More evidence of why the next few years are crucial in jump-starting an energy revolution: A front-page Wall Street Journal article reported that “peak oil†theories that the world is fast approaching a ceiling on oil production are gaining mainstream acceptance from many energy analysts and oil companies. One expert said we already face a “crisis†in production between 2008 and 2012.
Then there’s the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which warns that the reality of climate change is “unequivocal†and requires immediate action, especially by major nations such as the United States and China.
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,†said Rajendra Pachauri, a panel scientist and economist. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.â€
It’s getting harder and harder to argue for business as usual.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
80 Comments
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” said Rajendra Pachauri, a panel scientist and economist. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
I love the Crisis Panic Building Deadline.
Hell, if we don’t stop global warming by 2012, we’re all dead! (Won’t have to worry about Social Security/Medicare going broke if we only have 5 years to live! Let’s all retire now and party for 5 years!)
Don’t statements like these make you doubt their claims even more?
Claims about Peak Oil have been made since the 70s. The claims have been absolutely accurate. Naturally the politicians have ignored the data since politicians only wait until there is a problem to actually do something. It’s kinda like waiting until there’s a medical problem then rushing to the ER. You might get there in time, you might not, but it’ll cost you extra.
I do not see how any of us will have energy revolution, I mean it is not like we a good choice in the matter.The choices that we do have are all controlled by big business and they have no intention of changing.It is like saying “Why should we give up on oil when we are making the highest profits on it then we ever had.”
Perhaps Randy Scholfield, if all those countries that signed the Kyoto peace accord had actually significantly reduced their oil usage instead of doing the same oil thing and buying those wonderful ‘carbon credits’ the world be in this mess.
Yeah right…
Has anyone noticed that the countries that signed Kyoto have according to the Alarmists done nothing to quell the man-made c02 scare, reduce oil use and they have made no fantastic alternative energy gains?
Which means what?
Hype by the GW alarmists who want to use climate change for Geo-Political purposes only.
Now that the Kyoto treaty is starting to expire, the Alarmists are beginning to panic, not because of any Climate Crisis, but because their personal wallets are going to run dry when carbon credit scams and bogus research awards go down the tubes.
Like it or not, the energy revolution is here. So what’s not to like about it, though? For one, it means less oil bought from foreign countries who may or may not support terrorism. How that’s not a good thing, feel free to inform me.
Second, global warming or not, building an energy policy, and structuring it to renewables, means jobs for Americans. How does one outsource that?
But, there is global warming going on, and whether or not it’s man-made is something I could care less about. I happen to think it’s one of the phases the earth goes through, so we better get used to it and prepare for it’s bad side.
One of the problems developing because of warming, will be changes in food/water patterns throughout the world. We’re seeing it now, if you take the time to look. It will have an effect on fuel resources. So it makes sense to invest in alternate energy now, instead of later, when it might be a bit late.
So, IMHO, while the global warming advocates and the GW skeptics are pillow fighting, the planet is going through changes, and I don’t see any serious prep work being done.
Like it or not, the energy revolution is here. So what’s not to like about it, though? For one, it means less oil bought from foreign countries who may or may not support terrorism. How that’s not a good thing, feel free to inform me.
Second, global warming or not, building an energy policy, and structuring it to renewables, means jobs for Americans. How does one outsource that?
But, there is global warming going on, and whether or not it’s man-made is something I could care less about. I happen to think it’s one of the phases the earth goes through, so we better get used to it and prepare for it’s bad side.
One of the problems developing because of warming, will be changes in food/water patterns throughout the world. We’re seeing it now, if you take the time to look. It will have an effect on fuel resources. So it makes sense to invest in alternate energy now, instead of later, when it might be a bit late.
So, IMHO, while the global warming advocates and the GW skeptics are pillow fighting, the planet is going through changes, and I don’t see any serious prep work being done.
I hate redundant!
Max you ARE amazing.
Alone, in the quiet of your little world, you cam imagine the most detailed and sinister and devastating of attacks from scary terrorists. You can imagine Senator Hillary Clinton with the power to order you what socks to wear.
But give you the opinion of the balance of the scientific world as to global warming and suddenly you go all hyper critical thinking.
Global warming, it’s real. Whether we are causing it and to what degree is not terribly important.
Peak oil is real too.
Now this nation has a big decision to make. We either evolve beyond dependence on oil or we resign ourselves to that dependence. Evolving away from oil will be hard. It will even be painful for awhile. In the end though, America can be the leader in a movement that HAS to happen.
Resign to dependence? Well I’m not ready to tell my 13 year old son that it is his responsibility to go fight for America’s right to cheap gas. And giving in to dependence is what that means. America would have to militarily secure the oil rich areas.
What say you? Innovation, or Empire?
“J R” –
I posted this over on the “With friends like these…” thread.
