The Oil Drum

I did see an article the other day about the Democrats, if they can get 'unified' government and get beyond a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (the latter is a big if, and the former I would put at a close to 50-50 probability were the election actually held today--but we have another six months to go! Yay!), would put on a real gas tax. I personally doubt that these kinds of plans are politically feasible, even in this political environment/frame of "change," but hey, I have been (and hope that I am this time) wrong before.

By the way, we are going to try to focus on both presidential candidates' agendas/stances/issues with regard to energy and sustainability (writ large) to compare them as the campaign progresses--so when folks see on-point discussions/commentary/ideas/speeches from both candidates, please send them along to the eds box.

Even if I am a political geek, I can't catch them all.

I would say: "Countries with high fertility rates can't pop out as many babies as they want, find themselves hungry, and then demand more food from us and expect we are going to say OK".

They can if they have oil and there are still willing buyers in the market. Who owns, or at least controls, the food anyway? Certainly not some generic "we". It belongs to the people who grow it, process it, and distribute it and that is increasingly large corporations who simply contract the growing function to individual farmers. Many of these entities are global corporations who do not have national borders or natioanl interest considerations to contend with. In fact it would be illegal for them in many juristictions to do anything but act in the best interests of their stockholders.

The best example of food for oil and corporate corruption comes from Australia with the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein to get the contracts. The attitude of many Aussie farmers after this was revealed shortly after the invasion in 2003, was that corruption is part of the business process and was therfore justifibale if it meant keeping wheat markets for Austrlain growers. The national interest test of right and wrong was willingly junked in the intersts of dollars in the pocket. The fact that Australian soldiers lives were now on the line against an enemy partially funded by AWB kickbacks was of little or no concern to these farmers.

The Iraqis who were eating the bread were simply mouths to feed and they had the money. I would'nt expect the corporations to behave any differently in times of future shortage. They will sell their produce to the highest bidder and US consumers may find themselves competing with wealthy oil producing nations who have plent of real wealth to exchange for food with the corporations. I wouldn't get too cocky about using the "food weapon" just yet.

I would say: "Countries with high fertility rates can't pop out as many babies as they want, find themselves hungry, and then demand more food from us and expect we are going to say OK".

The population is not the main problem, though it does cue in the equation. The main problem is that the US uses 5x per capita which is the highest in the world. Countries such as India and China do not use as much per capita. We have to learn not to be so decadent.

Wow, Obama continues to talk to us as if we are adults. How refreshing.

@Future pundit, you wrote:

Other countries are saying not Okay by driving up the price of oil to a level where we use less so they can use more.

I bet Obama won't propose gasoline taxes in order to lower our demand at lower price points for oil. So he's just posturing.

I would say: "Countries with high fertility rates can't pop out as many babies as they want, find themselves hungry, and then demand more food from us and expect we are going to say OK".

These comments seem to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the resource limitations we are facing, and I'm disappointed to see it coming from someone who's been here at TOD for almost a year. The escalation of oil prices is not pricipally due to "other countries driving up the price." Above-ground volatility, the weak dollar and demand growth in an environment of flattening or declining supply are the real culprits.

Here's a slightly wider cut of the Obama quote:

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

What I think those other countries are going to say not-OK to is the lopsided per-capita, wasteful use of resources by the US. Here's an excellent TOD article that shows the ecological footprint for an average resident of the world's companies as compared to the UN's human development index. What it basically says is that for a quality of life of X, American's consume vastly more ecological resources than the average.

When resources are even more scarce, this inequality will become more stark and trigger even more resentment from those using fewer resources.

I also think other coutries are going to say not-OK to them having to pay the high price for our high-cost quality of life footprint. The US enjoyes these SUVs and excessive calories and poorly climate-controlled homes at the direct expense of the world's developing nations. Our carbon emissions lead directly to abnormal weather patterns, drought and rising sea levels. It's not just envy of our lifestyle that will cause other countries to say not-OK. It's the direct harm we cause those other countries.

To your point about high fertility rates and other countries demanding "more food from us," there's a lot wrong with this interpretation. "We" are not providing food to these other countries. If anything, we're limiting their ability to produce their own food by encouraging them to produce unsustainable cash crops for our benefit. It's the policies of Western-based global companies that have driven the massive urbanization of many developing countries, pushing them to a dependency on largesse from the developed world to help meet basic needs. There is a looming problem ahead with the higher fertility rates of some developing nations, but I think your hypothetical counter argument to Obama misuses the situation.

Don't forget that Obama's larger point (not in the original post) wasn't a simple finger-wagging "bad America," but it was a call to lead in the development of solutions. Given our lopsided use of finite resources and the direct harm this causes to the ecology and economy of other countries, this is our obligation.

I would say: "Countries with high fertility rates can't pop out as many babies as they want, find themselves hungry, and then demand more food from us and expect we are going to say OK".

That raises an interesting question. Should we provide food aid to countries that run persistent energy deficits? For example, should myanmar receive aid following the hurricane?

On that same note, should the middle east provide "oil aid" to the U.S. when we run persistent trade deficits?

Are countries expanded beyond their energy or population "budgets" due to artificial manipulation of the true prices of base commodities. Specifically food and oil.

Oil is priced in dollars, and huge sovereign wealth funds re-invest back to the U.S. keeping the dollar from falling to it's true value.

NGO's provide food aid continuously to poor countries sustaining higher populations then they should otherwise have.

I'm not pushing these policies, but it is a little disturbing to see where they might go.

Mike

Actually, in our consumption-addicted society, it was a pretty gutsy thing to say. It will probably lose him some votes, especially among the "this big pickup is mine, and don't you forget it" crowd. If he's posturing, he is posturing to the minority, not the majority...

Hello Souperman2,

Yep, nothing new--politics wedded to corporate power go back a long way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
-----------------------------------------
During the first period (1518-1587), the beylerbeys were admirals of the sultan, commanding great fleets and conducting war operations for political ends. They were slave-hunters and their methods were ferocious. After 1587, the sole object of their successors became plunder, on land and sea. The maritime operations were conducted by the captains, or reises, who formed a class or even a corporation. Cruisers were fitted out by capitalists and commanded by the reises. Ten percent of the value of the prizes was paid to the pasha or his successors, who bore the titles of agha or dey or bey.[12]
--------------------------------------
The past Guano Wars will be nothing compared to the coming postPeak NPK wars. Food Surpluses = Job specialization. You can't eat crude.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Goodness. And if these firms weren't involved in all candidates' political contributions, I'd be very surprised.

The interesting thing about Obama's campaign is that his list is composed, primarily, of non-public donors. That is, donors who give less than $200 dollars. The list is 1.5 million strong and represents the largest grass roots political support system in modern memory.

So the question is how beholden is Obama to the special interests? Based on his rhetoric, seems a lot less than the other candidates who appear to lack the guts to address the issues he raises.

In any case, I think we get the government we deserve. So if we decide, at this point, to fall into apathy and cynicism based on these conspiracy theories, we may well end up with the government we feared -- because we expect no less.

As an electorate, it is our duty to demand the best, to expect it, and when it is not delivered -- to hold the bastards who failed accountable.

Good luck with the cynicism/depression/malaise. For my part, at least hope/will/drive keeps me moving, feeding my family, and functioning as a responsible citizen.