248 comments on An Update on Mexico's Oil Production--The Rapid Collapse of Cantarell by the Numbers
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
248 comments on An Update on Mexico's Oil Production--The Rapid Collapse of Cantarell by the Numbers
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Thanks for the update, Khebab.
I find all this depressing. And I feel bad for Mexico, which has run its oil industry into the ground, taking all of its revenues. Those people at PEMEX are just as able and hardworking as the next guy. They've done everything they could to keep Cantarell going but you can't change fate. The trouble is, they have not been able to do as much E&P as others have. You can't run an oil business with one arm tied behind your back. It's a shame, especially what this is going to do to Mexico's economy. I choose not to explore the obvious implications of that.
If the Iraq war were not already enough incentive to make the US widely disliked, I think that our overall energy consumption is going to increasingly make us Public Enemy #1 worldwide.
Look at the situation facing Mexico. A poor country, consuming 10% of the oil that we consume, is faced with the prospect of reducing its consumption, so that they can try to export more oil to the the US.
I think that the combination of Global Warming + Peak Oil + the Food/Fuel Debate + the Social Security/Medicare Funding Problem is going to inevitably end with a the necessity of an Energy Consumption Tax.
For once I must disagree. We are energy hogs and we are food hogs, but nobody hates us for that reason. India exports basmati rice to the U.S., and while hundreds of millions of Indians are undernourished as the U.S. undergoes an obesity epidemic the people in India do not hate Americans because we eat rice they produce.
While the U.S. is envied, I see little evidence of hatred outside of the usual suspects, e.g. Islamic extremists. Many many countries are truly hated: Japan, Germany, Russia, Turkey, and France, to name only a few of the most notorious. Because of long memories in China, I think if we could measure hatred, Japan and the Japanese would be by far the most hated people in the world. Old people specialize in hatred.
Young people throughout the world would love to come to the U.S. and live the American dream. With relatively few exceptions, America and Americans are not a hated people--contrary to the impression given by some who apparently have not travelled much. I do not think Mexicans will come to hate Americans; I think they will ever more urgently try to come north to become Americans as the economy of Mexico deteriorates.
I agree with you in the present tense, but not in the future tense, which is what I was using.
We have been dividing up growing--albeit it slowly growing--food and fuel supplies.
What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies, especially when our per capita energy consumption is twice the EU per capita consumption?
What will happen when TSHTF will depend on who gets blamed.
I think the usual tendency is to blame the usual scapegoats. Mexicans of one party will blame Mexicans of the other political party.
In the U.S. we have a rich list of scapegoats: They will get the blame, regardless of realities.
Other countries have their own scapegoats, and were I an immigrant to a European country I would be very very worried at this point.
Of the Mexicans I know personally, not a single one blames the U.S. for Mexico's ills. Indeed, a common sentiment is a wish that the U.S. would annex Mexico in the hopes of freeing up migration and capital flows. Mexicans, with good reason, blame their own government for their ills.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR200701...
A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis
Mexico Grapples With Soaring Prices for Corn -- and Tortillas
By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 27, 2007; Page A01
They should plant more corn. This is not a problem but an opportunity to get rich.
You are greatly oversimplifying. Opportunity is reserved for those with the resources to alter their circumstances. Unfortunately, land and wealth aren't uniformly distributed in Mexico -- a situation which the oligarchy is just fine with. Which is why "opportunity" for the average Mexican means "going north."
Land and wealth aren't uniformly distributed anywhere in the world (especially in so-called communist workers paradises) but that is besides the point. Mexico has the largest economy in Latin America, low inflation, steady (if mediocre) economic growth and even some bright spots where they dominate the world. Certainly better opportunities exist in the US, but there are farmers in Mexico, even small ones, that will get rich if they plant more corn and participate in the global ethanol industry. Those people will spend money on construction, entertainment etc. and this money will ripple through the Mexican economy.
People are portraying the run-up in corn prices like it was some kind of disaster, when now, farmers are actually getting paid what they deserve for their labor. It is not a disaster it is an opportunity. Did I complicate it enough for you Tarzan?
Mexican corn production has doubled in the past thirty years. In recent years, domestically produced white corn displaced white corn imported from the US, as state provided incentives encouraged even greater domestic production. The US had begun exporting white corn to Mexico in the nineties in increasing significant amounts.
US corn exports to Mexico are mostly of feed corn destined for pork and chicken manufacturing enterprises. I suspect that the obesity reported among Mexicans referred to upthread is related to higher meat consumption as the price of meat has declined remarkably compared to tortillas and other wet corn and corn flour products.
So, Keithster, how exactly do you propose 'they' should go about getting rich? The welfare cheque provided Mexican corn farmers accounts for an even greater share of said farmers income than the cheques distributed to the welfare moms with land tenure in the US.
Do 'they' count on the Mexican government maintaining the subsidy level as 'they' plant more corn, assuming 'they' can find suitable ground for corn production? Do 'they' displace some of 'their' co-farmers, so that machinery and chemistry can up production more than it already has? Do the displaced go to California or Virginia?
You fundamentalists are all the same. Ignorant.
Plant more corn, sell it, make more money.
Higher corn prices means higher revenue. If the Mexican government wants to keep paying subsidies then the farmer makes even more money.
See above. If the government wants to foolishly keep paying subsidies that is their problem.
Where is the evidence that Mexico is running out of farmland?
What displaced?
And rich.
I'll take that last as meaning you're proud of being ignorant and rich.
Yeah sure why not. I tore apart his arguments, I can at least throw him a bone.
Flaming is better when we all relax.
Years ago, I swore off arguing with moonies and other assorted fundamentalist loonies.
But here are some matters to consider:
The doubling in Mexican corn production over the past several decades has occurred with the stimulus of state provided incentives, but without an expansion of lands cultivated for corn. What does that tell us? Why would landowners and farmers not have planted corn on abandoned or ignored or otherwise employed land during a period when government largesse made it virtually impossible to lose money doing so?
