 | A little humor and an open thread | The Oil Drum | From an Insider: Rig Prices, Rig Depth, and How to Get a Job |  |
Senate Foreign Relations Cmte: "The Hidden Cost of Oil"
Posted by Prof. Goose on March 30, 2006 - 1:44pm
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Richard Lugar (R-IN), has just released its hearing transcript on "The Hidden Cost of Oil."
Here is a link to Lugar's introductory statement (.pdf).
Witnesses called included (click on name for testimony):
Milton R. Copulos (.pdf), President, National Defense Council Foundation, Alexandria, VA
Dr. Hillard Huntington (.pdf), Executive Director, Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Dr. Gary W. Yohe (.pdf), John E. Andrus Professor of Economics, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT
“It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
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.
Trying to figure the global environmental cost of carbon, then trying to figure how to make the consumer pay for it will be an impossible task-- too many unpredictable variables in nature.
For example, consider this info taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice
"When ice melts, it absorbs as much heat energy (the heat of fusion) as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C, while its temperature remains a constant 0 °C."
Now I am no scientist, but this suggests to me that the global ice is a tremendous global warming buffer--can absorb unbelievable amounts of heat without exhibiting any visible change. The melting and shrinking we see now is just the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg'.
Just imagine if Antartica's gigatons of ice have absorbed the equivalent of 75 degrees of global warming over the last two hundred years resulting in the net effect of the one degree rise in global temperature increase we have seen so far. Once the ice's heat absorbsion reaches 80 degrees, then a tipping point is reached where any more global warming starts to vastly accelerate the water phase transition [ice to water] releasing huge icebergs, glacial flows, and monstrous jokulaups.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Respectfully disagree. The absorbed energy is unseen, increased atomic vibration. Only when the ice has absorbed the required total energy is when it melts. Unmelted ice has a thermal conductivity coefficient too, as linked here:
http://tinyurl.com/lkwrg
The colder the ice: the faster it absorbs heat. It is all very complex, way above my limited understanding. Ongoing research is trying to get a better handle on this:
http://www.usap.gov/scienceSupport/sciencePlanningSummaries/2003_2004/indiv_projs/O253.htm
I assume supercomputer modeling is required to adjust for all the inter-related physical effects of solar radiation, albedo reflectivity, air & water thermal currents, snow insulation, glacial flow rates, etc.... on & on & on.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
You are more or less correct, but perhaps misunderstanding the process a bit. True, water does have a comparatively high heat of fusion and therefore quite a bit of heat must be absorbed before ice will melt.
However, once the ice is melted, the heat that has been absorbed doesn't really go anywhere, as it just resides as the free energy of water's liquid phase. In other words, liquid water has greater free energy than solid water (just as steam has a higher free energy than liquid water). When the liquid water freezes again, that phase free energy (or heat of fusion) must then be removed. So, the freeze/thaw process is fully reversible, with energy being added in on one case, and removed in the other.
But you are generally correct if what you are driving at is that the earth's huge inventory of ice is a vast heat sink. The smaller that heat sink becomes, the less damping effect it will have on atmospheric and oceanic temperature changes. The trick is figuring out how important this factor is in the whole global warming picture.
Your last paragraph is a better and more concise wording of what I was trying to express--Thxs
I have been trying to google more info on this phenomenon, to get a better handle on just how close we are to an ever-increasing number of cascading inflection points, but it is frustrating because many technical reports are behind paywalls. Makes one wonder if the critical data is top secret-- that would explain why the milgov is trying to muzzle James Hansen and other scientists. Who knows?
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Addendum re ice melting:
One thing I perhaps wasn't too clear on is that as you start adding heat to ice, it will gradually and very linearly starting increasing in temperature all the way up the melting point of 32 degrees F.
But then something odd happens: the temperature stops climbing and becomes sort of stuck at 32 degrees for a period of time. The reason is that this is the phase change point, where the solid water absorbs heat to become liquid water.
However, when the ice does finally melt, it does not suddenly release energy and steeply rise in temperature. No, the water from the freshly melted ice is but a fraction of a degree over 32 degrees. Thus, you can have both water and ice at 32 degrees: it just depends on which direction you're coming from.
Of course once the ice has melted, if heat is still being applied, the liquid water will continue aborbing heat and gaining in temperature in a very linear fashion, until you reach the boiling point, at which time the same sort of pause in temperature rise occurs, as the liquid water absorbs enough heat to cause vaporization (i.e., the 'heat of vaporization').
I am certainly not one to let the chance for a monstrous joke elapse without making it!
This is probably among the most monumental screw-ups in human history. It is entirely clear that the US, despite our vaunted military and our "superpower" status, is in the weakest possible position in the world with regard to oil shocks, whether they are do to geology, economics, the weather, terrorism or other geopolitical concerns.
I highly recommend to TOD readers that you read these documents. There's no talk about "peak oil" but the concept hovers in the background of everything that is said.
And unfortunately they are not really talking about conservation planning, but which fuel to replace the oil with...
