 | Lord Oxburgh Warns Oil Demand To Outstrip Supply | The Oil Drum | Talking Energy in Corcaigh (or "Cork" as you probably know it) |  |
Greenspan Claims Iraq War Was Really for Oil
Posted by Prof. Goose on September 16, 2007 - 12:45pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: alan greenspan, oil, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR200709...
Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
More on Greenspan's book from the New York Times.
UPDATE: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's statement that the Iraq war "is largely about oil."
For you new folks (if there are any) coming in: the primers are up at the top of the main page and in the right sidebar if you are just starting to learn about peak oil. We hope you find them informative.
Us MSM carefully avoids the three letter word.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781873/
not on page 2 of that story...it's the same quote.
You made me go and look again, you are right, it's there if much less prominently.
I guess I have so much of a dislike for him that I only pay the most superficial attention to what he says.
He can claim whatever he wants, but he was the one that put the Titanic on a collision course with the iceberg.
"He can claim whatever he wants, but he was the one that put the Titanic on a collision course with the iceberg."
I could not agree more.
I think Greenspan should be sentenced to Death by Stoning - with the stone throwers made up of all the "little people" he used for financial cannon fodder to prop up his serial bubbles.
Greenspan is the ultimate Confidence Man, which made him a perfect candidate for fed chief, obtuse Oz-speak and all.
But what really amazes me, is that even now his fairy tale version of the Greatest Monetary Fraud in history sells and the PTB and MSM continue to treat this monetary golum as some sort of hero.
Yes, Iraq was about Oil -DUH!. And Greenspan aided and abetted the crime. Unfortunately, the sick phuck turned "whistleblower" years too late. And in keeping with is tradition, he turned whistleblower for the sole purpose of trying to salvage his reputation.
My hope is that others come forward and tell the REAL story of the Greenspan Fed - hopefully in a court of law where his Greenspeak will not save him or impress a jury (assuming the jury is not made up of congressional airhead politicians).
Greenspan didn't speak out against Bush and Co, he speaks for them.
He is the "look at the hand" guy who can at this point credibly say things that need to be made public, but can't be through Bush's or Cheney's mouth. He is then the puppet's puppet.
Ali Samsam Bakhtiari looks to be a similar figure. Seemingly turning against a regime, but in reality simple delivering their message. Look for people of high standing, who have recently retired, and you'll see this puppet function everywhere.
ilargi -interesting speculations...
However it's been edited out of the Newsweek version:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20803168/site/newsweek/
They couldn't have him blathering on for a whole boring 2 pages, so they cut it. Neither of the words "oil" nor "war" appears in that story.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
So lets see ... a bank run in Britain ... the former chairman of the Fed speaks up about the Bush administration ... and how much was the gigantic put on the European market?
Something wicked this way comes ... we heard the tremors in advance, but someone knew.
Care to expand on this comment? What exactly were the first and last events?
1) Northen Rock bank, at UK had problems (yesterday's top news here).
2) The current top news.
3) The EU Central Bank have just trow a few bilion euros to save Northen Rock (again, you can find that at yesterday's DrumBeat).
One more:
B-52's "accidentally" loaded with nuclear weapons inserted in their delivery system.
Against signed US treaties; airborne alert of nuclear weapons was canceled in 1968.
In other words, pilots in combat aircraft have not carried live nuclear weapons for decades. Merely putting them on a B-52 as opposed to a secured cargo container would be an extraordinary event, and furthermore the pilots of the bomber would have been instantly alerted by their display as to the status and kind of every munition.
People who have experience dealing with USAF procedures previously have written on blogs and forums at their utter incredulity at the official "accidental" explanation; that there is no possible way this was an accident, and that the safety and procedural checks are immense and stupendously redundant, requring multiple authorizations and serial number checks
And yes, apparently six warheads left. Five were found.
Given all of the supposed safeguards (and I believe they are numerous), and given the incident was entirely within established military operations...
How did this event become public? (who leaked it)
Or perhaps:
Why did this event become public? (why the leak)
I'm not looking for a conspiracy rant, but some educated opinions would be appreciated.
According to the initial news report the source was one or more military officers:
Other comments on the web suggest that they reported it because of thier concern over: 1) unauthorized movement of nuclear weapons; 2) concern with personnel outside the regular chain of command seeking to bypass normal checks on weapon movements for purposes unknown.
Incredible. This is the "Office of Special Plans" racket all over again. Americans need to wake up that the current administration is composed of dangerous kooks.
What we have in Northern Rock is an absolutely classic bank run. The first, old, story is about how people don't believe a word they are told: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6996653.stm
The second, new twist, is about how internet access can be turned off. Depositors who have a internet only account can be ignored: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6997197.stm
Payouts are being slowed - a classic technique to buy time in a bank run. People who get to the front of the queue are being given checks but how good are they?
What matters now is the quality of the loan book (mostly mortgages). If it's ok, and IF someone actually wants to increase their exposure to the UK mortgage market, then Northern Rock will be taken over Monday. If not, then we have a full blown secondary banking crisis which will spread to other building societies.
Remember. Panic early because the exit isn't big enough for all.
Actually the quality of the loan book may be irrelevant even if decent, the problem is that they need to fund it with short term loans in a saturated or falling market.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
^^
Sunday entry
My, what a surprise.