The run up in corn prices is a function of higher oil and gas prices. (In the US these fundamentals are conflated with so called national security issues, which is just a way to obscure interventionist policies undertaken to benefit elites). Corn production, even in Mexico with its abundance of cheap labour, is heavily dependent on oil and gas inputs and so profits do not increase as much as prices, if at all. Profits are also constrained by the costs of obtaining and maintaing land tenure. How much profit is available for each additional bushel of corn produced in Mexico?
The government of Mexico relies on domestic oil production for 37 % of its revenues, a stream of cash now clearly imperiled by declining overall production. What is the likelihood that the government is going to be willing to increase the expenditure on corn production supports, subsidies that amount to over 30% of the price paid to corn growers? What is the likelihood that the government sees an opportunity in higher corn prices to reduce expenditures on corn production supports?
There are other points to consider, but my dog needs a walk. In any case, there is enough here to tie up your bone(head) for a bit.
And precisely the mentality that proves to me that this society, and most people for that matter, have no future in the coming power down.
Perhaps if the solutions we seek were based on morality and the common good there would be a glimmer of hope.
I wish all those that are 'Rich' in the current system of things all the best with their worthless piles of wealth in the coming era.
hand waving
n.
Usually insubstantial words or actions intended to convince or impress: resorted to hand waving instead of arguing rationally.
If all the poor in Mexico have to do is plant more crops, why don't aren't they doing just that? How nice that you've solved the problem of world poverty.
Also, I'd rather be enlightened and poor than rich and ignorant.
Hello Free. Nobody is answering your question so I'll try. It will be from memory and I will stand to be corrected by the collective wisdom present.
Well. The Mexican poor do not have land on which to plant. They did, but NAFTA fixed that.
After the last Mexican Revolution (Viva Zapata!) Mexico was surveyed and ejido lands (translated as corn and bean land) was allocated to every village. Each village gave land to each family. The ejido land was enshrined in the Mexican Constitution. By NAFTA time the Mexican population was much larger and usufruct of ejido lands was a bit altered but it was good land and still provided much of Mexico's caloric intake.
Note I said usufruct. Look it up. Nobody owned this land. Land cannot be owned, only usurped or used. Ejido lands were protected by the Constitution. They were absolutely inalienable. Didn't matter how much money you owed, didn't matter if you were ready to sell, felt greedy, the land was inalienable. If a family died out or all moved north, then the village gave the land to a new tiller. It could not be sold. Never. Period.
Now this was anathema to Milton Friedman and all his little disciples. Not merely heresy but a thought which could not be thunk. Doubleplusungood. Thoughtcrime. And efforts were made, endlessly over the century, to bring Mexican peasants into the 'real' world of free market fundamentalism. NAFTA did just that. The treaty abrogated the Mexican Constitution. Created a free market in land and opened the Mexican market to American corn. The results were predictable. Mexican farming is no longer about poor people feeding themselves and their families. The poor are not peasants any more. They are lumpen proles. They don't have land or the use of land. Domestic or imported they need cash to get corn.
I don't know if that's clear. The concept of land which is not owned is too weird for Americans. Totally counter to massive levels of indoctrination. And of course don't believe me, I may be wrong. Have at me.
Old Hippie - If the land was no longer under village control how, or to whome was it re-allocated?
What you appear to be describing sounds similar to Britain's transition from a communal commons based agriculture to an agriculture based on privately owned estates.
In Britain the better farmers, or the more wealthy farmers, or those who had inherited wealth, purchased or gained title to what had been owned in common. If similar process occured in Mexico then someone, or some social group became rich. Who benefited in Mexico's case?
Cheers!
I wish I had a good answer now that a harder question is posed. Like I said I'm shooting from the hip and working from memory. I have looked for answers & I'm looking in the wrong places. Was actually hoping someone would appear on thread knowing more than I do.
What I've read, many times in the years since NAFTA, rehashes the above , talks about how awful it is, and prognosticates horrors. I've no idea how much land has been transferred. Examples I've read are about hot real estate markets where a developer wants space for accomodating gringos.
As far as I know, the families who have traditionally cultivated a plot are now considered the owners. If the family is in debt or needs money for any contingency buyers are ready to take the land. Village input just dropped.
Yes it sounds to me like enclosure. Zapatistas were in some respect a millenary land-to-tiller cult that should not have prevailed in the twentieth century. And now that anomaly is reversed.
Take a look at this article from the UN's FAO. It seems to be a pretty good account of what's happened in rural Mexico, from the Revolution to the impact of NAFTA.
I don't doubt what you say. I was questioning Keithster100's simplistic answer that all Mexico's poor have to do is plant corn and grow rich. That was the reason for my sarcastic remark, "How nice that you've solved the problem of world poverty".
Always an interesting discussion whether Europeans will act in ways they have in the past, or whether to a certain extent, having almost destroyed themselves by 1950 (famines in various European countries continued for several years after the end of WWII), they have learned.
Hard to know - older people still remember such horrors, but someone born today obviously has a different framework. Predicting the future is always hard.
But for those who think Europe is somehow a better place than the U.S., read some European history - ugly, ugly history over centuries.
Rather than rely on anecdotes about the Mexicans you know personally, perhaps we should look at global polling data.
This data shows clearly that dislike of US policies is changing into dislike of US citizens. That has also been my experience of changing attitudes during 35 years of international travel, and it makes me sad.
Anyway, from google
"The survey also indicated for the first time that dislike of Mr Bush is translating into a dislike of Americans in general."
"Asked how Mr Bush's re-election had affected their feelings towards Americans, 72% of those polled in Turkey said it made them feel worse about Americans, 65% in France, 59% in Brazil and 56% in Germany."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1394393,00.html
Isn't hated a little bit too strong? One can just hate certain persons on account of their behaviour, but certainly not entire countries with many, many individual persons.