Where is the surprise in this? No corporation will profit a single cent from conservation (exactly the opposite actually), while from alternative fuels many friends of ours will make huge bucks. Some of these money is already being siphoned off from the taxpayers in the form of ethanol subsidies, and this will keep growing and growing...
A. Increase domestic supplies of oil and natural gas to keep fueling our cars
B. Expand ethanol and biodiesel, plug-in hybrids
C. Reduce non-transportation sector usage of oil - like home heating with wood pellets.
D. Expand production of shale and tar sands.
E. Switch some electric generation from Nat Gas to nuclear
Nothing about questioning the need for all that oil for transportation purposes. He just assumes that is the highest possible end use of fossil fuels.
Nothing about the EROEI of ethanol or biodiesel
Nothing about the scaleability of oil alternatives to heating - the main alternative is Natural gas, which is also in decline in NA.
Nothing about how much natural gas or other energy source to get at the shale or tar - nevermind the environmental impact.
So we are going to do all of this so that we can continue driving 100 miles per day to work...
This guy can not talk about any conservation because it is electorate unacceptable and a one-way ticket out of politics. Or for other alternatives that require huge capital investments (e.g. restructuring Suburbia, expanding and electrifying the rail network etc.).
In this context the propositions he made are the best that is realistically possible to implement at this very moment and I'm very glad that someone made them. When things get tighter the public will be ready for the next portion want it or not.
Regarding biodiesel/ethanol - I'm certain their EROEI is well above 1 (maybe > 2-3) because otherwise it would have been a totally losing business in spite of the subsidies. The low EROEI precludes its limited scalability and applicability (when I checked it the Brazilian oil usage in last years is essentially flat), but IMO every little bit helps and will help.
And if you have ERORI of 2, than your bill for gas, fuel and electricity has also risen significantly. Especially NG has risen many times more than the rise in gasoline. Of course, this is the curse of the low EROEI.
I don't have the necessarry data to make the calculations, but I can just WAG that if gasoline goes to $4-5, ethanol will not need subsidies. A much more energy wise (but politically impossible) measure would be instead of subsidising ethanol to tax gasoline to that level and remove the subsidies completely. If it remains feasible - than we have a energy and an economic winner.
and it has even LESS of a chance to get done if no-one even talks about it in meetings such as this.
You are exactly correct: political logic rules, not economic logic.
Almost all successful politicians will do whatever it takes to get elected and then re-elected. The others are known as "defeated candidates."
What I believe is that we have seen a "race to the bottom" in our political organizations and institutions. The more brazen liars, the more corrupt recepients of benefits from special interest groups, the most unscruplous of politicans tend to defeat the honest people of integrity.
There are a few exceptions--all too few. When Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash the U.S. Senate lost is single most intelligent and articulate liberal. Nobody is on the horizon to replace him. There are a few good men and women who hold high political office in the U.S.--all too few.
However, the one huge advantage of democracy is that we can vote these bastards out and give the other sons-of-bitches a chance without resorting to bloody rebellion. At present the Democrats and Republicans are Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Maybe we need an Energy Party.
Don, I'm not sure that we can put a blame on somebody concrete for that. With gradually accepting money as a central value in our society we became defacto complicitors with the corruption in our ruling class. How did we get to the point when not the most morally sound candidate wins the elections but the one with higher funding of his compain? Today we seem to be accpeting this as normal, but isn't this a prerequisite for corruption? Or... regarding energy - who is more to blame? The big corps that don't want conservation or the regular folks that do not want to hear about it?
Ignorance and Stupidity are not the same thing. Stupidity often leads to ignorance, but the vise versa is not a logical sequitor.
Your CEO and CFO are probably steeped in the religion of Adam Smith. As far as they are concerened, the Holy IH (Invisible-Hand) has been doing pretty OK by them. The IH has provided them with ever increasing amounts of executive compensation, given that they have successfuly clawed their way to the top of the economic pyramid scheme.
So why worry about some foolish "commodity" and some nerd-geologist's curves (Hubbert's curves)? Julian Simons has always been right (well until recently) about his theory that commodity prices always drop in the long term.
Incidentally, copper and other metals were hitting historical highs today, but surely (sarcasm is turned on here) those minor blips in the long term scheme of things will reverse themselves very soon. Peak Oil is just another cult fantasy for making the peons see conspiracy everywhere. It's just another one of those forgetaa bout it things. The Markets will provide.
Mostly what these boys are "steeped in" is a combination of extreme short term thinking when it comes to the health of the enterprise they are running and an amazing amount of hubris in general.
If top management was doing the job that they are paid to do -- managing in the interests of shareholders -- I could chalk it up to capitalism. However, nothing in the capitalist model precludes strategic thinking, but [and I know that I am generalizing from limited observations] something about how American business is being managed today apparently does.
In my experience, many people are genuinely curious about it, Conservation and Alternatives, but are certain that it won't happen until 'this month's bills are paid', maybe 'last month's bills..' too. I tell them I'm getting some Solar Heating built (Slowly..alas!), and have bought a couple panels, that I want to take advantage of the new Solar Incentives for Mainers, and they say "Let me know what you come up with, I ought to do that, too."
We are habitually in debt and running to keep up, day to day. Any chance of long-term planning ~Might~ be going into a college account for the kids, or a bit of retirement, new Windows and a bit of Leak-sealing.. The thought of investing in big changes for the house, car, or pattern of lifestyle as regards energy is Way Too Far Out There for most people to put their precious waking hours into.
It's not that they don't WANT to think or hear about it, but that:
1)They're NOT told enough about it to KNOW how precarious our situation is..(as has been correctly described as an 'Unprofitable' message for the Corps and MSM to bother with.. not scary enough yet I guess).. People are truly smart enough to know that they have to do something if they know the Iceberg is looming.. or even that there are icebergs about and we're sailing too fast to avoid them..
and 2), That they, Bob and Bernice Q Public, are in multiple jobs, trying to have enough time to offer their kids a good life, and generally more stressed, addicted (self-medicated due to above points)isolated and exhausted than in any time in our history.
If it comes down to blame.. sure, we've all got dirty hands in this. But I think putting too much of it on the masses is something akin to blaming a smoker for his lung cancer. The billions that went into denying the truths about smoking, and ignoring the facts about addiction tells me that our message of 'clean up your own life' is a false call. The fact is, the problem (smoking addiction OR oil-addiction, you pick) threatens/costs all of us, and needs to be viewed as a problem we come together to solve, not one we just address with a Calvinist insistence on Punishing the Wrongdoers. I would say that approach constitutes wasted energy at this point. It's not to say that we don't identify and strive to correct the activities that are going in the wrong direction, but in doing so, we need to make sure we're not just demonizing groups of people who -didn't know- or -screwed up, for a while-
'Ok, Fix your problems, and let's light this candle!'
-The Right Stuff (Sheppard?)
Our platform:
- Pay off the national debt and then have a constitutional ammendment for balanced budgets (except for times of war).
- Strong environmental protections against pollution and protecting biodiversity.
- Phase out of fossil fuels through strict enforcement of annual reduction targets.
- Large gas taxes used to fund mass transit projects.
- No immigration except to keep population steady.
Not sure what the party would think on moral issues or government welfare programs. Probably we'd have no strong stand on these issues and leave it up to the individual members.I figure with a platform like that we could attract enough from the far left and far right to get perhaps DOZENS of votes in the next national election.
A "sustainability party" should be in favor of reproductive rights, gay rights, assisted suicide, etc.
Leanan,
What do any of those groups have to do with sustainability? I am not arguing for or against any of them but that is like saying "A lawn maintenece business should hire employees who like all types of vegatables"
The two are unrelated. PO is real, when you tag on extreme political porkbarrel you will lose your sale to the commoner. If I said the death penalty is good for PO because of the AC required to imprison detainees for life, I bring in a distasteful subject. 99% of america does not care about PO or has not heard it. When you guys pitch your argument you have to convince them. I don't think you all get it. If all the TODers and all of the other Bloggers about PO powerdown its not even a drop in the bucket.
I threw a rock in the water when I was eight years old while fishing with my gramps. He cuffed me in the back of the head and said "Don't scare the fish!" Comprende?
Population control. It's not pork barrel at all. It's the most essential element of sustainability.
Jared Diamond covers this in Collapse. He studies the societies that succeeded, as well as those that failed. And population control is a criticial element. Sustainable societies take zero population very seriously. In one of the societies Diamond discusses, the king has set a hard limit to population, and every year, he sends away enough people to keep under the cap. Others encourage abortion, infanticide, suicide, late marriage, coitus interruptus, etc.
If we do not limit our population size, we can never achieve sustainability.
How about a prowar party people die in war thats good.
We'd have to be anti healthcare...no more vaccinations either.
Leanan several of your championed causes are offensive to a large group of americans. For PO to be succesful we need the masses. Gay people want kids so the sustainability is not there. Abortion is already legal drop it. I am not opposing these causes I'm saying they have no valid association with PO.
Actually, those are among the things I hope we can avoid by encouraging birth control, etc. I'm not saying we're going to knock on people's doors in the middle of the night and force them to have abortions, like in China. Just that anyone who wants one should be able to have one. Better that than Logan's Run or war, wouldn't you say?
No, actually good healthcare reduces the birthrate. Didn't you just post that yourself? A high infant death rate leads to a high birth rate.
You are having a fit because I advocate reproductive rights, but think there's no problem with phasing out fossil fuels and levying huge gas taxes? You may or may not have noticed, but one of the major parties in this country does support reproductive rights, while none support phasing out fossil fuels or increasing the gas tax. So whose ideas are outside the mainstream? Cynus's proposals will "scare the fish" a lot more than mine.
I wasn't aware they forced abortions in china?
No, actually good healthcare reduces the birthrate. Didn't you just post that yourself? A high infant death rate leads to a high birth rate.
People keep having kids till they have the number or gender they want. High mortality they keep going. They key is to encourage lifestyles to favor 1 child. (if infact you are going for reduced population.)
You are having a fit because I advocate reproductive rights
I am having a fit because you are taking PO awareness which benefits every american and polarizing it with far left utopian ideals. Far right fascist ideals to could solve PO problems with equal success. Americans (normal middle class with 2.7 kids) want status quo. Give them a product that tastes like status quo only with less petrol calories.
