John McCain spilled the beans this past week. He proudly declared that his energy policy would make us free of Mid-east oil. Then, he said, we would no longer have to send our soldiers to die in such foreign wars.
I thank John for finally saying openly and honestly what we already knew. Not that he has a great energy policy, but that Iraq is all about the oil.
Greenspan said as much in his recent book. He said he knew it was "politically" ineexpedient to admit it, but the fact of the matter was that Iraq is simply all about the oil. Why such inexorable deceit? The most astounding aspect of this deception that doesn't deceive anyone is that it is effective in preventing any political action in opposition to such an evil war.
Is it America's insurmountable selfishness? Narcissism? Have we suffered so little, that we can't see the pain we are causing over there, not to mention over here? God, I hope the law of Karma isn't true because if it is we are in for some "blowback" that you can't even imagine in your worst nightmares.
13 comments:
Why can't we drill for oil in the United States?? We are depending too much from overseas!!! We should be focusing on our own problems in the USA first!!! This whole thing is confusing all of us!!!
Or, how about an electric car. Techologically it's simple. It's already been done. We need to pressure our representatives until they are too embarrassed not to push for this kind of change. ... We need a president possibly like John Kennedy who will say and mean that we will mass produce an electric car just as Kennedy said 'we will put a man on the moon.'
In other words, don't give us the run around!!!! Act on it!!!
Larry --
re: electric car. Yes, technologically it is relatively simple. Practically, however, it is not. Electric car technology has proven to much less than promised for a number of reasons: relatively short battery charge, relatively short battery life, relatively expensive battery replacement, even more expensive waste battery disposal, the rising cost of electricity in the open market (driven, by the way, in large part by the price of oil and natural gas which continues to fuel most of our electricity generation), and so on.
Until battery technology improves dramatically, and at a cost the average schmuck can afford, electric cars will continue to be fringe players.
Hydrogen fuel cells, based on my limited research, might be a better target for the "man on the moon" mission to make it happen. Simpler transition from today's technology to tomorrow, and probably a much smaller negative impact on the environment.
I worry about putting "pressure on our representatives" because they tend to be knee-jerk as throw money at solutions that may, in fact, not be solutions at all.
The continuing rise in the cost of oil -- and all its by-products -- may be the best impetus to bring newer, cleaner and BETTER technologies to the marketplace. And if the marketplace (the ultimate court of public opinion) demands it, our representatives will have little choice but to support it.
Or at least I hope so.
Pirate,
Yeh, I don’t doubt your technical/scientific knowledge. But throwing money at this and the hydrogen alternative sounds like it’s worth it to me. After all if we can throw 3.2 billion at Iraq (and its consequences) and get higher gas prices in return, I’d say this was a decent bet. I really doubt, and I don’t think it’s cynical, to believe that the rise in the cost of oil is going to motivate much of anything except another oil war somewhere, let’s say Iran? Yeh, I guess I am cynical, but to me that seems like the new realism. … I also read something the other day online about a conversion system changing water into HHO which apparently dramatically improves gas mileage, like a hybrid. It sounded too good to believe and so I assumed it was. But the inventor claims he had a hearing in the Senate regarding the feasibility of his design. Heard anything on this???
I am not familiar with the specific inventor you referenced, but I believe there is a real and growing buzz surrounding the potential for hydrogen -- at least as it relates to transportation.
As I understand it, the technologies needed to make it viable are closer to today's existing petroleum technologies, meaning the transition from drawing board to marketplace is both quicker and less expensive. That's better for everyone, except maybe the oil companies -- but they've had their time.
I doubt we will ever render oil completely moot, because there are so many other products and technologies that remain dependent on it (plastics, for instance), but weaning our transportation systems off oil would result in a huge drop in demand.
That's the message I want our representatives to hear -- that there isn't a NEED for another oil war. Perhaps that is a message they might actually understand.
By the way, Larry. It would appear that you have a not so secret admirer in kimberly!!! Who is very enthusiastic!!! Who apparently things more punctuation will help get her point across!!! Yes??? No???
Sorry -- just having some fun!!!!!!!!!!!
This Kimberly is Larry's niece. I am his deaf niece, who is not afraid to express what is on my mind.
No offense intended, kimberly. Uncle Larry and I have been known to have pointed discussions on these intertubes, so I couldn't resist the chance to poke at him...and thus you.
But, a single punctuation mark still gets the point across!
None taken. I know that those single punctuation mark do get points across. Since you can't see or hear a person's voice online.
