Random imageSponsorUser loginActive forum topicsRecent blog postsRecent comments
Currency Rate
|
Peak Oil is here- is anyone paying attention?Submitted by nuestragringa on 8 July, 2008 - 08:47.
We toyed with the idea of $100 a barrel oil here on NicaLiving a few months ago: I talked about Peak Oil, the increased price of everything, how our lives will change with more expensive oil, the need for alternatives. Now, with oil closing at over $140 a barrel last week, I wonder what we are all thinking. It is getting more expensive to live in the U.S., as well as Nicaragua, but Nicaragua may be the better alternative for those willing to depend less on petroluem-fueled living and more on Mother Nature. Any thoughts?
Get the Oil Price widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox!
|
NavigationWho's onlineThere are currently 6 users and 14 guests online.
Online users
Who's new
PollIn Nicaragua, my income will come from Job in Nicaragua 4% Run business in Nicaragua 35% Pension/investments/savings 35% External work (e.g., on-line) 20% No clue 7% Total votes: 46 A ThoughtPeople live life as though it's serious but not fatal.....in fact, it's just the opposite! |
Back to the topic?
It would be great if, just for this thread, we could set aside debates about the Pickens Plan and whether or not Peak Oil is real for a moment. For that matter, let's not even get bogged down in how terrible Ortega and/or the USA government are.
Instead, let's play a game: PRETEND that peak oil is real, and PRETEND that it will hit us "soon", and PRETEND that alternative energy sources wouldn't easily take up the slack. For the sake of argument, let's say that within five years, oil and gas consumption had to be cut by 80%, with the corresponding decrease in available electricity and goods.
How would Nicaragua fare, compared to, for example, the US?
From what I can tell (having not actually been there yet), the PRO's of Nicaragua include:
And some CON's I have thought of:
The fact that Nicaragua doesn't have oil reserves is a disadvantage (obviously), but also an advantage because it makes the country less of a target for resource wars.
Those are my ideas. But I'm really curious what folks who really understand Nicaragua think. How easily could local food farming get started? Could sugarcane stills provide some ethanol? Do you think folks would "get by", or would all hell break loose?
Thanks!
Kevin
Addressing the cons
First, let me say that I think you should have started a new thread. There is a lot to talk about here. In any case, addressing your cons one at a time:
"Existing poverty" — I don't think this is a disadvantage. In rural Nicaragua, electricity is clearly "an extra'. Not much really depends on it. While transport will be an issue, that's about it.
"A lot of the current agriculture is non-food items" — I'm not sure how true this is. Most of what I see being grown is food.
"Less cultural tendency to respect property rights, as evidenced by petty theft (although if things got ugly, civility in the US would suffer too)" — I think you addressed this one yourself. Also, part of the petty theft issue is close to no law enforcement. That is an economic issue.
"Earthquakes, volcanic damage, and hurricanes" — True but I am not sure this is bigger than, for example, forest fires and earthquakes in the U.S. The difference is that the U.S. has had a financial buffer to deal with this. So, once again, this seems economic.
"Hilly/mountainous terrain makes some transportation difficult" — I am not sure how this is an issue.
Some big pluses that seem to be possible in the relatively short-term are wind and geothermal energy. If the reality of petroleum forced this issue, it would seem Nicaragua can quickly meet its energy needs in terms of electricity very quickly. If there is excess capacity, conversion of, for example, local buses and taxis to electricity would be a win.
Bottom line, with low dependence today and a lot more flexibility, I think Nicaragua is a lot better place to be than certainly Deluth and probably even San Diego.
Thanks, and clarifications
Thanks for the response.
Poverty may be a disadvantage in that folks in developed countries can tap savings and existing assets for a while. When you're already living on the edge, there is no cushion. Which I know also describes a whole lot of people in the US.
For agriculture and food, I was mostly thinking about coffee and tobacco, two prominent exports which would become less valuable. Otherwise, the mix looks pretty good. And from what I can tell, they don't import significant amounts of raw food materials, which would imply self-sufficiency in food production, as long as the farms kept operating.
As for the hills and mountains, I was thinking it would make it harder to walk and bike, and probably lead to roads needing more maintenance to remain functional.
What is your impression as to how the people might respond to a problem like this? Would they understand that the cause was external, or would they blame the gringos/sandinistas/ricos/etc? Would the church be a strong moderating force?