As you said, I obviously come from a hated country, but I have a lot of friends from all over the world....
But in general, I fear Westtexas is right...
greetings from Berlin
To a large extent, hatred goes like this:
Ethnocentrism (including racism) leads to stereotypes.
Stereotypes invariably lead to prejudice.
Prejudice usually (but not always) leads to discrimination based on hate.
Hatred is not too strong a word to use when it comes to the feelings of Poles and Russians toward Germans.
One of the few items of good news on the hatred front is that (so far as I know) Germans and French people no longer hate one another because of their national affiliations. But within Germany are dark forces, and the problems in France are too obvious to require comment.
Where are you getting this stuff? How does this relate to peak oil?
Peak oil is going to lead to conflict.
My ideas come mainly from the symbolic interactionist school of social psychology.
Peak oil is going to lead to the biggest border trouble between the U.S. and Mexico since 1846.
unless Canada, the US, and Mexico develop a synergistic relationship supported by the elites in all three countries...
PG,
What is your subjective probability of such a happy event taking place?
Or were you being funny?
half tongue in cheek, half looking at the context and saying "hmmm, Mexico provides cheap labor, Canada provides the energy, and the US provides the consumption...isn't that interesting..."
so, no...I don't think there's a high probability of such a confederation forming any time soon, but in a generation or two?
...and perhaps I have read too much first and second gen cyberpunk/corporate state writing, but it sure does seem to make sense from a logistic point of view.
As with many looks at the future, this is but one possible scenario... :)
Prof...there may not be a high probability of a cooperative confederation, but of a "forced" confederation...now that has different probabilities doesn't it?
Vive the United Northern Territories...eh?
Hello Prof. Goose,
Hate to burst your assumptions, but possibly a North American Union or Conferation is practically a done deal already:
http://usinfo.state.gov/wh/Archive/2005/Mar/23-128896.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Mar/23-209281.html
http://www.mexidata.info/id1206.html
http://www.spp.gov/factsheet.asp
http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/prsrl/2006/q1/69852.htm
If the North American topdogs decide to make it so, all they have to do is let the kudzu keep spreading.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
You may wish to review the following web site and pay close attention to the "Report to Leaders," the first link on the top left:
http://www.spp.gov/
What you are reading is an undertaking that has not, to the best of my knowledge, been discussed, ratified, or even presented for consideration by my elected representatives in parliment.
I first learned of this from a US reporter who raised objections as this undertaken had not been subject to review by his elected representatives in Congress. He felt that it represented an imposition on US sovereignty. I agree with him on that but, as you may understand, I take an alternate national perspective.
Don't count on continuing consumption in the states. At some point, between the credit-crunched middle class and the growing ranks of the poor, the rich upper crust who have made fortunes in globalization will find themselves confronting an angry mob.
That may be a bit of hyperbole, but if you follow the economic blogs, the voices are beginning to appear--and I think some economists are beginning to hear and echo them.
And I am not yet convinced that Canada will be joyous partner of the states.
And as for Mexico, the flood of immigrants into the states is a warning that NAFTA did not work, will not work...and, at some point, as the contested Mexican election indicated, we may see Mexico "Venezualinized."
Don,
But within Germany are dark forces
which do exist in every country...
....reading your comments shows, that you are definitely not well informed about what is currently going on in the EU and especially here in Germany.
But to stay close to the energy topic:
It is currently the german energy policy which created the massive growth in alternative energy sources like wind power, pv, biomass and geothermal energy. I hope you don't think these are the dark forces here. Because I personally regard this as a pioneering idea which will change the energy world much more than any kind of mandatory aims provided by politicans or anything else. If we want to escape from the energy trap we need to create a renewable energy technology which is cheap and abundant. This is exactly what is going on and what has started in large parts a couple of years ago here in Germany.
--
And to be honest, as 33 year old European with quite a lot of friends in and from places like the UK, Netherlands and Poland, I was never confronted with hatred only because I come from the country where I was born. I don't know where exactly you live, but here in Europe we are used to be in contact with many people from many countries and we travel a lot to foreign countries. This is the best way to get a feeling about one's own country and how to act with people from other countries. I personally live in the center of Berlin only one mile away from the parliament building. There are many people from abroad who live here and it doesn't seem to me, they feel living in a country with dark forces inside. Maybe I should walk down the street and ask my chancellor....?
From what I have read (no personal experience), the existence of large numbers of foreigners from countries such as Turkey has caused a good deal of friction in Germany--which is also a magnet for people fleeing the economic disasters to the east of that country.
You are correct, however: My references to "dark forces" apply to any strong prosperous country that may see its way of life threatened. So long as Germany is prosperous, I think these dark forces will remain latent--just as they were in the decades before the rise of Naziism, which was the child of the inflation of 1923 and the Depression of the early thirties.
Prosperity breeds good will.
And vice versa.
Immigration and integration are generational and social problems. When I grew up in Germany as a kid the problems of being a foreigner were different than they are today. My parents were still being told that we do not belong there by older adults and in the 1970s journalists went undecover to experience first hand what it meant to be "Abdullah". I believe those experiences were forming for a whole generation of young people who are todays politically active adults.
On the upside, my problems in school were more related to being a nerd and not being cool than from me not being German. But that was exceptional because I look caucasian, speak the language perfectly and did not grow up in a large city with real minorities. A second or even third generation Turkish adolescent will experience a very different environment and they will be subjected to pressure from both, the German environment and their own culture, probably more from their own people than from their German friends, actually. Extrapolate that to a veiled Arab girl or even a young, unemployed Arab man in a German town with high unemployment rate and the problems start piling up...
I believe that Europe lived under the illusion for a decade that it had solutions for its immigration and integration problems and that fear of and hate against foreigners was declining. And I think, it was, within the well educated and employed layers of society. After the wall came down and unemployment soared, that illusion broke down in Germany. After 911 it broke down everywhere. Since then the politicians are managing the problem. I don't think anyone will say any longer that it has been solved in the past.
