Our addiction to oil

alyteet · #1 02-03-2006, 06:58 AM

What do people think about the President's proclamation that the U.S. is addicted to oil? I think he's spot on... But it's rather ironic that Exxon's earnings report comes out the next day with record profits and the President goes on to defend it.

Quote:

Bush, a former Texas oilman, said of oil costs, "I think that basically the price is determined by the marketplace and that's the way it should be."

I guess he has a point. Well, if the oil companies help drive the cost of oil higher and higher, eventually Americans will want to curb their addiction to oil. Thank you for helping us see the light, rich oil companies!

I have strong feelings about this subject, and I could go on and on about it. But instead of reading my diatribes, I recommend that people read the NYT's Thomas Friedman. He's been writing about our oil addiction for years. I can't post any links because you have to be a Times Select subscriber, so I'll go ahead and be naughty and post his latest column illegally. Shhh, don't tell!

Quote:

Addicted to Oil
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 1, 2006

So far the democracy wave the Bush team has helped to unleash in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11 has brought to power hard-line Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq, Palestine and Iran, and paved the way for a record showing by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If we keep this up, in a few years Muslim clerics will be in power from Morocco to the border of India. God bless America.

But is this all America's doing? Not really. It's actually the product of 50 years of petrolism — or petroleum-based politics — in the Arab-Muslim world. The Bush team's fault was believing that it could change that — that it could break the Middle East's addiction to authoritarianism without also breaking America's addiction to oil. That's the illusion here. In the Arab world, oil and authoritarianism are inextricably linked.

How so? Let's start with Iron Rule No. 1 of Arab-Muslim political life today: You cannot go from Saddam to Jefferson without going through Khomeini — without going through a phase of mosque-led politics.

Why? Because once you sweep away the dictator or king at the top of any Middle East state, you go into free fall until you hit the mosque — as the U.S. discovered in Iraq. There is nothing between the ruling palace and the mosque. The secular autocratic regimes, like those in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iraq, never allowed anything to grow under their feet. They never allowed the emergence of any truly independent judiciary, media, progressive secular parties or civil society groups — from women's organizations to trade associations.

The mosque became an alternative power center because it was the only place the government's iron fist could not fully penetrate. As such, it became a place where people were able to associate freely, incubate local leaders and generate a shared opposition ideology.

That is why the minute any of these Arab countries hold free and fair elections, the Islamists burst ahead. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 percent of the seats; Hamas went from nowhere to a governing majority. In both societies the ruling secular parties — the N.D.P. in the case of Egypt and Fatah in the case of Palestine — were spurned as corrupt appendages of the authoritarian state, which they were.

Why are there not more independent, secular, progressive opposition parties running in these places? Because the Arab leaders won't allow them to sprout. They prefer that the only choice their people have is between the state parties and religious extremists, so as to always make the authoritarian state look indispensable. When Ayman Nour, a liberal independent in Egypt, ran against President Hosni Mubarak, he was thrown in prison as soon as the election was over. Thanks for playing "Democracy" — now go to jail.

It is not this way everywhere. In East Asia, when the military regimes in countries like Taiwan and South Korea broke up, these countries quickly moved toward civilian democracies. Why? Because they had vibrant free markets, with independent economic centers of power, and no oil. Whoever ruled had to nurture a society that would empower its men and women to get educated and start companies to compete globally, because that was the only way they could thrive.

In the Arab-Muslim world, however, the mullah dictators in Iran and the secular dictators elsewhere have been able to sustain themselves in power much longer, without ever empowering their people, without ever allowing progressive parties to emerge, because they had oil or its equivalent — massive foreign aid.

Hence Iron Rule No. 2: Removing authoritarian leaders in the Arab-Muslim world, either by revolution, invasion or election, is necessary for the emergence of stable democracies there — but it is not sufficient. The only way the new leaders will allow for real political parties, institutions, free press, competitive free markets and proper education — a civil society — is if we also bring down the price of oil and make internal reform the only way for these societies to sustain themselves. People change when they have to, not when we tell them to.

If you just remove the dictators, and don't also bring down the price of oil, you end up with Iran — with mullah dictators replacing military dictators and using the same oil wealth to keep their people quiet and themselves in power. Only when oil is back down to $20 a barrel will the transition from Saddam to Jefferson not get stuck in "Khomeini Land."

In the Middle East, oil and democracy do not mix. It's not an accident that the Arab world's first and only true democracy — Lebanon — never had a drop of oil.

mike · #2 02-03-2006, 12:59 PM

Aly,

Maybe if environmentalists would take off the strangle hold of building refinaries and nuclear power plants we could be less reliant. Or even let Alaska dig for oil in their state. It is ironic that we haven't built a new refinery or nuclear power plant in over 20 years due to activists. It is also ironic that people who talk about freedom, restrict the freedom of people in Alaska who want to dig oil. The vast majority of people in Alaska want to dig oil, but people in Washington restrict them because the some wildlife "might" be disturbed.

Here is a news flash for you Freidman, the gas prices are going up because of demand, not because a writer says Bush or the Middle East is the reason. Try finding an unbiased gas expert, say someone that works for Fidelity mutual funds, and ask him why gas prices are on the rise. He will tell you that the demand of India and China is driving up oil prices. The Saudis have already stated this. China and India have around 3 billion people combined and are adding cars at a fast rate. If these countries at 10% of new drivers to the world, that is 300 million drivers or another United States.

Do you think that is more logical reason for the increase or a few statements from an obvious Bush basher? You read his first sarcastic paragraph and you get were Friedman comes from.

What is funny is it sounds like Friedman would rather have no democracy in the Middle East so he can have cheap oil prices. He also makes assumptions that all oil comes from the Middle East. Friedman should do some research and understand the US get's more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia. We get 1/3 or 41% of our oil imports from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela and less than 1/5 of our oil from the Middle East.

Why isn't Freidman writing about our real import partners? Because it doesn't fit with his agenda. I can only assume he was against the war in Iraq.

Here is a fact:

Quote:

In the U.S., about 35% of oil and gas production comes from reservoirs of Tertiary age (largely in the Gulf Coast and California); about 25% is from reservoirs of Pennsylvanian age (West Texas, Rockies, Midcontinent), and about 12% is from reservoirs of Cretaceous age

So, we produce a ton of our own oil. Again, we are not as reliant on foreign oil as many want you to think. And we are more reliant on North American oil than (41% of total) than we are from the Middle East.

This is why Friedman is a writer for a newspaper and not an oil expert.

Here is the first link that came up in Google for me:

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports

Mike

alyteet · #3 02-03-2006, 01:30 PM

Mike,

I don't think you took the time to really understand what Friedman is about. He's a realist, for one, but he WANTS success in the Middle East. He'd love democracy to flourish.

Friedman doesn't professes to be an "oil expert." He wants what's best for this country...and prolonging our dependence on oil will do no good for the U.S.

About India and China. He knows that they are a big reason for the driving costs of oil. He also knows that their technology sectors are increasingly competitive with ours. The marriage of technology and energy alternatives may help keep us competitive with these other countries, answer the question of oil dependence and help our economy flourish.

You may see this as "tree hugger talk," but I think we've started to move in the right direction (but we need to move faster). I don't think Friedman is a biased hack. If you take the time to really read what he has to say, I think you'll agree.

Quote:

Will Pigs Fly?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 3, 2006

Well, it wasn't exactly Nixon to China. But it wasn't bean bag either. I'd say the president's State of the Union speech, when it came to calling for an end to our oil addiction and a real push to improve our educational competitiveness, was more like Nixon goes to New Mexico. It was an important change in direction and tone — but still a long way from China, a long way from a definitive change in policy and implementation.

Oh, come on, Friedman, get real! The president throws a few paragraphs your way and you go all weak in the knees. Show some spine, man! You need to trash this thing. You know these guys are not serious. This is a president who once called for putting a man on Mars and then just dropped it. You assumed they were going to do the Iraq war right — remember? Look where that got you, you moron. You should have listened to your wife!

Yeah, I know all that. But here's what else I know: Mr. Bush is going to be president for the next three years. We do not have three years to lose — not on climate change, energy efficiency or improving math/science education. I am not going to sit around for the next three years just trashing these guys and praying that some Democrat gets elected and does all the right things. We don't have time, you moron!

I heard the president use language about the necessity of breaking our oil addiction through innovation on renewable technologies — without mentioning drilling in Alaska — which I've never heard before. When the president changes language on an issue like this — in a sustained manner (and we still have to see if it will be sustained), the whole country and bureaucracy starts to talk differently.

All you talk about is talk. How do we lock in some action?

One way is to write your senator and congressman and tell them to support the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act. Already supported by key Republicans and Democrats, this draft bill aims to reduce oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels a day by 2015 and by 7 m.b.d. by 2025 — much more than the president's proposal. The bill offers ailing U.S. automakers loan guarantees and other incentives on the condition that they use the money to retool their assembly lines to sharply increase their production of flex-fuel cars, which run on any combination of alcohol and gasoline, as well as hybrid and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks.

The bill is a way to save large amounts of oil quickly, bail out Detroit today before it goes totally bust tomorrow and give Americans real fuel choices. "If you want to send your dollars to the worst regimes in the Middle East, use gasoline — if you want to send your dollars to the best farms and communities in the Middle West, then use alcohol made from the agricultural resources we grow at home," said the energy expert Gal Luft.

The technology we need to make a huge reduction in our gasoline consumption is already here, hybrid cars that run on flex-fuels. No great breakthrough is required. What's needed are more buyers. While enticing Detroit to make these more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good idea, we also need a gasoline tax to entice every consumer to buy one. The president rejects a gasoline tax. He's wrong. He can't end our oil addiction unless he ends his tax-cutting addiction.

Good luck, pal. These guys never connect the dots. The president doesn't see that his global democracy-promotion agenda is going to be stymied unless America leads the world away from oil. We are heading into an era we've never seen before: $50- to $60-a-barrel oil for a long time. Five years of that will strengthen the worst regimes and worst corruption trends across the globe, and everyone is just going to coddle these oil regimes to get their crude.

You're right: addicts never tell the truth to their pushers. So here's my bottom line: I'm glad the president is changing his rhetoric on energy and says he is changing his funding priorities. It makes for a great headline. But he has to go much further if he wants to make a great difference. There's no pain-free solution. Remember how President Kennedy ended his May 25, 1961, State of the Union speech calling for a moon shot? He said: "I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship, or some sacrifice."

Pigs will fly before Bush says that.

You may be right. And if he fails to carry through with this energy initiative, I'll be the first to rip him for it. In the meantime, I prefer to give him a new reputation to live up to. You never know. ... And by the way, pal, you got a better horse to ride right now?

mike · #4 02-03-2006, 01:41 PM

Aly,

Here are a few things that may surprise you.

First, I give President Bush a "D" rating when it comes to fixing our oil dependency problems. I just give the environmentalists an F for restricting us to foreign dependency.

Please answer me this. If we can't dig for oil, build refineries, or nuclear power plants, are we not being forced to import oil?

Second, my mom bought me Friedman's new "Flat" book and I plan on reading the whole thing. My new year's resolution last year was NOT to keep my reading focus on a narrow path that simply re-enforces my beliefs. I force myself to read Michael Moore books and other books in between just to get all perspectives. Where do you think I got those Cindy pics and letters from? Michael Moore’s website!

Mr. Joe · #5 02-07-2006, 03:50 PM

OK- keep discussing! We seem to be catching on that nothing is forever and yes, we should reduce oil dependence. It can't happen overnight. We may not have a problem with "Global Warming" right away, but it is good to start moving on saving the environment. I had a Cadillac once. The book with it said "Do Not use gasahol or the like in this vehicle. It can cause engine damage. " So we now have the "Flexible fuel" vehicles like those being manufactured by Ford in Brazil. They can run on Sugar Cane fuel in Brazil. or Corn based fuel ,(moonshine) available anywhere. It is happening, but it is a slow process. Just spend most of your spare time watching for Muslims, and be ready to lose that percentage of oil we get from Saudi very soon.

mike · #6 02-07-2006, 05:14 PM

Actually, it is shameful that either party has even placed any real effort in solving this problem. Do you want to know my promise if I were President?

I would ask congress for $7 billion dollars. I would give $2 billion to each of the big U.S. car makers (Ford, Chrysler and GM) in the form of a grant and order them to find a minimum 50 miles per gallon solution on ALL cars. Then the clock would be ticking. In four years EVERY Ford, GM, or Chrysler car must come out of the factory with a minimum of 50 miles per gallon or there would be an immediate 100% tax on each car. So, a $20,000 car would no cost $40,000 to the US consumer. Also, I would give the final $1 billion as a tax-free cash reward to the winner. The $1 billion would be divided among the workers equally at the winning company.

Anyone ready to vote for me?

Mike

alyteet · #7 02-09-2006, 08:21 PM

Mike - What do you think about a tax on oil imports?

Quote:

No More Mr. Tough Guy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 8, 2006

I've always thought Dick Cheney took national security seriously. I don't anymore. It seems that Mr. Cheney is so convinced that we have no choice but to be dependent on crude oil, so convinced that conservation is just some silly liberal hobby, that he will never seriously summon the country to kick its oil habit, never summon it to do anything great.

Indeed, he seems determined to be a drag on any serious effort to make America energy-independent. He presents all this as a tough-guy "realist" view of the world. But it's actually an ignorant and naïve view — one that underestimates what Americans can do, and totally misses how the energy question has overtaken Iraq as the most important issue in U.S. foreign policy. If he persists, Mr. Cheney is going to ensure that the Bush team squanders its last three years — and a lot more years for the country.

Listen to Mr. Cheney's answer when the conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham asked him how he reacted to my urgings for a gasoline tax to push all Americans to drive energy-saving vehicles and make us energy-independent — now.

"Well, I don't agree with that," Mr. Cheney said. "I think — the president and I believe very deeply that, obviously, the government has got a role to play here in terms of supporting research into new technologies and encouraging the development of new methods of generating energy. ... But we also are big believers in the market, and that we need to be careful about having government come in, for example, and tell people how to live their lives. ... This notion that we have to 'impose pain,' some kind of government mandate, I think we would resist. The marketplace does work out there."

What is he talking about? The global oil market is anything but free. It's controlled by the world's largest cartel — OPEC — which sets output, and thereby prices, according to the needs of some of the worst regimes in the world. By doing nothing, we are letting their needs determine the price and their treasuries reap all the profits.

Also, why does Mr. Cheney have no problem influencing the market by lowering taxes to get consumers to spend, but he rejects raising gasoline taxes to get consumers to save energy — a fundamental national interest.

Don't take it from me. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, who recently retired as chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 3 about his New Year's resolutions: "Everyone hates taxes, but the government needs to fund its operations, and some taxes can actually do some good in the process. I will tell the American people that a higher tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-handed [mileage standards]. It would not only encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, but it would encourage them to drive less."

Mr. Cheney, we are told, is a "tough guy." Really? Well, how tough is this: We have a small gasoline tax, but Europe and Japan tax their gasoline by $2 and $3 a gallon, or more. They use those taxes to build schools, highways and national health care for their citizens. But they spend very little on defense compared with us.

So who protects their oil supplies from the Middle East? U.S. taxpayers. We spend nearly $600 billion a year on defense, a large chunk in the Persian Gulf. But how do we pay for that without a gas tax? Income taxes and Social Security. Yes, we tax our incomes and raid our children's Social Security fund so Europeans and Japanese can comfortably import their oil from the gulf, impose big gas taxes on it at their pumps and then use that income for their own domestic needs. And because they have high gas taxes, they also beat Detroit at making more fuel-efficient cars. Now how tough is that?

Finally, if Mr. Cheney believes so much in markets, why did the 2005 energy act contain about $2 billion in tax breaks for oil companies? Why does his administration permit a 54-cents-a-gallon tax on imported ethanol — fuel made from sugar or corn — so Brazilian sugar exports won't compete with American sugar? Yes, we tax imported ethanol from Brazil, but we don't tax imported oil from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Russia.

"Everyone says we need a new Marshall Plan," said Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert and the author of "The Case for Goliath." "We have a Marshall Plan. It's our energy policy. It's a Marshall plan for terrorists and dictators."

How tough is it, Mr. Cheney, to will the ends — an end to America's oil addiction — but not will the means: a gasoline tax? It's not very tough, it's not very smart, and it's going to end badly for us.

Bear · #8 02-10-2006, 12:57 AM

Aly,
We've talked about this before, but the problem with the administration imposing an oil import tax is that they don't have the political capital to pull it off right now. Like it or not, our country is still run by politicians. Let's face it, if Cheney proposed a gas tax, how long would it be before Democrats decried it as "a tax on the working poor?" Congressional Republicans would have a hard time supporting this as well. This isn't a bad idea, but our national energy strategy has to be realistic and palatable to the general public to ultimately succeed politically. In order to do that, we'll need a very popular administration that can rally the nation to sacrifice in the near-term. That's either going to take another national crisis like 9-11 or a serious change in public opinion.

mike · #9 02-10-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Listen to Mr. Cheney's answer when the conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham asked him how he reacted to my urgings for a gasoline tax to push all Americans to drive energy-saving vehicles and make us energy-independent — now.

Yep, let's punish people for driving! Ok, Mr. Friedman, what is the big alternative?

Aly, I am sorry to say, I am loosing a lot of respect for Friedman. I agree with him that Americans need to drive "energy-saving vehicles." Here is my problem with him. Most hard working Americans do not drive a brand new car, and can't buy a new car tomorrow. So, if we take Friedman's idea and raise gas to $5 a gallon, what do the poor souls that drive an average car and can't afford to by a hybrid or alternative vehicle today? So, the people in America that can't afford to simple go by a new car are simply forced to pay $5 a gallon! Great idea!

This is the problem with elitists like Friedman. He can't understand that people can't simply go down to the auto lot and pick up a new hybrid vehicle at $25,000. He probably leases or buys a new vehicle every 2-3 years and thinks everyone does. He is out of touch with the average American.

So, Friedman's plan would force every American to purchase a new car at $20,000+ a pop. This will simply place a burden on the average family as they will most likely have to pay for the car through a loan. I'm sure the average American will love having that extra $500 a month ca

Forums	Arcade	Gallery	Links	Register	FAQ	Members List	Calendar
Classifieds	Articles	Quizzes	Search	Today's Posts	Mark Forums Read