Or maybe the disruption really wouldn't be that severe at all (unlike in many countries, which are highly developed, overpopulated, or lack food production).
Great comment!
The kinds of questions you ask are the ones I was hoping people would begin to address when I started talking about Peak Oil here a few months ago (before $100 a barrel!). Alas, as you have seen, we never got too far.
On the whole I think Nicaragua will fare better for those who are ready to live a simpler life, close to the land and are ready to become partipants in a community. I think a better life will be had in rural communities where one can be nearly self-sufficient, and trade with neighbors for the rest.
Many in Nicaragua are already living what could be described as post-petroleum-era lifestyle. In Nicaragua, it would not be a problem to raise backyard livestock and chickens, use an oxcart or horse and buggy for transportation.
People will definitely blame the government, as they do for everything, rightly or wrongly. There will be protests in Managua, for sure.
In Nicaragua, if you expect nothing from the government and look to solve your own problems, at least the government will not usually try to impede you. There is a lot of freedom there for a self-sufficent lifestyle. The government doesn't do too much for you, but it doesn't really get in your way either, if your aim is just a simple farm for example.
Let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with me.
UK Guardian on Oil Sands
The video mentions that about one barrel of oil is used for each six extracted in this sort of project. Ignoring the environmental side, just the fact that this is apparently economically worthwhile certainly makes me believe peak oil is a reality.
NO SUCH THING AS PEAK OIL...
Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley WANT YOU to believe in Peak oil so they can keep pushing up the price through their speculative hedge funds.
Some geologists believe that oil is not a finite resource, and that oil is produced continuously.
Oil has jumped in price because the Hedge funds and pension funds, and banks are bidding up the price through oil contracts in an effort to make up the billions they lost in their real estate bubble wager.
I wish I could agree...
I know of no geologists who share your view. Who are these geologists you speak of?
Speculation may play a part, but in the long run, it is just supply and demand, and right now they are about even, a little short on the supply side, and will be getting worse as time goes on. Mark my words.
DEMAND IS DOWN, YET OIL IS UP
oil prices are clearly manipulated. The oil price is set in New York and London NOT BY OPEC.
Saudi Arabia has said that the problem is speculation. It is not in OPEC's best interest to have these high prices. The problem is that commodity prices are not set by the producing states.
as for oil being a renewable resource:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2423 and http://www.gasresources.net/energy_resources.htm
It is not easy reading, and you will not like it. The oil majors have kept this under wraps.
Legacy of futures prices
Some short, recent articles on the two sides to the one point of contention (legacy of futures prices...): “Don’t Blame the Oil Speculators” & “Future Prices Determine Oil Prices”) (scroll to #366; see also entry #364 on the other “peak oil”).
I say this in the spirit of
I say this in the spirit of having a good debate, and I thank you for responding, no offense intended:
First of all, who says demand is down???? Maybe down in the last month or so in the US, but not in the rest of the world. Demand is ever-increasing.
J.F Kenney (author of the gasresources.net document you refernce above) is the only person in the world since the 1800's who still believes that petroleum is not created by long-ago defunct carbon-based life forms (hence the name abiotic theory).
The other article must be a hard read for you because you clearly did not read it. R. Heinberg (author of the energybulletin.net article) proves my point and is one of the most active proponents of the Peak Oil theory. He wrote the article to put to rest any poor remaining souls' belief in that archaic 19th century theory. Read it, to the end, you'll see that what I am saying is true.
Nothing has been kept under wraps regarding this theory, it is simply not credible, so no one pays it much attention. It's like saying the radio companies are keeping under wraps the fact that there are tiny people inside the radio playing all that music.
Who says OPEC sets prices? OPEC sets production levels. But guess why Saudi Arabia refuses to increase production? Because THERE IS NO SPARE PRODUCTION. They are pumping at 100% capacity. Peak Oil= New discovery peak= Production peak. Don't take my word for it. If you don't feel like reading one of the many books out on the subject (we have named these before), rent one of the documentaries. I'll post them again in another comment.
Oil is traded in dollars, and dollar is weak, that contributes to high prices. Speculation plays a role, but not the major one that you suggest. It boils down to simple supply and demand. The long-term trend will be toward higher and higher prices because supply is not, and will not be able to meet demand.
