Independence for Middle East Oil

[Cairber]

I keep hearing Kerry talk about how hes gonna make us independent of MIddle east oil ( i think the whisper under the breath on that one has got to be "independent of OPEC")...but how does he plan on doing it? I tried to look up something about this "plan" they have, but I cant find anything. Can anyone clue me in? I like to be informed about candidates but it gets harder and harder as the years go by...the real platforms seem to get hidden somewhere...

[Xenophobe3691]

Raising the MPG on SUV's to what they were supposed to have been? That's more than enough, from what I've heard.

[RedImperator]

Short term, increasing MPG requirements on new cars, developing domestic sources (though Kerry doesn't want to do that), encouraging people to switch to public transportation, decreasing reliabiity on oil-fired power plants (which means going to coal since nuclear is not a politically viable option). Long term, it ought to mean fusion power plants supplying electricity to crack seawater into hydrogen for fuel-cell cars, and the only thing we use oil for is high test fuels for engines that can't be made to run on hydrogen, lubricants, and petrochemicals, which can easily be supplied from domestic sources. Whether Kerry is willing to make that kind of long term investment remains to be seen.

[Uraniun235]

I just can't fucking believe there aren't a lot of lawsuits against energy companies in light of the health problems that coal-fired plants create. It just boggles my mind. Why hasn't anyone started these lawsuits? There's a ton of money to be made here.

[admiral_danielsben]

Short term, increasing MPG requirements on new cars, developing domestic sources (though Kerry doesn't want to do that), encouraging people to switch to public transportation, decreasing reliabiity on oil-fired power plants (which means going to coal since nuclear is not a politically viable option). Long term, it ought to mean fusion power plants supplying electricity to crack seawater into hydrogen for fuel-cell cars, and the only thing we use oil for is high test fuels for engines that can't be made to run on hydrogen, lubricants, and petrochemicals, which can easily be supplied from domestic sources. Whether Kerry is willing to make that kind of long term investment remains to be seen.

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG. If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

I'd say, the best thing is to develop domestic oil sources and allow more nuclear reactors to be built. Hydrogen fuel-cells and fusion are for long-term.

I am a big nuclear fan. really. They produce more energy per ounce of fuel than anything else at present and produce waste products that don't permeate the atmosphere like coal or oil smoke. As a bonus, Saudi Arabia does not have uranium (although West African countries do). Thorium is even better; there is more thorium in the Earth than uranium, and you can't build an a-bomb with thorium (although you could build a dirty-bomb). You can reprocess fuel to get more life out of it, and you can store away what can't be re-used underground in Nevada. Or for that matter, Saudi Arabia.

[Gil Hamilton]

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG. If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

Why would people want a gas guzzler? What, are they protestors out there that are going "We want to fill up our cars three times as often, thus taking it in the ass! Alot!"

[HemlockGrey]

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG. If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

The government has a responsibility to act in the best interests of the state and the people while keeping civil rights infringements to a minimum. I hate to tell you, but purchasing a gas-guzzling car is not a "Right", especially not when there are numerous alternatives.

[Tzeentch]

I keep hearing Kerry talk about how hes gonna make us independent of MIddle east oil ( i think the whisper under the breath on that one has got to be "independent of OPEC")...but how does he plan on doing it? I tried to look up something about this "plan" they have, but I cant find anything. Can anyone clue me in? I like to be informed about candidates but it gets harder and harder as the years go by...the real platforms seem to get hidden somewhere...

I'm almost positive John Kerry endorses the Apollo Alliance, and their 10-point plan.

[Tzeentch]

I'm almost positive John Kerry endorses the Apollo Alliance, and their 10-point plan.

Which would be the following:

The Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence

1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars: Begin today to provide incentives for converting domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient cars, transitioning the fleet to American made advanced technology vehicles, increasing consumer choice and strengthening the US auto industry.

2. Invest In More Efficient Factories: Make innovative use of the tax code and economic development systems to promote more efficient and profitable manufacturing while saving energy through environmental retrofits, improved boiler operations, and industrial cogeneration of electricity, retaining jobs by investing in plants and workers.

