Dependence of oil = Need for global powerprojecting.

[Grey_Wolf]

I've been thinking. If for example the United States converted all their cars to ethanol-engines the need for them to "protect" the arab oil-sources would disappear.

Basicly the need for global powerprojection would disappear.

What's your opinion?

[Insidious Rex]

Not during this administration sorry. Way too much big oil money in direct control of the highest levels of government. They will just consult CEO's of big oil companies and refineries and automobile companies and call it an "environmental task force" and then dig up national parks that wont give us more then a drop in the grand scheme of things. To effect real change on our dependence for foreign oil would take a radical shift in thinking in terms of energy policy. That would gore (no pun intended) too many sacred cows for this current administration so it would never happen. And frankly I dont have too much faith in democrats making the changes needed for this either. I think our only hope is to have gas get up to $20 a gallon and a small revolution to take place.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Not during this administration sorry. Way too much big oil money in direct control of the highest levels of government. They will just consult CEO's of big oil companies and refineries and automobile companies and call it an "environmental task force" and then dig up national parks that wont give us more then a drop in the grand scheme of things. To effect real change on our dependence for foreign oil would take a radical shift in thinking in terms of energy policy. That would gore (no pun intended) too many sacred cows for this current administration so it would never happen. And frankly I dont have too much faith in democrats making the changes needed for this either. I think our only hope is to have gas get up to $20 a gallon and a small revolution to take place.

Yeah, even though Sweden only has a need for "Social" powerprojecting (that is, "look how good we are to the poor people of the world".), our present government thinks it's quite all right with gasprices hovering close to 12 sek/litre (8 of which is taxes (about ca 6 sek/gallon)). And we have these flexifuel cars which is supposed to be a compromise, which means we won't have any thorough-bred ethanol-cars anytime soon.

[Spock]

OK, another US bash is underway. Of course the increased needs of the world in general and India and China specifically have nothing to do with the problem.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Spock

OK, another US bash is underway. Of course the increased needs of the world in general and India and China specifically have nothing to do with the problem.

I guess it looks that way and I've had a pm from JD correcting me. My actual idea was that an oil-free/ethanol-using world would be a better one. And Europe and Asia (as JD told me) are deeper into the oil-using pit than any other of the continents and would benefit from casting off the chain of using oil.

[The Gaffer]

All countries do this, always have and always will.

When oil's off the agenda (and I say when because it will be, one day), it will be water.

[Earniel]

All in all, I think it's an little oversimplified statement. [EDIT: in response to original statement]

But in any case I am very in favour of reducing oil-dependency worldwide, regardless of any political reasons.

(And aimed most specifically at the politicians, I would also like them to stop focussing on cars only. While they soak up a big part of the oil-puddle, we get so much more out of oil than merely transportation.)

Basically I don't understand people. Some countries (and before I get blamed for bashing anyone again, I firmly include my onw country here. Belgium's environmental progress is adominable! Don't even het me started on that.) can lower their spewing-out of green house gasses by simply using energy more wisely, they don't even need to lower their life standard over it. So why don't they? Because it's too much bother turning off the light or the TV when you're leaving! Okay, I am oversimplifying myself here for a moment but you get the basic idea.

We've been knowing for years oil is gonna dry up and we're going to be caught unprepared. I know research is expensive but somehow I find the idea that using renewable resources is more expensive than limited ones just... too stupid.

So we've made some real progress in solar energy, wind energy, biomass energy and what do we see? People protest against wind mills because it 'ruins' the landscape. Hello? What about those bug-ugly mobile phone towers and telephone cables?! Then people will say wind mills are too expensive and kill too many birds. But hey, nobody gives a damn that traffic kills a thousand fold of them. Logic anyone?

Basically my point is, nobody seems to want to deal with the fact that the oil-tap is going to run dry one day. Most of us put our fingers in our ears, sing 'lalala, I can't hear you' and live happily on in denial. Nowadays when oil prices reach a new record almost every month, one would think renewable energies and sustainability would be talk of the town. And I'm hearing far, far too little about it.

(Although I must admit after this little rant, I'm naturally biased by working in the environmental field.)

[Spock]

..great, now who's first to chip in to the "buy Earniel" a bicycle

[Earniel]

*sticks out tongue*

Have one, use it every day to get to the tram, then take the train and walk the last bit to work.