KEEP IGNORING SPECULATION TO YOUR PERIL
You ignore geopolitics and that is your fatal flaw in your logic.
There is no shortage of oil, quite the contrary. "peak oil theorists" are mainly oil industry shills who are themselves playing a part in the so-called climate change/peak oil hysteria. Most of these people are funded by the oil industry itself.
The fact that you chose to ignore (again) is that hedge fund driven speculation is THE factor causing these huge price hikes. A large portion of the oil trade is conducted offshore in unregulated trading spheres.
Getting back to geopolitics, the fact is that the seven sisters have overthrown governments, finance political campaigns in europe and the USA. The EU is currently harassing Brazil through the use of "environmental concerns" to prevent sugar cane ethanol from entering europe.
same applies here in the USA through the imposition of a 50 plus cent tariff on each gallon of brazilian ethanol. Why is that? things never happen in a vacuum. Brazil is the only country that has freed itself from the shackles of the seven sisters, while becoming self-reliant through the discovery of huge oil reserves. This year brazil discovered a huge field that will propel it to being the world's #10 oil producer even surpassing Nigeria. This partly explains why peak oil is a scam.
In the mid 1970's certain american oil companies were exploring for oil off the Nicaraguan coast. Oil was found but this was kept quiet. According to former Somoza ministers, the projects never moved forward because the oil companies would not agree to Somoza's terms., i.e. oil would be nationalized from the outset.
According to these ministers, this is one of the things that contributed to his downfall. Shortly thereafter, the sandinistas began getting lush funding.....
Don't believe this story? read about the recent scandal involving Margaret Thatcher's son who was financing a coup d'etat in Equatorial Guinea (one of the world's most recent oil exporters) with covert funding from Spanish oil giant REPSOL and France's TOTAL.
The Vietnamese were told by the western oil majors that the country did not have oil. The Russians proved them wrong. The White Tiger Oil field is proof of this.
OPEC controls the output, but not the finished product itself. Iran is an oil producer, yet imports all of its gasoline.
The reason why Iraq was targeted for invasion by the Arbusto administration was Saddam's decision to stop accepting the dollar for his oil. If allowed to continue, this would end american seigniorage over oil. No seigniorage, no more superpower status for the USA. For the USA no longer exports in the amounts necessary to obtain EUROS in the open market to be able to purchase oil if it were denominated in that currency.
Iran is being targeted due to the country's plan to open the first middle eastern oil bourse or market. This would result in OPEC controlling BOTH the OUTPUT and PRICE.
No way, the USA is going to let that happen as it would lose control over the resource. This fact plus AIPAC's influence will result in an increasing likelihood of an attack against Iran.
So if you must, keep believing that supply and demand is the key determinant of oil prices. The fact is that speculation being driven by the oil companies themselves, and of course geopolitical and economic moves by certain key actors.
Lastly, as for abiotic theory, the Russians are laughing all the way to the bank. They have severely restricted and downright banned major western oil companies from investing in the sector. Why?. I stand fast in my belief that there is no such thing as peak oil. Anybody who is well versed in geopolitical events knows this is patently false.
I can't believe I am still beating this dead horse
Well, I wish I had the time and energy to get into this point by point, but I don't. I am glad that T. Boone Pickens has gone public with his belief in peak oil, because now we have a very well-known figure talking about it, and I don't feel as much like a voice in the wilderness. An oilman getting out of oil because it has no future.
I will say that, some of your points are correct, but they were never points I disputed, like the Iraq invasion, like Iran not only wanting their own Middle Eastern oil market (which would use the Euro as its currency, you did not mention that).
Geopolitics will always play a role, but overshadowing it all in this case is the fact that we are at the top of the bell curve right now regarding world supply. Many books have been written on the subject; I cannot hope to address it all in this post.
Your main point that speculation is the cause for high oil prices is just wrong. It may have some effect now, as in this week, this month, this year. Prices will go up and down in this period of peak oil, but if the world continues to use petroleum as its lifeblood, prices will definitely go up, up, up.
Peak oil means that we are at the peak, the most the world will ever produce. An abundance of oil. The problem is that demand is even with that peak supply, and as we go down from the peak, on the other side of the peak, the downslope of the bellcurve, prices will really skyrocket. The problem with the peak is that it is only really visible in hindsight. The US was once the world's top oil producer. We peaked in 1973. Now we import 70% of our oil. The rest of the world is on the same path.