Perhaps it belongs here instead.
Keep drilling and burning oil “until we come up with a real energy policy?” Sounds like a drunk proposing he keeps drinking until he comes up with a real plan for sobriety.
Even George WMD Bush declared in the State of the Union Address that America has to cure itself of our addiction to oil.
Every dollar spent to dig another hole in the ground in a desperate attempt to find more oil is a dollar that cannot be spent developing new energy sources; that won’t be spent for mass transit and eco-friendly bullet trains; that won’t be spent on recycling spent nuclear fuel…
People such as you, “Gen Raston,” are like the people a century ago who yelled “Get a horse!” You seem so set in your ways you do not realize that technologies change. Oil companies are the 21st Century equivalent of the Buggy Whip industry of 1907. They’ll do anything to fight progress for only one reason: greed.
Sometime in the future, I predict our children or grandchildren will look back at this era and be astounded we wasted such a valuable resource — for plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals — by *BURNING* it! The same way we look back at 18th Century doctors who thought bleeding was a treament, our progeny will shake their heads at our ignorance.
If the answer is burning more oil, “Gene Raston,” you’re asking the wrong question.
In September, a RAND Corporation analyst gave a testimony to the House Science and Technology Committee on developing liquid fuels from coal.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT289.pdf
The primary focus of this report to Congress is improving America’s security, including reducing economic disruption threats posed by OPEC’s ability to dictate energy distribution and prices. The report also suggests that coal to liquid fuel conversion has a potential to reduce greenhouse gases, as well as boost domestic oil recovery by injecting coal-derived CO2 into oil wells.
Honda is going to be leasing fuel-cell cars in Southern California, in concert with pilot-program hydrogen fueling stations.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/la-auto-show-driving-hondas-fuel-cell-fcx/
One factor everyone is in agreement on is that the federal government must provide subsidization, in the form of funding research and pilot-program development. Also key are alternative-energy price supports as the government does for farming, in order to preclude OPEC from torpedoing alt-energy by suddenly opening the oil taps to drop oil prices to levels that make alt-energy economically unviable. Investors are willing to invest, but they reasonably want protection from the market manipulations of the OPEC cartel.
Wind-power is growing at a record pace. Two utility-sponsored solar generation facilities are under construction in New Mexico and California. Rooftop solar systems are advancing from ’70s home water heating to home and office electricity generation. Geothermal energy has proven viable in some regions, and has potential for enormous expansion. Even in non-volcanic parts of the country, if you dig deep enough, you can capture enough earth heat to warm offices and homes, with zero CO2 emissions generated.
Higher energy efficiency is the key strategy. It’s cheaper to save energy than produce more of it.
Another reason “for an energy revolution”.
‘Scientists warn of agrarian crisis from climate change’http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1KvwnUZc2tLeHlFigYI9hR9REzw
“An agrarian crisis is brewing because of climate change that could jeopardise global food supplies and increase the risk of hunger for a billion poorest of the poor, scientists have warned.”More at link.
We haven’t even come close to maximizing energy efficiency. We can look at better home insulation as an efficiency stratagem. Solar panels that convert sunlight energy to electricity energy are also an efficiency stratagem. Architectural design that allows sunlight to enter a home in winter, and aid its heating is an efficiency stratagem.
Lightweight bikes and reclining trikes can be built with small auxilliary engines to enable people to ride up hills and against the wind without having to be athletes. Motor scooters are nowhere near as energy-efficient as they could be–currently only typically rated at 50-90 mpg. With new technologies, there’s no reason they could not get 150 mpg.
Van commuting, buses and light rail trains can vastly reduce per person-mile fuel use.
So combine these with domestic energy-resource expansion, and voila! we don’t need to be dependent on OPEC to meet our energy needs.
I have been in sales all my life.
Actually, most doctors and accountants and lawyers are saleman too. They most “sell” their expertise or experience, or “sell themselves” or they won’t get much business.
Having said that, the Global Warming chicken littles are, also, salesman.
Their type of sales approach is beneath me.
This is “manipulative selling” at its worst.
In life insurance, we call this “back the ambulance up to the door” fear induces sales.
You are appealing to emotions, fear, envy and stupidity.
Want some logic?
Try this, “scientists” and “journalists” (Who suck at sales but are trying to sell this garbage):
Show me where a single “Global Warming” proposal in the United Nations or Congress does ANYTHING to reduce carbon output in the next 10 years?
“We have to ACT NOW” you say? BULL!
Show me where your proposals address the problem?
You have created a problem, now show us how, in the next or even 30 years, you expect to correct these “problems”??
You cant do it.
Even under KYOTO, if followed by the whole world (It won’t be, foreign governments will laugh at us and do what they want) — even under KYOTO carbon emissions will NOT drop by any appreciable amount, and warming will still occur, according to projections.