Prosperity breeds good will. Indeed. But that is a powder barrel with a very, very short fuse.
Infinite;
Thanks for your first-hand perspective of this. I was interested in Tom Friedman's program 'The Roots of 9-11', I think it was called, (while my regard for his work has its ups and downs) he put some emphasis on the radicalization of the young Muslims in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, making the point that unlike the US, one can have a much harder road towards acceptance and integration into these cultures. You may be able to live on the same street, get a degree or a job, but actually being 'in' is another thing entirely. Now while I know there are many gray-shades in this topic, I wanted to hear whether you get the sense that America has been notably different with regard to assimilating, accepting.. or even if you think it has the potential to be different, were conditions right for it..
My wife and I lived in NYC for many years, and now in Portland Maine, and both have signifigant or even overwhelming influences from migrating populations.. but as Leslie remarked of the time she spent in Switzerland, France and Spain.. it seemed anyway, that by and large, what you had was Swiss, Frenchfolk and Spaniards, while the US has much greater swatches of peoples from every continent. (Again, seemingly)
I'm not dreamy-eyed about the US, but I am curious about how others have experienced the differences. A Brazilian friend told me that while he met some knuckleheads at his first job in Massachusetts, I should still remember there are idiots everywhere. I asked if non-American idiots seemed different than ours, and he said 'Yeah, they're not as proud of it as the American dopes.'
Bob
Tom Friedman is up to something there. Immigration and integration in the US are much more related than they are in Europe where one can be an immigrant forever without any chance of real integration. At least that would be my experience, too.
And your Brazilian friend seems to be quite the observer, too.
:-)
Welcome to The Oil Drum!!
You were the one who raised the issue of being in a hated country. I am Canadian and feel no hatred for Germany rather a great deal of respect for Germany not seeking to step into American jackboots and go kill civilians in the name of introducing Democracy. Also the fact of your nations move to renewables, the fact that Germany is seeking to bring legal action against illegal CIA extradition teams.
Can you describe the role of the Greens in the move to renewables? This initiative occurred before general awareness of Peak Oil. What was the factor that gave the German greens such acceptance amoung the populace? How do we emulate them?
For those who think of America as being "loved" or "respected," I would suggest you are behind the times. I feel more like a Czech circa 1936, peering across my border at the continued growth of a militaristic state that repudiates everything that I hold to be of value.
Sadly, I think a lot of others feel the same way. Two friends who have travelled overseas in the last two years have come back to tell me the same thing: they spent half of their time trying to explain what was going on back home (with little success, as one told me). I think it's hard for the average American to grasp just how much damage has been done within the context of the "War on Terra." Knowing, as I do, the way that the American mind works, I don't expect this is going to be rectified by a period of national reflection and contrition. It's all too bad, really.
"Can you describe the role of the Greens in the move to renewables? This initiative occurred before general awareness of Peak Oil. What was the factor that gave the German greens such acceptance amoung the populace? How do we emulate them?"
The Greens are only one factor that changed German awareness of environmental issues. The liberal media (something that does not exist in the US) have been reporting about environmental issues for many years before the political movement was succesful in getting elected.
On the biology side celebrities like Jacques-Ives Cousteau and Dr. Bernhard und his son Michael Grzimek were on TV and in movie theatres with their message since the 1950s (their documentary "Serengeti darf nicht sterben" is still famous). The public had ample opportunity to marvel at the wonders of nature because there were regular tv programs about it almost every week.
At the same time schools would show movies about the effects of nitrates and phosphates on rivers and lakes to kids in third grade. Most of my high school teachers were environmentally aware and there were learning units about renewable energy in the early 1980s.
And honestly, one should not forget that admiration of nature goes back as far as the 19th century and played a very strong role even in the "philosophy" of the Nazis. Germans who would not blink while exterminating millions of people were in tears when they saw a mountain movie...
Environmentalism is not just a political movement. It is part of many people's upbringing. It has, in one form or another existed for a very long time.
As far as PO is concerned: I don't remember it being called that but there was plenty of statistics about oil in 1980s magazines and the general message was: it is a finite resource, we become ever more dependent and one day we won't have any left. It did not take a genius to understand that.
I don't think the Greens came before resource awareness, at all. It wasn't even their main theme. Conservation was more a matter of keeping the little bit of nature we had left intact and restoring what had been destroyed. To a Canadian this might not make sense. To understand the basics, you have to travel to Europe and go on a hunt for undisturbed primary forest. It will be a very difficult task, indeed, because there is almost none of it left.
And then there was the anti-nuclear movement which grew out of the awareness that in case of a war Europe would be covered with mushroom clouds while the US and the USSR kept deciding if they really wanted to go for the final showdown. That energized people a lot.
Can you describe the role of the Greens in the move to renewables? This initiative occurred before general awareness of Peak Oil.
There is already a quite complete answer which doesn't need to be supplemented. Maybe I can emphasize the societal awareness for environmental issues. Formerly it was conservation of nature, meanwhile it is much more climate change which "propels" us to act. Back in the 90ies there was a quite emotional discussion about garbage here in Germany, which rsulted in a recycling economy in the end. This is the reason why we have several dustbins for normal garbage, paper, packaging materials (plastics), bio garbage etc....
The renewable energy industry emerged slowly from some pioneering enthusiasts in the 80s which has grown bigger and bigger and which now entered a stage which is large enough to look for customers all over the world. Already a multi billion industry which grows more than 35% p.a. The Green party triggered this awareness, hoewever almost all partys in parliament supported it. Even the conservative partys did so.
Mayby one explaination is our strong heritage in producing technical things. Renewable energy technology is machine building technology. Services are not so popular here, people want to produce things...
Meanhwile, after several disruptions and indirect threts in natural gas supply more and more people and politicans speak about becoming more independent from foreign energy deliveries. The topic peak oil, however, is almost unknown. But I do my best to tell people here since I hear of Peak Oil back in 1999.
