100 comments on Prepared Statement of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-6-MD) for the US-China Economic and Security Commission Hearing on Energy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Home Buyers Demand Short Commutes, Efficient Homes (with Backyards, Parking, lots of Square Feet)
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
TOD:Europe
- IEA WEO 2008 - Fossil Fuel Ultimates and CO2 Emissions Scenarios
- The IEA WEO 2008: Will coal usage be phased out?
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
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.