 | European gas supplies and a more than gentle cough from Russia | The Oil Drum | Perhaps we are getting a little more attention |  |
Tuesday Open Thread: W's Speech and Why We Should Love High Gas Prices...
Posted by Prof. Goose on April 25, 2006 - 6:38pm
As Leanan pointed out under the fold, President Bush in a speech today has suspended deliveries to the SPR, relaxed environmental rules on gasoline, called for an end to tax breaks for big oil, and is investigating oil industry pricing.
Other stuff to note includes an interesting thought piece from UK's Telegraph entitled "Why We Should Love High Gas Prices"; or check out Bill Clinton's speech acknowledging peak oil (is Hillary then the energy savvy presidential candidate?); or is it the "Twilight of Capitalism?"; or visit some of our sponsors, or take a run through our blogroll!
Update [2006-4-25 18:39:55 by Yankee]: Oh my goodness, I think my head is exploding. AmericaBlog, my favorite partisan website, endorses the following sentiment quoted by the DSCC:
Senate Republicans killed a Democratic proposal to make gas price gouging a federal crime. Without making price gouging a federal crime, the federal government can only prosecute oil companies if they can prove collusion to control markets, a standard that is nearly impossible to meet. [S. 2020, Vote #334, 11/17/05; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 11/18/05]I'd given up on the Democratic politicians long ago, but when even the liberal bloggers follow suit?
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”
—Francis Bacon, Essays
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
He's suspending deliveries to the SPR, relaxing environmental rules on gasoline, calling for an end to tax breaks for big oil, and investigating oil industry pricing.
To answer a question further down, the president can't arbitrarily change the air quality laws, but he can suspend their implementation. I wonder if the environmental groups will sue? I wonder if there is a judge out there that would be willing to require implementation again, knowing that s/he will be responsible for jacking gas prices up again.
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-chinas-oil-prices-forecast-rise-/2006/04/25/1604426.htm
"With international oil prices breaching US$75 per barrel, China's crude prices, which fluctuate with international benchmarks, are expected to rise considerably as well. The country's Daqing crude price is forecast to rise to 4,701 (US$586.55) yuan/ton in May, 421 yuan/ton higher than that in April"
But I misundertood what it meant. It seems to say that the Chinese are willing to bid the price up to $83/b next month, and that they expect it to reach that price.
There was an interview on NPR at noon today with Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee representing the Committee on Energy and Commerce. When invited to comment on Bush's statement today she sounded fully supportive of reducing environmental impediments to cheap gas. I don't remember many specific quotes from the interview but "over the top" environmental protection is one that comes to mind.
So here we are. Despite decades of warnings about peak oil, and in disregard of the lessons of the 70's, we're again going to remove environmental protections so we can keep gas "cheap" in order to continue our gluttonous lifestyle. It's just the beginning, IMO.
An indefinite suspension would be stupid, I think.
Finally, guess which way I think they'll go?
As discussed above, not adding the last 12 million barrels of oil to the SPR over the next six months isn't much. And who here doesn't think the minute the next hurricane strikes the Gulf Coast, the SPR wouldn't be tapped anyway. Last year the SPR was even tapped for a tug accident!
On to MTBE. The President is only deffering the implemenation of the changeover to ethanol by 20 days. More problematic, as far as I can tell, suppliers and providers of MTBE products will still be liable for lawsuits starting on May 6.
Tax credits - so we have a energy conservation that encourages the purchase of additional vehicles!
Hydrogen cars saving the day, don't make me laugh!
And once a step backwards occurs, it will be that more difficult to reenact/re-enforce environmental protections.
This is why I fear our most likely fate is "catabolic collapse," where we continue on until the environment is so trashed it won't support us any more.
You didn't honestly expect anything different from this president, did you?
The cynicism and resulting paralysis among the people in this country who want positive change almost brings me to tears. Few are willing to fight for it. Cynicism is a horrible, horrible cancer that we can get rid of if we want to. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not doing so.
I'm sick of reading elitist post after post outlining the sins of Americans. Either get of your ass and do something about it or shut your *&%$ing pie hole. If you're "too good" to calmly explain the issues to people who are in denial or unaware, you are part of the problem. You know why the Bad Guys are winning? Because they want it more than we do.
Leanan this post wasn't directed specifically at you, and I know there are a number of people here doing really good work (and more than myself).
As Prof. Goose has pointed out, it really is harder to change things in the U.S. (as opposed to, say, Europe). Our whole political system is set up to resist change. We have massive inertia, and it is intentional. Built in by the founding fathers.
We aren't going to change until we're forced to.
(I know it's hard to get good people elected largely because of the corrupting power of lobbyist money, but that's a different issue.)
We won't be able to get the "right" people into power. And once they are in power, it won't be easy for them to change things.
What is "the right thing", in your opinion?
As regards to "We're not going to change until we're forced to". I agree with you. My Big problem is, if we really wait that long, until things are so bad even the dumbest person can see the problem right in front of them, and they cannot be ignored: will it be too late by then to enact the necessary changes to avoid society collapse?
This is a question I think about more and more. If one thinks about the Hirsh report and its recommendations in relation to 'timelines' we should already have begun the 'changes' we appear to already be way behind on this, and how are we going to catch up? Do we really have another 10 or 15 years to waste?
Clearly most people on TOD would say, 'No'. We should be changing now, not speeding up. We're talking about the need to change the course of a giant, super-tanker, and magically turn it into a yacht so we can avoid the reef up ahead. I keep on trying to remain positive and engage with the world around me, but I really don't see any real political leadership anywhere that's taking this problem seriously.
Exactly.
I'm afraid it will take some serious suffering to do that, if it's possible at all. We've certainly had stark warnings. The '70s oil crises. Katrina. But still, no real change. What's it going to take? Something like the "We Were Warned" scenario? I have a feeling even that won't enough.
That is what I, and many others, have been saying for some time. The American people, just like any human on the planet, are short-term oriented. They want to keep the status quo no matter what the consequences.
Think of it this way. War is the most obviously deadly agent on the planet. You cannot purchase a few scientists and stonewall the deleterious effects of war like you can global warming. The plain truth is lots of people get killed in war. YET, men and women keep going to war. Why? Because at the heart of every little hormone machine known as the human is the certain knowledge that the guy or gal next to him or her will be the one to die on the battlefield -- not them. That person will live forever. If humans had any sense of the imminent future, there would be no war. SO. How can you expect the average human to acknowledge the absolute certainty of peak oil until it is hammering them on the head? You can't. The lemmings march on. Last man standing. And any other trope you can think of.
Yes, I'd like to be optimistic. But look at what we are doing to the planet, the economy, and our own people.
To see what our corporations are doing, go to:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-21.htm
There you will see what it means to be rich, uncaring, deadly and immune from government interference. That is the face of humanity in these republican times. It seems the republicans have it right; we live in brutal Hobbesian times.
All hail the profit motive.
The Japanese kamikazes were very effective - but not because that bundle of hormones thought they would live.
The Soviets updated the Prussian attitude of making sure soldiers were more terrified of their officers than the enemy by making sure that the soldiers knew that they would certainly be killed by the units behind them, while the enemy might only kill them.
As near as anyone can tell from the sick mythos and actual combat of the Waffen SS, those bundles of evil didn't seem to care too much about living or dying, apart from fulfilling the goals of their leader.
If you had talked about how elites, plutocrats, chickenhawks, etc. use war, and their attitudes to cannon fodder, fine.
And sure, the soldier is still the one pulling the trigger in the end.
But to blame war on soldiers believing they will live forever while the other dies is just absurd in a larger context. I assume you have heard of the draft? Ever wonder why that institution developed? Ever wonder why most militaries are still based on it?
Here is a hint - it is a supply and demand problem, and peak soldier has been a long running problem, since the demand is so much greater than the voluntary supply for industrial warfare.
The Republican are stuck defending the status quo and the oil industry because that is what conservatives do and because of the oil industry background of the administration. If anyone should have known that the oil is peaking, the Bushies should have. When it becomes clear that the looming crisis is just another thing that the current leadership has been misleading the public about, opinion will turn even more against them. The public will have someone to blame for not mobilizing society to do something about it.
The MSM, as evidenced by the Economist article, is also defending the status quo because to embrace the massive change needed would alienate their corporate advertisers and get them in trouble with the public for preaching doom and gloom. But facts are troublesome things.
The public is at near record levels of discontent with the direction of the country. They will be open to a crusade to save civilization. As a society, we will continue to be in denial for a while. But we have an excellent opportunity in the next few years to change the course of history. The stars are aligning.
Sterling,
I fear you have a naive understanding of politics.
"Facts" are irrelevant.
What counts is the public's perception of reality.
Politicians are pro's at manipulating the masses like soft noses made of wax.
Let's see. ... What have the Democrats done about this surprise surprise, "urgent" crisis? Nothing. All they do is sit there and whine like babies without their mommies. Only a decisive leader like our GWB stands up and delivers a plan. Only GWB can use the unitary power of his presidency to turn off the EPA rules like a little switch on the wall. Kerry would not have had the guts to flip that switch. Kerry would have stood there and flip flopped. Flip flopped. Flip flopped. America needs decisive leaders. Now, more than ever, America needs Republicans.
