McCain's campaign touts his 'grown-up' energy plan
Comment: Who says high oil prices are a bad thing? We put a man on the moon over forty years ago, yet we're still getting from point A to point B in oversized cars that burn petroleum. It's time for a change. It's time for America to end its dependency (and bleeding cash) on Saudi Arabia for oil, and time to LEAD the world again...this time in terms of energy.
Comment: Calm your selves, little children. No insulting, and no panic out of control. We are going to be fine, and this is how:
Increase energy supply, drill, build refineries and nuclear plants. We have the money to do it.
Put more resources into wind and solar research/production. We are going to be fine if we accept who is the culprit of our dificulties. Please stop blaming President Bush and the Big oil companies. Energy is like drugs, companies sell it because there is demand for it.
We, the american people are to blame. We want the big trucks ( I own two ) and the big house, cold a/c, long drives, etc. Do any of you want ot help our energy crunch instead of talking nonsense? Here. Drive slower and shorter. Ride the bus or the train if you can. Car pool. Up the thermostat a degree or two. You are the only one that can determine how your household can save energy.
By the way, wasn't it Bill Clinton who vetoed any increase of nuclear and fosil energy production and refining in 1998? And he did it just to please us all americans who did not want to damage the enviroment and did not want to help global warming. But we all kept driving like crazies. But we are all humans and want to blame everybody else, except ourselves.
Looking towards the future, please do not vote for the one who wants to increase our taxes. That is crazy. Maybe he just can't help it. It is in his blood. If you dont believe me, look at where he came from, what religion he was raised under, and his associations since he has been in the continental USA. We need a real american as president, and Condie Rice as VP. That's the real woman. It makes sence.
Comment: Right on the money! Well said...I wonder how many of the liberals and their ilk, and the eco-weenies who always post here have done anything to lower their own energy consumption? How many are now taking mass-transit? I'll bet not many. Its much easier to moan and complain and point the finger at George Bush, Halliburton, etc etc.
Comment: This is undoubtedly the dumbest of the condescending Republican pieces in some time. It's basic premise reminds me of a drug dealer lecturing his clients on the nature of addition, in the most condescending tone possible. (After all, they must be stupid. They bought stuff from HIM in the past.)
What is really quite clever is his suggestion that he and other metaphorical drug dealers should be elected to high office, because, --hey --who knows more about drug addiction than a drug dealer?
Of course, if you buy it, you really are QUITE dumb....
Comment: tc -
Sadly, you are a typical liberal who is breathtakingly ignorant of the world around you. Rising oil prices are occuring around the world, not just here. Demand is simply exploding in places like China and India, and supply has not kept up. In our own country, we are sitting on massive amounts of oil but do not have the political will to beat back the radical environmentalists and drill it. Until we muster that will, this is the situation we are in...and it will get worse.
I'm willing to bet you are a big fan of Bill Clinton. Well, it was he caved in to the eco-weenies and prevented the US from drilling in ANWR, 13 years ago. What do you suppose would be the price at the pump today if this oil were flowing today?
No one knows, but one thing is for sure - it sure as heck would be less than it is today.
Comment: the energy and security are one line in one direction - the ability to create more safety conditions for this line give us the confidence of political decisions otherwise we only depend on war as basic idea for life as who say if god was non found all things can be allowed
Comment: This is off topic, but is a great quote from Abraham Lincoln:
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged!!!
Comment: This sounds so great, but so does "until death do you part". How can we rely on this guy? Sure he chose to serve his political agenda instead of serving his family. Maybe he figured with his wife's millions, that his children didn't need a daddy in the house. Maybe he figured that his wife didn't need his support when she miscarried his children. Maybe. But then, when does that "Maybe" stop? Will he dicide that our country does not need his leadership because he will only be in office 4 or 8 years and there is "so much to do" that he not be there when our nation is in the middle of a miscarriage? I appreciate his "plans", but want to really know that he will be there for us, and I doubt that he will be. Did he teach his children how to ride a bicycle? If not, how is he going to teach us to be more energy-effective? I love this country of ours, and I am tired of "agendas" being pushed onto us as Americans just so we will overlook the truth of the matter, which I believe is this man is not right for the Job of President of America, unless he is going to be a poster child for the "baby's daddy syndrome".
Comment: I want to know if McCain or Obama will push to repeal the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000".
That's what's caused this whole mess and this should be everyone's top issue on choosing a candidate.
Comment: McCain's dril, drill, drill is more the same of the same old, sme old policy of George Bush.
Green energy is the name of the new game in town. So Mccain still don't get it does he???.
Over-dependence on one resource calls for diversification towards alternatives, a basic and rudimentary economic philosophy. Intensification of drilling only deepens the problem of dependence on the given resource, oil or fossil fuels.
That's why McCain is totally wrong and absurd as far as energy policy is concerned. of course he doesn't understand even a first year economic theory!!!.
Comment: Unfortunately, it is Obama who apperently slept through ECON 101. His plan to fund energy development by increasing the price of gasoline in the form of higher taxes on oil companies only makes sense if the plan is to force the alternatives to become viable by driving the price of oil so high that the alternatives can compete. If that's the plan, he must be clicking his heels at the over speculation that has the price of oil through the roof right now.
Of course, I'm sure that this plan would be challenged by the oil companies in court, as it is probably illegal to apply different tax rates based on industry. I really look forward to our situation when these oil companies move overseas because the taxes are less. That'll really help--especially since currently, the oil companies are the ones significantly investing in alternative energy development.
Comment: That's what he wants. Remember when he said that the only problem with $4 a gallon gas was that the price rose too fast. He'd love $9 a gallon like in Europe.
Comment: Don't fail to mention that McCain's plan does call for diversification
Wind
Solar
Hydroelectric
Nuclear
"home grown" oil to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
What Obama want to do...tax the oil companies, who will make up their bottom line by taxing their customers. Yeah that's a good plan alright. That more of the same of Jimmy Carter....it didn't work then, why is Obama stuck in the past?
Comment: He's too young to remember what a fiasco that was, and apparently is not much of a history buff.
Comment: John McCain wants to continue to give the oil companies corporate welfare - what a waste of taxpayer money! I remember when the Republicans used to say they were fiscally responsible and for the free market. Now they just steal money from taxpayers and give it to their rich corporate friends. Skip the middle man (the gas station attendant) and let McCain give your money directly to the oil companies - that's some Straight Talk (TM) for you.
Comment: Can any sane and rational person take Mccain's drill, drill, drill til doomsday seriously???.
Granted even the most optimistic scenerio, will McCain achieve energy independence in 10, 15 even 30 years from now, Nope!!!.
More troubling is McCain's ill-conceived and ill-informed embrace of building unsafe and unclean nuclear plants. Notwithstanding the fact that all of McCain's energy proposals will not make a tent on the high gas prices; which by the way, is the energy problem at hand.
So what's McCain real goal?. Certainly not energy independence even by the stretch of the imagination. His real objective and goal is to pander to the big oil fat-cats to soar-up his flattering fundraising.If Bush did it so why not me Mccain ???. So thinks Mccain, the Bush poor immitator!!!.
Well, let Mccain rant and rage about drilling, drilling and drilling; who cares nobody is listening because he is redundant and irrelevant, the old fool!!!.
Comment: Your comment about taking McCain seriously led me to one conclusion. Obviously, we can't take YOU seriously, as your comment is grossly exaggerated bashing, and serves no constructive purpose. So if your goal was to marginalize yourself, you succeeded.
Comment: Ultimately, I believe solar will become the answer once we figure out more efficient ways to conert it. I don't know the accuracy of this, but I've heard that there is enough solar energy that shines on the city of phoenix to provide all of the energy needs of the entire US. Obviously, there is plenty of energy, but efficiency of conversion, and cost effectiveness has a way to go.
Anyway, I have to go.
Goodnight all,
It's been great.
Comment: We all and I mean all of us have to start conserving and come together as one nation to confront this problem. We need to get rid of this notion of lberal or coservative or whatever else there is and deal wtih this oil problem head-on as one nation united. We might have to make some sacrifices, but why should we leave this problem to our children, or grandchildren. This message may sound corny, but it's the only way to deal with this.UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.
Comment: That is so true. We seem to get so steeped in partisanship, that ALL energy is focused on tearing down the other side. Both sides get beat to death, and nothing get's accomplished. The reality is that on this issue, we all ultimately want the same thing, we just disagree on the right way to get there.
That is why I get so frustrated with all of the Bush bashing that goes on. While I completely agree that Bush has made some real bone headed moves as president, he is still the man WE, the people, elected. As such, we have a duty to support him in his position. We the people have completely crippled our president for the last 3 years, and we are a nation wandering without leadership. We are reaping what we have sown because we have beaten up the president at every opportunity. It's no wonder he seems out of touch. Any one of us would be gun shy in his position, if every time you raised your head, you got slapped by all of America. If we elected the wrong man, shame on us--not him. It's one thing to disagree with him, but it's quite another to totally disrespect him. Yet we seem to dis him at every turn, and then wonder why we never have any really good candidates to choose from. For me, on this point , party does not (or at least should not) matter. I believe Obama will likely be our next President, and I will support him for better or worse, just as I have president Bush. Unfortunately, I believe one of America's great weaknesses is our people's overall lack of respect for each other, and for authority.
Comment: "he is still the man WE, the people, elected."
That saying tends to leave a sour taste in my mind. Although I was a young teen at the time, didn't Bush lose the popular vote? Won through the electoral college. In my mind, 'WE, the people" did not elect him in that case. The electoral college did, which I support getting rid of. The electoral college may have worked out in at first, however as information is becomming more easily attainable, I beleive it is time to go to electing our president by popular vote.
Comment: A few votes one way or the other is not the point. The point is that we seem to think we can just vote for whoever without informing ourselves, and then use the excuse that "I didn't vote for him" as justification for disrespecting him. Out of the millions of Americans, there are many who would make fantastic presidents, yet there is no incentive for them to subject themselves to such disrespect as every president in recent history has received. If we can't learn to respect the one we put in office, we will continue to have mediocre candidates to choose from. In Bush's case, we have not only disrespected him, we have destroyed him as a leader.
Comment: Added as I forgot:
I do not blame us entirely for destroying Bush as a leader. He doomed himself. Any great leader needs to know when to admit he is wrong. Bush does not seem to have that part. He like to keep at things, only making them worse. All humans make mistakes. There is not a single one that is flawless. They also need to know when they step over the lines, which Bush has done on many cases during his presidency. He refuses to work with the democratic congress. I get rather tired of all the vetoing he is doing. The parties have the ability to work together, however what BOTH the democratic controlled congress and republican president seem to be doing is not working at all...
Comment: "we seem to think we can just vote for whoever without informing ourselves, and then use the excuse that "I didn't vote for him" as justification for disrespecting him. Out of the millions of Americans, there are many who would make fantastic presidents, yet there is no incentive for them to subject themselves to such disrespect as every president in recent history has received. If we can't learn to respect the one we put in office, we will continue to have mediocre candidates to choose from. In Bush's case, we have not only disrespected him, we have destroyed him as a leader."
This is my third time re-typing this...
(I have left stuff out or gone of course)
I agree completely with you there. The relatively small amount of time I have spent on this planet I have noticed the rather pathetic amount of respect we have for each other. Many people do not wish to play the dirty game of politics. Then there are those who get drowned out by the media, who tend to spend a lot of time on the two main candidates. Americans are still in a democrate vs republican war. I thought the point of voting was to vote for those who best fit you? Not who the party picks. I beleive parties are the bane of our government, however I do not foresee us being without them. We have a wealth of information, unrestricted (for now) and abundant online. Easily accessable to most, to almost everyone attainable in some way. That is why I beleive the electoral college has passed its time. I view it as a way the founding fathers wanted to control elections, due largely to the rarity of information to the masses in their day. However that time has passed.
Comment: Yet the Dem's want to elect another Bush in Obama. Bush said he would unite and failed. So has Obama. Bush was arrogant and had his swagger. Obama is arrogant and has his fist punch. Bush is from an Ivy League school just like Obama. Obama likes Bush's new FISA Bill too. The only difference is Bush is extreme right that played Left to get elected. Obama is extreme left that is playing right to get elected.
Comment: LIKEITIS: YOU HAVE YOUR CAPS-LOCK TURNED ON. IT"S VERY ANNOYING.
Could you please stick to the topic at hand, if you don't mind? We are discussing oil, nuclear and energy policy on this post, not Indians and White Europeans... Not sure where you're coming from!
Comment: IF YOU READ THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT AND WHY!