3. Encourage High Performance Building: Increase investment in construction of ?green buildings? and energy efficient homes and offices through innovative financing and incentives, improved building operations, and updated codes and standards, helping working families, businesses, and government realize substantial cost savings.

4. Increase Use of Energy Efficient Appliances: Drive a new generation of highly efficient manufactured goods into widespread use, without driving jobs overseas, by linking higher energy standards to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in US factories.

5. Modernize Electrical Infrastructure: Deploy the best available technology like scrubbers to existing plants, protecting jobs and the environment; research new technology to capture and sequester carbon and improve transmission for distributed renewable generation.

6. Expand Renewable Energy Development: Diversify energy sources by promoting existing technologies in solar, biomass and wind while setting ambitious but achievable goals for increasing renewable generation, and promoting state and local policy innovations that link clean energy and jobs.

7. Improve Transportation Options: Increase mobility, job access, and transportation choice by investing in effective multimodal networks including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

8. Reinvest In Smart Urban Growth: Revitalize urban centers to promote strong cities and good jobs, by rebuilding and upgrading local infrastructure including road maintenance, bridge repair, and water and waste water systems, and by expanding redevelopment of idled urban ?brownfield? lands, and by improving metropolitan planning and governance.

9. Plan For A Hydrogen Future: Invest in long term research & development of hydrogen fuel cell technology, and deploy the infrastructure to support hydrogen powered cars and distributed electricity generation using stationary fuel cells, to create jobs in the industries of the future.

10. Preserve Regulatory Protections: Encourage balanced growth and investment through regulation that ensures energy diversity and system reliability, that protects workers and the environment, that rewards consumers, and that establishes a fair framework for emerging technologies.

[Hamel]

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG. If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

Does libertarian dogma allow you to see the fucking world of difference between regulatory measures to optimize oil/energy usage and peeping into peoples' library records?

[TrailerParkJawa]

Its not going to happen, its all bullshit to make people clap their hands and feel good. You can raise MPG all you want, but if the population keeps growing you end up with the same demand.

[aerius]

The way I see it they should just start cutting down on the oil shipments starting tomorrow. Gas prices will start going up and eventually a point will be reached where people will no longer want to own gas guzzling SUV's or trucks unless they absolutely need to, unless they're filthy rich. Thanks to the market shift, car companies will be putting their resources into making high MPG cars using technology such as lean burn direct injection gasoline engines and diesels. Hybrids such as the Prius will also be more common. It will fuck over industry in the short to mid-term, but once they make the needed investments to upgrade their efficiency they'll be fine.

Longterm, hopefully people will be smart enough to oil burning powerplants with nukes instead of building more coal-powered plants. The government can nudge things in the right direction by setting up pollution laws so that it becomes prohibitively expensive to run a coal-fired plant. Other than that, who knows.

[admiral_danielsben]

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG. If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

Does libertarian dogma allow you to see the fucking world of difference between regulatory measures to optimize oil/energy usage and peeping into peoples' library records?

Both are violations of one's rights. They differ by what they effect - individual liberties or the right to make money.

[SirNitram]

The government really has no right to force companies to make a minimum MPG. If people want to buy gas guzzlers, the government cannot stop them in a time of peace. It is funny that folks who think the government should are the biggest critics of other 'national security' measures like the Patriot Act.

Does libertarian dogma allow you to see the fucking world of difference between regulatory measures to optimize oil/energy usage and peeping into peoples' library records?

Both are violations of one's rights. They differ by what they effect - individual liberties or the right to make money.

Incorrect. The Patriot Act violates an individuals rights as laid down by the Constitution. Regulatory measures violate corporate 'rights', which are not laid down anywhere but in the deluded minds of Libertarians.

[Gil Hamilton]

Both are violations of one's rights. They differ by what they effect - individual liberties or the right to make money.

It doesn't interfere with their ability to make money. Just just have to make cars that meet industry standards. Given the sheer amount on industry standards out there and the fact that this has a benefitial effect on society*, it wouldn't be that huge a deal.

