The End of Oil : On the Edge of a Perilous New World

Last week scientists reported that the Ozone hole is shrinking rapidly and has been for some time. I don't know exactly what this means, but who does? Oil just passed the $50 a barrel threshold and we can demonize Oil as the greatest evil in the world, but its also the means of being with Grandma on Thanksgiving. For all the talk about how many people hate big oil, who were these people at the gas station in June screaming for the government to lower prices. Kerry called for lower prices and higher prices in the same day. He advocates energy taxes on oil to decrease demand which means higher prices. You can tell me about his long term plans, but how can he use his legendary powers of persuasion against OPEC countries that he berates and alienates on a regular basis and who will he blame when those same soccer moms at the gas station start to scream about prices. The bottom line is Americans, especially those soccer moms, like their gas and they like it cheap, but they want it safe and clean too. Ask the soccer mom in the SUV with the enviromentalist bumper stickers on the back. I own a house that is completely green powered off the grid, so I know all about alternative energy. So I don't need SUV driving John Kerry to lecture me about conservation. I just think that pretending like Bush and Cheney base their Foreign policy on how to enrich some imaginary group of oil buddies living in a bat cave under the west wing is a delusional fairy tale for paranoid nutcases.

Visit me @ http://teardownthiswall.blog-city.com

I'm not sure how the ozone layer got in here, I thought we solved that problem when we significantly reduced our usage of CFCs, but here's Bush's EPA report on global warming.

Kerry's position on energy is very clear: short term we decrease dependency on foreign oil by raising fuel efficiency in our cars and becoming more conscious of energy efficiency in our homes and offices - and lets be very clear, this does NOT involve sweaters or lime-green clown cars. Long term we invest in commercializing technologies that wean us from security commitments in hot spots like the Middle East, Africa, and South America.

You say, "how can he use his legendary powers of persuasion against OPEC countries that he berates and alienates on a regular basis"

I'm sure Kerry will have as much influence on OPEC as Bush does and as Cinton did.

BTW, I know creating straw man arguments and tearing them down is a favorite passtime of the right, but I don't have the patience for that crap, so leave out the "bat cave" arguments and stick with discussing what is written here instead of what's on Micheal Moore's web site.

And congratulations on taking your house off the grid. I have hopes of doing that myself, little by little, over the next few years.

Visit me @ http://americanpundit.blog-city.com/

I'm not sure why but I just received an email that you commented this post on the 1st of Jan. So I thought I would respond. Regardless its good to hear from you.

You asked how the ozone hole got in here. I assumed, apparently incorrectly that since you had mentioned global warming that you aligned yourself with those enviromentalists on the left that have made claims that global warming was caused by the depletion of the ozone layer and the so called "hole" was supposed to be evidence of that. You stated "Global warming a very real phenomenon and human activity contributes significantly". Your surprise at the mention of the so called ozone hole, led me to believe that you do not believe that the two are related, and then when you told me that "we had solved the problem", I was utterly convinced that you consider the ozone layer one for the history books. Now that we have that one cleared up, on to the issue at hand.

When someone says Kerry's position is "very clear", we should wait for the giggling to subside first. Raising fuel efficiency standards means regulating businesses, taxing individuals and denying Americans the ability to purchase the kinds of vehicles that they would like to have the freedom to purchase. Kerry and Al Gore before him (Clinton too), would like to take some of that freedom away. I am not arguing for or against it at this moment, although I will eventually, but lets call it what it is. "Becoming more conscious" means taxes. There is only one way to get peoples attention. You can't send them to re-education camps. You regulate away SUVs and raise tax on gas and for those that choose to not abide by this infringement on their freedoms, the government has a cage they will put you in forcibly. Government has a monopoly on violence and they will use it. Your mention of clown cars and sweaters shows that you are aware of the fact that many of these feel good efforts at raising consciousness have failed to raise anything but chuckles. When someone on the left says "reasonable" energy conservation, what they mean is "give us a second chance" and we won't botch it again." As John Edwards said in his Jerry Macguire moment, "Give us the POWER to help us to help you!".