There is one important man whose name is Hermann Scheer. He is the man who - as I think - changed the energy structures in world more than anyone before. His visions of a completly solar-based economy are the nucleus of the german in-feed-law which has changed and will cange much more the way we produce energy. I even think this law is much more successful than any kind of Kyoto treaty. It is important to harness the market dynamics. Scheer's book, as far as I can tell - is as well available in Englisg. He won as well the alternative nobel prize for his efforts.
Marotti32 - Danke! I consider myself reasonably well read but Scheer has never appeared on my radar. From what I have found about him his work sounds of interest to the TOD audience. An overview may be found here:
http://www.folkecenter.dk/en/articles/HScheer_aburja.htm
His books are available through Amazon. Reader reviews vary from "best of the best" to "he is out of his mind." I view such disparity as an invitation to a provocative thinker :-)
Is the work of Ulrich Beck well known at "street level" in Germany? He is a German sociologist writing on what he defines as Risk Society and I wonder the degree to which he is known to the public.
Anyway, thank you for the response and again welcome. I find it a great benefit to understanding to be exposed to views other than the Amero-centric. Hope you can be persuaded to stay around.
Guten Tag!
Hi new account,
I've been registered here at TOD since 1.5 years. I recommend Scheer's book The Solar Economy (Munich 1999
• available in 10 languages).
I don't know how it is translated into English, but his writing is very good (I did learn a lot of words from his books). One time I had luck and could listen to one of his speeches (he is member of parliament and he is the president of Eurosolar.
I know Ulrich Beck, he is a famous sociologist, but he is certainly not known on "street level". Beck, as much as I know is as well interested in environmental issues. His risk society is the work I know as well.
I actually don't think TOD (this abbreviation means in German:"death"!!!) is Amero-centric. There are quite a lot of commentators from the UK and other places in Europe.
matthias, berlin mitte
Sailorman,
Then why does one get the impression upon reading TOD that it is the opposite of what you say. That we are hated. That we are the filthy, ignorant,assholes of the world?
If this is what I read and its extremely vehement then why does it exist here?
I agree our politicians are scum but that is not us. They just use us to feed on our blood. We have exported most of our industry and much of our jobs. Is that why we might be hated? Again ..why?
I agree with you BTW.
airdale
In general, and with a few obvious exceptions, Americans are not hated by foreigners. If you travel, you find this out.
There are some self-hating types in America, including some highly verbal people, and I think they project their self-hatred onto others.
Mexicans are a friendly and hard-working people; I love them. Mostly, Mexicans like America and Americans and wish that Mexico would be more like the U.S.
People who post a lot post a lot: That does not mean that they are in touch with reality.
Americans are friendly and hardworking people. I love them. Why, some of my best friends are even Americans.... ;)
Just don't let your sister marry one...
airdale:
I make some pretty negative comments about your country. I do it on a regular basis and I do it intentionally. Part of the intent is to provoke the question that you just asked which is "Why?"
Part of it is that by midnight tonight another 80 odd civilians will have dies in Iraq. These will be women, children, old men, all lacking the means to defend themselves. Their names will not be recorded; you and I will never know who they are. We will never know the precise number, or the circumstances.
They are dying because your country made a decision to undertake a conflict. You own government is unable to explain its rationale. I try and make sense of it, look for a reason, try and pierce to some logic. I cannot find it. Even the oil explanation falls away when you examine the theatre of the absurd that constitute America's actions in Iraq.
Still they keep dying. As you read this there be another few lives extinguished.
The proximate cause of all this killing has to do with the fact that 15 Saudi citizens, under the direction of a Saudi citizen who was himself supported by the Saudi elite and comes from the Saudi elite, killed 3,000 Americans. KSA is not a democracy; it is not even what we understand as a state. It is a medieval kingdom and you live at the sole pleasure and discretion of the king. The kingdom operates for the economic benefit of the king. He can share this largesse or not as he chooses. But did America seek to extract vengance from the plae and people most closely associated with the killing of 3,000 of her citizens?
America did not. Instead America choose to attack a thug, one that they had created, armed, supported, endorsed. A thug who presided over a country which, after Iran, was the most secular state in the middle east, one that had the equivalent of a middle class, that the best prospects of becoming what we think of as a modern state. Why?
More importantly, why did you let it happen? You cannot claim you did not know. This was the defense that the citizens of the 3rd Reich sought to adopt. We denied this defense to them; I see no reason to extend it to you. Why did you let it happen? Why do you allow your government to lie to you? Why do you let your government spy on you, read your mail, listen to your calls without legal warrant? Why do you let your government prey on citizens of my country and subject them to the American Nacht and Nebel. Why do you allow your government to ignore your constitution, trample on your rights, tell you stories and keep you scared? Why are you so weak when all of your forefathers were so strong?
I could go on and on. You may wish to review this link. It describes a book written by an American I respect:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IB01Aa01.html
You may wish to review this article; it describes the concerns of another American for whom I feel deep respect:
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tuftsdaily....
I find it pretty telling that no one answered your question.
Shame on you US Americans!
"Never complain about something that you let happen."
Davidyson
Not every American stood by. I'm a member of the resistance in the US, and was arrested several times for civil disobedience prior to the Iraq war and also on the day the attack was launched. I've organized numerous other actions. The Federal and state governments have me in their threat databases, and agents routinely infiltrate meetings in which I participate. I'm not paranoid, these are facts.
I did what I could to stop the war and the general slide into hysterical fear, and so did many other Americans. The recent US elections were a tide change, but it may be too little too late. The new political direction is tenous and has resulted in the Democrats joining the Republicans in playing politics with the lives of our troops. Hardly an auspicious beginning.
In my experience the overwhelming crush of consumer life keeps most Americans passive, and resistance has been weakened by the failure of mass demonstrations and a lack of cooperation between progressive organizations.