(Not that I believe any of this crap ... but point is ..what's "facts" got to do with it? Politics is just perception, twisted and warped in the hands of those skilled at rearranging reality.)
Yeah, you people. Listen to Step Back! We need more war! More pollution cause as we all know them liberal scientists are just making all that elitist science crap up to further their own interests -- just ask Micheal Crichton. There is no global warming!! The people are completely moldable, just ask Karl Rove! Facts are irrelevant!! Just feed them disinformation, get them all hopped up on abortion or stem cell hooey and the morons will forget about their planet going to shit.
WOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!
And, you know, just because the democrats, also known as republican lite, are too stupid to take hold of all of the issues the republicans keep screwing up and beating the tar out of 'em with these laughable failures, doesn't mean nothing will be done. I sure the democrats will find a way to help some poor person who is hungry or in need of medical help or who is being discriminated against for their sexual orientation. They know better than to challenge the status quo. Weanies.
Yes, keep supporting Resident Bush cause even though he might not be able to pronounce "unitary power of the presidency," ole Unca Dick will show him how to use it!!!
Remember the republican motto!!!
IT'S NOT FASCISM WHEN WE DO IT!!
I meant there is a limit to denial and obfuscation if supply and demand drives the price of crude to $130 and gas to $5 by the presidential election. These guys have no credibility any more. They should have known that the only solution requires massive investment outside the current oil and gas industry, which was the only beneficiary of their energy policy.
The leader of the Democratic party, Bill Clinton, said the other day that we are probably now at peak production. Who among the Republicans leaders would dare whisper that?
The Demos are ideally positioned to take the lead out of the coming wreckage of the old order. The Republican had their chance but have made a mess of it. The people know that.
I've voted the Democratic party ticket my whole life.
What I wrote was sarcasm to some extent --but also truth.
The voting masses have never heard of Peak Oil. We here at TOD have our Hubbert Glasses too tightly afixed to our eyeballs. We think everybody sees it the way we do. They don't.
If you do not see that, then you are in deep denial.
The vast majority of the human herd does not know what PO is. The vast majority firmly believes this is just another Middle East conspiracy to temporarily make widfall profits before prices return to "normal".
Just try running PO theory past your co-workers, your friends, your family. Odds are that most will label you a kook.
A couple of days ago, I heard a local radio talk show host (Gene Burns KGO California) do a show on gas prices. He is normally a pretty bright guy --and yet he expressed the belief that this is just a repeat of the 1974 oil crunch. It happened before. It will happen the same way again. Been there. Done that. No need to worry. The end.
I thought about calling in. But what is the use? These late night talk shows are just looking for entertainment value, one minute sound bites. One has to disseminate way too much information in way too little time to get the point across. PO is a tough sell. It's bad news and it's complex. Your average Joe does not like being shown up for what he does not know. Give him American Idol. Give him Apprentice. Give him short tag lines like, "You're fired" or "America wants you". But don't drop that boring PO pablum on him. Those are the facts.
I knew you were being sarcastic if a bit over wrought.
Now I do not think you understand how politics works. Most voter follow opinion leaders. They take their cues from people they know who they think know what is going on. To make a change, you do not need to convince all those people you are worrying about. That is why elite opinion is so important. It is definitely going our way.
Until now, peak oil has had no traction with most people because it has had no effect on them. We are still in the era of cheap oil. But if we are really now in the undulating plateau, it is different, because either demand will grow and prices will continue to rise or enough demand will be destroyed to slow the economy down a lot. People are starting to feel it and there is no relief in sight. I think Matt Simmons has been right about this for a long time and he is predicting $200-250 crude by 2010. That is only a little more than a year after the next presidential election. So the crisis is upon us.
The Karl Rove magic is not going to work any more. Bush is at 32% and still going down. No one trusts him any more. The administration has utterly failed to do anything useful about the long-term problem. Deplete America First while we still have cheap oil is not only not the answer but also severely threatens our national security. Taking over the Persian Gulf is not going to fly either. It will not keep oil flowing and cannot be done without a large scale draft.
Do not lose faith. The tide is about to turn. There is a real chance now for significant change. The American people are going to take the keys away from the people that have made such a mess of the current situation and done nothing constructive to prepare us for the coming crisis.
And give them to people whose idea of "doing something" is to make gas price gouging a federal crime...
Politicians are not the answer. They just feed themselves votes. Last time I looked, the only politician screaeming peak oil was Roscoe Bartlett --a Republican. No one was listening to him, not even the Demos.
I think pulling the oil companies' tax credits is something that should have been done last year, and if it is really done now that is better late than never.
I think more credits for efficient cars are less useful than a n increased fuel tax, but I'll take what I can get. Beyond the dollars and cents they send the signal that efficient cars are needed for American's future energy security blah blah ..
And so there is some grandstanding along with that. These are politicians, of course they grandstand.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/opinion/26dowd.html?hp
(Too bad for you non NYT subscribers)
If there's any good news now, the oil peak is being plastered all over the Internet. Peak Oil and $5/gal gas will be practically in the same sentence everywhere on the blogs. A bunch of said grounded commuters out of jobs from being grounded will look up "gas prices" on Google and grep up Peak Oil in no time, then grep that up before Com Ed pulls the plug on their home.
Once these people figure upt their fearless leader Bush v.2.0 hid the facts, they will wake up and either not vote or vote anything but the guilty party. GOP voters not voting help half-way. With the division of 51/49, a bloc of grounded commuters simply not voting can sway an election - if it's not rigged!
On another note, we may be surprised how many people still don't know what a "blog" is.
The Democrats are as much a part of the current order (old in your future retrospective) as the Republicans and will be buried in the wreckage of any collapsing superstructures (to borrow metaphorically from Gramsci).
We will get no political leadership on this or any other problem so long as these solutions are against the interests of the corporations and wealthy individuals that fund both parties' political apparatus.
Sectors of capital may wrangle over some issues -- e.g. insurance companies vs. fossil fuel companies on climate change -- and we might see this battle reflected in money flows and thus positions of the two major parties.
That's the best the current system can offer its participants.
I admit to a sick fascination with Washington politics and certainly experience my share of fist-pounding outrage each day (expressed as fppd and charting in a manner not dissimilar from oil prices) at the fools who make it their home, but the national government isn't going to save us. Likely to opposite, no matter whether Democrats or Republicans control government.
Activity and advocacy on a local scale to mitigate the failures of the national government seem the only sensible choice.
I agree with your metaphor. However, even if you know you are going onto the reef, it helps to put the engines full astern and put the wheel hard over. (BTW, it doesn't matter as much as you might think which way hard over: The point is to induce as much drag as possible.)
Ships go on reefs all the time. They do not always break up or sink; in fact, usually they do not. The sooner action is taken, the more likely it is that disaster can be avoided.
The one thing you do not want to do is order engines full ahead and maintain course, and, again metaphorically, that is pretty much what we have been doing.
BTW, a mutiny is not likely to improve matters, though if I'd been first mate on the Titanic I'd have gotten the drunken captain to bed and given orders for "slow ahead" after the skipper,s fifteenth or sixteenth drink, some time around 8 or 9 p.m.
(Trivial Pursuit question: Do you know why Colombus's ship, the Santa Maria, sank on the night of Christmas Eve, 1492?)
And, to deepen the mystery, Cristopher Coloumbus had a special reason to get especially drunk that particular night. Now that you have all the wedges and are in the center of the board, what was that reason? (In other words, why would it have been personally dangerous to Columbus not to have gotten as drunk as the others that night?)
Yo ho, ho and a bottle of rum,
Drink and the Devil had done for the rest,
. . . .
Hint: Who is the best-known naval historian of the 20th century, at least in the U.S.?
I suppose the question becomes influential in what sense? Mahan's works definitely had the most impact on the European navies of the next several decades.
I should have specified "twentieth-century" naval historian.
Must reread Mahan one of these days, along with H.J. MacKinder's "Democratic Ideals and Reality."
Typically, I find more insight and relevance in old great books than the deluge of best-selling lightweight trash that now inundates us.
And where is Barbara Tuchman, now that we need her?
I truly enjoyed "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam."
As much as each of us wants the perfect solution (that exactly conforms with our specific idea of what that solution should be,)it isn't realistic to think that our government can deliver that. There are 300+ million citizens and a whole bunch of corporate citizens that all have their own idea of what that solution should be.
It is the role of the U.S. Government to make decisions based on meeting the needs of ALL Americans -- not just a few -- and that includes the peak-oilers, big business, little business, giant corporations, the oil industry, the farmers, the renewables industry, the conservatives, the liberals, the libertarians, labor, and about ten thousand domestic and international agreements and laws that impact how we conduct business in this country, to name a few. It's an incredibly complex balancing act that I can't personally imagine having to navigate through myself.