Oh come off it :P Aside from the crack pot Republicans, who DIDN'T think the war was all about oil? :P
Republicans I know understand clearly it's about oil, but don't say so because those lines aren't in the script.
Oh, OK. Not crackpots then. Sock puppets.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
Forget the tiger! Put 1.2 million Iraqis in your tank!
This is more killing than Saddham accomplished. A proud accomplishment for America and Americans.
For numerical perspective:
It should be noted that some of this killing was undertaken with chemical weapons. The precursor chemicals and related technology had been supplied to Saddam by the USA.
It is a good thing that the western nations have immense respect for the sanctity of life and that the term "genocide" has no application to ragheads.
saddam was trying to rule people, not kill them all.
It is much easier to create a colony if you eliminate the existing population. Ask the Israelis' George Washington:
***
"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine, Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.
***
In fairness, his contemporary Jabotinsky said the Arabs had to be wiped out as the Americans had the Indians. So it's not like we haven't done this before.
Especially if you can eliminate the existing population without leaving home:
And the Americans wonder why the Iraqis are trying to kill them and drive them out of Iraq. And Der BushFuhrer claims that this is making the American people safer?
I didn't. I always tought it was mainly about moving govenrment's money into private (contractors) hands.
But I am much more surprised to see that the US governemnt really belived that war was a viable solution than simply discovering that it was all about oil. There is no better way to spend oil than wars.
who DIDN'T think the war was all about oil
I do not.
Many interests are at play.
1) Economy 'needing a bubble' to avoid recession - putting money into items that are consumed/destroyed/does not produce additional productivity is a fine 'sink' for money
2) If you are on the "military" side of the "military industrial Congressional complex." means a check will be written to you.
3) The People and The Constitution cuts a "war time President" slack/gives The Leader extra-special power.
4) Sadam:
4a) Made a mistake of believing another Bush's statement - the one about foreign adventurism
4b) Wanted to break the dollar's power - and did what he could.
5) A previously pliable leader was becoming less flexible - why not replace him?
And one that gets little play:
6) Potable water. Iraq has "more" than many in that region. One web page back 2-3 years ago made a claim that global rainfall changes will only help Iraq's rainfall changes - but I have no idea how true that is, what with GW and rainfall being in the future and all.
The comment deserves a little bit of analysis. What saddens him? Not the war, but the political inconvenience of having to falsely present it, even though everyone knows what it is really about. Why is it politically inconvenient? Because to tell the truth would be to admit that it is an unjustified and naked act of aggression. But if everyone already knows its for oil, then everyone also knows this already. Still, what saddens him? Not the war. And not that people don't know, because they do. What saddens him? That the people cannot yet be directly told the war is about oil. Still, what saddens him? What difference does it make if we play this little game? What's to get sad about?
There's only one possible conclusion: he would rather it be possible that the war aims could be directly spelled out. But again, what's preferable about that? How would things be better? What would be better if it were possible to directly tell the American people: this is a war for oil -- let's go get it?
That would be better because it would mean an end to the debate about the morality of the war -- there would be those who support the empire and its objectives, and those who don't who would be obliged, minimally, to just shut up. It would mean that a majority of the American people had imbibed the spirit if not the letter of Ayn Rand's teachings.
I think it is about oil with respect to the point that Iraq would have been ignored if its primary export were, say, cauliflower. On the other hand, wasn't this war very much about Israel? That doesn't preclude the war being very much about oil, but if Iraq were not near Israel, would it have been perceived as much of a threat?
Further, to say the war is about Israel is not necessarily say it was wrong but to just state one of the primary causes.
Regardless, however, the war was wrong, especially if it was about oil and especially if we were lied to. If we choose to be an empire, let's be up front about it so we can debate the issue on its merits. Empires that pretend not to be empires seem more odious that empires which make no apologies.
We will continue to fight these wars about oil, of course, as long as we see it as our God given right to continue happy motoring and do things like build 5,000 plus foot McMansions. It would be refreshing to see a bumper sticker which read, "Damn Right, It's About Oil, How Do You Think I'm Going To Run This Gas Hog?"
But this was has also been about the neo con wet dream, the wet dream of privatizing the world, starting with Iraq. This war has also been about outsourcing the government and the military and the attendant obscence profits thereto.
What saddens him? What about the idea that obviously democracy is dying?
Democracy is supposedly based on the free distribution of information and competition of ideas. The fact such an immensely important truth can not be spelled out freely and debated, is symptomatic to that democracy is dying. The corruption inherent to our econo-political system is slowly suffocating it... or what is left of it.
Rule by the people is Democracy. This can be fiddle flocked in an infinite number of reasoned diatribes until we all get bluefaced and blown beyond...The bottom line is this; The United States was never intended to be some all inclusive Democracy. It is/was to be a Republic. Now, regardless of whatever abstract leadership has been deemed/supplanted to service this ongoing unworkable political farce does not really matter. Why? Once a societie's money/currency is unnaccountable, then it really does not matter which side of thee said political sphere one rest their bleated opinions upon. The core of honest currency is the stone landing in the great pond (thee Epi center of honest weights and measures)--The preponderances, effects, propositioned motivations, indebtfulness for consumed nonsense, and on and on and on is thus the rippled outcomes stemming from either this false core or this honest core. The outliers will let us know probably when it is much too late. Patching up the donkey or elephant's ass with a new greenish plaid diaper doesnt mean it still wont be quickly filled with more shit.