I don't give a rats A@# about abortion. It is here and always will be. It would be nice if it was not a part of society, but the same could be said about a host of other issues. Drunk driving kills tons of people so do cigarettes. If you lump all the problems in the world together it is a huge black sticky ball of evil. You can't fight that. Pick a problem and solve it. If you think the threat to human society is gay rights go work for progress on that issue. Gay people are gay because thats what makes them happy, and gay sex does not melt the icecaps. So I am not worried about these issues. I am worried that extremists on both sides scare the very people we need away from this cause.
Matt
They do. Even at nine months. Part of the one-child policy.
Plus extra, for insurance, if they aren't sure the kids will live.
Far left? Reproductive freedom is "far left"? More than half of Americans support a woman's right to an abortion. Does that mean more than half of Americans are "far left"?
That is not what Cynus was doing. He clearly said he expected maybe "dozens" of voters to join the cause.
I was merely pointing out that an ideal sustainability party, as he envisioned, should have a position on population issues.
If you think this "sustainability party" idea has any chance of success, you're far more extremist than me. The Green Party would be calling us radical leftists.
If you don't think there is a chance why do you write here. Why not go have fun until the end comes. If you truly believe the end is nigh or even unavoidable preparations are for naught. Otherwise work in unison and mitigate the damage that occurs every day. This is a public image war. The oil companies have trillions of dollars dedicated to discrediting the "Nuts" on web pages like this.
What if we made a decision to not act nuts. Thought experiments about logans run will never happen for real. Running out of resources and mass famine and rioting might. If nobody listens to the PO message it will.
I said I don't think Cynus' "Sustainability Party" has a chance. He said the same thing himself.
What makes you think I'm not?
I don't believe the end is nigh. I sometimes wonder if we might be better off if it was, but I don't think the end is nigh.
Sure, as long as I'm the one who gets to decide what constitutes "nutty" behavior and what doesn't.
Leanan is spot on as usual.
I think the party slogan should be: No Guns and No Butter, because both can kill you.
I read the initial followup posts to this. My reaction was a little different. I often wonder if the mainstream political parties amplify these exact issues: gay rights, right to life, right to death to avoid talking about the really thorny BIG issues. As in: energy, healthcare, our trade imbalance, industrial outsourcing, the role of the military... What I think of as core.
Haven't we beaten the bushes long enough with gay rights, God, marriage, evolution and terrorists? We are getting sidetracked each and every election now. For this cycle, 2006, the agenda has moved to immigration.
When, where, how and why did immigration become a top-of-mind issue?
Be careful what you wish for.
I've no doubt that they do. (Read Abramoff's e-mails if you doubt it.) But I think that only works when the economy is okay. Once people start worring about "pocketbook issues" - as I'm sure they will when TSHTF - the so-called social issues get shoved to the backburner.
Actually, I think that's the first hint that pocketbook issues are moving forward. People turn against immigrants when the economy is bad.
If we were seriously trying to start a third party (which I don't think we are), immigration is probably the issue we should pick. #5 on Cynus' list. Neither of the major parties really supports immigration limits, while the majority of the American people do.
Because Republicans choose divisive issues to fire up their core voters. Does anyone have a memory longer than five minutes? Remember gay marriage? And actually... I forget the ones before that, but, there's always something, that really doesn't add up to TEOTWAWKI, but will win elections, state-by-state. (I think this one might backfire though...It doesn't seem to be going quite as envisioned)
And,
NEVER expect Washington to lead, the PEOPLE must lead, and Washington will follow! A senator said that recently, Conyers maybe.
My experience is in California, where prop. 187, and other similar campaigns, propelled (or at least perpetuated) Repub's into power. Recently in Arizona, too? I mean, what the heck else is left? After Brokeback Mtn. and Cheney's gun-control problems, Iraq, etc. etc., their running out of stuff. If Abortion was put to popular vote, oh wait, you're having that argument with someone else...
Another fear I have is that the dem's are going to (are right now) try to out gun, out shoot, out tough (ie run to the right of) the repub's.
That does seem to be what they are trying to do. You always fight the last battle, and they lost their last two battles because of the security issue (the war on terror and Iraq).
But I honestly don't think we can expect either party to do anything about peak oil. As Prof. Goose pointed out, our whole system is designed to preserve the status quo. We always end up with two pretty similar parties to choose between.
Even the Green Party has a joke for an energy policy. Their solution is to switch everything over to natural gas.
Well of course, silly-silles! Because it's "natural" gas, see? So how can we possibly go wrong?
We're saved!
Good observation! Note that immigration is also a nightmare issue for Dems, because their union labor base hates illegal (and easy legal) immigration, while their Mexican-American (and other Latino) base is pro-immigration. Also, many Blacks hate the Latino immigrants, and so . . .
Instead of calling it the "Energy Party" which has no pizzaz at all, how about the "Freedom America" party which has as its planks:
- High and increasing tariffs on imported oil. Note that a tariff is perceived as socking it to foreigners and hence is way way more politically palatable than a gasoline tax, even though the effect would be much the same.
