Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Lt Gen Panda
17115 Followers
RidingonGhost
517 Followers
RidingonGhost
517 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Kip Linski
1307 Followers
dangercollieAug 13, 2010
Ironically it would provide stability by insuring the oil supply for China and the rest of the world. If we drastically cut the amount of oil we use, then world oil supplies are no longer a problem.
Then we can take the money we're spending on 12 aircraft carrier groups and use it to educate our kids.
bossm4nAug 13, 2010
The problem with that argument is that China and India are still the two largest emerging nations with an insatiable appetite for energy, which is why China is building a ridiculous number of coal fired power plants each year. I've always been supportive of continuing alternative energy development here to balance our usage. However, having seen many studies done on the topic of world oil demand in the future, due to our current dependency and growing needs, oil is still going to play a major role for the next 50 years. Ultimately, choice of energy comes down to one thing, cost.
I've heard Dr. Scott Tinker speak about this subject several times. He articulates the problems exceptionally well. Here's a very brief video of him hitting on a few of these point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_2KQwBJYfY
gusterbearAug 14, 2010
They're also buying a s**t ton of solar panels. Basically, if it generates electricity, they want it.
6502samAug 14, 2010
@Guster
That's right. All the latest alternative energy development is being done in Europe and China. What China doesn't develop, they buy from the Europeans.
While we here in the US argue about subsidies and where to drill, the rest of the World is passing us by. We'll be importing technology for other energy sources in the future.
gsm54321Aug 14, 2010
Heres how it works, Nuclear power is on the same cost level as coal, which is about 5 cents kwh hour.
Solar, bio and wind are around 19 cents a KWH, and will likely be there for a very long time.
Any discussion of cost needs to keep in mind what the only truly long term, low cost solution is, which is nuclear.
countess666Aug 14, 2010
@gsm54321 is that with or without the US oil subsidies?
end those, and add them to renewables. that should close the distance quit a bit already
and you saying it will stay at 19 cents per kilowatt is ludicrous, the cost is falling all the time while oil is getting ever more expensive.
also, nuclear is quit a bit more then expensive coal. not in pure running costs maybe but when you including the many additional costs that come with dangerous substances the numbers start to add up.
and the real cost we have just been pushing forward by not dealing with the nuclear wast and letting it build up at the plants themselves.
rudegarAug 14, 2010
well as the technology developed to be less depending on oil and coal
gets cheaper there is no reason why the upcoming nations would not also travel down that path
ncmusicAug 16, 2010
We need fusion! Preferably cold.
friday1970Aug 14, 2010
"Then we can take the money we're spending on 12 aircraft carrier groups and use it to educate our kids"
Yeah, throw more money at them. Just like DC and Detroit have done. And you know what overall academic successes DC and Detroit have been..../s
You know, have you ever owned property? Then, you know that property taxes pay for much of the schools already, along with state revenue from gambling and lottery sales. Our federal taxes should not, in any way, go to educating our kids. (Yes, I said it!!!). Actually, our taxes should only go to building interstates, Social Security, and securing our borders and interests abroad through our military spending. And that's it.
Did you know that when the colonists threw tea into the Boston harbor (known as the first tea party), our tax rates were only 5%....
5 FREAKING PERCENT!!!
What are they now?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iloveplantsAug 14, 2010
Uhh, we do have a lot more help from the government now than we did back then.
wefarrellAug 14, 2010
"Actually, our taxes should only go to building interstates, Social Security, and securing our borders and interests abroad through our military spending. "
The military should be used for national defense and nothing else. The founding fathers were wary of maintaining a standing army which is the reason why the Second Amendment exists. They certainly didn't want military spending in the US to account for half all defense spending in the world.
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." -Thomas Jefferson
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen” - James Madison
“Keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics - that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, NOR WITH LARGE ONES SAFE” - James Madison
"Standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit" - Patrick Henry
jack416Aug 14, 2010
Unlike back then, the British empire's taxes aren't funding our 12 aircraft carrier groups.
friday1970Aug 14, 2010
You know jack416, I'll actually digg you up.
You actually put a good smile on my face, with good reasoning mixed with humor. I know that wasn't your intention, but it was a great comment.