There is a sovereign currency solution. Great societies are not borne from collective thinktank claptrap nor will their problems be solved by ongoing governmental orders when their issuance of currency is a growing fallacy.
The empire building nonsense and conjecture has this currency fallacy being mimed as a sturdy foundation.... Whatever. BS begets BS until the bluff is called in.
Shrub bashing is comical to me, because the same overwhelming democratic/repub/makes no damned difference majority, will basicly be phucked if another alliance is allowed to guard those ME black goo reserves. This society can not even begin to comprehend the truth, yet they lambaste the efforts of shrub and company like it is for some opaque distanced cause that wollers well beneath their superior green prius panderings. Laughable indeed. I have never been a supporter of any Clintons or Bushes and I find it beyond laughable that the elite fiat money launderers expect us to choke on these two families for a quarter of century-- our wonderous offered up selections for ongoing leadership...Whatever again, Greenspunspin or not.
I will write in Ron Paul, or cast my vote by not voting :o) I know better.
Takecare
I agree with at leasts some of this. Those arguing in favor of going and getting what oil is left ought have the decency to openly admit the motivation. Someone mentioned a bumper sticker. I like: Damn right were taking their oil!
Democratic candidates arguing against the war I think are ethically bound to
1) exlain why we are there
2) put forth an alternative strategy of dealing with our oil dependancy and explicitly stating it means less "stuff".
Do you want war or a garden? I'll go with the latter.
I hear what you are saying, but you raise a question here. Because I am sad in the same way you surmise Greenspan is sad. Because we all know what it is about - oil - but we cannot talk about it honestly and we have to dance the dance, play the game.
I made a somewhat crude comment a while back in a different forum that if you still think this war is not about oil your judgment is not just suspect, it's been tried convicted and is serving life in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison (with thanks to Office Space).
But people still out there hide behind this trigger for cognitive dissonance supported by the pronouncements of our leaders and the Washington elite who figure that everyone knows the truth so we can keep playing the game.
But it is only by having the honest conversation that we can make the American people ask honestly whether it is worth it. i.e. this is the only thing that gives them the clear understanding of how serious it is what we are doing, and honestly how the rest of the world views us (hint: we AIN'T number one, and they don't all love us because of our rock'n'roll and blue jeans)
This will force the American people to ask - why the heck are we persevering here? This would force the leaders to make their case. Just why is it they feel it's so damn important to seize this all - aren't we flush with oil? isn't it going to last centuries? can't our lifestyles go on forever?
Then we can have a grown up peak oil conversation. I have said for a long time that an honest presidential platform would be good about now. Someone that says:
1. Here's what's meant by Peak Oil
2. Here's when we think it's coming
3. Here's the consequences
4. Yeah oh shit!
5. So, I am gonna give you a referendum where you have two choices a) you completely change your lifestyles in every way and we make a WWII style effort to get off oil and save as many of us as we can in the post-Peak crash; b) we go on killing brown-skinned people - I'll do whatever you choose, but there's no skirting responsibility for this. You the American people got us here. You the American people have to take ownership for the mess.
Ain't gonna happen. But I, too, am sad in a similar way to the way you attribute to Greenspan. And I ain't read Ayn Rand.
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
I'd vote for option A - if anyone would actually ask me, which they won't.
yeah me too
plus the truth is option b at best buys time before you have to take option a anyway
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
Nice sincere thoughts. :o)
"I'll do whatever you choose, but there's no skirting responsibility for this. You the American people got us here. You the American people have to take ownership for the mess."
This is absolutely it.
This is why I harp on honest mediums of trade and currency/money.
What is involved in this ownership mess? Really? Just what is it? Is it not the eventual outcome of a societal fallacy built on unaccountable fiat with a clause of ever increased cheap energy providing ever increased happiness?
Consult the initial splash if you want anything close to the truth...Thee otherwised proclaimed geniuses' have many different reverberations/revelations inbetween the progression of outward ripples of thee latest fiat splashdowns of mind abduction.
The real test will be known once the liquid mobility resources peaks and speaks. The reaction will also bring into focus that black mammoned & darkened ideal without as much greased up faux greenery substance behind it. (Unbacked fiat) This is that abstract nonsense we have all been chasing in the growth marathon of so-called life squinting existence. And, yet we have all of this in a world with many more fiat billions of populace chasing that same easy liquid energy component into a better mobility of getting some-nowhere as quickly as possible....Really, what is the rush?
Kunstler's previous book title sums it up best as the "long emergency". Very true, there is not going to be a snapping point of "all awakening" in my humble estimation. It will be this long parade of events working from sequence to sequence as if it were just some big fateful mystery unto life as we knew it....Ongoing shit meeting fan-blades will be just another part of that adjustment.
Human laws only can sustainably work when they do not tramp and run beyond the laws of nature.
Takecare.
Holy smokes! Next thing you know, Cheney will admit that the Native American genocide was "largely about land" or China will spill the beans that the Mongol invasion of Europe was "largely about plunder."
or China will spill the beans that the Mongol invasion of Europe was "largely about plunder."
Or as Forrest Gump would say.
A Plunder is as a Plunder Does
I do not wish to be picky, but the Mongols did not have anything whatsoever to do with China, that is, until they conquered it and (amongst other things) forced Chinese males to adopt ridiculous haircuts on pain of death. So the analogy is not exactly apt.
