Two quick political notes...

Those looking at the tags before they read this may think I'm insane for putting those first two names in the same post, but I can assure you that I am not.

First, check out our new ad (left side) from, which takes you to Obama's Senate webpage and a discussion of FERA '06.

Second, Andrew Sullivan finally saw An Inconvenient Truth. His reaction? He recommends it and re-joins the cacophony calling for a large increase in the gas tax, as well as greater R&D&I.

(Of course, Sully also gets in the relatively long line of people taking shots at Al Gore and his attempt to pull a "political Madonna," which also seems to be prevalent in the 'sphere as well. C'mon folks, he invented teh internets!)

Has Obama publicly come out and discussed PO?  His fuel-efficiency idea is the standard democratic line.  I'll only be impressed if he fully shows he understands PO and its ramifications ala Bartlett.  I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.
His 'latest' blog post is pushing E85 (along with increased efficiency in exchange for subsidies to automakers), standard Hillary Clinton-esque line.
Obviously, Prof Goose had tongue firmly in cheek when he made the Gore-internet reference.  But...

I attended the Skeptics Conference (Michael Shermer) at Pasadena last month.  Shermer made the same Gore joke during his introduction speech.  So, during breaks, I asked attendees (randomly) when Gore had made that claim.  Most hum & hawed and said he probably did it when he was running for Prez.

A very small number - at a Skeptics Conference!! - knew the facts, as explained at Snopes.

True enough, but I think there's also an interview where Gore is asked if "he had invented the internet" and he snickers and doesn't deny it, which then led the media back then to throw even more fuel on the fire.

I like him, but he was a bad candidate.  There's a little too much self-aggrandizing (and revisionism) in ATC for my taste as well...but hey, it's his flick.

Hah, now you have a linkback from Sully's log to TOD. Clever!
And, Gore did push legislation to make DARPAnet available to the public. Until about 1990, it was pretty much just an academic / military laboratory curiosity.
Better a bad candidate than an imbecile who uses every opportunity to divide a country on religious/racial lines; an imbecile who abuses science (embryonic stem cell research, Global Warming, etc.), to pander to a vocal rabid religious base or corporate cronies; who never reads, but when called up on it, carries a book displayed prominently to and from the Marine helicopter for a few weeks; who hasn't the basic curiosity/empathy to inquire and get prepared for levees breaking when explicitly warned, but still shows up for photo-ops with sleeves rolled up - weeks later; who lied our nation into a war/occupation in Iraq (why the silence in this forum on PSAs?); who goes to a G8 conference in Russia and then insults the host dishonestly (posing Iraq as a democracy that Russia should aspire to); ...

The last does have energy related consequences, since Putin apparently has banned US/Brit oil corporations from bidding for contracts in parts of Russia.

As many have pointed out here and elsewhere, Bush was able to charm the media into overlooking his own glaring deficiences while his enablers played up every trivial "fault" of Gore.  How dare he wear beige suits!!

This highlights a problem with our "democracy": we have been "electing" the so-called better candidates at the expense of the better leaders.   How is it "we" seem to prefer a nice package to the smartest guy in the room?!  How could anybody have bought the BS that Gore or Kerry were fake Nam vets when it came from a guy who couldn't even show up for guard duty (it was a different guard then, b/c GWB wasn't in office and no one was sending them off to actual war) and his cadre of non-serving advisors?  

Unfortunately, you get what you pay for.  We bought a mean-spirited, selfish, not-curious nor compationate dope who bribed us (you) into voting for him with irresponsible tax cuts.  

Even more unfortunately, his people have been so effective it may be too late to undo what he hath wrought.

And then there is PO and GW.

Enjoy the relative calm before the Doom and Gloom,

yeah but he seems like a helluva guy to have a beer with...

why do you hate America and freedom to have beer with the president ?

Question (this interests me, and btw, I'm very politically independent) if Gore/Kerry/Left are the smartest guys in the room then why did a top democrat (cannot remember who) recently say that the left doesn't have an 8 word "message" much less an 80 word "message" to sell themselves to the voters? Why isn't there a "nice package" on the left?
I don't think anyone's saying Gore/Kerry/the left are the "smartest guys in the room," but given Gore vs Bush I think the jury was in on that before 2000.

