If you were filthy stinking rich and many of your friends were filthy stinking rich and you all decided you would like your families to remain in power until the end of time, how would you go about making that happen?

There are several ways to control a people. Through fear, through taxes, through propaganda, through controlling resources, all of which are used to some extent today in the US.

RESOURCES ARE THE KEY THOUGH, IN MY OPINION, OIL being one of the most important.

Of course, I am obviously preaching to the choir.

Great post.

Until the American people demand that we wean ourselves off of oil, nothing will change....... at least not very quickly.

That may have been the case in the past, more than it is now. What would be problematic about simply recognizing another state in historic Palestine?

Simple, US recognition, would ensure that the rest of the world agrees to it.

From a statism perspective, I am of the opinion that this could be a good opportunity for the UN to establish a precedent in recognizing states already legislated by prior resolutions. The alternative, is the continuation of forms of anarchy that do not lead to greater respect for the rule of law.

How many candidates are advocating a transition to cleaner and renewable fuels, by simple executive fiat?

We have heard about the unitary executive theory for the greater glory of the warfare-state industrial complex; but, how often have we heard that theory invoked for a simple and enumerated power to provide for the general Welfare of the United States?

I can understand some of the issues, especially when they have nothing to do with creating more stable markets on a global economy.

If you mean what has to happen before the US, the UN (as a functionary of the US), and Israel recognize another state in historic Palestine; I have no idea why they would have issues with creating greater stability in a region that current is lacking in such stability.

I'm going to give you my "opinions". I won't try to change your mind, just challenge your knowledge so you can form a completely informed opinion. Feel free to challenge my facts or conclusions.

First, my background. I graduated in 1976 from a small state college with degrees in civil engineering and mechanical engineering (duel degree). I wanted to work on the planning and building of hydroelectric facilities here and overseas. It didn't work out though. At the time we had already had one energy crisis. The next one came under the Carter Administration. The progressive thinking at the time was to go into space and establish huge solar collection systems and then microwave that energy back to earth. These were solar arrays in geosynchronous orbit. Always stationary above us and always out of the earth's shadow. We saw the moon landing as just the first step in establishing a huge energy collection system on the moon. Since the moon doesn't rotate on its axis, it was perfect for generating solar power from the hot side.

Let's get back to earth now. Please take a few minutes to absorb what I'm about to say. It's important. Anytime you transfer energy or convert energy you lose some to inefficiencies. Burning wood for heat loses heat up the chimney. Transferring energy from an internal combustion engine to the wheels of a car loses some energy. Transferring electricity across an electric grid wastes some energy. It is a fact we can't change or escape from.

Hydrogen cars - There are two ways to extract energy from hydrogen. Burn it directly or in a hydrogen fuel cell where it produces electricity (direct current). Either way, we have to manufacture the hydrogen, distribute it to gas stations or fuel cell manufacturers, and then convert it to mechanical energy to turn the wheels of the car. Where do we get the energy to produce hydrogen or the fuel cell? It comes from traditional hydrocarbon energy sources. Yes, we can convert sunlight to photo-electric and then break water down to hydrogen and oxygen. But that technology is very limited and expensive.

It is my opinion that trying to convert to alternate energy sources is more hydrocarbon intensive than just using the hydrocarbon fuel directly.

If you look at using ethanol the answer comes out the same. How much energy does it take to process enough ethanol to move your car 100 miles down the road? And how much energy does it take to produce and equivalent amount of gasoline to move your car the same 100 miles? If you start with the farming operation to grow corn or sugar cane and follow it through the distillation process, you'll find that we spend more energy to produce ethanol than gasoline.

The key is to understand that human's presence on earth is going to have an impact. We can't live here, work here, and produce more humans without leaving a mark. And cutting back on energy usage is not feasible. Our population is growing. These people need clean water and food. They need a place to live. They need a way to get to work, receive materials, manufacture goods and then ship them to market. Eventually, we have to produce more energy or stop growing.

The key to solving our energy problems is to figure the best energy mix for any given region. The best use of natural resources and most efficient use of energy is going to be different in India than it is in Europe. Have you ever wondered why the Scandinavians can have such a socialist society? It's because they have harnessed the vast hydroelectric resources in their mountains and sell electricity all over Europe. This allows the government to give away money in a socialist fashion. The English don't have that luxury, for example.

We could have plenty of energy and the least amount of environmental impact if we allowed each region, country, or state to implement its own energy development policy. Allowing a bunch of Senators from Massachusetts, Florida, New York, and California to tell people in Alaska they can't drill in ANWR creates many inefficiencies. Telling General Motors and Exxon-Mobile it must use 20% ethanol is also very inefficient. And allowing a few activists to shut down the nuclear energy industry is also very counterproductive.

I hope this gives you something to think about. I look forward to any questions, or comments.

RichardJ

Ya know, when I was 16 year sold, I did a lot of reading and thinking about pollution. I saw humans destroying the earth and I used to wonder what I could do to make a difference. I thought about this a lot and I wondered if we could change just one thing, what would make the greatest positive impact on the environment.

I thought if we could just change the fuel we use to power our cars and trucks, that didn't pollute the air, that would make a large positive impact on the environment. I started reading up on oil and where it is located. I read a lot of world news and I studied where oil resources were located.

I finally concluded that the oil companies were so powerful that they would not allow a product to make gasoline obsolete.

I also concluded that someday the US would take over the Middle East.

That was 30 years ago.

I can understand your position. However, how much further along in the energy technology 'discovery' process would we be, if we didn't need to waste those tax dollars on foreign entanglements that can be attributed to non-renewable resources and that have nothing to do with energy development? The point is, that there are many alternatives to finding energy solutions, that do not require socio-political problems to be manufactured in the process (as a form of pollution).

In the case of ANWR, I think we already have sufficient technology development to not have to drill within the confines of a preserve. Consider a hypothetical scenario where oblique drilling techniques are employed to deliver that energy resource directly to a pumping station already connected to a pipeline.

If we consider a hypothetical situation where we didn't have any political requirement to spend money on non-productive foreign entanglements, and instead spent that money (as a form of opportunity cost) in developing better methods of generating solar or other renewable energy sources, we would be able to make significant advances to our standard of living simply by implementing be methods of harnessing renewable energy sources.

You make it seem like oil companies would have no use for tax credits, or other inducements through the use of better public policy, to upgrade their infrastructure to cleaner fuels or technologies.

Consider the automobile industry. Do they really care what powers the engine as long as they can still make a profit selling cars?

While some people believe the automakers have been in bed with the oil companies for many decades, it is not really important to this discussion.

The oil companies have more power than most people can imagine.

Just look at the history of WWII and the US oil companies involvement with NAZI Germany.

The oil companies have been suppressing alternative energy for decades. I can't prove it, but it is rather obvious.

Germany is going to have 25% of it's electricity provided by solar power by the year 2020. Brazil is now energy independent.

What has the most powerful nation on earth done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels?

Almost nothing.

How does this make sense?

Oh yeah, just look at the power of the US oil companies.

I am not sure how much power you are actually referring to. Al Capone had a form of power that the fossil fuel sector does not have; yet, taxation was used as a method to bring him to justice. I am not suggesting anything as drastic for the oil companies, merely more effective tax incentives to provide an impetus to transition towards cleaner fuels and technologies.

In this response you are mixing two different problems. I take it from your reply that you feel we are in Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of stable oil prices. If you look at our oil imports you will find that we import most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

US Oil Imports (2006) Thousands of Bbls, pct
Saudi Arabia 534,143 10.68%
Venezuela 517,947 10.35%
Nigeria 406,662 8.13%
Algeria 239,959 4.80%
Iraq 201,866 4.03%

Canada 858,839 17.17%
Mexico 622,408 12.44%
Russia 134,646 2.69%

Source: U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports

If oil were the reason we invaded Iraq, we would have been much better off going into Nigeria. In 2006 we imported 201.866 million Bbls of oil from Iraq. If we are spending $10 billion a month to maintain our troops there ($120 B/yr), that works out to around $600 per bbl. If you believe the numbers that say $15 B/mo that works out to about $900 per bbl of oil. The point I want to make is we didn't go to Iraq to steal their oil. We could have bought their entire production for less.

I think I need to make my point again, and a little clearer. Certain energy sources lend themselves to certain applications more readily than others. We are not going to replace the internal combustion engine as a source of mobile power. In very high density areas like New York City, mass transit makes sense. But in most of America, the auto is king. We can replace outdated fossil fuel electric generation plants with nuclear or in some cases with hydro. But going down the road on ethanol rather than gasoline doesn't change our quality of life on little bit except it's more expensive.

Finally, allow me to say that if you don't produce more energy in concert with our population and economic growth, our quality of life will degrade. Eventually there will be severe energy shortages like you saw in California. Everyday products will cost more and more due to escalating energy costs. Mobility will become more and more restricted. Entrepreneurial opportunities will become more scarce. And no amount of new light bulbs will solve those problems.

