It gets worse. Hillary Clinton has decided to browbeat OPEC to produce more...or else:
"We’re going to go right at OPEC. They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at.
"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly."
Clinton at a campaign stop in Merrillville, IN.
Julian Delasantellis in Asia Times this morning described her attempts to appeal to white blue collar voters saying, "The once patrician Clinton, a woman now so committed to identifying with the American working class that she will undoubtedly soon be photographed ripping lug nuts off pickup trucks with her teeth."
Yeah - it really would be funny if I didn't have to live with the results, and could just observe from the outside. I think if it wasn't real, I would advocate for GWB to be eligible for re-election, just to see if it was truly possible to destroy such a great civilization and to see what such an epic collapse would look like.
Unfortunately, I do live here, so I'm voting for Obama.
"Sooner or later, you'll have Generals" What do you think Obama's change message is all about? Of course, he'll change everything........ to a dictatorship. We'll all be serfs in the lands that our forefathers conquered.
Great insight Futureseeker. Professor Jack Lessinger, a researcher on multigenerational changes in the commonly accepted American Dream stated something very similiar. His theory (which is very persuasive is that the standard American Dream radically changes every few generations as the old dream gets so overblown and destructive that a opposite American Dream arises to defeat and replace the old.
He calls the American Dream one we have been in since around 1900 the "Little King" for it's focus of "get it all - get it now", it's individualist focus, it's bond with cars and suburbia (every man's little kingdom), and it's focus on the short-term. Fortunately it has run way past it's prime (about 1960) and is now rapidly being replaced by a new American Dream. The new one is called the "Responsible Villager" and it is pretty much the opposite of the Little King.
The latest book is called "Transformations" and again explains the theory well but focuses more on new business people (called Responsible Capitalists) and their part in creating the new Responsible Villager american dream. You can see his site and book at: http://www.jacklessinger.com/
Below is an entry from his blog that fits your point....
Our Consumer Economy has run its course
The 20th century ignited an accelerating consumer binge we can no longer sustain. Overconsumption shackles us to immoderate consumer debts, Federal deficits, trade imbalances, inequality of income and wealth, runaway speculation in real estate and stocks, insecure social security, plunging business ethics and environmental degradation. The pursuit of immediate gratification plays a role in rampant obesity and uncontrollable medical costs. And as we burn oceans of oil and mountains of coal, global warming imperils the planet.
In the 21st century, the consumer’s rallying call “what’s in it for me” is increasingly overshadowed by “what’s in it for us.” Unbridled materialism is slowly yielding to the satisfactions of defending the community—assuring full employment, preventing global warming, protecting the environment. A new society and economy is emerging. Call it the Responsible Capitalist. When We the People seek redemption from evils of excess, we search for new meaning and direction. A paradigm shift changes our society and economy.
After 1790, the first paradigm shift in U.S. history (from what’s in it for us to what’s in it for me) sent dirt-poor farmers to nearly free land in the Mississippi Basin. The paradigm was clear. Take care of Number One. Own your very own piece of Valley land—no matter how small. Stay out of big cities. Prize your independence.
After 1845, the second paradigm shift (from me to us) introduced a new vision. In a world mad with nationalistic ambitions, Americans now sought to make the nation the foremost industrial power. Us power. Millions migrated to rapidly growing cities surrounding Chicago.
After 1900, and especially after World War II, the third paradigm shift (from us to me) opposed further industrialization and launched the Consumer Economy. The new paradigm reprogrammed attitudes from saving to spending, from waiting and sacrificing to consuming. Our elders well remember the sexy young women, smiling from the billboards, urging strait-laced and penurious citizens to save less and spend more. Buy, buy, buy, screamed the advertisers. Buy Coca Cola and be happy. Buy Dentine gum and be kissable. Buy Camels and be manly. The Consumer Economy blossomed. Houses grew bigger and more lavish, cars roomier, faster, more comfortable. What a great time to be alive.
Emerging since the 1960s, the fourth paradigm shift is turning us away from consumer appetites to concern for the community—from me to us.