Fraz--
The Mongols conquered China----
Is our children learning?
But most Americans could not identify Mongolia on a map-
Inner or Outer.
If you want to be really picky, Cheney's ancestors probably had no personal hand in killing Native Americans, either. Thanks for suggestions about better analogies! :)
The foreign press (e.g. Israel and Britain) have been covering this war for oil pretty frankly. The fact that Greenspan's comment would SHOCK! anyone is proof that America lacks a free press.
The haircuts thing was the Manchu not the Mogols same style of warfare and they had Mongol allies, they became the Qing dynasty in 1644. The Mongols were the Yuan Dynasty from 1271 to 1368.
Tahoevallylines ASPO article 374 Second Dimension Surface Transport Logistics Platform
Just as we getting an understanding of living with Ike's Military-Industrial Complex, we are now shifting to the new reality- the Oil Empire. (With apologies to THAT website) Or is it one and the same with a new marquee?
The task is to do some fundamental re-orientation of oil consumption to survive this, or survive as long as possible, maybe. The Greenspan methodology is to tweak things, so here is a tweak on the way we use oil, something to throw the Oil Tarbaby off guard so we can keep moving, maybe. The USA had a mix of transportation modes in the first 2/3rds of the last century, much the same stuff as now, except the rail component was much more in evident.
To use an example that can be readily researched, see the Pacific Electric System in Southern CA, LA & the inland empire, as it was called- Pasadena, Redlands, Gardena, etc. A comprehensive matrix of daytime passenger rail lines, night freight and victuals, local produce terminals for truck pick-up & delivery. All over the USA we can still find remnants of branchline rail corridor, some with the rails still in rusty repose.
What we need to make our way through the initial Peaking Oil impacts is a program that permits deliberate and orderly shift from long-haul trucking and other 100% highway dependent transport. This will, with much effort and adjustment to be sure, get us into a new flow of commerce and distribution habits that can directly link a renewables generation expansion to electric railways, vastly expanded in capacity & reach.
The wonderful thing about the rail branchline rehab methodology is the local nature of the myriad branch corridors, lending to local initiative and partnerships with regional rail operators large & small, to get the rehab process going. Uncle Sap will have to play catch-up. and figure a way to capitalize some of the larger features with financing actually dedicated or collateralized with the project(s) themselves. Sort of like B of A partnered with locals to underwrite the Golden Gate Bridge.
In the case of the railway rehab program, collateralization is predicated on future traffic shifts, income from freight and mail, package shipments with UPS, FedEx, etc. Wal-Mart for another possible partner at the get-go, as they protect their warehouse on wheels- now more trains and fewer trucking miles.
Let's start a dialogue on the actual things we can start doing between now and 2020; we should be well under way by 2010 to succeed... Is there a Presidential candidate that knows the meaning of "Second Dimension Surface Transport Logistics Platform"? I wonder...
Railroads mean unions - and independent industrial unions are as dangerous to Republicans as they are to communists. Think about it - and keep in mind that socialist Europe, where unions still play a major role, except in the Great Britain Thatcher created, is considered to be the ultimate example of a failing society, either because of Eurabia fantasies (consider for a moment how a quarter of Europe will be muslim in less than generation from its ca. 4% - that is a lot of islamic sex, to put it mildly) or because of its long vacation times, decent unemployment benefits, universal health care, and still functioning democratic institutions.
Perhaps no one else has noticed, but the Republicans are welded to the neocons and their nonsensical world view on one side, and the disloyal Christian Right and their nonsensical view on the other. They're not dead yet, but they might as well be if they can't remake themselves, and I don't think their base will let them.
You just can't get elected with 25% of the voters supporting you unless there is election rigging and Senator Leahy seems inclined to slowly barbecue those who've involved themselves in such things ...
Railroads don't have to mean unions. There's no reason for it, it's just always been that way. But we got a verification to how bloody irrational employers (be they hard-core capitalists or communists, or something in between) can be about unions, here in Norway:
There is one state railroad company, NSB, and one small independent one, the Oslo airport train. The latter pays a lot more, so much more that half of all railroad personnel educated last year was snapped up by them (and they run a single line!). Sweden also pays very well. NSB pilots are aging, and have been warning for years about the lack pf recruitement. Recently it came to a head: lots of people simply quit, and more refused to do overtime. Result: delays and cancellations all over the place.
They dug their own grave in NSB. Apparently their hatred of unions was so strong that they were determined to punish their employees with sub-market wages, even at great cost to themselves. I can think of no better explanation for their utter idiocy.
The private Oslo airport train runs only one line, the one that can be made profitable (aiport, anyone).
If you want to make the whole country be accessible via rail, one must subsidize from the profitable lines to the unprofitable lines. Balance is the key.
The alternative is that you only operate rails where it makes profit and let the rest of the people rot where they are.
Another similar situation is with postal services, which might be hit by liquid fuel crisis issues in the coming years.
No private postal operator wants to deal with the whole of the country. They only want to deliver postal services where it makes a lot of money (most dense, biggest cities, logistical hubs).
But countries do not function, if only their most dense cities function.
I do admit that public service utilities (railways can be seen as such) can be badly run, but the alternative, private way of doing isn't always the better. Look at what happened to British rail: quality went down, customer complaints went up, most of the money was embezzled in one way or another and the private train companies went bankrupt. Hurray for the both the public/private way of doing things!
