 | Book Review: World Made by Hand | The Oil Drum | The Four Day Work Week: Sixteen Reasons Why This Might Be an Idea Whose Time Has Come |  |
182 comments on DrumBeat: May 2, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
182 comments on DrumBeat: May 2, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
- The US stimulus and "green jobs" for wind energy
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 13th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…”
—Winston Churchill, November 1936
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
On the radio this morning, I heard a comment by Ms. Clinton saying that she would jump start the economy by providing jobs to build "clean and renewable" energy sources. Maybe she's gotten the Peak Oil message. I certainly hope that this election will finally get the politicians off their respective butts to address the energy problem.
E. Swanson
I'm sure she's gotten the peak oil message. Of all the candidates, I'm sure she's gotten it. But whether she'll actually do anything about it except talk...well, that's always a question when you're dealing with politicians.
If she's gotten the message then its even more disappointing to see her desperately pander in such a cynical way (and saying "that's what politicians do" is not really helpful). Policy change will HAVE to involve politicians. Even if its pushed by the grass roots, eventually its people in government who have to develop and implement policy changes. Isn't it time we started holding people accountable for their policies?
In addition to PO, what does this say about Clinton's commitment to reduce GHG emissions? Most likely it is in indication that, like her hubby, she will talk a good game but not risk a drop in polls by attempting to actually do anything.
Well Bush came as close to admitting that we're close to peak oil as he/any other mainstream politician could, in his recent speech. Of course with a new found statesman like look/sound about him :). As if he had nothing to do with the disaster that is the American economy today.
I doubt if any of them is going to say "Ladies and Gentlemen-we're at peak oil". Your country is pretty much fascist - which means big corporates' interests rein supreme. You seriously think any politician is going to piss them off? PO is politically as incorrect as it gets and no politician is going to utter those words till it is an open secret (and even then might not - why state the obvious and get punished).
While many people on this forum might think your politicians are dumb (Bush plays marvellously to the gallery with his folksy talk) and unaware of PO - I doubt it. They are playing along in a game that suits them. They are cunning (how else would they have gotten elected) and have enormous resources at their disposal - intelligent, devious resources. Don't underestimate them.
(India is not much better - but we have left wing "nuts" with just enough seats in the Parliament to keep things in check - the left wingies turn fascist pretty quickly when they rule a state btw).
Srivathsa
As PG has pointed out, that's the advantage of a parliament. You end up giving even fringe groups a voice, and as a result, you can change course faster.
Our founding fathers were afraid of change. They set things up to ensure stability. Hence, we have only two political parties at any one time, without much difference between them.
Actually all decisions take much slower to make with fringe groups. Even the stupid ones. That helps in such times.
Srivathsa
Leanan-- your opinion if you care to give it:
"They" were almost hopelessly divided, but as Gary Wills describes, (Henry Adams and the Making of America)even Jefferson came around to accepting the need for a strong central government. I suppose "they" hoped they could create stability without degenerating into a new monarchy.
Now "we" are stuck with their fateful choices-- how could "they" have forseen that "corporations" would be counted as "persons" with rights to "free speech" and yet no statutory responsibilities to support the nation that supports them?
At this point, do you really think it matters which of the candidates we have been presented is elected?
Is Emma Goldman correct? ("If elections really changed anything, they would make them illegal.")
No. None of them would have gotten as far as they have if they were not supported by our corporate overlords.
I don't know that I'd go quite as far as Emma Goldman, but change comes slowly in the US.
I think the Founding Fathers didn't really know what corporations would be, and the closest thing they could imagine to these monsters were what were known as "joint-stock companies" and those were already known to be evil. The Founders wanted a wealthy, landowning aristocracy to run the US, voted for by those (white males) who were at least to some extent wealthy - they had to own land to vote. And there was even a reward for being *more* wealthy, in that 3/8 vote or whatever it was per slave. Slaves then were like machines now, a measure of wealth. What they could not forecast was that artificial beings, corporations, would end up being the aristocracy in the US and that they'd have the ability to brainwash people to go along with this for the most part and think it's wonderful.