[Master of Ossus]

To be honest, I've never fully understood the reasons why America SHOULD be independent of Middle East oil. Whether America imports all of its fuel or none of it, the price of energy is still going to be set on the international market, and US consumers would still be just as vulnerable to price shocks overseas.

I can't help but thinking that any strategic concerns would be MORE than outweighed by the horrific costs of implementing a plan that would allow the US to stop importing oil from elsewhere.

[Gil Hamilton]

To be honest, I've never fully understood the reasons why America SHOULD be independent of Middle East oil. Whether America imports all of its fuel or none of it, the price of energy is still going to be set on the international market, and US consumers would still be just as vulnerable to price shocks overseas.

Because then we can divorce ourselves with the region much more. I'd rather be at the behest of Iceland for hydrogen fuel exports than at the behest of Saudi Arabia for oil.

[Master of Ossus]

Because then we can divorce ourselves with the region much more. I'd rather be at the behest of Iceland for hydrogen fuel exports than at the behest of Saudi Arabia for oil.

No, the point is that you wouldn't be. The price of energy would be the same if we stopped importing oil altogether or started importing all of it.

[Gil Hamilton]

No, the point is that you wouldn't be. The price of energy would be the same if we stopped importing oil altogether or started importing all of it.

If we aren't importing our fuel from the Middle East, it means we don't have nearly as much involvement in pissant conflicts there. The less we have to do with the region, the better.

[Master of Ossus]

No, the point is that you wouldn't be. The price of energy would be the same if we stopped importing oil altogether or started importing all of it.

If we aren't importing our fuel from the Middle East, it means we don't have nearly as much involvement in pissant conflicts there. The less we have to do with the region, the better.

How does stopping the importation of oil make us less dependent on the Middle East? The price of energy would still be determined on the international market, and US consumers would still be just as vulnerable to price-shocks originating in the region. If we wanted to be able to say "Fuck the economy, let them jack up prices since we gots us some alternative energy, bitches," then it MIGHT make sense if we still wanted to pay exorbitant prices for energy as a result of a Mid East crisis, but I think that the costs of implementing such an independence scheme would vastly outweigh the nominal benefits of being able to do that.

[The Kernel]

How does stopping the importation of oil make us less dependent on the Middle East? The price of energy would still be determined on the international market, and US consumers would still be just as vulnerable to price-shocks originating in the region. If we wanted to be able to say "Fuck the economy, let them jack up prices since we gots us some alternative energy, bitches," then it MIGHT make sense if we still wanted to pay exorbitant prices for energy as a result of a Mid East crisis, but I think that the costs of implementing such an independence scheme would vastly outweigh the nominal benefits of being able to do that.

Ossus, what exactly do you think OPEC is for? Under a totally free global market, you would be correct, the price will be set on the international market. However, OPEC (a cartel, which are forbidden in any decently run market economy) use such charming strategies as hording, price fixing, dumping, etc.

Besides, it's more a matter of getting away from oil altogether so that the energy market will not be dominated by any one area of the world. The more countries that can produce fuel at competative prices, the lower those prices will go.

[admiral_danielsben]

Does libertarian dogma allow you to see the fucking world of difference between regulatory measures to optimize oil/energy usage and peeping into peoples' library records?

Both are violations of one's rights. They differ by what they effect - individual liberties or the right to make money.

Incorrect. The Patriot Act violates an individuals rights as laid down by the Constitution. Regulatory measures violate corporate 'rights', which are not laid down anywhere but in the deluded minds of Libertarians.

If i want something, and somebody wants to sell it to me, and it's not something like an atomic bomb, and I pay the appropriate sales tax, why the hell should i not be permitted to buy it?

and what is 'corporate' and what is 'individual'? Is a one-person business like a tiny used bookstore any more 'corporate' than the UAW? Waitasec... yes. The tiny used bookstore makes money, just like a big business (assuming the big business is honest and not a corrupt piece of shit like Enron). The UAW in some places makes money (or takes it in an honest manner), but where there's no 'right to work', it FORCES auto workers to join regardless if they want to ('closed shop'). Also, someday the small one-man bookstore might be a big used bookstore enterprise, with shareholders and everything; the UAW is not a 'business' and thus it cannot.