A great divide separates 2007 from the values and beliefs of only three years earlier. In 2004, a Gallup Poll editor reported that the public is “practically dozing” on global warming (April 20, 2007, Lydia Saad). Three years later, in 2007, polls showed that 88 % of Americans now believe that global warming threatens future generations and 75 % recommend taking immediate action to help the environment. (TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University, June 2007.)
I wish I could believe that. But people seem to be more materialistic than ever to me. Sure, they talk about climate change, but most don't do anything. Maybe the most committed will "shop green" - when the real solution is to shop less.
Thanks for the response Greg. You should check out "The Century of Self" which is by the BBC, here is the google video link to part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151 . It explains how the theories of freud were used to control the mob by turning them into consumers and thereby neutering them politically. It is a really fascinating and pertinent documentary.
With Mexico likely to export 200,000 b/d less each year until it stops being a net exporter i,e, 2011-12, we should stop treating OPEC so shabbily. We will be more dependent on OPEC in the near future. Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola plus KSA and other Mid East countries will have to be relied upon to replace the loss of Mexican oil and our own 2% depletion rate. As all of these countries use more and subsidize their own domestic oil consumption, it will be difficult enough for them to like and respect the US. If on the other hand they feel misused or not respected, as is the case now, well other growing economies will certainly step up and take all the oil for themselves and thank their good luck that the US has such poor leadership. Go Obama
In the short term, my strategy would be to be as accomodating to KSA as I could be. Although, in Hillary's defense, I'm sure KSA knows she's BSing to get votes, and won't actually do anything about it.
In the long run, we need to be aggressive on demand; there's just no way around it.
I agree with being aggressive on demand. I think there is a lot of low hanging fruit to be had to reduce demand. Somehow we need to get the country on board...telling the truth wouldn't hurt. And as Leanan has said..Dubya the lame duck is the perfect person to tell the truth
Japan uses about 8 barrels per capita as opposed to ours and Canada's 27 barrels. It is not about inventing the wheel, it is more about getting out of the denial stage and getting to work.
I'll second that. However, even my 10 year old son found this comic very funny. We get a good chuckle anytime we hear Hillary or anyone in the media use the word 'elite' now.
Maybe we all need a bleeding lapel pin like McCain's?
(Except this one will be of a skull, an oil barrel below, and two guns crossed behind.
Our motto will be:
"Give me oil, Or give me death! --It don't make no difference to me.")
The problem is that many in this country are uneducated and hear what Hillary and John say and they eat it right up. The more I hear Hillary speak about OPEC and oil, the more frightened I get. With Bush being in office for the last 7 1/2 years, we have already gotten ourselves pretty lost in the woods. Hillary could potentially lead us down a different path but further in the wrong direction AND it's starting to get dark in the woods.
When will America learn that national politics is a race to the lowest common denominator? Or is the puerile schlep strategically released to the "never have read a book in my life" populace is inversely proportional to the average intelligence.
Her First Laddie (Mr. Bill) knows all about Peak Oil. He's spoken openly about it on CSPAN. Except he said that it was not a "voting issue", meaning the general public just doesn't get it and won't change their vote over it.
The NOPEC is no different in its policy "logic" from the ongoing economic war against Iran and the 17 year war against Iraq--all three are insane actions that keep digging the hole deeper. US domestic oil extraction as shown in yesterday's drumbeat is now at the level of 1950, and then we were already a net oil importer. Somehow, the US must face the fact that it needs to radically decrease its consumption to those same 1950 levels in some planned, rational manner before the decrease gets done for us by other unplanned, more painful actions.
We need to throw people with mindsets like Clinton and McCain "off the bus" as it's clear they're wedded to maintianing the elite's status quo at almost any cost to the vast majority.
Yeah, but are any other politicians any different? Obama, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot...they are no different. Who is going to tell us we have to lower our standard of living?
No politician will ever tell you that you will have to lower your standard of living, but that is not the point. The point is, which one will take actions that will lead to your standard of living being lowered the least?