I actually caught myself saying "true...", with a grin from ear to ear.
sclubdevinAug 14, 2010
You guys know, friday1970 is the foremost authority on education reform. who could possibly understand our education problems better than he? i'm going to assume you're just a bitter old man who loved enjoying his perfectly adequate suburban public education, but doesn't want to pay for other people's kids' education. there are plenty of problems with schools in DC and Detroit, and in my home city of Baltimore. Social factors are a major part of the problem. Some things government just can't fix, but you can't ignore failing schools that need better funding. I know kids in Howard county schools here in MD enjoyed 100% adequate school equipment, plus tons of luxuries like field trips every year, whereas just two counties over in Baltimore city, kids barely have text books at all, let alone up-to-date relevant ones.
ncmusicAug 16, 2010
@sClubDevin well the pre-creationist text books are probably better anyway.
norman619Aug 14, 2010
And if we had warp drive we could visit other star systems. This is a fantasy for the foreseeable future. There is no real way we can even begin to make this happen.
linageeAug 14, 2010
F U OIL!
mdk31Aug 14, 2010
The carriers are nuclear powered though. o_O
abakizAug 14, 2010
Well said, many of the American's I talk to still believe in Creationism, what's up with that? I though that was a 3rd world thing.
d4nie1Aug 13, 2010
The middle east is not going away. Even if we bought nothing from any middle eastern country they still make up a huge percentage of the world population. We have to learn to get along with them. That being said, moving away from oil is obviously very advantageous for the environment.
ajajadudeAug 14, 2010
Part of the reason we don't get along with them is that we poke our noses in their business because of our need for oil. Without oil, we leave them alone and maybe they won't be as pissed at us?
akairennAug 14, 2010
But, but, they hate us for our FREEDOMS! Not because we keep toppling legitimate governments and installing CIA-backed tyrants who later come back to bite us in the ass!
jack416Aug 14, 2010
Why the - diggs? I'm just curious because Ajaja's point is spot on.
tsuruchibrianAug 14, 2010
I think no longer associating with them at all is a much more attainable goal than getting along with them.
We aren't the most amiable country, but most of the countries in the middle east believe that their religion should be forced upon the entire world. We (Westerners) were certainly like that 500 years ago, but we are mostly over it now. We don't kill people over cartoons.
We DO kill people over oil and we should definitely stop that.
gusterbearAug 14, 2010
Correction, most of the middle eastern countries don't believe that their religion should be forced upon the entire world, they just want their religion forced on their entire population, which is a little hard to do when little Yusef sees Americans in their country dressed all scandalously (for their culture), and the global popular culture being whatever Americans liked 10 years ago.
strfxAug 14, 2010
@TsuruchiBrian: If we'd have left them alone 10 years ago, there would have been no 9/11. What those people were ticked off about is having the "infidel" US military next to their most holy sites.
And if you think about it... if you'd have to drive by a number of Chines or Russian military bases on the way to the SuperBowl, Joe Sixpack would be bent totally out of shape as well.
grahamj1978Aug 14, 2010
A huge percentage? Like what? Five percent? I doubt the middle eastern countries have anything resembling the population size of Europe which makes ups around 10% of the world's population. (FYI, Asia is ~60%)
d4nie1Aug 14, 2010
I did a quick google search. Wikianswers says there's about a billion people living in the middle east > http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_live_in_the_Middle_East. The population of the earth is around 7 billion, so the Middle East makes up around 14% of the world population.
grahamj1978Aug 14, 2010
I suppose it depends on what countries you consider part of the middle east. According to the Wikipedia entry on the "Middle East", this can vary. If you consider the "traditional" middle eastern countries which include Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Turkey, etc., the total population (based on said article's population figures) is around 350 million.
d4nie1Aug 14, 2010
I just think it's naive to think if we stopped buying their oil then we wouldn't have any more wars or terrorism to deal with. This is not the answer to peace with the middle east.
Modern technology is making the world shrink. Making the world shrink means cultures clash. These countries have customs that appear extremely backwards and wrong to us from their lack of freedoms to their horrible treatment of women. We have customs that appear scandalous to their religion from women living independently and dressing sexy to things like cartoons of Mohammed.
With modern technology like television and the internet Western influence is creeping into the middle east. It's unstoppable and the powers that be over there are extremely afraid of it. This would be happening with or without oil. It's like when two galaxy's collide in space. There's going to be a lot of violent collisions.
suricouAug 14, 2010
But their wars would be done on a much lower budget.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Kicking Israel to the curb like a psycho ex-girlfriend wouldn't hurt, either.
lolcoelacanthAug 14, 2010
First they should take their nukes away, either by force or diplomacy, it doesn't matter.
norman619Aug 14, 2010
ah yes. The prerequisite digg at Israel.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
*deserved
tsuruchibrianAug 14, 2010
Or we could just pretend like we don't know her when she says "My boyfriend is gonna kick you ass!".
lolcoelacanthAug 14, 2010
Not really, since they tend to attack when frustrated
dalittleAug 14, 2010
israel would be a lot less militant if they had to go it alone and stopped getting the huge amount of money they beg from the US. Once everyone has to kill each other with the same sticks and stone everyone becomes a lot more reasonable.
sjbdallasAug 14, 2010
Try visiting there before you judge. It's a beautiful country but the people there have been at war for most of their existence. If Mexico and Canada had us on their hitlist I wonder if your opinion would be different.
danisthAug 14, 2010
If Canada had the US on their hitlist Canada probably wouldn't exist anymore.