"Why isn't there a 'nice package' on the left?"

Perhaps because reality rarely conforms to a "nice package."  Witness The Oil Drum, for one...

But politics runs on "packages"! I find this fascinating. Al Gore didn't have diddly squat of a message, so Nader stole the election from him.

My wife and I were trying to analyse this the other night, and we came to the conclusion (at least I did) that the democrats are made up of too diverse a group of interests to easily formulate a "package". Try it for yourself -- come up with a short message that appeals to all the Dem groups. It's hard. (And not just smearing the other side).

The problem is that the Democratic coalition is easily fractured.  Keeping ideologues, unions, African Americans, and the poor on the same political page is very very difficult.  

It's not THAT much easier for the Rs, but it is easier.

Actually, I think that each existing party should be split in two new parties: the "Preservatives" and the "Catalysts".

The Preservatives would be for saving old houses, "back to the basics", anti-GM foods, pro-union, pro-gun, and things that our "founding fathers" believed -- i.e. all things agrarian or old-style industrial.

The Catalysts would be for more free trade, pro stem cell research, "privatizing" government, pro gay rights, eliminating quotas, pro-immigration/immigrants -- i.e. all things that promote change from the historical norms or status quo.

These parties would make more sense to me, and I think, reduce the conflicts that have built-up in both current parties.

Re: so Nader stole the election from him.

You really ought to read the first chapter of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. There's plenty of evidence to prove that the election was stolen by disenfranchizing thousands of black voters in largely Democratic districts in Florida by having Choicepoint incorrectly label them as felons. Perpetuating this "nader stole it from gore" crap just makes it easier for them to keep stealing elections.

The numbers seem to show that Gore lost by less than 1000 votes and Nader's Green party got over 97,000 votes (more than all the other third parties combined). You may disagree, and there may be other data, but it's not "crap".
Illegaly disenfranchising voters seems more important to me. I could make the argument that Gore stole the election from Nader. It's just as ridiculous as saying Nader stole it from Gore. Votes aren't guaranteed to any candidate, the candidate has to actually earn them.
"I could make the argument that Gore stole the election from Nader"

ROFL -- and you called my post crap!? I guess I should have used the word "sabotaged" instead of "stole". Did *you* vote for Nader?

Since you completely missed my point I'll repeat it.

Votes aren't guaranteed to any candidate, the candidate has to actually earn them.

In Addition, thousands of registered Democrats voted for GWB in 2000. Geez, if only GWB hadn't run he wouldn't have "stolen" all the votes from Gore.
"Votes...earn them."

OK, re-stated: There are various ways to sabotage your opponents in an election -- some ways being illegal and some sabotage is caused by "luck" (e.g. bufferfly ballots), etc, etc. Whatever.

More importantly, there are various way to sabotage your "cause" -- and Nader succeeded in this with distinction!

I'll assume you voted for him.

Yes, I voted for him in 2000. As my nickname suggests I'm in Fargo, ND a hardcore red-state which Bush took with ease. I figured if I'm going to "lose" either way I'll actually vote for the guy I agree with more.

So you got one assumption right but to assume that "my cause" was sabotaged by Nader is to assume that Gore's "cause" was my own which I wasn't convinced it was.

But back to my main point, saying Nader "stole" the election from Gore takes away from the REAL theft which was disenfranchisement of black voters which is a MUCH more important problem.

Of course the "spoiler" problem could easily be fixed by the Democratic leadership if they helped push something like instant-runoff voting through but I doubt they really want to do anything that helps third-parties and independents gain more votes.

I'd also recommend the following documentary to get more info on the disenfranchisement of black voters in 2000. You should be able to get it off netflix.

Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election

doesn't have an 8 word "message" much less an 80 word "message"

Who was it that said, I would have written it shorter if only I had more time ???

Forming an 8 word message is hard hard work.
It takes more than a village.
It takes a hundred think tanks.

The Democrats don't even own a think pistol.

