The Price of Oil

[Ransom]

Dirk's recent comments about the price of oil spurred me to make this post.

We've all heard many explanations for the oil price run up over the last five years. Some say we're at or near the peak possible output of oil in the world, and that output will only decrease in the coming years, driving prices ever higher. Others say that the problem is speculation, with money that was in the housing market bubble now having moved on to commodities, where a new bubble is being blown. Still others say that the problem is one of supply, but not of the "peak oil" variety; we're simply not investing sufficiently in drawing oil out of the ground.

I've done a little bit of reading and thinking about this subject, but I'm definitely no expert. So I wanted to find out the thoughts of my fellow Mouse Owners.

My own thoughts, at this point, amount more to questions than answers. For example, how much has the situation in Iraq affected that country's ability to supply oil? How about Nigeria, Mexico, and the others that have not been able (for one reason or another) to extract oil at their historical paces? Could bringing all of them fully online drop the price? Or is it a moot point -- are those problems so intractable that their full resources won't be online for decades?

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not in the peak oil camp. Of course I realize that at some point oil extraction will indeed peek; it's a finite resource, after all. But I put more credence in the idea that, for a variety of reasons, our production and distribution infrastructure has been greatly weakened over the last 10 to 20 years. I think putting our resources into fixing those problems -- some of which are, admittedly, extremely difficult ones -- will bring the greatest return.

What are your thoughts on the whole issue of oil prices? What's causing it, and how do we fix the problem(s)?

[TW1]

(as he dons his Nomex suit...)

Opinions? I'm good at those, so let me join this merry thread.

From the bit I've read, the idea of 'peak' production is mostly true in terms of the type of oil we are now pumping worldwide. However, this is the production of the 'easy' oil, the oil that is just sitting there ready to be extracted with the technology we currently employ. There are bazillions of barrels of oil that are very hard to get at, and very expensive to get at. One estimate I heard is that the hard-to-get-at oil isn't worth the effort at $125 per barrel, but may be at $225 per barrel.

Demand has far from peaked. China, India and many other nations are just beginning to develop a thirst for oil. Their growing economies are demanding so much more on a daily basis that there really is a supply issue, and it is only going to get worse, for the entire globe. IN many ways, all the investments these developing countries have made over the last 50 years are on the brink of massize success, or massive failure if the supply issues are not addressed. But where Americans might grumble and complain, even march on Washington, it is very likely citizens in developing countries may fall into massive civil disturbances, even topple some governments - and this is a very serious issue. What if an oil-rich nation, unfriendly to the US, stepped in to offer these faultering governments access to the oil they need? Where would that leave us? This is a true impact of the supply issue.

Mexico, Nigeria and others may never realize their full potential Sadly it is the Darwin principle applied to business that makes some firms successful and ensures others will fail.

Alternatives? Coal is a good one. US and China have huge coal deposits and we will begin to see its impact over the next decade.

Personally, I place great optimism in technology and intelligence (sometimes in that order.) Soon, someone somewhere, will make the prospects of solar, wind, thermal, hydrogen, etc, feasible on a scale that will transform the world. How soon? Well my kids will be the ones who enjoy that ride. I believe all the pieces are in place: need, profit, greed, politics, human curiosity, awareness of the alternatives, etc., that are fostering the next Thomas Edisons, Enrico Fermis, and Andrew Carnegies.

[Colorado Belle]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek:
1. re oil prices: too bloody high
2. re solutoin: bomb every oil producing country into submission and steal all of their oil production forever.

[greenban]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek:
1. re oil prices: too bloody high
2. re solutoin: bomb every oil producing country into submission and steal all of their oil production forever.

WOW!

I mean WOW!

-Tony

And I thought I couldn't possible like you anymore than I do now!

BTW, did I mention WOW?

[pollymn]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek:
1. re oil prices: too bloody high
2. re solutoin: bomb every oil producing country into submission and steal all of their oil production forever.

Having a bad day CB?:innocent::innocent:

[TW1]

Warning - completely off topic...

Hey Tony, do you get WHYY-TV in your area? They are showing the "Frogumentary" tonight at 8pm.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread

[BWV Dreamin]

I am afraid to post on this thread. I posted on a similar thread over on the other boards, and RINKWIDE made fun of my post. He posted some chicken looking up at the sky.....I still don't get it!:headscrat

[carolina_yankee]

I am afraid to post on this thread. I posted on a similar thread over on the other boards, and RINKWIDE made fun of my post. He posted some chicken looking up at the sky.....I still don't get it!:headscrat
It's kinda hard to not think the sky is falling when the situation changes as fast as it does.

I'm only news headline informed on this topic, but I believe the oil crisis is a mixture of everything - supply due to poor infrastructure and shrinking reserves of easy oil, high demand from emerging economies, speculation, and political unrest. Don't forget to put Nigeria and Venezuela in the problem categories, too. I'm also a little nervous because Japan attacked the US over access to oil, and well, the Mayan calendar seems to be eerily prescient on other things and this is the year of the World War according to them . . . :bagovermy

Honestly, though - i'm also a hopeful person. I think things will get bad to a point, and then we'll adapt, discover, innovate, and tech ourselves out of the crisis.

Too bad the put a nuclear reactor in Cinderella's Castle. They should have used it to cover up the infrastructure of an oil well . . .


Dirk

[greenban]

Warning - completely off topic...

Hey Tony, do you get WHYY-TV in your area? They are showing the "Frogumentary" tonight at 8pm.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread

I'm not sure, will check DISH when I ghet home, many thanks for the heads-up Tom!

-Tony

[mikayla73]

This has been a hot topic at work recently. There is actually a guy at work who has a Dodge Neon that he added the "water4gas" set up to. He says he now gets about 53 miles to the gallon in that car. He had a "show and tell" at work (cause everyone wanted to see it) and has been using it for at least a month now with no problems. There's a couple of other guys who are going to try it out too. Basically it breaks down the water and uses the Hydrogen for power too, using less gas. DH has been interested in it, he's very mechanically inclined, and stuff like that is interesting, especially if it works. Of course I wouldn't put it on a new car, but finding a small good cheap car shouldn't be too hard :)

I personally am waiting to see how this car makes it. It a fully hydrogen car from Honda (http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/). It's being released in So Cal sometime this summer in a few limited cities. They have to be close to the dealer for servicing and filling up.

I know the problem is bigger than just running cars, but every little bit helps!

[glypnir]

We have a Honda Civic GX natural gas car. I bought it in 2002. glypnirsgirl drives it. It's a step on the way to the hydrogen car. It's not really a solution to the oil crisis in itself, but it is a bit of a help, because they are still flaring off natural gas - or, worse yet, just letting it leak away. Worse because methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

Then there is my Jeep Wrangler, aka the Baby Guzzle.

I don't think that there is one specific solution. But I would suggest that since the oil companies are loath to invest in refineries, they will also be loath to invest in shale oil extraction or somesuch.

As usual, they'll demand lots of tax breaks, and exemptions from environmental standards, so the true costs of oil will be hidden, and it will be subsidized, as usual, preventing the development of alternatives.

As far as the short term, it is some supply, some uncertainty, and some speculation.

I'm not really trying to be a troll, but I tend to be a bit more pejorative than I feel. The following is one way of looking at a complex situation. I don't think it's quite that simple, but here goes:

Sometimes I think of the Iraq war as "The Exxon Empire strikes back." It used to be that the oil companies ruled the oil prices, on behalf of the consuming countries. After lots of nationalizations and such, the power has shifted to the producing countries more and more.

Certainly that oil law that they are trying to get passed in Iraq gives lots of access to foreign oil companies. Certainly, in Iran, the US and Britain overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh, who was democratically elected, by the way, right after he nationalized the oil companies there. We put the Shah back in power. That may have started the whole Iranian mess. Or continued it, since British colonialism was a long term presence there.

Things are going like a typical counter-revolution, though. While we are doing battle in Iraq, South America is emboldened, and Venezuela and Bolivia are busy getting more royalties for their oil. And doing other things.

So that is another thing that is driving up the price of oil. Some countries are taking advantage of our preoccupation in Iraq, and the support of other oil consuming countries, like China, to increase their national cut of the oil price.

It's no coincidence that Ecuador is offering our air base in their country to the Chinese to develop as a commercial airport.

Did you know that the Chinese are also going to do an enhancement to the Panama Canal. That should be interesting in lots of ways.

And a fair amount of the Chinese and Indian development is fueled by our trade deficit with them.

Sorry. I've been accused of being a human fire hose of information. I should stop now.

[bavaria]

ok, ok, I cannot stay away with so many juicy topics to discuss!!! If I get myself into trouble, I am going to blame Ransom and Mod8 :innocent:

I agree with TW1 in the sense that I am optimistic that through hard times comes ingenuity.