And Emma Goldman was right.
the US governmental system is much more democratic than our parliamentary system. You have devided government, mid term elections and state governments. In a parliamentary system the majority party appoints the executive and you are stuck with them for 4-5 years. In that time they do what they like and can disregard the electorate entirely. MP's rarely vote against the party line and there are no checks. Local government can be overruled at the governments whim and can be reorganised and even have it's financing withdrawn if the government chooses. US is better.
For quite some time, 80% of the American public wants us out of Iraq yesterday. And yet?
Some democracy.
Time and time again, you seem not to have any idea what you are talking about. Maybe you are being sarcastic, and I'm just missing it.
Actually, our founding fathers abhorred political parties and didn't want them. The political parties that they observed in Britain were considered (quite rightly, especially at that time) as sources of corruption. Regardless of what the Framers wanted, the formation of political parties was almost inevitable. Once parties arose, the electoral/governmental system established under the Constitution had and continues to have the effect of discouraging more than two major parties,
It seems to me that the real factor in change is the degree to which the corporate elites can be set against one another - to think they are a unified, monolithic whole misses the fact that there is a lot of inter and intra-industry disagreement on many of these 'big issues'. Once the corporate elite are divided, that leaves a pretty big opening for progressives to making lasting reforms.
In Britain the left are good at conning business in to supporting their projects, and when they realise they have been had it's to late. Businessmen are suprisingly stupid with regard to matters ouside the bottom line. they are easily duped. Thats why ideas about them manipulating government are far fetched. they are too dim.
I disagree, I believe Obama really gets that consumption needs to be cut, and has known about peak oil for a while...
http://obama.senate.gov/blog/060514-times_wasting_4_ways_to_cut_oil_cons...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?partner=rs...
So far, I really don't think Clinton gets the supply and demand stuff (aka peak oil). I'm actually quite impressed that Obama gets it...
I think she understands peak oil because her husband has given speeches about it. Bubba's really into it. He's been spotted reading Heinberg and Simmons, and has even discussed Ghawar reserves. I can't imagine not telling your spouse about something so important, that you're that interested in.
Give her a bit more credit than that. I don't think she has to depend on Slick Willie for something that even I, in distant India, have heard of. She is smart and has surely heard of Google and peak oil and can put 2 and 2 together. If nothing else but as something to get back at Bush.
And she has a lawyer's brain. it could very well be possible that Bubba's on her job.
"Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence,[71] in February 1977,[72] specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law,[36] while also working pro bono in child advocacy;[73] she rarely performed litigation work in court.[74]" - from Wikipedia.
Srivathsa
I don't underestimate her. I don't know if she's the smartest woman in the world, as some claim, but I'm sure she's plenty intelligent.
And she's old enough to remember the '70s energy crisis, when everyone was talking about how the oil was going to run out in 30 or 40 years.
However...I'm not sure she (or any other politician) sees it as being as serious a problem as we do. "Market forces" fixed the '70s oil crisis. I think most politicians think the same will happen again. We will move away from oil, but it won't change anything fundamentally. We'll just be running our SUVs on biofuel or electricity or hydrogen or whatever.
I don't understand how anyone can logically conclude that oil depletion is a problem for someone with a family net worth of 100 million dollars. IMHO oil depletion is a "problem" like Americans without proper health care is a problem-it is all theoretical for the persons running the country and will likely stay that way for a very long time IMO.
It doesn't matter if it's theoretical or not.
Nelson Rockefeller is remembered with great fondness by working stiffs in NY. Unlike most Republicans, he was pro-labor. But there's a story that after the union people left, he turned to his aid and asked, "What does 'take-home pay' mean?"
Obviously, he didn't know what it meant to work for a living. But he did a lot more for workers than many who did.
And if it gets as bad as the real doomers believe...it will affect even the very wealthy. Even Bill Gates can't afford to build a highway system on his own.
I see Hillary as a female counterpart to Dick Cheney: Calculating, tough, ruthless, and utterly lacking in any principle but his/her own bottom line. Obviously she can't go out duck hunting, or drinking with the boys (or can she?) so she can't go around with the macho swagger Cheney does, but paint Darth Vader's mask pink and it's still Darth Vader.