In his speech today, the President said at least a half dozen times that America needed to "stop using oil", and that Americans need to "conserve". He tied those requirements to both national security and economic security. (I'm not sure how much more direct he could really be. Unfortunately, most Americans are deaf to the issue.) And today's speech was almost exclusively about automobile energy -- one of the bigger sources of oil demand in our country. It's "low hanging fruit".
He outlined several programs to help America transition to new technologies, fuels, and energy sources. He outlined existing tax incentives (and proposed new ones) for people who voluntarily transition to new technologies, and for the producers of those new technologies, and proposed eliminating $2 billion in tax breakes to the oil folks who have "large cash flows".
His slogan for his Energy Initiative is, "Energy Security for the 21st Century - Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally-Sound energy." That sounds pretty good -- it's not perfect, but its a good start for a program that is just in its infancy. It's a lot better than what we had 18 months ago.
How do you think the majority of citizens, industry, and the stock market would react if the President simply announced that all passenger gas guzzling vehicles (gas mileage average of lower than 25mpg) were un-American and he was now implementing a 25% gas tax to fund development of a future based on alternatives, a whole new transportation paradigm, and that the MBTE transition to ethanol was going to be escalated despite the resulting additional shortages of gas this summer and higher gas prices, and that we'd all just have to deal with it?
He would be impeached...if he lasted that long. The President can't treat America that way. He needs to develop concensus and support. In any transition there needs to be some level of compromise, some give and take to ultimately make the transition as smooth as possible. In America, the President can't just say...."OK, we're doing things differently, starting tomorrow, 'cause I say so." It doesn't work that way. Everything is a process. Baby steps.
If we look at the President's energy policy changes and focus over the past six months, I think most would agree that he has been doing quite a lot on the energy issue as compared to his predecessors (Clinton, Bush-1, Reagan). He may not have all the answers and his programs may require adjustment down the road, but quite frankly his advisors are hearing from every corner of special interests in America, and they have to play the balancing act.
I have no doubt in my mind that the President is fully and keenly aware of the emergency facing us with oil depletion. I also believe his strategy is to gradually turn up the heat so that America can adapt, rather than provide the shock of an ice cold shower (shocks create ugly recessions and depressions). At the same time, there is a very critical clock ticking away, and whether or not there is time to implement the transition is a big question.
The SOU Address was Act 1, Scene 1. His tour around the country promoting his energy policy following the SOU was Act 1, Scene 2. His Earthday tour and bike ride, leading up to his speech today, was Act 2, Scenes 1 and 2. In his speech today he also said "there's a lot more work to do."
Act 3 hasn't yet begun. There will be Acts 4 and 5.
It will be interesting to see what's going to happen next. We haven't yet heard of a new national rail program, a program to reduce trucking fuel consumption, or programs to radically increase renewables use to replace natural gas. But those will all come, because they must.
I'm not so sure, myself. My feeling is that he's just reacting to the current crisis, as opposed to having any kind of a plan. He backed off his SOTU comments the very next day, and really didn't do much to push them. He rescinded cuts to alternate energy programs - but just because he was embarrassed by the press coverage, or so it seemed to me.
This latest speech was prompted by his 33% approval rating, and the fury of voters facing gas shortages and $3/gallon gas. Had prices not spiked again, he probably would not have given this speech.
But it doesn't really matter. That's how things get done in the country. The system is larger than any individual, and tends to pull people along in the current. Kennedy didn't want the moon mission, but it became politically necessary, and the project succeeded, years after he was dead.
Hmm. On the other hand, what if he knows what tomorrow's inventory report is going to look like, and figured he needed to get out in front of it?
I guess we'll find out tomorrow...
Leanan, several threads back you mentioned that Bush has some alternative energy himself, such as a ground-source heat pump in Crawford, cisterns, and some solar. What is this about? Is this standard for a ranch in Texas, or is Bush really an early adopter of some of this stuff? Thanks in advance if you could post some sources for this information.
I doubt it's standard for a ranch in Texas, but it's not like it's a real ranch. Bush is afraid of horses, and has no cattle on his "ranch." It's a rich man's estate, not a ranch.
And he's from New England, not Texas, though he likes to pretend otherwise.
I don't read too much into his "green" ranch. Seems more fashion than peak oil preparations. He wanted solar panels to heat his swimming pool (but found he didn't need them). The cistern/wastewater is used to water his landscaping of "native" plants.
How much fuel has Air Force One burned while he is hopping around the country to talk about conservation?
Bike trails are limited the same way light rail is - trying to put them close enough to desired destinations eats up a lot of real estate, which is expensive and time consuming. Better than nothing, though, but they are too easy for residents to jump up and say "nope" to.
Bike lanes aren't much better, I prefer just to make a wider outside lane and make sure traffic signals are tuned to pick up something as small as a bicycle.
Bikes are perfectly capable of going anywhere a car can and then some. They just make a fraction of the environmental footprint, if that.
Most of it works by the California formula, which is to make double use of the shoulder of flood control channels, for maintenance trucks and for bicyclists. The flood control channels are full of herons and ergrets, so it's not all ugly.
http://www.bicycling.com/biketown2006/home.html
You get up towards LA and the channel trails get a little bit of a homeless population, which is sad.
I personally cannot wait until gas stays over $5-10/gal and the big SUVs and H2s here in L.A. get off the streets. It will be a lot safer for us 2-wheelers: bicyclists & motorcyclists.
I tried vehicular cycling back in the 80s and had angry pickup drivers shouting at me to use the sidewalk (ignorant, I know).
I had slightly better luck with the moped, but I still found that some drivers would overtake me on my left and then force me off to the right shoulder once they couldn't see me any more.
I finally bought a motorcycle just so I could keep up with traffic, but found it too unstable in the wet.
Now I simply ride as far to the right as I can, or use the relatively empty suburban sidewalks. Urban sidewalks are too dicey.
No doubt they know all about how skittish the energy future is. Sad that they think those houses will survive when surrounded by a country full of people who might start getting very covetous of Silicon. There won't be any stability unless we can get our neighbors working with us, and us with them to get through it.
Do as he does, not as he says..
Baby steps would have been fine had we started in the 70s. Now I think we need to sprint to outrun that runaway disaster brought on by depletion.
The people really do have the power - the problem is that the task of getting all citizens on our page is a an awesome challenge with fantastically long odds, and the fact that the powers that be can kill a whole lot of us while we're protesting before their power wanes. Still, why not try? We're all going to die eventually.
As Socrates and others have mentioned, the fundamental question is how to live wisely and well--and the question of an afterlife is irrelevant to the Really Big Issue (RBI) of how to achieve "eudaimonia," which is an untranslatable Greek word that means something approximating "human fullfillment and well-being resulting from virtue" as opposed to the vague term "happiness" which is the usual--and highly misleading--translation.
My own approach during these decades of increasing uncertainty is to behave as if there is a 50% chance of TEOTWAWKI the day after tomorrow and a 50% chance of business pretty much as usual for the next fifty years. Now I do not believe either of these eventualities is likely, but by being prepared for both I'm reasonably well able to handle most scenarios in between.
The weather is always uncertain. That is no reason to cancel an ocean cruise in a small sailboat. If you are afraid to get wet, then you may as well just watch TV and shrivel up and die.
I think we're all doing that here. Where we differ is in what "the best" is.
In my view, the federal government is hopeless. They'll do what they have to do, and I have better things to spend my resources on than pushing that boulder uphill. Acting locally is the way to go. Some would say extremely locally - saving yourself, your family, your community - rather than trying to change the world.
I see excess cynicism, elitist/exitenstialist-despair and weeping and wailing at great length about the stupidity, ignorance, corruption, decay, etc. of America and Americans.
Having studied history and anthropology, I just chuckle and say to myself, "compared to what."
There can be an excess of cynicism and an excess of credulity. Certainly their can be excesses of pessemism or optimism. Indeed there are very very few things of which there cannot be an excess--wisdom, justice, and perhaps moderation.
I, however, claim that the ancient Greeks were right who said that even moderation can be practiced to excess.
http://www.virginiagasprices.com/forum_category.aspx
and here is my latest effort
http://www.virginiagasprices.com/Forum_MSG.aspx?master=1&category=1056&topic=197539&page _no=1&FAV=N
Denial is a tough nut to crack though. People who think it is just price gouging have a fairly simple view of the world, and I suppose in some way it is comforting to think that all we need to do is crack some heads together and cheap gas comes back.
Despite the name of the website, the forums appear to be nationwide. I could find my messages at www.californiagasprices.com just as well as I could find them at the Virginia site.
Yes they do, and will do anything to win. ANYTHING. So just how far are you willing to go to prevail against that? Will you cast aside all of your morals? Will you lay down your life? If the answer is no, someone may come along and tell you to get up off you ass and do something, or you have no right to voice an opinion. Look, it's easy to cheerlead sitting at a keyboard, but there are limits for all of us, both to what we can do, and what we are willing to do. That should not mean we have no right to participate in a dialog about the situation.
How do you know that cynicism is always connected to paralysis? IMHO, the biggest reason for paralysis in this country is ignorance - some of it willful. And how sure are you that, even bearing my cross of cynicism and pessimism, I'm not already doing more than you? I've seen posts from many on this board that amaze me in terms of what they are accomplishing - and lots of them are pretty damn cynical!