Where I may disagree is that I don't think that we in North America have felt true pain yet. I filled up my car in the US, Canada, France and Germany recently. Believe me, I know how the price of fuel varies in those countries, and I thought that I got a bargain in the US. (I am not trying to negate the increases which you have seen there, but simply trying to point out that the fuel in the US is still quite a bargain compared to elsewhere in the world)

While we have seen some changes in behaviour, I don't think that the $4,50 gas price has impacted enough people yet to make significant changes. That may come at $6,00 or $8,00 (although I certainly don't want to see those prices any more than any of you)

I also think that the 2008 American is paying for decisions made in the past which may have been shortsighted, in regards to transportation and energy sources. That somewhat limits what they can do in the short term to address this issue.

I've been discussing elements of this with some of you off line, and have voiced that my biggest struggle right now is that so many seem to be focussed on their own pain and not acknowledging the global issue. Yes, it hurts us to pay this much for gas. Yes, it hurts to take the bus (believe me, I HATE taking a bus or the metro, and have many years experience doing that)

But the real tragedy is what rising fuel prices (as well as other forces) have done to the poor in the world. Food prices rose 5.9% in the US, 7.1% in Europe, and up to 60% worldwide. Those who had the least have now even less.

As I read all the whinging online about airline baggage fees in North America, I cannot help but worry about the self-centred viewpoint which overlooks the billions of people in the world who cannot feed themselves.

[Rozzie]

As I read all the whinging online about airline baggage fees in North America, I cannot help but worry about the self-centred viewpoint which overlooks the billions of people in the world who cannot feed themselves.

My favorite poster returns!!!!!!! :yes: Very well put, and of course, I agree 100%.

I just don't know if the States will ever think globally. The egocentric attitude is almost a mainstay that is now being handed down to younger generations. I don't know where the bottom is, but I have to think that we are no where near it.

[AFMom]

Bavaria! We missed you!
I know gas in Germany equates to about $8.80 a gallon (changing from Euros and liters to gallons and Dollars), however - from what I've read - most of that cost is taxes added to the price of gas by the German government. While we add tax here (obviously) our govt. doesn't tax as much - hence the lower gas prices. SO - it isn't so much that the US doesn't pay the same for the actual gas - we just don't pay our govt. as many taxes for it.
I think that is an important point to remember.
It's sorta like comparing healthcare here to healthcare in Sweden. Yep - they have "free" healthcare run by the govt - but they pay 1/2 their wages in taxes!
And I wouldn't want our government deciding what kind of care me and my family recieve (can you imagine dealing with the department of motor vehicles to get immunizations???? or heart surgery????) Sorry - slipping off topic.
But I do think it's dangerous to try to compare apples to oranges when comparing costs/benefits of anything in our country to costs/benefits in another.
The cost of food is absolutely out of control - my grocery bill has gone up about $100 every time I shop - and I'm a frugal shopper! Thankfully we can cut other expenditures to make up for it rather than having to go hungry.
My opinion - it isn't so much scarcity or supply. Opec could increase production right now - they choose not to. We may have a problem refining it fast enough here as our refineries are already at close to full capacity.... But it would ease global demand and hence help the price lower here as well. The problem is the speculative buying. Just my very shortened opinion.

[bavaria]

All right folks, buckle up your seatbelts as this thread is taking a slight detour, courtesy of Kristy/AFMom! ;)

May I present a brief overview of recent Germany history and economics (please do stay awake as you may find it interesting)

The Economics lesson

AFMom was correct that the gas price in Germany includes a lot of tax - 1,43 a litre includes the net price of 0,45; VAT 0,23; eco tax 0,66; profit margin 0,094 cents (This is not a maths class, so hopefully that total is correct)

So where is that 'free German health insurance'? Well, it is not really hiding in the gas price, although part of the 'eco tax' is used to reduce labour cost. Who pays for the 'free' German health care? We do - a shared cost between employer and employee.

Then why call it an eco tax if it does not all go to Mother Nature? the thought is that by adding high tax to gas, consumption will be reduced.

Some other tax facts about life in Germany:
Income tax 42-45 percent
VAT (tax included on almost every purchase) 19 percent
Pension contribution 20 percent of salary (shared by employee and employer)

I will keep the list short!

So, where does all that money go if we are paying so much in tax?

See my next post - the History lesson

[bavaria]

The History Lesson

Life was good in Germany in the mid-1980's - very good, in fact. The economic miracle meant that most people were content, had decent vacations, and were looked after by the state. The majority didn't own cars or houses or a lot of 'stuff', but that wasn't really necessary to enjoy life.

The one blot was that frontier to the east, where much of our population was locked away behind a border and a wall. For many we could rarely or never see our imprisioned family members. We never expected that situation to change.

Well, one day we awoke to find that the wall and the frontier was gone, and that we were once again one family. There was a giant party, but as usual, once the party was over we awoke with a massive hangover.

Suddenly we found that we had to pay for these new family members. And they hadn't really maintained the infrastructure over the past few decades as the communist system didn't allow for fancy Autobahns. Their train tracks didn't even mesh with ours - they weren't the same distance apart, so trains had to stop at the frontier. Their factories were in disrepair, and didn't produce products in demand in the West.

Bit by bit, the state told us that we had to give up benefits, to help pay for the new population and the required upgrades to infrastructure. Of course this was painful, and of course people whined. They whined so loudly in fact that many left the country. Tensions grew and some Wessies wished that the frontier had never fallen. Some Ossies wanted to lock the frontier back up again. No matter how bleak things appeared, however, Germany was still seen as a good place to live by others in eastern Europe, and the population exploded even more quickly.

But the painful decade did come to an end, and most of us learned to adjust. We still don't have the same standard of living that we once did, and most likely will not see that again in our lifetime.




So, why did I share the history lesson? To show that the high taxes that we pay are in part to support the long established social system, but also to show that reunification has been very costly. There is still economic aid given to the East and we will still pay for this for decades to come. Reunification was a wonderful thing to happen, but a very costly event.

I understand the current upset in the US about rising prices, believe me I understand! I did not like the whining that went on in Germany, and it frustrated me just as some of the whining I see on other websites frustrates me.

But I have faith that these challenging times will result in innovation and solidarity, and that people will be the stronger in the end.

Now, what were we talking about? :innocent:

[bavaria]

Going back to TW1's point about innovation - this is one of my favourite stories about simplicity, and how we are sometimes blinded by technology.

http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10230

A simple, inexpensive item brought water to millions, when the latest technology could not do so.

Sometimes innovation means looking around at the 'old' ideas and using them to create something slightly newer.






by the way, I really like posting here when it is late at night for most people because it means that I get to talk to myself and answer myself! :D

[greenban]

ok, ok, I cannot stay away with so many juicy topics to discuss!!! If I get myself into trouble, I am going to blame Ransom and Mod8 :innocent:

I agree with TW1 in the sense that I am optimistic that through hard times comes ingenuity.

Where I may disagree is that I don't think that we in North America have felt true pain yet. I filled up my car in the US, Canada, France and Germany recently. Believe me, I know how the price of fuel varies in those countries, and I thought that I got a bargain in the US. (I am not trying to negate the increases which you have seen there, but simply trying to point out that the fuel in the US is still quite a bargain compared to elsewhere in the world)

While we have seen some changes in behaviour, I don't think that the $4,50 gas price has impacted enough people yet to make significant changes. That may come at $6,00 or $8,00 (although I certainly don't want to see those prices any more than any of you)

I also think that the 2008 American is paying for decisions made in the past which may have been shortsighted, in regards to transportation and energy sources. That somewhat limits what they can do in the short term to address this issue.

I've been discussing elements of this with some of you off line, and have voiced that my biggest struggle right now is that so many seem to be focussed on their own pain and not acknowledging the global issue. Yes, it hurts us to pay this much for gas. Yes, it hurts to take the bus (believe me, I HATE taking a bus or the metro, and have many years experience doing that)

But the real tragedy is what rising fuel prices (as well as other forces) have done to the poor in the world. Food prices rose 5.9% in the US, 7.1% in Europe, and up to 60% worldwide. Those who had the least have now even less.

As I read all the whinging online about airline baggage fees in North America, I cannot help but worry about the self-centred viewpoint which overlooks the billions of people in the world who cannot feed themselves.

Dear Bavaria, as usual a great, thought provoking post.....

And only Partially playing Devil's Advocate.....

Are we our brothers and sisters keepers?

When is enough, how many billions of dollars in foreign aid flushed down these toilets of poverty.

Is their a place for a nation's own responsibility? Is there no personal responsibility, or just the need to put a hand out?

How many schools, clinics and houses should I feel obligated to build for others? How many times do I need to rebuild them?

Perhaps, we should start our charity at home? When every US citizen has food, a safe shelter, healthcare and education, can we revisit helping others...?

I don't know for sure where my thoughs lay in these spectrums of possibility.

And glypnir, US liberals have blocked every proposed refinery or Nuke plant in the last 35 years. Remember the Alaskian Pipeline was going to ruin Alsaka and harm the Caribou. Neither happened........

Locals (myself included) of the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) variety have blocked most new powerplants (of any type) and blocked new High Tension (power) lines as well.

It has not *ALL* been corporate greed, more harm has been in the faith of global warming, there is no valid science to that fantasy.