'corporate' is just a collection of individuals who happen to be in a business. Both have three basic rights:

1. The right to make money
2. The right to spend money
3. The right to work for money

Note that these rights are essentially the only rights not spelled out in the constitution and amendments 1-10 (the 'bill of rights') and 13-15 (the amendments which would have banished feudalism from the south had they been more properly enforced), that are truly important to a functioning society.

[Alan Bolte]

Um, right. Let's not loose sight of some things here:

1. Most people are fairly ignorant and not particularly inspired when it comes to politics, economics, and even how to manage their own finances.

2. Most of the rest are downright stupid.

3. The above fools tend to purchase cars based almost entirely based on appearance, followed closely by how powerful the thing is supposed to be.

4. If you asked the people in number 3 what kind of MPG they get in their new car, they'd be split between those who are too rich to notice what they pay for gas, those who are very sensitive about gas prices but have not realized that their car is a factor in how much they pay at the pump, and those that have no idea what you're talking about but probably could be pretty easily talked into an idea that will save them money.

5. The remaining fraction who (allow me a caricature) own hybrid cars and have "6T MPG" as their license plate are too small to do much more then ask the government to do something.

[SirNitram]

Both are violations of one's rights. They differ by what they effect - individual liberties or the right to make money.

Incorrect. The Patriot Act violates an individuals rights as laid down by the Constitution. Regulatory measures violate corporate 'rights', which are not laid down anywhere but in the deluded minds of Libertarians.

If i want something, and somebody wants to sell it to me, and it's not something like an atomic bomb, and I pay the appropriate sales tax, why the hell should i not be permitted to buy it?

And now we see the Libertarian dogma used to try and muddy the waters. Here's a hint, retard. You're not the only one on this planet. That's the whole reason for things like requirements on fuel efficiency.

and what is 'corporate' and what is 'individual'? Is a one-person business like a tiny used bookstore any more 'corporate' than the UAW? Waitasec... yes. The tiny used bookstore makes money, just like a big business (assuming the big business is honest and not a corrupt piece of shit like Enron). The UAW in some places makes money (or takes it in an honest manner), but where there's no 'right to work', it FORCES auto workers to join regardless if they want to ('closed shop'). Also, someday the small one-man bookstore might be a big used bookstore enterprise, with shareholders and everything; the UAW is not a 'business' and thus it cannot.

An individual is a single person. A corporation is a business. Individuals have rights, businesses do not. That is the difference.

'corporate' is just a collection of individuals who happen to be in a business. Both have three basic rights:

1. The right to make money

This 'right' is not shown anywhere in the United States' legal foundations, ergo there is no proof it exists.

2. The right to spend money

This 'right' is not shown anywhere in the United States' legal foundations, ergo there is no proof it exists.

3. The right to work for money

This 'right' is not shown anywhere in the United States' legal foundations, ergo there is no proof it exists.

Note that these rights are essentially the only rights not spelled out in the constitution and amendments 1-10 (the 'bill of rights') and 13-15 (the amendments which would have banished feudalism from the south had they been more properly enforced), that are truly important to a functioning society.

These rights are not included, therefore Corporations do not have them. You are, as expected, a lying sack of shit.

[Andrew J.]

If i want something, and somebody wants to sell it to me, and it's not something like an atomic bomb, and I pay the appropriate sales tax, why the hell should i not be permitted to buy it?

In the case of a fuel-inefficient automobile, there a couple of reasons. One, the excessive fuel consumption would create more pollution than necessary, thus negatively impacting the health of other citizens.

Secondly, a profusion of such cars would either cause the price of gasoline at the pump (more fuel required means more demand which means higher prices) or make people more reluctant drive, thus hurting consumer consumption (less driving to the mall, restaurants, etc.).