So we face a stark choice. Do you want a new source of electricity (like the Tellico Dam) or do you want to save the snail darter? Do you want to pay more and more for a gallon of gas, or do you want to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Do you want to keep importing more and more oil and be involved in the associated geopolitics or do you want to develop domestic sources?

As for me, I don't really care. My generation of engineers tried to give us the solutions but were stopped by environmentalist concerns. I'm retired now and very little can alter my personal situation. But the young folks have to get along and so do their kids. I can only wish them a lot of luck.

RichardJ

Let's see if I can add my two cents in without ticking too many off.
Domestic Policy regarding fuels. As has been mentioned the technology exists for alternative fuels such as solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol, and bio-diesel. However, as has also been mentioned and ignored by those proponents of alternative fuels, is the cost-benefit of using these fuels. To date, there has been no alternative fuel that is more cost beneficial than oil. The only way to manufacture these alternative fuels has proven to cost more than their potential savings. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that they should not be developed and allow the technology to advance until these alternatives become viable. Until that time though, oil will remain the lifeblood of the world's economy.
One of the easiest answers is to increase domestic production. ANWR is not a pristine wilderness fairy land that exists to be oohed and aahed over. In fact, the area that is looking at to be drilled was actually set aside for that purpose when it was designated as a National Preserve. Only those who are ignorant, or prey upon the sensibilities of those who are, neglect to mention this fact. Technology has evolved in the oil drilling and extraction world, allowing for a much smaller footprint for oil bases than ever before, a fraction of the size of that used in Prudhoe Bay.
One more point on fuel. The infrastructure already exists to produce and distribute the alternative fuels such as Hydrogen and bio diesel. They are owned by the existing oil companies.

I am not saying the US went in there for the oil itself. I am not sure we would have our current president if there were no interests in the Middle East. The Middle East does have historical, strategic significance and there happens to be oil over there. To answer your question, though, we would also have had more stability in oil prices if we hadn't gone to the Middle East, at all. Why didn't we simply buy the oil, and perhaps, even help some of those countries upgrade their infrastructure to provide us with even cheaper fuel? The point, however, is that we could also have spent as much money on other things, such as technology development in cleaner fuels and technology instead of continuing emphasis on a known finite resource that can only get more expensive as it becomes more scarce.

I am not advocating retreating to the Dark Ages concerning cleaner fuels and technologies. Many newer technologies for cleaner fuels simply need more impetus from the public sector in order to make it more feasible for the private sector. Consider a hypothetical scenario where technology improvements enable energy recovery from tidal harnesses or geothermal sources.

Environmental concerns are not always present with sufficient technology available (as in the case with the solar power example you mentioned or other renewable energy sources. In the case of a preserve, there is little environmental impact to oblique drilling techniques that could offset some of the costs by having the output of the drilling next to a pumping station.

Our current political situation has already given us higher oil prices, without any corresponding improvement in our standard of living. Simple economics can make alternative fuels more competitive even without public sector interference in the markets. However, public sector interference, as is currently the case with oil, could speed development of cleaner fuels and technologies that could result in less harm to our environment and provide a more permanent solution to our energy needs.

With more abundant and cleaner energy sources, hydrogen production becomes more feasible. In that same manner, newer technologies could render more cost effective solutions than can otherwise be the case with current technologies.

One of the political issues was the use of unitary executive theory for the public good, instead of the warfare-state industrial complex. Given that hypothetical, it could simply be a matter of an executive order requiring some segments of public sector transport to transition to cleaner fuels and technologies. In that manner, the public sector could provide an impetus for improvements in mass production technologies that could result in lower costs to the private sector consumer.

I am of the opinion, that there is no need to drill within a preserve with modern drilling techniques. It may even be possible that cost savings could accrue if the drilling output is next to a pumping station already connected to a pipeline.

If public funding for a transition to alternative fuels costs the global economy one penny it would be too much, especially when the stock market is down and many banks have negative net assets. Its just not the debate we need to be having. Instead, oil and coal companies need to recognize that eventually the switch will occur, and that it is in their interest to upgrade the existing technology to meet ever advancing standards of cleanliness. The public sector has in fact transitioned in as much as one would hope. But the transportation sector is not the only source of global greenhouse gas emissions. The ball is in the corporations court now.

__________________
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." -John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)


"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara

"Semantics is the essence of debate."
-Me