- Funds from the tariff would go to subsidizing streetcar lines in cities, electrifying the railroads, and perhaps subsidizing more bike trails.
- Boost the ethanol subsidy to get the farm vote.
- Slam the door on immigration. No net immigration permitted, illegal immigrants to be deported and repeat offenders to be jailed and put on chain gangs to mine shale with pick-axes;-)
- To create jobs, build a fence/wall around U.S. borders, greatly increase Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. Also, and incidentally, this would help keep out immigrants and terrorists and drug smugglers, thereby creating the perfect War Against Evil (WAP) party.
- To get Baby Boomer vote remove cap on cost-of-living increases to Social Security benefits. Also fund Social Security from general revenues rather than the payroll tax, which was a dumb idea to begin with.
Any successful party must be a coalition of diverse interests. Because a majority (and perhaps a growing majority) of Americans are against immigration, this could be an ideal core issue to split both the Dems and Republicans sufficiently so that one of them would become an insignificant third party.March 30, 2006
2238 Hours EST
From the Bunker
Comrade Will;
You are quite right. Although these issues are important and should be debated in an open and free society, this particular community is trying to retain a focus on some very turbulent times ahead. When I read the articles and various other postings from my friends here at TOD, I know I am getting access to information that many of our fellow citizens remain ignorant of. It scares me greatly that our Vox Populi are blissfully unaware that while they lie in repose on their Easy Boy recliners with otional leather and 'magic fingers' while stuffing all manner of Hostess bakery products (Ho-ho's, Ring Dings, and such) in their moonfaced pieholes, mind numbed into catatonia as they sit, immobilised, as if by mass lobotomy, watching the latest dreck on FOX News or catching up on the latest dead...
I seem to gone off on a bit of a tangent there myself. Sorry.
Right then, what was I saying?
Peak oil is here, and our society is going to have to deal with that in an honest and even harsh way. I would like to see the discussion in this community focused on that. I would be greatly indebted to you all if you follow that simple request.
Your most humble servant,
Subkommander Dred
www.subkommanderdred.blogspot.com
Fully agree.
There appears to be a sort of negative natural selection process at work in American politics that is getting more and more brutal. The honest and competent oftentimes don't even consider running for elected office, while the ruthless, dishonest, megalomaniacal, and incompetent are the ones who usually win. Almost by definition: an honest politician is an unsuccessful politician.
Perhaps it was always this way, but my sense is that it has reached new lows in American politics. There doesn't even seem to be much of a pretext of being aboveboard anymore. But what really galls me is what appears to be the widespread passive acceptance of this situation. People seem to have given up hope in their ability to change anything.
But political systems, like many dynamic systems, can exhibit chaotic behavior, so unexpected and wrenching changes can come about when one least expects it, often set off by some seemingly trivial and unrelated event. The US is in a state of unstable equilibrium: sort of like a sharpened pencil balanced on the edge of a razor blade. And then a gnat happens to flap its wings while flying past the pencil..............
If such a 3rd party were to become viable, either the Demopublican or the Republicrats would rip out the planks of that 3rd party and claim them for their own.
If you wish to see 3rd parties, some form of instant run-off is a viable way of that happening.
We just need the Democrats to regain Congress,
Bah. How are they different from the Republicans?
The ONLY reason I can back such a plan is Democrats in the Congress and a Republican in the White House means less gets done. The less that gets done, the less harm can be done.
As a practical matter I believe that it is fairly easy to compile a list of absolute dunces from both parties in for example the U.S, Senate. Beyond that the belief that Kerry or Gore [whether they were / are right or wrong on any issue] were any sort of mental marvels is not supported by facts.
Furthermore, I suspect that the groups most likely to have fully considered political options [and reached a conclusion other than that politics are an excerice in futility] are most likely to be mostly small l libertarians, small s socialists or small f fascists [please consider the definitiion of fascist before starting a rant.] For strictly practical purposes these groups tend to align with R's [libertarians] ... or D's [the statists].
BTW, I am a small l libertarian, but the only thing libertarians have to offer to address peak oil is a belief that market based answers will be less painful than those imposed by governments.
Pimps to a large extent and dope pushers to an even greater extent are dependent on government for their livelihood. By making the the underlying "services" and goods illegal government ensures a high reward high risk environment.
"Shall we go back to the time when beatings of assembly line workers was considered normal business practice?"
Assault was always illegal. Throw the bastards directing and delivering the beatings in jail for a long long time.
Workers should have the right to organize. Enterpises should have the right to fire them if they do something illegal or are not productive.
"Perhaps repeal anti-slavery laws?"
An interesting comment -- are you advocating slavery? I do not and after reading my comment cannot understand how you could infer a pro slavery position from my comment.
That's right, legalize the oldest profession and sex workers would probably form collectives and run the businesses themselves. Pimps would be shut out in the cold. And cops could focus on getting the anthrax guy. (Did they ever get that guy?)
Oops, I guess this is straying a bit from peak oil.