I read somewhere that Hillary was going to recycle Bill's "it's the economy, stupid" campaign. Is this the best from the left? "Once the Republicans screw-up, then vote for us!" (hey, that's 8 words).
"Love Life" is two words, and alliterative at that.

"Compassionate Conservative" is two words, and alliterative at that.

It probably took many think tanks and focus groups to determine that these two-word couplets would resonate with the voting public at the critical time.

Most Democrats are too "intellectual" to understand that the voting public does not do "intellect".

We follow the crowd. We "stay the course". We don't "cut and run" from the herd. We don't "flip flop". We are all of one vision. We are the proud, the few, and busy being all that we can be.

Either you are with us or you're against us.
Simple as that.
Simple is as simple does. (-Forrest Gump)

Three leading Democrats think the most useful thing they can do, in the current situation, is to boycott the puppet "leader" of Iraq because he doesn't love the Isssraeli criminals enough!
That's all you need to know about their party, right there.
Maybe the Dems just need a good slogan too. Hmmm. How about...

Fairness and Justice, For the rest of us! -- Vote Democrat

  I read your snopes link.  Explain to me the difference other than diction if I state "I invented the question mark" and "I created the question mark"
Obviously Gore who was a congressman at the time, was stating that he had taken the lead in providing support for that project of DARPA.  That any sensible person would think that Gore, who has no computer background, and never held a computer related job, would be claiming to have invented the internet is just mind-boggling.  Shows how much influence rightwing talk-radio (& other media) has.
I am surprised that so many here are still pushing that old internet/Gore canard. Gore was responsible for pushing through the monies necessary to fund DARPA and many infrastructure needs that are directly responsible for you TURDBLOSSOMS being able to sit around on the Internet and snipe at someone who is so far above that common piece of retard known as GW Bush that it beggars description.

Nothing reveals more about your character than to push this blatant lie. It tells me you buy into the right wing noise machine without even checking the facts. It tells me that you would ignore the important work that Gore is doing regarding telling the people about Global Warming in order to pick petty arguments that you people are clearly too ignorant to make.

You scum probably were among the whiners and whingers crying about Clinton's blowjob and are still talking about it today AS IF THAT MEANS SHIT IN A WORLD WHERE WE WERE LIED INTO A WAR, A WORLD WHERE OUR SOLDIERS ARE GETTING KILLED FOR A COMPLETE LIE, A WORLD WHERE IRAQIS ARE BEING KILLED FOR A COMPLETE LIE.

This sort of BS tells me we have little to no hope when it comes to gaining any acceptance regarding informing the public about peak oil. Why would anyone believe people who continue to push this lie, who continue to try and bend the truth in order to make it seem that the lie is true.

Such sad, twisted creeps.

As has been exhaustively documented by Bob Sommersby on the Daily Howler, the sliming of Gore was mostly orchestrated by supposedly liberal mainstream journalists and pundits. What makes this sort of absurd characterization possible is the stupidity of people who judge politicians as if they were trying out for American Idol. Obviously there is no propaganda tactic so obvious that you idiots won't fall for it.
It wasn't necessarily "orchestrated," it likely happened out of sheer journalistic laziness.  More on this at Media Matters, and they include the Gore/Internet thing.
here is another uncontribution to the peak oil debate
while I totally agree with your sentiment, (hell, I can't get over the polarizing statements on the cBS tv news about the huge conspiracies  of all major oil producers to take our oil right at the  start of ww4. and the cantarell news at the same time? to much for my paranoid mind) I do enjoy the mix of folks here. it seems to be common ground. There is a problem,peak oil. peace loving or piece loving we all seem to be here
and as I've said to my friends around these parts. If you realize the wars in the middle east are about oil and can stand behind them I have much more respect for you than someone who thinks this is about freedom democracy or christianity
sorry I've been playing music with friends for about five hrs. that means about 4.5 hours of drinking beer and
"Turdblossoms."  Very creative.  Once again, the collective minds of this forum cower in the shadow of your towering intellect.
"Turdblossom," as I understand it, is Bush's pet name for Karl Rove.
I can create a question mark like this? But I didn't invent it.
Snopes does not give a fair presentation to Vint Cerf's defense. He didn't just say Gore did a lot to keep up to date on technology, he said he was fully justified in making the statements he made.
  I still have not seen Inconvenient Truth though I want to.  I do not need to be convinced GW is real, but I would like to address it's property status with the democrats.  Is Gore noble? Is his only goal to spread awareness.  He has stated he does not intend to run again but I call BS and think he is using GW for a publicity campaign.  Meanwhile Bush acknowledges GW and makes no significant policy change.  Politicians are for themselves and aside from a few issues (abortion, gay mariage and other red herrings) which really have little impact on the future, they all act the same.  Gore is a robot and Bush is a puppet.  We need an (matt savinar though I hate his rhetoric) unknown to run for office.
I think what we need is someone that is like william Wallace aka Braveheart. Someone to take the bull by the horns, and call it like they see it. The ability to lead this country through it's darkest moments and come out smelling like a rose every time. Now who is it gonna be? becuz, i see no one who will to step up to the plate. democrat or republican
Mel Gibson is self serving and rich.....Damn he's not native born.  The Terminator has the same status.  What about Balcy from perfect strangers is he still around?
Uh, let me think now.......NOPE!
yeah, we need someone like william wallace, someone willing to chop people into pieces to advance the material status of our own tribe.