Educate yourself, at least look at www.peakoil.net
Look at www.PickensPlan.com
Don't take my word for it, peak oil is here, go out and educate yourself, man! Do it for the sake of your children and grandchildren.
Nice site..
I am a huge fan of wind power and was pleased to see it's place in Mr Pickens plan. He states that this is a plan for energy independence, by shifting our transportation sector to LNG. I wonder what part the huge LNG delivery ports in Fall River Massachusetts and the second one in Gloucester Massachusetts have in this;
"The Northeast Gateway project is the first of two LNG ports proposed off the North Shore. Suez North American hopes to have its Neptune LNG terminal in operation by the end of 2009."
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_152115733
with the largest LNG loading port in the world being built in Qatar;
http://www.outokumpu.com/pages/Page____40122.aspx
With todays fuel prices and the projected rise in cost the modified Fischer-Tropsch process used by;
" Great Northern Power Development (GNPD) and Allied Syngas Corp. said they intend to develop a $1.4 billion joint venture "South Heart" synthetic natural gas plant in southwestern North Dakota.
The feedstock for the plant will be 4.9 million tons a year of lignite from North Dakota, which will be used in seven British Gas Lurgi (BGL) gasifiers to produce up to 100 million cubic feet/day of pipeline quality substitute natural gas to be transported to customers via existing pipelines. "
be more conducive to energy independence ?
I read so many conflicting studies on peak oil, but when I can find no dino-oil reason for there to be oil at or below 40,000 feet besides abiotic my limited knowledge leaves me confused. ;
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm
While J. F. Kenney and the Russians may be the only ones singing this song, it wouldn't be the first time the majority was wrong.
And thanks for the subject, it will be of great importance to everyone in the coming months and years.
-Doug ©
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
T. Boone Pickens announced his alternative energy plan today
This Texas oil man placed himself firmly in the Peak Oil camp about 2 years ago. I just brought my New York Times in from the driveway, took it out of its little blue plastic bag, and opened it up to a full-page ad placed by Pickens himself, putting forth his new energy plan (www.PickensPlan.com). Someone put his thinking cap on! He stands to make money from alternatives, no doubt, but at least we have a high-profile oil man turning the tide, making some sense for a change instead of promoting drilling for more oil in ANWR or the continental shelf, which he knows will not be a solution.
follow the money
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72225
pelosi is corrupt? culture of corruption?
when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson
Che I'm not sure that,
politics completely aside, clean energy is such a bad thing.
i disagree...
how can you make this statement? "making some sense for a change instead of promoting drilling for more oil in ANWR or the continental shelf" other solutions are 40 years away. more oil now is what is needed. if clinton hadn't vetoed anwr 10 years ago, that would knock down the reliance on foriegn oil from 70% down to 50%. that would make a huge dent. plus the speculators couldn't bank on the notion that 85% of the offshore area is off limits to production. it is supply and demand. rather simple.
when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson
to prove my point
http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyNDljNTQ5MThjNWE3YTAzYWYzMmZ...
when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson
You got one thing right, supply and demand
I have to disagree as usual, Jim. ANWR and the continental shelf are not long-term solutions. They are bottom of the barrel strategies, just putting off the real solutions while we devastate God's green earth.
"I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of." - T. Boone Pickens
Here's what Pickens said in an interview yesterday:
“For a number of years I’ve watched the wind turbines develop — and I feel like it’s time for it. I think that oil has peaked at 85 million barrels in the world. We’ve got to develop other forms of energy — wind, I think solar will be next, and I hope I’m still around to be in the solar deal.” (Pickens is 80 years old.)
I wanna sit down for a beer with you and Thunderdial someday.
Slow learners?
I think the 1973 oil crisis might be a better place to start. I remember it well. I remember talk about wind farms, subsidized insulation and all the other good stuff that could have made a significant impact.
Some of this happened. But, until the next oil crisis (1980) it mostly was talk. If the 1973 mess had been taken as an early warning, a huge percentage of electricity in the U.S. would come from wind or solar today, the cost of solar cells would be more like $1/watt, hybrid cars would be the norm, and efficient mass transit such as railroads and light rail would be the norm.