IF THE CAPS HURT YOUR EYES.................................................DON'T READ IT!
Comment: My gawd, are we voting for the old ways which have shown themselves to be totally out of touch, or the future which calls upon our belief in the beauty of the American public? I vote for change!
Comment: I do too!
Comment: Do they still have a drought in the SE? What is the water level at the intake for the coolant? In case nobody knows nuclear takes huge amounts of water for cooling.
Comment: Methods of encapsulation of nuclear waste have been greatly improved..it's still not play dough, but cobalt glass help stabilize it a lot, and they are developing even better methods.
France and Japan have been running on nuke power for decades. Besides what else are you gonna do with most of death valley...hmm. maybe solar.
Comment: Has Nuclear energy as a viable power source evolved enough that Nuclear waste is less of an issue? It seems now safety of it's use is a moot point... but Obama's concerns towards the power source seemed more focused on Waste disposal.
The fact that a misleading ad was put out over this concern speaks volumes for McCain being out of touch with the real problems facing the nation, and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't just a blantant smear against Obama. As for this 'bounty' of 300 million... wouldn't that be better spent on actual development? The person or persons that manages to perfect an efficient car battery would have no problems making a mint off of it... That seems counter-productive to me.
I've noticed a few well read people posting on the subject and it seems I might be able to get a better response than "Joo lik Osama so u r dum."
Comment: Nuclear is used in France and Japan, as Thevail states above, and elsewhere on the European continent. I have to think it's been developed and improved, but I'm absolutely no expert on that topic these days... I like to think it's safer now than ever before and I know it's clean. I think even some of the most thoughtful environmentalists are seeing it as one of a handful of solutions "on the table" - there was one such fellow on Meet the Press last Sunday, or maybe it was the Stefanopolous show on Sunday - he had a great panel of energy experts along with Kay Bailey Hutchison, who unfortunately only mouthed the same tired old messages of the most inane Republicans... but there were one or two BRILLIANT panelists that morning who had some really eye-opening information to share. I think George (Stefanopolous) said he'd have some more discussions on the energy topic soon, but that's all I really know. Sorry!
Comment: Obviously, the waste is a concern. But then all energy production has the same concern, the "not in my back yard" syndrome.
As for McCain's campaign ads, that's the same kind of exaggerations he used against Romney to solidify his position as the GOP nominee. To me, as a Republican, I find it in poor taste--especially from someone who represents himself as a straight talker. It certainly does not represent the party well. Out of all the GOP candidates, I'm still pretty disappointed that McCain is the one we put up. On the other side, I have equal reservations about Obama. So I am waiting for one of these guys to actually show me something I can believe in.
The 300 million prize for developing a battery could be effective if it actually gets people to work on it to get it done. It's hard to dispute the effectiveness of a carrot so long as there are those close enough to be lured by it. If the government just spends the 300 million without having it be a carrot could just be a relative waste of 300 million.
Comment: At first, I thought the $300mm prize offered by McCain sounded great. Then someone in my family said that it was probably only going to be won by a major corporation like Exxon or GM or some entity with plenty of engineers, brain power and resources. Then I saw it more as a subsidy, almost, or a little "incentive" and now I'm just hoping someone does it, and we can replace all cars and trucks with new hybrid-type electric-powered cars in the next few years. But I'm totally dreaming....
Comment: Good point. While it would certainly make a great story for the guy down the street working in his garage to win it, but it probably won't happen that way. I completely agree, if offering the incentive gets it done, I'm all for it--even if it is a big corp. Obviously, the idea as proposed is only a concept of what McCain would do if he were elected, and will need to be further defined if it were to become a real offer. I doubt McCain will win this election anyway, so it probably doesn't matter.
While I'm no Obama supporter, I think America really needs some time under Democratic leadership again, in order to get over the extreme partisan division caused by the war and current economic conditions. Having one party in power for an extended time only seems to fuel division and contempt. While it has only been 8 years of a Republican presidency, it seems like an eternity with all that has happened since the turn of the century.
Comment: No it probably will be invented by some grad student at MIT. In that case, that 300 Million will go along way.
Comment: Global warming, climat change - it won't be an issue if the world's oil supply is in decline.
Comment: OK, I've been reading some more on this, and you are right. My numbers were wrong. The article I read previously led me to conclude that we have 21 billion barrels in our strategic reserve. That is not the case. We have 21 billion barrels in proven reserves, but that is oil still in the ground. Apparently, we only have about 720 million barrels in the strategic reserve. Sorry for the confusion. We could still, however follow my concept on a smaller scale. If we just stop adding to the strategic reserve, and use the revenue from that change, it would still provide a significant revenue stream for energy development.
I am still curious about your reply from earlier where you said drilling for our own oil would only produce 10% of our demand. I have found little data on the projections regarding the rate at which we could harvest, and refine it. Do you know where such data can be found?
Maybe we need to work more closely with Canada. They apparently have 9 times the oil that we have, and currently only produce half as much as we do. It seems that we should be able to work more closely with them without all of the trust issues we have with the middle east. Do you know if we have approached them with the idea of purchasing reserves from them?
Comment: You know, Whala, I work in the oil biz for a major (not one of the top four, but close to the top)..and I get a lot of information from the engineers and geologists I work with. I can't think offhand where a good source could be for what you're asking. All I know is that when petroleum is so high-priced it drives down margins on the refining end of the business - and vice versa... conversely, when oil is high-priced, suddenly it makes more sense to tap into reserves buried miles beneath the earth's surface, whereas before the cost would have outweighed the benefits.
I also know that our strategic reserves would only last us about 90 days, I think. So that's not a longer-term "stop-gap" though I see you've researched it now and see my point.
There might be a good source of information for you if you were to contact one of the editors of an oil & gas publication (Houston) - Jeanne Perdue at Zeus Publishing, a chemical engineer herself and someone quite knowledgeable about all aspects of the business, is a writer and editor of Upstream Technology; she used to write for Hart's E&P. She might be a good person to email: jperdue@zeuspublishing.com.
I have a source in the family - I'll ask him and see if he knows. Cheers - have a nice evening!
Comment: Rocky Mountain Shale....at $40 a barrel it wasn't economically viable now at $130+ a barrel....its a gold mine.
-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033-
A study by the Rand Corporation estimates the sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming holds about 800 billion barrels. That's three times the size of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves.
