I wonder how the latest saber rattling from Russia figures into the geopolitical equation of Russia-China relations and ensuring long term oil supply:
Two new types of ballistic missiles will guarantee Russia's security for decades, the army daily quoted the commander of strategic missile forces on Thursday as saying.
President Vladimir Putin has made the strengthening of Russia's armed forces a top priority. He has singled out strategic missiles as key instruments to ensure Russia's military security.
Russia last month tested the RS-24, a new intercontinental missile with multiple warheads which can be independently targeted.
Top officials said it was capable of breaking through any existing or potential missile defenses, such as those planned by the United States.
"One can be absolutely sure that the new RS-24 missile together with the Topol-M mobile and stationary missile complexes will guarantee Russia's security for the next 20-30 years," Krasnaya Zvezda daily quoted General Nikolai Solovtsov as saying.
He said the deployment of RS-24s would start in the next few years.
Russian officials have said that a U.S. decision to withdraw from the Soviet-era Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to go ahead with the creation of a new missile defense system has sped the development and introduction of the RS-24.
"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.
"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...
(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%.
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.
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.
"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....
“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/
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
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
Ummm, last time I checked sugar cane grows in tropical climates, and doesn't fare so well in the midwest...
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"
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.
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?
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.
So, maybe you'd prefer Hillary, who is also PO aware, yet tells JQP what he wants to hear, that, an echo of the herd mentality, "oil cos. are gouging us, help, don't worry, we'll punish them, and more ethanol is on its way..."
You're right on Hillary--none of the democrats have offered anything insightful or original when it comes to an energy policy. Either they are all idiots, or they are keeping to themselves (I'm guessing a mixture). And with the Elephants it is also more of the same usual crapola.
I'd say it is a crap shoot...
In fact, (the concerned liberal I am) it seems that if a Democrat is elected in '08, and Westexas et al are right, PO may end up falling on the democrats lap--effectively obliterating them, leading hardcore right-wingers to overtake the DLC for the remaining history of the Republic. History repeating itself... Of course, like I said, it is all a crap shoot. Perhaps I am wrong and it would be be beneficial to have Democrats in the White House, but judging from their last performance in the '90s I am skeptical that the Dems have any idea what they are doing (not that the hardcore Republicans do either, in fact they could start WWIII very quickly if they do in fact get elected in '08.)
All I know is that I am very disenchanted with the Governor of the Land of Enchantment, and certainly the whole host of his buddies--not to mention their "opposites" in the creationist camp.
The 2012 election will be won by a Republican know-nothing who claims that the $9/usgl gasoline is the fault of Them Liberal Environazis Who Care More About Salamanders Than Americans and we'll drill our way to prosperity, once again, like Real Amurikans.
And also, screw the emissions and CO2---it's a liberal politically correct myth---we're going to go hog wild with coal.
The 2016 election will be "won" by the Department of Homeland Security.
On paper Richardson looks fairly good. If past history is any guide, being a governor seems to be one of the best routes to the White House (GWB, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, FDR & Wilson were all governors; Coolidge & TR were governors before being VPs). (To be fair, the governor's mansion doesn't always guarantee success; losing governors include: Dukakis, Stevenson, Dewey, Landon, Cox.) His diplomatic and cabinet service make Richardson arguably one of the most highly qualified governors to ever run for the presidency. And while we may nitpick over his energy policy, it is obvious that he actually does know something about the subject and has given it some thought; that's a better baseline when it comes to having to actually adjust to reality.
Unfortunately, the MSM have already decided that it is a 3 person race in each party. 2nd tier candidates only have a chance if one of the anointed "front runners" implodes, and fairly soon at that.
Even more unfortunately, I don't think I have ever seen a race on the Democratic side that is so dominated by candidates with less relevant experience and qualifications than the present top three. We have: a one-term senator; a senator just starting her 2nd term; and a senator that hasn't even finished his first term. And that's it -- that is all that any of them have in the way of a CV. Zero real executive experience (no matter how much the MSM is trying to pretend that "first wife" is executive experience).
