1. We are enslaved by oil. We need it to make our economy go, period.
2. Everywhere that has the amount of oil we need is run by crazy people.
3. Even if we were to go to the extreme of mining all of Alaska and every national park, we wouldn’t get enough oil to make up for it. And, we’d lose the amazing wildlife that is such an integral part of America (the lyric isn’t “from sea to shining sea” for no good reason, you know)
So…
End it. End it. End it. End it. Draw a line in the sand. If America elects you as their President, you’re going to enact a major iniative on the scale of the moon landing and D-Day to get America off of oil. Maybe it won’t happen during your two terms in office. So what?
It’s not about you, its about all of us. But the leadership has got to start from the top – and you vow that this will be priority number one from the very day you’re sworn into office. Say you’ll walk from the podium after delivering your inaugural address, right up to the Speaker and the Majority Leader and let them know that the beginning of the end to the American enslavement to foreign oil has begun.
The time for ticky-tack whittling at these major issues (if I hear CAFE standards being bandied about as a cure one more time…) is over with. Its Hail Mary time.
I used to support the Republican party. There was a time very recently where the Democratic party or the Liberal cause or the Progressive movement (whatever the hell you want to call you) could have easily absorbed me. The Republican party has betrayed every Republican in the last 6 years. I’d say that half of the old Republicans realize this fact and I am one of them.
The reason I realized that I can’t be liberal or democratic or progressive (whatever the hell you want to call you) is this last post and similar statements from others. The government does not have that kind of power! You cannot expect them to launch a “major initiative” that would take America off oil and actually have it work. You say in this same post that “We are enslaved by oil. We need it to make our economy go, period.” This is where the Republicans outsmart the Democrats; they know that the market/economy is much stronger than the U.S federal government. They see that we are enslaved by oil and they try to work with that enslavement. That is much better than inevitably failing to liberate us from oil.
And if you’re going to state some anti-all economic principles idea, at least state some specifics such as “grow corn.. and make ethanol..” or “use the sun.” My. God.
Well Frank, though your characterization isnt rooted in reality as usual, even that gross distortion is better than promising the world as the whole thing falls apart – aka the GOP platform.
Oh yeah! Reality is getting a gazillion Americans to stop driving their gasoline powered automobiles, and then exchanging them for vehicles that run on electricity or wind, maybe.
Then, we remove a half a gazillion employees from their jobs in the petroleum industry, while one – quarter of a gazillion oil company shareholders set fire to their stock certificates to keep warm in the winter.
There’s a gas station on every other corner. I guess we can use the empty pumps to tie up the horses, and chain up the bikes we’ll all be riding.
“We’re the Democratic Party! If we can imagine it, we can make you make it happen!” And if you think we can’t, just take a look at all the people smoking outside of businesses, bars and restaurants — we did that!”
No way anyone is going to use one of those horseless carriages.
No way you can send a message from here to China in under half an hour.
Why would I want a computer in my home? They’re too big and there’s no way all those vacuum tubes will fit.
Television? Why would anyone buy a television when we’ve got radio!
You’re a small thinker, Frank.
A really small thinker.
Then, we remove a half a gazillion employees from their jobs in the petroleum industry, while one – quarter of a gazillion oil company shareholders set fire to their stock certificates to keep warm in the winter.
Oh, I suppose all those gazillion hybrids and hydrogen powered vehicles are just going to magically appear?
I got a very obvious idea that morons go out of their way to ignore: how about the ‘big oil companies’ start researching hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen extraction?! What a concept!
And, and, the people that work at gas stations can then pump hydrogen like they partly do propane!!
Hey, Frank, my province is filthy rich, yeah, here in Alberta. You can go to Ft. Macmurray and get a job at MacDonalds for $17 / hour! Unemployment is 3.4%, lmao, thanks for the economy you wish you could have!
You choose to be slave, you pay the price. To me.
mikmik: straw — like the contents of your cranium.
Do you have any idea, at all, what the “straw man” fallacy is?
That’s called the “They All Laughed at Christopher Columbus” fallacy (Note to Oliver: Do you think you might have been more insulting, if you had added “A really, really small thinker”? LOL)
Certain people (mostly liberals? quien sabe?) like to think that they can propose any ridiculous idea, and when the total unreality of the proposition is exposed to them, they can laugh it off by saying “They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, didn’t they?”
But those people forget two important things:
1) Hardly anybody laughed at Christopher Columbus. He was promised a King’s ransom, if he found anything where he was going. Anybody with an education knew he wasn’t going to fall off the Earth. The Greeks were not even the earliest civilization to correctly surmise that the earth was round, and nearly 25,000 miles around. BTW, the first television “broadcast” was at the 1939 World’s Fair. It took almost 10 years for there to be one part time TV station. I saw “dumb terminals”, the precursors to PC’s, in operation in 1965. By 1967, the US Army was testing computers that fit inside trucks. Meanwhile, the Moon landing was supported by 640K of memory!
2) You only have to check the Patent Office to see the huge number of proposed inventions that never made it off the drawing board, not because somebody laughed at the aspiring inventors, but because they couldn’t make the durn things work!
Always be sure, when you think you have a vast idea, that you don’t actually have an idea that’s half – vast!
Small thinker, indeed! If I can steal a slogan from the US Amy, I probably get more great ideas before breakfast than you do all day.
Herman Kahn, one of America’s greatest futurists; a generation before Alvin Toffler, suggested that you will never get Americans out of their cars, or get them to give up on the idea of owning their own homes (AlGore called that “urban sprawl”). Kahn also came up with the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction (in the 50’s!) which is how we eventually crushed the Soviet Union. He knew what he was talking about.
The right, on the right, haha! Links on right….
Do you have any idea, at all, what the straw man fallacy is?
No effin kidding I do.
I just read your comment from 6:18 AM&
What the hell are you talking about?
Quite simply, that you fail to account for any new industry, ie hdrogen extraction, automobile and engine manufacturing, and the supporting industries. Pretty simple that there will be replacement for all your sorry ass examples – the ones you conveniently fail to note.
Here frank, learn some thinking skills:
http://skepdic.com/
here, go to my website and look at my links on the left:
http://mikx2.com/
Did you know less than 5% of population is scientifically literate? The number one problem, as I have always stated for 30 years, dear frank, is the lack of critical thinking ability in the population as a whole.
Let’s talk construction valid arguements, anytime, frank.
Certain people (mostly liberals? quien sabe?) like to think that they can propose any ridiculous idea, and when the total unreality of the proposition is exposed to them, they can laugh it off by saying They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, didn t they?
Straw man, yawnnnnnnnn
I’ve been up all night…
What’s your excuse?
That pipe’ll kill ya’!
I got a very obvious idea that morons go out of their way to ignore: how about the big oil companies start researching hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen extraction?! What a concept!
Of course, if they choose not to, or don’t deem it feasible or worth their while, we can ship ‘em off to Siberia.
Or worse, Alberta!
I just read your comment from 6:18 AM…
What the hell are you talking about?
Its not as simple as ‘de-enslaving’ ourselves to oil, anyway. What, in turn, do we ‘enslave’ ourselves to that won’t create the flipside to the same problem?
Or is the real position behind all of this for us to stop being a world power, reverse our economic strength and create some sort of 19th century rural utopia – as some enviro-maniacs seem to want.
I would support intense Federal R & D for alternative, workable energy sources. But I would insist every stinking close-minded, anti-technology be-Birkenstocked liberal in Congress sign up to the technology before we take a single step forward.
We all know that once and if oil were replaced as the primary energy source, progressives would start whining about the next energy source. They won’t be really happy until; capitalism goes away.