"If the planets line up right and everyone supports it, this could be the oil capital of the world. Because there's enough to last us for a long, long time," Merrell says. "This is the most exciting entrepreneurial adventure in the nation right now."
Comment: There is plenty of oil if we look at it as a temporary resource. It is estimated that there is enough oil in the shale layers of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to last the US 110 years at current consumption. Obviously, there is a finite supply of oil, and it continues to become more expensive to get as the easy oil is mostly gone. We need to get serious about developing alternatives, but there is no reason we can't use oil revenue as a means to fund our energy development program if we would just create the revenue by releasing oil from reserves in the short term, and drilling for oil in the intermediate term.
Failure to do this will make for a rather gloomy outlook for all of us.
Comment: Not sure our strategic oil supply would last as long as we'd need it to, at the rate of our consumption. We may need it in future to fill in some really serious "gaps" so I would be more inclined to keep it for a while.
What I'd rather see is Big Oil moving to do more exploration and production in North America, in the US, so I'm with you there. If they could focus efforts on Bakken, I bet that would help us out enormously. So far, only the "little guys" - the independents - and Marathon are really involved in Bakken. And perhaps you're right - there is lots of oil in the other states you mention - but I think it's already being produced and there isn't enough to wean us off imporing the bulk of our petroleum.
We really need to come together (forget about liberals, conservatives, etc.) and try to understand this issue better - and communicate to the public at large about it. The oil companies do a piss-poor job of it, as they'r eall engineering types! Anyhow, we need major change and fast....
Comment: Where, may i ask, are you getting this information? I suspect it's from an industry source like API, which is in the pocket of Big Oil, along wiht CERA (Daniel Yergin's organization)...which, for some reason, keep promoting the idea that "there's plenty of oil, if only we could drill more and more and more.."
The fact is, these areas have not yet been explored properly. It would still take another 10 years to get them into production, assuming your theory is correct. I seriously doubt that anybody has oil to supply us for another 110 years, that is just laughable if wasn't so foolish... no offense to you personally, but seriously, check into your sources of information and treat them witha little healthy skepticism...
Comment: I don't recall for sure, but I believe the info on the shale oil came from an interview I heard with a shell execultive. Obviously, you have to consider the source, as there is mis-information out there, and we sometimes misunderstand the information out there as I did on the reserve quantities. The important thing is to find common ground on which we can agree, and work together for the common good.
Comment: Comment to bobbyb4n6: You ARE CERTAINLY A LIAR AND NOT AN OFFICER I"N THE US ARMY. I HAVE A RELATIVE THAT IS A FULL BIRD COLONEL at Fort Sill in OK and has been in the service over twenty five years and was wounded in the gulf war(s). And he tells me what the troops think about serving under Obama... But then I am sure you don't even know where that is. I can prove what I do to keep the country safe, and our troops. But you are obviously a liar...
Comment: The concept of "Peak Oil" was not devised by "economists" - M. King Hubbert is the originator. He stated, after careful analysis and study, that in the US we would peak out in 1970. His hypothesis proved correct. Since 1970, we've had no major discoveries in the US - onshore or offshore - and our production has declined ever since, meaning we've had to rely largely on imports from countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Canada and Nigeria.
Now we have discovered there is a huge oil basin in Bakken, North Dakota and into Canada. It has light-sweet crude that has to be extracted through special horizontal wells and "cracked" out of the shale or rock that makes up the reservoirs. It is a good thing we found this, but I think it's not going to "bring home the Bakken" too quickly for us.
There is a supply crunch on oil - we consume 25% of the total world's production in the US, despite our 300-million population (relatively small percent of total world pop.) We are gas guzzlers and we need to wean ourselves off it as much as possible, and as soon as we can.
The world as we know it is built on Oil - this is the beginning of the end of the Oil Era. Read Matt Simmons book, "Twilight in the Desert" or just visit his website and review the presentation he gave to the Pentagon in Feb. of this year, when oil was only around $100/bbl.
We are going to run short on oil as the decade progresses. Supply, once reserves peak, becomes harder and harder to produce - depletion happens faster than you think. Reservoirs are considered non-recoverable at about 50% depletion levels, which means we leave a lot behind, but it's pretty much unrecoverable sludge. We have technology to eke out as much as possible but fact is, we'll still be short in a very few years.
Better get your bikes ready and buy some horses and buggies before they too become hot commodities and the prices are run up on them.
Comment: That's good that we only consume 25% of the worlds oil, since we produce 50% of the worlds GDP. Maybe we're not the oil loving pigs we make ourselves out to be after all.
Comment: No, but it sure doesn't help when China, India and other developing nations want to copy our example and get on the guzzling bandwagon. That's what's also driving up prices - increasing demand globally.
Don't be so quick to defend our way of life - though there is little alternative yet -- I'm hoping that we will spdn a lot more time, trouble and money on devising ways to wean ourselves off of oil and hydrocarbon fuels in the next decade - and we should be concentrating on that, not on war in Iran or any other place. We are going to need to lead the rest of the world into a new Era of Altnerate Fuels (or something) and get everyone on board if possible.
Comment: I couldn't agree more that we need to put a great deal of effort into developing alternatives--much more than we currently do. I'm sick of polluted cities. I am strongly opposed, however, to using the fear of global warming ramifications as the means to prematurely force these changes on the American public--especially when the science behind global warming is not nearly so indisputable as the activists lead you to believe.
No matter the reason for the change, the key, in my opinion, is in finding a revenue stream to fund it without burdening the American public with an alternative energy tax of sorts. Instead of lining the pockets of foriegners for their oil, we should be harvesting our own, and using the revenue from that oil to develop alternative energy sources. Obviously, we aren't prepared to do that for several years, so in the mean time, we should be releasing oil from our strategic reserves, and using the revenue from that oil to fund our energy development.
Comment: Whale, you're right that there is a massive partisan divide on energy policy. I think what it boils down to is the Republican mindsent that the Market will solve everything. The morality of the market is basically "sell commodity X for as much as possible until people can no longer afford to buy it, then move on and sell something else." Unfortunatly, this leads to a very short-sighted kind of thinking.