Okay back on track, the big headline in my local paper today (read through the glass of one of those newspaper boxes on the street) was about oil nearing $70 / barrel and the threat to the world-wide economy. I haven't noticed much discussion of oil prices in online news sources I normally read.
Anecdotally, I worked as a medical researcher at a university for 13 years, and during that time identified very few right leaning academics.
... I wonder if henardts to force bright young entrepreneurs into academia?
Technically, yes. The problem remains-- who are you going to elect IN? The choices seem to be more of the same or worse.
Recall my earlier post of about a week ago: where by allowing the oil producers to choke back production, forcing prices to rise and Powerdown to arise with it-- they can handsomely profit, but most of the increased profits go to building biosolar habitats. These initial biosolar pioneers will be relentless in reducing detritus use as they develop and scale up daily biosolar techniques. I suggested the growing political secession movements in the NW & NE US would be among the best places to start, but Richard Rainwater and friends in the SE US may just be the first true pioneers.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Replace "conservation" with "being more efficient" and that statement clearly makes no sense.
It's funny that the conventional wisdom is that it's good for corporations to be more efficient, but for some reason it's a problem when individuals do the same. I'm not buying it (so to speak).
No corporation will profit a single cent from conservation by individuals (exactly the opposite actually)
Except for the makers of efficient cars, the makers of efficient appliances, the makers of alternative energy, the contractors, installers, suppliers, repairers for all of the above ...
(The weird socio-economic trend that made $1K front loading, high efficiency, washing machines the best-selling models in America being a case in point.)
After all, corporations are consumers too. They buy a lot of stuff! Not only goods, but services. And individuals sell services. They're all economic actors, and if one actor gets less efficient and thus needs more goods/services to produce the same output, it's true it "benefits" the providers of those goods/services, but the net effect is a wash, since it's bad for the actor who gets less efficient.
The only way to increase our standard of living (or prevent its decline in the face of resource depletion) is to improve efficiency (a.k.a. productivity). Conservation is an aspect of that, since it can mean getting the same job done with fewer resources. (It can also mean using less and "producing" less.)
I picked the words very carefully and the one I used was "conservation". You are talking about efficiency which is a whole other business.
Our whole economy and society are built around the opposite of conservation - consumption. The more you consume the better - therefore we have commercials, drive-in stores, easy-motoring Suburbia and even stimulation to have kids via the tax policy.
I lived most of my life in a country that uses probably 1/10 of the resources we use here in the US... a country without Priuses or CFL bulbs all around (for obvious reasons). Therefore I think conservation has a lot more potential than efficiency - and the latter has also the problem of marginal returns. You can trade your SUV for Prius, but after the Prius do what? Take a bicycle down GA 400?
I get where you are starting, but I don't think you should minimize the "product" overlap between conservation and efficiency. As Americans transition from a high oil intenesity lifestyle, much of what they do will be new "product choices."
The nice thing about that is that "efficiency companies" will help sell "conservation." That's the kind of thing "Real Goods" has been doing for years.
... and if we finally exhaust all those efficiencies ... I'm sure someone will sell us books about what to do next.
I agree. There will be new products - some of them in the area of the ideas and philosophy explaining or helping people how to do with less. Even I can write a whole book about how living with less will make you much happier. Actually I am absolutely certain that Democrit living in his barrel was many times happier than the average overburdened american. And there will be a boom in industries that don't encourage proliferated use - like the Internet for example :) Maybe we'll even see the rebirth of books. Even the TV will have to change and hopefully in the opposite direction we see now.
I think the problem is more of a policy influence - what are the profits and hence the political power of the oil & gas companies, the car companies, the airlines and tourist agencies and destinations etc. vs the profits of the sellers of books?
"How Lobbyists Helped Secure Billions in Taxpayer Subsidies For Big Oil Companies Despite Record Profits"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/30/157233
"Now, a new report by Government Accountability Office estimates that because of this so-called non-controversial provision, the oil and gas industry will be able to avoid paying between twenty and eighty billion dollars in royalties to the government."
"Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/
Just because oil companies will profit less from selling less oil they could invest in other products. OTOH conservation can only go so far. If work is to be done some form of energy must be used and if the world is going to eliminate poverty then much more energy must be used.
"No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon, into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."—Condoleezza Rice
"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."—George W. Bush
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. Bill Clinton
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_j_clinton.html
I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. John Kerry
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. John Kerry
I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat.
John F. Kerry
I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.
John F. Kerry
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_f_kerry.html
Quotes are easy and often taken out of context.
Quotes are easy and often taken out of context.
True enough. That whole deal about voting for the $87 billion and voting against it is such a fake issue. From the daily howler: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051304.shtml
I emailed this to several friends on March 6. It contains the exact quotes
and their attributions.
"I Don't Think Anybody"
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Office of the Press Secretary - The White House
Press Briefing; May 16, 2002
"I Don't Think Anybody could have predicted that these people would
take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center."