Dugger
Had the Big 3 auto co’s and the oil industry, not blatantly sabotaged alternative fuel sources in the 50s & 60s, the vaunted FREE market would have already doomed oil, for it is a most inefficient fuel source.
I agree with Oliver that the Free Market is overrated, but oil’s dominance is not an example of a free market triumph, but its perversion, where oligopolies destroyed true choice and competition.
My heart certainly bleeds purple piss for the poor, poor shareholders. Didn’t anyone tell them that the house always wins?
“They won t be really happy until; capitalism goes away.”
And there you have it. Before we can do anything about our “enslavement to oil” some of us have to free ourselves from our insane paranoia.
Oliver is absolutely right. Because of the chicken and egg problem, because of the learning curve (costs go down sharply only after a large quantity of items are made and shipped), because of the high costs and the risky return on investment there are certain market disruptive technologies that can only be started by government initiative.
I realize that when the farmers and businessmen of Marin County and Northern California built the Golden Gate bridge with their own money that that refutes my point, but apart from the Golden Gate bridge, and the Oakland Bay Bridge, and the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Lincoln Street Tunnel, and Hoover Dam, and Grand Coolidge Dam, I mean shut up, these private enterprise efforts are just a few, and yeah, the US benefiting when air mail just suddenly sprang up over night, and the free market bringing mass vaccinations programs to the people,
Okay okay, I was wrong, the free market can do anything, and gets it done faster than government can.
To repeat a point I made in a previous thread, we need specifics, not pie-in-the-sky dreams. Engineers solve specific problems; they do not make dreams come true.
In WWII, the US set out to build a nuclear bomb. They knew exactly what they were trying to build. They had the theoretical physics that showed how it would work, and they had enough manufacturing experience to know how to make the new stuff they would need.
Roosevelt did not get a bunch of scientists and engineers together and just say, “Hey guys, let’s build a gigantic “superweapon” that will beat the pants off the Axis.” See the difference?
Likewise, President Kennedy didn’t get a bunch of rocket scientists together and say, “Hey guys, let’s build a giant spaceship!” He gave them a specific goal in a specific amount of time, and he knew that scientists had already been working on the problem for some time. Von Braun knew theoretically how to solve the problem; he just needed funding and manufacturing made available so he could build his rockets. The Apollo program design was virtually complete within two years after Kennedy issued his challenge.
Before we can do anything, we have to decide specifically which alternative energy source we are going to develop. (IMHO, that kills the project right there, because we have yet to find anything that yields as much energy as economically as petroleum.) THEN set a specific goal, to make a specific amount of a specific fuel in a specific time for a specific amount of money.
Otherwise, we are just running around in circles and wasting $$billions doing it.
The site was semi-hosed a little earlier so my brilliant comment didn’t get posted.
Anyway, what I was saying was is the the unfortunate thing for Democrats right now is that their only solution thus far is to raise taxes on oil companies and remove subsidies for energy companies (something which I support but for vastly different reasons).
I’d like to know why somebody isn’t proposing suspending the federal gas tax for awhile. That would knock 18.5 cents off a gallon a gas. The average amount we pay in taxes on gasoline is close to 46 cents per gallon. As for those who are concerned the gas companies would just simply raise prices 18.5 immediately, I don’t think they’d do it. Last year in FL, they suspended the state gas tax for a month. Prices immediately went down 8-9 cents and the gasoline companies knew they were being watched. Prices didn’t budge the entire time.
Bill Maher has been saying this for a long time. An “Apollo” type project. The free market will not make this change. As oil becomes more scarce and the demand rises the free market will relish it’s profits. Greed drives the market not what is beneficial to man. I’m sorry but the government DOES have to step up to the plate at times and set the country on paths of new discovery and a better future. We can’t rely on oil conglomerates and corporate America to have our best intersests in mind. They never have and they never will.
If there was any chance of persuading me that this pipe dream had any chance of coming to pass, the mere mention of Bill Maher’s name has now made it impossible for me to accept it.
splitar1: Don’t you understand how the free market works?
“Big business” doesn’t “have to” have our “best interests in mind”
If their interests and our interests don’t coincide, we’ll be shopping down the street, and they’ll be out of business.
Did you ever hear the one about the “retired streetlight lighters”?
There weren’t any!
When the electric light was invented, do you think they started dying in the streets?
No, they went and did something else!
Conservatives like to talk about the power of the free market as if the US government has played no role whatsoever in the ability of American oil companies to operate at home and abroad.
mikmik: Take your condescending attitude and shove it…
I’m not in the for wiseasses today.
Regardless of the horse and buggy, oil forever, mentality of some people on this website, only by trying, often failing, but then having the courage to go on has technology advanced. Do you know how many versions of the electric light Edison came up with before he found one that worked?
” Edison is quoted as saying it would take a matter of a few weeks to invent the bulb. In reality, it would take him almost two years of failed attempts, new discoveries and prototypes before he would find success. It is said he tried over 6,000 different carbonized plant fibers, looking for a carbon filament for his light bulb. By concentrating and inventing a whole lighting system rather than just a single light bulb, Edison succeeded where others had failed. Edison chose to look at the big picture and created a lighting system including wiring, plugs, connectors, etc., to operate more than one light bulb at once.”
There will be a solution to our current dependence on our enemies for the life-blood of our economy Oil. How soon we find it depends 1) on economics (mostly the price of gasoline) and 2) our will to put the interest of the people first, instead of the wealthy few. So-called quick solutions like depending on drilling in ANWR aren t going to get it done. This requires a partnership between government and industry, regardless of which political party is in control in Washington.
I have vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals. – Butch Cassidy
Frank_D,
Seems like the only person here with a condescending attitude is you.
Oliver, you are right on, on so many levels. This country’s security and existance depends on a “soft landing” into the post peak oil period. We need to start large scale initiatives now to find alternatives. Renewable resources will drive the economy and the standard of living throughout the world to new peaks if we can solve this critical problem.
If we cannot solve this problem, as the luddites believe, we are in for years of resource wars and death as the cheap oil dwindles.
A renewable energy national initiative appeals to the American sense of challenge and accomplishment.
One of the successes of the GWB campaign is he painted a picture of an America that Americans wanted to believe could be.
John Kerry painted a picture of how America really is with the GWB regime. Americans went for the more positive illusion.
Americans want to believe that we are still on the cutting edge of science, industry, and technology. Renewable energy can capture American’s imaginations in the same way that the Space Program did in the 1960s.
A Democratic campaign promise to lead the way in renewable energy technology will appeal to the masses sick of $3 gas. The Republicans solution is “let someone else do it”. The Democratic solution is “Let us do it”.
It seems like that, eh, splitar? And I suppose if I said mikmik was being patronizing, you would have said, “Seems like the only person here who’s patronizing, it’s you… ”
C’mon, write your own material.
The reliance on the “market” to save the country from over reliance on oil faces a major problem (at least with respect to our country’s love affair with cars). That is, major car manufacturers aren’t going to commit to alternative fuel vehicles unless it is profitable for them to do so. At present it isn’t profitable because, among other reasons there are very few service stations that sell “alternative” fuels. People aren’t going to buy an alternative fuel vehicle if they can’t get fuel for it. Big companies that might otherwise invest in production of alternative fuels aren’t likely to commit in a big way to doing that unless it is economically feasible for them to produce such fuels. Which, of course it’s not as there aren’t enough cars on the road using alternative fuels to create any sort of real demand. It seems that the only answer, at least in the short term, to kick start a program to wean the country off oil, is some sort of government intervention (one need only look at the hapless performance of our automobile industry in recent years to see that relying on them to lead in this area is insane). Even President Bush has given lip service to the idea that we need to decrease our reliance on oil. Why the knee jerk reaction to the idea of a government program of whatever form and leadership in an area where it is very well justified and needed is truly amazing.
