Hooked on oil

jewishworldreview.com ^ | Victor Davis Hanson

[mal]

For the foreseeable future, petroleum will power the global economy. There is far too little of it to go around — especially now that 2 billion Chinese and Indians are in the market. And the resulting scramble for oil warps all reason and common sense.

In our petroleum-paranoid world, "No Blood For Oil" was the common smear against removing oil-rich Saddam Hussein. Yet after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the global price skyrocketed. The shady deals of French and Russian oil consortia and the rot of the U.N. oil-for-food program were at last exposed. And Iraq's oil industry was, for the first time, under democratic control.

[The Red Zone]

And it would be far easier to curb weapons of mass destruction if madmen lacked the oil to pay for them.

ummm, last I heard, the world's terrorist attacks have all been conducted on a shoestring budget. of course that will change if it comes to full blown nukes.

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links: FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson 
His website: http://victorhanson.com/     NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp

[Loud Mime]

I don't read VDH until after I've had my first cup of coffee..... ----stretch----

[.cnI redruM]

Big time. Check out the regulatory hurdles in the way of any company attempting to build a nuclear power plant from the bare ground up.

[kellynla]

First, the Muslim problem was around long before they discovered oil in their back yard and the Muslims are either going to have to change their beliefs and SOP or face distinction.

Second, "far too little oil?" not as long I see wells capped in my neighborhood of Huntington Beach, CA...but I agree that nuclear/desalination/electrical generating plants should be built on all coasts of America.

And finally, a bullet could and should be the answer to the bad actors like Fidel and Hugo instead of the U.S. Marine Corps. And let the Iranians take out their own trash.

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[cogitator]

Nice quote: "Some environmentalists prove just as clueless. Even as Russian and African polluters frantically pump without American-style regulations, these well-meaning activists argue that we should not drill in a responsible fashion in small areas in Alaska and off our coasts to feed our own appetite. If the left would push nuclear power and more drilling, and the right would push more mandatory efficiency standards and alternative fuels, the United States could cut its imports and collapse the world price."

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Consider, our oil dependency is giving the Saudis about $700,000,000/day.

[nosofar]

ummm, last I heard, the world's terrorist attacks have all been conducted on a shoestring budget. of course that will change if it comes to full blown nukes.

It takes money to develop and manufacture WMD. Terrorists are just a delivery system.

[NYorkerInHouston]

>>Big time. Check out the regulatory hurdles in the way of any
>>company attempting to build a nuclear power plant from the
>>bare ground up.

So true. That is one thing that needs to be changed ASAP as it will take time to build the reactors (up to ten years) so we'd best be getting started right away. The first thing to phase out would be the 3% of electrical generation powered by petroleum. Only 3% but still 570,000 barrels a day - the equivalent of a major oil field and just under 5% of the total oil we import each day. Not insignificant.

The plants could also be used to replace natural gas fired generators. There will be bidding wars for LNG (they have in fact already begun) and natural gas may become increasingly pricey in the states otherwise. We also need a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.

Other forms of energy production will also help like wind, geothermal and hydroelectric but only wind shows reasonable growth opportunities at present.

[NYorkerInHouston]

>>If the left would push nuclear power and more drilling, and
>>the right would push more mandatory efficiency standards and
>>alternative fuels, the United States could cut its imports
>>and collapse the world price."


That quote is especially nice. Both sides will have to agree to things that they have not traditionally supported. And they had best come a reasonable plan to move forward as soon as possible.

[nosofar]

It takes money to develop and manufacture WMD. Terrorists are just a delivery system.

I probably should have restricted this comment to nukes.

[norraad]

Trash incinerators could also be modified to produce natural gas ( talk about infinite resource ).

The bigger problem is resistance in the decision process by arms/oil/gov. good ol'boy network.

Even something as innocuous as that 5% oil burned needlessly for electricity.

The oil boys cling to such wastefulness like a mother with her only child.

[cogitator]

And they had best come a reasonable plan to move forward as soon as possible.

We really need a forward-looking energy plan.

[quant5]

"Other forms of energy production will also help like wind, geothermal and hydroelectric but only wind shows reasonable growth opportunities at present."

Coal to synthetic oil is taking root also. States such as Colorado and Pennysylvania have these plants and are fed subsidized. We have just a few operating plants, but with 30-50 operating plants, we can reduce imports by 50% and we will not run out of coal for hundreds of years. My belief is we will all be on hydrogen in 2 to 3 decades, but I agree we should get moving on the nuke plants also post-haste. These plants can efficiently power the conversion for synthetic oil, ethanol, etc.

[Rakkasan1]

VDH ping

[illinoissmith]

"Some environmentalists prove just as clueless. Even as Russian and African polluters frantically pump without American-style regulations, these well-meaning activists argue that we should not drill in a responsible fashion in small areas in Alaska and off our coasts to feed our own appetite. If the left would push nuclear power and more drilling, and the right would push more mandatory efficiency standards and alternative fuels, the United States could cut its imports and collapse the world price."

This is true, and this is a way to really help better the world. To understand why the left is not doing this, despite their supposed concern for the environment and for third world energy supply, check Horowitz' writings.

The brains and leaders of left (that is, socialist) ideology aren't in it to do good. They're not in to have a clean environment that can be enjoyed by future generations of civilization.

They're people who cheer on a system and ideology that starved millions of Ukrainian farmers to death, millions of Chinese farmers to death. With a history like this, the failure of the brains on the left to push for nuclear power, and drilling in the US, isn't likely stemming from simple ignorance.

The those on the left who are actually concerned about the environment, and who think that contributing to the left will do good are dupes, plain and simple. Pity them, try to appeal to what love of good they have (nuclear is cleaner if done well (the US plants are nothing like the USSR plants; totally different safety systems and standards)), nuclear will help us detach from the oppressive Saudi regime (which doesn't allow women to drive, and which has legal execution of homosexuals). But don't mistake them for representatives of the intellectual heart of the left (again, really 'socialist') movement, and don't think that simple misunderstanding or ignorance is the root of the evil in that movement... sadly, it's not as easy as that would make it.