1.) Is Global Warming happening?
2.) Do humans cause global warming?
3.) Are there natural reasons, like Sun Spots and solar events, that can explain many of our climate changes?
3.) If humans have any impact at all, on Global Warming, can humans have any real impact on that warming?
4.) Is the cost of any such political “fix” for global warming worth the price?
5.)Will a corrupt, starving world even care about the “ambulance” you have backed up to the American suburbanites’ door, in order to sell your seedy “insurance” product?
Won’t the starving third world continue to do what ever is necessary in order to keep people from starving TOMORROW, rather than worry about the “future”???
If we avoid carbon, in the United States, won’t that just reduce the price of carbon, in the rest of the world, which will increase international demand?
No net change in carbon use, is what will happen, no matter what the United States does.—-Think of it this way:
You are in a home where people are collecting aluminum cans and shoveling walks and mowing lawns, to make ends meet.You want them to spend $50.00 they DONT HAVE on a life insurance policy.In order to pay for that policy, the primary bread winner decides to shovel more snow.He has a heart attack, the next week, SHOVELING SNOW!
Unintended consequences, friends.
Clamping down on US production only enriches OPEC.
It does NOTHING at all to stop “Global Warming” and it does nothing at all to develop any alternative enrgy source.
It is just stupid to restrict domestic production of carbon based fuel.
The only purposes served are political!
America, which practically overnight became a war industry and developed hundreds of thousands of jeeps, planes, tanks, etc. for the war effort can easily mass produce cars like the Aptera which get 300mpg. Make cars like this dirt cheap so anyone can buy them and pay off the effort with a two dollar a gallon hike in the gas tax. In a few years we could get off foreign oil.
A similar effort can be made with solar. We can produce the entire nation’s energy needs with 9% of the land area of the Southwestern deserts. The midwest can supply the nation’s energy needs with wind power.
Our nation could have been so much closer to accomplishing this goal but the sheik sucking Bush regime figured they’d prefer to spend a couple trillion on an unnecessary occupation of Iraq to keep us addicted to oil.
3 above should say:
If humans have any effect on global warming at all, can human legislation or treaties reduce that global warming effect?
Paul’s just another do nothing Republican. There’s a problem and his solution is to pretend it doesn’t exist while the problem grows larger and larger. As usual conservatives have no solutions, it must be left to the progressives who are more mature and more educated to deal with the problems conservatives create.
Doug,The autos you speak of require electric power, do they not?
The sun does not always shine.
The wind does not always blow.
Battery technology is not where it needs to be, in order to “store” wind and solar generated electrical power, and batteries do wear out.
We aren’t there yet.
By the way, we did not “make it to the moon” by requiring Americans to quit driving.
We did not develop the aviation industry by requiring Americans to quit driving.
Your hatred of the oil industry is religious in nature, it can not be reasoned with by anyone on this Blog.
However, if you find real, viable alternatives to oil, conservatives will use, fund and promote those alternatives.
Punishing oil and punishing capitalism only HURT our abililty to develop alternatives.
Resign to dependence? Well I’m not ready to tell my 13 year old son that it is his responsibility to go fight for America’s right to cheap gas. And giving in to dependence is what that means. America would have to militarily secure the oil rich areas.
What say you? Innovation, or Empire?
What say YOU paulecon?
You can kvetch global warming all you like. Peak oil, that one you can’t parse.
And it is important for our readers to know that econPaul is and has been an agent in the trade of fossil fuels.
It’s really very simple. If we are to be dependent on oil we WILL have to secure it. That means we are staying in Iraq forever. And that WAS bush’s intention from the start. It means we will eventually have to invade and occupy at least one of the following oil rich countries.
Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia (this is my pick), or Mexico (also on my list).
Peak oil is a fact and demand from China and India for oil is growing exponentially. We are either going to have to fight for oil or move past needing it.
I say a hundred year run is good enough for this technology that is doomed to starve itself.
DougTake off your “Superman cape” — I think it is restricting the blood flow to your brain!
You have not proved your problem.
You have not connected any rational solution to your problem.
Your proposals don’t really address the problem at all.
You are motivated by a hatred for oil and coal companies, not by a love of mankind.
That hatred comes through.
You dont care if people starve, just as long as the oil and coal industry go out of business.
You are just another Stalinist, with grand designs for state control of industry, regardless of the human cost involved.
Paul, the Aptera comes in all electric or hybrid styles. You may not be aware but there is such a thing as batteries which can store power. I have a battery hooked up to a solar panel which stores the energy. Interesting concept.
Naturally you’re still stuck in the horse and buggy era. Typical do nothing conservative.
I’ve addressed the problem quite well. How is increasing fuel efficiency not a solution to reducing our consumption of oil? How is generating power from alternative sources not a solution? These are solutions which are being put into effect. You just refuse to accept the reality of it because you are a lazy, do nothing conservative. Stand aside while the grown ups solve the problems you’ve created.
