Prepared Statement of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-6-MD) for the US-China Economic and Security Commission Hearing on Energy
Posted by Prof. Goose on June 16, 2007 - 11:37am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: china, congress, peak oil, roscoe bartlett, united states [list all tags]
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Hearing on Energy
June 15, 2007
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before the Members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concerning energy.
The Commission has been charged to examine and report to Congress about energy considering: “The effect of the large and growing economy of the People’s Republic of China on world energy supplies and the role the United States can play (including joint research and development efforts and technological assistance), in influencing the energy policy of the People’s Republic of China.”
Energy is a topic of intense interest and concern to me. I have been studying energy, and in particular oil, for the past 40 years. I believe that energy will be the dominant issue affecting our nation and our world in the 21st Century. In 8,000 years of recorded history, we are 150 years into the Age of Oil. This period of 150 years has lulled Americans, but not our counterparts in China, into a false sense of complacency. (Much more under the fold)
I am among few people in America and the West who believe that we’re about half-way through the Age of Oil. I say that, although all petroleum experts acknowledge that the world will peak in oil production – reach a maximum – with declining production at ever increasing costs after that time. Most petroleum experts reviewed in a March 27, 2007 GAO report that I commissioned project that for all practical purposes peak is imminent – that it will occur before 2020. Global peak oil might not be a problem if demand were not increasing exponentially about two percent per year. Because demand is increasing and the U.S. is the most oil dependent economy in the world, GAO projects the consequences of peak for the U.S. will be devastating. After the world peaks in oil production we’ll continue to use oil for about another 150 years – but in declining amounts, instead of the increasing amounts that we’re used to.
Most people in the world and certainly most Americans are ignorant of peak oil. The Chinese are not. Peak oil was first publicly identified as a phenomenon by American oil geologist M. King Hubbert in a speech on March 8, 1956. He had noticed that all oil field production follows a bell curve. It increases, reaches a peak in production and declines thereafter. He reasoned that if you added up all of the peaks from many fields, you could calculate the peak for larger regions, countries and the world. In 1956, he projected that the U.S. lower 48 states would peak in production in 1970. At that time, the U.S. was the King of world oil production -- the biggest oil producer and consumer in the world. Hubbert was vilified. But he was right on. The U.S. peaked in oil production in 1970. Hubbert predicted the world would peak about now. If Hubbert was right about the U.S. and the U.S. is a microcosm of the world, why wouldn’t he be right about the world? In fact, 35 of the 48 major oil producers in the world have peaked in oil production.
I led a delegation of nine Members of the House Armed Services Committee on a trip to China over the New Year that focused on energy. Without exception, every Chinese official that we met began our discussions by telling us that they were planning for “post-oil.” Post-oil. The Chinese are planning for global peak oil in 2012. They are planning now for a world without oil as a major energy source. I wish our government leaders and Americans understood the necessity to prepare for a post-oil world.
The Chinese understand that the Age of Oil will be a blip in world history. Global peak oil will not be the end of oil – but it will be the end of cheap oil and cheap energy. Because we have built a lifestyle and a civilization in the United States that is totally dependent upon cheap oil and cheap energy, peak oil poses a challenge that our country must overcome.
I referred earlier to a report that I commissioned by the GAO. This was the fourth federal government report warning about peak oil. The Department of Energy commissioned two reports about peak oil by a team led by Robert Hirsch so they’re known as the Hirsch reports. The first Hirsch report was released in February 2005. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commissioned a report released in September 2005. I also recommend the Commissioners read a an incredibly prescient speech about energy given by Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy just about 50 years ago on May 14, 1957. All of these reports and the Rickover speech are posted on my website at www.bartlett.house.gov/EnergyUpdates.
What concrete steps can we observe that China is taking to prepare for peak oil and post-oil? They have a five point plan. 1. Conservation 2. Increase the proportion of domestic sources of energy. 3. Diversify sources of energy. 4. Limit negative impact on the environment 5. Engage in international cooperation. These are exactly the correct steps and steps that the U.S. should be undertaking.
I have attached to my testimony two charts. The first is called The World of Oil. It depicts countries based upon the proportion of oil reserves. The second chart illustrates that China is scouring the world and buying up oil assets. They are also aggressively building a blue water navy. They don’t need a blue water navy for Taiwan. American government officials have told me the Chinese don’t understand that in a world market, energy is fungible. I don’t find this argument at all persuasive. I think China is preparing for a world where resource nationalism, not market forces govern the allocation of energy. China is preparing for cooperation or confrontation to address a post-oil world.
The U.S. is not preparing at all.
America and the world will transition from fossil fuels, including oil, to sustainable, renewable sources of energy. We can choose to do it on our timetable or we can be forced to transition by geology. What America needs to do to avoid a really bumpy ride from peak oil, and this will require Presidential leadership, is to develop a program with three attributes: the total commitment of World War II; the technology focus and intensity of the Apollo program to land a man on the moon; and the urgency of the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these points in more detail. Thank you very much.
Ed by PG, two attached documents (.pdf alert)
Congressman Bartlett continues to be tireless in his efforts to light a fire under Congress on our energy problem. I hope they look to him once there is a smoking gun, as hes been thinking about these issues for a very long time.
It was quite counterintuitive and impressive that James Woolsey recently said that one of the top policy recommendations for the US would be to first help the chinese scale their renewable infrastructure, implying that the geopolitical game of Risk would begin if one country could run on renewables and the other not. I tried to find that text link but couldnt - if anyone has it please try to post.
I like Roscoe!!
In May I caught an hour long presentation he gave to Congress. Spot on..and I think this letter is spot on.
I would like to hope we can wake up, but even if we did is there time to do anything but duck and cover?
Nate; the latest move in industrial manufacturing IS starting to evolve,.. moving services down to mexico from china. Lets hope Someone from China reads Bartlett's prepared statement. Co-operation is indeed the goal if we are going to get through this issue.
Regards OCB
I really appreciate the great work that Congressman Bartlett does for our country. He seems like the kind of Republican my grandfather was but has been buried by the neoconartists-conservative but tolerant of others,honest and a gentlemen. He truly shows his love of the United States by being willing to tackle the energy problem in the world..
What an amazing Republican and congressman! What a decent man! It's hard to believe that he got elected in this country!
I wonder how the latest saber rattling from Russia figures into the geopolitical equation of Russia-China relations and ensuring long term oil supply:
well......
the path to war with Iran still seems to be escalating:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17886.htm
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Joe Lieberman blurted on "Face the Nation," adding, "To me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training those people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
Hi all,
I'm totally new to TOD, so pardon me if I sound naive at all. Anyway, I just ordered a bunch of books about Peak Oil and I'm trying to find legitimate sites to learn as much as I can. So far this is my favorite site. Lifeaftertheoilcrash.net was what first sparked my interest in this. That site is awfully scary. Anyway, I'm a father of two very young children and I'm terrified for their future and all of ours for that matter. I'm glad to know that at least one politician is trying to sound the alarm bells. Why won't anyone listen to him? I just wish that one of the questions at one of these presidential debates asked what the candidates would do to address Peak Oil. That would be very interesting.
I hava a few questions for all of you:
1. What are the best books to buy to learn about Peak Oil?
2. What are the best cities to survive in a post oil world? In the U.S. and outside. Chances are slim I'll ever leave the U.S.
3. What are the best skills to possess for a post peak world?
4. where do you invest money today to prepare for this? I don't want to have cash, I'm not wild about gold or real estate. What is the safest and smartest investment vehicle starting now and as we get closer to P.O.?
5. Do any of you have solar panels on your homes? Does this investment make sense right now? How about a small wind turbine?
6. Any other tips would be greatly appreciated so that I can join into these amazing discussions that you all are having.
Thank you!
A very concerned father of two.
Greg
Greg,
I'm going to reply on today's Drum Beat so there isn't thread drift here.
Todd
Repository of relevant prep articles at LATOC:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Prepare.html
You might find Dmitry Orlov's articles particularly helpful.
Invade Iraq.
tavor wrote
"I just wish that one of the questions at one of these presidential debates asked what the candidates would do to address Peak Oil. That would be very interesting."
Yes, precisely what has been going through my head. I also wonder if PO will even be brought up in any of the debates for the '08 election. It will be very disappointing if it is not, and I will lose absolutely all confidence in politics if no one even mentions oil depletion.
Although, I can understand why no one would want to ask or be asked about it--since there really is no "answer", just a quiver of silver BBs. In any case, even if a point-blank PO question was asked of one of the candidates during a major debate, I can right now see what the responses would be--all straw men: "ANWR, ethanol, nuclear, solar, wind, etc".
Ron Paul was sort of asked this question, and that's how he responded... He also said, and I quote verbatim:
"I don't worry about running out of oil, alternative fuels will come in and we'll just let the market work."
Paul does dig at ethanol, saying it might be a waste, but he also stupidly says (and the audience doesn't seem to blink) that "we shouldn't be subsidizing corn, we should be subsidizing sugar cane, it doesn't make any sense."
Ummm, last time I checked sugar cane grows in tropical climates, and doesn't fare so well in the midwest...
It's at the end of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqrj-Gak_Us&mode=related&search=
(ps I've also heard Giuliani give essentially the same answer--minus ethanol bashing, except he even goes further, to the absurd scenerio that we're gonna have an "exporting biofuels industry". This was during a Bloomberg interview, I'll see if I can find the URL.)
Sugarcane was grown in southern Florida near Belle Glade; it was also grown in Louisiana and Hawaii. Sugar is a great source of energy if you can ride a bike to work.
I looked at the energy project map and learned that the map was out of date. China tried to buy Unocal in 2005, but Chevron bought it instead. If people did not buy Chinese made clothes, the Chinese would not have money to buy oilfields with. The day an American will work for two dollars an hour making clothes and share a tiny condo with an entire extended family, that is the day an American might afford some gas for a moped.
The United States is preparing for peak oil. In 2006 subcompact sales rose 20%.
"Gas Prices Fueling Small Car Sales"
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/222585
Am not sure if investing in a hole in the ground to put oil in (SPR) is as good as some other energy project such as a hydroelectric dam, uranium mine, LNG, clean coal, nuclear reactor, fuel efficient vehicle, heavy oil recovery, deep sea drilling rig, Caspian pipeline etc.
Hmm...that stat is for Canada. The stats it does have for the U.S. said that "sales of small vehicles, including cars and light trucks, as a percentage of total new-vehicle retail sales, have climbed from 26.3 per cent of the market in the first quarter of 2004 to 31.8 per cent in the same three months of this year".
Lots of sugar cane in Texas, too. That's how Sugarland, the suburb of Houston got its name. But labor costs in the US are too high to support a sugarcane industry.
Mr f
Sugar beet is grown in midwest
20th largest US crop by value
Oilmanbob
Labor costs are not the problem with sugar
It's farm subsidies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States
http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,05314.cfm
"The sugar program is truly one of the worst forms of protectionism and is unlike any of our other farm programs"
Kelloggs
http://www.gmabrands.com/news/docs/Testimony.cfm?docid=1368
Rainsong, sugar cane is indeed still being grown South of Lake Okeechobee in FL. However, it is not sustainable ( Peak Soil and Peak Water : ( I don't want to derail the thread but can provide details if wanted.