If you are unwilling to recognize the possibility that you may fail, you will then not make preparations for that eventuality. Perhaps there is no one depending on you, but I don't have that freedom - I have to do my best regardless of whether we reduce our energy footprint and switch to cleaner energy, or if we burn dirty coal and drill on the Whitehouse lawn.
Human nature (specifically our inability to see past the zero-sum game) will not permit enough of us to forego a perceived advantage in order that strangers may prosper while our tribe falls behind. At the very least you wind up in a situation where all the players are content to wait for someone else to make the first move.
Add to that the sense of American entitlement you mention along with the sense of Manifest Destiny that is afoot in high places, and you are in a major box, with human nature and psychology blocking every exit.
When people ARE GIVEN the REAL CHOICES and ALLOWED TO CHOOSE, they can make the right ones. Each of us does it every day at work or for our families. The outright lies and obfuscation perpetrated on Americans by this government and the MSM is well documented both within and without the USA. Obfuscation and denial of the facts are what is paralyzing Americans, not their decision making ability.
It is this corporate/political machine that is denying the truth to people, and that people includes our congress critters. They are hit with so much sheer BS coming from the left and the right, and the treehuggers and the eco-destroyers, the "immigrants create jobs" people and the "immigrants take jobs" folks...the list is endless. They are simply too inundated with misinformation FROM BOTH SIDES OF EVERY ISSUE and too pressed for time to do much more than ask each other questions, and the result is usually either too much or not enough, but heavy on the pork.
Unfortunately, our government doesn't allow the people to vote on issues, just representation. So we are stuck until every single issue has already become an all-consuming crisis....
The root cause of this is basically corruption in one form or another. Asking a politician to empty his pockets instead of lining them is not going to fly in this type of corrupt and sordid political landscape. We have to FORCE our representatives to do the right thing (unfortunately), and until every American understands the issues enough to make their choice, nothing can happen. And it is in the best interests of corporations and politicians to have an uninformed, malleable constituency. It isn't in their best interest to tell us the truth either.
It (Peak Oil) will, by virtue of where American politics are today, where the American educational system has failed us and where mainstream media have drugged us, going to be a very painful time for all Americans.
Sure hope my kids are up for radical changes!!
As the old maps used to say, "Here there be dragons!"
So they have a lot of dirt-poor peasants who can never dream of owning a car, who can serve as cheap labor on the sugar plantations, and only a small number of car-drivers, who are wealthy enough to pay $5/gallon without a blink.
Not a model I want to emulate.
I don't blame you, but maybe you should start getting used for it.
Take a look a this article in the Wall Street Examiner by Lee Adler where he discusses the forecasts of the increasingly influential GaveKal research group in their book "Our Brave New World".
GaveKal believe:
Adler responds: Is this the America of the future?And the idea that the top 1% will be merit-based is a joke. Is Bush sitting in the Oval Office now because of his personal merit? Will it be any different after TSHTF?
The poorer you are, the less you have access to family planning medicines and teachings.
Money and hence access to services, not race, correlate to the number of children women have.
Also, there's a guy in Rome who wears a dress and doesn't have sex himseld but tells people they will go to Hell if they put a raincoat on during sex.
Immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are net contributors as they draw down fewer services -- like Medicaid for family planning and prescription contraceptives.
These "Mexican women" (or Mexican American women or Salvadoran women or Dominican women ... -- either you asked them for their passports or the distinction isn't important to you) may occupy your attention, but it's the rich folks who do the real siphoning of tax dollars with disastrous tax cuts that are set to become permanent and no-bid multi-billion dollar contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast.
The Brazilians are busily destroying the Amazonian rain forest to plant more and more sugar cane because the land where it is currently planted becomes rapidly depleted without fertilizer.
Brazil's ethanol "miracle" is a sham. It is not sustainable and will collapse when the soil collapses.
On another post about how Bush is offering solutions: BULL.
Bush is famous for proposing many seemingly good programs and then either ignoring them, killing them outright, or underfunding them. These people are manipulative bastards, and they know that the press is in their pocket and will never check the record and, should they do so, never report on the Bush administration's hypocrisy. Bush and his cronies also know that Americans are wilfully ignorant and will swallow any stupid thing they say.
This latest speech is like all of his other speeches, window dressing. The post lauding Bush's speech is an example of exactly why we are soooo screwed. If someone posting on this site believes Bush in this instance, what will the average American think?
TOD has an exceptional signal-to-noise ratio. So improbable for an open forum
I agree with much of what you write, however, I'm accustomed to TOD'ers being a bit more rigorous in their research before popping off on a subject. On energyresources member Milton Maciel from Brazil has posted extensively on the whole Brazilian sugar cane industry, from conventional to organic (which he vastly favors). He has pointed out several times that the cane plantations are in Southern Brazil, not in the rainforest region and that rainforest is not cut to plant cane.
There is possibly -- and I haven't researched this in detail-- the indirect effect of cane plantations taking land that would have other crops which then are planted in cleared rainforest area. But nevertheless, having read his very detailed information on sugar cane production, I always do a double take when someone trots out the 'sugar cane/rainforest cutting' connection.
I'm not deeply pessimistic about 'human nature' mainly because I don't think it really exists! If it does I believe we should talk about a plurality of 'human natures' and if we do that we get into very complicated areas. Whilst I'm sceptical about the existance of 'human nature', I do recognise that human culture exists. It has changed, is changing, and will change. Human culture, or the way we live, is not static, change is life's characteristic. Therefore, we can and have changed our culture. For me, am I starting to sound too optimistic, the problem lies in another direction. I suppose I mean our political culture. I'm less and less interested in minor differences between Left and Right, or Democrats and Republicans, or Socialism contra Capitalism. I don't think the 'elites' who rule are up to the job. I think we need to inject a lot of 'new blood' into our political culture and really shake things up from the top to the bottom. I suppose I'm talking about a kind of 'Revolution.' I think we need to topple the old elite and get new people into power, in much the same way it happened in Eastern Europe with fall of Communism. The decadent, corrupt and incompetent 'aristocracy' that rules us now, must be replaced, and soon. That's the kind of scale of change I think is needed if we're really going to tackle the problem of Peak Oil. There are, unfortunately, lots of problems with this 'revolutionary' model for rapid social change, I'm aware of that. Historically, the level of social decay and suffering required before the 'people' are perpared to support 'revolution' may, indeed, be an obsticle in itself. And in the United States who is to say what the 'revolution' would bring? The break up of the Union? Christo-Fascism? A military regime of some sort? A Socialist dictatorship? Personally I'd support a 'revolution' that aimed for a massive 're-democratisation' of society.
Quite honestly, Germany, and much of Europe, is getting very scared of climate change, they are at least partially changing their behavior, and they even haven't yet lost a city to a hurricane or other weather induced catastrophe. There is no good reason to think that other areas are any less capable of such long term thinking and self-discipline.
But it is a toss up - virtually all of Africa is a region where short term actions over decades have led to massive long term problems.
But not all of humanity thinks like a typical American politician responding to the wishes and desires of the typical American voter (or perhaps more realistically, the typical American campaign contributor).
The race is on, being run between those who have ignored and continue to ignore the future, those who see a future which can be mastered with hard work, and those who see a very grim future, without any possible alternative.
Collapse is the path America chose sometime around 1980, in my opinion, since it chose to ignore the future then, as it continues to today, by and large. And it remains all too likely America (in the terms we would agree to - a new polity is certainly possible by the end of my life) will follow this path to the end. But such gloomy un-American thinking was no more appreciated 25 years ago than it is today.
I still cannot fathom the Canadians would choose to make Alberta into a lunar landscape for us to drive SUVS... but
society's best minds are calling those shots.
The relaxation of ethanol requirments, in this case, may be a blessing in disquise. There's a lot of momentum there from ag. business maneuvering, not science.
That said.. money and greed are powerful motivators, and Alberta is large enough that most of the oil sand destruction is very far removed from any large populations. For those not familiar some very rough estimates... it's about 2000miles (4000km) to Toronto, 1500miles to Detroit... 50-100miles from Edmonton or Calgary and 300miles to Vancouver/Seattle to the West, Yellowknife, NWT to the North, and Boise, Idaho to the South.
Athabasca is cold, remote, and largely unsettled country... perfect NIMBY proof area.
Money talks in our land, too, and don't count on our conservative Prime Minister to be any more forward-thinking than Bush. Harper wants to lower our consumption tax against the best advice of all the finance department's (and even industry's) wishes. It's all political. Fortunately, this is a minority government that will probably be turfed in a year ... to be replaced by a similarly clueless regime. The turfing, of course, won't be because of peak oil or the environment or some worthwhile reason.
Sorry about your country guys, it was only a matter of time. Have they added the addendum for Canada into the PNAC document?