Sounds like Frank’s getting ready to threaten violence again! Get ready to cower in cyber-fear!
[...] plate, perfected. Stool-ah Moola. It s P-UUUU lah. Which bring us to Gonzo s blog pick of the week. It s not like I haven t been preaching this f [...]
[...] ate, perfected. Stool-ah Moola. It s P-UUUU lah. Which bring us to Gonzo s blog pick of the week. It s not like I haven t been preaching this f [...]
Bushwacked: You don’t mean they all laughed at Thom Edison, do you?
Look, if you guys would dump this attitude that some people who aren’t convinced that “we’re running out of oil”. [It just so happens that people in the oil industry don't concern themselves with thirty years in the future -- where would you keepit if you found it? Who would you sell it to? It's like buying a 55 gallon drum of ice cream -- it's not about the supply, it's about the consumption]
Secondly, How can you possibly know all the consequences of this plan of yours? Will there be social or economic dislocations? What happens to places like Houston, Lake Charles, Mobile, St. Croix, V.I., (home of Hess Oil)?
What if there are problems like we’ve had with nuclear energy, where just when things got rolling, there was a failure of nerve?
Conservatives never reject the future out of hand; we just like to think twice about it — maybe three times..
Ok Frank_D. You win. Your ideology is the only valid one and everyone else here who posts opinion and discusses the topics are blithering idiots who never think anything through. I concede to your all knowing, all seeing unquestionable wisdom.
I hope you have a nice day. You might want to take a long hot shower to wash that sand out of your vagina. It’ll make you feel better.
Frank, next time break the Prozac in two.
the fallacy here is that fundamental physics problems are going to be solved by brute force& .it doesn t work that way.
Physics, eh. You keep using that word, but I do not believe it means what you think it means.
Try reading Arthur Clarke (inventor of the satellite, by the way) sometime. The physics of vaccum energy, for example, while certainly technologically out of reach at the moment, are not in doubt. Physics, my friend, is vastly more weird and amazing and allows for so much beyond what we currently can achieve.
Again, no one is arguing that we switch overnight to an oil alternative; that is impossible. But, there are currently no incentives for American corporations, operating in a free market, to invest the vast sums of resources necessary to discover, refine and practically implement an alternative to oil. The government, on the other hand, has both the incentive and resources to pull off the feat.
Oliver, the more I think about it, this idea is really something. How do we go about finding a politician with the spine to actually make this part of their platform?
I thought there already was a plan to get the US off of oil — using it all up! Fortunately China and India are moving into position to help the oil age end even faster and with more chaos. Let’s roll!
Once we use it all up, we will actually find ourselves in a position similar to what OW proposes, only it would be minus the commitment to planning and foresight.
“So-called quick solutions like depending on drilling in ANWR aren t going to get it done.”
ANWR could replace a single current source such as Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, or even Nigeria. At 1.9 million barrels a day, ANWR could replace the combined daily US imports from Angola, Iraq, Ecuador, Brazil, Algeria,Kuwait, Colombia, UK, Chad, and Equitorial Guinea.
ANWR isn’t a complete solution, but one that would make the US more energy independent.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/summary.html
Frank, what did/do you think about NAFTA? Did anyone consider all of the consequences of that plan? You know, besides Perot and the 20% of the country that voted for him?
Anyhow, the consequences of a new technology would be a switch from current technology to new technology. What happened when the DVD player replaced the VCR? The same companies made a killing (and continue to). Why do you have such reservations about this? I mean, it’s well and good to consider things a few times, but I think the liberal community has done this and sees the potential rewards far greater than the problems that could come about.
On another thread this was already mentioned, but if a fueling station of some sort is still necessary, there is no reason the existing infrastructure of gas stations could not be utilized. The change would obviously be gradual. Someone hit on this earlier too, but car companies and other fossil fuel dependent corporations have been resistent to a change to alternative fuel sources for years. If companies had this much say (and they almost did) in the late 1800s, we would not have had AC Power. Thank goodness for Tesla. They need to clone him and put him to work on this right away. Oh, wait, he was working on this shit his entire life. Never could quite perfect it though. Wireless power transmission would be sweet, huh?
Frank, have you ever run a business? Had profit and loss responsibility for a product line? Done marketing and product planning? Been responsible to shareholders?
Nobody– nobody in a publicly-held business accountable to shareholders for quarterly profits these days makes any large, grand, risky capital investment without a very clear path to profitibility and exclusivity (i.e. patents, copyrights, and punitive litigation defences thereof).
Do you hold stock in any public corporations? Have you looked at their R&D budgets? The trends thereof over the last 30-40 years?
The private sector– by itself without any prompting, subsidies, or public sponsorship– is absolutely not going to save us. Far from it; it’s a huge part of the problem.
The only way a huge, risky, potentially unprofitable (in the short term), capital-intensive project is going to occur is with heavy public government sponsorship.
What free-market capitalism does best is make cheap consumer gadgets. We certainly need at least some of that in order to get off of oil: have a look at what the private sector has been able to do in the area of microprocesor power, energy-efficient consumer electronics (what’s the battery life on your iPod?), that kind of thing. Good on them.
But they’re not going to massively re-tool the U.S. energy infrastructure without at very least some heavy subsidies, and at most direct R&D involvement by the federal government. No way. Put yourself in the job of a CEO, think of it from his or her perspective… your shareholders aren’t going to stand for this kind of thing, they want only short-term profitability, you need Uncle Sam to step in and make this happen.
Seriously, why is there such a big push against this idea? A National Initiative to search for alternative energies is a great idea. No one said the oil companies have to be excluded; indeed, they should be at the lead of such an initiative (NASA didn’t exclude Boeing in its push to the Moon, did it?)
Here are the facts: if it’s not us, it will be China or India. Neither of those countries have the entrenched oil infrastructre we do, so there is already talk that China may bypass an oil infrastructure entirely, and wire all their gas stations, for example, to hydrogen cell or hybrid technology. The United States has been at the forefront of every technological breakthrough over the past century. Why are there some now who would have the next great breakthrough come from another land? How un-American an outlook.
Calm down, splitar. It seems like the “We got to switch to anything from oil — anything! Anything but oil!” are the ones with the problem.
And their first problem is that they’re already convinced that anybody who’s cautious — God forbid you disagree with them! is — well, let’s see “a small thinker, a really small thinker” “morons”, afflicted with “insane paranoia” (just a thought: is there a “sane” paranoia?), luddites (of course – any idea who they really were? Who cares?), “horse and buggy, oil fever mentality” one forward looking technology maven even suggested I “wash the sand out of my vagina(!)”.
Did I mention that this is what passes for “dialogue” in the liberal universe?
You know, the kind of attitude that just screams out for cooperation: Get in line, you rubes! The future is here! The future is now! Get out of that fossil fueled polluter, and jump int one of these wind – powered / sun powered / electric powered vehicles! And be quick about it!
There’s no time to think about what you want, don’t question me — just do it!
Yes, the kind of attitude that has made liberals so unpopular, they’ve been disguising who they are on the national level for more than thirty years…
Why they would feel compelled to do that is a mystery — to them!
Shorter Conservative:
Stay the course
Foresight is for losers.
No zappa it is longer than that….
conservative = balance. We drill in anwar, the wildlife won’t miss the .5% loss of land needed to do that. We continue to drill large fields in deep water. At the same time, we continue to investigate new energy sources, and build on the existing technology (nuclear, solar, wind).
the fallacy here is that fundamental physics problems are going to be solved by brute force….it doesn’t work that way.
