US Republicans use oil price squeeze to push for more drilling 09 September 05

I had thought that they really did know it was happening & that things would get worse, such as storms & hurricanes.

This news about Congressmen wanted more off-shore drilling really brings it home that they actually believe GW is a hoax, and that it will NOT increase hurricane intensity. Or why would they want to have companies spend so much money to build off-shore drilling rigs, just to have them destroyed over & over again by GW’s fiercer & fiercer hurricanes & storms & sea rise?

I use to say, “They’re either evil or [giving them the benefit of the doubt] stupid.” Now it’s, “They’re either stupid or crazy.” Evil people, at least, would be doing what’s best for themselves.

I think drilling for oil is a temporary fix. America needs to become energy independent b/c oil dependancy is needlessly weakening us.

If we can go to the moon surely we can solve this if we put our minds to it….

That’s what’s needed. A “can do” attitude. I’m sick of the whiners who say, “there’s nothing we can do beyond ‘business as usual.’ It’ll just cost too much, or we just don’t have any feasbile options [except to keep heading off the cliff like a bunch of sheep, or stick our head in the sand like ostriches while the sandstorm buries us].”

“Oh wad some power the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us!” Robert Burns

“The Bushites say they’re only interested in burying the dead and caring for the living before going into the inevitable recriminations” Mark Lynas

An immense human tragedy has unfolded almost live on TV. To me and those I know the way that various interest groups have rushed into print and posed in front of TV cameras to push their agendas is revolting.

It is just another example of how the Left will exploit anything that they percieve will advance their cause.

The thing is what you don’t realize is how much this antagonizes most people.

Don’t believe me? Then consider why Norm Coleman is now a US Senator while Walter Mondale languishes in relative obscurity.

By the way if oil remains at over 40 dollars a barrel, Shale oil becomes economic and the known US deposits of shale oil are about three times the total Saudi oil reserves.

We are not going to run out any time soon.

I’m fine with waiting months for a full professional investigation of “what went wrong,” but not so much to point fingers, as to help us work towards ensuring that it doesn’t go wrong again.

In this regard, two things I know that did go wrong, were (1) the damaged areas were not built to withstand cat. 4 or 5 hurricanes, and (2) no one is factoring in the impact of GW.

I heard the NPR report that Dano mentioned (see under previous post on this site), featuring Kerry Emmanuel, the scientist that found a doubling of hurricane intensity over the past 50 years, and attributed that (or some of it) to GW; he had actually been a GW skeptic before he did the study. Emmanuel predicted hurricanes to increase in intensity in the future, and that has long been predicted by climate scientists – it’s a matter of the laws of physics & warming water. He suggested we may have to change our scale to include Category 6 hurricanes.

So once the dead are buried & the rebuilding starts, I think it needs to be done in a sensible manner with consideration of possibly more Katrinas (and her bigger GW-amplified sisters). And we can all do something, in addition to sending support to the victims. We can reduce our GHGs in the hope that if enough people do so, we may have some impact on reducing future hurricane intensity. (I think GW also contributes to hurricane frequency, as well, but that has not been as strongly proven as the increase in intensity).

In fact, we could send some of that money that we save from our own GHG reductions to help hurricane victims and help them build stronger, safer structures.

I also hope they build “green” by using materials that do less harm to earth, and making them energy/resource efficient/conservative.

I agree with most of your post.

I am not at all sure that hurricanes are going to become more frequent or worse since, as I have posted here before, I know about the two Huricanes that destroyed Indianola in the 19th century and the 1900 Hurricane which flattened Galveston.

The thing is that when something bad happens it is natural to cast about and find something or somebody to blame. After the Lisbon earthquake Jews and heretical christians became the fall guy. Hundreds maybe thousands were burned at the stake.

Similarly when my daughter was diagnosed with leukemia it was natural to wonder if High tension lines were responsible (she is remission thank God).High tension lines have nothing to do with it of course, who knows what causes leukemia. Even George Bushes family is not immune since his little sister died of it as a small child.

I totally agree with you the rebuilding of New Orleans requires a lot of thought. The levee system has had an impact on the environment and now we have an opportunity to reconsider how best to protect the people of southern Louisiana from the ravages of nature. This is what we should be talking about now. I guess for most people it is easier to point fingers rather than tackle the real challenges we all face.

You have seen the scale of toxic pollution associated with the extraction and processing of this stuff?

One of the things in my mind when I think of the US is the stunning natural beauty of your landscapes, from arctic to desert, mountains to mangroves. Is this really worth jeopardising know when you have some of the finest brains and most competent designers and manufcturers on the planet?