Today, as the U.S. government prepares to wage war against another country with petroleum (Iran) and continues its harassment of another (Venezuela), isn't it about time to look at the real cost of squeezing oil from other places and, compare that to the cost of becoming energy independent again? Wouldn't Haliburton, Lockhead Martin, et al have just a big chance to make huge profits in the alternative energy and transport business?
Prove it
How does the US "continue to harass" Venezuela? There is much more interest and profit in having better relations with Venezuela than engaging in harassment. If anything the meglomaniac Hugo Chavez is engaged in a campaign of regional harrassment of the U.S. None the less, congratulations, you were somehow able to twist a wind enegy thread into yet another attack on the United States. You are truly obsessed with the need to criticize the U.S..
isn't that awesome...
how he can do that?
Operation Pliers ring any bells?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pliers
http://gochogringo.blogspot.com/2007/11/cia-plot-to-destabilize-venezuel...
http://wordpress.com/tag/operation-pliers/
-Doug ©
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
Not with anybody with brains
You been in the sun too long without your funky hat. Wikki is written by anyone. Note the multiple "alledges" in it as well. As for the others...well look at them. Wise up.ATZ
Good Journalism
It always impresses me when people see "good journalism" as those that get paid by big corporations and "bad journalism" as that information that comes from regular people.
Of course, things like CIA drug running have appeared in the mainstream media at times but usually in one newspaper and quickly get forgotten. I continue to be amazed with the number of people that are in denial.
good vs bad...
real simple. good journalism is that which casts me in a good light, bad....
when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson
Bad Journalism?
Is journalism from corporations inherently bad? Is journalism from an individual inherently good? What you call "corporate" journalism has reporters, copy writers, editors, fact checkers, and verification of sources as a "corporate" policy. Systems put in place from the hard experience of looking like fools and getting sued when they print or broadcast lies. Are there exceptions? Yes there are, but due to the competitive nature of "corporate" journalism more often than not the lie gets exposed and the coverup is uncovered. What are the safeguards that protect readers from lies by rogue journalists in blogs or pseudo news organizations like the Real News Network? In reality little to none. There are strong judicial protections for the press and written expression in the U.S. (unlike ALBA club members Cuba,Venezuela and most recently Ecuador). I know for a fact that the Cuban judicial system would never tolerate your site or others like it if dissent was openly published. Under the U.S. system the individuals or "regular people", whatever that means, often have a "bateo libre" or free swing at the plate with no real consequences for misrepresentations of facts or even outright lies. There are important public policy reasons for those protections that the countries from which you most often draw your inspiration sadly do not share.
Alleged CIA drug smuggling morphing from good journalism is a tremendous leap. None the less, a heart felt congratulations for the gratuitous slam of the day on the United States government. You have twisted yet another topic into an attack piece. Best to check the mirror if you are amazed about people in denial.
Vested Interests
Contrast "corporate reporting" in the U.S. with the BBC as a starter. While the BBC is less than perfect, it is a lot more likely to cover issues with a possibly in-country negative effect than any U.S. mainstream media I know of. As it's income doesn't depend on humoring advertisers, that makes sense.
People can brag about "judicial protections" all they want but, if the press censors itself, that doesn't matter. For example, in the 1980s, a personal friend and long-time reporter for a major newspaper was in El Salvador and noticed that what he saw there didn't seem to fit U.S. press coverage. He wrote an op-ed piece which was published. Shortly after that his boss explained to him "This is Hearst paper. We don't publish opinions that disagree with corporate sentiment. If you ever do something like this again you will be fired."
There was no mention of factual errors in his piece. It was strictly an issue of what the corporation was to convey. Having been a magazine publisher for 12 years, I well understand advertising pressure. All in all, I think we did a good job of being honest for our subscribers but I also know how much that cost us. Just in direct costs, we turned down Microsoft many times because of the distortions they intended to present in their advertising campaigns.
An old book well worth reading is Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. If helps put the costs and value of marketing into perspective and it helps show how "choices are narrowed". While it has been a long time since I read the book, narrowing choices still sticks in my mind.
Mander's example involved a debate about using animals as food. The pro-meat side was being presented by someone with a vested interest in killing animals and the pro-animal side was being presented by someone in favor of ethical treatment of animals. Vegetarianism was not considered.
You say "due to the competitive nature of "corporate" journalism more often than not the lie gets exposed and the coverup is uncovered." Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. But, more often than not, it is "quietly talked about". Here are two examples, both related to Nicaragua.