In my opinion resistance to the madness is growing mostly at the local level. You see evidence of this in US cities and states taking action regarding global warming where the Federal government has failed. I still vote and get involved in actions directed at the Federal government, but I've scaled back quite a bit and am now much more focused on neighborhood, community, and city level activism.
Thanks, liferaft, for showing that there are some sane people in the US (of course I know this, I have got a couple of sane friends there, but it is still refreshing to hear of more!)
(And it still has to be proven that *I* will stand up should there be a similar development in Germany! I am confident, though. ;-))
Cheers,
Davidyson
Why? One word: fear. Fear of a "existential" threat - "Islamofascism" - against the American Way Of Life.
airdale,
While I don't "hate America" in the jingoistic sense that your administration uses the phrase, I will cop to having some very negative feelings about your country. The main ones are sorrow, anger, revulsion and fear. Sorrow for the way you have all cooperated in the betrayal of some of the loftiest ideals on the face of the planet. Anger over the awful violence you have done to people who have done nothing to you - from Iraq to Guantanamo, from Maher Arar to all your incarcerated pot-smokers. Revulsion for the casual assumption of American exceptionalism that has led to the things like the purple-fingered farce in Iraq, Freedom Fries and the structural adjustment programs of the IMF.
But most of all, there's fear. Fear of the world's most powerful nation run amok. Fear of not knowing if I'm on one of your lists. Fear that if I am it will cost me dearly if I stray into the clutches of your paranoid bureaucracy. Fear of what your insane president may do in Iran, thereby cindering the region that gave birth to civilization. Fear that your country may insist that mine ruin itself making you oil. Fear that the unique combination of paranoia and Manifest Destiny loose in your land will spread its malignancy across the continent.
I will make the obligatory demurral that I like many Americans as individuals. But even there, too many individual Americans I have met show signs of infection from your nation's pervasive dis-ease. In talking to them I come to understand why nobody has stood up yet and said "enough". If it wasn't such a suspiciously foreign designation, I'd say that your citizenry suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, from being held captive for too long by inhuman ideology.
So no, I don't "hate America". I don't want to see your nation laid waste. I do want to see you heal yourselves, and the realization that you probably won't adds to my sorrow. Would it be too much to ask, though, that you at least impeach your president and vice-president? That would give me and the rest of the world so much hope.
Other posters already put the finger on the wound, but let me add one thing: Where I live there is an expression "American situations". It means engaging compulsively in conspicuous consumption, whereby an astounding lack of taste is overcompensated by size and cost.
It is used to express disapproval of, or at least to distantiate oneself from, a phenomenon, since nobody would want to be like that.
(If that sounds overly harsh: it's mainstream talk.)
Six - can you tell us where you are located?
Cheers!
Belgium, you know, that squeaking mouse on de Villepin's shoulder when France denounced the Iraq invasion ;) .
I have to agree. The US has an enormous sympathy potential in the world. Much of it has to do with the can-do attitude it portrays in its cultural exports. Young people who have not been brought up in Madrassas simply love that. But on some other levels the country's self-portrait is a complete failure. The amazing amount of conservation efforts the US puts into its national and state parks (in comparison with other countries which have way less nature left) is completely swamped by the the federal government's GW and energy politics. People do not see what gets conserved for the world heritage there but only what is lost due to other actions.
The US has to either join the club on global issues or it will be politically and in the end also economically isolated. The good news is that even many of the more level-headed republicans seem to get it now. I hope that there will be majorities in both houses to force the administration to change course.
Beyond ecology, the US action in Iraq has put it in a square box with a pitbull painted on it (at least as far as the Germans are concerned which I happen to understand a little bit). You can not expect to act against other people's wishes and then be welcome in their homes. You can, however, expect them to keep you on a distance with a stick as long as you run around barking and baring teeth.
I do see hate coming from Mexico, but not because of the oil, but because of the fence and ever less favorable immigration policies. Yes, poor Mexicans do see the US as a place of last economic resort. It is certainly not a place they want to go to but one where they might have to go to and which, despite all the shit that happens, offers some chance of a future. You take even that away from them and they will certainly not like you more for that.
Yes, this 'can-do' attitude portrayed in its cultural exports is commonly referred to as 'Hollywood bullsh*t', and is not believed by anybody much.
The US attitude is to bullsh*t your way to success. This isn't just my opinion: see expat's post on Walmart in Germany on this very site (it didn't work in that case). I know people that work for US companies in Asia that hold the same opinion: sh*t products and services, just hold out with the BS at tender time and then work your subordinates like slaves if you get the contract.
Nearly everyone outside of the US understands that that nation's self-opinion is entirely illusory. It is a pity that you don't.
"Yes, this 'can-do' attitude portrayed in its cultural exports is commonly referred to as 'Hollywood bullsh*t', and is not believed by anybody much."
Actually, if you ever happen to work for a small company, it is all that matters if you want to enjoy life without getting an ulcer. You need a can-do attitude because sometimes the problems you face seem insurmountable.
You need the same attitude in science, by the way, because the textbooks and the people you work with will usually tell you "Has been tried, didn't work.". The really great scientists are those who say "Maybe we did not try the right way in the past. Let me have another shot at it.". You would be surprised how different the results are from people who can do that consistently from those who stay along the well trodden path. I met a lot of the can-doers, and, guess what? They come in every day with a crazy idea that makes you cringe and you say "Carl totally lost it today!". Half an hour later you stop smiling. An hour later you are crunching Carl's numbers and at the end of the day you go home with this "Son of a bitch! Carl is right... again!" feeling. I was lucky to work for a guy like that for a couple of years. It was the best time of my life. I learned ten times more from him than I learned from anyone else.
"Nearly everyone outside of the US understands that that nation's self-opinion is entirely illusory. It is a pity that you don't."
Actually, I do understand it from the inside. But the self-illusion is not the can-do-attitude. The self-illusion part is that you can-do-better-than-others.