So, in the US, with our water problems, power problems, worsening fuel problems, our bilingual noneducational schools, we have finally achieved our 'handlers' goals, we have reached third world status.

We have become sheeople, merely making money for the world banks by borrowing, and becoming dependent on the teat of government handouts.

-Tony

[carolina_yankee]

Tony - Google Millennium Development Goals. I think you will find both how inexpensive it really is to eliminate severe poverty (living on less than $1 a day) and moderate poverty (living on less than $2 a day), which affects more then 1 billion people on this planet. That's 1/6 of the population.

The goals really aren't about handouts, but about transformation of societies. Eliminate severe poverty through education (increasing access to primary schools), gender equality (better health care for all, access to health care for women, access to education for women), vaccinations, malaria nets, access to potable water and so forth.

There is a village in India where women (yes, women!) spent 6 hours each day collection 5 gallons of water (that's a woman's job in the developing world) - 3 hours in the AM and 3 hours in the PM. Princeton Day School raised $1500 to build a well. Suddenly, the village life is transformed, and women have 6 more hours a day on their hands. Some of them are starting small businesses with their extra time (usually craft work) which is bringing in income. All because of $1500 that some teenagers in the US raised.

It's not just about global warming. It's about the fact that in our modern world, we're all inter-connected. Poverty leads to social instability. Social instability leads to violence and war. Violence and war lead to genocide and terror.

Yes, there are government problems (our and developing), but the MDGs take that into account and expect governments to increase transparency. Also MDGs are a partnership with NGOs as well, recognizing that sometime the NGO world does better than the governmental world.

Oh, the US signed into the MDGs (spend 0.07% of income on eliminating poverty) and we are the only Western country to not even have a plan to meeting our commitment. Sweden, incidentally, is up to about 1.5% of their annual income. Germany is ahead of the game, too.

Not to make this political, but we in the US need to recognize that we aren't the only game in town and we might not be the world leaders in this century that we were in the last.

How does all of this relate to oil? Well, money put to fuel is money taken out development aid. Because biofuels are now more economical due to the price of oil, grains are being taken out of the food supply, which is increasing the cost of food for the 1,000,000,000 people living on less than $2 a day.

While every country has poverty, and the US has serious problems in some areas, no one in our country faces the problems that 1/6 of the world faces. I guess I'm with Bavaria, $25 in luggage fees really are pocket change (especially when the average DVD is $15 - $19 and the Blu-Ray DVDs are in their mid $20s and every minivan has at least one video system these days. Geesh, when I was a kid - I read a book on long drives!! Or - gasp! - actually talked with my family. And that was in the dark ages of the 1970s!!

Dirk

[greenban]

Tony - Google Millennium Development Goals. I think you will find both how inexpensive it really is to eliminate severe poverty (living on less than $1 a day) and moderate poverty (living on less than $2 a day), which affects more then 1 billion people on this planet. That's 1/6 of the population.

The goals really aren't about handouts, but about transformation of societies. Eliminate severe poverty through education (increasing access to primary schools), gender equality (better health care for all, access to health care for women, access to education for women), vaccinations, malaria nets, access to potable water and so forth.

There is a village in India where women (yes, women!) spent 6 hours each day collection 5 gallons of water (that's a woman's job in the developing world) - 3 hours in the AM and 3 hours in the PM. Princeton Day School raised $1500 to build a well. Suddenly, the village life is transformed, and women have 6 more hours a day on their hands. Some of them are starting small businesses with their extra time (usually craft work) which is bringing in income. All because of $1500 that some teenagers in the US raised.

It's not just about global warming. It's about the fact that in our modern world, we're all inter-connected. Poverty leads to social instability. Social instability leads to violence and war. Violence and war lead to genocide and terror.

Yes, there are government problems (our and developing), but the MDGs take that into account and expect governments to increase transparency. Also MDGs are a partnership with NGOs as well, recognizing that sometime the NGO world does better than the governmental world.

Oh, the US signed into the MDGs (spend 0.07% of income on eliminating poverty) and we are the only Western country to not even have a plan to meeting our commitment. Sweden, incidentally, is up to about 1.5% of their annual income. Germany is ahead of the game, too.

Not to make this political, but we in the US need to recognize that we aren't the only game in town and we might not be the world leaders in this century that we were in the last.

How does all of this relate to oil? Well, money put to fuel is money taken out development aid. Because biofuels are now more economical due to the price of oil, grains are being taken out of the food supply, which is increasing the cost of food for the 1,000,000,000 people living on less than $2 a day.

While every country has poverty, and the US has serious problems in some areas, no one in our country faces the problems that 1/6 of the world faces. I guess I'm with Bavaria, $25 in luggage fees really are pocket change (especially when the average DVD is $15 - $19 and the Blu-Ray DVDs are in their mid $20s and every minivan has at least one video system these days. Geesh, when I was a kid - I read a book on long drives!! Or - gasp! - actually talked with my family. And that was in the dark ages of the 1970s!!

Dirk

Dirk:

Not really arguing about the cost, (in fact My Synagoge started the Million Quarters Project, http://urj.org/csa/projects/mqproject/ so I know firsthand how cheap it can be - Be good no Jewish jokes, please) but we have spent hundreds of times that amount over the past 75 or so years. So, sorry, but when is enough, enough already?

Jerry Lewis and the MDA, G-d bless 'em both, BTW. But when is enough, enough? How many billions spent?

Now remember, I am partially playing DA, but I'd personally now in time, rather use aid money to vaccinate all US children, to improve schools, to feed US hungry, and to shelter US homeless. I'm at the point of, let's fix what is wrong here (and get it right) before fixing (or throwing out yet more money - depends on your POV) on international issues.

Hey, I'm a hawk, and would rather fight the war on terrorism over there, but look at the real costs, economical, personal, humanitarian, international, etc. Perhaps we should have just nuked Iraq into a glass (fused sand) parking lot. Would have been a heck of a lot cheaper in all categories, well maybe not in the moral category....;)

-Tony

[Rozzie]

Tony, you bring up some good points. Let me explore the domestic issue a little more if I may....

It saddens me to think of children in the US going hungry at night, while we sink BILLIONS into foreign wars over oil. I think of the forgotten children of Appalachia, with no running water or power. I think of the children I see in the inner city on the way to work each morning, walking the streets, panhandling for money. At what point does our conscience say enough is enough? What about the Native American tribes (who really got screwed in the making this great nation), plagued with alcoholism and disease? What about the uninsured in this Country? Does the government just turn their backs with a "sucks to be you" attitude?

Sigh, I just don't get it. How on earth can we can beat on our chests declaring our way is best, when we have the mess that we do on domestic issues. And as for the oil issue goes, well maybe we can take some notes from our neighbors in Brazil. Sure, it may be apple to oranges comparison, but instead of looking for more oil, they found a way to not be held hostage to it.

[carolina_yankee]

Dirk:

Not really arguing about the cost, (in fact My Synagoge started the Million Quarters Project, http://urj.org/csa/projects/mqproject/ so I know firsthand how cheap it can be - Be good no Jewish jokes, please) but we have spent hundreds of times that amount over the past 75 or so years. So, sorry, but when is enough, enough already?
Mazel tov on your project! I admire the Jewish tradition and its commitment to outreach in the hear and now - something Christians often need to be reminded of (and I speak professionally in this regard!). So, no joke from me - except to say that if you do it, you're likely to do it well and with proper accounting. ;) Same is true for the Episcopal Church, though, since we're the money bags of mainline churches.

Now remember, I am partially playing DA, but I'd personally now in time, rather use aid money to vaccinate all US children, to improve schools, to feed US hungry, and to shelter US homeless. I'm at the point of, let's fix what is wrong here (and get it right) before fixing (or throwing out yet more money - depends on your POV) on international issues.
Agreed and understood in the DA part - but the Devil doesn't get the last word. :)

As for when is enough enough, I think the moral answer is when the need goes away. The question is whether the project is achieving it's goals. This is where government, and uncritical liberal foreign aid policies, hurt us. And I'm a leftie saying that.

Hey, I'm a hawk, and would rather fight the war on terrorism over there, but look at the real costs, economical, personal, humanitarian, international, etc. Perhaps we should have just nuked Iraq into a glass (fused sand) parking lot. Would have been a heck of a lot cheaper in all categories, well maybe not in the moral category....;)

Again, I'm in favor of what works - and governments have a moral responsibility to protect their people. But is our current governmental policy doing that (on the defense, economic (oil), or domestic front)? That's why we get to vote every 2 years. It would be nice if it made a difference some time, though. :(

Dirk

[nono]

Americans really want it both ways. We want a classless system that ensures with hard work everyone has equal opportunity to flourish well above the average standard of living. We also want a welfare state where everyone is taken care of if the person's circumstances aren't ideal.

I don't know that any system ever has come up with the proper balance for that. Perhpas the U.S. is the closet, and that means we have to hoard resources and screw the rest of the world to sustain such a state.

[bavaria]

Yesterday Rozzie joined me on another website and we did some tag team posting about the airline fees.

I am often called anti-American (which I am not - I choose to work there for much of the year for a reason). I am called a dirty nasty foreigner (I dispute the first two).