There are many sources of news that look like good investigative journalism in the U.S. One is Mad Cow Morning News. The teaser for on of the videos they produced called Barry and the Boys makes my point.
To me, Daniel Hopsicker is a serious investigative journalist. He continues to connect to dots between the CIA, big drug money, 9/11 and a lot more. Maybe, to many, he seems wacko and maybe he is. But, he is asking questions that need to be asked. Why isn't the corporate "free press" willing to investigate?
You need help
The summary of what you have written is that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth from the world and that the news media is an active coconspirator. The linking of 9/11 to claimed CIA drug smuggling is on the lunatic outer fringes of conspiracy theory. An example of paranoia for your review is the Corinto harbor mining. The mining of the Corinto harbor by the CIA happened almost THIRTY years ago. I know it is fresh in your mind and the minds of the extremists who grasp for justification of their imperialist fantasies, but it is just old news. Just as it is old news that the FSLN committed atrocities in the revolution. The mining of the harbor is an established historical fact. So much so that is published in virtually every textbook of the modern history of Nicaragua. The world has moved on but you have not, you continue to brood over these historic events as "evidence" of media conspiracy. The Posada Carilles case is not over. It is just that the United States still has a constitutional right called due process of law. Even the despised and terrorists have the right to due process and confrontation by their accusers, this principle was reaffirmed much to the dismay and anger of the Bush administration by a very conservative Supreme Court within the last sixty days. I know you would rather send the man to the aficionados of summary show trials in Cuba and other dictatorial regimes but it just does not work that way.
Where was due process when
Where was due process when bush decided to go to war with Iraq? WMD?
Good News about Posada Carilles
Putting the pieces together, this man worked for the CIA, committed crimes that anyone sane would call terrorism all over Latin America, had been jailed in one country (Venezuela) but escaped. In 2005 he illegally entered the U.S. but those charges were dropped against him and he was released on bail even though the U.S. Justice Department objected.
Along the way, U.S. court rules he couldn't be deported to Venezuela. Well, maybe "due process" is catching up with him. Unfortunately, Nicaragua and much of Latin America has been victim to his terrorism for over 30 years. It must be things like this that help refresy my memory of things that "happened almost THIRTY years ago".
Posada Carilles and Due Process
My point is the same now as it was before, let due process work. Has the deportaton case in the United States against Mr. Carilles ended? No it has not. The federal government has appealed the lower court decision and Posada Carilles is the target of a separate federal grand jury in Newark, New Jersey for teh Cuban hotel bombings. I know you are looking for blood, but let the man, right or wrong have a trial. You would expect, no, you would demand as much if you were so accused.
Panama like any sovereign government has the right to seek extradition of suspected and convicted criminals. Just as Panama has the sovereign right to pardon the people it so chooses to give such privileges. So what? That is a queston of law that will get resolved in due course. Calm the blood thirst and let the courts do their jobs.
Old events, new events
The events I cite are well-documented. One of the reasons they are is that there has been sufficient time for the information to be released. The good news, if you want to know about things the U.S. is doing today that does not meet international standards, happened without legislative or judicial review and many feel is very counter-productive to the status and position of the U.S., is actually getting documented just a few years after it apparently started.
I am talking about illegal treatment of prisoners. Not necessarily criminals but only people accused of crimes. Here is but one account of what is happening.
Your basic premise is
you guessed it.....again WRONG. The independent press without an agenda is NOT supposed to "clamor" for anything. They are supposed to report the news and what they find in their own investigative work And they do. What happens after that is up to others, not them. This is a basic tenet of journalisim in the free world. They can "clamor" a bit in editorial.....but only so much as there is a lot to "clamor" about. Moreover, if they "clamor too much....like FOX news in the USA with their ultracon agenda... they compromise themselves as a news source and end up with an audience, not of people who want the news, but those who want that kind of news that reinforces what they want to hear. so, not "clamoring" (at least not too much) has practical value for the news source and for the reader. It keeps readers reading for news, not just stuff that fits what they want to hear. Otherwise, you have only polarized readers on both sides and no one gets real news...albeit a bit diluted, i admit.
A lot of the crap that you call responsible journalism is the ranting of people like you. Hate the world...except their own little corner... and want to blame others for that. Blaming big government is easy as they have a lot of built in faults and are easy targets. Only you who are perfect and all seeing is above reproach.