/canadian
tyrghastAug 14, 2010
A war they started, because they are intolerant racist assh**es.
thelichkingAug 14, 2010
Israel would be way better off without the American retards anyway.
bdbrAug 14, 2010
I've been there, and I know some Israelis. They'll come right out and say that they know they're living on stolen land, but they were born there and don't have any place else. They're children of refugees. They're not nearly as militant as their government makes them sound.
frostman3dAug 14, 2010
That would be HORRIBAD.
biggydiggsAug 13, 2010
The article wasn't bad until he started babbling about greatly increasing tax on gasoline as a means to reduce oil consumption, thereby bankrupting the Middle East. That's idiocy.
We need to drill for oil here, refine it, and expand nuclear production. THAT would bankrupt the Middle East. And don't listen to the anti-oil crowd who say there's not enough oil in the US, because that's also idiocy. There's a s**tload of oil here. Regardless, we need to pull it out of the ground asap, and I'm sure that before it runs dry, we'll figure out hydro steam-powered engines (we'll be fine). For fuel, we'll suck water out of the oceans. No one will worry about the glaciers melting anymore, because we'll want them to melt.
A steam-powered engine would still need lubrication (same as a combustion engine). With no available oil, you'd have to lubricate it with whale fat or something renewable like that. Whales would be ideal because as you suck the oceans dry, the fish by default will overpopulate, and of all the sea life, whales would probably be the least comfortable in smaller spaces, so you'd be doing them a favor by slaughtering them. You could even sell off the parts of the whale that Japanese whalers want. I can't imagine draining all of the oceans' waters though. Hopefully, by that time, we'll find some other energy source to drain and then be in search of another livable planet to occupy/drain.
The writer also babbles about ethanol and electricity, which are actually inefficient sources of energy. And truth be told, to hell steam-powered engines. Nuclear is the real future. Imagine flying around in a nuke-powered jetpack.....and that ain't gonna happen with corn, FFS.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Aug 14, 2010
If we drill here, I vote we start in your backyard. And whats between your ears would work wonders as engine lube.
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
Odds are there isn't oil in his backyard.
crimsontide1190Aug 14, 2010
O rly?
biggydiggsAug 14, 2010
Are you still upset that I schooled you on the Constitution, poser?
ericschc1Aug 14, 2010
If you think I lose sleep over what you think was "getting schooled" on the internet, lets be perfectly honest with ourselves about who's the poser. I know the Constitution pretty well and couldn't care less what some random self-centered internet tough guy says to me about it.
tsuruchibrianAug 14, 2010
What?
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
Mr. Biggy, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
digghasnoethicsAug 14, 2010
Got to say, this is quite a funny troll. You play the part of a know nothing teabagger very well.
replacingoilAug 14, 2010
"ethanol and electricity, which are actually inefficient sources of energy"
Brazil imports no oil and runs all their vehicles on ethanol grown domestically. You don't see Brazilian soldiers dying in Iraq, and you don't see a rise in cancer rates among residents near sugar plantations.
xenuxenutsAug 14, 2010
/s ?
sjm20kAug 14, 2010
You're getting trolled.
goweigusAug 14, 2010
that is some of the funniest s**t I have ever rid
I'd give you more thumbs up if I could
kewickviperAug 14, 2010
Obvious troll is obvious.
ninhAug 13, 2010
Any oil not used by someone else the Chinese will happily buy .. with US Dollars.
replacingoilAug 14, 2010
China has done more to ween themselves off fossil fuels in the past five years than the United States. You can hardly buy anything with a US dollar anymore.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diggchinasworldAug 14, 2010
[citation needed]
please see Linfen for more details.
summerofgeorgeAug 14, 2010
those who are digging down replacingoil,
China ordered more than 2,000 steel, cement and other energy-intensive factories be shut down by the end of September.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/china-starts-a-green-attack/article1666916/
diggchinasworldAug 14, 2010
What the article doesn't say it that they are just moving the factories to places with less people/regulations within China.