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
"Ron Paul was sort of asked this question, and that's how he responded... He also said, and I quote verbatim:
"I don't worry about running out of oil, alternative fuels will come in and we'll just let the market work." "
What if the alternative technologies were already available (not considering the ability to conserve and restructure for less transportation and less waste by at least 50%), but the PTB decided 50 years ago that they wanted the oil money instead? What if Dick knows about alternatives and is currently jacking the price of energy to get people accustomed to being dependent upon a System of energy so that we will be willing to pay double or more for a monkey we raised ourselves? Ref: "The Hunt for Zero Point" by Nick Cook
"If you want Change, keep it in your pocket. You vote for a faux president every four years, but you vote for real corporations thousands of times each month. Your money is your only real vote."
You make reality much more complicated (and contradictorily) simple, than it in fact is. I will just state here that I do not agree with your synopsis of how the 20th century rolled out.
Corporations are profit driven. 50 years ago this country (the US) was just coming out of a great depression (which had also spread around the world). During the global depression, democratic processes in countries around the world were harmfully damaged. This led to fascism, and eventually World War II which ended with two nuclear bombs detonated over Japanese cities.
Yes, there are "the powers that be". That does not however mean that we're all living in a David Lynch movie.
After the great depression and WWII it was incumbent upon the ruling classes to figure out how to run things. The federal government, and yes corporations, got together and hashed out a "system".
It is a pronounced mistake to believe that Dick Cheney "knows about alternatives and is currently jacking the price of energy to get people accustomed to being dependent upon a System of energy so that we will be willing to pay double or more..." You are giving the fat, grumpy man way too much credit!
Just because Dick Cheney is an asshole doesn't mean that he is *literally* running the world--aside from the fact, that he kinda is, to the extent that he can. But this is unrelated to your incorrect presumption that Cheney is someone holding-back-the-alternative. Sure, Cheney is enriching his cronies, and doing whatever else his neoconservative hawkish agenda dictates... But that's because he's a corporate bureaucrat!
These problems (PO, CC) were totally off the radar in the late 40s and 1950s (and some would argue havealways been off the radar until very recently), when the real "plans" were set up to "run the world". The Bretton Woods system was setup and that essentially stayed in place until Nixon took us off the gold standard in the early 70s (perhaps because of US domestic peak, and various other issues.) But the system was essentiall, just plain growth driven corporate capitalism. Oil drives growth.
In conclusion, you have vastly over simplified how we got to our "energy situation today".
And, "The Hunt for Zero Point"?? I'd sooner read Sylvia Browne!
The federal government system is bought and paid for, with the exception of a few loose cannons like Bartlett and Paul. The powers-that-be have known about Peak Oil for years and busy themselves figuring out how to use it to continue their franchises.
“The U.S. spends more on the war in Iraq in one day (about $300 million) than it does on the ANNUAL BUDGET for the primary government laboratory that is tasked with renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. As absurd as that is, a recipient of a grant from this lab has developed a 40% efficient solar cell.” http://cryptogon.com/?p=821
>>Just because Dick Cheney is an asshole doesn't mean that he is *literally* running the world--aside from the fact, that he kinda is, to the extent that he can. But this is unrelated to your incorrect presumption that Cheney is someone holding-back-the-alternative. Sure, Cheney is enriching his cronies, and doing whatever else his neoconservative hawkish agenda dictates... But that's because he's a corporate bureaucrat!
>>>>>
I didn't say Dick was an asshole. I didn't even say he's running the world. I said he's controlling the energy.
I was doing test and development work for the Navy when Dick was SecDef. He's not your typical bureaucrat. He gets things done. The typical argument against secret conspiracies is usually bolstered by the common idea that government employees are bumbling idiots and paper-pushers. Many are, and should be sent home with full pay and benefits so we don't have to heat their buildings. Some are not. They are the ones that maintain the System that manages to keep doing things regardless of budgets, politicians, and wars. They are the ones who developed the Tomahawk missile, the nuclear submarine, the Saturn V launch system, and the security systems at places like Groom Lake and Wright-Pat. It isn't all hand-picked contractors. There are bright, effective technologists working every day to keep you from knowing what they are doing. And Dick and G.H. Bush have managed them all.