The journalism system in the USA works fine. It does not conform to your vision but that is what is good about it, because you have an extremely narrow vision, and for all your innate intelligence a warped view of what happens in real life for most people. You must have suffered a lot to become this way...I think there are meds that can help that. Your resonses are telling...always a lot of wandering about from the subject to a central theme of hate. an alway a lot of things unrelated to the topic...just so you can make a lot of your "the rest of the world is bad" points....as unrelated to the topic that they may be. ATZ
Truth?
"The independent press without an agenda is NOT supposed to "clamor" for anything."
Clamor, no, but how about "connect the dots"?
I will take Daniel Hopsicker as an example again. He finds that a little flight school in Florida was training 9/11 pilots. He finds connections between that school, running drugs, the CIA, the Russian Mafia, ... He also finds that people who knew a lot about 9/11 were apparently told by the FBI to not talk about it.
Why isn't this discussed in the mainstream media? Even if he is totally off-base, there are many strange things he alleges that would make good press even if it is to just show that he is wrong. (Good press meaning people would actually watch it.)
I've seen it on major TV and in mainstream media
I do not know why it got no traction...but it did not. The point is that it did appear and more than once. So it was discussed. I guess it did not even make good press. i remember seeing it and thinking that he "dots" were all there, but could connect in a different way. I think that bad people (truley bad...not like me and you) appear in many dots and they are random opportunites for making money n shady/criminal activities and not necessarily connected.....although it is certainly possible that some are.
If I were to give credence to this, I would have to decide if this was the theory to accept, or if it were that the jews did it as a lot calledini sick hat day.....another "theory" that appeared in the media and got no traction.
But I digress....the point is that many of the things you say are not covered, are covered. just do not hold enough water to make a case. Some may be true...but the fact that they are not run with at the time is not the fault of the press. Yes, they could lobby harder for attention on certain subjects....but what of the 999 of 1000 thta are simple not true? How would that affect their ability to transmit news? You can only crusade so much and still do your primary job which is reporting the news.. ATZ
Government pressure?
This is what we don't know. One theory is that government pressure, possibly applied using the "don't investigate that as it is part of a larger government investigation ...", is what causes the press (and even the FBI) to back off. This has been suggested many times with lots of credible stories.
This is, however, where a Hopsicker seems to continue or an individual ex-CIA or ex-military person starts to talk. Unfortunately, many of these individuals from John Stockewll to Chip Tatum seem to disappear or have strange things happen to them.
To bring this to Nicaragua, the press seems to be pretty good about covering things. Threats against the press tend to be overt and easy to expose. Maybe this is because so much information here still travels by word of mouth. In more developed places, the Internet is becoming the "new" word of mouth. As these sources continue to gain credibility, maybe things will change.
:-)
"you were somehow able to twist a wind enegy thread into yet another attack on the United States." This thread is about independence from (what most are saying) the consequences of peak oil. Wind is but one part of one plan to address the oil dependence issue.
As for Venezuela/Chavez, considing what the U.S. government has overtly done in Iraq, what it is threating to do (covertly and overtly) in Iran and the fact that it was clearly involved in the 2002 coup against Chavez, I think the burden of proof belongs on the other side. It just seems that having oil makes you a U.S. government target rather than a future business partner.
I see one of the side benefits of a future based on wind, solar and such being that you depend less on the "military branch of the oil industry". Think of how much in-country alternative energy could have been developed with the money spent on all the "keep the oil flowing" actions.
Prove It part two
You stated that the United States continues to "harass" Venezuela. When questioned about the accuracy of the claim you offered no facts to support the proposition. Not one. Instead using a cheesy debaters trick you attempt to shift the burden of proof to others to disprove your invention. One can only assume that you have no proof of such "harrassment" and this like another recent comment regarding the region is simply without a factual basis. It seems that if you dont like the facts you just stretch some others to support your Tony Soloistic world view of the evil empire. The truth is that the diplomacy of the United States is conciliatory towards Venezuela, despite the repeated public attacks by it's current President.
1973 and 1980 Oil Crises were different
Notwithstanding the fact that lessons could have been learned from both, but weren't, there is one important difference to what is happening now. Those crises were the results of political factors more than anything else. The coming and current crises are due to Mother Nature, the fact that the world oil supply is now at its peak, and demand from newly-industrialized nations is climbing, as well as that of the old customers. Supply and demand.