I can’t believe I am saying this, but I totally agree with Mikmik, this country is scientifically illiterate, will Ollie leading the pack. Unfortunately Ollie’s hero is Superman, and I doubt he ever took a real science class in his life, yet he believes we just aren’t trying hard enough to overcome these fundamental physics issues….well…not exactly ollie.
Al -
Simply because it will take money from the shareholders of Big Oil and you and I both know that they are the ones that pay or wages and will help get us into heaven.
You want to go to heaven don’t you? I mean with all these fun people that will SURELY go there?
/snarkoff
Frank, next time break the Prozac in two.
the fallacy here is that fundamental physics problems are going to be solved by brute force& .it doesn t work that way.
Next time, wear your glasses!
I know you lefties can’t tell us apart, but I didn’t say that…
“the fallacy here is that fundamental physics problems are going to be solved by brute force& .it doesn t work that way.”
And would you care to tell us your position on missile defense?
Drpedro. This is a gnarley problem (you know, full of gnarls), but the more research that is done, the more likely a solution will be found. More money for research = faster solved problem. Do you not agree? You can solve problems that require research by doing the research. It is not “brute force”. You can solve almost any problem by asking more people to look for the solution. Fermat’s last theorem would have taken a much greater time to solve if only 3 people were working on it.
Yes, there is a risk that this problem has no adequate solution (by adequate I mean cost effective and future money making potential), but that’s not very likely. We cannot be afraid to take the first steps.
I guess with missile defense there’s some wiggle room on this physics thing, right? This from Peter C.W. Flory, assistant defense secretary for international security policy:
“The system is still aimed primarily at development and testing, but the capability does exist, he said. Ballistic missile defenses are not as capable today as they will be in the future, Flory said. The system in place is an initial capability.”
What a brilliant statement: Missile defense is not as capable today as it will be in the future. Really? Now I know all that money isn’t being wasted.
http://www.emilitary.org/article.php?aid=6183
Frank_D,
You’re telling me to calm down? This coming from the person who just in this thread has
1) Started on post with “OH YEAH!” and used the number gazillion a bunch of times and then accused people with not being touch with reality.
2) Accused someone of having straw in their cranium for not seeing it your way.
3) Insinuated that someone was on the pipe inferring they did drugs.
4) Told someone to shove it.
You went on the attack on me for stating my thoughts. You inferred that I don’t know how the free market works. FYI I sit on the board of a multi-million dollar company and am director of it’s accounting department. I have a pretty firm grasp on the free market.
I happen to think a government program to move us away from oil onto the next thing, whatever that may be, is a good idea. Sure there would be change, sacrifice maybe even some problems and missteps along the way. It’ll take time and research, money and commitment. But if we don’t do something now and move this country forward in this area we will be left behind. I don’t think there is a “perfect” solution such as hydrogen or hybrid technology but there are good and probably better sources out there than oil. Can you imagine if we never progressed beyond steam engines?
My opinion is my own. It happens to be in agreeance with Oliver’s and many others here on the site. I disagree with you but it’s a free country and you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. But don’t attack mine. I’m just as entitled.
“The same argument has been made about curing aids. We have spent billions of dollars on disease that affects very few of our citizens, and still no cure.”
No cure yet, but in 25 years, HIV/AIDS has gone from a uniformally fatal disease of unknown etiology to (for many) a manageable (though still serious and transmissible) chronic condition. Fifty years ago childhood leukemia was virtually incurable. Today, it’s highly treatable. These results are due to the efforts of government funded researchers, private sector researchers, charitable institutions like St. Jude’s, etc.
I live in Houston. Cars are vital here. We’re not going to end our dependence on oil overnight, especially when you consider all the products in addition to gasoline that contain petroleum derivatives. But I can’t believe that in the long run our only source of fuel has to be Middle Eastern oil.
DrPedro: Well, you make a good point about ‘where is the funding going to come from?’ avenue and to that I have to respond that it’s not the democrats fault the deficit has increased substantially over the past 5 years, that would be the fault of the tax cuts that were not accompanied by large cuts in programs or promised benefits. I have no problem with cutting programs, as long as it can be shown they that are not adding value to the nation. There doesn’t seem to be much of a cost/benefit analysis attached to current programs out there and it would be nice if there was a department that did this. Or would that be the Treasury Department? Anyhow, if there is no benefit, cut it. I think the benefit for more billions of dollars will be quite substantial.
Curing AIDS and other diseases is a lot more complex than that. The same argument does hold there though in that the more reasearch that is done, the better. It’s just a matter of finding the right combination of stuff.
I think we should spend at least 10 Billion. We should also encourage more research at universities as well using government money or benefits to schools to do so. Solar Phantom has been in existence for a long time, but that’s all Mickey Mouse bullshit compared to what has to be done.
Also, we are making progress on the HIV/AIDS issue. Magic Johnson is still alive, isn’t he? Heck, it’s only been 20 years since research began and there’s already a plethora of drugs out there.
The main argument here is the sooner we can get legitimate alternatives in the marketplace, the sooner the infrastructure can begin to change and the sooner we can start to reap the benefits.
The parallel to Da Vinci and the helicopter is not quite adequate as the technology already exists, we just need to tweak it. There are quite a few other technologies available and engineers/sceintists that specialize in them coming together can be nothing but good for alternative fuel technologies in general.
Back to what drpedro said about ANWR – a junky promises to quit if he can have more junk – do you give him the junk?
I suggested the spindizzy, from the work of James Blish,at 6:00 this morning! Don t I get even a few points for far – reaching thinking ?
No, Frank, but you do get points for “obscurest reference and link.”
I saw an ad for BP oil last night that stated they were investing $750 billion dollars in finding oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
Compare that with the WH’s budget appropriation of $2.1 billion for alternative fuel research.
Who do you suppose will get results first?
BTW, I suggested the spindizzy, from the work of James Blish,at 6:00 this morning! Don’t I get even a few points for “far – reaching thinking”?
I agree mike, so better to phrase the argument over deciding HOW much goverment money we are willing to spend.
Currently we have about 2 Billion in the government pot to pay for research directly related to energy. However, there is likely (I have NO data to back this up however) billions more in various physics/chemistry etc projects that relate to it.
So how many dollars do you put into the pot in an government that is already running in deficit? And does it make sense to ignore proven reserves that will help lower the price of energy and keep the economy humming, as Ollie put it “We need it to make our economy go, period.” (Well, period as long as the Sierra Club isn’t against it eh Ollie).
The same argument has been made about curing aids. We have spent billions of dollars on disease that affects very few of our citizens, and still no cure.
Big Gay Al learned physics from Popular Science or something, so I can’t really take him seriously. Arthur C. Clarke did not “invent” satelites, any more so than Da Vinci “invented” helicopters. It took hundreds of years before helicopters were practical, and even if Da Vinci and every genius in the world at the time sat down to make one, it wouldn’t happen.
That’s not good enough! It’ll work, I tell you!
Read the book(s)!
Give Bush a little credit. He’s very much in favor of research:
Frank you admitted in an earlier post that the oil industries aren’t going to worry themselves with a problem that’s 30 years into the future. I assume that you’re semi-accurately suggesting that, at current consumption, oil will be virtually gone by then. And, in fact, the most optimistic predictions I’ve seen give us between 50 to 80 years of oil left (the most pessimistic about 30).
Either way, the problem will set in much, much earlier, like in 6 to 10 years. Don’t you think that as the commodity becomes more scarce that the price will go through the roof and become unaffordable for much of the middle class in our country? Aren’t we starting to see this now? Currently the world is consuming somewhere around 86 billion barrels a year, and many estimates say that the amount of oil in the ground is around 1 to 1.2 trillion barrels (including Alberta’s tar sands). Do the math.
Look at China and India and the growing population in the US. Soon the world may be consuming 100 billion barrels a year. We’re heading for disaster. And you’ll be hearing this noise more and more as the years slick by.
