to conserve or explore alternatives?

Oil has external costs. Now the price is only beginning to reflect some of them and we already see fantastic investments in alternative technologies. We need to KEEP the price high. We have been here before. A lot of alternatives were being developed. They came on line in the 1990s and promptly went bankrupt because of low oil prices.

What makes the most sense is a carbon tax, that puts the prices of carbon based fuels up to what they should be considering the external costs.

Many people cry about oil dependence, but almost nobody really wants to do anything about it. When I propose higher prices, many people treat it like an attack on good sense and justice.

The fact is that you can only use less oil if you use less oil. What part of that does anybody fail to understand. As long as oil remains among the cheapest alternatives, why should anybody use others sources of energy?

So please stop to posturing. Those who support higher prices of energy are honest. All others are either lying to themselves or others or else they do not really care about oil dependency or the environment.

Posted by: Jack at September 17, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #233273

David,

I like that idea, It certainly would be a new way to generate revenue.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 17, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #233325


I think that people are starting to realize that, with blind faith in the system, they have followed the capitalist cavaliers down a rat hole. Now we have reached the point where we have to expend our treasure and the blood of our troops to feed our addiction.

We can start driving electric cars, SUV’s and pickups or we can continue to maintain our addiction to oil. It is not technology stopping us here. The oil companies have and will fight the change. As everyone, who wishes to can see, the oil companies and their share holders are more than willing to reap great profits while we drain our treasury and give our blood for as long as we are unwilling to change or until the oil runs out. It’s our decision.

In five years or less, every automobile assembly plant in America can be retooled and turning out electric powered vehicles. In twenty years, the internal combustion engine should be a collectors item. If we are not interested in demanding this alternative then I suggest we start training more troops.

Posted by: jlw at September 18, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #233410

Jack said:

“So please stop to posturing. Those who support higher prices of energy are honest. All others are either lying to themselves or others or else they do not really care about oil dependency or the environment.”

While I agree with and understand your position, this statement goes a bit far.

The speculative price of oil and gas is not related to oil independence, directly. We can have high prices and a do-nothing attitude about redirecting our attention to clean energy and petrochemical alternatives. In fact, we currently have that situation. Putting money into oil execs and Arab pockets does nothing toward moving us away from oil dependence.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 19, 2007 7:05 AM
Comment #233997

Alien

The high price of oil stimulates investments in alternatives. It has done that. Investments in alternatives is skyrocketing. All you need do is look at the newspapers or look at the destination of venture capital.

I prefer not to put money into the pockets of despots. That is why I support the carbon tax. But it is essential to keep the price of oil high. If it drops again, we will lose our momentum again, as we did in the 1990s.

Posted by: Jack at September 22, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #234096

Jack,

The only way oil will drop again is if a new Saddam rises. His real treat was to OPEC. Shhhhh!! Don’t tell the soldiers who’ve died for the safety of OPEC. Just tell them it’s about freedom.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 23, 2007 8:56 PM
Post a comment