But like Rozzie, I have been cautioning people that their unwillingness to pay a 'rational' price for an airline ticket will have disastrous results for the US economy. I once started a thread thanking airline employees, who must be in fear for their jobs, but have to deal with the wrath of passengers upset over the fees. I was trashed for thanking them.

The reality is that if even one more US carrier goes under, it will have a severe impact as jobs are lost not just at the airline, but associated businesses such as catering. Look at the loss of Aloha and what that has done to Hawaii. Now imagine the loss of AA or UA or another carrier. Yes, it may shrink capacity and eventually 'fix' things, but at what price?

Just this past week two long time, respected posters PM'd me to tell me that one had lost their job, the other to tell me that her partner had lost their job. Both were well established professionals impacted by the current situation.

If people don't want to hear the message about looking at the rest of the world, then look in your own backyard. I spent a lot of time in LA as well as other gulf states after Hurricane Katrina. I saw things and heard things that reinforced what most of us saw on television.

I don't feel it my place to comment too much on US politics and criticise because I am not a US cititzen. But I can assure you that I feel that Germany has a responsibility in the world as a major player, and I am sometimes disappointed that we do not do enough to look after the world (even when we are in difficult economic times ourselves)

On a lighter note, I think that you should all be very very nice to bababear.... One day Laura Secord may be called for duty once again, when the rest of the world realizes which country in the world has the second largest oil reserve (as well as much of the world's water, and other vital resources) :scratchch

[Rozzie]

On a lighter note, I think that you should all be very very nice to bababear.... One day Laura Secord may be called for duty once again, when the rest of the world realizes which country in the world has the second largest oil reserve (as well as much of the world's water, and other vital resources) :scratchch

Excellent post Bavaria! :yes:

I watched CNN's special on the oil crisis and was really surprised to learn how much oil Canada has. We might have to get really friendly with a Northern neighbors before too long.

[bavaria]

Oil, natural gas, water, diamonds, gold, coal..... the list goes on and on

But they are just sitting quietly keeping it a secret for now! :D

[carolina_yankee]

Americans really want it both ways. We want a classless system that ensures with hard work everyone has equal opportunity to flourish well above the average standard of living. We also want a welfare state where everyone is taken care of if the person's circumstances aren't ideal.
I'm not sure most Americans want a welfare state. I think most Americans take genuine pride in putting forth effort and getting a fair return for that effort. It's interesting to look at the success of small businesses that are created and thrive in regions where even a little development aid (like my water well story) frees up resources.

I think any healthy system is one the rewards initiative - but I also think that system has to make room for it in the first place. Living near Trenton, I'm dismayed at the systemic failure of a school system that guarantees generations of youth will have no chance. And I know the answer isn't money (unless it's directly related to quality), but nevertheless it means there's not an level playing field.

I don't know that any system ever has come up with the proper balance for that. Perhpas the U.S. is the closet, and that means we have to hoard resources and screw the rest of the world to sustain such a state.
To some degree I think we've done well, but I think we're in danger of being surpassed on a number of fronts unless we feel a need to do better. I also think, given the inter-connectedness of the world, that to screw the world is to screw ourselves.

Dirk

[Ransom]

Americans really want it both ways. We want a classless system that ensures with hard work everyone has equal opportunity to flourish well above the average standard of living. We also want a welfare state where everyone is taken care of if the person's circumstances aren't ideal.


There is some truth to what you say, but it's also true that the macroeconomic policies enacted by us through our government ensure that there will always be some level of unemployment. For example, if the number of unemployed people gets too low, what does the Fed do? It raises interest rates, putting the brakes on the economy, thus throwing people out of work.

I understand that is done for very rational reasons (whether they're correct or best, I'll leave for another day). The fact of the matter is that the economy is managed to ensure that there is a certain proportion of the population out of work at any given time. Since we (the people) are doing that through our government, it's our moral responsibility to also compensate the people thus thrown out of work. Using our government as the tool for distributing this aid seems reasonable.

So that's the justification for unemployment benefits, in my mind.

I don't want to get too deeply into our international economic policies and how they also affect the economy (globalization lowering prices but also wages, for example), or our other national policies that also affect people's well being. I hope we can simply agree that any real-world policy worth its salt will have ill effects. Each of those must, in my view, be addressed by our government because it is the agent acting on our behalf to create those policies. That, I believe, is why we (and all modern democracies) have what is often termed a "welfare state."

You seemed to be using that term in a pejorative way (correct me if I'm wrong), and I understand that many people agree with that perception. But in my view, if we the people refused to help our fellow citizens whom we have harmed, then that would be immoral. And I see no objective reason not to use government for this purpose. It's a handy tool, and in a democracy it is the one we can best control (if we choose to).

(Sorry to have gone on for so long; it's just a subject near and dear to my heart. :) )

[nono]

You seemed to be using that term in a pejorative way (correct me if I'm wrong),


Not perjorative. Just assigning a label for the other end of the continuum. My point is simply that we can't have it both ways without taking our unfair share of worldwide resources. There's always a balance, right? Pure capitalism, those less fortunate go by the wayside. Pure welfare state? Those that excel don't get compensated. If we let those that excel get compensated wildly (exec pay, as an example), and take care of the less fortunate to an acceptable level, it's more than if just either system is purely in play.

And in my lifetime, middle class definition of acceptable has gone upward. Remember the days when a middle class family had a car and Dad rode the bus to the city to work? One car. Which didn't cost 1/3 of one's annual salary. The house had 3 bedrooms, not 4 or 5. That's what I was referring to as "well above the average standard of living." So, I think at a fundamental level, Americans as a group have a skewed mentality.

BTW, I wasn't saying we're in the closet, just closest. :cool2: But, we as a population consume way too much. Check out this list of just our energy consumption on a per capita basis...we're not the biggest pig, but geeze, we could do better. :hammer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

[bavaria]

Oh, how I have missed these conversations! :)

First off, nono that is a very interesting list. It is actually spurring me to learn more about those particular figures. Putting the oil producing countries in the Middle East aside, the highest figures appear to be for some of the colder and less densely populated countries. This leads me to wonder about correlation between density and consumption, as well as the breakdown of comsumption (ie oil vs solar power vs wind power, etc)

The US consumes 25% of the world's energy (with a share of global productivity at 22% and a share of the world population at 5%). (From nono's link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_consumption) Someone quoted these figures over on the DIS today and I was surprised as I didn't realize that the consumption percentage was quite so high. This is also telling The most significant growth of energy consumption is currently taking place in China, which has been growing at 5.5% per year over the last 25 years It isn't just a matter of conservation but also looking ahead and planning for the additional resources required over the coming decades.

I think that diversification will be key. Solar power, wind power, nuclear power, and perhaps new sources of energy will continue to grow. I was watching a program recently in which a North American family installed solar power in their home - at the cost of $30,000. Obviously that price is not feasable right now, but if we pursue that as one avenue, the cost will come down substantially.

I found this interesting - production of energy from renewable resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_product ion China and Canada top the list for hydro electric power, but the US is top in wind power. The table doesn't consider population, I believe, so factor in population and Canada is top of the list for energy consumption of renewable resources (I told you, watch out for them!) Germany is top for solar power. But the US is quite respectable on that list.

[bavaria]

Because I enjoy talking to myself in the wee hours of the morning :solikeiwa

I was imagining today what life would be like if oil were $250 or $300 a barrel in the next few years. If it reached that over the course of a decade, I could see alternate sources of energy coming into play, and life not changing that much.

But if we faced that price by the end of 2009, for instance, I imagine that life would be much different. Our world would shrink and would be limited by the distance we could travel on foot, or bicycle, or public transport (if available). The posters on the horse thread would be in great demand as equine power once again became a mode of transportation. People like CB would be pioneers living in somewhat isolation, reachable not in minutes or hours, but days.

I liken it to England during WWII, where people made do with so little. The primary difference that I see is that we have the internet, which would allow some people to work remotely, and would broaden our world beyond our small neighbourhood, even if we could not physically travel.

The political power would shift, with oil producing nations having more power. That includes nations like Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela which may not be considered major producers today but have the potential to dominate the oil production market.

I also foresee that we would return to a simpler time - staying at home more often, reading books, talking to each other about meaningful subjects (no more calling from the toilet on the cel phone to discuss the grocery list!)

While I don't wish the price of oil to rise, I do think that there are some side benefits, and perhaps a little simplification of life is one of them.

[Ransom]

Nono, I'm sorry for misreading your entire post! And I'm embarrassed that I nattered on and on apparently to no point. I'll try to be more thoughtful next time.

My point is simply that we can't have it both ways without taking our unfair share of worldwide resources.


I must be slow today! I apologize, but to me the issue of how we distribute wealth within our country seems orthogonal to a discussion of worldwide resource consumption. Wouldn't it be more related to overall wealth levels or per capita wealth rather than how that wealth is distributed? After all, even very poor nations manage to have some extremely wealthy people in them (usually through organized theft and so on, but that's just a distribution detail :innocent: ).