Zappa
We do need to stay the course and not rush to idiotic alternatives. Econmically viable alternative fuel cars are working int0 the free market as we speak. Stay the course and gradually transiton to whatever works in the market. And the Feds could prime the research pump w/o AlGore like dictates on results.
Dugger
Zappa says….”a junky promises to quit if he can have more junk – do you give him the junk”?
Yes, thats exactly what you do.
http://www.drugs.com/methadone.html
Mike that is certainly a place to start at. Now who do you take the money FROM? Unfortunately, this is a zero-sum game.
I disagree that we have the technology now though. Unless you are willing to put windfarms up everywhere (and even the lefty democrats like Kennedy, Kerry etc aren’t willing to do that…), the efficiency is way to low, and space and environmental requirements are too high.
We need to fund the research, but we also need to tap the known reserves. I just laugh at the idea of a NASA type program to try to overcome the problem with money alone…I think this is inevitably a time consuming process that is going to require incremental steps
And the Feds could prime the research pump w/o AlGore like dictates on results.
The problem is the republicans only want to prime the defense pump by spending more and more on programs like a missle defense system that has yet to be proven to actually work on a real missle, much less provide a shadow of reliability. The money we are dumping down the sinkhole of Iraq could do a lot of good here, not to mention the adverse impacts it has on our military.
Noone wants to mandate a certain technolgy, but real leadership and courage on the part of our political leaders is essential to success. While I give Bush credit for what he has done so far, much more is needed to have a real chance of success before this really becomes a crisis.
Either way, the problem will set in much, much earlier, like in 6 to 10 years.
I learned about this formulation (the “30 year” formulas) during the Carter “oil shortage” years. The “shortage” was caused by government intervention. By putting caps on oil prices, the government was ensuring that two things would happen simultaneously: Oil companie couldn’t afford to secure more oil, and that consumers wouldn’t buy less. “Instant shortage.”
On the other hand, without the price caps, the oil companies can engage in an ongoing search for oil, which involves not just “pure” r & d, but also renegotiations with oil exporting nations, as well the opening up of previously explored areas that were thought to be “too expensive” to exploit previously.
This is how the “30 year supply” is constantly replenished.
What makes you think that suddenly (”6 to 8 years”) we will run out of oil?
What a wonderful world some folks get to live in:
There’s no global warming.
There’s oil to last an eternity.
We’re winning the war on terror.
The sky is a lovely shade of magenta.
Here is a good example…..
When speaking of oil reserves, your readers may not have recognized the flexibility inherent in the reserve definition itself. Typically, oil-producing countries and oil companies report “proven reserves” which are estimated amounts thought reasonably certain to be recoverable from known reservoirs under current economic and operating conditions (my emphasis).
Putting manipulation aside, the amounts that are considered recoverable, and therefore part of proven reserves, depend upon current prices and current technology. However, the technologies improve and rising prices make production in remote areas more feasible.
For example, prior to the 1970’s only about 20% of the oil in any known reserve was recoverable using the technology of the day.
However, by the 1990’s, recovery technologies had improved to the point where over 25% could be recovered. As a result, the world’s reserves increased without any new fields being discovered. Recovery technology continues to improve, albeit with decreasing marginal returns.
In addition, geological detection and modeling technology is light-years ahead of where it was in 1970. Whereas the industry used to drill 20 wildcat wells for every discovery, the current technology has made discovery much more certain. As a result, there is no need to drill for oil that cannot be produced at current prices. Why create inventory that you cannot sell? Hence, oil companies wait for better prices, but without a proven discovery well, these structures are not yet included in proven reserves.
I do have to admit a certain bias. I earned my economics degree during the 1970’s oil crisis. I clearly remember the prognostications of the gloom-and-doomers for $100/bbl oil by 2000. I am also a former employee of a bankrupt deep-water drilling firm and a bankrupt solar-power producer. They both went belly-up after the oil price collapsed in 1983. I do not feel like becoming a sucker for these gloom and doom stories a second time.
I do not feel like becoming a sucker for these gloom and doom stories a second time.
You very well may be correct in you conclusions regarding the availability of reserves. But, if thats the case, then you wouldnt mind a little more oversight by say the SEC?
How about restoring the ban on the sale of Alaskan Oil? If they could be sitting on certain reserves because of the cost of recovering that oil (which is very likely the case) then they have no business selling Alaskan oil overseas just because they can make even more money that way. That is my chief objection to allowing them to drill in ANWR and “trusting” them to take the required precautions to protect the environment.
Furthermore, I have forgotten about the Exxon Valdez spill and what it did to Prudhoe Bay and fishing in the area. That not only affected the sea otters as was played ad hominem on CNN, it affected a lot of folks’ living.
“While many fishermen have been forced into bankruptcy in the years since, the world’s most profitable company still hasn’t paid a penny, as the case remains tied up in appeals.
Exxon disputes reports that the remaining oil is still causing harm to the environment. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/24/eveningnews/main608520.shtml
I dont have a problem with Exxon or anyone else making money. But I am not for allowing them to both gouge the public and abuse the envronment at the same time.
And when the government gets involved, it looks like this:
FEMA Wants $4.7 Million Back From Katrina Victims
By RON HARRIST, AP
Ronald Reagan said the 9 most dangerous words in the English language are: “We’re from the government, and we want to help.”
Ronald Reagan said the 9 most dangerous words in the English language are: We re from the government, and we want to help.
So you apparently don’t believe in government. That’s understandable given the impotence of the current administration to get anything right.
“President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/national/main1335774.shtml
And don’t forget about Katrina:
- Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared.”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002114558
From that perspective, I’d agree with you that Reagan was right.
“Because this discussion isn t about the idea, it s about Oliver s tendency to see everything in a very narrow, biased perspective. Anything that helps the Democrats is good, and anything that hurts the Republicans is bad. The idea of US energy independence is ONLY good if it also helps the Democrats regain political power.”
I cant speak for Oliver, but this is totally untrue when it comes most people including progressives. WE need someone in DC to actually commit to a real plan to address the problem and not just token measures that are derived from polls and false promises. If it’s a republican like John McCain, I’m all for it.
All of the above options you mention sound viable, except for uninhibited drilling in ANWR for reasons previously given. But the energy problem and global warming are going to become more than just something to be used as a political wedge to divide the american people.
Big Gay Al:
I can’t address a lot of the technical details of this piece, but I think I can get a grasp on “why is there such a big push against this idea?”
Because this discussion isn’t about the idea, it’s about Oliver’s tendency to see everything in a very narrow, biased perspective. Anything that helps the Democrats is good, and anything that hurts the Republicans is bad. The idea of US energy independence is ONLY good if it also helps the Democrats regain political power.
Note the title: an offer to help the Democrats. Note the digressions in the comments: scads of Bush-bashing. Many of these folks — led by Oliver — can only see things in a purely partisan mode, so that is the filter that colors their discussions.
Exploiting the oil in ANWR would be a short-term solution. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems, but it could buy us time.
Developing new methods of extracting petroleum from other sources is a mid-term solution. There is a tremendous amount available from shale, but there hasn’t been an economic, efficient way developed to extract it — yet. And there is a LOT of shale available, both in the US and Canada.
The long-term solution, though… that’s what everyone wants, but not everyone is willing to wait the prerequisite long term. I and several others have repeatedly brought up the challenges to be overcome not to discourage people, but to make certain they understand the tremendous obstacles that will need to be overcome. Like it or not, petroleum is essential to our civilization, and cheap petroleum is essential to our way of life. We have spent over a century working on petroleum, increasing our efficiency in using it a thousandfold — at least. We have MADE it the cheapest, most convenient, most readily at hand source of portable, quick, powerful, efficient, and safe energy in the world, and have built up a tremendous infrastructure to support and maintain that.