"Investing in commercializing techniques" means deviating from the open market solutions using the same old tax, regulate and subsidize. It doesn't work and renaming it doesn't fool anyone. With regard to your confidence that Kerry would have been able to work closely with or influence OPEC countries flies in the face of DNC rhetoric. That is like saying he can mock and deride in the most unprecedented way imaginable individuals in OPEC and that they some how are not affected by it or they know he is kidding or what? Who is using the Michael Moore lingo here. Kerry is the one Deriding the Saudi family personally and questioning why they might have special ties to the Terrorists or that they are currently in cahoots with them. For all of Clintons faults, if he was anything, he was very calculating about his words and he didnt need a hack like Moore to write his script for him.

You say the right likes to build straw man arguments and then tear them down, if I am missing something let me know what argument here is not considered a straw man and I will accomodate you. The bat cave remark has obviously hit home, because The left including Howard Dean, Al Gore, and John Kerry all use wild eyed mischaracterizations about how President Bush is basing his Policies not on his heartfelt beliefs for the security of American lives but on a number of ridiculous premises. These democratic candidates each have very directly and often indirectly used the Farenheit type rhetoric that claims that Bush is basing his policies on the interests of a Cabal of "Friends" from Texas or "BIGWIGS" from Oil companies. An accusation that he would knowingly disregard any attempt to establish a sound foreign policy based on protecting american lives and american interests, and he would substitute that solemn duty with an unnamed invisible group of "friends", is so utterly ridiculous that even you find it Michael Moorish when put in those terms. So if the term "bat cave", pushes a button for anyone on the left, then distance your self from Moore, Dean, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, the DNC and ......well....pretty much the entire mainstream of the Democratic party.

My point in bringing it up is to show how the Democratic party should stop behaving like this is a giant conspiracy theory and admit that we have honest differences. Even you were disappointed that the book did not have a "Call to arms". I hear that alot lately. "It's not that we were too radical , its that we were not rtadical enough". When I hear that, I run for the popcorn so I'm ready for the real fun to begin.

Let's face facts. Conservatives would like market driven solutions to these issues that respect the freedoms of individuals while protecting the value of the commons. The left wants a more forceful approach that for all its best intentions will take away freedoms, line the pockets and ballot boxes of bureaucrats, and apply protections to commons but in a haphazard and arbitrary fashion. In the end, when it fails and becomes a laughing stock (i.e. Clown cars and sweaters), they will do Four things. One the secret society of compulsive nature haters interfered with our sacred work, George Bush is their leader or toadie (which ever you like). Two, We should have been given more power. Three, "It's not that we were TOO radical, we were not radical enough!" and finally four, We need "reasonable" energy plan and a "common sense approach" (not that old wacky stuff).......meaning, give us ANOTHER chance and we won't screw it up this time. Also means "Liberalism is not irrelevent, Stop laughing!".

Believe it or not we want the same result, we just don't trust each other.

I don't know what the email from Jan 1st was refering to but I thought I would reply nonetheless and Thank you for your kind words about my Self sufficient home. My brother and I are both working on learning more and more about clean energy ideas and we are always happy to share any ideas. If you are planning on taking your house off the grid, I would be more than happy to share links with you, etc. As conservatives, we are firm believers that what we do as individuals is far more important than which activist organization we are in favor of on a public political scale. If I can help one person to use a more energy efficient home, I feel much more comfortable when I go Offroading in my SUV.

Visit me @ http://teardownthiswall.blog-city.com

Hey TJ! I don't know what happened with the update either, but I'm glad you replied.

"Becoming more conscious" means taxes. There is only one way to get peoples attention. You can't send them to re-education camps.

I don't see it that way. As with the non-existent Iraqi WMDs, all it takes is a president who is willing to make educating Americans about our energy predicament a priority. Up until recently, it never occurred to me that we'd run out of cheap oil anytime soon, much less within the next 15-30 years.

We can laugh at Carter all we want, but he did institute measures that made us 90% independent of foreign oil - driving 55, energy star appliances, etc.

On the national security side, I think too many of us have forgotten what it was like when OPEC shut off the tap.