City should lead in conservation as oil prices soar
Sounds good...but even in Canada, the pro-growth lobby is not convinced:
http://www.raisethehammer.org
As I mentioned over here, the city is taking part in the regional carpooling initiative at http://www.carpoolzone.smartcommute.ca
Far from it, though we do get that a lot. We're a loose collective of citizens who want to encourage sustainable urban revitalization in our old rust-bucket of a steeltown. The name, which makes more sense locally, is a reference to both the city's name (Hamilton) and its industrial history.
Our regular contributors run the gamut from left-libertarian to conservative and everything in between. We just try to set ideology aside and assess what makes sense based on the best evidence.
I do like your articles.
I tried to explain that technology is not a source of energy but a means of harnessing energy, and listed just a few of the non-crackpots that are taking peak oil seriously - investment house CIBC World Markets, Leeb Capital Managemnt, Goldman-Sachs Global Investment Research, the Bank of Montreal, Simmons & Co. Intl., oil investor T. Boone Pickens, Jones Heward Investments Inc., Groppe, Long & Littell, and US Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland), to name just a few.
I'll be posting an article on Raise the Hammer shortly that addresses this in more detail.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4941126.stm
So what happens if a Hurricane hits in, say late-August and there is no SPR to draw on?
However, Bush does seem to be assuming there will be no disruptions like Katrina and Rita this year. But then, he doesn't believe in global warming...
What am I saying? This is Bush, the borrow and spend president. He thinks we can reduce the deficit by cutting taxes. No doubt he also thinks we can increase the SPR by cutting deposits to it...
Note: 2/3 is heavy sour.
Perhaps this link will help.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Crude Oil Assays
I need to amend my statement to "2/3 sour. I don't know if it's light, heavy, or in between."
The point is, I don't think keeping 57,500 barrels per day on the market is likely to make a huge impact on our gas prices.
http://www2.spr.doe.gov/DIR/SilverStream/Pages/pgDailyInventoryReportViewDOE_new.html
Tensions escalating in Iran, no progress in Iraq or Nigeria, threats of disruption in Venezuala and a little oil offline in Chad. But no need to maybe increase the strategic petroleum reserve in response to increased strategic threats to petroleum supplies?
We'll just end up lowering the price so the Chinese will get a slight subsidy in filling their SPR.
I find it rather amusing that Reid resorts to begging the oil companies to not raise prices. What does he want them to do, go bankrupt so he can get re-elected? Probably. Stupidity abounds in Washington, DC.
Even in LA, some people are being driven to mass transit
On the other hand...
Hybrid sales mostly slack despite gas spike
Worse, just as many people are buying gas-guzzling V-8 engines as ever: Big engines stay popular despite gas spike.
High prices are destroying the budgets of highway departments, though:
Asphalt cost increase hits road projects
"The meeting was held as the factory reaps the rewards of strong demand for the new full-size sport utility vehicles assembled in Janesville. The plant began its first two overtime shifts on Friday, and those overtime shifts are expected to continue "for the foreseeable future," said plant manager Gary Malkus."
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418416
It was about a month ago that the prices started to climb again.
The thing that was interesting about the 'poor' hybrid sales is that they are essentially saying that people aren't much interested in an SUV with hybrid technology. People who want good fuel economy will get a Prius. People who don't care will just buy another bloatmobile from GM.
I've been thinking about taking photos of my office parking lot every week. Get an idea of what cars people are using, and see how it changes over time.
We're already seeing some shift away from gas guzzlers (as in plummeting SUV sales), but once the "cheap gasoline is gone forever" meme makes it into the conventional wisdom we'll see a pretty strong move toward smaller, more efficient cars (Fit, Yaris, Scions, etc.) and hybrids.
- we haven't been putting much in there anyway (4 million barrels in three months, per their inventory report)
- there is a lot already there and we can only draw it out so fast
- numerous reports say that it is the refiners that are the bottleneck - not putting crude into the SPR when available inventories are already high doesn't change the amount of fuel available at the pump.
Woohoo! 2 million barrels a month compared to consumption of 20 million barrels per day!But you know what? Around the water cooler the talk will be that "the government finally tapped the Strategic Reserve. Hope gas prices go down before we drive to Disneyland!"
Where I live it's almost all highway driving. Many people who buy trucks are using them for hauling things (livestock trailers, etc) on the highway.
A hybrid drive is of limited usefulness, in their eyes.
New Toyota Highlander hybrids are availabe immediately.
As for the hybrids, there are several problems. Honda made a poor choice in coupling a V-6 with the batteries in that the Accord has always been a sensible shoes kind of car. Using a I-4 would have made more sense. Ford made a better choice of powertrains, but did it in the wrong vehicle. The Lexus and the Toyota Highlander are also the wrong vehicle for the system, but "over a month" still isn't too shabby for time on a dealer lot.
Ford should have gone with a hybrid in the Focus wagon, though a nice 1.6L direct-injection turbo-diesel would make even more sense in that model. I've been pestering their online customer service center for information on when they might have a diesel for the Focus but all I get are scripted answers about how options change from time-to-time. Blah.
I've not had much luck finding ways to offer feedback to the auto mfgs. I miss my '91 Chevy Sprint and it's < 4.5L/100km
in the summer. I'd rather see the Escort wagoon with a 50hp electric engine and 5 to 10hp gasoline engine - just enough power to keep the batteries charged on highway cruising. Tune the IC engine to work at full throttle maximizing efficiency and emissions like a fuelathon car.
Either way a 1.6 engine takes us back about 15 years to when the Escort had a smaller engine and was a smaller car. However, those sorts of changes are not going to give us much improved milage or emissions reduction.
As I keep railing about my old Sprint - insurance cost much more than gasoline. Maintaince cost more than gasoline. The amortized purchase price cost much more than gasoline.
Fuel efficient cars don't really start to pay for themselves until we see a sustained doubling or trippling or fuel prices.
Consider my home - $2500 /year in taxes and $500 a year to heat (low eff gas furnace). Or the case of our Escort wagoon for which insurance OR maintaince exceed fuel costs per year. If I start to see fuel prices double I'll blink.
Frankly though - there isn't any option.
The high-power, expensive, road rocket hybrid cars are a joke. Show me a hybid with a sub 10hp IC engine and I know that people are getting serious.
Remember when a VW bug with 35hp was good enough?
Perceived? So, gas prices really haven't gone up 40+ cents per gallon in the last month?
and
Hybrid Sales in US Climbed 7.5% in March
Funny how increases can be reported as "slack" eh?
http://www.energybulletin.net/14492.html
It worked before, people remember it and so there will not be any big hue and cry, and state/local governments drag down big bucks in fines during the initial "getting used to" period.
Everything else is just noise - when they finally slow EVERYONE down and FORCE conservation, they have acknowledged there is a problem.
Until then,
Happy Motoring!!
55 mph is a relatively benign way to increase efficiency. People are used to it; on many roads, 55 is still the law. It does save gas. And it improves safety.
I often end up driving faster than I want to, just to keep up with traffic. It's not safe to drive significantly slower than everyone else.
I'm sorry you're not comfortable at higher speeds, but that's another issue. IMO, a modern vehicle is quite safe at 75.
What I really want to know is when I'll be able to get onto the local electric light rail train at the nearest town (likely 5mi), and take it to my office in the nearby sprawl/industrial park? Driving to work sucks.
We need to wait and see a bit before we find out if higher prices will decrease demand, and change habits. Most people still think this is temporary, so they are not changing their habits. Now that Bush has come to the rescue, prices will probably ease a little bit, which will confirm the "temporary" idea. Prices will have to go up and stay up longer than they did with the hurricanes for it to get through.
It looks to me like there will be plenty of opportunities for that in 2006.
But it's not safe to do so on many highways around here.
Besides, no matter how fuel efficient a vehicle is, it is going to get the best mileage between 45 and 55 MPH. That's just the way wind resistance works.
Simply slowing everyone down will REDUCE incentive to change to smaller, more efficient vehicles! When I slow from 75 to 55, I save much less fuel than when an Escalade slows from 75 to 55. Therefore, after the slow down there is LESS of a cost delta beween operating the two vehicles, and it's not just a linear decrease.
Enforcing lane discipline and having a multi-teared speed limit (i.e. vehicles over a certain size in the right lanes only) will provide more incentive to change.
I should be allowed to drive faster because ...
In a few years:
I should be allowed more coal because ...
In a few decades:
I should be allowed more food because ...
Today:
I should be allowed to drive a gas pig because...
In a few decades:
I should be allowed your food because I didn't plan...
Somehow we seem to be justifying the wasteful misuse of fuel, and punishing the frugal.
No, it isn't. He said 45 to 55. 45 is for big, boxy vehicles like trucks and SUVs. 55 is for more streamlined shapes.
I rather like the idea of putting a 45 mph speed limit on trucks and SUVs, and 55 on cars. Dunno if it's politically possible, though.
WInd resistance.
Also there is resistance to change. As I read all the posts about how to keep the automobile culture going for as long as possible, I realize we will not change at a pace fast enough to prevent extreme problems.
How many barrels of oil does it take to make the average car? 70.
How many vehicles must we replace? 800 million? 70 times 800 million equals?