One has to be able to find working balance, if one is to make a working system.
All partisan ideological mumbo-jumbo about 'free markets are the best' or 'only public services can offer acceptable prices' must be forgotten.
But are we ready for that? With rail? With Oil? With nuclear energy?
The challenges we are facing in coming decades are such in magnitude and depth that we need to start moving past these ideological potholes quickly and find the most likely working solutions, based on science, not on political ideology.
Unfortunately, I see no sign of seeing that happening.
Even with Greenspan saying out loud the obvious (in order to draw attention to himself and his new book?).
There is a third way that could work better: Nationalize all toll goods (rail, postal, electric, etc.) and set up each under a directly elected board of trustees. By having the trustees directly elected by the people, the tension between cost of service and quality of service can be resolved through the feedback of the voters, who are also the owners, who are also the customers.
When such enterprises are run directly by the government under state socialism, you lose this feedback loop. They are just one more program to be managed or mismanaged for other political ends. When such enterprises are run by private sector corporations, they cream off the most profitable customers with high quality & low cost service, and ignore the rest -- even the majority -- of the population.
Unfortunately, the scheme I have described has hardly been tried anywhere.
A more ambitious program would nationalize all network based systems. Owing to metcalfs law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
all incumbents participating who have previously built large networks are not usurpable by newcomers. These are typically called natural monopolies.
The peoples government should be responsible for the underlying infrastructure of gas/hydro/electricity/fuel/internet/phoneline/fiber/roads else the natural result is monopoly and degraded service.
That may work in a theoretical, intelligent and homogeneous society. In a place like the US with heavy numbers in the centers of cities you would end up with the inmates voting themselves the asylum.
In actual empirical fact, it seems that the inmates currently vote themselves miles of highway concrete in sparsely populated conservative areas.
A little attention to rail and center cities seems quite appropriate to me.
And why the assumed prejudice against cities? It seems so fashionable.
> And why the assumed prejudice against cities? It seems so fashionable.
Rural areas have more voting power by (extremely stupid) design. Thus politicians want to favorise them. However, they also have to spend quite some effort justifying this, because they don't want to lose the weaker city votes either.
Since politicians are quite convincing (especially when they agree, as they do on this), a lot of people go around believing it's actually _fair_ that square kilometers should have votes instead of people.
That a lot of city prejudice comes out of this should not be suprising; surely we'd have more than 1/3 of a rural vote if we weren't such twats?
It sounds a lot like America's state university systems, and I would say that's historically the best part of America's education system compared to the rest of the world. Yeah, their operations are sometimes political, but they do the hard work of remedial education for unqualified high school grads, the costs (until recently) were manageable for most American families, and I would put state schools like Michigan and Texas up against any in the achievement of educating a wide variety of people in a vast number of fields.
I vote for the California system. With two separate university networks and a fabulous junior college program, California has probably given more people better educations for less money than any other place in the world. But it, too, is becoming too expensive for a growing part of the population. In the late sixties a semester at a California junior college cost 5 bucks. That's per semester, not per class or per unit. At the same time the state university system was charging about $60 per semester. My calculus book was less than $10.
Last year I wanted to take an economics class at the jc in Santa Rosa. Tuition, books and parking would have been over $300 for a single 3 unit class. I went to the county library and checked out a book instead.
tahoevalleylines
Check out Alan Drake's Electrification of Rail plan. He's been making some wonderful progress in getting it noticed, and its the best plan I've seen. Alan's giving a workshop at the ASPO-USA Houston Conference October 17-20th. Alan tends to post in the morning, so if you'll check back here around 8 AM California time tomorrow I'm certain he'll answer you. Bob Ebersole
A valid POV, with a different emphasis than mine.
The ton-miles are on the Class I RR mainlines (80/20 rule).
My first emphasis is to electrify and otherwise expand capacity on the large arteries, and expand the capillaries "later" (absolutely nothing against rebuilding local lines, just not my first priority).
I think of the CSX proposal for Washington DC to Miami (completely grade separated, straightened, two freight tracks for 50 to 70 mph general freight, 1 passenger/low & medium density freight track for up to 110 mph service (avg 87 mph with stops) Richmond to Miami, 2 pax tracks Richmond to DC) and I want this template on a number of other main lines. Unplug and speed up the main lines to better serve the branch lines & intermodal "last mile".
Best Hopes for More & Better Rail,
Alan Drake
Ummm.. if they were reading US Army logistics handbooks from the 1950's maybe so, on the other hand if you just said "railways" then I suspect they would, those are the things used to move coal and corn to the ethanol plants where the farm voters live, right? :}
However, it must be noted that this is from a man that thinks the fall of communism caused the housing bubble - without noticing that the Chinese are still communists.
Of course both Iraq wars were about oil, something so obvious that I don't need confirmation about it from anyone.
The Chinese communists are trying to bury their customers. Not even Khrushchov was that ambitious, but that won't stop them trying. Other than that, Greenspan still doesn't get the finite nature of resources.
No, the Chinese communists, being the last true heirs of Leninist thought, will drive the running dog capitalists into the ground through the power of the working classes - 'The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.' -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
A couple more from Lenin's monster top 20 hits -
'Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps.'
'The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.'
'It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.'
'Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.'
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=185
OK, I must be missing the humour here, as expat is a very smart guy. Blame it on the drink (you all think I can bear to trawl through 100-plus possibly 'it's all population!' posts without being hammered?). But, the Chinese are only _nominally_ communists. Communism, indeed socialism, indeed even _the most miserable equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon welfare state_, does not exist in China. The CCP recently admitted _capitalists_ to party membership ... as if the Pope were to say that Satanists and atheists could all be members of the Church. Really.
There are no communists in China, at least not ones that aren't marginalized, serving out jail sentences, or under house arrest. _China is a capitalist society_. Which is why it is so utterly vile and foul and degraded.
"Which is why it is so utterly vile and foul and degraded."
Which is an upturn, eh?
An improvement from utterly vile and foul and degraded and foolish.
Sorry - the humor is more a matter of perspective than anything else. The Chinese are not really Leninists, but ever since the Cold War ended, a certain segment of the American military-industrial complex has been looking for the next opponent to justify its existence. Further, when Clinton was president, his dealings with the 'communists' in terms of satellite/aviation technology was among a litany of complaints by conservatives against him.
Yet, it is pretty much beyond dispute that the Chinese are now a major source of American 'wealth.' Lenin's insight can actually be applied if you merely replace it with a possibly more universal formulation 'the rich will always sell the rope to hang the poor with.' Then you avoid the discussion of whether the American elite are capitalists or the Chinese elite socialists.
I need a drink, actually.
Please consider the fundamentals:
1. At what point in time does killing people turn from criminal murder to crimes against humanity? You pick the point, but at that point the United Nations, if it is to have meaning, must hold leaders in contempt. Sadam far exceeded that point.
2. The al-Qeada battle plan was to insight sectarian violence so they can leverage forces far beyond their ability to recruit. Congress is striving with every breath to surrender to the success of that battle plan.
3. There are more plans.
I was in Iraq. My business partners son died there. My college roommate’s on was badly injured there. None of us did it for oil, we did it for you. 911 is a day in a sequence of days.
There is a time to hold political leaders accountable for their mistakes. When soldiers are in the field is not the time. The vast majority of American’s were in favor of war when we started this. We broke it, we own it until it is fixed.
The vast majority of Congress voted to go to war. “I was mis-led.” Is the worst kind of whining from leaders whose oath is to lead. My experience as a military commander is that leaders are accountable for everything they do or failed to do. There are no “do-overs.”
Perhaps we need universal service; everyone should have a child at risk. Then maybe we would choose our wars more carefully. Maybe then when we go to war, we will go to win.
Peak Oil, if we do not act in advance to mitigate it, is more likely than less to propagate a sequence of wars.
bill.james@jpods.com
It costs less to move less
You are fooling yourself if you think you did it for me. Next time, ask me first, and I will save you the trouble.
Rat
You are right. I believe most of us did/are doing it for people who care about liberty in the world.
Make no mistake; we have mismanaged Iraq and it should be accounted for at some point in time. But not when surrendering to al-Qeada's battle plan is the result.
McCain understands the cost of failure. Please listen.
Peak oil, if not mitigated, is going to precipitate wars on an incredible scale.
Peak oil, if not mitigated, is going to precipitate wars on an incredible scale.
Well, I see NO evidence that PO will be mitigated so therefore we will see wars that will dwarf all others.
It's sad really.
I think we need to work very hard, immediately.
Why worry about payback, when payback is survival.
It is best to dig the well before you are thirsty.
I had a think about this and came to the conclusion that a world war is unlikely for the simple reason that nothing has changed, nuclear wars means the destruction of everything.
We still possess the mutual destruction deterrent.
It may end up being variation of the prisoner's dilemma.
I'm hoping the major powers will realise that a little bit is better than nothing.
If Russia and the USA or some other major countries get together it may deter any exchanges.
Who the hell knows really, just guessing.......
Conflict will probably be local and severe.
Fights in a line at the gas station will be the start of it.
Then fights at the supermarket.
Then fights at the soup kitchen.
Then civil war.
Then ongoing guerilla war.
Then Kevin Costner will be the postman.
I have a best case hope but I expect the worst and hope for the best.
I have been working for 10 years to build solar powered mobility networks.
I believe they will substantially provide for the niche of highly repetitive travel. Why move a ton to move a person?
There is a great study commissioned by the US Senate in 1974 asking how to permanently so oil risk. The 1975 answer from DOT was automated guideways. Our networking capabilities have expanded far beyond anything thought of at that time.
We can build a Physical-Internet, a packet switched network that move more than data packets. Fully loaded vehicles require 6.4 kw. Solar collectors mounted on the rails can collect 7.4 kw. Energy neutral mobiltiy. But as with the Internet, we have to do our homework and build sustainable infrastructure.
There is a synergy between the distributed need of the transportation network for power and the distributed ability of the sun to deliver that power.
Gadgetbahn, almost certainly not practical and cost effective.
A distraction and diversion away from practical and workable solutions.
Alan
When you like rail so much, why are you so hostile to ultra-light rail?
As for diverting attention, we are spending our money not taxpayer's. If the network at Heathrow fails, if our effort at the Mall of America fails, then we will fade away.
Personally, I think we need to adopt policies of trying nearly all possible solutions and keep those that work. We are in serious trouble.