You think that the American farm boy who has a life to lose can be made into a better fighter by technological attachements than the crazy Muslim who has a heaven to gain when he dies. Big mistake. The Muslim wins when he wins. The Muslim wins when he loses. The Muslim wins when you don't win. The Muslim wins when you get tired. The Muslim wins because he has nothing to lose. And all the time you go broke paying for the high-tech attachements.
You think that the US automobile worker who spends his spare time in front of the big screen tv with a sixpack has an advantage over the Chinese factory worker who wants to desperately escape the poverty of their village. Bad idea.
You are going down, indeed. But not because of your cultural message but because of the lessons that others have learned form you when you were at your best! You need to re-learn to listen to others rather than trying to shout them down. You were the masters, indeed, but now your eager students are surpassing you. Just look at the power of capitalism in China. It might be based on the same BS you teach in business school. Except: they have ten times the capacity for it at one half the cost.
The roots of how America is perceived globally are better explained here: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-27.htm
" While the U.S. is envied, I see little evidence of hatred outside of the usual suspects, e.g. Islamic extremists. "
Read it and Weep.
Why Nemesis is at the US's door By Chalmers Johnson
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IB01Aa01.html
I hate to disillusion you, but this is untrue, and increasingly so. Americans are widely hated even in the Anglophone world, which I, as an Australian, am part of (yes, many us of really do hate you).
As for the 'envy'...please do not make me laugh. As I understand it, it is typical for people in the US to receive 2 weeks annual leave. This is the standard that applies in Hong Kong, where there is not even a pretence of democracy and everyone understands that their society is run solely for the benefit of employers. In Australia, you can expect four weeks: in Germany, six. Hey, I know where I would rather live. And, with the exception of desperate Mexicans who have no other First World country to run to, so does everyone else.
Don,
Have you been outside the US? US is not very popular at all in many of the first world countries, and don't ask mexicans what they think about US-americans. They would love to have the same standard of living but that's another thing.
I have to disagree. I have lived outside the US for many years, mostly in Mexico -to be specific. I don't run into a lot of outright hate fortunately, but I do come across it from time to time. Things have definitely gotten uglier in the last few years. Much more common is a lower key, but not unspoken, widespread resentment. PRECISELY because Americans are seen as overbearing, arrogant, hogs. The lower you go on the social scale -especially in the cities- the more common this is.
Wow. Are most USians really arrogant enough to believe this?
Wow.
I would suggest to you that at least some portion of the billions of people living in poverty would love to immigrate to the U.S., but they would equally love to immigrate anywhere where they could have a healthier life. It is strange to me that USians believe they have a monopoly on higher living standards and "freedom". As for "living the American dream" - surely the legions of poor in the U.S. are wondering what that's all about. There are countries in the world with poverty rates half that of the U.S. The U.S. is near the bottom of "industrialized" nations in terms of newborn mortality (e.g. 3 times more likely to die in first year than Japanese babies). The recent hurricane in New Orleans shows how large the social problems are in the United States. Racism still looms large. There is no health care for those who cannot afford it. Pollution is a huge issue in many large cities. The murder rate in the US is nearly quadruple that of its neighbour to the north. etc. etc.
I'm not suggesting other places in the world are a panacea, just suggesting to you that you are viewing the world with blinkers on if you think the general view of the United States is one of envy.
A poor country, consuming 10% of the oil that we consume, is faced with the prospect of reducing its consumption, so that they can try to export more oil to the the US.
You make it sound like Mexico is exporting oil because it somehow feels it has to feed the gringos' enormous appetite.
They do it for the cash. US is addicted to oil. Mexico is addicted to oil revenues.
Same with Canada's oilsands. I've heard people say the US was raping northern Alberta.
Ohhh it's definitely consensual. And should the prostitute ever cry, "Rape!", at little scepticism wouldn't hurt.
As noted up the thread, we are viewing the future using the rear view mirror of expanding food and fuel supplies as a guide. What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies? (Obviously enough, a zillion people have raised this issue before me.)
What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies?
This is a question that a lot of light can be shed on by studying history, especially economic history. It is by no means a huge unknown.
BTW, currently the Mexican poor are obese:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3507918
It just hit me again how rational it is for the poor of so many nations (very much including the US) to pack on the pounds in good times
These people are hauling their reserves around with them. Perhaps we need some data on theoretical depletion rates of fat folks when calorie intake is constrained to say 1500 per person.
The Wall Street Journal says Mexico has laws against hoarding corn that are rather hefty.
But if corn is carried as fat in your body, you are not hoarding, are you?
Obesity is a huge worldwide problem. The ethanol industry will help use some of the extra calories but this will still be a problem. In fact, worldwide obesity is a bigger problem than peak oil.
Keithster, you need to get out a little more. It's a big (hungry) world out there.
Yeah that last line was flamebait but worldwide obesity is the bigger problem than hunger. Don't take my word for it,
take Harvard's
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/symposium/sacks_files/v3_document.htm
or the UN's
I'm a bit of a fat fuck myself. Though not quite technically obese.
So, I have reserves. And since my early 30's reserve growth has been steady.
I guess it's really an SPR since the energy is there for using. No production needed.
Adding to it is very cheap. 10 kg of white flour (36,000 cals) sells for $7 Canadian in Toronto. 8 kg of rice goes for the same amount. At least for some brands, anyway.
Peak oil, if it come soon enough, just might stop me from getting diabetes.
Ha! Ha!
Well, if we in New England ever experience Peak Donuts, there WILL be hell to pay!
Oh, it's a religion here, too. When I walk down the street toward my condo with a box of donuts, I draw more eyes than Pamela Anderson topless. And from both sexes. Well, at least the box does.
People stare at it. They can already feel the soft sweet pastry on their tongues, and the sugar in their veins.
No one does donuts better than the Canadians. I grew up in Buffalo, NY, and we would get a lot of Canadian stuff our way. Tim Hortons in the morning and Labatts after work. It was great! Guaranteed reserve growth though.