Ten or more years ago, economists and geologists on the "loony left" started raising the idea of a sudden, sharp spike in oil prices due to a gradual decrease in available supplies from decades of consumption combined with a rapid increase in demand from developing nations. They called it Peak Oil. This didn't sit very well with a lot of people, especially people on the Right who firmly believed that the Market would never allow for such a catastrophe--and in any case, it was years in the future. Guess what? Oil prices have tripled over the past 6 years with little to no end in sight. The Market can't fix the problem--in fact, it exacerbated it. I'm no Peak Oil alarmist, here, and I don't think that civilization is on the verge of grinding to a halt, but you have to admit that in general terms the theory relies on simple math. It's easy to understand and the effects are being felt currently, but nobody in the position to do anything wanted to at the time. It would interfere with the current prosperity and, more importantly, implied a distrust in the Market. "What're you, some kind of commie?" was the going attitude.
Notice that I haven't brought up global warming yet? That's because the effects are further yet into the future than Peak Oil, decades from now maybe. Global warming was proposed as a theory close to 30 years ago, evidence has mounted in its favor and arguments against it have largely been disproven. We're even starting to feel the effects of it now, but what's the primary argument against doing something? Economic: it might interfere with current prosperity, making the transition to cleaner fuels will be too expensive, and besides any effects from global warming won't be felt for years.
Comment: I agree with what you are presenting regarding peak oil. We have reached a tipping point in the supply and demand equation. This happens whenever there is a fear of shortage of a necessary commodaty. there doesn't have to be an actual shortage, only a fear of a future shortage. This peak oil concept is a result of many factors. Primarily, America's resistence to harvest our own oil (for whatever reason), together with increased tensions in the middle east and the potential disruption of supply from imports has served to create this fear. Speculation in the market feeds on this fear, driving prices up, and feeding the fear even further. This can only happen, however, if there is a basis for the initial fear of shortage. Our refusal to become oil independent has provided the opportunity for speculators to create this price bubble.
So what do we do about it? Increase the supply to the point that the price of oil futures drops, and investors begin to lose money. With enough pressure, the bubble will burst, and prices will come down. In addition to providing a revenue stream to fund alternative energy research, that is the 2nd reason we need to begin releasing oil from our reserves, coupled with a plan to harvest our own oil.
Comment: Whale, you're absolutely right that there is a partisan divide on energy independence and renewable fuel. The evidence, unfortunately for most Republicans, really is pretty insurmountable that climate change is the result of burning fossil fuels and that the end result--flooding of coastal areas, spreading deserts, worldwide famine, etc. is going to be very severe. Solutions to ameliorate the impact of global warming need to be found immediately, even though global warming's effects are difficult to foresee with precision and are likely to happen decades in the future.
The GOP motivation for refusing to believe in global warming ties into the way they view the world. The Market is supposed to solve all problems. The morality of the market is "sell it for as much as you can until it's gone, then find something else to sell.' That's not a productive way of dealing with a long-term problem, nor does it address how to deal with the current energy shortage (something foreseeable 10 years or more ago when some people on the"loony left" started fretting about Peak Oil). But it does excuse a lot of profiteering in the present and explains why many highly-placed Republicans in the Bush administration are opposed to doing anything. Big Oil is big business, but its profit margins are actually pretty thin. ANYTHING that threatens that profit margin, whether the threat is to reduce the rate of oil consumption or of oil extraction is going to get a big reaction from Big Oil. Bush, an oil man, is used to thinking in those terms. He's not the Devil, as some portray him, but he's having a hard time breaking out of the mindset.
Comment: Thanks for your insight. As for the evidence on global warming, the evidence is only conclusive if you limit the evidence to that proposed by the global warming activists. Without discounting that, there is an equal or greater amount of evidence that does not support the global warming conclusions, and which certainly does not support the conclusion that "man made" carbon dioxide is having an appreciable difference in effect beyond the natural cycles of the Earth. From our perspective, the activists are portraying the science as indisputable, when in reality, there are thousands of reputable scientists who disagree. This is the basis of the Republicans reluctance to spend money on something that is not really proven. Once it truly is proven, and scientists actually agree, then maybe we would see a different reaction from Republicans. Unfortunately, if the activists own estimates are true, we are already well beyond the point where we would have the ability to stop the problems we supposedly created, and the only hope we have is to learn to adapt to the changing world.
Enough about that, the way I see it, the Dems are not going to accept any plan that doesn't involve a substantial investment and effort to move towards alternative energy. The Republicans are not going to accept any plan that does not include increasing our production of our current resources until that technology can be developed.
My proposal to release oil from our strategic reserves, and use the revenue from that oil to fund the R&D into alternative energy satisfies both demands, and could have an immediate positive impact on the current price of oil. That is something we could do tomorrow. If we are serious about getting off of oil, why do we need such a large reserve? My proposal would provide the revenue from 7 billion barrels of oil for R&D over the next 10 years. At current prices, that's a lot of cash for R&D, many times more than either McCain or Obama are proposing. If people truly believe in global warming, they should be demanding that we release this oil to provide cash for an aggressive alternative energy plan. The only thing is that the Dems will have to allow drilling to provide the back up plan that the Republicans deem necessary.
Comment: Something like 90% of the scientific community are global warming activists? Getting that many scientists to agree on something is like herding cats. It's actually counter to their career interests, as academia thrives on competing theories as a way of garnering research funding. If something manages to get the vast majority of them to believe the same thing, it's time to sit up and take notice.
Comment: Interesting article. It displays McCain's talking points without much investigation into the probability that any of them will work. I suggest reading the other Newsweek article listed #1 under top ten top right of this page, "McCain Sells Energy Policy--and Experience", also Newsweek's own Fact Check.org on McCain's energy comments. Most of it falls apart, including his criticism's of Obama which Fact Check found to be almost wholly wrong. McCain demonstrates over and over again that he really doesn't know what's going on. His hot new idea is 45 new nuclear reactors-----that seems more than a little precipitate. Should we build them in hurricane country, tornado country, flood country or earthquake country? We haven't figured out yet how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. We might want to think about that before we go whole hog with 45 nuclear reactors don't ya think? Nuclear may be a good option, but not in those quantities and not without working out the wrinkles. McCain's ideas are precipiate, not thought through, not fully researched and, in the case of the gas tax idea, just plain pandering. He can't find any economists who will say that is anything but dumb. It won't work---and he knows it won't work. He's counting on us being too dumb to know that. It's been tried before. All that happened is that the oil companies kept the same price and pocketed billions while the highways sunk into further disrepair because the road taxes were wasted. Dumb pandering.
Comment: I agree that McCain's tax holiday idea has no merit. Unfortunately, Obama's idea to increase taxes on the oil companies has no more merit, only that sounds like a permanent bout of economic lunacy.
