Yes, coal is going to happen next. This is the great tragedy. We've used half of the perfect fuel for transportation, somewhat less than half the perfect fuel for heating, and now we will return to a much inferior fuel that exists in much greater quantities. Because our whole infrastructure is built for the perfect fuel, we will not use the inferior fuel directly, but rather we will convert it to the perfect fuel, with the attendant losses, compounding the disaster.
The American way of life will be preserved -- for a far smaller number of Americans however. The remainder will be reclassified as un-Americans and put on the do-not-walk-around-free list.
Is that what you meant by "what will happen next"?
Very well put. Though Murphys law will rear its ugly head regarding coal - Im not so sure the ease and accessibility to large high quality, dense reserves is as abundant as we are led to believe. SASOL has been doing this for a long time and yet only is producing 150,000 barrels a day of FT Diesel. The pollution is mind-boggling.
We need to educate the public on the tradeoffs - would you rather carpool to work every day and live the rest of your life as you do now? Or would you rather drive to work every day and live the rest of your life breathing through a surgeons mask and wearing white clothes to keep cool? These questions need to be asked ahead of time, with advocacy and science united to paint the pictures.
The whole oil thing appears to be viewed as an excuse by power brokers to get votes and/or goodies for their constituencies (e.g. Obama's move to subsidize UAW retirees from tax monies, the various pushes for ethanol from ag lobbies). Meanwhile, climate threats and other problems are ignored.
What are the odds that we'll get a program aimed primarily at the problems rather than divvying up pork?
Odds: very low. Peak oil mitigation is going to be a pork trough. IMO, the most logical approach is a good stiff fuel tax in the U.S., but what we're likely to get is a crash program to maintain the status quo, like that described in the Hirsch report. The peak oilers calling for the gov't to do something because the market won't/can't do it are playing right into the lobbyists' hands. The rationale: we can't wait for the market to build (say) coal liquefaction plants because it will be too late. So the government will put up money in the national interest, and then ownership/profits will be turned over to the private sector to ensure efficient management. In other words, the magic ju-jitsu of lobbying will turn peak oil into just another mechanism of corporate welfare.
Of course, the best way to avoid this unsavory outcome, is to attack the foundations of peak oil theory -- particularly the notion that we desperately need oil to function.
It leaves us with extremely high prices at the pump, which is a good thing. Sky-high gasoline prices are the solution, not the problem. The higher they go, the better. So I think the best approach is complete laissez-faire.
There's a big disconnect between the different camps regarding the meaning of words like "do something" or "do enough". If "doing something" means spending tax money to help reduce gasoline prices, I'm totally opposed to it. People who are conserving gas should not be taxed to lower prices for people who aren't conserving. IMO, that is completely ass-backwards and nonsensical.
This is a country where the divide between the haves and the have nots is growing rapidly, and where people on the lower end of economic fortune drive longer distances, often in older, less efficient cars. Higher gas prices without some attempt at mitigating the cost for lower incomes might help in regards to peak oil, but it will be disastrous from a social and economic point of view.
In one community that I know, 65% of the people don't own cars. There is lots of interest in bikes, but riding through a Minneapolis winter is dangerous without decent gloves, face mask, etc. They cost money that is hard to justify. Scooters are even more dangerous when the roads are snowy or icy, because they go faster and on busier roads.
The neighborhood is 3 miles by 5 miles square. For a number of years, it didn't have a grocery store, just a handful of corner markets. Taking the bus to the grocery store, laundromat, job, church, etc., is extremely time consuming even though there is good bus service by American standards. The bus lines are spaced every half-mile or so apart, so it involves some walking for the majority of people. Car pools are fine for getting to work (if you have stable work and can coordinate with someone who works about the same hours in about the same place), but aren't much help generally for shopping or the laundromat.
Numerous studies have shown (sorry, no links tonight) a correlation between car ownership and income level. One of my goals for the community's energy cooperative is to buy a fleet of flexible-fueled vehicles and get an E85 pump set up.
And where would poor people move? Some place more expensive with even worse mass transit and no cultural understanding?