56,000,000,000 barrels of oil. Fifty-six billion. That is two thirds of a year's oil use. Where exactly will we take that oil from? Who will suffer so we can all drive high technology cars to continue a doomed paradigm? We replace cars every what -- twelve years? This mathematical exercise is rapidly becoming depressing.
Perhaps we should spend that prehistoric concentrated sunlight on developing a sustainable model.
Just a thought.
While I despise my present job, it provides the highest salary I ever expect to make. I don't think it will last long, regardless of what happens to our economy. I need to hang on to that salary as long as I can while I prepare for what I expect is coming as best I can. I need a car to get there, and it will be the 1500cc car I've been driving for 7 years. The other vehicles I own are 16 and 18 years old, as I can fix anything I wish to (being the techie I am).
After that job, I do not know what will come next - I hope it will be in alternative energy solutions, but I would not be surprised if it is produce farming and odd jobs.
I'm not the only on stuck in this situation - the solutions involve such things as electric light rail, etc, but I cannot effect such things on my own.
I agree we will not change at a pace fast enough to prevent problems - we'll find out how extreme. And I believe that is because it will simply take a long time to transition, and we started too late (well ok, we haven't started yet).
If the feds are serious about conservation, it's the obvious solution. But they're not. Its all PR.
I live in a secluded area in the high Sierra with windy mountain roads. when the major pass over doner summit is closed due to snow (any time from oct. to june) all the big rigs come thru our area. also when this summer driving thing happens here in a month or two it seems that all of central and so. cal end up here, on roads that are hard for most drivers. it's really very common to get behind a driver who can only manage 45 mph thru parts of the drive that I; and most others, travel at 60 mph and then when we get to one of the few places to pass they speed up to 65. that's a bummer. I've experienced this in many other areas as well.I know it's a stretch for folks who only/mostly drive in the city but it's to much to ask for seventy people to wait behind grandma and grandpa who don't use the turn outs
but I guess my point is it's safer to have power to pass
A few simple changes could save a huge amount of gas. A 55mph built in speed limiter. A gas guzzler tax for any engine over 2 liters. They may seem unreasonable, but people would adjust quickly, and it could make a big difference.
Changing the posted speed limits will do little.
So if the speed limit is 75, some will be going 95. Those people will be going 75 if the speed limit is 55. So it does help.
Especially if enforced.
Hmmm, let's see, today I can aford to go 75...
On highways with a posted speed of 65, everyone is driving 70-85mph and you have to be going a minimum of 85(or be extremely unlucky) to get ticketed.
If the police initiated a massive crackdown to set an example at 65 mph, they would raise countless millions in revenue, improve safety, and save gas too.
I would so much rather be on a train.
From "Review and Analysis of Posted Speed Limits and Speed Limit Setting Practices in British Columbia":
"Some notable findings:
* Based on years of experience and observation, the following fundamental concepts have been used to establish realistic speed zones.
o The majority of motorists drive at a speed they consider reasonable, and safe for road, traffic, and environmental conditions. Posted limits which are set higher or lower than dictated by roadway and traffic conditions are ignored by the majority of motorists. The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.
o A speed limit should be set so that the majority of motorists observe it voluntarily and enforcement can be directed to the minority of offenders.
o A driver's choice of speed can impose risks on other road users. Crash severity increases with increasing speeds because in a collision, the amount of kinetic energy dissipated is proportional to the square of the velocity. Crashes, however, appear to depend less on speed and more on the variation in speeds. The likelihood of a crash occurring is significantly greater for motorists traveling at speed slower and faster than the mean speed of traffic.
o Maximum speed limits are set for ideal road, traffic, and environmental conditions.
(as interpreted and presented by the MSM, as usual)
(snip)
(snip)
related press release about acquisition procedures
There are some who argue that the United States is on the verge of morphing into a full-blown dictatorship, police-state, and surveillance-state. For example, see the following URL:
http://www.antipasministries.com/html/file0000228.htm
Here is a summary of some of the key claims:
- Private companies are surreptitiously providing personal data to law enforcement and government on an increasingly widespread scale.
- Steps currently being taken towards nationalizing drivers licenses are really a surreptitious way of introducing a national ID card.
- Most recent cell phones already contain GPS chips enabling owners' locations to be tracked even when they are off.
- Using technology such as the VeriChip system, it is already possible to inject electronic GPS tracking devices into the human body, and this is in fact already being done in certain situations.
- There are concrete indications that seemingly innocuous Neighborhood Watch programs are slowly being transformed into organizations geared toward the systematic spying of citizen informers on their fellow citizens.
Your thoughts on the evidence and arguments presented in the essay I have linked would be greatly appreciated.I admit that whether the overall conclusion they are trying to draw (namely, that the United States is tending inexorably to become a full-blown fascist state) is warranted based on the evidence given is open to question. But that's exactly why I posted the article on TOD in the hopes of getting some useful feedback. I would say, though, that dismissing their conclusion on the grounds that it is a baseless conspiracy theory is also a case of the ad hominem fallacy, and does not do justice to the force of their evidence.
I repeat: Given that economic depression and societal chaos are reasonable things to suppose might happen in the wake of Peak Oil, essays such as the one I have posted merit thoughtful consideration, in my opinion.
The things that this "article" says are happening are actually happening. However, they are not happening for the reasons the author suggests, nor are they all being directed as part of some centralized conspiracy by a "National Police State" shadow government.
The author only made his case that much harder to make by including all that nonsense about God and churches. What does all that have to do with anything? "Israel of the New World." C'mon.
But to get to the heart of the issue: You voice the view that the facts adduced which lead the article writer to the conclusion of a developing fascism here in the United States are in fact indicative of something entirely different. I would be grateful if you would elaborate on this - at length, if you are so inclined.
(Remember, I posted the article to get feedback on it - preferably of as detailed and substantive a sort as possible.)
Moreover, if you were intending to be unkind, I don't see any reason whatsoever why there is a need for it. That's schoolyard playground stuff - if that's what you meant. I post things on this forum with the assumption that we are all mature adults here.
However, perhaps you did not intend to be unkind - in which case I am still hoping that the ideas in the article themselves receive a serious hearing in this forum.
I was really hoping for a wider response, but I may have picked the wrong day to post this, due to all the excitement about Bush, gas prices, etc. My own personal concerns about the potential for fascism in the event of a Peak Oil-related socio-economic implosion and/or further Peak Oil-related military adventures are quite real. But perhaps that's merely an exaggerated fear due to my political orientation.
Just not a big believer in fascism in the US. Others disagree. I've written on the subject before so I'd rather look at it from the privacy and conspiracy angles.
I don't know if there are or are not reasons for one to be extremely fearful in this day and age anymore so than at any other time. But if there are. I tend to think that we might either be looking in the wrong places or will just never see it coming anyway.
(to be continued)
I've been noticing your post as of late and think I should direct your atten. here
http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?show=13&type=all
I've listened to all these shows, it seems not all is as it seems.
healthy skepticism advised
What if I told you I think Dick Cheney himself is sitting outside my apartment this very moment waiting for me to come out so he can personally snuff me out, stuff me, and then mount me on his wall? He does that to attorneys you know!!! I'll post some pictures to prove it but the NSA has tapped my scanner and rendered it inoperable. Either that or I forgot to plug it in (again).
The fact that I'm a paranoid nut who spends way to much time on hopped up on caffeine pill persuing the messages boards at abovetopsecret.com and conspiracy.com, however, doesn't mean D.C. and others are up to no good, if you know what I mean.
Best,
Matt
Just remember, there's no such thing as an innocent bystander - after all, what was he doing there in the first place?
Sincerely,
William S. BurroughsI meanMargaret Thatcher
Best,
Matt
Pain-in-the-ass innocent bystanders.
Since you are actively looking for replies, I thought I would toss in my two cents. First may I ask why you are so eagerly looking for feedback?
As for the link. I agree with a lot of the individual points (GPS,spying, etc). And while I am quite cynical at times, even I am having trouble buying off that these are all signs of an orchastrated effort by someone. Of course my objection may just be because of the article itself, it's poorly presented and comes off as a fringe 'conspiracy site'.
While I believe in the bible and I personally think we are in the end time( Peak Oil a major cause of Armageddon) the inference that the US is found in Revelation is hard for me to accept. The whole leaving the US because of a verse in Revelation helps to discredit the article.
Just a few thoughts from someone who is tired. Hope that helps.
I am very concerned about the potential for fascism, due to
- The potential I see for the socio-economic chaos that Peak Oil could unleash;
- The willingness I perceive (incorrectly?) among the U.S. ruling elite to ruthlessly implement fascism under such circumstances to maintain their own security and privilege;
- The desire among the confused and insecure masses in such a situation to have a strong leader take control of the situation to save them, making them willing accomplices to their own fascist enslavement.
The religious bent and emotionally unrestrained style of the article are unfortunate distractions as far as my purpose in posting it is concerned. As I say, I ought to probably have issued warnings about this ahead of time. All I really wanted to ask other TOD-threaders about was whether my concerns about 1, 2, and 3 above receive any significant empirical foundation based upon those parts of the article that discuss things which could be used as an infrastructure for fascism.With this in mind, you are quite right that the article fails to present evidence of any overarching conspiracy. This is simply assumed, based on their political leanings, and their interpretation of prophecy, and would require further justification.