Can you do me the favor of helping me wrap my mind around it? :crazy:



And in my lifetime, middle class definition of acceptable has gone upward. Remember the days when a middle class family had a car and Dad rode the bus to the city to work? One car. Which didn't cost 1/3 of one's annual salary. The house had 3 bedrooms, not 4 or 5. That's what I was referring to as "well above the average standard of living." So, I think at a fundamental level, Americans as a group have a skewed mentality.


It's definitely not a Brady Bunch world any more. Imagine an architect whose children must sleep 3 to a bedroom! Someone would probably call the department of children and family services on him. :D

And sharing one family TV? Perish the thought!



BTW, I wasn't saying we're in the closet, just closest. :cool2: But, we as a population consume way too much. Check out this list of just our energy consumption on a per capita basis...we're not the biggest pig, but geeze, we could do better. :hammer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
[/QUOTE]

It's nice to see we're not the least efficient nation on the face of the Earth. Thank you for that link!

I try to live fairly small, but it's tough. I drive a 4-cylinder Ford Focus, I own a town house, and I keep a tight rein on spending. I tried to buy a hybrid, but the total cost of ownership over 8 years was way higher than the Focus, unless I assumed $5 per gallon gas (which, at the time, seemed unlikely to be the average over the life of the car). And I could get an even smaller home, but I found that they sacrifice the size of things I need (like a kitchen) for things I don't need (a large living room), so I'd have to spend the money to reconfigure the layout of the whole place.

But, perhaps energy prices will eventually bring about the changes you've noted we need. (This last winter, I was very happy once again that we have an interior unit that is only exposed to the weather on two sides. It certainly helps to lower our heating costs!)

[Ransom]

Let me take a moment to say that I'm so proud to be a member of this board. Having a discussion like this with so many intelligent, knowledgeable people is a privilege.

[Ransom]

I was imagining today what life would be like if oil were $250 or $300 a barrel in the next few years. If it reached that over the course of a decade, I could see alternate sources of energy coming into play, and life not changing that much.

But if we faced that price by the end of 2009, for instance, I imagine that life would be much different. Our world would shrink and would be limited by the distance we could travel on foot, or bicycle, or public transport (if available). The posters on the horse thread would be in great demand as equine power once again became a mode of transportation. People like CB would be pioneers living in somewhat isolation, reachable not in minutes or hours, but days.


I worry about that. DW and I live about 30 miles from where we work. Currently, there's no way we could afford to live much closer - even figuring in savings on transport. The housing prices and property taxes are just way too high. And public transport is, as it is currently configured in our area, not a realistic option -- particularly in winter. So we would probably be stuck paying more per month on gasoline than our mortage, at least for the short term. And at that point, I think our home would be worth very little, since there are no large employers near by.



The political power would shift, with oil producing nations having more power. That includes nations like Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela which may not be considered major producers today but have the potential to dominate the oil production market.


What would the current power structure do about that?


While I don't wish the price of oil to rise, I do think that there are some side benefits, and perhaps a little simplification of life is one of them.

We'd need less DVC points, too, because we'd probably only get there once every three years. :jawdroppi

[AFMom]

Oh wow, Ranson - I don't think the subject of 'bedroom community' housing values has come up. Good point you make about your home loosing value . Scary - and good. We're currently living in the same sort of community. I mean - we have small employers - but most people have a 20-30 minute commute.
Interesting angle. Hopefully that just encourages more and better public transit.
I agree with you about diversification, Bavaria. I don't think the answer lies in one resource. We need to avoid the same pitfals we're finding with oil. Between solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, and diversified biofuels - I think we could power our nation. It'll just take time to get the infrstructure up and running. I think there is finally the needed push from the populace to make it happen.

[DSNY FN]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek:
1. re oil prices: too bloody high
2. re solutoin: bomb every oil producing country into submission and steal all of their oil production forever.



LOL @ CB the funny thing is the US import the majority of it's oil from non OPEC countries like Mexico and Canada and we are far from reaching our max output on oil from teh sands in Alberta. Plus they keep finding faster and cheaper ways to extract it from the oilsands. Not to mention there has supposedly been an even larger stake of oilsands found in Manitoba that is said to dwarf the ones in Alberta. All I know is yes we are paying more for gas but all teh oil increases and our supply and the worlds demand is really helping our economy up here so have at it I like it.

[nono]

Nono, I'm sorry for misreading your entire post! And I'm embarrassed that I nattered on and on apparently to no point. I'll try to be more thoughtful next time.

What are you apologizing for??? We're just :chat:!



I must be slow today! I apologize, but to me the issue of how we distribute wealth within our country seems orthogonal to a discussion of worldwide resource consumption. Wouldn't it be more related to overall wealth levels or per capita wealth rather than how that wealth is distributed? After all, even very poor nations manage to have some extremely wealthy people in them (usually through organized theft and so on, but that's just a distribution detail :innocent: ).

Can you do me the favor of helping me wrap my mind around it? :crazy:


Let me try to explain my thinking. We are a consumer nation. Moreso than any other one of our size, probably. I grabbed the per capita energy consumption figures as a quick and dirty benchmark. After all, the goods we buy have to be produced. The vacations we take have to burn fuel to get to wherever, etc. And, we are a nation with a reputation of very low savings rate. We have a larger than average middle class, and a larger than average upper class, so that money's going not into bank accounts but into consumption. THAT's how we get to our unfair share of consumption. With a larger upper class and a larger middle class consuming...well it comes from world resources out of proportion to other nations.

Very poor nations do have very rich. That's the whole balance thing I was talking about in the earlier post. If a nation has 20% super rich, you generally have large percentage of poor and almost a non-existent middle class. If a nation has a huge middle class the balance is that there's only a few hyper-rich and a few poor to stay in balance. With our hyper-rich expanding and our middle class consuming and not saving, we're out of whack compared to what we used to be and compared to others. We're not in balance. As the uber-wealthy have expanded in our nation, some argue that our poor have gotten poorer. But, until now, our ability to get credit has allowed the consuming to continue to expand.

So...I'm really talking about step back and look at the forest thinking...That it isn't really our wealth distribution, but our spending habits that tie to our nation being out of balance. I'm :computerg this while I have one kid headbuttng me and another singing the Mulan songs at the top of her lungs at me, so I may not be making my theory very clear. :bagovermy

[bavaria]

I worry about that. DW and I live about 30 miles from where we work. Currently, there's no way we could afford to live much closer - even figuring in savings on transport. The housing prices and property taxes are just way too high. And public transport is, as it is currently configured in our area, not a realistic option -- particularly in winter. So we would probably be stuck paying more per month on gasoline than our mortage, at least for the short term. And at that point, I think our home would be worth very little, since there are no large employers near by. I too cannot really figure out how jobs would fare if there was limited transportation. I could do much of my current job and most of my old job remotely if absolutely required, but someone like greenban or Rozzie would be hardpressed to perform their work solely over the internet. Would companies start to have onsite housing, like the old days of the textile mills and lumber camps?

What would the current power structure do about that? I have read theories that if oil reaches $200 a barrel, wars would start over oil. I don't know if I agree that would happen at $200 a barrel, but perhaps closer to $250 or $300, or if it happened suddenly.

I would like to be optimistic and think that Canada would come out of the shadow of their neighbour and become a stronger leader in the world based on their resources. I would also like to optimistically think that they would return to their role as peacekeepers in the world, but I don't know if they can be both resource powers and peacekeepers.

But the optimist in me envisions some kind of new oil power structure where Canada leads the 'secondary' oil rich nations into some kind of coalition, and keeps the world balance peaceful.

Of course, that is most likely just wishful thinking, as a more likely scenario would be like what CB wrote. One hundred Laura Secords could not save Canada from invasion if the US (or most other nations!) chose to do so.

[greenban]

LOL @ CB the funny thing is the US import the majority of it's oil from non OPEC countries like Mexico and Canada and we are far from reaching our max output on oil from teh sands in Alberta. Plus they keep finding faster and cheaper ways to extract it from the oilsands. Not to mention there has supposedly been an even larger stake of oilsands found in Manitoba that is said to dwarf the ones in Alberta. All I know is yes we are paying more for gas but all teh oil increases and our supply and the worlds demand is really helping our economy up here so have at it I like it.

Actually CB (and I) Meant nuking/bombing Canada and Mexico!

;)

-Tony

[DSNY FN]

Actually CB (and I) Meant nuking/bombing Canada and Mexico!

;)

-Tony


It wouldn't work for ya we supply you with all your hockey players and being in Colorado she would lose her AVS LOL not to mention it would be too close to home and you would lose the majority of your northern states and some of the southern ones like Texas and Cali etc LOL.....

[Ransom]

What are you apologizing for??? We're just :chat:!


You're very kind. :flowerfor



So...I'm really talking about step back and look at the forest thinking...That it isn't really our wealth distribution, but our spending habits that tie to our nation being out of balance.


Now it makes sense to me. Thank you for taking the time to write that clear explanation to help me understand where you're coming from.

What do you think it will take to get people to change their spending habits?