Take a look at what they are doing to Inner Mongolia.
diggchinasworldAug 14, 2010
"What the article doesn't say is that"
I apologize.
summerofgeorgeAug 15, 2010
[citation needed]
realcoolguy9022Aug 14, 2010
If Israel goes to war of nuclear material by August 21st the United States WILL be drawn into the conflict.
chilidogsAug 14, 2010
Why?
realcoolguy9022Aug 14, 2010
Because Israel is closely watching Iran because Russia plans to deliver this nuclear material on August 21st. Because if Israel goes to war we will end up backing Israel. Because the people who run Iran are absolute wacko nutjobs that would nuke Israel given the chance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gusterbearAug 14, 2010
I say if Israel does that, we just stand back with a bucket of popcorn and sunglasses to watch the fireworks. They're ballsy because they think the rest of the world is going to rush into save them, when we need to basically go: "You asked for this one."
mdk31Aug 14, 2010
"Because the people who run Iran are absolute wacko nutjobs that would nuke Israel given the chance."
Lolno. The people who run Iran are politicians. Politicians want, above all, power. Nuking Israel is a great way to lose control of one's country, and lose one's power. The Iranian politicians aren't stupid; they know what the consequences of nuking a US ally would be. They will not intentionally do anything to decrease how much power they have.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
1) Buy as many barrels as oil as you can afford
2) Sell when Israel goes to war
3) ????
4) Insane profits
suricouAug 14, 2010
3. Spend all potential profits on a massive storage facility.
friedjellyfishAug 14, 2010
Brilliant idea, but you're late in the game. What do you think is the reason that the price already went up so far in the past?
ubitendoAug 14, 2010
Maybe we can start by leaving them the f**k alone.
itwasonlyajokeAug 14, 2010
Ehhh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html
premiumballinAug 14, 2010
Ahem, "NASA."
norman619Aug 14, 2010
This is silly. We can't make any kind of significant decrease in our use of oil let alone middle eastern oil that would make the region less important. It is important because EVERYONE needs their oil and that isn't going to change within my lifetime or the lifetimes of our children.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dutchguilder2Aug 14, 2010
If America ran its 18-wheel trucks on domestic natural gas, there would be no need to import any oil from the Middle East.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
netantAug 14, 2010
Propaganda. There aren't enough domestic natural gas reserves to provide "all" of our energy needs. And then think about how you can't live on your property anymore because potable water becomes as expensive as gasoline. From my point of view, its like going to coal for the future.
ethanol from algae would be the magic bullet in domestic fuel production. I'd also be in favor of nuclear with new designs and the legal procedure of executing any "major" shareholder that owns a nuke plant that melts down.
sclubdevinAug 14, 2010
dude T, Boone Pickens is just a scammer billionaire who invested in clean energy and then realized it wasn't going to take over instantly and is now trying to protect his investment.
suricouAug 14, 2010
America needs oil, but right now it's just squandering it because it's so cheap. Do people really need to drive Hummers to work?
pstrollAug 14, 2010
poorly reasoned article. buried.
shingoexAug 14, 2010
As long as the petroleum corporations have more power than almost everyone else on the planet, we will always have these problems.
chilidogsAug 14, 2010
That is simply not within our power. If we reduced our oil consumption to zero it would simply lower the price of oil and encourage developing countries to become Dependant on it. I don't disagree with the notion of using less oil but this is deeply complex problem.
outlawsundownAug 14, 2010
If we're able to produce technology capable of weening the country off of oil there is no reason industrialized nations like china couldn't follow suit.
eodp3Aug 14, 2010
to be honest.. the real final solution I feel, is for the world to run out of oil.. cold turkey.
netantAug 14, 2010
@chilidogs
So what you're saying is that Europe and Japan is more powerful than the US, because that is precisely what they are doing! There are many alternate forms of energy production, but mentally crippled citizens don't seem to understand is that those alternate forms will NEVER come to market as long as petroleum can be sold for cheaper. Once you make gas $6/gallon, *boom*, solar, wind, natural gas, (coal), now become viable, marketable technologies.
@eodp3
1) What if petroleum was not produced by dinosaur era vegetation (abiotic)? Then it will never "run out".
2) With our known world energy reserves, even if the whole Middle East goes peak oil, we'll still have oil for a couple of centuries. It will merely "cost more". Which means we may not be able to afford suburbs in the US. That's about it.
3) Nope. Global warming will kill us before that point.
dusanmalAug 14, 2010
Better solution: open all oil rich areas on USA territory for exploration. Less foreign oil import, less importance of Middle East and S.America. More jobs in USA. More income for US Govt. both from exploration rights and better employment/more business. All opposed to exploration/use of certain areas could buy the land for more than oil companies are willing to pay and pay the same royalties to Govt. as oil companies would, while keeping wilderness they value more than jobs and oil. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
outlawsundownAug 14, 2010
Those reserves aren't going to last us very long. Relying on them exclusively with our current level on consumption would deplete places such as ANWR within a few years. Even then in most cases it will be years before any oil from a new well reaches market. The better solution would be to stop subsidizing the oil industry and instead turn that money towards developing alternatives as quickly as possible. It's something that should be pursued now not the day the oil supply is tapped out.
boutdemcanes91Aug 14, 2010
Let's make it less important by wiping them off the face of the earth. Let's nuke 'em and kill everyone. Then we can steal their resources and claim Western superiority.
/sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
greggermAug 14, 2010
Apparently /s isn't worth what it used to be, eah?
prettygreenAug 14, 2010
Ah, yea. Operation Glass Parking Lot.
Problem solved? No. Problem ended? Yes.
I think everyone missed your /s tag.
frccAug 14, 2010
So the war on terror is fake and we're over there for oil?
shingoexAug 14, 2010
It's one of the main reasons we're so concerned with Middle East relations, yes. If Cuba had oil, we'd have "liberated" them ages ago.
suricouAug 14, 2010
The war on terror is a good excuse - but with the middle east such a major source of oil, the entire global economy depends on their stability and cooperation.
nosecohnAug 14, 2010
The war on terror _started_ because we're over there for oil. We've been there for 100 years, overthrowing popular governments and supporting oppressive dictators so we'd have a stable supply of oil. A lot of the citizens over are pretty pissed off at us about that. Wouldn't you be?
digghasnoethicsAug 14, 2010
The US is going to have a slightly different issue. With Mexico continuing to fall, Venezuela on the way down, Canada unable to expand tar sands any further, and the US busy shooting itself in the foot with less from Alaska and no way to drill in the deep water areas of the GoM for more - well its going to be more dependent on the middle east, not less.
Problem is, they aren't stupid. China is the up and coming king, the US is on the way down. Eventually they have to jump to sucking up to the one with the money, and in doing so stop selling in dollars and servicing everything the US would like.
The US needs a target of cutting consumption in half, just to deal with the realities of world politics in 5-10 years time, let alone the net export collapse that's coming. The program that does that cuts consumption by 1Mbpd, yet they still can't do a fraction of that without a recession.
The US has bad oil dependence, and getting the monkey off its back will probably kill it.
ironmindAug 14, 2010
You are aware that Japan was the next up and coming king 20 years ago? And someone else before that? China has far larger problems to deal with in terms of population, gender ratio, and personal liberty. Also, remember what happened when Rome collapsed and no nation with any concept of the western notion of freedom was around to take over?
The Dark Ages. It can happen again.
harinezumiAug 14, 2010
The modern western notion of freedom had nothing to do with Rome, pre or post collapse. The breakdown of the rule of law, disappearance of trade networks, and conquest of an urban civilization by religious tribal nomads is what made western Europe irrelevant in world affairs for the better part of a millenium.
China was already an old civilization when Rome was founded, and was the world's most prosperous and advanced civilization for centuries at a time in its millenia-spanning history. Right now it seems to be on the upswing, and is likely to reclaim its place among the world's great powers, assuming it can avoid another period of dynastic collapse and re-establishment.
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
Stupid damn article. Electric cars can't get here quick enough.
When Ford & Nissan bring out the mass produced fully electric Focus & Leaf will get to see first hand how things change. First the adoption rate and then how people use the cars. Second how this taxes our grids and hopefully pushes for more Nuclear Power instead of coal. Third, will see who much oil is used then and how it affects prices at the pump as well as crude prices.
tommyrAug 14, 2010
Electric cars won't help until they are priced within medium income families price range. Fact. $40,000 is NOT that range.
darkshroudAug 14, 2010
The EV Focus & Leaf will not be priced that high as they are EV only. Meaning no gas engine or other hybrid parts.
netantAug 14, 2010
...and how are you going to find enough "rare" metals to make those batteries for all those cars? What are you going to do to the batteries afterwards? How much will that drive up the price of the "electric/hybrid" car?
suricouAug 14, 2010
Lithium, mostly. There are very large deposits in Brazil. Sure, you may have to remove some rainforest, but at least the people don't hate the rest of the world.
4585341Aug 14, 2010
just kill the bilderberg group and ur sweet
ssomu007Aug 14, 2010
America has interest in oil and has good friendship with Israel for long time. Israel is its golden boy. It is Foolish article how can America make Middle East less important. in fact he will increase his role in Middle East, many many interest, friend.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaymzdeanAug 14, 2010
"Israel is it's golden boy"
What the hell does that mean?
suricouAug 14, 2010
I think it means the writer isn't a native english speaker.