JRYour reasoning has been clouded by many myths, “peak oil” and this weird “neo con conspiracy” are only a couple of your strange beliefs:
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/peak_oil/is_peak_oil_a_myth.htm
DougDid the government REQUIRE you do do what you did, or did you do it on your own, by choice?
Allow the rest of us the same freedom, would you?
You want the government to bless and favor your approach. That isnt “progressive” thinking, that is tyranny.
Paul, the government is responsible for national security and energy independence is paramount in providing national security. I know you want to by the Saudis bitch but the rest of us love America.
Paulecon?
Are you personally prepared to go and fight in one of the oil rich nations?
If we are to remain dependent on petroleum. The supply MUST be dependable. It can’t be subject to changes in local politics. It cannot be vulnerable to China or India securing it first.
That means securing the resource with troops on the ground, PERMANENTLY.
Now you go see if you can sell that to America. They might even buy it. But at least be HONEST with them about it.
You can hold America back and you can make America dependent.
OR
You can forget your personal financial stake, econPaul, and work to make this country better! There is more to this nation and this world then just your pocket.
More on “peak oil”:
http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2007/06/energy-alarmism-myths-that-make.html
So, libs, we are running out of oil, but you wont let us drill for more, domestic, American oil?
And you want us to believe that you care that we are running out of oil?
JRPLEASE!
Most of my “financial stake” in oil is the fact that I drive quite a bit.My car gets 30 MPG.However, I spend over $5,000.00 a year on gasoline.I want more domestic production to help keep the price of gas down.Pretty much what most reasonable people want, I am guessing!
Paul doesn’t realize America can’t compete with China is getting oil contracts. With China the oil companies and state are one. So if China wants an exclusive contract with a place like Nigeria then they can promise development efforts. ExxonMobile, with all it’s wealth, doesn’t have nearly as much financial resources as China. So China can hog all the resources they want and grow richer while America, with only domestic oil to keep it’s economy going, with dwindle further.
The only option America has is to go to war. However we’ve already pissed off the Russians by canceling their contracts with Iraq, and China would be pissed if an invasion cancels their contracts. Paul seems to have no problem with never ending warfare to keep the black gold flowing. That’s his solution, blood for oil. We’ll need that oil just to keep the war machine going.
It’s not a wise investment strategy but conservatives have never been very good on economic or national security issues.
A national that is self-sufficient in energy matters is immune to international issues that restrict foreign energy supplies. So if the wells in Libya or Kuwait dry up we’ll keep on going and outcompete those nations dependent on oil.
It’s simple for the average progressive to understand.
Hey Paul, increasing domestic production isn’t going to do dick in lowering your gas price.
You can drill here, there and everywhere Paulecon. Hell shove an oil drill up your rear end if you think it will help.
We can’t drill our way to independence in petroleum. The US has not near the reserve. And what is more, our oil companies are not afflicted with patriotism. They sell any domestic production to the highest bidder. That aint us.
Here’s a dirty little secret Paulecon or Rush Limbaugh won’t tell you. Even if we DID open Anwar? The oil would be sold to Japan!
Doug makes a good point about China. They do have the full force of their nation behind the oil deals they cut.
I wonder if Paulecon would be ok with the US doing that?
If the US is going to use government forces to guarantee our access to oil, well maybe the US government should just go all the way into the oil business! NATIONALIZE the oil companies! How about that Paulecon? Ya game?
See? ’cause otherwise you are asking our troops to play security guard outside a business they have no stock in.
I say there’s a better way. Doug brought some ideas here today. You Paulecon just brought the same old rhetoric that got us in this position 30 years ago.
Well this time we can’t push the problem down the road. Fight for oil or get past it. That’s the choice.
DougYou are making MY case:
What good will American efforts on “man made global warming” have, if CHINA does what CHINA wants?
JR:
Here’s a dirty little secret Paulecon or Rush Limbaugh won’t tell you. Even if we DID open Anwar? The oil would be sold to Japan!
Posted by: J R | November 25, 2007 at 12:53 PM
SO WHAT???
Supply and Demand determine price, and borders do not matter.
More production will bring down price, period!
JRI got a job for you, draining swimming pools for people whose built-in drains or pumps have failed.
However, you must drain the whole pool, not just the shallow end. Therefore, you must buy two pumps, one for the deep end and one for the shallow end.
Does this make any sense?
Of course not! Supply is supply, it does not matter where the supply is, or where it goes!
ANWR production will increase world supply. Japan is closer to ANWR than it is to many American cities. It would, therefore, cost less money and be more efficient to sell ANWR oil to Japan.
The jobs, in Alaska, would be American jobs. The taxes paid by the workers and the oil companies would go to the US Treasury and to Alaska.