I'm :computerg this while I have one kid headbuttng me and another singing the Mulan songs at the top of her lungs at me, so I may not be making my theory very clear. :bagovermy

Oh, you're just showing off now. :laughing:

[carolina_yankee]

I
I would like to be optimistic and think that Canada would come out of the shadow of their neighbour and become a stronger leader in the world based on their resources. I would also like to optimistically think that they would return to their role as peacekeepers in the world, but I don't know if they can be both resource powers and peacekeepers.

But the optimist in me envisions some kind of new oil power structure where Canada leads the 'secondary' oil rich nations into some kind of coalition, and keeps the world balance peaceful.

Of course, that is most likely just wishful thinking, as a more likely scenario would be like what CB wrote. One hundred Laura Secords could not save Canada from invasion if the US (or most other nations!) chose to do so.

First, please tell me the oil isn't in Quebec. Otherwise, we might have to invade to claim the maritime provinces. ;)

Second, why is Canada not developing a stronger oil production ability? It seems like that it be very financially worth while, and give them a good boost now.

Dirk

[Ransom]

Would companies start to have onsite housing, like the old days of the textile mills and lumber camps?


That's a scary thought!



I have read theories that if oil reaches $200 a barrel, wars would start over oil. I don't know if I agree that would happen at $200 a barrel, but perhaps closer to $250 or $300, or if it happened suddenly.


I just can't decide whether I'd want to be a citizen of an oil-rich or oil-poor nation at that point.



I would like to be optimistic and think that Canada would come out of the shadow of their neighbour and become a stronger leader in the world based on their resources. I would also like to optimistically think that they would return to their role as peacekeepers in the world, but I don't know if they can be both resource powers and peacekeepers.

But the optimist in me envisions some kind of new oil power structure where Canada leads the 'secondary' oil rich nations into some kind of coalition, and keeps the world balance peaceful.


You almost have me singing "O Canada!" Or at least, "Canada (You're a Lifetime Journey)." I know the words to that one! :laughing:

It would be nice to see what Canada's socio-political and economic structures would do on the world stage, given the chance.

And I think it might be more healthy for us to live in a world with many powerful countries instead of two superpowers or one hyperpower as we have for the last six or seven decades.



Of course, that is most likely just wishful thinking, as a more likely scenario would be like what CB wrote. One hundred Laura Secords could not save Canada from invasion if the US (or most other nations!) chose to do so.

It would be interesting to see how US relations with China (balance of trade, currency reserves, debt holdings) would constrain any highly aggressive international actions on the US's part -- particularly if China's perceived self-interest were threatened.

I don't long for that showdown, but it would be interesting.

[bavaria]

The top five suppliers of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States in 2006 were: Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_politics#The_United_States_and_t he_Soviet_Union

As DSNY FN pointed out, there are a variety of potential sources of energy in Canada, included untapped resources in a variety of provinces.

Second, why is Canada not developing a stronger oil production ability? It seems like that it be very financially worth while, and give them a good boost now. I would like to think that Canada has a resource management strategy which is looking at the long term ie decades if not a century ahead. They do have access to water, oil, natural gas and a long list of other resources, and perhaps are trying to use them wisely.

Much of the Canadian economy hinges on resources; currently they are doing better than the US for the first time in a very long time, but the on par dollar will hurt them sooner rather than later.

I do get PMs from Canadians telling me to keep quiet about their potential power. But I would like to think that there is a balanced approach of using resources wisely, and not laying all their cards on the table. The 'fear' of becoming the 51st state is perhaps stronger in Canada than many realise.

And then there is the whole issue of the role of peacekeeper in the world - the Canadian psyche is struggling with that now as their role has changed from peacekeeper in the last few years. If their resources suddenly became a target for an energy starved world, they would need to decide if they wanted to become agressors or defenders.

It really is a complex subject, isn't it?

[Ransom]

It wouldn't work for ya we supply you with all your hockey players and being in Colorado she would lose her AVS LOL not to mention it would be too close to home and you would lose the majority of your northern states and some of the southern ones like Texas and Cali etc LOL.....

So, you're saying we could get rid of southern California and Texas?

Where do I sign up? :duck:

[bavaria]

I worry about that. DW and I live about 30 miles from where we work. Currently, there's no way we could afford to live much closer - even figuring in savings on transport. The housing prices and property taxes are just way too high. And public transport is, as it is currently configured in our area, not a realistic option -- particularly in winter. So we would probably be stuck paying more per month on gasoline than our mortage, at least for the short term. And at that point, I think our home would be worth very little, since there are no large employers near by.


I was thinking about this point again, and used India as an example. During the monsoon season, I knew workers who rode their bicycles an hour or more to get to work in deeply flooded streets, or shared a scooter or for the more well off, a motorcycle.

I know that I rarely rode my bike in the rain, although I did often bike 10km each way to work/school in Germany. On rainy or snowy days I took the bus, or the train, or shared a car ride with a neighbour. But for those people, it was a case of 'need' - they had no other choice as to how to get to work.

So it may come to far more scooters and motorcycles in the US, and Mrs Ransom riding on the back of your puttputt as you get to work.

The bigger challenge there is for those who live in areas with snow - riding a bike, scooter, or motorcycle is not really an option in deep snow.

[Ransom]

I was thinking about this point again, and used India as an example. During the monsoon season, I knew workers who rode their bicycles an hour or more to get to work in deeply flooded streets, or shared a scooter or for the more well off, a motorcycle.

I know that I rarely rode my bike in the rain, although I did often bike 10km each way to work/school in Germany. On rainy or snowy days I took the bus, or the train, or shared a car ride with a neighbour. But for those people, it was a case of 'need' - they had no other choice as to how to get to work.

So it may come to far more scooters and motorcycles in the US, and Mrs Ransom riding on the back of your puttputt as you get to work.

The bigger challenge there is for those who live in areas with snow - riding a bike, scooter, or motorcycle is not really an option in deep snow.

That's us. We had relentless snow this last year. Not to mention terribly frigid temperatures. I can't imagine riding a motorcycle or even walking very far in that weather.

But, like you say, we'll do what we have to do if it comes down to it. I moved from CA to IL, and I can move again if I have to, for example.

But I wonder what will happen to those who really don't have an option of moving at all. Even if demanded, I don't think public transport can be built up fast enough to deal with the problems caused by the kind of oil price spikes we're discussing. It could get pretty grim for a lot of people.

[AFMom]

Sadly our suburbs were not well planned. Many cities in the US have very good public transport - but hardly any suburbs do! Our subdivision is off of a very busy and dangerous hwy - the only way to get to any sort of supermarket or store is to get on this hwy and drive there - taking a bike could be done - but I've seen the accidents on the road and would never let my kids bike on it. It's called 'Bloody 98' for a reason.
So - for us - walking across a busy hwy is unacceptable. I realize that people in other countries do this - but I highly doubt Americans will. We do need to start working on a better public transport system. I used to love riding the light rail train to work when we lived in Sacramento. I could read a book and not have to deal with traffic or parking. I wouldn't mind taking a bus to the store now - I hate dealing with other drivers! But it just isn't a reality in our "unplanned" communities right now.
European cities (and suburbs) grew up and developed at a time when there were no cars - and were well planned for bikes and walking. US suburbs grew up around the interstates, cars, boundless space, and endless fossil fues. It's going to be painful and expensive to try to correct years of that sort of growth.
Another hurdle - when you have to travel by car to a supermarket - you tend to stock up on groceries, and need a car to get them home. Suburb shopping is quite different than city shopping. Our friends in large cities pretty much just walk to the local market about every day and pick up what they need for a day or two - and can easily carry it home walking or biking. I guess I'm not willing to walk 4 miles with a few bags of groceries and then have to do it all over again the next day.:headache: Especially when the heat index in FL brings the temp to 104.
Are we spoiled in America? Perhaps. But it's reality. Only solutions that adapt to this reality have any chance of working. I don't think you will see in our lifetime or our childrens' many Americans willing to share a scooter 10 miles in the mud to get to work.:D But I do think there is a lot we can do and improve where that wouldn't be necesary anyway. I don't think our way is back - I think we have to move forward for a solution.

[bavaria]

I was in a town in the midwest last week that was justifiably proud of their walking trail; when I asked how to get there I was told to get in the car and drive the mile to the trail. My colleagues had tried to walk to the trail and gave up as it was too dangerous. Drive to walk was somewhat ironic.

My 10km bike ride in Germany would take me along the town streets; leaving town I had to cross into a forest path for about 2km (spooky), cross over a bridge, then down a busy street into the lower village, up a hill into the upper village, and around three very blind, narrow corners to home. I wouldn't feel comfortable having a child do that, nor did I like doing it at dusk.

Once I missed the last bus (which ran at 7pm), there was no reasonable train, and I had to beg a ride from someone. Sadly, there are young girls murdered in Germany who walk across fields or down dark roads at night due to lack of transport.