America is Israel's greatest ally - without their support, Israel would probably have been invaded by now - and, given the antisemitism of the area, probably very harshly too. But that isn't why the US supports them. The US supports Israel because they are a country with a poor human rights record, surrounded and at a very uneasy peace with countries with terrible human rights records and open ambitions to conquor the world and force everyone to obey their religion. A case of 'the enemy of my enemy.'
dalittleAug 14, 2010
israel is no friend to the US. Friends don't spy on each other and israel has spied on the US recently. israel has just killed an American Citizen.
tommyrAug 14, 2010
When solar panel prices come down to reasonable levels I AM THERE. I have a few panels but only use them to charge batteries for ham radio gear. f**k the middle east. IN THE ASS, WITHOUT LUBE.
netantAug 14, 2010
Solar doesn't cut it in the NorthEast USA. But WIND SURE DOES. The problem is my f**king neighbors whining about windmills look, how they kill birdies, and how they hum at night.
chilidogsAug 14, 2010
So where does the price of oil go up? Why do we have to go to war along with israel? what is this august 21st date?
chilidogsAug 14, 2010
Again this is more complicated than that. Even if it is cheaper in the long term they will opt for a cheaper short term option. It is in their best interest. Use using less oil only lowers the price and makes it more appealing to others.
ihateclownsAug 14, 2010
It's the Cheney/Bush crowd that needs to die off before the US will ever consider alternative fuel sources. Those walking fossils only care about themselves and the here-and-now. They don't even seem to care about the future when it comes to their kids. I am an American. I love my country. I served my country, Honorably, for 8 years in the US Air Force. The US desperately needs to understand that depending on foreign oil is insane. The US has a legitimate reason to fear China. But that's only because US politicians put us in this position. The US is in debt to China??? The world has truly become a crazy place. Don't get me wrong, I would love to go to China. I just don't want my country to have to deal with collection calls.
I know, I'm on a rant. Sorry. Republicans in the Senate: Stop blocking everything just because you hate Obama, Democrats, and any guy with a dick that's longer than three inches. Go Filibusterer your gay boyfriend. (I won't tell.). Please let some progress happen.
netantAug 14, 2010
You haven't figured it out yet.
Nobody (normal) gives a s**t about gay marriage, adoption, gun rights, etc. Then why do people "take" it seriously? Because the TV tells viewers to take this bulls**t seriously. Who owns the mainstream news media? Rich people. What do they want? They want you too focused on gay marriage, adoption, gun rights, chicks without noses, and the scary crazy arab guy, while they make billions looting your pension funds, getting bailouts, and profits from war industry.
If you want to fix the situation, its not going to get done by "waking people up" or "making them realize things". It will happen when people understand how they're getting raped, stop depending on getting their news and perspective from rapists, and vote out all incumbents until politicians get the message. Or start shooting a lot of people.
ihateclownsAug 18, 2010
Well said. I agree.
Unfortunately, most Americans are pretty much ignorant. I follow politics, but I am probably in the (guesstimate,) 5% of Americans who do really care. Most people just don't care or they really believe that the government is going to do the right things.
It's a broken system. A very broken system.
netantAug 18, 2010
@ihateclowns
Its more insidious than that. People are "taught" they only need to rely on public schools for acquiring "enough" knowledge needed to function as adults. Children are not encouraged to go WELL beyond what is taught in school. And nowadays, school is progressively teaching less in class and children are coming out factually and rationally crippled. They eventually become voters, and they depend on the rich people via TV, to tell them what political positions they should take.
Its very easy to make people care. Its very difficult for them to solve a puzzle, even if their life depends upon solving it.
gusterbearAug 14, 2010
Bottom line: We're pretty much f**ked regardless of how you cook it. We're so dependent on energy that to ween ourselves off would take some pretty drastic measures.
Unfortunately, those are going to end up being more forced (gas shortages, brownouts, etc.) and less planned (massive expansion of alternative fuels with wartime speed, massive public transportation projects, the return of wide spread passenger train service, the building of more nuclear power plants and establishment of the Nuke Dump in Nevada).
Too many people think our priorites are s**t like gay marriage, adoption, gun rights, yadda yadda. Doesn't mean s**t if you can't work because you can't get to work, can't eat because the food can't get to you, and no lights at night because you don't live in a hydropower area.
meatball402Aug 14, 2010
The good thing is, as soon as those brownouts and price hikes start, people will scream for alternative energy.
6502samAug 14, 2010
Top 15 countries the US imports oil from: (Only 3 are in the Middle East)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
CANADA
MEXICO
SAUDI ARABIA
VENEZUELA
NIGERIA
ANGOLA
IRAQ
RUSSIA
ALGERIA
BRAZIL
COLOMBIA
KUWAIT
ECUADOR
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)
NORWAY
So, ask yourselves, are we REALLY there because of the oil?
bigdorkaramaAug 14, 2010
Glad somebody posted this. Why do people always assume we get our oil from the Middle East?
ihateclownsAug 14, 2010
It's all about the money. People like Cheney and Bush have the money. They could not care less about the world. It's just the way it is.
netantAug 14, 2010
Yes we really are there because of oil.