There are several cities today that would have workable Light Rail lines were it not for the distractions of promises by gadgetbahn advocates (all of which disappeared very quickly after the rail vote lost or the movement towards workable rail stalled in FUD).
Austin Texas would be opening a 20 mile Light Rail line just about now, if 1,004 out of more than a quarter million votes had changed from No to Yes. The difference was promoters for PRT and monorail making wildly unrealistic claims for better technology during the campaign. Said promoters packed and left just after the referendum and their promises evaporated into nothingness.
We cannot "Crash Everything". jPods are almost certainly uneconomic and full of bugs that will takes a number of years to even get operating properly. Why waste capital and energy on a near certain failure, distracting us (see Austin) from real solutions ?
Let the Japanese, Brits or whoever, build, operate and debug the latest gadgetbahn technology and then, if it makes sense (economic & operating), the backward USA can import it.
I do not, and cannot, know your motivations, but I judge that your efforts are quite harmful in effect.
You follow in the footsteps of many earlier gadgetbahn du jour promoters who have done significant harm.
Alan
FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt
Alan,
You seem to view expansion of electric rail (both light and heavy) as the most effective way of preserving transportation services in the face of fossil fuel decline. According to the EIA the US electricity generation mix in the first half of 2007 was 72% fossil fuel, 18% nuclear, 6% hydroelectric, and 3% other. The fossil fuel portion is primarily coal and natural gas. From what I understand about North American natural gas supplies it seem likely that the contribution from natural gas will decline over the next decade or so. From the point of view of global warming, ocean acidification etc. it seem desirable that coal’s contribution should decline as well. What do you view as the long term source of power for the grid?
Today 0.19% of US electricity is used for transportation (NYC, DC, Philly, Chicago, Atlanta, LA etc subways + Light Rail + Amtraks NE Corridor + LIRR). A ROUGH guesstimate is that 6% to 7% of current (about 35x as much) electrical consumption, could get us by.
I stalled in creating a non-GHG North American grid. That last 10% of FF is a difficult problem to solve economically !
Wind 51%
Hydro 19%
Nuclear 26%
Pumped Storage 15%
Pumped Storage -19%
Net Pumped Storage -4%
Solar PV 5%
Solar Thermal 3%
Geothermal 2%
Biomass 1%
Multi-Year Storage -3%
is my latest allocation by GWh/year.
Alan
Roger K and Alan
Here are the numbers for Ultra-light rail. Applicable for highly repetitive short distance movement of people and goods:
JPod power consumption is about 4 kW at 25 mph.
It takes 2.4 minutes to travel a mile, or 0.04 hours. Energy consumed to travel a mile is 4 kW x 0.04 hr or 0.16 kW-hr.
This is 160 Watt-hours. Electricity at $0.0747 per kW-hr, which includes taxes. Power cost to move the JPod one mile is thus 0.16 kW-hr x $0.0747 / kW-hr = $0.012. Slightly more than a penny per mile.
Solar collectors mounted on the top of the rails harvests between 55-100 kw-hr per mile. For the most part, there is a synergy between the transportation networks distributed need for power with the distributed availability of sunshine to provide that power.
Gentlemen,
Both Alan and Bill's pet projects have merits. I judge Alan's to be an easily decidable national initiative and I agree that the whole gadgetbahn du jour stuff is an issue - distraction from the need to economize serves the status quo. Rail electrification has to go in first when bulk travel is the issue.
I've talked at length with Bill and while I don't agree that the whole planet is going to get jpods I think there are some applications where it is absolutely the right thing. In particular the overhead lines will play well in areas where telecom fiber needs to be placed. Airports, high density foot traffic areas (Seattle waterfront?), and any place that would like the additional security of visitors arriving with nothing more than backpacks as opposed to driving are all obvious candidates.
We have overhead people movers for fun in a couple of locations here in Iowa and they do well in that role. Perhaps an amusement park is the natural first installation location?
I'd like to see a linear jpod install done and then the next steps taken for routing cars. I recall very clearly when DIA stood for Doesn't Include Airplanes rather than Denver International Airport, and all this was due to automatic baggage routing issues. A city with tremendous traffic problems and perhaps water obstacles is the obvious first target for anything more than a novelty install - Seattle, Portland, or some other location like that ... or perhaps Bill's first target of the Mall of America in the Minneapolis St. Paul area.
Just my implementation engineer's $0.02 ... something to displease both sides of the discussion :-)
Alan--gadgetbahn seems to be a term of easy dismissal. So far no modern form of Personal Rapid Transit has been built, but efforts are underway to try. Certain applications may be quite beneficial where light rail is ineffective or very expensive. Certainly light rail does much better than its critics credit, but it is not the right choice in every circumstance. IF the Heathrow application proves valuable, airports and other congested areas might be better served by PRT than by buses or light rail. The fact that there are bugs to be worked out ought not to be a reason to block its development. Have there been no bugs in airplanes? Light rail? Buses? Many airport rail systems have been incredibly expensive for the service they deliver. If PRT can deliver better service at lower cost, why not? On the other hand, overpromising and underdelivering seems to be par with PRT so far. We shall see.
The Japanese seem to have a significant cultural bias towards tinkering with gadgetbahn. The Japanese have an excellent existing rail infrastructure (not so true for the other major form of existing non-oil transportation, bicycles).
A number of other nations also have excellent non-oil transportation systems and may be inclined to develop PRT.