In other words like most politicians. The veneer changes, but the core is the same.
In India, too all the politicians will get things done provided you answer his/her simple question "What is in it for me?". Money/votes/ideally both.
A lot of people in India think the presidential system is much better as decisions get made much faster and also that coalition governments are detrimental to development (rather economic growth). Some harbour hopes that a benevolent dictator will come and pull us out of the mess we're in. The grass is always greener on the other side.
Srivathsa
Brian, familiarize yourself with the French Revolution. The richest people were the first ones to get their heads lobbed off. Seriously, when TEOTWAWKI hits, no one on earth will be secure. The civilized world will likely revert to nature red in tooth and claw.
Ron Patterson
Sadly, according to the Wikipedia write-ups on this, more poor than rich lost their heads in that one, but it may well have been worth it. We just need to make sure plenty of baddies get their end in this one that's coming.
More 'poor' will always loose their heads than 'rich' in some kind of civil strife.
There is very little 'cost' for the killing of the poor. The rich might be able to get another mob to come after your mob. And 'the poor' mob will always have members who want to settle scores with other members of 'the poor'.
I think it is real dangerous to put hopes into a politician. It's like being relieved that a new captain has been appointed after the Titanic hit the iceberg......... Excuse me while I go see the lifeboats.
Trust me on this one: Having a lawyer's brain doesn't guarantee that you can think rationally.
(Most of the members in US House and Senate have lawyers' brains.)
((Roscoe Bartlett, a US Congressman, has an engineer's brain. The lawyer brains in the Congress look down on his engineer's brain. Mother Nature looks down on all human brains: Tisk, tisk, another bunch of noise making monkeys that are about to go extinct. But frankly, I don't give a darn.))
Jimmy Carter had an engineer'n brain - and knew 1st had about energy via his nuke plant work on submarines. (Thus giving him a 'he is one of us' badge via the clearance level he had to hold to get that gig)
Leanan "...can't imagine not telling your spouse (Hillary Clinton) about something so important, that you're that interested in."
Would that include Monica?
Just kidding!
Obama Proposes Windfall Profits tax on Oil Industry
So, nothing there, nobody home. Empty. She may have gotten the peak oil message, and that's a very empty hope. If she does, you gotta know she or her puppet organisation won't do a lick to alleviate it. Political bau. Who run's the show? The president? You really think so? Mitigation from a future Clinton administration? You believe that?
jeff
For sure she knows.
If she still talks to Bill that is.
Bill Clinton was at a press conference in 2006 where he talked about reading Heinberg's book so I think it's pretty fair to say that Hillary knows about peak oil.
The important question is whether she believes the doomers or whether she believes there's something we can do other than invading Iran to stave off collapse.
Well, not really. Eliminating the federal gas tax does not demonstrate a grasp of peak oil. Riding in a Ford F 250 in front of a cavalcade of SUVs on a 50 mile commute does not demonstrate a good grasp of peak oil either.
Anyway, she's toast, so it doesn't make a great deal of difference.
Postere later (Eastern Time) in yesterday's DB: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3928#comment-337767
Patrick and Obama are friends.
Maybe we ought to play the Obama cabinet game so as to ID the politicos "most likely" to have gotten "it", to listen' and try something different.
I know - likely folly.
Pete
I suspect this is about the best we can hope for from a politician. He rolled out the old stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone thing. Innovation's going to save us.
I love this "the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone" b/c it's true. And since that one is true "all other ages will also end well....."
The Law of the ending ages is hereby established , sort of
It's possible, too, that the Stone Age didn't really end, we just piled a bunch of other ages on TOP of it.
Nowadays, we simply sport an arsenal of Intercontinental Ballistic Stones to lob at each other.. Smart Stones, Shiny Stones, Profitable Stones.. Business As Ever.
yes Jokul Ur right, piling up next is Age Of Conan , due May 17 or so
or just plain: stone age didnt end.
e.g. cavemen are not,imo, extinct. neocons are a good example.