Facts: Oil exists in this country with a larger net gain than all of the middle easst.
Fact: Nuclear technology exists as a very safe technology which has advanced rapidly in recent years.
fact: Food shortages are the result of increased demand causing oil shortages, oil shortages due to the enormously inappropriate influence of environmentalists in our decision making apparatus, and the use of ethanol also contributes.
fact: Third world citizens are starving as a result of greens feeling good about themselves in ethanol run, hybrids. Look in the mirror and feel good about yourselves.
Anon.:
Are you saying that we should maintain our oil “policy” if we can call it that and increase drilling in the US? Are you blaming the failure of this “policy” on the Environmentalists?
Is “environmentalist” a dimension of contemporary Liberalism for you? I’m in agreement that ethanol is a mistake. But why do you also blame third world hunger on the “greens?” Are “greens” and “environmentalists” identical? Didn’t the US Congress have more to do with the ethanol strategy independent of the influence of the greens?
Nuke tech is safe depending on what you mean by safe. In an age of terrorism all we need is more nuclear materials floating around. Also, the uranium mining seems to be wreaking havoc down Texas way. It seems when the miners smell uranium nothing will stand in their way. If the Congress gets behind them, we all better pray they don’t suspect uranium under our homes or near our water supplies. Nuke is dirty, dangerous and a risk we don’t need to take.
I check out the Thomas Sowell stuff ASAP.
Environmentalism in general is a scourge if taken in it's current state which is more of a political movement than anything else. Just recently the Czech Republic leadership released several positions taken in which they describe the similarity of these positions to the communism in which they lived under.
The communists adhered to this ideology to a t. Thinking outrageously that they could in fact control everything from intellect, economy, and the weather. They were wrong on all fronts unless you consider forced abortions, and the murder of dissent as an achievement of the populace, I call it brutal oppression and murder.
The qustion is one of ideology really. Whether we believe that reality is essentially maleable to the extent that humanity can or should attempt to control things as drastic as weather. I think this mentality is far too pervasove than what is healthy.
Similar to Hurricane Katrina, it wasn't that the Bush administration was too inept to handle the crisis it was that government itself is far too nept too handle the task. Ray Nagin in New Orleans is a good example of this. Before the storm he was approached by local busing companies who informed him of the coming disaster and it's ramifications if the citizenry was not evacuated and his response was the typical buerocratic also ran in that he could not allow something to spontaneously affect his control and denied them the opportunity. The result?
Even worse is the absolute degree of dependence that those in New Orleans on the government. Even worse than that is the expectation of government to relieve them of their obligations and responsibilities as adults many voiced prior to, during, and after the storm. This is generations of people absolutely depending on the government for their life blood instead of taking the slightest risk.
Did you know that after the "civil war" 80-90% of black families has two parents, 70% until around the 1970's, and after the welfare movement now down to 20% that my friend is the result of liberalism run amuck. Liberals have completely destroyed the black family and should be ashamed of themselves. In economic terms, they (blacks) did exactly what any humans would do (depend on the incoming checks) and the result was devastation by way of unintended consequence. Blacks didn't change their genetics, liberals changed their lifestyles.
A good example of government I heard lately was one parks commission. They had two entrances to this particular park, approximately 2,000 parkgoers at $10.00 a family/parkgoer combined of each entrance but on many days could not charge because they did not have the money in the budget! Think about that, they bypassed $20,000 because they did not have say 2 workers, at 8 hrs, maybe $10.00 an hour, that's $160.00 of pay.
Why should we expect any governmental agency to manage things as diverse as environmental policies, health care, or even attempt to manage weather itself?
Ethanol is in fact a main cause of recent food shortages which in turn is actually starving many poverty stricken third world countries. Oil shortages due to the burgeoning democracies in China/India, Iraq, and the environmentalist agenda has caused oil to sky rocket. Ethanol in turn is a diversion of essential food sources which many of these countries depend on, also the cost of not drilling in the past has led to s being completely dependant.
Renewable resources are wonderful for approximately the 10% of energy that they can produce in the shortterm. I like hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear particularly although nuclear would produce as much as 80% if we wanted in the shortterm.
The premise that we need a strongman to stiff arm companies and the people into this type of legislation is absurd. People desire health not only of themselves but also of the environment as well as China is a clear example as the consumer there is now demanding a cleaner environment and technology to match.
We live in a consumer society in that what consumers want will be produced. We do not live in a paternalistic nanny state.
I personally have more faith apparently than you in the people of this country and less than you apparently in a centralized control of the country.
Post a Comment