Comment: Here is the crux of the partisan divide as it relates to energy policy. This is from a Republican's perspective, and I would welcome someone to address this division from the Democratic perspective.
Republicans, (other than McCain) by and large, don't buy the global warming argument, or at least believe it is grossly exaggerated. As such, we see no immediate threat to the future of our planet due to another 30 years on fossil fuel usage.
Democrats on the other hand, by and large, seem so convinced in the catastrophic prophecies concerning global warming, that they are willing to throw caution to the wind, and stake our very way of life on the development of alternative technology no matter the cost. They seem so convinced that no back up plan is necessary because they believe we'll all be dead if we don't implement a solution right now.
The reality is that we all want the same thing. We all want safer and cleaner technology. We just have very different priorities on how we should proceed to get there.
The Republicans want to excercise a little prudence in the process instead of throwing a quick and dirty band aid at the problem. They firmly believe that we must have a contingency plan in place for when the process takes longer than we think.
The Dems. on the other hand firmly believe that the Republicans are anti progress because they profit from the status quo. The Dems believe they must stop the oil companies from further activity so as to force America to live up to their percieved environmental responsibility.
Does that about cover it?
The real question is where is the middle ground, and how much is either side willing to concede? I have proposed what I believe to be a realistic compromise, posted at 10:44 this morning if you are interested in reading.
Comment: I think there are many worlds we could inhabit, we just haven't got there yet, but what will we do when we do meet up with other people on other worlds, that don't look like us, Kill them off so we can have their planets. That's what white Europeans did to the Native american. We always seem to think that we are intitled to what ever we want, other spacefaring races may feel the same. I think we should go back to zero PG, it was not a bad idea, allow only breeding of humans for purposes of replacement, one parent, one child. China implemented it, why not us? We complain about all the nations of the world haveing to many kids, but how many of you know families with 6 or more children? And the parents can barely supply their need and most of the time they need help. This is not fair to the children in any way. At our current population growth there won't even be enough land to raise food on, and with the oceans as depleted as they have become, our children face a world of hunger and desperate need, and don't make this into a religious issue, it is a commone sense one.
Comment: That's what white Europeans did to the Native american.
THAT IS ONE WAY OF SEEING IT.
THE OTHER IS THAT BEFORE THE EUOPEAN SETTLER CAME TO THIS COUNTRY INDIANS HAD BEEN KILLING INDIANS IN MONSTEROUS QUANTITIES AND CONTINUED TO KILL INDIANS WELL INTO THE 1800'S.
THE CROW, BLACKFOOT, APACHE, COMANCHE,ETC. WERE WARRING INDIANS AND HAD AQUIRED THEIR TRIBAL LANDS IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAYS THAT THE LANDS OF EUROPE, ASIA, MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICAN LANDS WERE AQUIRED! THE STRONG OVERPOWERED THE WEAK!
WHEN EUROPEANS CAME TO THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT THEY DID NOT "SET TO THE TASK OF KILLING OFF INDIANS", THAT DECISION CAME AS A RESPONSE TO INDIANS KILLING SETTLERS BECAUSE THE INDIANS SAW FOR GOOD REASON THE EUROPEANS AS COMPETITION.
I HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION MANY TIMES BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MOST "CITYFIED URBAN LIBERALS" BELIEVE THAT THERE MUST BE A FEELING OF GUILT TO BE A SURVIVOR.
THE OTHER VIEW ASSUMES THAT THE FIRST PROTO HUMAN TO TAKE A BI-PEDAL STANCE OWNED THE LAND THAT HE STOOD ON FROM SEA TO SEA AND THAT ANYONE EVER OWNING THAT LAND AFTERWARD MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING AS UNHUMAN AS INSISTING HE AND HIS FAMILY SURVIVE IN THE STRUGGLE THAT IS LIFE!
MIGHT DOESN'T MEAN RIGHT! MIGHT MEANS ALIVE NOT DEAD!
THIS GENERAL RULE WILL HOLD TRUE FOR AS LONG AS I CAN IMAGINE INTO THE FUTURE.
Comment: The reason that the Indian began to kill the white settlers was that they took more and more, the settlers would agree to leave an area for the Indian, and then go ahead and take it, White man could not keep a promise to save his life, Most of the treatys white man made with Indian, he had a gun at the back of an Indian's head and forced the Indians to sign a treaty they could not read or understand.And since I am also part Blackfoot and Cherokee I thankyou very much for considering us warlike. If we had truly been warlike and had the guns white man had you would be speaking blackfoot or cherokee now
Comment: THE POINT, SINCE I WAS REPLYING TO YOUR "WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO TRY TO COLONIZE OTHER PLANETS SINCE THE AWFULL WHITE MAN TOOK AMERICA AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN NATIVE", WAS AMERICA WAS ALREADY STOLEN AWAY FROM COUNTLESS OTHER NATIVE AMERICANS AND MAYBE ASIANS (THAT CROSSED THE ALUTEANS WHILE THEY WERE FROZEN )BEFORE THE WHITEMAN(EUROPEANS) TOOK IT FROM THE INDIAN!
NO PLACE ON EARTH IS OCCUPIED BY JUST THE DECENENTS OF ITS FIRST INHABITANTS, THEREFORE ALL PLACES WERE TAKEN AND MOST LIKELY TAKEN BY FORCE!
THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN MOST PLACES THE STANDARD RULE FOR EMPIRIALISM WAS KILL ALL THE MEN AND BOYS AND KEEP ONLY THE DESIRABLE FEMALES.
THIS IS WHY WE DON'T HEAR CRYS OF NEANDERTHAL TRIBAL OR CLAN TERRITORYS BE STOLEN!
AND YEA, I GUESS THE INDIAN WOULD HAVE HAD A BETTER CHANCE IF THEY WERE MORE TECHNICALLY ADVANCED, BUT THEY WERE HOPELESSLY OUTNUMBERED AS WELL!
THE ADDITION OF GUNS TO THE INDIANS WOULD HAVE LEAD TO THE EXTINCTION OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN.
