A Muzi
12-31-1969, 08:00 PM
>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> It's easier and more tempting to blame greedy Arabs and greedy oil
>>> company executives, because that's simpler and people like to
>>> pretend that life is actually simple (e.g., I got mine, you get
>>> yours). Thinking about dramatically rising global demand-
>>> combined with the peak oil effect- as the driver of price increases
>>> is harder, because it forces us to realize that $5.00 per gallon
>>> gasoline is nearer than the horizon and that the price will
>>> inexorably go up.
> Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I disgree about which scenario is simpler (ie simple minded). Things
>> like this don't happen by accident... way too much power and wealth
>> at stake. Exactly why did Bush invade and take over Iraq, if not for
>> the protection and security of the Saudis and Israel? And what has
>> been the immediate outcome?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Record recruitment for anti-West terrorist organizations, decreased
> national security, the division of American military capacity,
> privatization of the US military (read: mercenaries), the decent of the
> American government into moral bankruptcy, a failed state in
> Afghanistan, a possibly failing state in Iraq, increased regional
> instability and Iran joining the nuclear club as fast as it can.
>
> On the upside, Halliburton and some other corporations run by cronies of
> Bush and Cheney have made out like robber barons. If you can't push a
> few billion dollars of the taxpayer's money towards your pals, what good
> is it being the two most powerful men in the world?
>
> Did Bush and Co. invade Iraq to drive up the price of oil? Who knows?
> It seems unlikely given the inevitable political fallout from
> disgruntled Americans used to some of the cheapest gasoline and energy
> prices on the planet, who have seen flat to declining incomes for the
> past 40 years while the rich and powerful leave the middle class in the
> economic dust. The fire is laid, all it needs is a match.
>
>> The rate of increase in world oil consumption/production is much
>> lower now than it was in the 60s. World oil reserves are higher than
>> ever. Yes India and China are increasing at a rapid *rate*, but their
>> use is still tiny compared to the US, and the effect on world
>> consumption is nil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
>
> As I said, the current price of oil is being driven by escalating demand
> and decreasing production (the peak oil effect). China, by dint of
> having billions of US dollars in its coffers thanks to out of control
> Republican deficit spending 20 of the past 28 years as well as our
> massive trade deficit, has been outmaneuvering and out-bidding the US
> for access to energy.
>
>> The price of oil may continue to go up in the short term, but even at
>> present prices there are many energy alternatives that are less
>> expensive. So... *if* the price is "real" as you assume, we will
>> quickly develop alternatives which will prevent it from going higher.
>> If the price is artificial, then this will be more difficult because
>> the huge investment required to develop alternatives will be risky...
>> since the price of oil could easily drop to a low level again, and
>> the alternatives will be bankrupt.
>
> Over the long haul, the alternatives will prevail because ultimately
> there is no other option. Oil is a finite resource. We've known this
> for decades and wilfully ignored it. Development of alternative
> energies will require massive government subsidy and a change of
> reference. There will be no one replacement for oil- it will have to be
> replaced by a dozen technologies as well as changes in personal behavior
> and social policies.
When I notice fewer cellphone impaired idiots driving 6000-lb behemoths
drifting across my lane (they actually drive while juggling food an
drink!), I'll believe it. The barriers to driving are way too low now.
Until then, it's all wishful thinking.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>> It's easier and more tempting to blame greedy Arabs and greedy oil
>>> company executives, because that's simpler and people like to
>>> pretend that life is actually simple (e.g., I got mine, you get
>>> yours). Thinking about dramatically rising global demand-
>>> combined with the peak oil effect- as the driver of price increases
>>> is harder, because it forces us to realize that $5.00 per gallon
>>> gasoline is nearer than the horizon and that the price will
>>> inexorably go up.
> Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I disgree about which scenario is simpler (ie simple minded). Things
>> like this don't happen by accident... way too much power and wealth
>> at stake. Exactly why did Bush invade and take over Iraq, if not for
>> the protection and security of the Saudis and Israel? And what has
>> been the immediate outcome?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Record recruitment for anti-West terrorist organizations, decreased
> national security, the division of American military capacity,
> privatization of the US military (read: mercenaries), the decent of the
> American government into moral bankruptcy, a failed state in
> Afghanistan, a possibly failing state in Iraq, increased regional
> instability and Iran joining the nuclear club as fast as it can.
>
> On the upside, Halliburton and some other corporations run by cronies of
> Bush and Cheney have made out like robber barons. If you can't push a
> few billion dollars of the taxpayer's money towards your pals, what good
> is it being the two most powerful men in the world?
>
> Did Bush and Co. invade Iraq to drive up the price of oil? Who knows?
> It seems unlikely given the inevitable political fallout from
> disgruntled Americans used to some of the cheapest gasoline and energy
> prices on the planet, who have seen flat to declining incomes for the
> past 40 years while the rich and powerful leave the middle class in the
> economic dust. The fire is laid, all it needs is a match.
>
>> The rate of increase in world oil consumption/production is much
>> lower now than it was in the 60s. World oil reserves are higher than
>> ever. Yes India and China are increasing at a rapid *rate*, but their
>> use is still tiny compared to the US, and the effect on world
>> consumption is nil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
>
> As I said, the current price of oil is being driven by escalating demand
> and decreasing production (the peak oil effect). China, by dint of
> having billions of US dollars in its coffers thanks to out of control
> Republican deficit spending 20 of the past 28 years as well as our
> massive trade deficit, has been outmaneuvering and out-bidding the US
> for access to energy.
>
>> The price of oil may continue to go up in the short term, but even at
>> present prices there are many energy alternatives that are less
>> expensive. So... *if* the price is "real" as you assume, we will
>> quickly develop alternatives which will prevent it from going higher.
>> If the price is artificial, then this will be more difficult because
>> the huge investment required to develop alternatives will be risky...
>> since the price of oil could easily drop to a low level again, and
>> the alternatives will be bankrupt.
>
> Over the long haul, the alternatives will prevail because ultimately
> there is no other option. Oil is a finite resource. We've known this
> for decades and wilfully ignored it. Development of alternative
> energies will require massive government subsidy and a change of
> reference. There will be no one replacement for oil- it will have to be
> replaced by a dozen technologies as well as changes in personal behavior
> and social policies.
When I notice fewer cellphone impaired idiots driving 6000-lb behemoths
drifting across my lane (they actually drive while juggling food an
drink!), I'll believe it. The barriers to driving are way too low now.
Until then, it's all wishful thinking.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **