Why did it take Bush 8 years to say this?

Mia, you are right, you were talking about oil. However, I dont think the reserves with oil is different to gas. The key words that I disagree with from your post were highlighted by gworld (about midddle east reserves).

 

why did it take him so long to say this...do you know how many ties he has to the oil industry.

even though we do need to get off oil I am suprised he said it.

 

gotta agree with that statement about gas money going into an investment into a vest strapped to a 5 year old in a crowd of innocents.

 

The US has a lot of energy but we are using to much. The first step is conservation. If the US could reduce energy consumption by 5% it would be a big boost to the health on the economy.

 

The conservation phase is coming. We're in a prosperity phase, where nothing is conserved. The good times are rolling.

If the financial turbulence keeps up, we're going to go into a poverty phase, and people will rediscover fiscal conservatism out of necessity.

 

The problem with Guerilla's prescription is that as in this big complex world, Guerilla wishes upon the US an ineffective, non active, non intrusive government.

Meanwhile we are interdependant on the rest of the world. The US imports roughly 60% of its consumption of oil from other nations. While some of it comes from Canada and Mexico, current allies, other amts come from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and other nations who not only couldn't give a rat's @ss about the US, but would frankly see us on our knees.

So as OPEC has become a strong cartel that can dramatically control production through the influence of its government members, Guerilla prescribes that we alone allow the market to control our actions.

Its sort of like bending over and telling the bullies to beat me, hit me, take advantage of me, or more tellingly, send me more money so I can give it to terrorists.

At one point when the US was an agrarian nation and was not so dependant on trade and interactions with the rest of the world it might have been fine to have a government with limited powers.

When the rest of the world exercises strong powers, having an ineffectual weak government that won't stand up for its interests, is tantamount to saying "I'm a wimp putty cat. Beat me".

The US govt. should lead the way domestically in creating incentives for alternative fuels, be they nuclear, wind, etc. What it should do is take a strong stance and influence the nation away from its appetite for oil.

 

The problem with Earl's stalking me on the forums prescription is that he understand neither the macro nor the micro, but argues that the macro is so complex, that not only can he not understand it, no one can, and hence it is a higher power than the micro, which he refuses to acknowledge even exists.

Government is already ineffective. It's ineffective because people like Earl think that by the government intervening, it will create solutions. The reality is, the government can only spend what we give it, and it can only do what humans direct it to do. The difference between government and non-government intervention, is that government intervention is centrally planned.

This works perfectly with the neurotic obsession some people have with the macro. If it's big, we can't understand it. And the unknown is powerful.

The Soviets had an active, intrusive and also INEFFECTIVE government. Eventually the system crashed. You're seeing minor crashes now in our domestic system, and yes there is a macro effect, but it starts in our micro market, not the other way around.

Right, but those countries who would "see us on our knees" do not attack us, because we are trading partners. Trade has always been the first step in peaceful diplomatic relations. Why attack someone from whom you gain a benefit?

"We alone..." I don't know if you realize it Earl, but you are the market. So yes, I prescribe that you take control of your own actions. Not to defer your decision making to central planners in Washington, who quite frankly have already led us to this current point in history.

It's a fundamental flaw in your arguments. That intervention can solve the problems that intervention has created. That a little bad government can be solved by more government. We are where we are because of the system I rail against, and yet you admonish me and try to discredit the notion that what we have isn't working and should be changed.

Your theory seems to be, "stay the course". That change is not changing. A perfectly centrist view, and frankly, that's the one that is inactive, unresponsive, and ineffective.

As mentioned several times, the issue is not funding. The terrorists are not deadly because they are well financed. Their weapons and tactics are not dependent on a healthy balance sheet. It's back to the flawed idea that by not buying oil, we can end terrorism. Gee, I wonder why no one ever thought to use that tactic against the Tamil Tigers, one of the greatest proponents of suicide terrorism in history.

It's foreign policy stupid!

Do you just make this crap up on the fly, or do you actually think this is accurate history?

The nation was founded on trade. It was discovered while looking for a trade route to Asia. It financed it's growth from trade with Europe. "Dollar" is a Spanish term for a milled silver coin, because it was the most readily available currency in the New World.

Gimme a break Earl. You make this stuff up as you go, to paint your scenarios of impossibility. No facts, no evidence, just more platitudes and endless blather.

Is that what the Finnish do? The Belgians? The Canadians? The Australians?

What you are no talking about is an authoritarian state. Which is the logical conclusion to your numerous statements on political power. You don't believe in individual liberty, you believe in powerful government, run by powerful people, projecting their power internationally and domestically. The only difference between you and GWB, is that he is too stupid to do the job well. You'd probably like a Clinton, who will govern with an iron fist in a satin glove.

I suppose that is how you justify the wars like Iraq. You have to beat and kill someone else, because you can only imagine it being either them or you being beaten by the stick of authority. Now I guess we have the answer on the moral question I asked you. You do think your life is worth more than the lives of others.

Why should the government influence the market? They did that with the housing market, and that lead to fraudulent loans, and a financial industry that is creating a global crisis.

Again, you're simply blind to the fact that how we got into crap is intervention. Prescribing more of the same is not a solution. It's stupidity.

 

Well said. We could accomplish this overnight if everyone used fluorescent light bulbs.

I save over $30/month after switching to fluorescent last year. Not only that, but I have reduced my carbon output at my house by 50 tons.

There are so many simple solutions that would/could make an impact in 30 days or less.

The fed should institute a incandescent light bulb ban immediately.

 

You say stuff like this just to taunt me, right?

 

I am hoping so...

 

All I have to do lately is open my mouth for that too happen!

 

Kids, bush can say whatever he wants but lets face it, his government has done nothing to reduce US dependency on oil, and the goverment could reduce the US dependance on oil and the carbon footprint by about 50% by implementing a solar power generation scheme like the one used in california.
Put wasteland like texas to good use, turn it into a solar power plant.
(and yes the heat can be stored in bedrock to provide power overnight, or when there are clouds, and nighttime electricity usage is generally a lot less anyway as businesses make up most of the elecricity usage)

 

Frankly, last thing I want is the other 49 states using California as an example for anything other than the proper use of birth control

Want to reduce carbon output in just 1 day? Reduce your electric bill by 10%-30% or more? Get rid of the incandescent light bulb.

 

Thats actually funny.
Seriously, at 10%-30% of civilian use, thats only 3%-10% of ovarall carbon emissions.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/csp.html
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp.htm
http://www.trecers.net/

 

I think you are confusing percentage cost savings with percentage carbon output.

 

Not really, the vast majority of the electricity production in the US is still from Dirty coal and oil driven power stations.
If it was somewhere like New Zealand it would be different, but its fairly accurate for the US.

 

Actually, yes, your comparison is flawed. I guess you just mis-understood what I said.

 

So either your explanation is flawed, or your just being argumentitive as usual.

Either way, my solution is more enviromentally friendly.

 

It's not about what solution is more environmentally friendly as it is whose solution is more efficient, practical and can occur virtually overnight with very little expense and effort.

 

Let me see, mirrors, pipes, water, turbine, electricity.
Seems fairly simple to me.
or if you want to take care of 40% of your CO2 emissions start riding a bike.