Comment: dems want restrictive policy so as to slow population growth , republicans want to let big business take care of the needs of society , but the greed factor is keeping expansion from properly functioning to stay ahead of the curve on the needs of a society in terms of todays standards of living , ie abundance in all things we do today . dems would rather see us live a restrictive lifestyle , so as to put less strain on the enviroment , so this means the end result would be less overall for all , but those jetting around saying that this is what we must all except and do .
the only way forward is to realize the fact that we cannot not stop the population explosion thats happening , we need to rather find ways to supply its needs , and the space it will require , and do not give up on space exploration , because there is something out there we are not the only place in the Universe .
Comment: Is McCain doing his Ralph Nader impression or has he had a stroke? The left side of his mouth looks saggy. I'm not trying to be funny here, something looks different.
Comment: Drilling for more oil is never going to lower the price of gasoline as the oil barrons are sitting pretty on their $4.00 a galon fuel price. We need a leaders that can think out of the box in the sense that they invest our tax and energy dollars in developing existing sources of free energy, Technology for free energy has been known for decades, but our government has censored it to protect the interests of the oil and electricity barrons. The day that every household, factory, and vehicle can have it's own free energy generator(s) is the day our country will be free from it's dependence on oil.
Comment: Our civilisation is about to crumble anyway, so we can convert slowly or we can make the shift quickly. Our roads and bridges are already falling apart. They need to be rebuilt. The power and phone lines where I live are all above ground and need to be replaced after the last two years of Ice storms and tornados. The power company just keeps replacing them and raising the rates. After reading the article on Bio diesel that someone posted a link too, we shouldn't even be using food sources for fuel. algae and saw grass are a much more efficient alternative. Corn is just too expensive and wasteful, but we live in a world where no one with any power to move will listen, and those with the money don't care to do anything until it benefits them.
As for the Democrats continually insulting the Republicans, listen to what the Reps say about us, its no different, Just more Democrats happen to post here today. If it were an article about Obama you would hear form more Republicans.
I don't think there is any one solution, but there will have to be many small solutions, bio-diesel, solar power, wind, tides, hydrogen, these are all viable and easily replaced. I like solar myself, it costs a lot to initiate, but after you get it set up, just minor maintence. You could charge a car on solar. I wonder since electric fork lifts are used inside in so many warehouses, why that couldn't be adapted to automobiles. You would need smaller batteries, or a battery lift of some kind if it had to be taken out. Some of those electric lifts from Nissan can really move, I've seen them zipping up and down at 45 mph, Inside. Wonder what they could do outside on the roads with nothing to manuver around. Maybe be could replace Nascar racers with Lift racers?
Comment: those forlifts are powered by propane
Comment: Obama brings NOTHING new to the table (read your history books). Do those of you who think that gas and food prices will fall solely because Obama becomes President, also believe in unicorns and fairies?
And FWIW, the Democrats are the ones known for taxing everything you can touch, smell, taste or see.
Comment: Yeah, and the Republicans apparently cut taxes for all their buddies and spend all the remaining tax dollars on an immoral war with no real point - leaving our children and theirs to foot the bill for many generations. I guess that's much better than electing a responsible party who will tax the wealthy to pay for some needed innovation in our energy circus. Wow, great thinking! Status quo was never better defended... (no sarcasm intended)
Comment: Posted By: whala @ 06/27/2008 14:46:28
Comment: Maybe but 10 years for development of alternatives does not account for the conversion of our societies entire infrastructure that has taken a hundred years to build. We may be halfway through the auto industry phase in process in 10 years, if we have the technology readily available in 2 years, but frankly, that's the easy part, and that's only a fraction of our consumption.
Bio Algae fuels can use the same Infrustructures as fossil fuels do .
Comment: When Reagan was elected, he promptly ripped out all the solar panels Carter had installed at the White House. Let's not make the same mistake of electing another old fart GOP leader (and I don't care what his age is) who has the same reactionary, conservative and dinosaur approach to energy and the economy.
We've had 8 years of the GOP leadership in Bush. It got us further behind that we've ever been. The stock market has hit as low (in real terms) as it was in 1930. The price of oil now exceeds what it became during the crisis in the 1970s; and it's on a trajectory to increase dramatically unless we figure out alternatives fast.
Don't waste your time hemming and hawing about Republicans this, Democrats that... Just vote for the person will bring the most change in a positive direction the fastest. I think most would agree that seems to be Obama.
Comment: When I saw the title I thought they were referring to Obama after eight years of the immaturity of Bush and Clinton. Only when I saw the subtitle did I realize I was wrong. I am not sure McCain ins the maturity game, unless one uses the "age" definiiton of the term.
Comment: it would seem that the only real government policy action that ever is taken is that which benefits a Big Corporate concern , and this is a trend that has led us to not evolve and expand our resource base but rather consolidate it , and shorten the supply , which is now causinf inflation , soo whats the next step ????
Comment: Posted By: whala @ 06/27/2008 2:22:50 PM
Comment: This may be slightly out of line, but I find it interesting that the Democrats continually insult the Republicans, calling them stupid idoit morons (just to name a few of the PC names they use) and then they wonder why the Republicans aren't jumping at the opportunity to figure out the answer to the energy problem that the Democrats seem the most desperate to figure out. The Republican answer is already figured out. If the Dems are so desperate to figure out a different answer, quit whining about the Republicans, and go figure it out. When you do, you'll make yourself rich.
If drilling for more oil is the answer , this is not a quick fix either , minimum 5 years to bring new oil online , even longer some predict because infrustructure in refinery capacity is not in place , which is a 10 year bid .
this is the same alottment for time too spend developing alternative sources like Bio Algae , a source that cleans the air as it grows , is Multi-Use , has a food value as well as a fuel , has no emmsions . more oil is not the answer , because the short term problem is nothing will solve this shortage we face , and this is why the russians , iranians , syrians , hugo chavez , all are trying to form a union to seize the majority of their oil reserves with the Middleast , because they see ours and the UK's weakness by this dependence on this oil on the world maket as a stablizing feature , which they can use to ruin ours and Uks economies if they can dominate these areas and their oil reserves . This is why we need to get onto a whole new energy source period !!!!!!!!
Comment: I understand that drilling for oil is not the immediate or the ultimate answer. It is the mid term carry us through part of the plan. That is precicely why I am advocating pulling 2 million barrels a day from our strategic reserves, and using the funds from the sale of that oil to fund R&D for alternative enrgy sources. If we plan to drill for oil now, it will be 7 years before we actually have a permit to start drilling. If by then, we have made enough progress in alternatives so that we are confident we won't need the additional oil, we can call off the plan to drill. But at least it's there for a back up plan if nothing else.