I live in Osaka, Japan, a city with one of the best mass transit systems in the world. I walk to the supermarket because it's right across the street. There's a Korean grocery downstairs about 30 seconds from my front door. There are probably 10 supermarkets within a 5 minute bicycle ride, and people frequently sell vegetables on the street about 2 minutes on foot from my apartment. I do all my shopping on foot or bicycle, although I do take the subway/bus/streetcar quite often. I also travel a lot, and I've been all over Japan by train and bus.
New Orleans was comparable, preKatrina, but on a much more human scale (few buildings over 3 stories tall, greenery abounds in small areas in Lower Garden District).
I had 5 places to buy food within 6 blocks. Nearest bank, barber, tailor & insurance agent all 4 blocks away. Two world class restuarants within walking distance, and many more just damn good ones :-) Office Depot 7 blocks away, main Post Office a mile away. Much more on streetcar line.
I guarantee you that I cycle in weather much harsher than this community you speak of gets, and I'm rarely uncomfortable. (I'm in central Alberta, Canada. Not Calgary anymore. Now, I'm further north and east. I cycle five days a week. It would take a foot of snow falling in a single night for me to consider anything else.) The extra clothing for winter cycling is nothing compared to the price of a car, and equivalent to a few months of transit passes. A single studded tire (in front), fleece long underwear, a light fleece jacket, a microft shell, gloves, a light toque, and a mask is my winter kit. I might have spent $280 total (Canadian) piecing it together. Throw in a pair of panniers, and you're set. If it were dangerous, I wouldn't be doing it. The vast majority of the folk in a 3-by-5 mile community are only looking at a 10-15 minute trip by bike from any point A to any point B. That ain't that bad.
Honestly, I don't know why people look at cycling like its a fate worse than death.
Besides cycling, there are many other options. Improving bus service is obvious. Car rentals worked great for me. (I'd rent a car for a couple of "chore-days" a month.) A hybrid between taxis and busses could also fill a niche. All of these could work within the current capitalist system. I strongly suspect we'll see things move in this direction (but not enough).
And there are many ways to help the poor without taking away anybody's (rich or poor) insentive to conserve. A revenue neutral fuel tax (tax every unit of fuel, split the revenue equally among the population) is an obvious one.
Don't get me wrong. At heart, I'm a leftie, but I've watched governments bung so many simple things up over the years that the thought of government intervention on anything important makes my sphincters cinch. Governments are just so good at doing the wrong thing. Since governments are necessarily somewhat populist, and the populous is nothing but selfish, this seems unlikely to change. Big business takes advantage whenever it can, and that's often.
This is why I've mostly stopped worrying about everybody else and began to focus on my own family and the people close to me.
In the US the public transportation system sucks, except for a few cities. We dismantled most of it decades ago. By and large, we've surrounded our cites with suburbs, and increasingly the jobs are out there. The poor cannot live there, and we've built those areas exclusively for cars. The roadways were not set up for bikes either, even if the distance were close enough to make that practical.
Because even middle class folks are in an increasingly dire cash and capital squeeze that has been happening since about 1975 as real wiage fail to keep pace with prices. Too be sure the appalling savings rate rests in part on their own shoulders, but the fact is that many families have been using debt to try to keep pace. Cars are a hugely capital and income intensive means of personal transport, but most of us do not have a choice in owning one. For example most downtown developments no longer contain supermarkets which have migrated to edge cities and the shopping malls around the ring roads. I could go on, but won't.
I think it has already happened. While I was watching TV last night I saw a raft of GM's yellow gas cap commercials.
They've obviously found political partners in the ethanol campaign, and we are going to see more pushes like Obama's to get every car ethanol-ready. GM then, would be seen as "ahead" of the rest in peak oil response. Is that sad or what?
It is particularly galling to for me to see the Chevy Avalanche in the closing shot of each yellow gas cap commercial. The thing gets 15 mpg real world with gasoline. Using the rule of thumb that E85 has 2/3 the energy density ... would they really have us believe that 10 mpg on E85 is the future?
US Ethanol just reached a record production level of 280,000 barrels per day.
Given that gasoline demand is running at 9 million barrels a day .. we're at roughly 3% ? We've got a long way to go to fuel every car (Obama) or talk about "the answer to oil dependence" "growing in front of us" (GM).
I suggest you check out the latest blurbs on Energybulletin.net: two articles by military writers. Not a good sign, in my opinion, because our elected leaders should leading the charge.