I am not making a party political comment about the Katrina disatster, because, like us, you have effectively had a two-party state for decades, with little to choose between either in terms of ethical leadership after they’ve been in power beyond three years. Our popular press is in difficulty now, becasue we have a serious contender in a third party, the Lib- dems, and if the public gets more of a choice than just either the red team or the blue team winning, they’ll get confused and might want a coalition administrtation that actually makes changes, rather than just putting a different spin on keeping the corporately-funded status quo.

Sorry, I digress…

Both Jim and yourself make the point about there being a relationship between being self-sufficient in resources and skills, and the degree of confidence and security that a community, or a nation feels. That is absolutely correct, and has nothing to do with isolationism or xenophobia. Being interdependent on the rest of the world in a human and environmental sense is great, but being over-dependant on other nations to feed a resource-deficiency habit is another.

We are having a similar discussion in Wales, a region of 3m people within the UK and Europe.

What is it going to take for all of us to change to a mind set where it is actually seen as cool to have a car that goes for a 1000miles on a tank of bio-fuel? where to live in a well-appointed home that actually generates slightly more energy than it uses across the year? where to be able to balance time with family and neighbours, and doing community work, with a responsible job is seen as a sign of social success, rather than just the size of your paycheque and the desk in your office?

The US and the UK have the ingenuity to develop technologies where we have a better quality of life for more people, on 10% or less of the resource consumption we have at present, and if we both put our collective minds to it with the urgency that our parents and grandparents did during WW2, then we could do it in 25 years.

The first hurdle to overcoming an addiction, is to admit one has an addiction. With materialism in general and oil in particular, we have not yet admitted that we have a problem and that it is going to kill us all if we do not help ourselves and each other.

with best wishes

Colin

“like us, you have effectively had a two-party state for decades, with little to choose between”. I think we would be seeing a radically different stance on GW from a Kerry government. There was a difference, and there was a lost opportunity…..

I disagree with your your political analysis: a 2 party system is more likely to deliver results than hung parliaments/multi party fudges.

The problem is that we all need to lobby harder, both parties (here & in the US) to be prioritise GW more.

We also need to expose more the complicit relationship between dominant business groups and government, so that they become untenable in the face off growing GW evidence. This would also then make it easier to dismiss expedient attempts at more offshore drilling in present circumstances (see Marks leader).

I like your comments about changing public attitudes to cars/home energy. On that point, I have noticed increasing numbers of people/friends (none are seriously “green”) who are either installing home micropower/renewable energy units, or looking at it. This would not have happened even 5 years ago.

Maybe something is changing, as we know, new fads can be like viruses, quickly everyone is using them (eg recently texting/internet). I just wonder if in the UK we are seeing embryonic signs of clean/non utility dependant energy becoming fashionable….

How could this be encouraged??

regards Brendon

you cropped my statement of the qualifier ”....in terms of ethical leadership after they’ve been in power beyond three years.”

My point: that even the most committed idealogue becomes compromised after quite a short period of time in power, because maintaining power means keeping the peace between any number of global vested interests that are prepared to be complicit in supporting your tax revenue. We’ve seen it since 1997 when a Labour government replaced an 18yr long Conservative run and had an extended honeymoon period where altruism seeped from every pore of the prime minister’s forehead.

Where are we now? more policies that exascerbate the gap between the very rich and the very poor: an autocratic dismissal of over 1m people who marched in London and told Blair: don’t go to war in our name, it will be a disaster; abandonned promises on shifting investment from road building to public transport; more sell-offs of public assets to favoured private monopolies….. Sorry, I blinked twice and it’s business as usual.

I was impressed by an interview with Bill Clinton in yesterday’s Independent newspaper (unfortunately not available electronically) In which he cites the growing importance of civil society and Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) in providing mechanisms for change where either an administration has become too bloated, inert and entrenched to make the changes needed , or in states where conventional government and institutions have failed and corruption rules. This can be a new path to bringing together committed, able people who wnat to do the right thing and making them more effective.

Your comment about coalitions being a recipe for ineffectual compromise and procrastination is accepted, but I would make note of observations about several of our neighbouring European partners who have had coalition governments for years. Quite often, whilst short term decisions get chopped and changed around, major , long term capital investment programmes like energy, transport and healthcare infrastructure can actually get development programmes and funding established for 10-20 year periods, which is what is needed to bring them to fruition, and in terms of tackling issues as big as GW, we need to make this kind of committment now.

My anaolgy with WW2 is appropriate: we had a coalition government during the war: for the duration, to meet the threat facing us. I think that we need the same now to face the dire threat of Climate Change or face even more certain ruin.

I am encouraged by the way in which global perception of the threat is changing, even in the last nine months. We can respond if we have too, but time is running out. Since, as others have noted, changes already on the way will impact severley on land-use, water and food supplies, energy availability etc. it would seem prudent to diversify away from a centralised economy with a few major corporates effectively controlling everything. I think we need to grow back our local social and economic networks, and fast. Local community involvement through not for profit companies (social enterprises) to stimulate and support small-scale local fresh food production, renewable energy generation, affordable social housing, community transport, recycling and resource recovery, finance & debt advice etc.

If these networks can be re-grown as a sub-stratum below the free market then there is some kind of network of local structures to fall back on, should our present distribution systems falter.

Tomorrow, we start three days of national protests about fuel prices, which are about $7/gallon now. Five years ago, similar protests almost brought food distribution and commerce virtually to a halt within seven days. How fragile our illusion of security really is.

all the best

Colin

Hi Colin,

It’s interesting that you mention the UK oil protests (which didn’t happen this time), as it seems as though the debate here is between “Sensible Policy” & “Populism”. Right across the political spectrum, sensible policy-makers seem to agree that it is a good thing to steadily raise tax on fuel.

It is much easier to develop economic / business plans if you can anticipate change gradually. (Much the same as if you want to give money to charity – it is better to give them a regular income than a lump sum.)

So, we get the fuel escalator going again & ignore those protestors!

BTW, my understanding is that US energy policy has been very stop-start that has made investment in alternative energy sources quite risky.

Opinion – Anatole Kaletsky

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-1780834,00.html

September 15, 2005

Why Brown is still counting the cost of surrendering to the fuel protesters Anatole Kaletsky

THE DREADED refinery blockades never happened and the panic-stricken queues at petrol stations have vanished as mysteriously as they materialised, but does this mean that Gordon Brown has won his battle with the fuel-tax protesters, to whom he was forced to surrender so cravenly in 2000?

Also, Larry Elliott in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1568496,00.html

Thanks for the links Peter,

and an unusual instance of the Times and Guardian (for non-UK readers; broadly viewed as right and left wing publications respectively) both singing from the same hymn-sheet: “time for firm government”.

This is a lament for a lack of leadership, and a lack of a clear policy direction.

The government seems hamstrung with conflicting priorities to both maintain fuel consumption to keep tax revenues high, and obstructing the development of more urban light rapid transit systems on the grounds of both high capital costs (because of a dogmatic obsession with Private Sector Financing) and the loss of fuel tax if people were to actually make a large modal change to public transport. In John Prescott’s first 10-yr transport plan, the UK was supposed to have 25 new urban light rail/tram systems by 2010. We will be lucky to have 8.

Likewise, we know that the most cost effective way to meet energy demand, is to increase efficiency savings; yet the UK government is acquiescing to WTO proposals to outlaw national government and EU compulsory energy efficiency labelling schemes as being ‘anti-competitive’ and discriminating against the likes of Chinese white-goods manufacturers. ( http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/global_trade/press_for_change/email_johnson/index.html )

No wonder consumers are confused.

kind regards

Colin

Some believe that we will never have a viable choice other than our 2-party system. I disagree. If adversity makes Americans in the future look for leadership that is not there in either party, then other types of coalitions or charismatic individuals may emerge.

When Ross Perot ran for president long ago, he was ahead in the polls at one time of both George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton. I find this fact amazing. Later he proved he lacked the proper political acumen so his standing lowered. However, in the end, he still retained double digits in that 3-way contest.

What I think Ross Perot contributed to the political process back then, other than his colorful personality and one-liners, was to influence that presidential campaign more towards the issues he cared about rather than the usual spin and mudslinging. He would show line graphs detailing the distribution of government funds and explain his views about our growing national debt. He attempted to have an educational focus and I think this had merit. He forced both Bush and Clinton at that time to engage in more meaningful debates than I think even occurred in the last presidential election.

Perot proved to me that there are plenty of Americans disenchanted with both our political parties and this is not something new. In the last election, many of these disenchanted people were called swing voters. Maybe we need a party called the “swing-voters club” but to act in unison on key issues instead of as individuals. In any event, the complacency of both our major parties needs to be adjusted and if there was more uncertainty of outcome entering the political dynamics, then even the pollsters may not easily predict the final results with any level of precision.

I think we need to revitalize our country with new ideas and new coalitions which force the 2 major parties not to be so complacent and unimaginative.

My disenchantment with the Democrats as a viable party is number one in that they lost to George W. Kerry showed his lack of energy acumen by suggesting we lower gasoline prices in the last election by tapping our strategic oil reserves. That was a dumb idea and its only merit was to appeal to uninformed Americans to vote for lower gasoline prices as they cannot see beyond that. These people may not realize that oil is on its way out and will continue to climb in price. In addition, Kennedy Jr recently campaigned against wind farms in Nantucket because it will spoil his view of the ocean. I am not convinced at all that the Democrats can lead our country.

Then we have George W! I think Bush is very inept and incompetent. It appears to me that George W can only read a script prepared by others. So what! Out of 300 million Americans, we elected someone who has to be told what to say and coached repeatedly on how to deliver a speech because when he is left on his own, he stumbles badly.

I find it very interesting that George W was elected primarily to defend our country from terror but hired unqualified people to lead the first response in case of any disaster. Bush sought to reward an unqualified person because of politics and not for the interests of the American people when hiring for an important agency such as FEMA. I call that incompetent and irresponsible.

In addition, Bush even said among other things (when not coached) that we did not know the levee system would break! I call that stupid and to say it publicly after the fact was unbelievable. Interesting that this problem in New Orleans has been known for more than 2 decades and the scientists and people who knew what Katrina would do actually did inform our president, the governor of Louisiana, and the mayor of New Orleans long before the hurricane struck. Why they cannot understand qualified professionals is beyond me. Even the FEMA director had more experienced employees beg him to act in time and as one seasoned employee said publicly on our network news about his boss in that “he did nothing”. Bush really knows how to appoint people just like himself!

Now, with all this said, I believe the political landscape of America will change considerably before Bush’s term is up in 2008. I believe that Bush will succeed to nearly destroy our country before then financially and when this occurs, Bush and the neoconservatives that control him will cease to exist and the opportunity for real leadership will hopefully manifest to fill the inevitable power vacuum. Hopefully we can have more intelligent people who can listen to the professionals and understand them enough to make better decisions.

I see many changes ahead so the idea that everything will remain like we always have known it may be a wrong assumption and that includes what action we may have to take to restore environmental balance to the planet.

And for those who have a problem with what I had to share and think it forwards an “agenda”, then let me explain why I decided to be more candid and direct. For years, many Americans have been suffering at the expense of “unqualified people” listening to their “agenda” and their “excuses” for the bad decisions they make.

I find it fascinating that Bush and his sympathizers think as if the recent and past mistakes in their unprepared response to disasters “just happened” because “we did not know any better”. I knew better and many others did and we would never have made these fatal errors and the word “fatal” is definitely the correct word to use.

When it comes to climate change, Bush may go down in history as the major obstructionist by listening to his pals at Exxon and his buddies in Saudi Arabia instead of listening to those who would guide this country toward a more stable future.

When it comes to life and death, decisions count and mistakes must be avoided. When it comes to climate change issues, we may only have one chance at getting it right and we may need a little luck on our side as the climate likes to roll dice as suggested in the most recent metaphor about climate change and hurricanes.

This is gambling in a high stakes game but this is not a game. We need to hedge our bet by being a bit more proactive, imaginative, and bold in our thinking. This type of Russian roulette is a dangerous form of gambling with the future of all the generations to come for the next millennium and beyond at stake. And Russian roulette is fatal if we end up not being so lucky. The less we play this game, then the better our chances at success. Since “chance” is a key factor, no one can make the assertion that we will ultimately fail. No one knows enough to say that so as long as we have a “chance” to take some form of corrective action.

Finally, for the benefit of those who do not believe everyone who writes on this blog is entitled to express their opinion, I vigorously disagree. This is not directed at Brendon who shares my opinion on this. I would never suggest that we discourage this wonderful dialogue. That is what this blog is all about. We may disagree on some ideas but I think we tend to build on each other’s ideas more than try to prove one another wrong. Mostly, we add substance by suggesting other ways to look at what we mostly agree about.

We all agree that disasters are very bad things which hurt people. We all agree we should help those in need. We all agree that disasters should be prevented. We all agree that our future is important enough to discuss in an open forum. I do not recall anyone on this blog who disagrees about increasing energy efficiency.

With that said, our thoughts and ideas are always important to share since our problems are not going away until we decide to solve them by any and all prudent means necessary.

This may require abandoning old ideas and embracing new ideas that can make all the difference. As Albert Einstein eloquently stated; “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Best wishes for everyone and to our continued progress and personal development toward solution.

Dan