There will still be ups and downs. Gas may come down a bit, but it will go up again, and the trend over the next few years is definitely up, up, up.
Pickens' plan is a step in the right direction, and he says it is a "bridge" solution. Natural gas is not sustainable either, and there will be a natural gas peak as well, in the future, but at least he is thinking about a real-life solution for now. I would like to see more solar energy in his plan, but at least he has a plan. If some of the other wealthy businesspeople would put their energies into the problem, it would be great for everyone.
what is
what is wrong with nuclear? they do it well in france, right? iran doesn't appear to be about oil, but nukes, right? the internal combustion engine is very efficient. when it is profitable to break away from that model, business will. but all those machines that work for us, cannot be easily weaned off of oil. t. boone pickens wants to transfer them to natural gas. that is a better idea than any other. but you get natural gas and oil in the same place. heck, i suspect i am the only one on here with a dry hole for natural gas.... so why not get the stuff on our shelf and anwr? when was the last oil spill off texas or louisiana? it would have made the news? norway is the leader now in that technology. why? the econazis have prohibited us from getting our own execpt in 15% of the shelf. heck, china and cuba are drilling off florida. why can't we? we'd do it better and cleaner than them, wouldn't we? btw, buy temple mountain energy! nb, i own shares.
when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson
It wasn't the econazis who
It wasn't the econazis who kept the drilling off the continantal shelf in Florida and the Gulf Coast. It was the owners of beachfront properties and the tourism industries who didn't want their view spoiled.
those 2
those 2 groups don't have the votes or money to get that done. they don't make up any constituency within the democrat party that i know of....
when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson
Ok, point by point
Q: What is wrong with nuclear? [The Phil that used to work at the Hanford Reservation will answer this question.]
A:
Q: The internal combustion engine is very efficient. [While that wasn't really a question, Phil the engineer will address that].
A: Let's divide this into two measures: thermal efficiency and mechanical efficiency. That way, we can get both a yes answer and a no answer. :-) Mechanical efficiency is a measure of how much generated mechanical energy is actually delivered to the load. This is generally in the mid-90% for most.
But, the thermal efficiency is the problem. Efficiencies between 20 and 35% are the norm. When you multiply these numbers together you get an overall efficiency of from less than 20% to about 33%. So, overall efficiency is very low. (If you want a drawing to help, try this web page.
Q: Natural gas comes from the same place [so what is the difference]? [Phil, the guy who read the proposal will answer.]
A: What T. Boone Pickens wants to do is stop using natural gas to generate electricity replacing it mostly with wind. That then frees up natural gas for running current internal combustion engines. A side benefit is that you get cleaner air.
Q: heck, china and cuba are drilling off florida. why can't we? we'd do it better and cleaner than them, wouldn't we? [The Phil who reads a lot of news releases will answer here.]
A: First, while there was a lot of talk about this happening, I have yet to see anything that indicates it really is. You say "off Florida". It is off Cuba which just happens to be near Florida.
Cuba did at least go out for bid for someone to do this. While U.S. companies might be the best choice, the U.S. government forbids those companies from working with Cuba due to the embargo. So, they don't get to participate.
good answers
please note, i said that t. boone pickens has about the best plan i have seen so far. i don't know much about nukes. so france is wrong in thier approach, is that what you are saying? but, if you are going to use natural gas, you drill in the same places to get it as you do to get oil. and you may find oil. drill here (the shelf and anwr), drill now, lower prices. supply and demand. open up the shelf and anwr today and the prices come down today....bc the speculators know there will be more coming on the market. i don't know if saudi has more production capacity. why should they make more available?
the internal combustion engine is the engine that fuels the american economy...that is probably what i should have said...
when government grows, liberty yields, thomas jefferson
A real plan
Like his plan or not, it is a plan. Unlike the "let's deny there is a problem" approach, it is something positive. You don't have to agree there isn't enough oil to just see this as a useful step. Even if there was an infinite supply of oil, this plan is just a lot cleaner.
A plan, not hot air
I can sit around and argue this and that till I'm blue in the face, but Pickens has a lot of clout, money, and finally, someone who can put his money where his mouth is has a plan!!!