The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“I'd put my money on solar energy… I hope we don't have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
—Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931
Search The Oil Drum with Google
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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
You don't need to go so far as call it "corruption". It's simply corporations protecting their own interests. After all, they're legally bound to provide maximum profits to shareholders and all that. In principle, there's nothing wrong with this, providing there are sufficient corporations of equal power and influence all excising their own differing agendas.
Unfortunately certain corporations have become far too big and powerful, argubly more powerful than governments, which are at least democratically elected.
wizofaus my Aussie friend,
Maybe your government was democraticially elected, but ours was appointed by the Supreme Court. The New York Times-Miami Herald recount in 2000 showed that Gore won Florida, and hence the election. In 2004 the exit poll didn't agree with the results in a couple of states with Diboll computerised voting. Kerry won that one.
All corporate contributions should be illegal. They are not persons. And the disgusting amounts of money raised for each of the US presidential candidates should make anyone question who is buying what. I see the broadcast airwaves as public property, and the electronic media should be required to give back time to the candidates.
I guess I'm just old fashioned, thinking votes should be counted honestly,and that media have a civic duty in a Democratic society.
Bob Ebersole
Still, if 70% of the population were unhappy about Bush as president at around election time, he wouldn't be there.
But if 70% of the population are unhappy about the way oil companies manipulate or otherwise influence governments and corporations into decisions that are ultimately deterimental to society as a whole, there's relatively little they can do about it. Yes, in principle, they can stop buying oil. But that's hardly a fair comparison with being able to tick a different box on the ballot paper.
"In principle, there's nothing wrong with this, providing there are sufficient corporations of equal power and influence all excising their own differing agendas."
Ah, the idealistic view. How quaint.
Pity we don't live in that world. And even if we did I still would argue that the corporate structure would have an overall negative impact on society. As it happens though, those differing agendas are things like:
A) It's your right to have the freedom to drive wherever and whenever you like in the biggest SUV around, even if it is just to take little Molly to her friend's house, one block down the road.
B) Don't worry if you're getting fat from a poor diet and the refusal to even walk one block down the road, it's not your fault, your sick and we've got this appetite supressing pill that'll do the trick.
C) Be eco-friendly like us, recycle those cans and plastic bottles - it saves energy and it saves the environment - then come in and check out our latest HD 50 inch screen!
D) Housing bubble? What housing bubble? We can finance your next purchase for 5.75% with zero deposit!!
E) Your kid is high from eating processed sugars and preservatives, never mind take a Ritalin.
Oh, and did someone say "lobbying"?
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
I agree entirely. There is more than ample proof that a system of competing corporations on its own is not likely to provide what society as a whole needs.
But in principle, it's possible, if we had more John Mackeys in the world:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32239.html
In principle, anything is possible, including: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Which pretty well sums up our principal 'in principle' problem.
If you know what I mean.
Mark Twain did: “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
What's interesting is that Mackey sincerely believes his flavour of "ethical capitalism" will win in the end, because profits-first capitalism is not competitive in the long-run. I hope he's right, but I suspect he has a rather more optimistic view of human nature than I do (Note: TOD is about the only place I've ever been accused of excessive optimism. Indeed I used to think of myself as a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist.)
In principle, I like to agree with you and like to hope too for what's right, but what I see actually happening reminds me not to. Call it the precautionary principle. ;-)