As Mike said earlier, simply taking a bunch of smart people, giving them a bunch of money, and telling them to “fix it” is extremely unlikely to work. The Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program all had very specific goals, as well as plenty of prior research and development to build on. They were not any grand initiatives, just a major dose of adrenalin to existing projects. And in both cases, nearly all the theoretical work had already been done.
For Oliver’s idea to work, we would have to choose a specific idea and then push HARD for that one. For example, “develop a way to safely and economically generate fuel-grade hydrogen that can be used in a way that is compatible with our current transportation infrastructure without imposing tremendous burdens on the economy.” Or “find a way to economically extract petroleum from shale.” Or “discover a new formulation for batteries with sufficient power capacity, storage capacity, safety, and lightness that can be used efficiently in automobiles.”
And we really, really need to not drag partisanship into this. This might mean Oliver might need to give up his standard talking points, tactics, and shallow world-view, but I hope he’s enough of a patriot to do so.
I have my doubts, but I hope.
J.
Bushwacked, I didn’t say UNINHIBITED drilling. The best proposal I’ve seen so far involved a very, very, VERY tiny portion of the total area.
I don’t think the idea needs to be attached to any single political figure. That tends to polarize the issue. I think it might take a bi-partisan or non-partisan approach, because issues that get attached to a single person tend to get subsumed into that person’s whole campaign. But if a group of politicians from both sides of the aisle get behind it, we can dispense with the partisan bullshit and actually get things done.
No, I don’t realistically see that happening, but I think it has a slightly greater chance of success than Oliver’s notion of using it as his latest club to beat the Republicans over the head with. Because going with Oliver’s history, as soon as the election is over, the issue will get tossed on the scrap pile. He sees it not as a goal, but a means to a goal — and that goal is NOT the energy independence of the United States, but the defeat of the Republicans.
J.
[sarcasm]God, if only I could be as bipartisan as JayTea[/sarcasm]
Seriously, though, I’m not so dumb as to believe that an oil connected president is going to make a serious commitment to energy independence. I’d love for either party to do it, they would not only be doing the right thing, they’d freeze out the other party. I do not like the Democratic strategy on this so far – to small thinking, but the GOP stance of digging holes in America without regard to the future is even worse. I’m simply talking about the issue a) for something I’d like the Democrats to endorse and b) because a Republican would make this move when pigs fly.
There’s simply no incentive for the oil companies to make the massive investment needed to get us off of oil (Exxon’s Lee Raymond made $400 million, I don’t think he’s rushing to develop alternative power). To use the example of the internet, the commercial attempts at building networks all failed (Full Service Network) or were limited (Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL) in one way or another. It wasn’t until the standards created by Arpanet combined with colleges and researchers at CERN took hold (as well as legislative help from people like, yes, Al Gore) that the commercial internet as we know it came to fruition. If we had relied on big business to create the web it wouldn’t be as dynamic, egalitarian or ubiquitous as it is.
I’m also not saying for there to just be money thrown at stuff (I love how people speak up for what they’re sure is in my head), but the first step that needs to be made is figuring out what technology is a viable alternative – and unlike the science practiced under this administration I don’t believe in simply taking things off the table from the get go (for instance, I’m vehemently opposed to nuclear but if someone can present a cogent argument for nuclear power, though I doubt there is one, I’m open to hearing it). Then we pick one or more of these likely solutions and spend a massive investment on making it happen. It’s not magic, though it may be rocket science. It won’t happen for a long time, and its worth it because I don’t want my kids or their kids to have to go to war in the middle east yet again because we need to keep the oil supply flowing.
ANWR is not exactly all that secure. The AK pipeline was shut down a few years ago when a drunk fired a single bullet in it with his rifle.
But I say what the hell, use up all the petroleum as fast as you can. Stay the course an’ Git er done! Then we will start thinking of some alternative. If we approached this any other way we would all be a bunch of Al Gores. Oil men like Bush and Deadeye deserve our trust here. They know energy.
wacked;
hear, hear
Sorry duros. Just whimsical thinking again.
Big Gay Al:
1) [T]here are currently no incentives for American corporations … to discover, refine and practically implement an alternative to oil.
Which means, in a country guided by, and built upon, free enterprise, they shouldn’t have to. They shouldn’t have to, because, in a country built upon and guided by, individual freedom,no one (or hardly any one, wants them to). {As a businessman, I may want to manufacture courdiroy sports coats. As an individual, I may want to buy a courdiroy sports coat. But what happens if I want dozens of them, in all different colors? Then they have to be custom made, and I would expect them to be expensive. What if a businessmean manufactures hundreds of thousands of courdiroy coats in dozens of colors, but men only want to by somewhere between 1 and 6 colors? And only dozens of men want courdiroy coats? Well, then the businessman is out of luck. My point is, that government can’t change this.}
2) The government, on the other hand, has both the incentive and resources to pull off the feat.
Actually, no they don’t. “The government” is the people. It is not some autonomous organization, which people can approach or avoid, negotiate with or not negotiate with. The simple definition of “politics” I learned in Intro to Poli Sci was that “Politics is concerned with the allocation of resources, according to a set of rules.” That means all resources, according to the same rules.
“Government” isn’t 535 men in Wash DC, who can wake up one day, and say, “Everyone has to wear courdiroy sports coats from this day forth on, and here are the daily required colors.” My point is that even if they sidetracked the the requiste money and manpower to pull off “Project Courdiroy” they would still be subject to the same economic forces, as in the example above.
It’s interesting, w all the comment of the free market, that no one acknowledged what I stated- that the oil and auto industries blatantly schemed to deny free choice by squashing alternative energy sources for decades.
I guess benighted arguing’s just more fun.
If we had relied on big business to create the web it wouldn t be as dynamic, egalitarian or ubiquitous as it is.
What has the government done, on purpose, to expand the Internet?
It seems to me that the reason the Internet is “dynamic, egalitarian [and] ubiquitous” is because the gummint has resisted the temptation to mess with the WWW.
Bushwacked: So you apparently don t believe in government. That s understandable given the impotence of the current administration to get anything right.
a) I didn’t say I don’t “believe” in government. What are they, the “tooth fairy”?
b) It’s not “the impotence of the current administration to get anything right” that troubles me. It’s the failure of government to get most things “right.”
A few examples (IMHO): They’re responsible for the high cost of medicine, medical care, and medical insurance
They’re responsible for the failure to prepare for seasonal emergencies
They’re responsible for the high cost of retirement plans
They’re responsible for the inadequacy of American education, and
They’re responsible for the ever – increasing prices of everything, including travelling, and owning and maintaining a motor vehicle
And that includes any and all administrations since 1916, when the withheld income tax came to stay.
So that’s why we have a huge national debt, exploding deficit and a war that few people support. It’s all the people’s fault.
It’ s definitely time to change the “people’s” leadership in Washington.
Frank needs to brush up on basic history, social studies, and logic. What has worked in America is not leaving things up to some magical free market in which the best path to profit is manipulation and consolidation (a Republican president was the trailblazer in ending that practice) but rather a well-regulated market that raps the invisible hand on the knuckles when its up to no good.
Ollie:
November 2004, I voted Republican for President and House, Democrat for Senate and Governor. In 2000 I voted for Bill Bradley in the primary. I recently trashed Judd Gregg. What are YOUR bi-partisan or non-partisan credentials?
On to the other points… such as they are. If you think that there are a lack of incentives for industry to find alternatives to oil, perhaps you should try to find some. Try a carrot to go along with the stick of government regulation and confiscatory, punitive taxes.
