Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote:
Why is it that the drastic energy price increases started after the
Democrats took control of the legislative branch? If Bush and
Cheney were
so responsible, one would think those drastic increases would have
started
shortly after 2001.
The rapidly increasing energy prices are simply the manifestation of a
long developing problem, namely the expanding worldwide demand for
energy and it's impact on the world economy.
Bush/Cheney, men with oil backgrounds, have returned to an oil
person's mentality to address the problem.
Ohhhh, I am getting excited. It's a Bush=Satan line of
reasoning - one of the traditional forms of formal proof
will follow now doubt.
Using old ideas to address a new problem(s) is not the sign of a
leader.
Assuming it is the job of the government to resolve this issue
is the sign of collectivism.
Drill baby drill was their solution.
There is no way for the USA to drill it's way out of this problem, it
is simply not going to happen.
Nonsense. "Drill" is a metaphor for more than just drilling. There
are all manner of related hyrdrocarbon based fuels that come into
play such as CNG, shale oil, and so forth. The earth worshiping
pantheists (aka environmentalists that flunked science) have so
polluted the culture with their foolishness that people go
around mindlessly repeating "we can't drill our way out of this
problem." We *have* to be drilling, now and in the future to
maintain a consistent energy supply. Over time, we may migrate
to other forms of energy, but for the foreseeable future, transportation
depends on drilling.
We simply don't have enough oil that the oil industry is interested in
extracting, to solve the problem.
Again, total nonsense. We don't have enough oil of interest to
the big eeeeeeeevillll oil companies *when the force of government
is used to artificially distort the price of the product*. In the
face of higher fuel prices the collectivist politicians screamed
that the oil companies were making too much money and should pay
a "windfall" tax - this despite of the fact that government
at all levels extracts more in taxes per dollar of gasoline than
the big eeeeeeeeevill oil companies make in profit. As prices
rose, the greatest "windfall" was experienced by government
taxation entities. In that face of that kind of Hugo Chavez
mentality here in the West, I don't blame the oil companies for
being unenthusiastic about making multi-billion dollar capital
investments.
BTW, still remember being interviewed by Mobil Oil upon graduation.
Still remember him stating, Mobil didn't make any money on gasoline,
but they did on everything else.
That was a long time ago, but not much has changed.
If you think about it that crude stream in south Texas that goes into
plastics is worth a lot more than if it were gasoline. (Bought a 500
lb drum of epoxy lately?)
There has never been an energy policy put out by either party that
addresses conservation and efficient use of a finite resource, oil.
*All* resources are "finite". Markets cause those resources to flow
efficiently to the places with greatest scarcity. Government
"policy" distorts this process and makes it less efficient.
I don't want people who cannot make the TSA effective deciding
energy policy. If you think the airport screen process is well
executed, by all means, demand more government action in areas
like energy, healthcare, and education. Perhaps we can reduce
all three of those to the level of the mindless drones counting
shampoo bottles on the conveyor belt.
Coupled with our wasteful consumption (25% of the world's output by 4%
of the population),
Because that 4% is also the world's most *productive*. It is that 4%
the developed the very process of extracting and refining oil to make
energy portable. That 4% industrialized the world, created modern
science, technology, transportation, and medicine. But collectivists
don't like that. They want everything to be "equal". If we listen to
them today, we will all be equally *poor*.
This is the same moronic argument used to attack the rich, "Well only
1% of the planet has 98% of the wealth" or some such stupidity. But
there is a *reason* for this situation. Human progress requires
*concentration of assets* (aka "capital formation") whether those
assets are energy, money, or skill. When you see assets concentrated,
you should celebrate it - it is the primary vector for human
advancement - advancement that benefits *all* of humanity, not just
those with the concentrated assets. Sub-Saharan Africans have access
to some level of life-saving drugs today because of wealth concentrated
in the West. Tens of millions of people live better lives today because
of the wealth of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Scott McNeilly, and Steve
Jobs. Many other examples abound, but collectivists love to whine
about the concentration of assets like it is a horrible thing.
is the other major problem it has created, global warming.
You are entitled to your religious views but don't peddle them
as facts. With all the howling from earth worshiping pantheists
there is still *no* demonstration of causation between human
action and the very mild warming currently observed. There is
certainly correlation (to the degree that clean data are even
available) and there may in fact be an anthropogenic component
to global warming, but "it has created global warming" is a vastly
overstated assertion and at some levels - flatly wrong.
"Global warming" was taking place on- and off, long before there
was any use of carbon fuels on planet earth (by humans). If there
is any anthropogenic component to global warming, it is additive
to natural processes, not a sole cause in and of itself.
Energy consumption and global warming are directly related.
They are *correlated* and only along a fairly local/proximate
time line. *Causation* has never been established so far.
If you can do the latter, you'll win a Nobel.
The rampant clearing of the rain forests in Indonesia and Brazil are
another part of the equation since those trees no longer exist to
convert CO2 back to O2.
So it is theorized. However, it is also clear that he interactions
between the components of the biosphere are so complex that an
"explanation" like yours above is laughably oversimplified. It may
well be that this is a huge problem. It may also be that there
are natural feedback processes that ameliorate this to some or
even a large extent. The best mathematicians and scientists on
the planet don't remotely understand this, but you're sure that
it's a problem.
IMHO, THIS IS THE MAJOR problem that the world will resolve in the 1st
half of the 21st century.
Finally, you admit this is your *opinion*.
We either address the renewable energy/global warming problem(s) or we
will get our clocks cleaned.
Sure. When do I buy a prayer mat and kneel next to you in your
pantheism?
If we do it the right way, the USA will develop the technologies, make
a lot of money in the process, and continue to enjoy our standard of
living.
I have seen nothing in the last 8 years that indicates to me that
Bush/Cheney have a clue what is going on.
Now we get to the heart of it. It's W's fault!!!!!! Please
take a moment to wipe the drool from your chin.
IMHO, McCain has sold his sole for the opportunity to run for
President.
All he seems able to do is spit out the standard boiler plate party
line.
And you have done nothing more than "spit out" standard environmentalist
dogma absent even the slightest indication that you understand
the subtlety and nuance of any of the issue.
Times are changing, they need a serious update.
He may very well have some new ideas, but he hasn't presented them.
Lew
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/