The additional supply of oil would help the world economy.
JR, you are “global” on the enviroment, but you are parochial simpleton on economics.
Borders dont matter, on either issue!
So Pauly, you are saying America can’t be the leader on global issues unless China tags along. You not only want us to be Saudi Arabia’s bitch but China’s as well.
Pauly, there isn’t enough oil in Alaska to provide for our energy needs. You think short term, so did Reagan and the other neo-cons. That’s why we’re in the problem we are now.
Econ, you read my mind today. Scary.
In reading the topic story, where a doomsday year of 2012 was proclaimed, I was reminded of every car salesman I ever met.
Joe “Slick” Carsalesman:
“Buy now, you’ve found the right car at the right price, and it will be gone tomorrow, unless you buy it now! Don’t take time to think about it, don’t study any car reports, the research is already settled, by my Ford Pinto now!”
Now who would fall for that bull?
Rajendra Pachauri, giving mankind a deadline of 2012 to save the world! I’m surprised she didn’t give us the exact day and time.
All the news this year about the Great Northwest Passage being ice free for the first time in modern history!
Modern history must not be very long.
The passage was open and navigated in 1903.
And again in the 1940’s.
It was pretty much froze up again, but was navigated with the use of an ice breaker in 1969.
It stayed frozen mostly, until 2007, when it melted AGAIN.
Melted in the early 1900’s. Frozen again until the 1940’s.
Then frozen again until 2007.
Hot in the early 1900’s.Cold again for 30 years.Hot again in the 1940’s.
Cold again for 60 years.Hot again in 2007.
Seems to me that the length of cold period cycles is increasing!
GLOBAL COOLING!
MaxI think she has to “speak to her manager first” to get a really, really good deal!
The Northwest Passage links the Pacific Ocean in the west with the Atlantic Ocean in the east, and promises a shorter passage between Europe and Asia than the Panama Canal or around Cape Horn.
Norwegian Roald Amundsen[35] was the first to navigate the passage by ship in Gjøa in 1905, taking three years to do so.
In the early 1940s, the Canadian vessel RCMPV St Roch was the first vessel to transit the Northwest Passage in one season and through the northern deep water route, and was also the first to sail it in both directions.[36]
Canada denies the existence of right of passage through the Northwest Passage, but the United States claims a right of transit passage, on the basis that it is an international strait.[37]
The oil tanker SS Manhattan undertook a voyage for the oil companies which were to become Exxon and Arco[38] in 1969,[39] following the discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope and a debate about ways to transport the oil south. The Manhattan completed the voyage despite being repeatedly stuck in ice and suffering equipment failures, after having been freed from ice by a Canadian icebreaker.[40]
http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/Climate_Change_and_Arctic_Sovereignty.html
Amundsen’s route through the Northwest passage in the early 1900’s.
http://www.framheim.com/Amundsen/NWP/NWPRoute1.jpg
http://www.framheim.com/Amundsen/NWP/NWPassage.html
DougBy YOUR logic, my behavior does nothing towards “solving” global warming, so I will do NOTHING!
LOL
You cant have it BOTH ways, you can not claim, on the one hand, that ANWR oil will not help in our energy needs, yet claim that the INDIVIDUAL efforts of everyone, will.
Contradictory and hypocritical, to say the least.
“NO BLOOD FOR CARRIBOU”
“NO BLOOD FOR POLAR BEARS”
“NO BLOOD FOR BABY SEALS”
You lefties oppose ANWR because you hate “big oil”. No other reasons are needed, to justify your opposition, in your mind or in your heart.
However, you make up all of these other reasons, because you know you can not “sell” the public on your hatred of oil.
Econ, I’ve been car shopping in the last week, and you are 100% correct, they must see the Boss 3 or 4 times before you get your final price.
I hate the car salesman game with a passion!
And the Global Warming Alarmists are shoving this down our throats in exactly the same manner.
Paulecon the US does not have oil reserves significant enough to have any affect on the world price for Oil. Even if we drilled everywhere, we have like 3% of the worlds oil reserve.
You try moving any market where you bring 3% to the table.
I’m a little surprised by you Max. Paulecon is predictable. He’s a shill for fossil fuels.
I had you pegged as an America first kinda guy.
SO since Paulecon won’t answer the question, I put it to you.
Do we invade and conquer our way to energy independence? Or do we invent and innovate our way out of it.
There are only two options here. Conservation CAN help. It can help alot and should be vigorously pursued. But long term it’s a matter of fighting for the oil the world has or developing the capacity not to need that oil.