>>>>>
These problems (PO, CC) were totally off the radar in the late 40s and 1950s (and some would argue havealways been off the radar until very recently), when the real "plans" were set up to "run the world". The Bretton Woods system was setup and that essentially stayed in place until Nixon took us off the gold standard in the early 70s (perhaps because of US domestic peak, and various other issues.) But the system was essentiall, just plain growth driven corporate capitalism. Oil drives growth.
>>>>>>>>
Read "Empire of Oil" by Harvey Connor. copyright 1955.
The oil business in Texas was running the country then, and that was when the world was using a million barrels of oil per day, tops. How much power do you think they plan and run now that the same corporations and Bilderbergs are delivering 100 times as much, at 50 times the price?
Peak Oil may have been off the radar, but the power of oil was not.
>>>>>>
In conclusion, you have vastly over simplified how we got to our "energy situation today".
And, "The Hunt for Zero Point"?? I'd sooner read Sylvia Browne!
>>>>>>
Yes, I pick and choose my analogies to make a point. You can't make a point if you spend 2 hours talking about the oil refining capacities and price structures of East Timor when the power and the money is all running through Petrodollars, Saudi Kings, and the illusion of a free market.
By categorizing the two together, you display your ignorance and your inability to see how bad things really can be. Why would we go to war knowing it will destroy the one source of oil that hasn't been tapped yet? Greg Palast tells you why in the short term: To control the price of Saudi oil so that the investors can depend on their predictions.
If it happens to dovetail with a New World Order, all the better.
Crazy Conspiracies? No crazier than suggesting that General Motors conspired to make America's cities dependent upon bad bus systems so that customers would get frustrated and buy cars. THAT was the GOVERNMENT's winning prosecution. The sadder part is that it didn't influence the path of GM in any way. They just paid the fines and kept buying up electric trollies and burning them.
The miscalculation on the part of the PTB is climate change, however. (and the extent that oil prices went up, how fast, and that us idiots keep buying gas even though we can't afford it.)
Two more books:
"Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black
"With Speed and Violence" by Fred Pearce
"He's not your typical bureaucrat. He gets things done."
Well, I never said that bureaucrats don't get things done, especially really good ones like Cheney--who, you're right, most certainly gets a lot done! That's not our problem here, that's not what we are disagreeing about.
Rather, our disagreement stems from how much power "they" have over our "capitalist" market based system. Your position is that "they" are literally holding back alternatives, literally controlling the markets. They try, and yes, I agree with you, that now Iraq is sort of a buffer zone for holding the flood gates closed as long as possible--trying to control Saudi behavior and intimidate Iran. However, I proclaim there are no alternatives to hold back. So now that we know what we disagree on, lets evaluate the relevant evidence.
In the post that started this, you wrote:
"What if Dick knows about alternatives and is currently jacking the price of energy to get people accustomed to being dependent upon a System of energy so that we will be willing to pay double or more for a monkey we raised ourselves?"
I'll note here, that if Dick is doing what you describe above then in fact you are, for all intents and purposes, calling him an asshole--don't worry, I don't mind and concur! But, that is a big "what if". You'd better have some big evidence to back it up. Do you?
I will not argue with statements like "the federal government system is bought and paid for"--which Bigelow wrote. To me that is an obvious truism. However, I do vehemently disagree that there is a conscious conspiracy for "them" to hold back "alternatives".
I own a copy and have read "Empire of Oil" by Harvey Connor.
I think the following quote may inform our discussion:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” -- Adam Smith
You write,
"you display your ignorance and your inability to see how bad things really can be."
You are right, things are pretty bad and probably will get worse, imho. Need I say more?
Be careful with Greg Palast, as in the past he actually has misunderstood peakoil and for brief period denied the reality of it.
You write,
"General Motors conspired to make America's cities dependent upon bad bus systems so that customers would get frustrated and buy cars."
I agree with this, there is ample evidence in the historical record, makes logical sense, has been well documented and is surely a travesty if I've ever seen one.
Concluding... Thanks for letting me know about "Internal Combustion" and "With Speed and Violence", they merit a lot more consideration than books discussing zero point energy. That author could have saved some time and learned the most foundational rules in the history of modern physics, the laws of thermodynamics, which haven't been significantly modified since the late 19th early 20th century...
Internal Combustion by Edwin Black is an eye-opener. Black also insists pressuring corporate and government fleet managers to go ‘green’ would push alternatives much faster. He writes “Government purchases alone could spur the rapid adoption of any category of alternative fuel vehicle -- hydrogen or otherwise.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/ING3JLM9771....
The author must not have researched Natural Gas much because Internal Combustion, I think mistakenly, suggests NG vehicles are one alternative to oil. Peak Natural Gas: http://www.321energy.com/editorials/darley/darley102105.html
Honda Civic GX NGV (Natural Gas Vehicle) http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+G...
“Phill is the world's first appliance that lets you refuel your Natural Gas Vehicle indoors or outdoors from your household natural gas line!” http://myphill.com/
While you observation about the lack of change in foundational rules is accurate, it also ignores the state of inquiry of those rules specifically, for example the inquiry into dark matter/energy.
This is NOT a static situation.
I first learned of the inquiry via a website in '95 and have loosely kept up on developments off and on since then.
The reason for my interest can be traced back to '78 though. I was in US Air Force basic electronics training. At one point the instructor indicated that heat was always given of in circuit operation – and that was considered waste.
The thought that went through my head was 'We must be doing something wrong!'.
I still believe that.
Where IS that 'Theory of Everything' ?
Here
it is !
Hate to jump in on good bickering, but extracting ZPF energy has little to do with thermodynamics, so that is a red herring criticism. But I think that if not a complete wild goose chase (which there are very good arguments that it well might be), ZPF energy extraction is so far away, and will require so much in the way of resources to get us there that it will not have any impact on the Peak Oil energy crisis.
For the record, yes I am a physicist by training. (And I have actually spent time with one of the leading ZPF proponent teams and am well versed on their work but that is another story for another time.)
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
And soybeans don't grow well in tropical climate... That is why Brazil competes head to head with the US in total production. Brazilian people will call you a liar if you tell them that soy-beans are a subtropical culture. And if you are not satisfied with soybean, take a look at the newest exporters of weat.
There is a difference tough, Brazil decided to invest on agricultiral technology, US decided to invest in agricultural lock-in (ask Monsanto about that). One can always develop new varieties of plants, taller, smaller, resistant to hotness or cold. The US could have developped some canae able to grow well at your climate.
If you started 10 years ago, you'd have very nice results by now. But maybe it is too late.
If you started 10 years ago, you'd have very nice results by now
BS !
Ten years is hardly enough time for any significant breeding program. And a significant move north for sugar cane is not in the cards.
The delta between South Louisiana sugar cane and Florida is significant in yields. Further north (like Central Louisiana), yields drop more and not worth planting. US sugar cane is harvested on a 2 year cycle, Brazil on a single year cycle.
One cannot grow mangoes, coffee, bananas OR sugar cane in the MidWest. 10 degrees north is about the maximum that humans can move plants outside their natural range and have them prosper. South Louisiana is close to that limit for sugar cane.
Alan
BTW, the American Chestnut Foundation is within sight of the end of a 50+ year breeding program to incorporate resistance from Chinese chestnut into American chestnut trees.
I agree that you should go to the LATOC site (life after the oil crash). Matt Savinar has done some great work. I gave out his book at farmers markets. Nobody wanted it.
I gave it to relatives. Nobody read it.
We aren't addicted to oil, we are addicted to Comfort. We have spent the last 100 years replacing people on small farms with petroleum-based methods. And that is on farms, where money is scarce. Our society has become so addicted to the comforts of oil that they don't know they are using it most of the time.
We are approaching a hole in a solid rock wall. Whatever can fit through that hole will survive, and meanwhile, Dick Cheney and his ilk are trying to bomb the hole bigger, but only filling it with debris and radiation.
Get to know your neighbors and your real needs: food, clothing, shelter. Understand the difference between a need and a want. Every purchase is an ethical decision about what your Net Creativity is going to be. Our species has been proud consumers for a long time, and now we will be forced to reduce our consumption until we show a net Creative balance with Nature.
"Good" things are determined by whatever we do that benefits the most of the world FOR THE LONGEST TIME. Sucking 3 billion years of sunlight out of the ground and spewing it into the atmosphere in a couple of centuries can't be considered a long-term plan in any way.
"I'll kill a man in a fair fight; or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight; or for money; or if there's a woman. But EATIN' people? When does THAT get fun?" 'Jayne', "Serenity"
just means you'll have more copies to use as toilet papaer or burn to keep warm for yourself once TSHTF.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Won't comment about your first suggestion Matt, but I have to say burning it won't be necessary, at least the way my peeps treated it, like it was RADIOACTIVE.
FWIW I consider The Oil Age is Over to be the definitive Peak Oil primer. Thanks.
Please take a few minutes to ask a question regarding Peak Oil and upload it for the CNN/YouTube debates - http://www.youtube.com/debates.
Ask others you know who are Peak Oil aware to do the same thing.
____________________
MySpace.com/ziontherapy
I'm going to have my 3 year old boy ask for the debates on the CNN/YouTube page: "Mr. candidate, what do you plan on doing so that the world I inherit doesn't look like the world of Mad Max in a post peak oil world?
Dress him nice and make sure he smiles - CNN is a sucker for cute
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
We do have a presidential candidate who is PO aware. It is Bill Richardson. He is not afraid to say what needs to be said. He has some momentum right now, and is coming up in the polls. A link to his website is here, at which he is inviting public review and comments on his energy policy.
Following, are a few quotes from his website:
Governor Bill Richardson is a recognized leader with a record of action and accomplishment on energy, security and climate. His action plan lays out his bid to become "The Energy President."
Engaging Automakers in the Solution.Within a month of taking office, President Richardson will convene a White House Summit on implementing "no and low" petroleum transportation technologies. The summit will include automakers, labor, energy producers and utilities, and will structure the market pushes and pulls to meet the plug-in vehicle targets. Incentives to achieve the targets should consider the needs and requirements of existing auto manufacturers and the labor force, and those of new entrants into the vehicle manufacturing marketplace.
Research. The federal government will provide $1 billion in battery and materials research, development and demonstration in the first three years of the program.
Sharply increase fuel economy. Double CAFE standards to 50 mpg by 2020 (35 mpg by 2016). Unlike some other proposals, this standard would applied to all conventionally powered (non-electric) cars, SUV's, and light trucks.
While considering long-range issues such as metro area design, we must dramatically increase our transportation options and provide convenient and efficient public transit, both within metro areas and intercity. We should also support urban planning that promotes walking and biking, reduces urban sprawl by more carefully matching housing development to job location, and enhances the "livability" indicators in our communities.
Public transportation and intercity high-speed rail.Increase funding for public transit and investigate high-speed intercity rail options that will reduce energy demand in selected corridors. Provide tax incentives for more people to use transit.
Vast energy savings -- perhaps 50% by 2030, as recommended by the American Institute of Architects and the U.S. Green Building Council -- can be achieved through building design, lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation, and energy-efficient walls, doorways, and windows.
Bill Richardson is the Pillsbury dough boy of defunct diplomacy.
What did he do when he was Energy Secretary?
And, beside, he has no chance... He's just playing up his PR/hype bandwagon so he can get a cabinet seat if a Dem is elected president.