Comment: OMG, you actually believe that we have enough oil offshore US to support our VORACIOUS apetite for petroleum??? You're naive - it would only supply maybe 10% of our total consumption of oil, and it wouldn't come "online" (be in production) for at least 7 years, once we get the "permit" as you say. It's too late for offshore, though I'm sure we'll eventually do it - just because we'll be so desperate for fuel in a few yers that anything would be nice, no matter how much of a trickly. By then, the price will be $500/bbl so it will hardly make sense to refine it - it will cost the refineries too much just to get it in the doors. Forget offshore, forget oil - we need to focus FAST on ALTERNATIVES for our transporation crisis.
Of just plan on getting a horse or two and making sure your bikes are comfy for long rides.
Comment: Maybe but 10 years for development of alternatives does not account for the conversion of our societies entire infrastructure that has taken a hundred years to build. We may be halfway through the auto industry phase in process in 10 years, if we have the technology readily available in 2 years, but frankly, that's the easy part, and that's only a fraction of our consumption.
You are basically staking our entire way of life on the notion that we will be able to have technology figured out and implemented in a timely fashion with absolutely no back up plan if we don't.
Comment: This may be slightly out of line, but I find it interesting that the Democrats continually insult the Republicans, calling them stupid idoit morons (just to name a few of the PC names they use) and then they wonder why the Republicans aren't jumping at the opportunity to figure out the answer to the energy problem that the Democrats seem the most desperate to figure out. The Republican answer is already figured out. If the Dems are so desperate to figure out a different answer, quit whining about the Republicans, and go figure it out. When you do, you'll make yourself rich.
Comment: The republican so-called "answer" is not the anwer. They are doing what they have been doing for years. Telling the people what they want to hear. And, as usual, you people run with it. Off shore drilling will KILL an eco-system already out of balance and thus accerating global warming. Eventually we will all be under water. The US needs alternatives that will not destroy it for our children and their children. A proposal on the table which allows for unlimited research of alternative energy is a must. The US cannot afford to simply concentrate on one source ($300 millon research on a battery) we have to expand on other options or continue to believe that we can take what does not belong to us through war and intimidation. Last time I checked that costs money. So why not put that money towards something useful and worthwhile. Its time that we set the bar to create alternative clean energy. Nuclear energy, clean and useful is good, but where do we store the waste? Its seems no matter how you slice it, something bad is destined to happen. Now or in the future. As far as I'm concerned, the way the republicans have helped GWB run this country shows that they are stupid morons. For all you know the dems probably have figured it out. Desperation? We are all in desperate need of a change for the better. The curent adminstration and all who follow it can and will not provide that (that means you McCain).
Comment: We have a fundamental difference on this issue.
Republicans, (other than McCain) by and large don't buy the global warming argument, or at least believe it is grossly exaggerated. As such, we see no immediate threat to the future of our planet due to another 30 years on fossil fuel usage.
Democrats on the other hand, by and large, seem so convinced that our world will implode in 10 years due to climate change, that they are willing to throw all caution to the wind, and stake our very way of life on the development of alternative technology with absolutely no back up plan. Maybe they are just so convinced that no back up plan is necessary because they believe we'll all be dead if we don't figure it out immediately.
The reality is that we all want the same thing. We all want safer and cleaner technology. The Republicans just want to excercise a little prudence in the process instead of throwing a quick and dirty band aid on the problem. They firmly believe that we must have a contingency plan in place for when the process takes longer than we think. yet every time that comes up, the Dems throw a fit about the Republicans wanting to keep the status quo forever.
The Dems have had the same opportunity to develop these technologies as the Republicans have, and I don't see any more progress coming from them either. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it's not as easy as you think.
Comment: We all need to get focused on the Future !!!!!! Famine is here ; read this top perspective ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
This guy Pres Bush gave an award too , Pelosi and Steny were there too , and then they turn around and subsidise our food for ethanol production causing inflation on food , and everything related to producing food , and this is the only thing thats keeping our economic book keeping functioning right now , because Resource Expansion is missing from the overall economic function of supply versus demand to keep pricing low overall .
Comment: I agree that Corn Ethanol is a waste of perfectly good food, and has a rediculously poor conversion rate. While small quantities that can use corn by-products can be cost effective, that is not the answer to the oil cost problem, nor does it help anyone's environmental concerns.
Comment: We all need to get focused on the Future !!!!!! Famine is here ; read this top perspective ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
The future of our world needs to be the next focus as these issues are our realities , read these comments , and statements and lets design our ways forward accordingly ; for the sake of survival instead of only focusing on profitability , because the way profit was originally designed was to promote development that would not lead to consolidation of humanities needs , but to be a tool that would constantly be driving expansion so that humanity could continue to prosper and that means too live ; we are reaching a time in which , like past generations that faced shortages that lead too conflicts and wars , we are there again , so change in procedures is needed to miss yet again the next great conflict of our time , " Famine " , lets use our understandings of today's education and history too stay ahead of this never ending struggle we face ; below are some ideas that can help too provide a future both in resource , which can lead to a New generation of wealth through these developments that will sustain Humanity into the future ;
Comment: Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/27/2008 1:54:09 PM
Comment: Once Bushy took the reins, after all he is a cowboy isn't he, the country started swirling in the toilet. This is one time that we could use a really fast calendar that gets us to November in just a couple of weeks before Bushy boy pushes the wrong button and ruins another whole country out there somewhere.
I lost my support for this guy after he gave this guy an award for telling us the shortage thats coming in our food supply in the next 30 years , and then Bush turns around and Subsidies food production for ethanol , instead of subsidising alternatives away from Food related industries ....hum , either he is not in tune , or hes bought off by the big businesses that are benefiting by the inflation this subsidy is causing , hum think about this for a minute , please . . . . . . . . . . .
Comment: My old dad used to have a saying when things got out of control that it was like "a madman with a machine gun". I would visualize that, and it is sort of like what happened when the powers that be started to let Bush actually make decisions. Then, once he got control he wouldn't give it back.
Now, the same bunch picked an old codger to run who will shortly not have the capacity to pour p*ss out of a boot so that they can get things back up and running again. They will let him read a speech once in a while and look like a president while they "fix us up like things ought to be", wink wink. It is said that they have toilet tissue in their bathrooms with the Constitution printed on each square. But, that's just a rumor. It could be only the first ten amendment