What your teachers didn't teach you in high school is that oil is a "fungible" commodity. This fancy word means that oil is not brand dependent for price, and there are no artificial blocks to keep oil available cheaply only to the US.
We are consumers in competition with the rest of the world for the "cheapest" oil. When a nutjob nation like Iran decides to disrupt the flow of oil to Europe and Japan, that means Europe and Japan will go to places we go to, and "bid" higher for the oil. That makes "our" oil purchases skyrocket to the point that a major portion of our population cannot "afford" to buy oil. Believe me, Americans will sooner send their poor people to shoot and blowup "foreigners" than stop driving their cars, watching TV, or settling for a crap paying job.
This is why we're in the Middle East. Because right wing s**theads cannot stomach the notion of collecting federal taxes on petroleum consumption, and lowering personal income tax revenues.
rudegarAug 14, 2010
I came to post this
strange that so few on digg understand the supply and demand market rules
nosecohnAug 14, 2010
Actually, this is mostly true with oil, but not entirely. Venezuela's crude oil is "sour" and difficult to refine. The U.S. is one of the only countries (other than Venezuela itself) with the technology to get decent yields out of it, so Venezuela sells most of its oil to the U.S. You don't hear much about this when politicians are screaming about Hugo Chavez, but the U.S. buys over 60% of the oil that Venezuela exports. Given their current debt, GDP and inflation numbers, if the U.S. stopped buying oil from Venezuela, they'd be bankrupt in a matter of months.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
Just because it's not the largest supplier, doesn't at all imply their oil isn't needed.
withearsAug 14, 2010
Thank you for posting FACTS.
Politicians use this "We rely on people who hate us for our oil" talking point for political gain. Both sides do it.
Canada and Mexico hate us? Really? Saudi? Really?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harinezumiAug 14, 2010
Saudi hates us with a vengeance. Where do you think most of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Who do you think has provided the lion's share of Al Qaeda's funding? Who do you think paid for the madrassas that produced the Taliban?
withearsAug 14, 2010
As a country, Saudi does NOT hate us. At all.
londubhAug 14, 2010
No s**t, Time. When did you figure it out? One problem is that as long as we give unconditional support to Israel the MIddle East will still be pissed off at us. Another is, everyone else will buy their oil that will continue to fund the terrorists indirectly as we have been.
suricouAug 14, 2010
Right now Iran is trying to stone a woman to death for adultery, and Saudi Arabia makes it a criminal offense for any woman to leave the house without a family escort, or for a woman to attend school. From the perspective of their culture, the US (Along with much of the rest of the world) is a decadent cesspit of sin and depravity, a filthy pus-seeping wound upon the world that is in violation of all that they believe in. They are going to be pissed off at you no matter what - with or without support for Israel.
dalittleAug 14, 2010
israel is group punishing Palestinians including children for the actions of a few. Just because iran is bat s**t crazy does not mean you need to be friends with israel that is also bat s**t crazy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nosecohnAug 14, 2010
The U.S. is the world's largest consumer of oil. We account for 25% of consumption (even though we only have 4% of the world's population). If the U.S. dramatically reduced consumption, the price of oil would plummet, so even though other nations would still buy, the Middle Eastern countries would have dramatically reduced income. Furthermore, the U.S. would export the technology used to reduce consumption, allowing other countries to follow our path. Spending money to develop alternative, renewable, safe, clean domestic energy technologies is the best investment we can make.
gisguydiggAug 14, 2010
Many problems require the band-aid be pulled off quickly. "Oil isn't going away" but if we don't have to buy it from unfriendly countries that is good. If we didn't have to be in those countries we can spend our money here at home.
I'm I saying drill baby drill? Hell no!! Oil is a stupid fuel and in the short and long term it would be in the our best interest to do everything in our power to transition our society to other fuels. That alone only gets a so far, as a culture, and society even our towns and cities are designed for cars and trucks. Our urban sprawl is a perfect example, we devote a major amount of our new development for parking cars and trucks, bring front door access to every new office building.
Europe figured it out, you bring the office to the people, they have high density of economic centers coupled with residences. The surrounding areas are agricultural. This means people don't have to commute as far to get to their work. This converstion was by necessity and has land was premium. To their benefit the there is no need to change because they are all ready accustom that way of life. Here in America we drive and that's the way it is. But it wasn't always this way. It wasn't until after world war II that the National interstate system was enacted. Before that many roads were unpaved. It wasn't until ford made cars cheap enough for the average person to afford. Towns and communities generally were tighter and people traveled less. Business were in the same town as its workers. Cheep and easy fuel, grew the automotive industry and changed the way Americans would live for ever.