President George W. Bush interview with Diane Sawyer
ABC's Good Morning America
September 1, 2005
"I Don't Think Anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
These are direct quotes. I guess that these are examples of good "talking points" to employ after each unprecedented disaster. The persons quoted
use the same speech ghost writers. In any case, I will not vote for or in any other way support highly-placed politicos who admit by their very words:
"I Don't Think, Anybody"
You are absolutely correct, I don't understand why the milgov doesn't go mainstream, ala Pres. Carter, to alert the masses. I feel they are vastly underestimating the public's willingness to Powerdown. This recent poll shows that Peakoil is rapidly vaulting up to a primary concern:
http://tinyurl.com/hypjm
If a national consensus can be developed, then all sorts of conservation ideas will be implemented if the milgov will just get out of the public's way. I was thinking of buying a flatbed trailer, then welding seats on it, to pull behind my pickup as a very cost effective 'bus' for Phx. But the city has a monopoly on mass-transit, so when gas prices skyrocket: they won't have sufficient buses to meet the demand. Of course, as usual, no response to my emailed suggestion.
So then I thought of a sidejob installing motors on bicycles, like in this website:
http://www.staton-inc.com/default.asp
Again, Az state law is in the way because you need to license and insure these conversions as they are considered to be motorcycles. The milgov hassle & costs offset most of the consumer savings potential. ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Ok. Is anyone using this term beyond George Ure?
Where did you get it from? Ike? (Ike wanted Military -Industrial-Congressional complex but was told to trim it)
I too just read the testimony of Copulos. While I can't say that I found it terribly inspiring, I was at least pleased to see someone in a high-level government sponsored forum at long last acknowledge that there is a direct causal link between the gargantuan US defence budget and our oil supplies and that one of the major 'external costs' of oil is our need to militarily secure such.
I was even further pleased to see him hang an estimate on it: $132 billion per year of the US defence budget is due to the need to protect Middle Eastern (and other) oil supplies. This number, by coincidence, is pretty close to a WAG on my part. I have been trying to make the point for years to anyone who'd listen, that the price you pay at the pump is but part of the real cost of oil. Unfortunately, my efforts have not been very persuasive: many people choose to think that there is a price of oil and there is a price of defence and that the two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Though I don't expect too much to come out of such goverment forums, I suppose it's a step in the right direction. But of course, politics will always trump economic common sense.
(1) Abolish the Payroll (Social Security + Medicare) Tax and replace it with a retail tax on liquid transportation fuels, natural gas liquids, natural gas, coal and electricity.
http://www.energybulletin.net/13575.html
(2) Electrification of Transportation as a Response to Peaking of World Oil Production (Alan's Idea)
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm
I recommend that all of the various Peak Oil groups unite behind these two proposals, and I further recommend that we work on one or more joint conferences, for no later than the week after Labor Day, focused on these two proposals.
Last year on November 1, 2005, we had a symposium here in Dallas featuring Matt Simmons and Jim Kunstler, that was cosponsored by Southern Methodist University (SMU) and the Greater Dallas Planning Council (GDPC), entitled "The unfolding energy crisis and its impact on developmental patterns." I have already had some preliminary discussions about Energy Symposium II at SMU.
After initiating the idea for the Simmons/Kunstler event in Dallas last year, I put myself in charge in fundraising, and at my request, Mr. Pickens was one of the leading financial sponsors for the event. I have briefed Mr. Pickens' staff on the Hubbert Linearization (HL) method, and Mr. Pickens also has a copy of the Energy Bulletin article that Khebab and I coauthored.
Recently, the AP quoted Mr. Pickens as suggesting to a congressman that Congress should consider cutting the Payroll Tax and increasing the gas tax.
In the CNBC interview, Mr. Pickens again suggested raising the gas tax and offsetting that with tax cuts elsewhere.
There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
The time is rapidly coming when one can make a direct connection between our profligate energy use here in the US and starvation in Third World countries--as farmers in Third World countries can't afford to buy fuel.
Today, it may be Third World kids going hungry, tomorrow it may be US kids going hungry.
Again, instead of talk/talk, I suggest action/action. I think that we need to unite behind Boone Pickens' suggestion that we (at least) bring US gasoline taxes up to the world level, with a tax cuts elsewhere to offset the gas tax and implement Alan's rail electrification program: http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm
FYI--Alan's proposal is about to be published on the Energy Bulletin.
Start with Post-Colonialism,
Next, add in a healthy and continuing dose of Developed-World meddling in Developing-world governments that has consistently undermined good local policy, when they challenged the profits of 'Security Related' corporate investments, like Bananas, Sugar, Diamonds, Suez/Panama Canal Access, Yellowcake or Oil.
..or is that just more Colonialism?
re: 'Breeding' more..
as Leanan related to you earlier, The Birthrate goes down when a society has enough stability to know that its offspring will likely survive. Education, Food, Healthcare. Would you mind calling it something less disdainful than 'Breeding'?
What's the Matter With Africa?
About how Africa ended up like it is.
Darwin's Nightmare
And why things haven't improved.
(Hint: sustainability and infrastructure play a big role.)
The UN. The US Government/presidency for the last 30 years more than that really. The British, The French, White people.
Now the mismanagers are tribal warlords swinging machetes. The food is there but is hoarded and sold to buy guns. Miserable continent from Cairo to Capetown.
If we feed them they'll breed, then later their kids will starve. It is better to let them starve now.
If we invest in teaching them agriculture, they'll breed then when they have enough $ they'll buy guns and kill all the neighboring tribes.
The best thing America can do for Africa is cure or create a vaccine for HIV, then start helping them. Anything before that is wasted capital.
The reason to phase it back out is that an energy tax is extremely non-progressive. The poor need to use energy to commute and heat their homes at similiar levels as the rich. It's fine to make energy use painful, but inhumane to price basic services (like transportation, electricity, and heat) out of the reach of the poor.
If you buy the premise that the energy tax needs to be phased out, then it won't offset the payroll tax. And when do you phase it out? When oil cost say $100/bbl? If you started the tax in 1970 and applied all the income to renewable research you would be on to something inspired. Start it now, and it'll take you for about 6 months before it is useless, no make that socially irresponsible.
Possibly more. A lot of the rural poor have to drive long distances just to get to town, as we've discussed here before.
Does anyone remember the Grey Panther Party? It might be renamed the Grey Avengers this time around.
I shall mock your idea, then mock it again from the safety of the Diebold vote counting machines. Go ahead! Attack my Diebold vote fortress!
"It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes"
My guess is that as things get more difficult, the younger people will become ever more angry at the older generation that has pissed away the planet and yet still feels entitled to suck resources dry for more medical care to live longer and better and have more and better orgasms while they are at it. Still pissing away the possibility for the young to have anything but a life in Hellish conditions, we discuss politcal parties and the possible formation of new parties.
I know that some high school students are becoming aware of resource depletion issues, as are many people in their 20's.
The political process is pretty well bankrupt. The social cohesiveness we need is pretty well shot. Kevin Phillips ("American Theocracy") notes that we in the USA lack the intellectual integrity, the political will, and the economic resilience to face peak oil and resource depletion.
We need to try to transform politics. At the same time, we need to effect a cultural change that dwarfs the likes of anything we've seen so far.
This is like an evolutionary step. The outcome is certainly not settled. The way to go is to keep spreading the meme, the Word, by living as well as conversation.
Live it out, talk about it, and leave the outcomes to the process.
Transformation may suprise us all, happening in ways and at speeds that truly leave us dizzy with wonderment...if we are fortunate enough to be around to see the newborn life.
For 'lets electrify' to work, the grid to drive it needs to be seperate from the present, overtaxed, grid. Only viable if there is a breakthrough in getting high-temp (actual room temp) superconductors.
Then http://www.ruf.dk lets the present roads be used still. Even if Engineer Poet doesn't like the idea due to the 'hole' in the middle of the car.
This is more important than heating homes and electric generation?
Not sure what he means here... Does he mean some building a plant of some sort in Alaska to convert natural gas into motor fuel or is he still talking about Fischer-Tropsch process assuming coal exists with the stranded gas. Some of you engineers help me out....
This one really got to me. I can't speak for the Western NFs, but in the east the only wood that needs to be cleaned out is from pine beetle damage caused by regrowth of pines in former clearcut of parts of the natural hardwood forests. Dead wood is a natural part of the forests, and with 21+ native species of wood-eating insects any tree on the ground becomes forest soil in 3-4 years. Removal of this 'dead wood' causes soil depletion that, over time, will destroy the forest.Not to mention the damage done cutting in access roads for the 'Clean Forest' projects.
First off, I want to say that I agree with your comments. Secondly, there is already a planned natural gas pipeline from Alaska, so perhaps he is simply an unqualified witness testifying before Congress. Copulos seems unfamiliar with the EIA projections for future natural gas supply. That said, my view is that FT conversion perhaps will play some role in making liquids but it's one of those "oh yeah, we could do this" kind of things that never seems to get off the ground. I found many of the things he said crazy, beyond the "Clean Forests" that you found particularly objectionable. Consider this.
Oil shales and methane hydrates. Whatever drugs he's on, I'd be happy to get a hold of some of those myself.You know what's really ironic--just to make a personal statement? I'm unemployed and poor, selling my house and moving. I'm not testifying before Congress. What I hang onto is that at least I'm in touch with reality. As far as comfortable living goes, I can testify here at TOD that reality is highly overrated. Though it always gets you in the end.
best, Dave
I emailed this to several friends on March 6. It contains the exact quotes
and their attributions.
"I Don't Think Anybody"
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
Office of the Press Secretary - The White House
Press Briefing; May 16, 2002
"I Don't Think Anybody could have predicted that these people would
take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center."
President George W. Bush interview with Diane Sawyer
ABC's Good Morning America
September 1, 2005
"I Don't Think Anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
These are direct quotes. I guess that these are examples of good "talking points" to employ after each unprecedented disaster. The persons quoted
use the same speech ghost writers. In any case, I will not vote for or in any other way support highly-placed politicos who admit by their very words:
"I Don't Think, Anybody"
Truman: "The buck stops here."
Bush: "I Don't Think Anybody..."
Quote:
After hearing the president's remarks about plug-in hybrids, one EV World reader asked the reformed George Bush tongue-in-check , "Who are you and what have you done with the president"?