That's an interesting statistic. No surprise, I suppose that "obesity" appears to escalate as incomes increase" though, at least within the US, I suspect that the poorest are those that suffer most from being overweight (I'm sure I could find documentation for this but I don't have time at the moment). Anyway, it's nice to know that we are all going to pot together, I guess.
deleted dupe
lot of biodiesel walking around out there!
Well, not so much as you might think.
I calculated that if we would use the energy content of 5 billion people (leaving us, the Western countries alive and burn the third world) we could only fuel our world with it for 7 days....
for an addict, seven days is a virtual lifetime.
Revival of the coal industry offers another solution. Since there will be limited fuel and no feed for draught animals, we may as well employ the fat poor at the pithead. Dickens, Orwell and a host of others can describe how this is done. Once this program is instituted I can assure you Keithster, that there will be no more poor.
We can overcome that drawback by sending you down the pit in their place.
Dormez bien, mon ami.
Thank you for spelling hoarding correctly.
That's easy. One pound of fat can be converted to 3500 (kilo)calories. So, as a very simple example, if a (relatively tall) person needed 3250 calories per day and their intake was 1500 calories per day - a deficit of 1750 per day - they would lose one half a pound per day. 30 pounds of fat would be gone in two months.
Think of it as about as useful as the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve. It will get you through a supply disruption, but it isn't going to keep you going much beyond that.
(Of course, there are people who are small enough to be able to maintain their weight on 1500 calories per day. In the event of a long-term food crisis the Small Shall Inherit The Earth.)
"What happens when we have to start dividing up declining food and fuel supplies?"
A lot more people will be driving one of these:
http://www.rodneyhide.com/images/uploads/side.jpg
or these:
http://zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=242
or one of these:
http://www.japanparts.com/shop/pic/cars/prius.jpg
or just one of these:
http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/mercedes-benz-carbon-bike.jpg
And we will eat more of this:
http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/veggies/images/broccoli.jpg
rather than that:
http://www.cow-sensation.de/MuKuh.jpg
:-)
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks and I'm wondering...re: "Energy consumption tax". Have you had time to give some thought to how this might 1) work? 2) be put in place? And could you spell it out and explain further?
Would this be then, basically a sales tax? I.e., it would function like a sales tax functions?
And be levied by whom? in what manner? on what goods, products, services (as well?) etc.? And then, at the point of consumption?
How would this impact corporate income tax or would it?
Have you thought about how to make sure the proceeds are routed appropriately and what ends would you consider appropriate?
What do you think of Simmons comment (and a couple of TODers as well seem so share the view) that he's opposed to an increase in gasoline tax? Could we have some expansion, discussion (and perhaps even some shared ideas) on this topic?
I would levy an energy consumption tax at the point of use--gas station; business and commercial points of consumption, etc.
IMO, I think that an energy consumption tax of some sort is inevitable.
As far down in the distribution chain as possible: with many buyers, its more difficult to evade. Also, when taxing in bulk at the top, companies would gain much power how to distribute the tax over their customers.
( double post )
The latest statistics down here on australian news radio re oil consumption stated u.s.americans are consuming 23 bbls of crude per person per annum. In china it is 1 bbl. Whilst you may be trending down, the chinese nuvo middle class is both growing in size and appetite.Short term predictions ussume 5 bbls per chinese citizen per year.Thats an extra 8 billion bbls per annum and exponentially rising pre 2010.This may take the heat out of your public enemy # 1 theory.
The implications are dire indeed, and end up with an outpost of the Bolivarian Revolution on your southern doorstep.
I have posted a small analysis of the situation here. In it I predict that the troubles will start in three years. I now think that's overly optimistic.
Glider, your link doesn't work.
Dang. That'll teach me to test my links before I post. Try this.
"Cantarell's Postulate" - "Declining per capita oil production must equal emigration to maintain the status quo"
Get ready for an invasion from the south. Or a local war here.
I think the hispanic population is aready getting the red X as to being a major problem here in the US. Local "minutmen" take camera's and harass would be day jobbers. Ex military qouted in paper with references to "killing little brown ....."
In May 2008 there is supposed to be a national ID ("Real ID")required for anyone living in the US to get gov' services, jobs, etc.. Part of Homeland security regs. Several stories about passing local laws fining landlords who rent to illegals.
...may we live in interesting times...
you want the mil-gov rfid chip jammed up your ass or you want the new tatoo version they're coming out with? I haven't decided which I'll opt for.
I suggest another outcome. You need to look at US population growth rates and project those forward. In another 20 years the Spanish speaking population will be about 40% of total US population. Given that only 50% of the population exercises the franchise this should give Spanish speakers the opportunity to form whatever government they wish.
All other immigrant groups assimilated. They may have started as Germans, or Irish, or whatever, but by the second generation they were Americans (if IP had not used the word "flats" he would have passed undetected). The Spanish speakers appear to remain within their own linguistic bloc; I do not see them assimilating as did prior generations of immigrants.
I think this will be good for America. There will be a resurgence of genuine religious belief, a much deeper appreciation of community, and the issues of intergenerational welfare, much more respect for those on the lower rung of society who are seeking to bootstrap their way up.
The aristocrats of America, the monied lords, the folks who shared the secrets of Skull and Bones; these members of the Ancien Regieme may end up in the KBR work camps if they do not have the sense to flee to a state that will welcome them with open arms. Some place like Iraq perhaps. Or maybe the Congo or Lower Volta. Or some location with no extradition treaty with the US such as Bushturkestan.
This will be a great America, a resurgent America, one the entire world can respect, an America that will no longer see the world as its Pinata for it shall have the real thing at home.
Oh yes, an unassimilated linguistically and culturally distict poor minority, and an new minority that is wealthy and feeling increasingly beseiged is always a recipe for good times.
don't you worry, KBR is building camps for the "implications" and for anybody here who gets out of lineto boot:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2006/BushCheneyCrisis.html