Bob,
Thank you for the reference to these articles. I have not looked at the Bulletin for some time and now feel I have been remiss. However...
In what way is this not a good sign? I have not read the entire reports, but both of them are at least positing that the traditional military intervention IS NOT GOING TO WORK, not because of any deficiencies on the armed forces' part, but because THE WORLD'S OIL IS RUNNING OUT. I find the fact that they were allowed to publish this stuff in the venues they did astounding.
Yes, they are mostly pushing techno-fixes, but also conservation and better CAFE standards. (Gasp!)
While I don't think that this means any kind of abrupt about-face in our disastrous foreign policy, it is a sign that, as Stuart says, the elephant is turning. I think it also signals a key shift in political allegiance to TPTB. Or hell, maybe the whole thing is orchestrated to coincide with the "addicted to oil" spiel, but even that would not really be a bad thing.
I found it refreshing that LtCol Amidon discussed the oil "tax" that we pay via our military expenditures. It is real and substantial.
But there is nothing astounding about the fact that he was allowed to publish it. Thousands of publically available articles and theses are published every year by officers pursuing higher degrees and attending staff schools. I take it as an extremely healthy demonstration that the number of PO-aware individuals are increasing invisibly. Someone somewhere ran across this article and quickly brought it to the attention of the larger, PO-aware community.
This is a perfect vehicle for me to begin discussing PO with my colleagues still in uniform.
Is Bob the Builder a Peak-Oiler? I was listening to my three-year-old watch Bob out of one ear while doing something else, and the show caught my attention. It seems Bob and his crew have moved out of town to create a sustainable "eco-village." I was shocked!
Interestingly, in one part of the episode before Bob moved, the power in the town went out. Bob made remarks about how people did things before electricity. Hmm.
Anyway, check it out! Kind of fun intro to "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" for pre-schoolers.
Regarding Iran, it looks to me like the diplomatic maneuverings will be completed soon. The US will have enough resolutions and other tools that can be used, along with a thin veil of spin, to justify whatever actions it wishes. Presently we're pushing for a deadline (these are really great to have, allowing you to draw a "line in the sand"). From there, it is just a matter of logistics and finding a time that the madmen believe will work.
Both the US and Iran seemed to be spoiling for a fight - both seem to think they will prevail. Both sides eying the oil just on the other side of the boarder, and hoping to lead the other to overreach - thus eliminating a power rival.
I think it's much less symmetrical. The US is and has been spoiling for a fight on many, many fronts. You know the list. Iraq showed the futility of rolling over, disarming, etc. Iran is simply saying: we are not going to make it easy for you, same with Venezuela, Cuba and a few others. China of course is going to protect its access to energy -- given the tragic decisions they've made to make themselves as dependent on oil as we are.
Nevertheless, any look at actual numbers will quickly reveal who the aggressor is in all these matters. Our military budget = the total of everyone else's. Some 700+ military bases in some 88 countries. No one even comes close! Certainly Iran cannot be regarded as anywhere near a "rival power".
You're right about the direction of things are going: Iran is next, and it may be soon -- mad as it seems.
Put the U.S. in the place of Germany (which was striving for an Empire) and it's a little more symmetrical, politically. However, I was trying to point out the maddness of the whole situation. (And, incidently, I can't understand why the crazies in Washington haven't been able to learn from the debacle in Iraq.)
You're right in that regard Dave. Iran is reacting, not initiating. It's quite possible they would have gone in a more open direction without our pressure, but we'll never know now. However, now that they must circle their wagons, the hand of the hardliners is strengthened. And they seem to have adopted a rather aggressive stance, which IMHO is an indicator that they think they can trip up the Great Satan. I think we will find out.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this; the diplomatic manouevering has barely begun at this stage, and there is no chance of the UNSC green-lighting any military actions on the near-term horizon. The US has no support at the UNSC for any kind of resolution mandating military action - largely because there is no substantive evidence of a weapons programme or a well-founded judgement that Iran will have the capacity, let alone the concrete intention, to actually go nuclear for many years to come.