Begining and ending with a quote plucked out of context from Revelations already identifies them as a fringe apocalyptic whackos. Hope it's not your pastor.
As for the drivers license, does any other country have 50 different licensing agencies and databases for drivers? Does that even make sense? Except for complicating my desire to conceal my DUI record and hindering my trade in doctored vehicle titles, in what way does increasing transparency between states constitute a conspiracy?
Thanks for the tip about the cell phones, didn't know they could be used that way. Quick Google link shows article from NY Times, reporting that judges insist gov must show same level of proof to obtain phone location warrant as for wiretap, not watered down Patriot Act level. There is no government right to use this technology against people's wills without warrants. The existence of a technology, and the natural desire of both criminals and law enforcement to use technology to their advantage does not equate to nefarious intent.
I think the silly Bluetooth things people wear on their ears make them look like Borgs, but I'm not completely convinced of a Borg conspiracy at work. Yet.
What your article (and all such articles I've seen) is missing is credible evidence, not opinion, of deliberate intent within government to become a police state. That people have opinions, and that they can quote people who have opinions, is not the same as evidence. That's group think. What we can say is our intense desire to prevent another 9/11 may weaken our vigilance against government encroachment, which is a problem for all free societies at all times. The executive branch may have assumed privileges we did not intend to confer to achieve what they see as our pressing national objectives. It is our responsibility to correct them when they go too far.
It is always the intent of gov to do their job more efficiently and easily. It is our job to point out to them when they are violating our rights in that effort. Intent to do their commissioned job of chasing down criminals does not equate to intent to become fascist state, or dedicated intent by leader to become fascist dictator.
We insist our government not miss any intelligence linkages that might have prevented 9/11, but we wish for them to not link any data together about us, personally. We demand all levels of government work cooperatively to prevent terrorist activity, but we wish to personally not be included in such cooperative sharing.
There are two offshoots to the article worth discussing, but probably not in this forum.
1) Why are we not opposing with more vigour policy decisions which weaken our freedoms?
2) Why do we not more critically challenge the place or value of technical change and complexity in our lives and society?
In both cases, the question is why do WE not take responsibility for OUR lives, community and country.
Possibly we will slide into a police state, but it will be because we didn't oppose the small erosions that seemed expedient to an worthwhile goal, as opposed to a elaborately thought out and executed grand plan.
While I work for AT&T, I do not carry a cell phone. It does not enrich my life. My choice. Come to think of it, participating in this forum probably isn't enriching me much either. Except the tip to short gold before Christmas.
Still, I cannot refrain from making a couple of very general sorts of observations:
Two questions. Have you ever read the book 1984 or seen the movie THX 1138?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066434/
sorry to say it, but W's speech today have the same value that the W's speech that USA was going to Mars...
Nothing.
The plan continue to be Resource Wars and regime change at Iran. Don't get misleaded again. Don't continue to make fool of yourselves...
João Carlos
Sorry the bad english, my native language is portuguese.
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=pawning_nasa_s_crown_jewels&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb =1
Senate to discuss Katrina / Iraq spending
The $106.5 billion bill has ballooned by almost $15 billion over President Bush's February request, and that figure could grow as senators of both parties press amendments to add money for border security and medical care for veterans.
Approval ratings continue freefall
Diplomacy isn't working with Iran (if you can call what we are doing "diplomacy")
Tom Cruise is so proud to be a dad he immediately leaves the country.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic18704.html
Including a message from someone who claims to live in Saudi Arabia.
- this was a normal couple - by that I mean he owned three car dealerships, but he wasn't some famous person. If there are willing to spend that kind of money for that kind of frivilous event, what hope is there for altruistic actions like buying a eco-friendly car and using less gas?
- when TSHTF, how pyshcologically worse off will these people be having grown accustomed to such a life style?
- how worse off will all the rest of America be who buys into these ideals of excess consumerism as 'normal'?
- it seems the idea of excess consumerism is being marketed so much more to this generation. it just keeps getting worse.
Sorry, but I had to vent. I was completely disgusted by it all.And shawnott, I know how you feel. My parent's taught me to be frugal, but what I need, and pay cash for it. I, too, am just shocked at the lifestyles and attitudes of today's youth. It will make it that much harder for them to deal with Peak Oil. And when PO starts to get really painful, they will be adults and can vote. I highly doubt their decisions will be rational based on their upbringings.
I was looking at cars last night and was considering the Toyota Yaris hatchback. It's the cheapest, most fuel-efficient car. The reason I'm hesitant to purchase it is because it would be a "coffin-on-wheels" driving here on the L.A. freeways with the huge SUVs and trucks everywhere.
Pity we can't get the Citroën and Renaults...
Yesterday, I was reading an article about how weddings have turned into "satin circuses." Before WWII, most Americans did not have fancy weddings. They would usually marry in their parents' parlor, with cake and punch served at a small party afterwards. The church wedding, bridal gown, bridesmaids, fancy dinner, etc., were someone only extremely wealthy people did. WWII wealth changed all that, along movies of the time - in particular, "Father of the Bride." And now it's absolutely crazy. The once-luxurious tea sandwiches that graced Elizabeth Taylor's wedding in "Father of the Bride" would be scorned by most American brides today.
When I was a teen, prom night would set you back a few hundred bucks. Tickets, dinner, a dress or tux, flowers. Some of the more popular kids rented limos and hotel rooms for afterparties, but it wasn't required. They all chipped in, so it wasn't too expensive.
Today, some parents spend thousands of dollars on their kids' proms. Designer dresses, stretch limos, even post-prom luxury cruises.
People today, especially young people, have insanely high expectations. They are already suffering high rates of depression, because of the huge gap between their expectations and reality. It's only going to get worse.
The wealth of HS kids has changed this much just since the 70s.
In fact, sad to say, I could not afford to finish HS itself! I had to work if I was going to eat, and at about 90 lbs, I realized if I didn't eat, some common disease like the flu or falling down and breaking a malnutrition-weakened leg or something could end me. Food had to come first and it was still not very plentiful even when working fulltime after paying rooming house rent etc.
And this was just the 70s, the dirty fucking 70s forget about the 30s not that many remember them now, but the 70s were bad enough. And to think we're heade for worse.
Watching TV in my studio apartment, I get this impression that the camera is on a rover on a planet of the rich. No wonder I prefer crime dramas or PBS documentaries. You don't see the insanity of how the "good America" is supposed to live, in those McMansions that I call sport utility homes.
I can't help but wonder how one is supposed to earn enough money to afford those homes as above. There can't be enough doctors, lawyers, mosh pit traders and celebrity newscasters. Making $45,000/year, I guess I'm supposed to be in the middle class, but reality is otherwise. The "middle class" judging by the housing market is making $145,000/year minimum. American dream? More like American nightmare.
That's how it's portrayed in popular culture these days, but that's not how it happens. Statistically speaking, it's the woman who ends up on the losing end.
But yes, divorce is a big wealth-destroyer for both men and women. Even more so for women. Many end up in poverty or bankrupt. My financial planner told me straight out that if I want to have money, I should never get divorced and have two or fewer kids.
I concluded that having no kids was the best possible thing I could do for the kids - by not having them or if I REALLY wanted to add my DNA to the gene pool, make an anon sperm donation, essentially spawning like a rainbow trout. Only a well-off couple could afford the artificial insemination, ensuring a well-put-together couple to raise them.
Emoticon Theater Presents "American Marriage, American Bankruptcy":
http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/index.cgi?okay=get_topic&topic_id=2409360
Best,
Matt
$75 for the License, paid cash.
Mom and Bro witnessed with us and a big belly at City Hall.
(No weapons present)
Todd shot some video, though, and Mom bought us dinner that evening..
Priceless.
Anybody know which experts he may be thinking of? The best-case estimates I've seen indicate 2025 (from Shell??) and I seriousaly doubt we'll have commercial-scale fusion plants by then.
Do I detect a sort of craziness that smacks of desperation here?
"Density modification program" = cramming people in like sardines
"Upright seating" = standing
Scenario: The plane is flying along, and hits a downdraft, then instantly a big updraft. POP! There goes someone's knees as they stand.
Just dial the law firm at 1-888-POT-HOLE!
And to think present airliners have a hard enough time stopping on short runways....
Now the only question is how does one chase airplanes?
Best,
Matt
P.S. A few weeks ago I called into a sports talk radio show where they were discussing the Bonds steroid controversy. I identified myself as an attorney albeit a non-practicing one. Just as it was my turn to talk an ambulance drove by with it's sirens on full blas. Naturally this gave the show's host the opportunity to ask if I was in the middle of chasing one. Pretty funny actually.
Then they can run the plane over a scale to see if it can take off!
Have they considered removing the rest rooms?
Watch out airlines in American airspace. When you load people in the plane, you have to watch the obesity problem! The standee section would have to be in the middle, to keep the plane balanced - assuming the plane isn't overweight. If it is, that's what JATO bottles are for.
And don't forget boarding passes but no assigned seats - first come first serve, like a Pace bus at an L stop/bus terminal. The flight attendant opens that door, and the stampede ensues as people rush to get a seat instead of stand. Of course, the TSA goons get to break up the occasional altercation between frequent fliers.
The next step is to add a large thermos of liquid oxygen and the passengers put on the masks to breathe, eliminating the need to pressurise the cabin saving fuel. Planes wouldn't need to have a pressurisable cabin except for the flight deck. The pressure difference locks the cockpit door, locking terrorists out as a bonus. Forget A/C, once flying, baseboard heaters add some heat as it gets mighty cold at altitude. A/C would only be needed on the ground - from May 15'th to Septenber 15'th. Otherwise, the fan belt is removed. The baseboard heaters get their heat from the oil coolers of the engines.
To ensure extra profit, the airline gets installed TVs with nothing but commercials and the airline gets a kickback from Transit TV, the same company adding TVs full of commercials to transit systems.
And the pilots come from India, to cut labour costs.
Best,
Matt
Just put people up in boxes with airholes, attach a catheter, stack 'em up in a cargo plane and off they go. No need for stewards/stewardesses, snacks, drinks, and annoying travel buddies. Heck, we even have the technology to fly the planes by remote-control. It could all run like clockwork at the fraction of the price. And if the plane crashes, you would never know.
Go sell this idea and become a millionaire!!!
Satire, cynicism, black humor...unfortunately these are the tools that I find necessary to survive in these days of insanity.
A problem: Often times, when one "goes under" they must have a breathing tube inserted and hooked up to a respirator, so this will make travel humane, but expensive. Maybe you could get with Richard Branson to start "SnoozeAir".
Has anyone here run the numbers on how critical that $200,000,000 /year of Narco-dollar recycling is to keeping the US Housing /markets bubble from popping like a ripe zit?
(Other than M. Rupert and the folks "Beyond the wilderness", not sure if Mike hangs out here under a pseudo-name)
Best,
Matt
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/25/jacobs060425.html
Wishing you: God speed, Fair winds and Calm seas Jane on the next leg of your journey
I thought I was hearing things. But yes, he did propose getting something from nothing. Full text of Bush's April 25, 2006 energy speech is here.
The belief in getting "something for nothing" strikes once more.
Two observations/questions:
This should be a good test then as to whether the price increase is due to those factors that are commonly used as scapegoats (damn environmentalists, greedy big oil etc. etc.) - if there really are problems at a fundamental level showing up then these moves will likely have little impact other than in the (very ?) short term - or is this too simplistic a view ?
As to the SPR - I thought this wasn't a supply issue - suspending deliveries to the SPR simply puts more supply out there available for refining - but the supply isn't the issue, remember - it's the refining capacity... Or did I miss the boat on this one too ?
In addition, there are stories everywhere that the internet is about to be sold down the river:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
I'd say the various Peak sites should develop backup plans to keep the communication lines open, whether a text-only feed, an email list or a usenet group.
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.typepad.com/life_after_the_oil_crash_/2006/04/latoc_blocked_b.html
Really ironic cause a while back on PO.com I joked that once the sh-t hits the fan and people stop buying DVDs like "End of Suburbia" I'll move into publishing porn. The demand for that will always be strong. They even had it in the caveman days:
"'Female representations with highly accentuated sexual attributes are very well documented at many sites, but male representations are very, very rare,' explained Professor Conard."
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4713323.stm
Best,
Matt
General Jack D. Ripper Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about the Internet?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said the Internet was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, the Internet is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
The preverts are everywhere.
Merkin Muffley will not save us.
Also I am working on a recommended books list. I think it will come in two versions--a short list and a much longer one including books for children, fundamental philosophy works, some poetry, biographies and dramas.
Can I get you a little fluoride for that rainwater? It'll make your teeth so much stronger.
Best,
Matt
We have high gas prices and people are responding. That's good news.
What you want to do now is encourage them in the right direction. Bush talks about more credits for hybrids and clean diesels, let's encourage them to reward "high mileage cars" and stop picking the technology. Let's get a $500 credit on a Focus or a Yaris and see how that shakes things up.
And if your worried about loose emission controls, NOW is the time to put pen to actually physical paper and write a letter. They many not care 99% of the time, but when they are running things up the flag pole, they check to see who will solute. (If it's just the "environmentalist hating" core, we know how things will go.)
So, I haven't put letters our for a year, but I will by tomorrow. This is the time, the opportunity.
A description and link to the sheet are here:
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/blog_entry_archive/2006/04/2006x04x25_3.html
Jeffrey Collins of Cambridge Energy Research Associates presents "The Global Energy Crisis: New Solutions?" Tuesday at 7 p.m. in the University Center Ballroom on the campus of the University of Montana. Sponsored by the Montana World Affairs Council, S.G. Long Co. and Datsopoulos, MacDonald and Lind, admission is $5 for the general public and is free to high school students.
Bob Seidenschwarz, president of the Montana World Affairs Council board of directors, a registered representative at S.G. Long Co. in Missoula, said the Cambridge group doesn't agree with the theory that oil production will peak in the future, with demand climbing while production lessens.
"They say there are plenty of resources," Seidenschwarz says. "The question is, what will it cost us to get them, financially and environmentally?"
Jeffery Collins said he hopes the Missoula audience brings lots of questions, and added, "I look forward to a spirited debate."
Here is 1st para of Jarrell's paper, the full paper is posted at above link
<We have reviewed Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, written by Matthew Simmons, CEO of Simmons & Company International, a Houston based investment bank that specializes in the energy industry. As independent petroleum engineers, we disagree with the primary conclusion of this book that Saudi Arabia's oil production is teetering on the brink of steep, irrevocable production decline. We believe the process used by the author to arrive at the conclusion was impaired by incorrect interpretation of reservoir engineering concepts and common oilfield operations. The book posits a crisis where in our opinion none exists.>
Lithium-Battery Cars May Deliver 300 Miles Per Charge
http://www.local6.com/news/8988315/detail.html
It appears that the only thing they sell now are batteries and a slow electric motorcycle that costs $6,000:
SPEED Up to 30 mph
RANGE 2 hrs @ 25mph - 50 miles
POWER 2 kilowatt in-wheel motor
BATTERIES 72 V, 11 Ah
CHARGE TIME Full charge in 2 hours
WEIGHT 210 lbs
WInd resistance.
Also there is resistance to change. As I read all the posts about how to keep the automobile culture going for as long as possible, I realize we will not change at a pace fast enough to prevent extreme problems.
How many barrels of oil does it take to make the average car? 70.
How many vehicles must we replace? 800 million? 70 times 800 million equals?
56,000,000,000 barrels of oil. Fifty-six billion. That is two thirds of a year's oil use. Where exactly will we take that oil from? Who will suffer so we can all drive high technology cars to continue a doomed paradigm? We replace cars every what -- twelve years? This mathematical exercise is rapidly becoming depressing.
Perhaps we should spend that prehistoric concentrated sunlight on developing a sustainable model.
Just a thought.
First Stage: Denial. You saw that by the baffoon Bush today and yesterday in his statements about oil, But its not just Bush, its the entire country, no one wants to let go of our our oil-dependent, SUV Driving, 45 mile commuting, $1.00 Mc.Burger transported 1,000 Mile, buying cheap crap from China, living in Suburban Mc.Mansion life-style.
For more on "The Long Emergency", and Howard Kunstlers book, you can can read a review of it that I wrote here:
http://goofyblog.net/book-review-the-long-emergency-by-james-howard-kunstler/
The more people that read this, the sooner we, as a nation, might realize just how F'd we are, and can possibly... MAYBE... Start do something about it besides the wastefull half-measures, and propaganda BS coming from our leadership today.
- Patamon
Here's a good article on corrupt Turkmenistan, its German bank accounts, and the calm treatment it's been given by Germany, which may get better thanks partly to insecurity over Russian intransience.
And they're predicting more warming to come.
This is an interesting article by Marc Faber in which he makes some interesting comments. He has realised that the money supply system will come apart with peak oil.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/faber-says-gold-price-may-reach-us6000/2006/04/25/1145861346435. html
Dark Days For Energy Efficiency
This may have already been posted, but I didn't see it.
The EPA is offering a research grant opportunity that I believe is a perfect fit for this idea. I have sent an e-mail to a hand picked list of university professors who have experience with government research projects. I'm looking to form a research team to apply for the EPA grant, conduct a social-economic experiment and surveys to determine to what extent the American public will support it, project the economic potential of WPH, and identify logistical, social and political obstacles as well as opportunities.
All government grants are awarded based on merit of the proposed research. I believe WPH has merit but your help is needed to verify it. You can help by posting your feedback. Let the professors and the EPA know what you think about WPH. Do you think this idea is worth pursuing? We need to know if Americans will support a plan like this.
Do you have any ideas to improve the plan?
Share any and all of your thoughts.
Tell your friends and family about this Blog post and ask them to post their thoughts on WPH
http://wepayhalf.org
Thank you
Craig