What say you Max? I believe in America. Hell we put a man on the Moon! We are better than to be slaves to 100 year old technology and infrastructure. We sure as hell shouldn’t fight to keep it going,
Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days.
http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
Max I bought my last car completely over the internet. I knew the invoice price. I looked at all dealers in a two hundred miles area and compared prices. Settled on three dealers, let them know what I was willing to pay – $500 over invoice – only one answered me. I drive to Enid, Oklahoma and got my car. They told me they do lots of business with Wichita people.
I hate that salesperson/boss thing too.
It was a Prius and environmentally friendly.
ksgrm
Sales is a proud and honorable profession, if the salesperson listens to the customer, asks the right questions, determines the customer wants and needs, and fits the “car” into the budget and lifestyle of that person.
Manipulation is TELLING the buyer what the buyer SHOULD do, with no respect for the buyer, whatsoever.
Manipulaton is using fear or emotion to unfairly tip the buyers hand.
Risks and rewards are important, of course.
In the case of “global warming” the risks are vastly overstated.
The “global warming” hype of today will look much like the “reefer madness” hype of previous, “scientific” minds.
It looks like the NANNY STATE trying to tell us what to do.
These “deadlines” speak for themselves.
If we do NOTHING for 10 years, is their a chance in hell that these chicken-littles will tell us that “there is no use, we missed our chance to fix things”?
Just a side note for Max and other readers.Take note of the tone of the rhetoric here. Doug brings ideas. I myself bring optimism and hope.
Paulecon brings all caps and CLEAR emotion. Now why is that?Is he desperate? Why would a calm discussion where ideas are introduced get to him so? Why does he continue to NOT answer the question as to whether we should fight to secure the worlds oil reserves?
He’s little more than a parody of that “gotta go” commercial.
Paulecon: “Gotta drill! gotta drill, gotta drill right now!
Gotta drill, gotta drill, gotta drill!”
“We gotta drill! NOW!”
America deserves better than to listen to folks like you Paulecon. If we had treated you as we should back in the mid 70’s we would not be in this fix.
JR, I’m aware of only one Presidential candidate who has had Energy Independence on his agenda from the start of his campaign.
Rudy.
The failure of our Government (both parties!) to direct America toward Energy Independence leads to the Conquer option you describe.
Wars have been fought for 1,000’s of years over scare resources, and oil is our top commodity today.
Until America moves in the right direction of Energy Independence, we will have no choice but to defend the oil fields in the mid-east.
As much as the Arabs hate America, they know the US is the only country that will protect them, without conquering them. Thus they have not yet allied with China and Russia, though talks with Putin have already taken place.
When in Europe 3 years ago, I was asked by a group of rather well educated people (all Phd’s) why the US was in the Mideast and what were we going to accomplish.
Their fear was that America was somehow going to take over the world.
My answer, “If we wanted to, we would have already taken the Middle East. Who’s to stop us?”
We were there to defend the oil fields yes, but also to take out an enemy who threatened America. And at the same time, free the people of Iraq so that they can determine their own destiny. You can argue that until doomsday if you like.
The effectiveness of a Pre-emptive strategy is difficult to prove. The ineffectiveness of a Reactive strategy is proven with the next attack. And do you want to wait for that?
Say, ksgrm, you got that link to that car site you used? Sounds like a good plan!
There are many components to a comprehensive Energy plan that will make America Energy Independent, and will also serve to improve conservation, develop cleaner alternative energy sources, protect the Environment, and reduce the emissions that some say cause Global Warming.
I’ve posted some of these components in the past, which were mostly ignored due to the froth wars going back and forth.
If anyone wants to hear my 2 bits, I’ll post later, but need to go car shopping again today.
I’d like to hear some detailed solutions and plans. Doug has hinted at some things, but I’ve seen no specifics.
I’d like to see someone with a timeline, specific steps, economic impact, and a plan to pay for it. (Not necessarily paid for by Government – ie. Taxpayers)
This “sky is falling” Global Warming alarmist crap, without viable solutions, has got to end. The press should start asking some questions instead of just printing the PC talkin points.
Complainers should always have a viable solution, BEFORE opening their mouths.
JREmotion?
The entire “global warming” issue is based on emotion.
Again, even if you prove that a long term warming trend is now taking place, even if you prove that humans are responsible for that warming, you have not proven that the United States can do anything about it.
Someone WILL use and burn that oil.
Someone WILL use that coal.
Why NOT the United States?
Nobody is calling for “ban” on alternative energy.
Experiment with wind and solar and all your other ideas.
I wish you well, in your efforts to find viable alternatives.
Just do not use bogus, manipulative and deceptive, used- car-salesman tactics to SELL the rest of us on your ideas.
Wrong Paul. “Anthropogenic Global Climate Change” is based on sound science.
“Rajendra Pachauri, giving mankind a deadline of 2012 to save the world! I’m surprised she didn’t give us the exact day and time.”