And nuclear power has tremendous potential. The only time nuclear power has killed is when it was run by a massive, totalitarian state. Outside of Chernobyl, as the old saying goes, Ted Kennedy’s driving has killed more people. And the latest research into pebble bed reactors is showing tremendous potential, both for efficiency and safety.
And somehow the Navy’s managed to run at least couple hundred reactors over the last 51 years without incident. Hell, not even Jimmy Carter could screw one up.
However, if you look at who’s kept new oil refineries from being built (limiting our oil capacity) new reactors from being built, you’ll see some of the same names who kept wind power from being developed off Cape Cod — those champions of the Left, Senators Kennedy and Kerry.
J.
It s all the people s fault. Huh?
And, Oliver: What has worked in America is … a well-regulated market that raps the invisible hand on the knuckles when its up to no good.
Theodore Roosevelt was involved in breaking up real monopolies that actually engaged in price gouging, a dozen or so, tops.
And don’t tell me I need to brush up on history, kid…
What most people your age call history, I call my”adult life.”
No Republican had anything to do with the “Alphabet soup” created by FDR…
Th government has been screwing up more then it has been fixing, since as far back as 1933, when the Emperor Frankin started moving to the left to keep Huey Long out of the White House.
I was reading something the other day to the effect that if Bill Clinton had spent as much time chasing bin Laden, as he did Bill Gates, there wouldn’t have been a 9/11.
Don’t even try selling that “Government has kept business from performing its evil deeds against the public” jazz on me.
I suppose, with all your voracious reading, you’ve read that “Ma Bell” may be centralizing and reconsolidating again to better coordinate with new technology. Let’s see if the government will let them enter the 21st century.
That’s right, bushwacked, I was there when TR ( that’s what I called him, because we were so tight) refused to shoot a bear cub, and the subsequent publicity gave rise to the name “Teddy Bear”, and I was there when they named a candy bar after Grover Cleveland’s daughter, “Baby Ruth”, not ‘Babe’ Ruth, as some people believe, and I saw you skip classes when they were teaching “The Debt America Owes to Republicans”
Let me illustrate to you the difference between history and memory: See if you can find a connection between a man named Tom Dooley, and our involvement in Viet Nam.
WikiPedia says he was there, but it doesn’t connect him to our involvement, except for one part of a sentence, but you can’t figure it out from there.
BTW, Hoover was a genius, and needed no advice from me. Apparently, FDR did, because it was Hoover’s economic plan that worked, not FDR’s brain trust’s. FDR was a great motivational speaker, and he kept America’s spirits up in a way that Hoover couldn’t have done if he had wanted to.
Oliver
You should know better than question Frank’s knowledge of history. After all he was there with TR at San Juan Hill. He helped Huey Long build his bridge. And I’m sure he was there when Hoover called for advice for economic policy.
Frank, I hope you read this, and you’ll have to excuse me for not responding so quickly, but to answer this: “What makes you think that suddenly ( 6 to 8 years ) we will run out of oil?” I didn’t say we’d run out of oil in 6 to 10 years, what I implied was that in that amount of time the price of oil will become more and more unaffordable.
What kept us going in the 80’s and 90’s and early 2000’s were the discoveries in Alaska and the North Sea. Since then there have been no new discoveries of what are referred to as elephant fields.
Each year our new discoveries amount to about 1/4th of what we consume. Most of the planet has been explored, and there’s not much oil left. Maybe with technology we can drill deeper.
I have to agree with Oliver. Now is the time to be ahead of the curve. This is a problem only the government — you know, the ones we pay to look out for our interests — should be solving.
the most optimistic predictions I ve seen give us between 50 to 80 years of oil left (the most pessimistic about 30).
Either way, the problem will set in much, much earlier, like in 6 to 10 years.
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. I didn’t mean to suggest that Oil companies weren’t concerned about the future. I mean that in terms of explorin for sources for oil, they only need to be assured that will enough oil for thirty years, for the same reason you don’t buy 30 cans of peas when you go to the store: You probably can afford to, the stores have that many, and, if you like peas, you’ll eat them all before the expiration dates on the oldest cans.
BUT, where will you put them? Why spend all your money on peas? You will eventuallyhave more money, and there will be more peas, so you get enough to last a small amount of time, and when they’re gone, you buy some more. Even if the store gooes out of business, other stores will be selling peas.
A lot of plants died in the last bajillion years, or however many years it’s been since plants evolved from bumblebees, or nematodes, or whatever. So there’s lots of oil.
But, secondly, just above where you said 6 to 10 years, you wrote:
Optimistically, 50 to 80 years
Pessimistically, about 30.
So, I ask you again: Why did you then say “6 to 10 years”?
What has the government done, on purpose, to expand the Internet?
Again, study some history. The government created Arpanet, which developed much of the underlying tech for the Internet. Tim Berners Lee came up with the web while working at CERN. Then, prodded by legislation from folks like Al Gore the web was opened up to commercial interests and the government has rightly stayed out of the way (though the GOP is now pushing for regulation of content). If it wasn’t for the government’s involvement, the various networks making up the internet wouldn’t talk to each other. Like many other great innovations, the government made an initial investment when there was no profit to be had and then private industry jumped on and made billions (ask the Google guys). That’s what I’ve been proposing here.
What are YOUR bi-partisan or non-partisan credentials?
You’re the one who made the claim that my partisanship should summarily cause my idea to be disregarded. I make no excuses for my partisanship, and I don’t hide under the label of “independent” as so many Republican bloggers do. I’m a Democrat, through and through. I’ve voted Democratic in every presidential (Clinton, Gore, Kerry) and gubernatorial election (FL, MA) I’ve ever voted in. I voted for one Republican and that was Steve Cooley for District Attorney for LA.
The only time nuclear power has killed is when it was run by a massive, totalitarian state.
The problem is it only takes one boo-boo for a mass casualty event. I don’t think you’re seriously saying only the Soviet Union has ever had an accident at a public utility, are you? (I do find your Chappaquiddick obsession entertaining, do you just randomly bust out with it no matter what you’re talking about?)
not even Jimmy Carter could screw one up
Not all of us get submarines named after us.
No Republican had anything to do with the Alphabet soup created by FDR&
Thank God, it saved the nation. FDR demonstrated genuine leadership and the sort of forward looking strategy I’m advocating now, especially when America was going through Nazi-friendly Hoover’s Depression.
you ve read that Ma Bell may be centralizing and reconsolidating again to better coordinate with new technology
The AT&T monopoly was bad in its first incarnation and while it may not be as powerful in its second go-round, its clear evidence of what havoc unregulated markets can wreak on consumers. If we listened to you we’d have Standard Oil and JP Morgan redux.
Most businesses are only interested in the next quarter (although Google’s rejection of the “beat the estimate” mindset is refreshing), which is just bad business and poor public policy. Any good government looks down the road for its citizens so that we can all prosper in the long run. A government thats all about loading up the pockets of a few while the getting is good is a waste (like our current government).
(You see Frank, that’s called replying in 1 entry and not 300)
Arpanet, which developed much of the underlying tech for the Internet. Tim Berners Lee came up with the web while working at CERN.
A climate of pure research surrounded the entire history of the ARPANET. The Advanced Research Projects Agency was formed with an emphasis towards research, and thus was not oriented only to a military product. The formation of this agency was part of the U.S. reaction to the then Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957. (ARPA draft, III-6). ARPA was assigned to research how to utilize their investment in computers via Command and Control Research (CCR). Dr. J.C.R. Licklider was chosen to head this effort. Licklider came to ARPA from Bolt, Beranek and Newman, (BBN) in Cambridge, MA in October 1962. (ARPA draft, III-6)
http://www2.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa–1.html
In 1989, Berners-Lee submitted a proposal at CERN to develop an information system that would create a web of information. Initially, his proposal received no reply, but he began working on his idea anyway. In 1990, he wrote the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/lee.html
My reply, with 2 URL’s, is awaiting moderation.
