<The North American Red Queen: Our Natural Gas Treadmill The Oil Drum DrumBeat: November 11, 2006>
<DrumBeat: November 9, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: November 11, 2006>

239 comments on DrumBeat: November 10, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

kjmclark on November 10, 2006 - 9:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have to wonder if you aren't underestimating the irrationality of US residents when deprived of their "non-negotiable" lifestyle.  A few years of increased gas prices and poor results in our first oil grab have resulted in the Republicans losing power.  Two more years of bad results and people will hand the presidency to a Democrat.  Four more years of loss of our lifestyle and the American public may be ready to put a warmonger in place to take oil back from those foreigners who have made our lives miserable.  Does anyone doubt that Reagan would have invaded the middle east if things hadn't improved?  Haven't we already started that invasion now?

The leaders have more information, but that doesn't mean the electorate that votes in leaders is really better informed.  Besides <sarcasm> we are the world's only superpower, doesn't that mean we have a right to be rewarded for our efforts to maintain order?  Doesn't that mean that we are entitled to our outsize share of the world's energy resources? </sarcasm>

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on November 10, 2006 - 10:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If you look at the big picture of the engagement of the USA with the rest of the world, there are alternating periods of interventionism and of isolationism. I think it's a pretty safe bet that we're heading towards a period of the second sort. Once bitten, twice shy.

And again (and again and again), I'm waiting to hear of a plausible scenario for a successful resource grab.

(And for anyone who defends the idea that the Iraq intervention constitutes a successful resource grab, I'd be interested in examining that proposition in detail.)

But a lot depends on the quality of the next presidency. Muddle and bungle, or a "moon-shot" effort to redefine America's energy economy?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sendoilplease on November 10, 2006 - 1:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
alistair, you make many naive assumptions in your initial post - that our leaders are "rational" and would remain so if they were under the same pressures as those crazy Africans for example.  Or that there is "no way" the chinese or russians would "take a gamble"...

You cannot imagine a "plausible scenario for a resource grab" because your thinking is limited by your First Worlder bias and because of your limited life experiences.

Look at our history since we learned to record it. Can you find a plausible example where we faced situations similar to Peak Oil and there was Not a "resource grab?"

The world has not even begun to feel the pinch of declining Energy and declining Matter.  

"Civilized" applies only to those who can afford it.  Humans are animals.  All of our cute little "morals" and "ethics" are Negotiable. And even the Culturally Superior Westerners will sink to the same levels of depravity as those crazy africaners.

   

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on November 10, 2006 - 2:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
OK, I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a plausible resource-grab scenario.

WRT central Asia, I think it's quite likely that China and/or Russia will end up with complete control over the oil producing republics (if they aren't already), but I don't expect war will be required. Much less trouble to pay off a local satrap. No gambling required.

Other than that, who are the candidate perpetrators and victims? I want to see lists. Anyone crazy enough to try another middle-eastern country? (The problem there is the people are so dumb, they don't know when they are beaten.) Or Venezuela? Please?

I know what people are capable of. I saw what happened in Yugoslavia. Atrocities perpetrated by people no different from your neighbours, or mine. Atrocities committed by nation states for economic reasons are another matter.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
toilforoil on November 10, 2006 - 6:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I suppose it is a moot point as to whether the Russian invasion and devastation of Chechyna is politically motivated, i.e. to defend the integrity of the Russian Federation, or a resource war in the sense that Chechnya is critically located in regard to the access to central Asian oil and gas.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on November 12, 2006 - 5:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bearing in mind that Yeltsin had just smashed the USSR, and that there was a real danger of the Russian federation exploding, I don't see why you'd need to look for complicated explanations. He thought that by coming down hard on the Chechens, he'd put the fear of God in the other potential breakaways. It actually worked, except for the Chechens.

After the fact, you can graft on whatever other motives you want. Religion, resources. And they end up coming true.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on November 10, 2006 - 6:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
plausible    how bout  country x has wmds   their president is a dictator    country x is a threat to our homeland security     country x has known ties and is working with osama bin whoever  and the legacy of not invading country x is a mushroom cloud over our major cities   plausible    but not necessarily successful
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on November 10, 2006 - 7:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
OK, I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a plausible resource-grab scenario.

You are asking the wrong question and that's why you are reaching to the wrong answer. The right question would be: is there a plausible resource-grab scenario for the powers that be.

I can assure you - there sure is! If PO starts to byte really hard, the only way the rich guys can prevent a revolution is to go military. Aren't we seeing that already happening??? These wars will not be for the resources only, they will be to counter the pressure from inside. Of course from a long-term point of view this will also be a doomed cause. But if you put yourself in their shoes, maybe at some point they will decide that they do not haveanu other choice.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DelusionaL on November 10, 2006 - 10:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have to agree.  What kind of energy related problems will we face?  A colasped economy?  During WW1and WW2 jobs were in more basic industries, I look around in amazement at what  provides jobs and wonder how long will it last.  I can't see people willingly giving in to a reduced energy lifestyle.  Mega-merchants sell all this electronic stuff like ihome to an accepting public.  Unless the message is "tough get used to it and worse" we will elect some nut-case who will pull the trigger or some small bunch of countries will get into it and the bigger ones will be pull onto sides.  I think it will be a rough ride - not impossible but very, very tough.

The election of the Dem's sent a message(will it be heard?)  Everyone seems to think that this will solve our problems, I don't.  While I hope it lets the world know that we are not beholden to our leaderships path, I fear that politics is still about getting elected and that is the biggest part of the problem IMHO (ie the money and influence required - not the election process).  There is a saying that democracies die when the public realizes that they can vote themselves benefits from the treasury.
The dem's had better get ready to get to work - changing people's expectation on energy and the sacrifices that are needed come first. Most people who think we need to reduce our energy use think that "someone else" is using too much not them.  Good luck!  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on November 10, 2006 - 6:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have to wonder if you aren't underestimating the irrationality of US residents when deprived of their "non-negotiable" lifestyle.

The US Dollar exists as it is today because US Dollars is how you get oil in the global market.  

What would be the citizens reaction to a collapse of the dollar and an unwillingness of other nations to take the US Dollar as a means of trade?

I doubt a shrugging of shoulders and saying 'oh, that silly invisible hand'.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

239 comments on DrumBeat: November 10, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version