I imagine we'll get our own wallace, by and by.

Someone willing to be hanged, drawn, and quartered to kick the invader out?  Are you looking to a Native American here?
Great idea! How about Cecelia Fire Thunder or Winona LaDuke?
Umm, I don't think either (or anyone else) deserves Wallace's fate. Being women, they would have been burnt at the stake instead, but hey, this is the 21st century, no need to stick to medieval English norms. Wallace wasn't successful anyway, maybe Robert Bruce would be a better model.
I believe that either one could come up with a better energy plan than most of the politicans we currently have.....
Yes, you will all get your "William Wallace" someday. And you will regret every minute of it, crying, gnashing your teeth, and suffering through it.

Are you sure that is the wish you would make?

Yes he is: born on January 3, 1956, in Peekskill, New York, USA.
Someone to take the bull by the horns, and call it like they see it.

Ha! Ha!
Monkey genes still making us crave for the savior alpha male.
Will not work ever again or may be only in the form of warlords and godfathers if not everything is wiped out.
Would be nice if we could find some OTHER ways, I don't see any yet.
Cher and Little Richard. Think about it.
Worth seeing. More science in it than Brokaw's show for Discovery Channel.

"Gore is a robot."
Not in this. Got some passion going.

 "He has stated he does not intend to run again"

  He doesn't;  he doesn't like the political game. And his mission is GW, so all the other BS would get in his way, even tho he would get a more powerful place to speak from.
I think he sees it as a diversion from GW, and PO.

 However, I'm signing petitions to draft him :>)


All politicians are self serving, but who would you rather have as President.  An ignoramous like Bush who seemingly does whatever Cheney and other "advisors" tell him to.  Who is out of touch with reality to the point where he recommends an Iraqi style civil war...err democracy to Vladamir Putin.  Who constantly focuses on "real dangers", like saving the life of braindead patients, and stopping stem cell research to prevent the killing of zygoats.  

Or someone like Al Gore, who while certainly not perfect, has a grasp on the problems that really face this country, like global warming.  It doesn't matter so much what a politicians motives are, you can say they are noble or ignoble, in the end what matters is what they do.  We can't afford to spend another 4 or 8 years with someone like Bush who either has no plan, or has a bad plan, for addressing energy/oil/petroleum and the closely linked global warming.  

Gore is certainly is smarter than G.W., but the neoliberals are just as complicit as the neocons in perpetuating the major problems of our era.  This is the classic lesser of evils approach.  

We need a new paradigm and will only change the status quo by supporting grassroots activism.  Time for a bottom-up societal reorganization.

The Sullivan review states: His fulminations against others' indifference would have been a little more credible if he'd at least addressed and explained his own failure to do anything when he was able to.

A gas tax increase was impossible in the face of a "Contract with America" Congress more concerned with bringing Clinton down than actually leading.  But is Sullivan unaware of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, which Gore did champion, and which despite various issues was making reasonably good progress until it was killed in 2001, in the first 100 days of the current administration (BTW, I don't agree with the contention in the link that the hydrogen fuel cell is particularly promising)? Had Detroit fully embraced the idea they might not be bleeding red to the tune of billions per year.  But the short term appeal of sticking all of your eggs in the basket of putting makeup on a truck was just too hard to resist.

Yep -

As I remember hearing it - in 12 years of GOP Congress they have held exactly 1 (one) hearing on the subject of global warming.  And surprise, surprise - that hearing was an attempt by the Republicans to completely destroy the results of a study on statistical grounds.  Apparently they were attempting to hammer a report that at the time was a few years old - and they did quite an effective job...  Only problem was that by the time they got around to holding the hearings there were a whole slew of new studies supporting the premise of the original one they were so busy skewering...

12 years and 1 hearing in Congress

That's hardly Al Gore's fault.

Here is an different take on An Inconvenient Truth:

"Utah Phillips once said, "The earth is not dying. It is being killed, and the people killing it have names and addresses."  In one sentence, Utah Phillips told us more about global warming than Al Gore has told us in a lifetime of writing and speaking, let alone in An Inconvenient Truth.

Needless to say, Gore offers no names and addresses. Gore's "who" discussion is limited to population. He seems to imply that the issue is the growth in population combined with busy people being shortsighted, leading to some giant incompetency "accident."  That makes it easy to avoid digging into the areas that would naturally follow from starting with "who" - which should lead to dissecting the relationship between environmental deterioration and the prevailing global investment model that is such a critical part of the governance infrastructure and incentive systems."
The Source of Hopelessness
A Review of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

Well, he does go into the "who" regarding the PR firms and lackies, hired by certain corporations of fossil industry and appointed by Bush, to undermine the credibility of the scientists.  

That's a "who" other than "population."

Names are given.

Oilrig medic,
Are you noble? I call bullshit. I think you are mainly
hear to satisfy your childish need for attention and
to pontificate with a hollow sound. I bet it really salves
your weak self-image and self loathing to be able to criticise famous people.

You say Gore is a robot. I say you are the south end of a horse going north.

What we really need are fewer boy-men
like you who haven't even bothered to see the movie
but are qualified to call Gore a robot.

Then you swagger on to say we need a Matt Savinar. No wait... you hate his rhetoric too.

It is more important to you to satisfy your
transparently needy ego when you boldly plan
re Global Warming: "to address it's property status with the democrats."
My my we are important. The world awaits your keen inquiry.
What, going to the national caucus are you?


Gore is an actual human who is working for progress. Bush is a war criminal and thief. There are no equivalences here.

Interesting item:

Putin plan to shut out US oil giants

President Vladimir Putin is set to keep US oil companies out of a lucrative gas field in the latest sign of the deteriorating relationship between Moscow and Washington.

The Russian leader is expected to favour Norwegian companies and reject bids by America's Chevron and ConocoPhillips after failing to secure backing from the United States for his country's attempt to join the World Trade Organisation.

The tit-for-tat snub will be a blow to US companies scrambling for access to Russia's huge gas reserves at a time of high energy prices. It comes after Putin failed to resolve differences with US President George Bush over trade and human rights at the G8 conference in St Petersburg last week.
Well, no kidding!

The trade talks failed, George W. Bush suggested that Russia become a democracy "like Iraq", Russia has 25% of the world's natural gas supplies, the US has no coherent natural gas energy policy, Putin is laughing all the way to bank!

I would be laughing myself if this wasn't so tragic, if these so-called "leaders" of ours weren't such self-defeating morons, if LNG were going to be really "fungible" in the future, etc.

Oh, hell, might as well laugh anyway when power grid blackouts become the norm.

Could someone explain to me why Condi went overseas and stopped off at Lebanon first? I thought Lebanon was the enemy? Shouldn't she have stopped off in Israel first?

After all who's side is the US on? I thought it was imperically Israel.

Damage control/Public relations

Israel did stop bombing Beirut while she was there, which fits in the category of "damage control".

That doesn't really qualify as damage control in my book, as the bombing will assuredly resume as soon as she leaves.