Yours, with umpteen URL’s, had no such problem…
Also, if wrote a reply that long, it would be in moderation, ’til Tuesday.
You see, Oliver, that’s called, “It’s my blog, and I’ll post if I want to!”
When the comment comes out of moderation, you can the part of the history of ARPANET, and Lee’s work at CERN, that you either didn’t read, or (more likely) you conveniently left out.
p.s. One of my comments has been in moderation for hours.
Why don’t you just delete it?
I was halfway through a thorough rebuttal of your response, Oliver, when I realized that I could not do half the job reinforcing my arguments as you had.
I made a passing shot at your partisanship, then brought up a scad of technical issues. You focused, laserlike, on the partisanship issue and made that the whole point of your answer. And you made politics the whole focus of the argument, tossing aside your own ideas and issues in the quest to score points. Because, in the end, politics is all you know, all you care about, all you think about, all you live for.
Which is what I said would happen, writ small, if this became a partisan issue on the national stage.
Thanks for saving me the effort of a lengthy response, and once again reaffirming my opinion of you.
J.
Neither of your links contradict what I said, Frank. The details are both well known to anyone who’s followed the development of the web.
JayTea: I don’t live in the apparent fantasyland you live in where the political can be separate from the policy. And for someone like yourself who went as far as Chappaquiddick in discussing nuclear energy, its pretty damn funny for you to say politics is all I know.
Of course not. But what you said is still incorrect.
What I asked was, “What has the government done, on purpose, to expand the Internet?”
ARPANet was not created to enhance the Internet. That just happened to be the place where it took place.
And CERN did not have, as one its goals, the improvement of the Internet.
And the place where Einstein ate his lunch while working at the Patent Office, played no part in producing the Theory of Relativity.
ARPANet was created to make a cold-war survivable computer network. That network eventually became the Internet. Berners-Lee created the web as part of an effort to share research.
Neither of these things was done at the behest of a private corporation’s drive to hit its quarterly numbers. They were done under government and nonprofit research and now are in the direct lineage of the greatest communications medium ever. Because the people behind them didn’t say “create the Internet” you think this somehow disqualifies them? That’s quite stupid.
And I could just as easily point to other government iniatives that ended up benefitting us all that did have an end point in mile (Apollo, Manhattan Project to make two that should be easy to look up even for you).
Using your model President Roosevelt would have sat around hoping one of the megacorps would come up with an atomic bomb.
(TOLD myself I wouldn’t do this…)
Oliver, show a little respect for historical context. Three Mile Island was in March of 1979. About a year later, Ted Kennedy made his abortive run for president. When I say I remember seeing those bumper stickers, I mean that most literally. I was 12 at the time, and already interested in politics. I remember arguing FOR Carter in 1976, and AGAINST him in 1980, after seeing the utter disaster as president he was.
And as I said, nuclear power in the United States has a safety record that puts any and all other forms of energy production to shame. Add in the advances in technology since we last built a commercial reactor, and there is absolutely no sane reason to not build new plants — especially if we standardize the design, and not make every single one a one-off, unique design, like we did then. For example, the US only built a single plant on the same model as Chernobyl, and it was shut down ages ago.
J.
You never know where, or when, the side effects of technology, are going to creep up on you:
http://tinyurl.com/h7rey
Oliver, you’re stubborn — I like that!
So am I.
If it was not the purpose of these organizations, then it was only accidental that the government was “Behind the development of the Internet.”
Put it this way: Which was “more instrumental” in the development of the InterNet: The fact that working for DARPA or ARPANet, or CERN, afforded men with with foresight the opportunity to develop the basic building blocks of the ‘Net and the WWW, or the fierce competition between NetScape and Microsoft, which resulted in far more user – friendly access to Web and the ‘Net than Mosaic ever did?
Further, think about CompuServe and Prodigy — were they government organizations?
The general order of technological development is, and probably will always be: private industry / civilians first; government next.
Think of some of the popular innovations of our time, and think about who kicked them off, and then, who stuck themselves on like a leech:
Radio
Television
The PC
The CD
Dude, without the government and non-profit work done at ARPANet, CERN, and many others there would have been no Internet for Microsoft and Netscape to build their interface on. That’s been my point I’ve been trying to show you all along.
I’m not against private entrepeneurship, but you’re wrong – almost all of the inventions you list had a government hand in them – either through the government licensing spectrum, providing the fundamentals of the research (for instance, code-breaking computers during WWII that were in the direct lineage of the PC).
Servers at ARPANet and CERN are still around today using the open technologies made to create the Internet. Prodigy (which I used) and Compuserve as the were originally envisioned are dead because as I pointed out they were built by corporations with the monopolist mindset of keeping up a walled garden. AOL did well, but really took off when it opened up itself to that evil non-profit/government world of the Internet.
JayTea: See how much better it is when you argue the issue (I still probably disagree with you, but its a better argument) than throwing around stuff about Chappaquiddick when we’re discussing energy?
Oliver: see how much better it is when you actually discuss the merits of an argument, and not obsess over one or two tossed-off admittedly cheap shots that were included just for amusement?
Oh, yeah, you really haven’t discussed the issues, have you? My apologies.
BTW, just for the record, I gave a very tepid endorsement to naming SSN 23 after Jimmy Carter. As a principle, I oppose naming warships after living people, and after politicians in general (yes, I am not thrilled about the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and think we have many finer names of honored aircraft carriers we could re-use, such as Lexington and Langley). But Carter, while an inept failure as President, did serve the nation honorably in uniform and did NOT leave the office in shame (as Nixon and Clinton did, in my opinion) and as such it’s OK that he have a warship named after him. And as he had served on submarines, a sub is a bit more fitting than an aircraft carrier.
BTW, Bush ‘41 had a distinguished career as a navy bomber pilot during World War II, assigned to the USS San Jacinto, CVL-30, the last of the Independence-class light aircraft carriers, and as such is probably the most worthy former President to have an aircraft carrier named after him — but I STILL don’t like naming warships after people while they’re still living. One of my favorite authors, James Cobb, writes a series of technothrillers featuring the commander of the first “stealth destroyer” — the USS Cunningham, nicknamed “The Duke.” I sincerely doubt there will be too many more in THAT series, dammit.
J.
It’s one thing to say that “the government did something and the private sector did something, too” — see Kevlar and commercial jet airliners.
It is entirely different to say that “without the government… [I noticed that you have added the qualifier 'and NGO's'] there would have been no Internet…”
We’ll just have to disagree.
Another example: The FCC requirement that AM radio stations stop simulcasting their AM progamming on their FM frequencies was not intended to give us Progressive — “Free” — format music radio, and AM talk radio.
That is just the way it turned out.
Well I think fixing the energy problems we face is going to require assistance from the government AND the private sector. Not too long ago I saw where oil companies were investing billions of dollars toward research and development efforts to create cleaner burning fuels with fewer emissions. What has the government done? It’s time for them to ante up and invest in alternative energy sources if they’re going to continue to block drilling domestically.
We are definitely enslaved by oil, and I agree that we should consider alternative energy sources. The only problem is, some of them are quite energy-consuming to produce or are unstable (like ethanol or hydrogen). I know it’s a controversial idea, but why not think about tapping into some of the domestic oil sources we could use while we’re working on the alternatives? Either that or just wean ourselves off of oil by doing things to lower demand– walking, carpooling, and all that.
Addicted to Oil…
Just working on my editing skills. Rough, but improving. Take and look and tell me what you think:
Inspired by Oliver Willi
…