Now we are faced with a choice. Change our fuel or change the way we live. Which is harder? The illogical choice is not to change. The choice to not change will lead to war, pollution, economic hardships and general chaos. The powers at be, know whats coming but choose to pass the buck on to the back of the next generation. Change takes time and we are in a hurry. But know body likes change and its easier to ignore the problem than confront it and change it.
Stupid Ameraica, we've spent billions if not trillions trying to change countries, persuade reqimes, stablize regions, and build demociries becase we need oil. Wouldn't it be easier and smarter to spend our money and time changing our socisity?
netantAug 14, 2010
Ask an American to make sacrifices, or make some foreigners suffer so Americans can live better. You're looking at the answer.
gisguydiggAug 14, 2010
Its easier to bomb another country than make cars run on a better fuel. Its going to be a bad day when America is being bombed for the fight for energy. If we keep on this path and the whole world is fighting for same fuel... what else can we assume will happen.
This problem is not going to go away...
funnythatAug 14, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
skinturtleAug 14, 2010
Ain't gonna happen...too many radical Islam groups that want to see the destruction of the US and Israel to then proceed in converting everyone to Islam.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cfuseAug 14, 2010
The only thing less likely than peace in the Middle East is America cutting back on oil use.
spaceman77Aug 14, 2010
How do you run a large military worldwide without plenty of oil?
rudegarAug 14, 2010
red bicycles?
mdk31Aug 14, 2010
"Because the people who run Iran are absolute wacko nutjobs that would nuke Israel given the chance."
Lolno. The people who run Iran are politicians. Politicians want, above all, power. Nuking Israel is a great way to lose control of one's country, and lose one's power. The Iranian politicians aren't stupid; they know what the consequences of nuking a US ally would be. They will not intentionally do anything to decrease how much power they have.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
the biggest irony is that reducing middle eastern oil dependence would damage their economies far more then what's been done atm to "protect" the US atm.
bobviolenceAug 14, 2010
More Israeli-Palestinian negotiations coming this fall.
Another failure in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Stay out of their business and just let them hate each other.
niubaiAug 14, 2010
You know, USA is a great country, a country that gave to the world a lot of amazing things, but two crucial things, two little crucial things makes you guys look like arseholes to the rest of the world: the old and constant need to f**k up with another countries and hip-hop s**t.
Quit invading another countries, stop to allow things like Keanye West, Jay Z, Eminem, 50 cent and autotunes and bring more things like Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix or Pixies and the world will have no reason to bash you.
thejuggernautAug 14, 2010
I was about to Digg the article because I agree with the headline, but then I read the "solution." Yes, we need to get out of the middle east and reduce dependence on foreign energy to make it less important. Yes, we should give incentives to alternative energy.
But the whole "tax the crap out of gas, so people will use mass transit," quickly followed by, "then we have to give money to the poor who depend on their cars" angle is the kind of big-government "quick fix" solution that's a load of malarky.
starmanjonesAug 14, 2010
i agree with you. gas prices... which are artificially low... are killing the economy. i'd rather see oil companies hit with "windfall profits" with incentives to spend on alternatives.
i'd like to see the government develop an apollo like program to develop alternative energy. the spin offs and technology from the apollo program have driven the worlds economy since.
there are also energy solutions for earth in space in the form of solar power satellites, the possibility of H3 power plants. many many others. money awarded to new space entrepreneurs could be the incentive could secure a human presence in space and economic development that could solve poverty in the world.
its a perfect example of how liberals stimulate the economy with government money. we've seen conservative failure after conservative failure to stimulate the economy in any sustainable way. they don't realize that social darwinism is not science... that making some people richer so it can trickle down doesn't equal prosperity for everyone.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
The Arab-Israeli conflict is an industry in and of itself, perpetuated by politics. It makes money---which is why it will never be resolved. Everyone gets the international aid they want. Israel, to the tune of $2 billion a year in loan guarantees from the US alone. Why stop a good thing?
Stop funding them. Believe me, more money isn't going to help, and they have enough money there already.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gndoabAug 14, 2010
If the us stops buying as mug oil, OPEC will simply raise the price, negating the effect
limitgovAug 14, 2010
No, the only way to bring about peace is to have Democrat and Republican politicians replace the middle east governments with puppet governments. And then keep endless wars going in that region.
Right now they are doing that perfectly.
kaysea112Aug 14, 2010
"The best way to reduce oil use is to raise the price of gasoline."
I'm all for reducing oil consumption, but raising oil prices **** that. I like my money more than I like the middle east
starmanjonesAug 14, 2010
>The Clinton Administration tried and failed
>to make peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
clinton had a peace deal. bush didn't want peace. had he supported clinton there'd have been a deal. of course, now we know why bush didn't want peace. he had his own war in mind.