Posted by: Max | November 25, 2007 at 02:07 PM
She??? A photo of Rajendra Pachauri is at,http://www.ipcc.ch/
BenConnect the dots.I clearly said “even if you prove—” in one of my posts.
Prove that even ONE of your, proposed solutions will “solve” this problem for us, or even make a dent, would you please?
KYOTO, if enacted, would “reduce” global tempatures by how much, exactly?
(And KYOTO exempts China and India).
Yes, Ben, you have said, previously, that KYOTO was flawed.
However, it is my point, on this thread, that the “Global Warming” alarmists have not proposed a remedy that will make any difference, and that the “remedy” is far worse than the “disease”.
There is a huge disconnect here.
You want to do SOMETHING — even if its wrong.
If we do EVERYTHING you greens want, when can we quit burning gasoline, worldwide?
If we do EVERYTHING you greens want, when can we quit buring coal, worldwide?
How do we know that the world will do what we want?
Are we willing to go to war, to force the world to do what we want?
The left decries “blood for oil” forgetting that oil saves lives, feeds people, powers hospitals, powers ambulances, powers Universities and keeps people from freezing to death
Me? I decry “Blood for Green Utopian dreams”.
Forcing the world to become “green” will only happen through armed force.
Furthermore, If you wont let us drill in ANWR, that is “Blood for ANWR” — you are risking the blood of our armed forces to defend oil, overseas, that we would not have to defend, at home.
Paul – we have done that again and again. Unfortunately I have been woefully unable to do it entirely in words of one syllable. I have suggested that you become at least literate in science as I have done in economics/accounting; apparently since you don’t need that to sell investment instruments you haven’t bothered.
econ101,
Let’s see your proof that these solutions would not significantly reduce oil demand, and GHG emissions.
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Good questions Econ, but the GW people can’t answer. They just continue to say the “sky is falling” and it’s based on “sound science”. No solutions in sight.
Keep it up Econ, but I think you are bangin your head on a brick wall of enormous political force.
The GW brainwashing is nearly complete, as evidenced by the continous repetition of the same sound bytes.
A combination of things – efficiencies, conservation, wind, solar, nuclear, and many others. Paul, Max – Wichita State offers a number of fairly good science classes that might help.
They also offer economics beyond 101.
Nice site Cosmos.
In addition to more fuel efficient trucks though, why not put all of our long-haul freight (currently going over interstate highways) on rails?
Trains are much more efficient, save highways, save lives on highways, and eliminate the need for any long-haul truck route over 500 miles, thus saving fuel.
For econ101, and others who stupidly believe that the risky, high cost oil that might be in the Arctic Refuge is a good solution.
‘Arctic Refuge 101: Fact Sheets’http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/factsheets.asp
Which links to ‘Efficiency Saves More Oil than the Refuge Would Yield’http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts3.pdfNote the graph — more, faster, increases, and does not run dry. Efficiency is also cheaper, and guaranteed.
Arctic Refuge oil will not lower world oil prices any more than the 700,000+ barrels per day currently coming from Alaska.http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/
The oil-friendly EIA says that “technically” (ignores cost) recoverable Refuge oil wouldonly help REPLACE other declining Alaskan (and other domestic) sources. Oil imports would continue to rise. And they admit that OPEC controls world oil prices.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html
We would be forced to rely on a pipeline so indefensible a drunk shut it down with a hunting rifle — it’s also old, and worn.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1584553.stm
More re the pipeline, efficiency, and other factors,http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E01-04_FoolsGoldAnnot.pdf
Max – I like rail both for freight and also for personal travel up to, say, 300 miles or so. Consider the impact of developing reasonably high-speed rail (and I am not thinking ’super’ high-speed, just about 100 mph) feeding into regional airports. That would take a lot of pressure off air traffic control and capacity at airports like O’Hare, Hartsfield, the New Yorks, San Francisco, LAX etc. And, if we could get to Kansas city easily then we can fly anywhere.
Max – I like rail both for freight and also for personal travel up to, say, 300 miles or so. Consider the impact of developing reasonably high-speed rail (and I am not thinking ’super’ high-speed, just about 100 mph) feeding into regional airports. That would take a lot of pressure off air traffic control and capacity at airports like O’Hare, Hartsfield, the New Yorks, San Francisco, LAX etc. And, if we could get to Kansas city easily then we can fly anywhere.
Posted by: Ben | November 25, 2007 at 04:28 PM
One could re-use the static electricity generated by said rails for something useful. Perhaps for lighting up advertisements along the way. :D
“Clamping down on US production only enriches OPEC.”
Posted by econ101
OPEC * WANTS * the U.S. (and the rest of the world) to increase oil production.
1) If more non-OPEC supply decreases the price, OPEC decreases their output to raise it — and then they make the same profits while selling LESS of their oil. Their oil reserves last longer.
2) The faster we deplete our oil, the sooner we become more dependent on OPEC’s oil — and OPEC gets more control of pricing.
3) OPEC’s nightmare is world oil demand sharply dropping, due to higher efficiency, and switching to electric, hydrogen, etc.
You show signs of being right (that is correct) minded Max.
Don’t lend ol’ shilly Paulecon too much credence.
Witness how increasingly shrill he gets as this discussion has played out. See how he basically dismisses the idea that we COULD get beyond oil. There’s something behind that. And it aint concern for the country’s future.
You should be ashamed at how you sell your fellow Americans short paulecon. Americans WANT to conserve. They WANT cleaner skies and water. Why do you fight that?Who are YOU to hold America back?Ya know, I even remember a post where you said that because people conserve, you would go out of your way to WASTE energy. What kind of mind reacts like that?And what is your agenda in doing so?
True about recovering energy from the rails Max – probably the best way is a fairly simple approach similar to hybrid cars. Run generators when you decellerate.
There are HUGE opportunities. Another I would add using ‘on-the-shelf- technology is a plug-in hybrid. Consider if I could run say 50 miles a day on a charge. I would then rarely use gasoline. 18,000 miles/year is less than most people drive.
Ben,Returning to a nationwide rail system would save three times the energy spent on truck/air delivery. Also, a hi-speed rail transportation system, in my opinion, would be used quite a bit.
If done right, it would cost less to travel by rail than either car or plane. At 300 to 400 mph mag-lev, it would also be something to ride. I seriously doubt the initial wonder would wear out, and, in fact, would eventually be the transportation mode for a majority of state to state travel.
I agree J M. However, what I am focusing on for the NOW is simple off-the-shelf technology. That is why I limit the initial range to a few hundred miles. however, even that would have an impact.
The other impact would be on the airports. We have some real problems at the big hubs. Think of the impact there of eliminating short hops from Chicago etc.
300-400 mph might be a bit fast. :)
At that speed that would have to erect cow and human barriers to keep them from being pulverized from wind blast. :D
Rail travel imo is best for a lot of reasons. One can move more mass at greater efficiency than air travel.
As Ben stated, recapturing energy via generators might be useful for other applications as well.
Seems like the energy problem is going to solve itself. Won’t be long now before gasoline is being sold by the carat and all those SUV’s will end up as very expensive yard ornaments. Then and only then will there be a national cry for a solution that Washington can hear.
Another thing I would like would be to be able to take rail ‘cruises’ across the country. Not all that fast but with stops in towns we don’t otherwise see. Add to that first-class acccomodations and I oculd have a wonderful two-week vacation seeing the country.
When I visited Europe I used a Eurail Pass to criss-cross the continent. Show up at he tation and ask “when does the next train leave?” “Where are you heading?” “Wherever the next train is going!”
Great way to travel.
Gasoline should be more expensive and MPG standards should be raised by alot. Not becuase I beleive in “peak oil” because I don’t. It is BS for the most part. There is still a 10,000 year supply of oil in the ground. The problem is that it is not under OUR ground but under the ground of enemies to us, our beliefs and our way of life. And with each dollar we pass to them, they have more power and we have less. And if we don’t get off it, one day we will be waking up in the “Islamic Republic of America”. Not what I want!
“”"Ben,Returning to a nationwide rail system would save three times the energy spent on truck/air delivery. Also, a hi-speed rail transportation system, in my opinion, would be used quite a bit.”"”
We need to start on it today. We need an electric high speed rail system in the country powered by nuclear power plants. Imagine a new system where you can drive a smaller car or SUV onto a train car in Chicago and it carries you and your car at 250 MPH and you drive your car off in Wichita 3 hours later! You and your car went 700 miles and used no gasoline. You will use only a little at both ends of your trip.
Agree on rail kev – disagree on 10,000 years of oil. It ain’t there. As a geologist I read a lot of the oil exploration literature; they figure we are at about peak right now.
We have some real problems at the big hubs. Think of the impact there of eliminating short hops from Chicago etc.
Posted by: Ben | November 25, 2007 at 05:26 PM
Like eliminate all flights to Wichita. Very little real traffic. Make the locals use the Amtrak!
“Islamic Republic of America”. Not what I want!
Posted by: Kev
Might be better than the Socialist States of America.
One issue that hasn’t been addressed is that at some point the rising cost of gasoline to get to and from work, and to bring goods to market is going to cross the boundary of a day’s wages. The working poor are the ones driving the old, less efficient cars, and will be the first to suffer. Will the economy stand the cascade effect of so many people suddenly losing their jobs? Sounds like another Great Depression in the works.
Sounds like another Great Depression in the works.
Posted by: Jed | November 25, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Which is one reason why we should not RUSH into Global Warming solutions.
There are many things that can/should be done now, but not the sweeping immediate massive reductions in CO2 that some call for.