It may be time to dust off the people mover and other 'innovations'! :bouncingp

[AFMom]

People Mover would Rock!!!!
Don't get me wrong, Bavaria - I know there are plenty of places in Europe with no public transit - I was speaking in broad generalities - if you look at where a majority of Americans live versus where a majority of Europeans live, etc.
I lived in the country growing up and routinely walked about 5 miles to go to a firends house to play as a kid - but it was safer then. Times change.

[bavaria]

I know, I looked at the forest where I used to ride my bike home earlier this year and thought :holymoly:

I really do hope and think that it won't come to that; somehow I strongly suspect that we will still drive almost as many cars and almost as far, just on water/hydrogen, or on vegetable oil, or some other type of fuel.

VW is claiming that their new cars get 80mpg - I know that the TDIs have been getting 1,000km/tank for a few years now (I tested that claim and it is true!) So if they are already getting up to the figure, I think that very soon most new cars will break 100mpg, although not fueled on gas alone.

[AFMom]

Yep - we've been running Biodiesel for years now in our car and truck (soy bean based) and now there is a new tropical plant with much better yields that is going to be grown in Florida. Crossing my fingers that pans out!
I think if they could figure out hydrogen - it might be the way to go.....
Again - though - a combination of all of it. Better public transit( and paths!), better fuel option, and better vehicles!

[glypnirsgirl]

This is an absolutely fascinating thread. Ian and I live close to halfway between our two jobs - 28 miles that he drives and 23 miles for me. Both of us have public transportation available, but rarely use it. Once I get to the office, on an average day, I have to go to court at least once, and sometimes twice. It is not realistic for me to not have my own car. So I use the natural gas Honda. The Honda GX gets 35 mpg (gallon gasoline equivalent) and natural gas is about $1 per gallon cheaper. It would take Ian 3 times as long to get to work using public transportation.

Tony - as much as I love you, you are wrong about the refineries being struck down by the "liberals." That is simply a myth. The FACT is that only one oil producers have made applications for a new refinery in 32 years until Hyperion Oil (based in Dallas, TX thank you very much) made an application for zoning in South Dakota early this year. The oil companies WANT to be begged for more refinery capacity so that they can justify to congress that they be reimbursed for the investment and that they be given immunity from lawsuits. It is ridiculous to subsidize wealthy companies that have the capacity and capital to build a refinery - why should we BRIBE them with immunity or insure their success with our hard earned dollars? Hyperion is a small company (relatively) and is willing to build a refinery without those promises. The second thing is that the big oil companies HAVE EXPANDED PRODUCTION. They have done it by expanding their current production facilities that they already have approved rather than building new plants.

What is driving the price increase for gasoline? Lots of factors. First, I would like to point out that China's increase in demand is approximately 5% per year, yet the increase in the cost of a gallon of gas has doubled. Why? First, the amount of production has not kept pace with demand. As any particular fungible good (a gallon of gasoline is a gallon of gasoline [mostly - leaving out the issues of Venezuela's "dirtier" crude]) approaches full demand for production you have a dramatic increase BECAUSE THEY CAN INCREASE. They can increase the price on gasoline until one of two things happen, (1) production begins to increase (because that less accessible oil becomes profitable to produce, refinery capacity increases, the oil producing countries and companies decide to open up more production) or (2) demand starts to decrease. It is the basics of our economic system: supply and demand. The fact is that SUVs and trucks (until this recent run-up in prices) were about 40% of the US car market even though they get much worse mileage that most family sedans. There has not been a meaningful GOVERNMENTAL requirement for increased gas efficiency since the 1980's. And really, I do not think that we need the government to step in here. The American/Canadian / Chinese/ German consumer can make their own choices about what they will purchase and the car manufacturers will produce what is in demand. Of course they are losing their shirts on the SUVs and trucks that they have sitting on their lots right now.

And the fact is that the process of change is PAINFUL. I have most of my clients now surrendering their gas guzzlers to their creditors rather than reaffirming those debts. This is a very recent change. In a bankruptcy, you are allowed to give back the collateral to the creditor instead of being stuck with it. So the car creditors will soon be having the same problems that the home mortgage companies are having, but it will not be because the loans were bad, but that the purchase decision was bad. I am finding more and more of my clients are not wanting to preserve a lifestyle, but are wanting to downsize their lifestyle to one that is more affordable. So I am seeing more people giving up cars and houses.

And Nono is quite right. I was born in 1954. I grew up in a 2 bedroom, 1 bath house on a small lot within the city limits of Dallas. My dad could walk (and sometimes did) to his job as a mechanic at Love Field. We walked to the grocery store with my mom, even on the days that we had the car. She took my sister and me with her so that we could carry a bag of groceries for her. She would carry two bags - or one bag and a gallon of milk. My sister and I both walked to school (I walked to school until I was a junior in high school and I saved up enough money to buy my own car). Once my mother began working, she car pooled. Expectations are just different.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REDUCE GLOBAL/DOMESTIC POVERTY?

First, do you think that there is a difference to helping someone in poverty in the US versus someone in some foreing country? I think that both are noble and the determination should not be so much on nationality, but on maximizing the impact of the contribution. The water wells have a HUGE impact for very little contribution - definitely a go. Providing the salt/sugar mix and potable water, another huge impact. Feeding people should start at home, however. The foreign food programs are subject to so much abuse, I do not believe that they work in the long run, but in the case of extreme starvation, may be necessary in the short run IF we are allowed to monitor the distribution. I am a big fan of Small is Beautiful (more information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_is_Beautiful). The book was written by Schumacher, a British economist that was theorizing on many of the concepts that are being covered by this thread, use of natural resources, developing economies, production, etc. Really an interesting book.

And to answer Tony's question, we are all our brother's keeper. If we are not, we are less humane, less godly, less.

Elaine

[glypnir]

I have been thinking about the foreign aid thing for a while. As was mentioned later, we don't contribute all that much foreign aid anyway, and much of it has been more political than food aid. And much of it has been counterproductive. For example, apparently we sent lots of chicken feed to the Iranians under the Shah. He gave it to his buddies, who set up big American style chicken factories, and drove out all the small growers. Of course, it was all economically unfeasible, since it was based on aid.

Then there's all that other kind of aid, which we have most likely spent much more on. I'm referring to the stuff from the DOD and the CIA and so on. Everywhere from Iran to Indonesia, to Nicarauga, Chile, El Salvador, Southeast Asia, and on and on.

And then there's an even larger investment from private enterprise. Even though there's a law against investment in Burma, Chevron is grandfathered in. So their oil operation helps out the generals there. Nigeria has oil too. Doesn't help out the poor any.

But I agree with whoever posted it that the biggest problem is the power of our huge incomes. Look at Columbia. Beautiful farming country. Full of hungry people. Why? Because they export their produce. "Cash crops" Coffee, flowers, coca - both legally for Coca Cola, and illegally for cocaine.

Why don't they grow food for their people? - we have more money. And we help make sure that they don't change their minds.

Someone mentioned that countries need to help themselves. In current circumstances, the quickest way to help themselves is to give up on "free trade", and start restricting exports. And also to increase the royalties on oil. Which Columbia has too, by the way. And if you look around the world, that's what's happening. China, India, Argentina, are all restricting food exports. And they are bidding prices up on the world market for what they have to have.

I suspect that 50 years hence, we will consider the days of the dot boom to have been a local peak for capitalism. It's really been downhill since then.

For a real disaster of differential incomes, look at Haiti. The local chicken growers there have been unable to compete because we don't like dark meat. So the "surplus" of frozen dark meat from the U.S. floods the market.
Cheaper than they can grow it.

[greenban]

Dear Elaine:

I and Corp Watch, respectfully disagree with your 'mainstream media fable' about the lack of refinning capacity:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227

not to mention an august source as the Motley Fool http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2005/09/14/new-refineries-not-a-chance.aspx

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1378/225/ 'debunks global warming too, a twofer!'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4296812.stm <==== BBC news, no-one can deny their liberal bias.....

BTW, I (and the citations above) admit, the oil companies enjoy the profits without the risk, but as I see it most of the blame is on the zealot global warming facists........

I (and I love you too :sunny:) (and Ian, Mr. Macro) agree that this is a multifactorial issue, but 30 years ago when the refineries tried to build they were stopped, and they soon realised howmuch profit there is in 'shortage' necessities, and then they stopped trying. But first they were stopped.

NIMBY has become NIABY (Not In Anyone's Back Yard!).

I say we nationalize the oilcompanies, nuke the entire 3rd world, BTW whatever happened to the second world? And import H3 from the moon!

All in favor?

-Tony

[nono]

Tony,

Second world country according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_world_country

Therefore, I guess it went away with the downfall of the Soviet Union. BTW, the article also rats you out as politically incorrect for using "third world" terminology. I would think a frog, with all the discrimination he experiences in the human world, would choose better words. :footopenm

(for those who aren't sure, I'm simply teasing Tony! :D)

[greenban]

Tony,

Second world country according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_world_country

Therefore, I guess it went away with the downfall of the Soviet Union. BTW, the article also rats you out as politically incorrect for using "third world" terminology. I would think a frog, with all the discrimination he experiences in the human world, would choose better words. :footopenm

(for those who aren't sure, I'm simply teasing Tony! :D)

Darling nono!