Obama is far from perfect (he was still defending ethanol on Meet the Press this Sunday); but I think he is more willing to tell at least parts of the truth and more importantly, make decisions that are in our long term interests (rather than just continuing the party).
I think he's no better than any other politician. And when that becomes obvious, the backlash will be brutal, because people's expectations are so high.
The key word here is "politician." WHY must we depend on them?!? Our dependence on them and their associates at the Minisrty of Truth is just as bad as our dependence on fossil fuels. Blogs like theoildrum.com have done a lot to wean us from this dependence, but that "us" is a tiny percentage of the populace. Polls show the populace understands some aspect of the problem in their anticipation of gas going onwards and beyond $5. My local town politicos, in response to a very wideranging survey of the citizenry, approach the peak oil problem from the POV of sustainability and have said so to their constituents through the medium of the monthly town newsletter that gets mailed to everyone. Of course, this is in the radical, communalistic Lincoln County of Oregon.
I think the solution is to drive national policy change from the local, congressional district level, as House members face re-election every two years. Voters in each district must put their candidate's feet to the fire regarding their wholesale dissatisfaction with federal policy regarding energy and war--which are intertwined, as most anyone can see. In 2006, I suggested to TOD members that we run for congress or other political office and was laughed at. How many of you are going to laugh at me now?
Leanan you say "I agree that grassroots is the way to go" and may I add "critical mass" ?
I have a feeling that this mass is growing daily "over there" seen from "over here" ...
UNLESS someone like you
cares a whole awful lot,
nothing is going to get better.
It's not.
Those words, as well as those of my father who would always tell people "if you don't like it, run for office," have always motivated me. While Canada's got loads of problems, I've yet to hear anything but silence when I ask my fellow Canucks where they'd rather live.
I have plenty of reason to be jaded about politics since they destroyed my father's mental and financial health. Also, his best friend, one of the organizers of the Rio Earth Summit, committed suicide 10yrs ago in large part due to his frustration with the 'system.'
In spite of all that, I still believe that grassroots political action is (one of) the best way(s) to affect real change. Given that my city council and mayor are criminally incompetent, my sister and I are seriously thinking about having a go at it. Admittedly, she's the far more credible/experienced between the two of us, but I figure it's more productive use of my time than pulling my hair out.
One of my pet projects of late has been biking around town and taking pictures of the myriad could-be community garden sites within city limits with the intent of convincing the city to make productive use of these fields (which they inexplicably mow). We have a fair number of community gardens here, but most of them need to be driven to. I figure with the locavore movement and gardening being very 'in' it has a hope in hell of working... and besides, my gardening ambition has long since dwarfed my humble garden space.
*I make it no secret that The Lorax by the good doctor is my favourite book of all time. And really, it's no big leap to go from that book to the oil drum.
The key word here is "politician." WHY must we depend on them?!?
Because of the size of government and its relative control of resources and the economy. It's called power.
Sure, local solutions will work in areas with local strengths. That is what we see with Renewable Portfolio Standards. However, there is little chance of a federal energy policy that addresses the problems anytime soon.
Most MoC's are in safe districts, 92% of them won re-election last year. Change will take forever because of the nature of campaign finance and incumbency.
"Because of the size of government and its relative control of resources and the economy. It's called power."
While this is true, it doesn't relate to the context wherein I asked the question WHY? That context had to do with getting the message out, what the poster consumer said: "No politician will ever tell you that you will have to lower your standard of living, but that is not the point. The point is, which one will take actions that will lead to your standard of living being lowered the least?" That we all, especially yourself for providing the platform in the first place, are busilly trying to get this very important point across to our fellows--that we will have to do more with less, an admittedly doublethink position I think possible as it's clear the Europeans can so why can't we? Sure, in my position it was easy to Power Down, but I deliberately chose to do so having the knowledge of future trends.