And you keep talking about market driven solutions, but the oil and automotive industries are so heavily subsidized right now, that there are no relevent market forces to bear.

Because the market isn't aware of the true costs or the hidden costs of oil, it's likely we'll end up panicked into an undesirable solution to the end of cheap oil.

I'd really like to see us make a smooth transition to whatever comes after oil - and it needs to be done within the next 15-20 years. Which means we need to start commercializing the technology now.

You may think that freedom of choice for consumers in an unfree, heavily subsidized market is more important than avoiding the economic and environmental chaos that will result from an unplanned transition. I don't.

Visit me @ http://americanpundit.blog-city.com/

I just got the email update from Jan. 4th so I guess I should just check in more often. LOL. I agree with some of the basic premise. Yes, something will come after oil, that is, something that is the primary source of energy, but oil or a combustible substitute (maybe H2) will be in use for generations. Yes, the transition is not so smooth and we all wish it was. But the Democrats are not helping anymore than the Republicans.

Carter was a joke and no I will not admit that his policies "re-educated" anyone. The rudderless leadership in the face of a very real energy crisis created fear and "Malaise". The fear is what educated people and the market forces is what caused people to purchase their first Honda Accord. You mention subsidies to the automotive industry, "that there are no relevent market forces to bear." In other parts of your Blog you mention your support for the Democrats to "enforce fair trade, set a limit on foreign debt." Regardless of the phraseology, we both know that is Union based protection, AKA Automotive subsidies. How did Honda and Toyota gain so much market share in the 70s and 80s? Market forces caused consumers to flee to ecomomy cars and when they found dependable imports as opposed to subsized shoddy domestic products,...they stayed!

The Democrats are at war with themselves. They fight to win electoral votes in Pennsylvania by ignoring coal and then they get power and it's the Republicans fault. Saying that the Republicans don't have a plan and the Democrats do is just not true on both ends. The Democrats have a plan that is swiss cheese. The Republicans have a "Real" plan that the Democrats can easily filibuster so the Republicans feel liberated to say anything...and many do.

If the Libertarian leaning Neo-Classical Economists in the Republican party propose "Credits" for potentially polluting industries, the Liberals go nuts. If a So-called clean burning coal facility were to buy output "Credits" for a certain amount of emmisions into the enviroment and these were traded on the open market, it would be a way for the market to regulate a tolerable level of output set by a hopefully unbiased EPA. The conservatives would support it, the democrats would attack it, certain democrats would realize with proper regulation they could funnel it into a tax to special interest groups and 527s, the Republicans would then oppose it and it would die in commitee.

This is jousting over opposing myths not trying to come up with a solution. The free market is not perfect, but if we learned anything from our forefathers, government run by human beings can not be trusted with the fruits of our labors.

I agree that market forces don't work well in subsidized enviroments, but that is not an argument to abandon free markets, it is an argument to shrink government, deregulate industry, and lower taxes. If the Democrats can help to ween us from the subsidies and regulation then the transition you mention is more likely to occur sooner.

You briefly mentioned national security. I will give you a quick peek into the mind of the conservative. China abandons left wing communisim and now enjoys average 9% growth. Oil consumption is exploding. The conservative sees national security threats that could destroy the US that they believe are very real. China/E. Asia, Radical Islam, trade wars with EU or nonaligned rogues like Syria reaching out to a increasingly isolated Russia. Conservatives see our economic engine as a tool to save us in a potential national security crisis (among other reasons), not a way to buy yachts and limos. So... If liberals want oil out, they should know that with emerging China, India, etc. on the oil supermarket, conservatives are more serious than ever at finding energy alternatives to mideast oil. If liberals were tactically savvy which they usually are not, they would expend more effort selling these points to Republicans. Some call it finding common ground.

It is obvious though the namecalling and demonization of Republicans is going to be the name of the game for sometime for the left. Tom Daschle found that bomb throwing can be fun until your report card comes back with nothing to show for your time on the job. It seems like the Democrats anger exceeds their desire to accomplish the will of even their blue state constituents.

When they are ready to clean up the enviroment, Republicans will be waiting.

Visit me @ http://teardownthiswall.blog-city.com

Hey, T.J. Glad you're back.

Carter was a joke and no I will not admit that his policies "re-educated" anyone.

I don't recall any "re-education" programs, but his "rudderless leadership" resulted in almost complete independence from foreign oil and made us immune to OPEC threats.

Regardless of the phraseology, we both know that is Union based protection, AKA Automotive subsidies.

Are you seriously saying that Democrats are responsible for giving corporate welfare to large automotive corporations and their CEO's? And that we're doing it to protect the union employees? That's wacky logic. Subsidies to large US corporations also have nothing to do with enforcing the "fair trade" articles in our international trade agreements.

They fight to win electoral votes in Pennsylvania by ignoring coal and then they get power and it's the Republicans fault.

You lost me. I have no idea what you're talking about here. But Democrats love coal - as long as it goes through an IGCC system and the carbon is sequestered. Kerry earmarked $10 billion for clean coal.

If the Libertarian leaning Neo-Classical Economists in the Republican party propose "Credits" for potentially polluting industries, the Liberals go nuts.

You obviously never bothered to find out why. Democrats love cap-and-trade. The problem with the Republican plan is that it merely reduces the rate of increase of pollution, rather than actually cutting the amount spewed.

I agree that market forces don't work well in subsidized enviroments, but that is not an argument to abandon free markets

Who said anything about abandoning the free market. That would be stupid. Ohh... that's right. The GOP agenda is so bad for America, that you guys have to invent straw-man arguments rather than actually debate the issues.

And you mention namecalling and demonization of Republicans, but really, the presidential debates made it clear that smearing Kerry was Bush's only hope. I especially loved the photo where "Hanoi" Jane Fonda was so obviously pasted in next to Kerry. As if Photoshop had never been invented.

...conservatives are more serious than ever at finding energy alternatives to mideast oil. If liberals... would expend more effort selling these points to Republicans...

If Republicans seriously thought dependence on oil was a threat, they wouldn't need us to "sell it" to them. By the same token, if Republicans thought letting China buy up the massive debt they're creating - thus giving China control over our economy - was a threat, Democrats wouldn't be trying to pass fiscal reform legislation (Senate bill S. 19 - urge your representatives to co-sponsor or support it).

T.J., if you really believe what you're writing, you're way out of step with the Republican Party. They may have stood for the things you're talking about at some point (though I don't remember it), but that's not who they are today.

When they are ready to clean up the enviroment, Republicans will be waiting.

If Republicans were ready to clean up the environment, they wouldn't need to wait for us. They're the ruling party.

Visit me @ http://americanpundit.blog-city.com/

Thanks for your response.

You seemed to think that I said Republicans "Need" democrats to sell it to them. Republicans desire to protect our enviroment does not "need" to be sold to them. As I said before, we have that goal in common, its just that we differ on means and we don't trust ech other. My point was the left is just wasting time playing "shoot and scoot" if they are going to be a minority party. They should look at Republicans entreaties and find common ground. The Dems are so scared that a Republican might get credit for something, they are willing to eat their young. Republicans are in ecstacy over the prospect of more hate filled rhetoric from a DNC chairman
Howard Dean. (Please answer my prayers).

You said:
That's wacky logic. Subsidies to large US corporations also have nothing to do with enforcing the "fair trade" articles in our international trade agreements....

Wacky? OK, I'll bite. Why would we give subsidies to Detroit or Steel companies if not to protect so called threatened industries from foreign competitors? I have always heard that was for jobs...workers...etc. Maybe I'm wrong. But I am sensing by your use of the term "corporate welfare" that you are going to tell me that Bush's inner sanctum is paying back thier CEO buddies. Forgive me if I anticipate incorrectly. So why are we "enforcing the "fair trade" articles in our international trade agreements...." Why are those articles there if not for Democrats to desire the protection of jobs (mostly Union by the way). So if I'm wacky, fill me in how the two concepts "have nothing to do with" as you say. With regard to trade deficits with China and how they would control us, I'm old enough to remember how the Japanese gave us electronics, cars, bikes, blenders and we gave them pieces of paper and we were going to be controlled by them and speaking Japanese. Didn't happen. We bailed their butts out. Trade deficit = we get stuff,...they get paper. That's a fair trade. China does not contol us. As long as we don't have a president selling weapons technology to them or John Kerry taking Bribes from them (which he did) then I will compete with them anyday.