Your source is disputed, but none-the-less it works for me!

Frogs (as in amphibian) are PC and open minded.

Frogs (as in the French) can be obstinate, egocentrical, stubborn, proud and xenophobic.

As amphibian means 'dual life' I pick and choose my froggy-alignment as suits my mood, often changing (without warning!) several times in the same post!

-Tony

(for those who aren't sure, I'm flamming nono, ripping her a new one and generally abusing her shamelessly)

(for those that believed the above disclaimer, shame on you! I'm just having fun with a dear cyberfriend!)

:cheers2:

[TW1]

If we all just stopped breathing, the world would be fine.

Who's first?

[glypnirsgirl]

Tony - What you said was: And Glypnir, US liberals have blocked every proposed refinery or Nuke plant in the last 35 years.

That was the myth that I was disputing. NONE OF THE LINKS that you cited said that liberals had blocked proposed refineries. This is an excerpt from one of your links:

No new refineries
Wyden uncovered several memos and internal documents from major oil companies. These charted the way that capacity in the US refining industry was reduced to maintain higher profits.
Wyden received one such memo from oil company Texaco, written in 1996. The company felt it was quite clear that petrol supplies needed "reducing." "The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity," said the memo.

I never saw anything about new refineries being stopped 30 years ago. I am not saying that it did not happen.

Tom's proposal that we stop breathing has merit. We just need to be able to hold our breath for 30 years.

Years ago I saw a Melvin cartoon that I have looked for for years that had a similar punchline.

XOXO

Elaine

[Ransom]

If we all just stopped breathing, the world would be fine.

Who's first?

Is belching still OK?

I'm in if it is, but if not...the world can go to the devil!

[greenban]

Is belching still OK?

I'm in if it is, but if not...the world can go to the devil!

Sorry, Eructation and Flatus release more methane into our atmosphere (a more serious 'greenhouse gas' than CO2) than all fossil fuel consumption by-products each year. Thus Belching and Passing of ze gas would have to be prohibited or severely taxed in the form of carbon credit, so simply put, NO!

-Tony

[greenban]

Tony - What you said was: And Glypnir, US liberals have blocked every proposed refinery or Nuke plant in the last 35 years.

That was the myth that I was disputing. NONE OF THE LINKS that you cited said that liberals had blocked proposed refineries. This is an excerpt from one of your links:

No new refineries
Wyden uncovered several memos and internal documents from major oil companies. These charted the way that capacity in the US refining industry was reduced to maintain higher profits.
Wyden received one such memo from oil company Texaco, written in 1996. The company felt it was quite clear that petrol supplies needed "reducing." "The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity," said the memo.

I never saw anything about new refineries being stopped 30 years ago. I am not saying that it did not happen.

Tom's proposal that we stop breathing has merit. We just need to be able to hold our breath for 30 years.

Years ago I saw a Melvin cartoon that I have looked for for years that had a similar punchline.

XOXO

Elaine

:grouphug:

Thupppttttt (Raspberry Sound)

:lovestruc

Being stubborn, hard headed, obstinate, ignoring facts and delibertly mis-quoteding you is my froggy right. In fact it is why I am known as a BULL-frog!

;)

-Tony

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!

Elaine aren't you a Lawyer?

So, since when does the truth or facts matter :holymoly::innocent:

[DSNY FN]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_oil_politics#The_United_States_and_t he_Soviet_Union

As DSNY FN pointed out, there are a variety of potential sources of energy in Canada, included untapped resources in a variety of provinces.

I would like to think that Canada has a resource management strategy which is looking at the long term ie decades if not a century ahead. They do have access to water, oil, natural gas and a long list of other resources, and perhaps are trying to use them wisely.

Much of the Canadian economy hinges on resources; currently they are doing better than the US for the first time in a very long time, but the on par dollar will hurt them sooner rather than later.

I do get PMs from Canadians telling me to keep quiet about their potential power. But I would like to think that there is a balanced approach of using resources wisely, and not laying all their cards on the table. The 'fear' of becoming the 51st state is perhaps stronger in Canada than many realise.

And then there is the whole issue of the role of peacekeeper in the world - the Canadian psyche is struggling with that now as their role has changed from peacekeeper in the last few years. If their resources suddenly became a target for an energy starved world, they would need to decide if they wanted to become agressors or defenders.

It really is a complex subject, isn't it?

I agree Bavaria I prefer the peacekeeping role but our natural resources and our oil infrastructure do not lend well to this for too much longer IMHO.

[AFMom]

Speaking of belching and other personal gas emissions.....
Watched a, well, weird show about how much gas our intenstines create over a 24 hour period. They compared a man and a woman who had to wear these funny rubber underpants with a tube stuck down the back. They both "emitted" about 2 liters of gas!!!! 2 liters!!!!
So - yeah - no more breathing, belching, or tooting. And plant a tree every time you eat beans.

[glypnirsgirl]

Elaine aren't you a Lawyer?

So, since when does the truth or facts matter :holymoly::innocent:

:hahahaha:


:Pokepoke:

I am a really good lawyer. Only those sleazy try to get by on looks and personality lawyers that don't do their homework THINK that facts don't matter. I am not one of them.

Elaine

[bababear]

Canada's Best Natural Resource IS ?????

Why it's me Bababear of course:D


I am enjoying this thread:solikeiwa

Hugs Mel

[bavaria]

BTW whatever happened to the second world?

My dear Froggy, that was discussed in post 16. I have a strong suspicion that your eyes glazed over when you saw my 'history lesson' alert :D

DSNY FN, Mel, sorry that I spilled the beans about natural resources. Everyone, just disregard what I posted about Canada, nothing to see. Nope, they have no resources, don't even think about invading. :crazy:

[bavaria]

I agree Bavaria I prefer the peacekeeping role but our natural resources and our oil infrastructure do not lend well to this for too much longer IMHO. Well, don't forget what happened 195 years ago. Laura Secord may yet need to come to the rescue again! (And I am not talking about chocolate here)

Seriously, though, I do wonder if that would see a very odd power shift in the world, where the resource rich nations would suddenly be the ones courted (rather than invaded!) While Canada has a strong history of diplomacy, I don't see them being a superpower on their own. Someone metioned a coalition of nations earlier, and I could see that happening.

Or it could be that Canada would see a significant increase in immigration as they became an even more desirable destination, due to their resources (and of course because of citizens like bababear ;) ). Nevil Shute envisioned something like this on a smaller scale in his novel In The Wet, in which England has severe depopulation as people emigrate to more favourable countries such as Canada.

And what if international relations changed in the coming years so that the US and Iran suddenly find themselves on friendly terms? (Farfetched, I suppose, but I was watching the most recent series of Spooks last night and that scenario actually happened)

I suppose that is one of the positive things - there is no finite date for finding a solution. Things will evolve and we may have painful (or very painful) days ahead, but there will also be solutions and brighter days. Yes, I am an optimist!

[greenban]

My dear Froggy, that was discussed in post 16. I have a strong suspicion that your eyes glazed over when you saw my 'history lesson' alert :D

DSNY FN, Mel, sorry that I spilled the beans about natural resources. Everyone, just disregard what I posted about Canada, nothing to see. Nope, they have no resources, don't even think about invading. :crazy:

Meine Liebschen Bavaria:

Yes, normally, my eyes do glaze over when History is taught (Otherwise,how can I repeat the errors of others? :scratchch)

But, I always, eagerly read all of your postings (Post+Musings=Postings)!!!!

I even re-read the infamous post #16 (while planning for my invasion and unification of Canada, BTW), but do not see the words 'second world' anywhere.

Was this only available by reading between the lines, or by inference?

Love and Kisses!

-Tony

[DSNY FN]

Well, don't forget what happened 195 years ago. Laura Secord may yet need to come to the rescue again! (And I am not talking about chocolate here)

Seriously, though, I do wonder if that would see a very odd power shift in the world, where the resource rich nations would suddenly be the ones courted (rather than invaded!) While Canada has a strong history of diplomacy, I don't see them being a superpower on their own. Someone metioned a coalition of nations earlier, and I could see that happening.

Or it could be that Canada would see a significant increase in immigration as they became an even more desirable destination, due to their resources (and of course because of citizens like bababear ;) ). Nevil Shute envisioned something like this on a smaller scale in his novel In The Wet, in which England has severe depopulation as people emigrate to more favourable countries such as Canada.

And what if international relations changed in the coming years so that the US and Iran suddenly find themselves on friendly terms? (Farfetched, I suppose, but I was watching the most recent series of Spooks last night and that scenario actually happened)

I suppose that is one of the positive things - there is no finite date for finding a solution. Things will evolve and we may have painful (or very painful) days ahead, but there will also be solutions and brighter days. Yes, I am an optimist!

Well it will certainly be an interesting ride for sure and I am looking foreward to it both the good and the bad as you can't improve on things if you have no hardship to begin with IMHO.

[nono]

Here's a little slide show on the price of some liquids when priced at the barrel level --you've all probably heard the milk one, but it's fun to see how others line up!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25086684?photo=1