Future trends--$5 and more gasoline. Polls show the public gets it. The public mind seems open to suggestion--Change. But no politico is being specific about Change, if even mentioning it. So there's a vacuum within the political dialog that can be filled by those like us who have the knowledge of future trends that MUST be accomodated. At every SolFest for the past decade, this is the message, for example. And it's reached an ever growing and concerned audience.
Thanks for your post Prof. Goose; I needed to finish my point.
It gets worse. Hillary Clinton has decided to browbeat OPEC to produce more...or else:
"We’re going to go right at OPEC. They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at.
"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly."
Clinton at a campaign stop in Merrillville, IN.
Julian Delasantellis in Asia Times this morning described her attempts to appeal to white blue collar voters saying, "The once patrician Clinton, a woman now so committed to identifying with the American working class that she will undoubtedly soon be photographed ripping lug nuts off pickup trucks with her teeth."
the more I hear from Hillary (and Mc Cain) the more hilarious they look (in my eyes).
It looks a lot less funny from here in the US.
Yeah - it really would be funny if I didn't have to live with the results, and could just observe from the outside. I think if it wasn't real, I would advocate for GWB to be eligible for re-election, just to see if it was truly possible to destroy such a great civilization and to see what such an epic collapse would look like.
Unfortunately, I do live here, so I'm voting for Obama.
The US system of government is hopelessly and terminally dysfunctional. It is only a matter of time before it is replaced.
That jingle keeps playing in my mind: "Sooner or later, you'll have Generals"
"Sooner or later, you'll have Generals" What do you think Obama's change message is all about? Of course, he'll change everything........ to a dictatorship. We'll all be serfs in the lands that our forefathers conquered.
A Cherokee or a Navajo would undoubtedly see a certain rough justice in that.
You mean you aren't already?
I think that consumerism is the glue that holds us together, without it we have no economy and no common purpose.
Great insight Futureseeker. Professor Jack Lessinger, a researcher on multigenerational changes in the commonly accepted American Dream stated something very similiar. His theory (which is very persuasive is that the standard American Dream radically changes every few generations as the old dream gets so overblown and destructive that a opposite American Dream arises to defeat and replace the old.
He calls the American Dream one we have been in since around 1900 the "Little King" for it's focus of "get it all - get it now", it's individualist focus, it's bond with cars and suburbia (every man's little kingdom), and it's focus on the short-term. Fortunately it has run way past it's prime (about 1960) and is now rapidly being replaced by a new American Dream. The new one is called the "Responsible Villager" and it is pretty much the opposite of the Little King.
His first book "Schizomania" focused on his theory and the rising Responsible Villager as a culture. You can still find it at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0962518212/ref=dp_olp_2
The latest book is called "Transformations" and again explains the theory well but focuses more on new business people (called Responsible Capitalists) and their part in creating the new Responsible Villager american dream. You can see his site and book at: http://www.jacklessinger.com/
Below is an entry from his blog that fits your point....
I wish I could believe that. But people seem to be more materialistic than ever to me. Sure, they talk about climate change, but most don't do anything. Maybe the most committed will "shop green" - when the real solution is to shop less.
Consumerism as bad strikes me as one of those elitist value judgements that don't actually address any problems.
Thanks for the response Greg. You should check out "The Century of Self" which is by the BBC, here is the google video link to part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151 . It explains how the theories of freud were used to control the mob by turning them into consumers and thereby neutering them politically. It is a really fascinating and pertinent documentary.
With Mexico likely to export 200,000 b/d less each year until it stops being a net exporter i,e, 2011-12, we should stop treating OPEC so shabbily. We will be more dependent on OPEC in the near future. Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola plus KSA and other Mid East countries will have to be relied upon to replace the loss of Mexican oil and our own 2% depletion rate. As all of these countries use more and subsidize their own domestic oil consumption, it will be difficult enough for them to like and respect the US. If on the other hand they feel misused or not respected, as is the case now, well other growing economies will certainly step up and take all the oil for themselves and thank their good luck that the US has such poor leadership. Go Obama
I agree.
In the short term, my strategy would be to be as accomodating to KSA as I could be. Although, in Hillary's defense, I'm sure KSA knows she's BSing to get votes, and won't actually do anything about it.