The problem with the US strategy is that once the matter gets to the UNSC there is going to be pressure for a serious deal to solve the issue - and this will not necessarily be to the taste of Washington as it will involve things like the dilution of ILSA, security guarantees, the return of frozen assets and direct diplomatic rapprochement between the US and Iran.
I suspect that the Iranians can live with the concomitant requirements that would be placed upon them as they are playing for a substantive, positive benefit; it's unclear what the positive goal that the US is actually playing for beyond domination of the Iranian polity ( which is unachievable ).
I don't think the UNSC will go along with any actual actions against Iran either, but I don't think that is required. All that is needed is a pretext (i.e. political cover, primarily for the US population), and the bar for that is pretty low. Facts are not important, only perception is, and that can be managed quite easily (for a while, anyway).
The UNSC did not authorize what happened in Iraq either, nor was there any evidence of WMD - and you can see how much of a deterrent this was.
There will be many opportunities for provocation and escalation, if one is looking for them.
I just see that the drumbeat is continuing apace. I'm skeptical it will happen by the end of March, but things should be ready by the end of summer.
A pretext for what exactly? US sanctions - they already exist. The US may have got away with launching the Iraq ar without UNSC authorisation, and it did actually have some allies to provide cover, but the same routine is just not going to work this time around; the only ally that the US has for military action against Iran is Israel - Jack Straw tends to get quite shouty about there being no military solution to this issue when the drums beat too loudly over in Washington.
Iraq was a chronically weak piece of low-hanging fruit that had a prior history of UN resolutions that could be leveraged for political cover, few allies, internal disunity and an inability to assert its territorial integrity. In the run up to the Iraq war I don't recall Iraqi ambassadors flying around the globe to do deals with Japan and China, negotiate with the EU, pop in to Arab capitals to denounce Israel etc. I suspect that the dominant faction in Washington doesn't believe in the military option either - which is why the warhawks are shouting themselves hoarse over this one.
I doubt that the US public really has much appetite for another speculative military action - especially when there is no solid pretext for launching it, and even more so when the repercussions start to unfold. It's all very well launching a war on Iraq when oil is at $25 per barrel and the enemy is incapable of organising comeback - this is not the case with Iran, and the US is one bad hurricane season away from oil hitting the roof. End of summer - no chance.
But you see, you are using logic. Everything you say makes sense, it's all reasonable. The people running this show are not constrained by such things. The dominant faction in Washington has no other plan besides the military option.
The whole idea of if there is or isn't a military solution to "this issue" is a red herring - the nuclear weapons thing is not really the issue. Look how we've cozied up to India, Israel, and Pakistan - we could give a crap about the NPT. It's about oil (and NG), and controlling the sources of it. Look again at the map - the Iranian oil fields are in a small area just across from Basra. Watch us bend over backwards to make nice with the UAE, which just happens to be on the other side of the Straights of Hormuz.
Perhaps you are right, and I hope you are. But they're going to a massive effort to set this up, and it's not just for grins - they intend to do it if they can.
First strike on "nuclear facilities" (probably by Israel), most of which are really Iranian command and control & high value military targets.
Simultaneously we move to secure the Straights of Hormuz from UAE territory.
We move to secure the oil fields.
It's over in a week, we're showered with roses, and it's all paid for by the revenue from our new oil feilds.
I agree on a few points. Logic is not driving this bus. And it is all about the oil. So any logical argument against The Iranian Option is a moot argument. This is not a military problem, but that blunt tool (military action) will more likely be pulled from the kit before the correct tool(s) are (conservation, e.g.). As the saying goes, When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
This is deadly serious stuff going forward. And I have no 'insider's knowledge' of future intent anymore than you do. But I see zero movement towards sustainability.
The Drumbeat rythym was changed, without a lot of fanfare, by the State of the Union. There is no more drumbeat of war, there is now the drumbeat of "bide our time and hope the next generation of Iranians change their government".
The administration would love to topple to Iranian government, but their hands are tied. Tied by the failure in Iraq. Tied by China's opposition to sanctions in the Security Council. Tied by the Silkworm missiles looking over the Strait of Hormuz. Tied by last week's deal to transfer nuclear technology to India.
The object of our confrontation (and this administration, using a cold war playbook, sees foreign policy in that way) has changed from Iran to China. And surprise, surprise, it's all about the oil. Changing from Supply side to Demand side. Look for the US to try to undermine Chinese economic growth (and therefore its oil appetite).
Where does that leave Iran? From a policy standpoint with with North Korea. Decidedly on the back burner. But Iran isn't isolated like North Korea. Their influence is growing. Growing in Iraq, growing in Palestine, growing in China, growing in India. The US may not like it, but at this point there is NOTHING they can do about it.
I just posted the following comment on Stuart's "Why Peak Oil Might Be About Now" thread, and thought it might be fun to post it here as well:
This is the 373rd comment on this [i.e. the "Peak Oil About Now"]thread. Just out of curiousity, I ran my "Print Preview" command on this thread to find out how many pages long it would be if I were to print it out. The answer: 150 pages. 150 pages for a single thread! That is literally book-length!
Altogether, I think there has been a marked increase in the number of contributions to threads here lately. 200 contributions used to be exceptional, but now it is almost becoming routine. Another sign of increasingly broadened consciousness about Peak Oil, I suppose.
I think it may also have something to do with a large number of irrelevant posts.
All you have to do is say something like "George Bush looks like a monkey" and you are sure to get six or seven people jumping on in agreement and at least one post that just says "nukular". Claiming the MSM are ignoring a story works just as well.
My impression is that there used to be 200 posts of which 85% were good and related to peak oil. Now we may get 350, but only 75% related to peak oil.
I do think that broadening consiousness about peak oil in the main reason for the increase in readership and comments, as well as for references to TOD externally. However, I have observed on other sites that as the number of commenters grows the quality deteriorates and a lot of posts are only insulting other posters.
I am not saying that TOD is there, but I do think it makes sense for regulars here to try to keep on, or near, topic. Quality makes for a good comment thread not quantity.
My feeling is that until $100/barrel, there will just be a lot of talk and little action.
The American way of life will be preserved -- for a far smaller number of Americans however. The remainder will be reclassified as un-Americans and put on the do-not-walk-around-free list.
Is that what you meant by "what will happen next"?
We need to educate the public on the tradeoffs - would you rather carpool to work every day and live the rest of your life as you do now? Or would you rather drive to work every day and live the rest of your life breathing through a surgeons mask and wearing white clothes to keep cool? These questions need to be asked ahead of time, with advocacy and science united to paint the pictures.
What are the odds that we'll get a program aimed primarily at the problems rather than divvying up pork?
Of course, the best way to avoid this unsavory outcome, is to attack the foundations of peak oil theory -- particularly the notion that we desperately need oil to function.
There's a big disconnect between the different camps regarding the meaning of words like "do something" or "do enough". If "doing something" means spending tax money to help reduce gasoline prices, I'm totally opposed to it. People who are conserving gas should not be taxed to lower prices for people who aren't conserving. IMO, that is completely ass-backwards and nonsensical.
The neighborhood is 3 miles by 5 miles square. For a number of years, it didn't have a grocery store, just a handful of corner markets. Taking the bus to the grocery store, laundromat, job, church, etc., is extremely time consuming even though there is good bus service by American standards. The bus lines are spaced every half-mile or so apart, so it involves some walking for the majority of people. Car pools are fine for getting to work (if you have stable work and can coordinate with someone who works about the same hours in about the same place), but aren't much help generally for shopping or the laundromat.
Numerous studies have shown (sorry, no links tonight) a correlation between car ownership and income level. One of my goals for the community's energy cooperative is to buy a fleet of flexible-fueled vehicles and get an E85 pump set up.
And where would poor people move? Some place more expensive with even worse mass transit and no cultural understanding?
One other question: JD, how do you get around?
I had 5 places to buy food within 6 blocks. Nearest bank, barber, tailor & insurance agent all 4 blocks away. Two world class restuarants within walking distance, and many more just damn good ones :-) Office Depot 7 blocks away, main Post Office a mile away. Much more on streetcar line.
Honestly, I don't know why people look at cycling like its a fate worse than death.
Besides cycling, there are many other options. Improving bus service is obvious. Car rentals worked great for me. (I'd rent a car for a couple of "chore-days" a month.) A hybrid between taxis and busses could also fill a niche. All of these could work within the current capitalist system. I strongly suspect we'll see things move in this direction (but not enough).
And there are many ways to help the poor without taking away anybody's (rich or poor) insentive to conserve. A revenue neutral fuel tax (tax every unit of fuel, split the revenue equally among the population) is an obvious one.
Don't get me wrong. At heart, I'm a leftie, but I've watched governments bung so many simple things up over the years that the thought of government intervention on anything important makes my sphincters cinch. Governments are just so good at doing the wrong thing. Since governments are necessarily somewhat populist, and the populous is nothing but selfish, this seems unlikely to change. Big business takes advantage whenever it can, and that's often.
This is why I've mostly stopped worrying about everybody else and began to focus on my own family and the people close to me.
What will you do when the plow trucks have no fuel?
They've obviously found political partners in the ethanol campaign, and we are going to see more pushes like Obama's to get every car ethanol-ready. GM then, would be seen as "ahead" of the rest in peak oil response. Is that sad or what?
It is particularly galling to for me to see the Chevy Avalanche in the closing shot of each yellow gas cap commercial. The thing gets 15 mpg real world with gasoline. Using the rule of thumb that E85 has 2/3 the energy density ... would they really have us believe that 10 mpg on E85 is the future?
US Ethanol just reached a record production level of 280,000 barrels per day.
Given that gasoline demand is running at 9 million barrels a day .. we're at roughly 3% ? We've got a long way to go to fuel every car (Obama) or talk about "the answer to oil dependence" "growing in front of us" (GM).
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thank you for the reference to these articles. I have not looked at the Bulletin for some time and now feel I have been remiss. However...
In what way is this not a good sign? I have not read the entire reports, but both of them are at least positing that the traditional military intervention IS NOT GOING TO WORK, not because of any deficiencies on the armed forces' part, but because THE WORLD'S OIL IS RUNNING OUT. I find the fact that they were allowed to publish this stuff in the venues they did astounding.
Yes, they are mostly pushing techno-fixes, but also conservation and better CAFE standards. (Gasp!)
While I don't think that this means any kind of abrupt about-face in our disastrous foreign policy, it is a sign that, as Stuart says, the elephant is turning. I think it also signals a key shift in political allegiance to TPTB. Or hell, maybe the whole thing is orchestrated to coincide with the "addicted to oil" spiel, but even that would not really be a bad thing.
I found it refreshing that LtCol Amidon discussed the oil "tax" that we pay via our military expenditures. It is real and substantial.
But there is nothing astounding about the fact that he was allowed to publish it. Thousands of publically available articles and theses are published every year by officers pursuing higher degrees and attending staff schools. I take it as an extremely healthy demonstration that the number of PO-aware individuals are increasing invisibly. Someone somewhere ran across this article and quickly brought it to the attention of the larger, PO-aware community.
This is a perfect vehicle for me to begin discussing PO with my colleagues still in uniform.
Interestingly, in one part of the episode before Bob moved, the power in the town went out. Bob made remarks about how people did things before electricity. Hmm.
Anyway, check it out! Kind of fun intro to "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" for pre-schoolers.
http://www.bobthebuilder.com/uk/bob_the_builder_official_UK_website_homepage.htm
Also an interview with Bob at "Friends of the Earth":
http://www.foe.co.uk/living/poundsavers/bob_builder.html
Sorry bout that!
Both the US and Iran seemed to be spoiling for a fight - both seem to think they will prevail. Both sides eying the oil just on the other side of the boarder, and hoping to lead the other to overreach - thus eliminating a power rival.
Nevertheless, any look at actual numbers will quickly reveal who the aggressor is in all these matters. Our military budget = the total of everyone else's. Some 700+ military bases in some 88 countries. No one even comes close! Certainly Iran cannot be regarded as anywhere near a "rival power".
You're right about the direction of things are going: Iran is next, and it may be soon -- mad as it seems.
The problem with the US strategy is that once the matter gets to the UNSC there is going to be pressure for a serious deal to solve the issue - and this will not necessarily be to the taste of Washington as it will involve things like the dilution of ILSA, security guarantees, the return of frozen assets and direct diplomatic rapprochement between the US and Iran.
I suspect that the Iranians can live with the concomitant requirements that would be placed upon them as they are playing for a substantive, positive benefit; it's unclear what the positive goal that the US is actually playing for beyond domination of the Iranian polity ( which is unachievable ).
The UNSC did not authorize what happened in Iraq either, nor was there any evidence of WMD - and you can see how much of a deterrent this was.
There will be many opportunities for provocation and escalation, if one is looking for them.
I just see that the drumbeat is continuing apace. I'm skeptical it will happen by the end of March, but things should be ready by the end of summer.
Iraq was a chronically weak piece of low-hanging fruit that had a prior history of UN resolutions that could be leveraged for political cover, few allies, internal disunity and an inability to assert its territorial integrity. In the run up to the Iraq war I don't recall Iraqi ambassadors flying around the globe to do deals with Japan and China, negotiate with the EU, pop in to Arab capitals to denounce Israel etc. I suspect that the dominant faction in Washington doesn't believe in the military option either - which is why the warhawks are shouting themselves hoarse over this one.
I doubt that the US public really has much appetite for another speculative military action - especially when there is no solid pretext for launching it, and even more so when the repercussions start to unfold. It's all very well launching a war on Iraq when oil is at $25 per barrel and the enemy is incapable of organising comeback - this is not the case with Iran, and the US is one bad hurricane season away from oil hitting the roof. End of summer - no chance.
The whole idea of if there is or isn't a military solution to "this issue" is a red herring - the nuclear weapons thing is not really the issue. Look how we've cozied up to India, Israel, and Pakistan - we could give a crap about the NPT. It's about oil (and NG), and controlling the sources of it. Look again at the map - the Iranian oil fields are in a small area just across from Basra. Watch us bend over backwards to make nice with the UAE, which just happens to be on the other side of the Straights of Hormuz.
Perhaps you are right, and I hope you are. But they're going to a massive effort to set this up, and it's not just for grins - they intend to do it if they can.
I agree on a few points. Logic is not driving this bus. And it is all about the oil. So any logical argument against The Iranian Option is a moot argument. This is not a military problem, but that blunt tool (military action) will more likely be pulled from the kit before the correct tool(s) are (conservation, e.g.). As the saying goes, When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
This is deadly serious stuff going forward. And I have no 'insider's knowledge' of future intent anymore than you do. But I see zero movement towards sustainability.
The administration would love to topple to Iranian government, but their hands are tied. Tied by the failure in Iraq. Tied by China's opposition to sanctions in the Security Council. Tied by the Silkworm missiles looking over the Strait of Hormuz. Tied by last week's deal to transfer nuclear technology to India.
The object of our confrontation (and this administration, using a cold war playbook, sees foreign policy in that way) has changed from Iran to China. And surprise, surprise, it's all about the oil. Changing from Supply side to Demand side. Look for the US to try to undermine Chinese economic growth (and therefore its oil appetite).
Where does that leave Iran? From a policy standpoint with with North Korea. Decidedly on the back burner. But Iran isn't isolated like North Korea. Their influence is growing. Growing in Iraq, growing in Palestine, growing in China, growing in India. The US may not like it, but at this point there is NOTHING they can do about it.
This is the 373rd comment on this [i.e. the "Peak Oil About Now"]thread. Just out of curiousity, I ran my "Print Preview" command on this thread to find out how many pages long it would be if I were to print it out. The answer: 150 pages. 150 pages for a single thread! That is literally book-length!
Altogether, I think there has been a marked increase in the number of contributions to threads here lately. 200 contributions used to be exceptional, but now it is almost becoming routine. Another sign of increasingly broadened consciousness about Peak Oil, I suppose.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/1/3402/63420#more
All you have to do is say something like "George Bush looks like a monkey" and you are sure to get six or seven people jumping on in agreement and at least one post that just says "nukular". Claiming the MSM are ignoring a story works just as well.
My impression is that there used to be 200 posts of which 85% were good and related to peak oil. Now we may get 350, but only 75% related to peak oil.
I do think that broadening consiousness about peak oil in the main reason for the increase in readership and comments, as well as for references to TOD externally. However, I have observed on other sites that as the number of commenters grows the quality deteriorates and a lot of posts are only insulting other posters.
I am not saying that TOD is there, but I do think it makes sense for regulars here to try to keep on, or near, topic. Quality makes for a good comment thread not quantity.