My POV, is let those with the luxury of an installed infrastructure experiment with, debug and develop PRT to "fill in the gaps". By the time that they do, the USA may have a basic infrastructure in place and we can order a few.
The USA does not need to "fill in the gaps". We have a few isolated Urban Rail systems (perhaps 5, NYC, DC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, soon Portland) and some more isolated lines AND THAT IS IT !
The USA does not have gaps to fill, we have nothing or next to nothing in most US cities.
Let us build the basics first, the lines that will be direly needed post-Peak Oil. And only then worry about filling in the gaps. I reflect again of the 20 mile Austin Texas light rail system that could be opening just about now. Add another 35 to 70 miles (Austin is also moving forward on bicycles) and Austin would have the basics of a good non-oil transportation system. THEN buy a Japanese PRT system if one is needed for a specific application.
But PRT & monorail promoters sold PRT (and monorail) as alternatives/substitutes for Light Rail. Result is a minor commuter rail line (conventional) in Austin of questionable utility several years from now.
That was also the sales pitch of Bill James of jPod at first if memory serves.
BTW, FAA procedures and funding almost guarantee high cost, low functionality gadgetbahn.
Alan
Alan,
There is a public meeting this week set to discuss the Atlanta/Chattanooga bullet train proposal. I understand that the train is supposed to connect Atlanta airport to Chattanooga airport. I like the idea of an Atlanta/Chattanooga rail connection but I have my doubts about the wisdom of spending this huge amount of money just to connect two airports which are not near anything in either city. It is being promoted locally as a way to boost traffic out of the Chattanooga airport by relieving some pressure from Hartsville(Atlanta), this in a county that is asking for a variance from EPA to avoid being declared out of compliance on air quality again and therefore losing significant federal funding. I suppose that since Chattanooga has no significant public transportation (only buses) at the moment, that the airport could become the hub of a public transportation system, but it would seem that the downtown would be better for a hub.
The train would connect Atlanta visitors to MARTA (Atlanta subway) at the airport but I see little to recommend this. In some respects, a solution looking for a problem (at lest with my limited local knowledge).
Best Hopes,
Alan
So far no modern form of Personal Rapid Transit has been built
Nope. For under 1.5 kWs I can go 25 MPH already. If I put myself in a wind screen, that number drops.
AQ wasn't in Iraq until we invaded.
Doing it for people who care about liberty is bullshit. It is their job to get it, not ours to give it to them. Try worrying about our liberty, as it was given us in something called the Constitution.
al-Qeada is a network. Learn about networks.
There are touch points everywhere. There are points of synergy everywhere.
Look at the American Revolution. Two disconnected points, Washington crossing the Delaware and Thomas Paine's Common Sense were connected but not coordinated. Combined, they made our present future.
If you think the future is a coordinated one, then you deserve it.
Both the US and al-Qeada have defined the battle as Iraq. We As such, and as much as I wish it were not so, Iraq is most likely the future of the world.
Shrub, not AQ, defined the battle as Iraq. They weren't there until we invaded. They were in Afghanistan, where we should be.
Darn, am glad you helped educate me.
I did not know that the Achille Lauro, the US embassies in Kenny and Tansznia and the USS Cole were all in Afghanistan.
I would have sworn the World Trade Centers were in New York.
It is a network, touch points of synergy. I think we better rally our faster than they do theirs.
I am pretty sure it is a race. Global Warming and Peak Oil just add to the consequences.
I see, so you're saying that we should declare war on everyone, since their network has "touch points" everywhere? Hmm, but we only declared war on the minor "touch point" of Iraq. I prefer Greenspan's explanation.
No. I hate that the military is being thrown into the breach because we did not fine-tune with the political, intelligent and special operations options.
Anytime we use the military, is because we failed at other options. War is a spectrum of events. Like Peak Oil, did does not come at you by surprise.
I've never seen such a deluded mind in here. Do you really believe that you fought for freedom?
Do you really believe in everything that papa tells you?
Do you believe that the rethorics of a leader are equal to his real intentions?
Do you think you can't be misled by anyone, just because you've been there?
And do you think that a person that kills to steal their oil is somehow a freedom fighter?
Why didn't you invade Cuba then, if you are so inclined to save liberty? Couldn't be that hard.
I can hear your thoughts. "He doesn't understand, he's just another idiot patronizing me"
And I lend you my thoughts. You are just another denier. Just like the germans were in post-war, just like the communists after knowing about the gulags or Tianammen, or just like the americans post vietnam war.
I can hear you:
"you WANT the truth?
you CAN'T HANDLE the truth!"
And I can hear your soul:
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
For the record, I am entitled to the truth and to the freedom you so aspire to serve and miserably fail to do so. I am entitled to not being invaded just because you want my backyard stuff. I am entitled to call you on justice. Because all the nazis that were in court in Nuremberg, they also said, we're given orders. You, on the other hand, helped to commit those crimes, and still you really believe in what you've done. Ignorance is bliss and the main engine of devious cruelty. The main engine of millions' death. You are guilty my friend. Guilty of ignorance and denial.
Learn. Have the pain. It will heal you. But not before crumbling everything you have always believed to be true.
Only then are you prepared to face the future. By now, you are nothing more than a dangerous sheep that will do everything papa tells you to do, convinced of his good faith and reason.