Candidates with only US Senate experience that have been successfully elected President: JFK (barely, with a little "help" from the Chicago machine) & Warren G Harding (great President, he); Truman went from the Senate to VP before becoming President. Candidates that were seantors and lost: Kerry, Dole, McGovern, Goldwater. Why all of these senators keep thinking that the US Senate is an ideal or even adequate preparation for the Presidency is beyond me. Judging from the above, most Americans don't think so.
John, Hillary, Obama: We remember JFK, and you're not another JFK. You might just possibly be another Warren G Harding.
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.
So, maybe you'd prefer Hillary, who is also PO aware, yet tells JQP what he wants to hear, that, an echo of the herd mentality, "oil cos. are gouging us, help, don't worry, we'll punish them, and more ethanol is on its way..."
You're right on Hillary--none of the democrats have offered anything insightful or original when it comes to an energy policy. Either they are all idiots, or they are keeping to themselves (I'm guessing a mixture). And with the Elephants it is also more of the same usual crapola.
I'd say it is a crap shoot...
In fact, (the concerned liberal I am) it seems that if a Democrat is elected in '08, and Westexas et al are right, PO may end up falling on the democrats lap--effectively obliterating them, leading hardcore right-wingers to overtake the DLC for the remaining history of the Republic. History repeating itself... Of course, like I said, it is all a crap shoot. Perhaps I am wrong and it would be be beneficial to have Democrats in the White House, but judging from their last performance in the '90s I am skeptical that the Dems have any idea what they are doing (not that the hardcore Republicans do either, in fact they could start WWIII very quickly if they do in fact get elected in '08.)
All I know is that I am very disenchanted with the Governor of the Land of Enchantment, and certainly the whole host of his buddies--not to mention their "opposites" in the creationist camp.
Sadly, this may be true.
The 2012 election will be won by a Republican know-nothing who claims that the $9/usgl gasoline is the fault of Them Liberal Environazis Who Care More About Salamanders Than Americans and we'll drill our way to prosperity, once again, like Real Amurikans.
And also, screw the emissions and CO2---it's a liberal politically correct myth---we're going to go hog wild with coal.
The 2016 election will be "won" by the Department of Homeland Security.
It's almost like TPB (be it Dem or Rep) mistimed P.O.
"WTF! it hasn't happened yet!?"
GWB seemed ready and willing to be Emporer.
Or at least the sock puppet for the invisible hand.
On paper Richardson looks fairly good. If past history is any guide, being a governor seems to be one of the best routes to the White House (GWB, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, FDR & Wilson were all governors; Coolidge & TR were governors before being VPs). (To be fair, the governor's mansion doesn't always guarantee success; losing governors include: Dukakis, Stevenson, Dewey, Landon, Cox.) His diplomatic and cabinet service make Richardson arguably one of the most highly qualified governors to ever run for the presidency. And while we may nitpick over his energy policy, it is obvious that he actually does know something about the subject and has given it some thought; that's a better baseline when it comes to having to actually adjust to reality.
Unfortunately, the MSM have already decided that it is a 3 person race in each party. 2nd tier candidates only have a chance if one of the anointed "front runners" implodes, and fairly soon at that.
Even more unfortunately, I don't think I have ever seen a race on the Democratic side that is so dominated by candidates with less relevant experience and qualifications than the present top three. We have: a one-term senator; a senator just starting her 2nd term; and a senator that hasn't even finished his first term. And that's it -- that is all that any of them have in the way of a CV. Zero real executive experience (no matter how much the MSM is trying to pretend that "first wife" is executive experience).
Candidates with only US Senate experience that have been successfully elected President: JFK (barely, with a little "help" from the Chicago machine) & Warren G Harding (great President, he); Truman went from the Senate to VP before becoming President. Candidates that were seantors and lost: Kerry, Dole, McGovern, Goldwater. Why all of these senators keep thinking that the US Senate is an ideal or even adequate preparation for the Presidency is beyond me. Judging from the above, most Americans don't think so.
John, Hillary, Obama: We remember JFK, and you're not another JFK. You might just possibly be another Warren G Harding.