My remark about throwing out free market solutions was regarding topics like the above. Why have so called "fair trade" articles at all. Let the free market work.

When you said,... "I don't recall any "re-education" programs, but his "rudderless leadership" resulted in almost complete independence from foreign oil and made us immune to OPEC threats."

You don't know how close to the truth you came. First we did not come close to complete independence...not even close. That also assumes that all things would stay the same. But your statement that his "Rudderless leadership resulted in...[fill in the blank with a positive thing]". Yes...lack of leadership, lack of meddling by an obtrusive governement can allow the market to grow and good things can happen. Ironically, two things we have touched on here,...one, the benefit of a Democrat finding common ground with Republicans (welfare reform) and two, Free trade (NAFTA) are the two best things that came from eight years of Clinton other than the fact that his economic plans were mostly thwarted or hobbled by the Gingrich revolution and again....hobbling the meddling of obtrusive government to allow the free market to work is what our forefathers intended and what is best for our prosperity.

The Republicans don't need the Dems to teach them anything. But if we had nearly half a century as a minority party and were able to slowly and patiently engineer a comeback to deliver economic freedom and a path to a stronger national security response to a changing world. The Democrats can either come up with a plan or learn from others experiences...or better yet...don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect, and do what we did, negotiate and compromise with the majority party.

Howard Dean yesterday was saying how "hates" everything about the Republican party. If George Michel would have said these kinds of things to Tip O'neil, he would have cut off the electricity to the Minority Leader's office. You and I both know there is common ground. It's just a matter of how long it will take for the Democrats to realize that they can have nothing or something. Maye then they will put down the flame throwers and put the people first ahead of their fear of who gets credit.

TJ, are you seriously going to argue that Republican's top issues are environmentalism, energy conservation, and protecting US jobs? If you believe that, we might as well be talking about Big Foot and UFOs.

Occasionally you sound lucid, so stop by again next time you're on planet Earth.

Visit me @ http://americanpundit.blog-city.com/

Not feeling up to tackling issues lately , huh?

No where did I say that Enviromentalism was their top issue. You know that...and your favorite accusation is to say the right puts up straw men. Show me where I said it was the Republican's top issue. You want to exaggerate to avoid addressing the facts.

It was Al Gore on page 163 of Earth in the balance that said that protecting the enviroment was the the number one issue facing America....even more so than protecting American lives?

Is it any wonder with people like that in charge for 8 years that thousands of americans are killed on Sept. 11.

Republicans are not going to replace Tanks with Geo Metros in order to save the rainforest.

We were talking about oil, remember? Bigfoot and UFOs? Democrats are the party that swims in the conspiaracy laden rhetoric of Michael Moore and then when called on it, responds with indignation. Oh, I forgot, this war is being run by the Saudis and Bush's Oil pirates from a bat cave underneath the West Wing.

You said " Occasionally you sound lucid, so stop by again next time you're on planet Earth".

So what part of the planet do I have to be on before you address the facts and stop making mistatements in order to avoid constructing a reasoned response.

T.J.

TJ, when you actually state a fact, you let me know. What's that old internet saying... If you argue with an idiot online, observers can't tell which one is the idiot.

Visit me @ http://americanpundit.blog-city.com/

Hey now!! I know the propensity to make a mad dash to name calling is the ultimate refuge of the left, but don't call yourself an idiot. It's just demeaning to all of us that are looking for a spirited debate.

I regret that you fold so quickly. Are your argmuments so weak that they can not withstand a debate?

If you have the gumption in the future to openly discuss the topics of the day, there are millions of americans out here that would love to prove you wrong....just like they did last November.

Still Standing,

T.J.

T.J.

Fine, let's go at it again - if you're feeling lucid. I believe you were raving about the Republican Party being the best thing for the environment since individually wrapped cheese food slices. You still want to spew that crap?

Visit me @ http://americanpundit.blog-city.com/