The 'damage control' I was referring to was the belated effort to salvage whatever tatters that remained of the US reputation for "impartiality" in being a "fair arbiter" in the region. Even staunch supporters of Israel were starting to comment that the US wasn't even pretending to care about a destroyed city and massive civilian casualties.

In my view, her trip was a PR move -- nothing more, nothing less

Lebanon isn't the enemy.  Hezbollah is.  That's the problem with a stateless enemy, now isn't it?  

Read John Robb for more discussion on 4GW (4th generation warfare).

Prof. Goose,

I agree but I would add that Israel did not handle this well at the start. Hurt the fragile legitimate govt. of Lebanon too much (and really for no good reason - the right's claim that the Lebanese army would enter the fray is too weak - Lebanon does not even fly its own air force!!), with all the communication attacks up north and in central Lebanon.

Should have focused down south and/or whacked Assad and family in Syria across the head. Syria is almost like a forward airfield for supplies, men and money arriving from Iran.

Whacking Assad would result in a Syria controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. If you think the GIs are having fun in Iraq now.....
Oh, hell, might as well laugh anyway when power grid blackouts become the norm.

Is it tragic, isn't it? As it is, rolling blackouts and extended power outages (Cali, Queens, St. Louis) might be the most important stories of the summer. When more major cities start experiencing power shortages, even the complacent morons among us will have to realize that something big is amiss.

I still think the biggest stories will be the hurricanes that hit the Gulf.  If we get another one that takes out significant production and refinement, it will be a difficult job preventing shortages.

A slightly different story is one I saw on Energy Bulletin about Zimbabwe.  The crisis is in wheat production, but was precipitated by energy shortages.  Zimbabwe is an early loser and has been priced out of the oil markets.  That is an oversimplification of their situation, but here is the article.

For some reason, I have a feeling that the gulf will be spared from a major hurricane hit this year. That's just my hunch (or my prayer).

The news organization I work for has a correspondent in Zimbabwe, so I'm well aware of myriad problems over there caused by major shortfalls in energy. It's a situation that will only get worse.

Other early losers in the energy race are Bangladesh and Indonesia.

Not only will the lack of the ability to procure sufficient energy resources to meet their needs start to become more of a trend among "developing" countries, but also the dearth of available capital to fix and expand their energy infrastructures.

Zimbabwe's food crises (wheat, corn, etc.) are caused by the agricultural policies of its government.  Oil shortages don't help, but I don't see how you could call them the cause.
One more sign of strength: the ruble is now a fully-convertable currency, essentially backed by Russian oil.

And as for "leaders:" morons--yes. But I can't buy into "self-defeating." That implies they had some plan or objective to start with.

I read an interesting piece of press about the effects of oil and rates on people in the city of Sydney, Australia. Basically the closer you are to the middle of town the better off you are which makes intuitive sense. I guess the findings apply anywhere really. There is a nice "vulnerability map" in this article (CBD is Central Business District which is the central part of the city):

also you can see there are some low vulnerability areas in the suburbs - primarily where there is transport infrastructure. So people would tend to gravitate to the central areas of town and areas in the suburbs well connected by transport infrastructure to the center of the town.
Interesting.  But without intimately knowing Sydney's layout it's kind of hard to come to many conclusions other than those stated in the article.  It's also made a little less clear in that they also include mortgage vulnerability in the map.  
You might want to check your conclusions on this.

The vulnerability map, as displayed, would correlate fairly well with a wealth distribution map. People on the water are much more likely to own their own homes, for example, than people out west. It costs a LOT more to buy closer to the water and people cannot simply 'gravitate' there. In Sydney, it costs a significant amount more to buy near public transport, for comparative distances from the city. Poorer people cant simply move there. People from rural area around Sydney complain that even the cheaper areas out west are too expensive compared to the rest of the state. People cant just 'gravitate' to expensive neighbourhoods. Just doesn't work. Also, properties out west are probably more vulnerable to price declines in a weak market (the buzz came off Sydney's housing boom several years ago and prices have been softly falling). Interest rates are going up next month and possibly again later in the year. People out west have bigger mortgages compared to income. All these factors conspire to make the west vulnerable.