In the long run, we need to be aggressive on demand; there's just no way around it.
I agree with being aggressive on demand. I think there is a lot of low hanging fruit to be had to reduce demand. Somehow we need to get the country on board...telling the truth wouldn't hurt. And as Leanan has said..Dubya the lame duck is the perfect person to tell the truth
I wouldn't count on it.
From big oil he came, to big oil he will return.
Don't expect the voice of the lord to come from that particular bush.
There is plenty of scope for energy saving in the US though, precisely because it is so inefficient.
European levels of energy use would reduce the US count by 50%.
Japan uses about 8 barrels per capita as opposed to ours and Canada's 27 barrels. It is not about inventing the wheel, it is more about getting out of the denial stage and getting to work.
And Harper has the same genes, unfortunately for Canadians.
Have you seen some of the green stuff at his ranch?
http://www.off-grid.net/index.php?p=680#more-680
I'll second that. However, even my 10 year old son found this comic very funny. We get a good chuckle anytime we hear Hillary or anyone in the media use the word 'elite' now.
http://action.credomobile.com/comics/2008/04/the_elitist_menace.html
Maybe we all need a bleeding lapel pin like McCain's?
(Except this one will be of a skull, an oil barrel below, and two guns crossed behind.
Our motto will be:
"Give me oil, Or give me death! --It don't make no difference to me.")
The problem is that many in this country are uneducated and hear what Hillary and John say and they eat it right up. The more I hear Hillary speak about OPEC and oil, the more frightened I get. With Bush being in office for the last 7 1/2 years, we have already gotten ourselves pretty lost in the woods. Hillary could potentially lead us down a different path but further in the wrong direction AND it's starting to get dark in the woods.
"The blind leading the blind" - that pretty much sums up the US political scene today.
When will America learn that national politics is a race to the lowest common denominator? Or is the puerile schlep strategically released to the "never have read a book in my life" populace is inversely proportional to the average intelligence.
Idiocracy, here we come!!!
Her First Laddie (Mr. Bill) knows all about Peak Oil. He's spoken openly about it on CSPAN. Except he said that it was not a "voting issue", meaning the general public just doesn't get it and won't change their vote over it.
agreed Shaun, the hilariousness of hers boarders real hysteria for the future. And if memory serves, she mentioned the NOPEC-law the other day ... !
You laugh. NOPEC passed 345-72 in the House. The Senate vote was 70-23. That is really lopsided. It has broad support from Democrats and Republicans.
It's just like it was back in the '70s, when people thought "lower the price of oil or no more food for OPEC" was a good idea.
"lower the price of oil or no more food for OPEC" was a good idea" Still is.
Except it wouldn't work.
The NOPEC is no different in its policy "logic" from the ongoing economic war against Iran and the 17 year war against Iraq--all three are insane actions that keep digging the hole deeper. US domestic oil extraction as shown in yesterday's drumbeat is now at the level of 1950, and then we were already a net oil importer. Somehow, the US must face the fact that it needs to radically decrease its consumption to those same 1950 levels in some planned, rational manner before the decrease gets done for us by other unplanned, more painful actions.
We need to throw people with mindsets like Clinton and McCain "off the bus" as it's clear they're wedded to maintianing the elite's status quo at almost any cost to the vast majority.
Yeah, but are any other politicians any different? Obama, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot...they are no different. Who is going to tell us we have to lower our standard of living?
No politician will ever tell you that you will have to lower your standard of living, but that is not the point. The point is, which one will take actions that will lead to your standard of living being lowered the least?
Obama is far from perfect (he was still defending ethanol on Meet the Press this Sunday); but I think he is more willing to tell at least parts of the truth and more importantly, make decisions that are in our long term interests (rather than just continuing the party).
I think he's no better than any other politician. And when that becomes obvious, the backlash will be brutal, because people's expectations are so high.
The key word here is "politician." WHY must we depend on them?!? Our dependence on them and their associates at the Minisrty of Truth is just as bad as our dependence on fossil fuels. Blogs like theoildrum.com have done a lot to wean us from this dependence, but that "us" is a tiny percentage of the populace. Polls show the populace understands some aspect of the problem in their anticipation of gas going onwards and beyond $5. My local town politicos, in response to a very wideranging survey of the citizenry, approach the peak oil problem from the POV of sustainability and have said so to their constituents through the medium of the monthly town newsletter that gets mailed to everyone. Of course, this is in the radical, communalistic Lincoln County of Oregon.
I think the solution is to drive national policy change from the local, congressional district level, as House members face re-election every two years. Voters in each district must put their candidate's feet to the fire regarding their wholesale dissatisfaction with federal policy regarding energy and war--which are intertwined, as most anyone can see. In 2006, I suggested to TOD members that we run for congress or other political office and was laughed at. How many of you are going to laugh at me now?
I agree that grassroots is the way to go. Probably lower than congressional level to start.
Start at the city council levels. If you aren't on a first name basis with your own city councilmen (or women) you need to get out more.
National politics is a dead-end and most of the people on TOD know it!
Leanan you say "I agree that grassroots is the way to go" and may I add "critical mass" ?
I have a feeling that this mass is growing daily "over there" seen from "over here" ...
To quote the late great Dr. Seuss:
Those words, as well as those of my father who would always tell people "if you don't like it, run for office," have always motivated me. While Canada's got loads of problems, I've yet to hear anything but silence when I ask my fellow Canucks where they'd rather live.
I have plenty of reason to be jaded about politics since they destroyed my father's mental and financial health. Also, his best friend, one of the organizers of the Rio Earth Summit, committed suicide 10yrs ago in large part due to his frustration with the 'system.'
In spite of all that, I still believe that grassroots political action is (one of) the best way(s) to affect real change. Given that my city council and mayor are criminally incompetent, my sister and I are seriously thinking about having a go at it. Admittedly, she's the far more credible/experienced between the two of us, but I figure it's more productive use of my time than pulling my hair out.
One of my pet projects of late has been biking around town and taking pictures of the myriad could-be community garden sites within city limits with the intent of convincing the city to make productive use of these fields (which they inexplicably mow). We have a fair number of community gardens here, but most of them need to be driven to. I figure with the locavore movement and gardening being very 'in' it has a hope in hell of working... and besides, my gardening ambition has long since dwarfed my humble garden space.
*I make it no secret that The Lorax by the good doctor is my favourite book of all time. And really, it's no big leap to go from that book to the oil drum.
Because of the size of government and its relative control of resources and the economy. It's called power.
Sure, local solutions will work in areas with local strengths. That is what we see with Renewable Portfolio Standards. However, there is little chance of a federal energy policy that addresses the problems anytime soon.
Most MoC's are in safe districts, 92% of them won re-election last year. Change will take forever because of the nature of campaign finance and incumbency.
"Because of the size of government and its relative control of resources and the economy. It's called power."
While this is true, it doesn't relate to the context wherein I asked the question WHY? That context had to do with getting the message out, what the poster consumer said: "No politician will ever tell you that you will have to lower your standard of living, but that is not the point. The point is, which one will take actions that will lead to your standard of living being lowered the least?" That we all, especially yourself for providing the platform in the first place, are busilly trying to get this very important point across to our fellows--that we will have to do more with less, an admittedly doublethink position I think possible as it's clear the Europeans can so why can't we? Sure, in my position it was easy to Power Down, but I deliberately chose to do so having the knowledge of future trends.
Future trends--$5 and more gasoline. Polls show the public gets it. The public mind seems open to suggestion--Change. But no politico is being specific about Change, if even mentioning it. So there's a vacuum within the political dialog that can be filled by those like us who have the knowledge of future trends that MUST be accomodated. At every SolFest for the past decade, this is the message, for example. And it's reached an ever growing and concerned audience.
Thanks for your post Prof. Goose; I needed to finish my point.
Exacitacly.
In 1950 we were the world's largest oil ex