Want any other energy-saving tips? I have plenty, made a whole brochure about them on my last work practical.

[Spock]

good on you E. Now if we get a few billion more to do the same, you're concerns will have melted away

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

I've been thinking. If for example the United States converted all their cars to ethanol-engines the need for them to "protect" the arab oil-sources would disappear.

Basicly the need for global powerprojection would disappear.

What's your opinion?

What do you mean when you say "power-projection"?


My main concern about increasing environmental focus is the cost to humans. That's one of the things I think about when I consider what's going on in the Amazon rain forest, for example. I hear again and again the repeated concern about what's happening there, and I realize it's a terrible ecological disaster. However, I never ever hear any proposed alternatives to the problems that are being addressed by the expansion of farming and building land in that area. Humanity in those places has needs that must be addressed also. The people there are building modern cities much like we have in our land . . . only where they live, there is a terrible cost that all the world experiences. Those people need an alternative course of action. An alternative other then "suffer in poverty and in silence." There has to be a better solution for them.

I know that the Bush administration has not been doing as much with the environment in America as another administration might. Generally, in my opinion, President Bush normally puts his emphasis on protecting people and causing people here to live comfortable and successful lives.

If one puts the environment higher on the list of priorities, it must be at the expense of something else. What are we willing to give up?

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What do you mean when you say "power-projection"?

My main concern about increasing environmental focus is the cost to humans. That's one of the things I think about when I consider what's going on in the Amazon rain forest, for example. I hear again and again the repeated concern about what's happening there, and I realize it's a terrible ecological disaster. However, I never ever hear any proposed alternatives to the problems that are being addressed by the expansion of farming and building land in that area. Humanity in those places has needs that must be addressed also. The people there are building modern cities much like we have in our land . . . only where they live, there is a terrible cost that all the world experiences. Those people need an alternative course of action. An alternative other then "suffer in poverty and in silence." There has to be a better solution for them.

I know that the Bush administration has not been doing as much with the environment in America as another administration might. Generally, in my opinion, President Bush normally puts the importance of protecting people and causing people here to live comfortable and successful lives.

If one puts the environment higher on the list of priorities, it must be at the expense of something else. What are we willing to give up?

sidepoint
(I was in the wrong when it comes to PP. The US IS needed to be out there showing itself, and even though SOME nato states helped in Iraq, not all did. And if all had been helping perhaps Iraq would have been more managable.)


And everyone's quite right, old stick-head-in-the-sand European states will never change until it is way too late. The same goes for the rest of the world.

I guess I wanted to write off some of my anger at not being able to do anything about the situation.

Sorry, that I oversimplified the whole problem.

[trolls' bane]

Man, you guys have got it all wrong. It's all about fusion power. Batteries would be bulky but last so long that they would become family heirlooms.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

Man, you guys have got it all wrong. It's all about fusion power. Batteries would be bulky but last so long that they would become family heirlooms.

It all takes time, my friend. And the US .

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It all takes time, my friend. And the US .

C'mon, if the sun could figure it out, surely we must be able to. If you want my opinion, wait until I have read this thread and posted on the subject .

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If one puts the environment higher on the list of priorities, it must be at the expense of something else. What are we willing to give up?

Everyone seems to agree that the other one has to give up things first.

The way I see it, we're ALL already paying handsomely for a century of industrial and economic growth with reduced health and an increase in environment- and pollution-related diseases: Vertility is going down, persistant organic substances are found in mother's milk (I will not even mention the aweful crap that ends up in our food chain), levels of dangerous toxins are rising steadily in human surroundings, increase in respiratory diseases, desertification is booming, species that could provide useful medecines are popping out of existance at an alarming rate, ect ...

The critical question is, when will we consider those costs higher than the benefits of our polluting industry and wasteful lifestyle? Only then will real measures be taken, in my opinion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Everyone seems to agree that the other one has to give up things first.

The way I see it, we're ALL already paying handsomely for a century of industrial and economic growth with reduced health and an increase in environment- and pollution-related diseases: Vertility is going down, persistant organic substances are found in mother's milk (I will not even mention the aweful crap that ends up in our food chain), levels of dangerous toxins are rising steadily in human surroundings, increase in respiratory diseases, desertification is booming, species that could provide useful medecines are popping out of existance at an alarming rate, ect ...

I'm not sure quite how to respond to you, because I need to know the places the different things you mention are happening in. Are you saying this is worldwide, happening in every country? I rather doubt it. Also, how much is it going up in those different countries?

One tool by which the government limits pollution is setting laws taxing industries for it. This gives incentives for companies to find new ways of reducing their own pollution. I think new industries get temporary reprieves in the beginning, just so that they have a chance to get going. The government has to decide upon a balance when it sets these laws. How much will it tax the companies? Too high a cost may stifle the economy. Too low a cost may have a dangerous impact on the environment.

An interesting fact I learned in economics is that a thriving economy tends to cause an improved environment too. Nations with dismal economies usually have dismal environmental care. Therefore by bolstering a nation economically, one can actually help to preserve the environment.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not sure quite how to respond to you, because I need to know the places the different things you mention are happening in. Are you saying this is worldwide, happening in every country? I rather doubt it. Also, how much is it going up in those different countries?

Eh, sorry, got slightly caught up in the argument that I was for a moment forgetting I wasn't talking to class mates.

Basically, most of the things I mentioned apply to industrialised Europe (after all most of it comes from European studies). But frankly, a lot of it should be applicable to the USA as well. It would very much surprise me if it didn't. When I mentioned desertification, I was thinking mostly about Africa, although Spain is getting some too. And the disappearance of species is most common in tropical lands where biodiversity is larger and far less catalogued.

But no, I don't think it's happening equally in every country. Although I think we can say that these and others are, or will be, world-wide problems. But the different climates, vegetation, demography and such all have an influence on the impact in each country.

One tool by which the government limits pollution is setting laws taxing industries for it. This gives incentives for companies to find new ways of reducing their own pollution. I think new industries get temporary reprieves in the beginning, just so that they have a chance to get going. The government has to decide upon a balance when it sets these laws. How much will it tax the companies? Too high a cost may stifle the economy. Too low a cost may have a dangerous impact on the environment.

Indeed, in theory this works fine. But it has a number of problems. For one, it would require the government to have specialist knowledge of these technology to determine their influence on the environment. A perfect place for the lobby of the industry to have a say.

The trouble is that pollution is bound to no border, whereas taxes are. When one country implements taxes to lower pollution and another country does not, producing will be cheeper in the other country. So either land A suffers a loss of part of the industry that moves across the border, or it will suffer a weakened comercial position. That's why governments are weary and will more likely settle in a position that is better for the economy but not good enough to keep the quality of their environment. That's why, IMO, these problems should be dealt with on larger scales than merely national or local.

An interesting fact I learned in economics is that a thriving economy tends to cause an improved environment too. Nations with dismal economies usually have dismal environmental care. Therefore by bolstering a nation economically, one can actually help to preserve the environment.

True, but IMO not always. I'm thinking mainly about China that is knowing an economic boom at the moment (considering they're almost flooding our market with fabric and the like) but their environment is suffering heavily from it too.

I think with a good economy come more means to preserve your environment but also a different perspective, where the environment is a luxury and not merely a means to make money of. The focus will be less on gaining more and more on preserving what you have.

[MrBishop]

It has been and shall continue to be difficult to curb the use of hydrocarbons and fossil fuels in developing nations. Frankly, its cheaper and easier to use pollutants than it is to try an reinvent new ways to power mass-production and industrialization...and frankly, industrialization is the only way to drag them out of their impoverished state.

The so called 'first nations' won't desist until the people at large are willing to give up the comfy lifestyles and the conspicuous consumption to which we have been raised. The SUVs and 4x4s that never go off-road, the habits of driving everywhere we go, the speeding and the idling etc...

There is no real need to manufacture new motors and cars. Placing a limit on top speed for all vehicles and emission standards would go a long way towards reducing pollution...but who the hell wants a Porche that can only go 60mph or a Harley that sounds like a scooter??!?

Change the mentality first...it'll make the other changes easier to swallow. Trippling the price of gas is a good start...perhaps people would consider walking to the convenience store 3 blocks away if they knew that they spent more on gas than they did on their purchases. :shrug:

[MrBishop]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

All countries do this, always have and always will.

When oil's off the agenda (and I say when because it will be, one day), it will be water.

Great...another reason to invade Canada