I dont get it

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ok Im tired of these threads on Global warming. Why cant we in the US at least all get along. I mean in general liberals want us off fossil fuels because we are polluting the air and causing global warming. Conservatives say we need to get of fossil fuels because of national security interests. Yet nothing gets done. Should this not be priority one for the US? Think about the advantages we would have if we were energy independent. Think about the difference it could make in our international policies.

Im not much on conspiracy theories but something here smells rotten to me. All this cozing up with the Saudis who are the main guys behind all this terrorism yet they are supposedly our friends. Its mighty confusing. Is their a global oil conspiracy that controls much of what goes on in the world? How can it be that we are not working to get off of oil? Is nuclear energy that dangerous? If we put our minds and hearts to it could we not accomplish it with in a decade? Would this be better than tstudying global warming and making up useless proto calls like Kyoto.

[Lemur]

A couple of supplementary thoughts:

In terms of pollution (and greenhouse gases, sure) coal-fired electricity plants are a much bigger deal than vehicle emissions. So the disproportionate focus on cars and trucks when it comes to GW chat kind of leave the lemur scratching his prehensile tail.

Energy independence is a worthwhile goal, possibly the biggest strategic goal within the next hundred years. I would love to see the U.S.A. shifting toward nuclear power in a big way, but some of the regulatory and legal hurdles will have to be removed to make that happen. And Yucca Mountain had damn well better open.

In truth, there's a lot of common ground between the Global Warming theorists, Christian stewardship believers, Paleocon pragmatists and your basic Greens. If these different groups ever get it working together, our easily purchased Congress might have to do something.

[KukriKhan]

Yeah, energy independence has been talked about since the Nixon/Ford/Carter years. I agree with Gawain: I smell a rat.

[English assassin]

Its David Icke's giant lizards

But seriously, the rat may be working in what it thinks are your interests. Who is going to have energy independence when the saudis have extracted their oil, and the US has left its reserves (partly) in place?

Mind you when I last suggested that DC said I was giving your politicians way too much credit, and he may be right.

As for big G's other point, believing whatever it takes to get your (and our) CO2 emissions down is fine by me. I don't think we need to postulate a conspiracy though, right now, the cheapest energy is still oil. As we largely have a market system oil carries the day. Until you build other considerations into the price, be they pollution (my take on it) or strategic security (big G's take) oil will continue to carry the day.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ive been hearing for decades that people have invented things like engines that get 90 miles to the gallon and that the oil companies buy up the rights. Lots of stuff like that.

Who is going to have energy independence when the saudis have extracted their oil, and the US has left its reserves (partly) in place?

Yes that seems to ne our plan. Use the rest of the worlds supply and save our own. I think it its stupid. We are not running out of oil. The oil companies dont claim we are. Does anyone think that we wont have an alternative long before we run out? Im telling you we could do it in a decade. It should be the next great American project like building the interstate and going to the moon. Nothing else is more important today. I dont see how any one can deny theres a huge oil kabal around the world and these guys really are the ones who run the show.

[English assassin]

It should be the next great American project like building the interstate and going to the moon.

Gawain and EA in complete agreement shock.

Well, delete "American" and insert "western", but otherwise, yes.

[Gregoshi]

Nothing else is more important today. I dont see how any one can deny theres a huge oil kabal around the world and these guys really are the ones who run the show.

You're getting warm.

[Husar]

Energy independence is a worthwhile goal, possibly the biggest strategic goal within the next hundred years.

That's why we want to disassemble our nuclear reactors I guess, so the French can build new ones on the border and sell us the energy and make us...independent?

[Odin]

Should this not be priority one for the US?

Yes the environment should, so should energy independence. think a terrorist bomb will do damage? How about another 4-5 Katrina's a year

Think about the advantages we would have if we were energy independent.

I do regularly, I dont think the world economy the way its structured now could handle the U.S. not consuming the same level of oil. To much of the world economy revolves around oil, and its consumption.

Take the biggest consumer out of it and prices drop, the laws of supply and demand prevail and people loose money.

Unless the chinese end up having 2 cars in every driveway, then the status quo will remain.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How about another 4-5 Katrina's a year

Thats not caused by global warming.

dont think the world economy the way its structured now could handle the U.S. not consuming the same level of oil. To much of the world economy revolves around oil, and its consumption.

And thats why there is a kabal.

Take the biggest consumer out of it and prices drop, the laws of supply and demand prevail and people loose money.

Except for America

Your starting to catch on

[Odin]

Thats not caused by global warming.

Except for America

Your starting to catch on

America looses too, there is a multi billion dollar industry around oil based products. Lets say we decrease oil consumption by 25%, so what happens to the gas stations that are now full service marts, coffee shops and subshops combined?

Decreasing oil consumption will have a negative effect on the U.S. economy, take that to the bank (pun intended.)

[English assassin]

Decreasing oil consumption will have a negative effect on the U.S. economy, take that to the bank (pun intended.)

Not necessarily. Reducing any given sector of the economy may cause difficulties in the short term, but historically it looks as if people generally find new jobs and the economy simply changes. EG the UK used to employ millions in heavy industry and mining, now it employs almost no one in those sectors, but the economic capacity has been redeployed rather than disappearing.

Of course you don't want it happening overnight.

After the thread on our special relationship the hell with you guys :) Why the heck do you think I want us to do it first. Its not to clean up the friggin air :)

Nothing wrong with wantint to make a buck Big G

The idea that there might be money to be made is all to the good: it makes it more likely that something will happen. The really big stuff (fusion, maybe) is too big and too risky to be anything other than a government project though.

[Odin]

Not necessarily. Reducing any given sector of the economy may cause difficulties in the short term, but historically it looks as if people generally find new jobs and the economy simply changes. EG the UK used to employ millions in heavy industry and mining, now it employs almost no one in those sectors, but the economic capacity has been redeployed rather than disappearing.

I'll make a concession on this point, yes long term it can be overcome. Can we agree that the short term might extend longer then must due to the commoditied involved? Oil as an industry has huge world economic implications, and while I agree with your point long term, in the meantime the U.S. economy gets hurt by decreasing oil consumption now.

there really isnt an industry that can pick up the slack yet.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

America looses too, there is a multi billion dollar industry around oil based products. Lets say we decrease oil consumption by 25%, so what happens to the gas stations that are now full service marts, coffee shops and subshops combined?

They can all go back to the Muslim countries that they came from Hey maybe you can get them to check your oil, clean your windshield give you directions and free maps like they used to never mind pump the gas for you for no extra charge.

Another benifit. I believe in the open market. Hey we dont have blacksmiths anymore either. Its time to move on.

Decreasing oil consumption will have a negative effect on the U.S. economy, take that to the bank (pun intended.)

I dont think so. Its the excuse thats been used for ever. The same argument was probably used against the automobile vs the horse.

[Odin]

They can all go back to the Muslim countries that they came from Hey maybe you can get them to check your oil, clean your windshield give you directions and free maps like they used to never mind pump the gas for you for no extra charge.

I'd like to avoid entaglements with the ACLU, we wont be "getting" them to do anything, but there will still be fruit to pick in CA and FL once we clamp down on all the south americans.

Another benifit. I believe in the open market. Hey we dont have blacksmiths anymore either. Its time to move on.

Point taken. Think of all the sanatation workers that were out jobs once cars came along? Those guys had no more !@#$ to pick up.

[Don Corleone]

America looses too, there is a multi billion dollar industry around oil based products. Lets say we decrease oil consumption by 25%, so what happens to the gas stations that are now full service marts, coffee shops and subshops combined?

Decreasing oil consumption will have a negative effect on the U.S. economy, take that to the bank (pun intended.)

I disagree with this. Gasoline could easily be replaced by other vehicle fuel commodities at service stations. They switched over from leaded to unleaded gasoline in the 70s. It wouldn't be all that hard to switch over to electricity, or whatever other fuel medium keeps vehicles going in the coming technological generation. EA had the gist of it, show a way to make money doing it and industry will arise, almost overnight, to serve that market segment. That's the thing about us capitalistas... we grow like weeds, in more ways than one.

As for a 'global cabal', I think we're trying to create a boogeyman because a malevolent body is less scary than the truth. Inertia, and our own short-sightedness are what hold us back. You talk about oil companies buying the rights to higher efficiency combustion engines, just to shelve them. Baloney. Do you really think Ford and GM would let themselves go under (and they are) just to keep their friends in the oil industry happy? And why are Toyota and Honda impervious from the affects of this cabal?

The truth is until it becomes painful for us to use large quantities of petroleum, we will continue to do so. As much as I hate opening my wallet, the fact is, high prices are what it takes. I live 30 miles away from where I work, in a rather rural area. Yet the price of gas was enough to make even me adopt carpooling.

But I agree with Lemur. We're all ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room. If the goal is reduce greenhouse gasses and carbon emission, then we have to tackle fossil fuel power generation stations (and hopefully increase our use of nuclear energy). The very fact you never hear people complaining about 'big coal' suggests that if there are global cabals manipulating public debate, the coalmmen are much better at it than the oilmen.

As for the whole climate shift versus extreme weather patterns...are there objective numbers on 1) just how much of the global climate shift is caused by man's activities (I thought it was <5%) ? and 2) as I understand it, our climate has shifted by 1.5 degrees over the past 60 years. Now I'm old enough to remember when we went through a chilly period in the 70s/early 80s, and all the scientists were claiming we had artificially created an ice age. Is there any hard data on just how much the climate change is really impacting severe weather patterns, and are our weather patterns really more severe than they normally are? Or is this just more of the usual scare tactics?

[Odin]

I disagree with this. Gasoline could easily be replaced by other vehicle fuel commodities at service stations. They switched over from leaded to unleaded gasoline in the 70s. It wouldn't be all that hard to switch over to electricity, or whatever other fuel medium keeps vehicles going in the coming technological generation.

Easily Don? well I dont think so, but Im a closet environmentalist I'd be happy to be wrong. Here is an example, I have a mobile station down the street, full service auto repair/gas station/convience store/dunkin doughnuts.

Now that store would be effected by a decrease in oil consumption, its business is marketed, set up for, and taylored too consumers who drive autos with oil based products.

It also has an ethonol pump I believe, but essentially the success of the store is predicated on drivers, unless you do in fact replace the oil with another commodity that business suffers. That change isnt going to be easy, at least I dont think so.

Again the environment is one of those subjects I lean left on, or whatever party will get us to make it the number 1 priority, yet I realize that oil is the number one global commodity that makes it all go (figuritively and literally).

Eliminating even part of the conumption of oil has global economic implications, until a replacement is found I dont see it as viable.