Very little of the effect displayed is probably attributable to oil, and the effect cannot be teased out with this data. Certainly the oil price rises hurt people out west more than people in the east, but people out west were more vulnerable before oil prices rose, and most variation in the vulnerbility map would definitely be explained by pre-existing differences, not by the marginal effect of variation in oil price.

Hi Dot,

I am very well aware of Sydney wealth distribution. I have lived there and am married to an Aussie. I have also followed the housing market closely. I agree with everything you say. The academic study is about vulnerability to oil prices and interest rates. I just want to share it with people here. I think the conclusion from the map that people close to the center of town and/or transport infratsructure are less vulnerable stands though doesn't it. I haven't made any assertions about whether this is because people are richer or not.

Your arguement seems to imply that housing is cheaper in the vulnerable areas which would imply that the sensitivity to rates in those areas are less not more. So presumably the vulnerability in those areas is more to do with oil than rates. Also it is intuitively sensible to expect people far from transport to be vulnerable to oil. As such wouldn't you expect people to at least wish (or attempt) to gravitate toward central areas and places with good transport as oil pricese rise. As oil goes up it becomes economically reasonable to pay higher house prices in those areas to save on the transport bill. It appears a simple arguement to me. Did I miss something?

What conclusions aren't common sense? What conclusions do I need to check? You sound like a bitter Aussie who can't afford to buy a house... I hope you are not.

My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I largely agree with the comments with which you have responded.

As a naive reader of your post, I interpreted (that would be mis-interpreted) your comments as claiming that the distriution of vulnerabilities in Sydney as expressed on the map were most significantly related to the price of oil. I made this assumption because we are at TOD. I wished to express, particularly for readers not familiar with Sydney, the contrary view that the vulnerability map presented has more to do with the distribution of wealth.

I do not disagree at all that those far from transport will be more vulnerable as a result in oil price rises. As you allude, vague hints of this effect are apparent on the vulnerability distribution map. I merely claim that this effect is small in contrast to other sources of vulnerability at this point in time.

This article in the Washington Post might be of interest - it argues energy conservation is much the cheapest way to address oil dependence.

I have been an avid admire of Amory Lovins since 1976, when he wrote his seminal "soft path" piece for Foreign Affairs. If only we had followed through with that vision.

However, I am amazed that someone so brilliant would place such heavy reliance on hydrogen and ethanol.  Of course, I have no doubt that he knows something (many things) I don't, but I am still skeptical of these two attempts to prolong the predominance of the automobile. The best strategy is to make the use of the automobile mostly a niche market.

Even with hydrogen and ethanol, our cities would still suck, unless of course, one just loves having most of one's habitat devoted to concrete.

We may need to think about conservation in a big way if hostilities spiral out of control in the Middle East; I think this is a useful article to read:

I have seen evidence in this forum of debate that reveals a deeper understanding of the politics and history of the Middle East.  The idea that Hezbollah is the "enemy" because it is an organization in Labanon backed by foreign powers (Iran and Syria) and that this is somehow unacceptable to the West is a bit hypocrytical.

Just as Iran and Syria backs Hezbollah, the United States and others back Israel.  The West also have occupying armies in Iraq and significant military bases in the region.  Are we really any different?

Yes, we are different.

They are the Axis of Evil.

We and our allies fight for the forces of Good.

It is just that simple.

...the forces of Good.
It is just that simple.

Not everybody think so:

Please note that this is from a successfull American entrepreneur.

OTOH I understand that you may find it difficult to deal with people who think that : Seedless watermelon promotes homosexuality and asexuality

But if conversly... Ah! Hem! Well!

Speaking of cheney, who do you think willl get the cotracts to rebuild the Lebedon's infrastructure once the situation there settles down?
According to Menachem Begin: and I'll give this full quotes even though it's a paraphrase, he said it many many times: "You can't begin to understand 20th century history, or twentieth century politics until you grasp one simple, universally applicable fact: Freedom fighters are Us. Terrorists are Them."
Great replies LOL

As for who will get the contracts...

Praise be to Halliburton!  Halliburton is Great!

For more: