Irangate part deux

[jjwq8]

So now he wants to tilt at Tehran. "I cannot rule out the use of force" was his quote to the BBC.
Is it pure coincidence that this is yet another nation floating atop a sea of oil?

[Sponsored Links]

[jd77]

Is it pure coincidence that this is yet another nation floating atop a sea of oil?


If that is the case - then why all the nuclear power?

They could make enough nukes to kill a lot of infidels. Don't think they would wait very long.

JD :D

[jjwq8]

The US and Britain have both too.

Both have a proven track record of taking their grievances to the away teams park.

your argument doesn't wash :D

[jd77]

The US and Britain have both too.

Both have a proven track record of taking their grievances to the away teams park.

:D

Isn't that a good thing?

We also have nukes but don't swear we'll kill all infidels. We haven't used them (lately).

Maybe this will make you feel better :

It's all Bush's fault!


How's that? :)


JD :D

[jvcstone]

Hi JD

So if it is in fact about nuke potential, why the basic hands off and let someone else deal with N. Korea and the nukes they do have. I too think it has more to do with the part of the world the respective "threats" are. (read reasources)
JVC

[DIYOHMY]

Sometimes it's easier to take these in reverse...

So, what could oil possibly have to do with US interests in the Middle East? :idea:

[flatfloor]

Why does everybody get bent out of shape when oil gets in the equation? Do the people who object to protecting this commodity have a secret alternate that they and they alone have access to?

The Japanese attacked when their oil suply was threatened.

[jvcstone]

No problem here, Let's just be honest about our motives, and see how that plays out :rolleyes:
JVC

[DIYOHMY]

Hidden objectives! US is totally dependent on the stuff, and will be for the forseeable future. The problem is that we import over 80% of the oil we use. It's pretty obvious that there is a connection between our efforts in the middle east, and elsewhere for that matter, but what bugs me is that we don't address the issue head on. It's all buried in OPEC, private relationships with the Saudi's, underground "support", etc... The public has the right to know if we are going to war for OIL... and they should have the opportunity to vote for/against it. Could we reduce our consumption? You bet - but $$$ is only part of the equation, lost lives are another, but that connection is seldom made.

Imagine if all the money spent on the WAR in IRAQ was spent instead on alternative fuels, subsidies for the big industries that will be most affected, and for mitigating the cost to consumers? Not only would we have made MASSIVE strides for our future energy needs by reducing our dependence on foriegn oil.. but we would NOT have had to go to war!

I'm all for alternative fuels, and conserve fuel however possible. But yes, I still drive a car. And soon, it will be natural gas. I try to buy local products produced from local supplies. I carpool, and avoid unnecessary trips. I commuted for years at least 3-4 days a week on my bike, and worked from home whenever possible. the point is - there is more that we can all do, but in the end, the big changes are going to come from voices being heard by our government, and by spending our financial resources on things that make more sense than WAR.

yea - I'm bent outta shape on this issue - the question is: "Why aren't you?"

[jd77]

I'm all for alternative fuels, and conserve fuel however possible. But yes, I still drive a car. And soon, it will be natural gas. I try to buy local products produced from local supplies. I carpool, and avoid unnecessary trips. I commuted for years at least 3-4 days a week on my bike, and worked from home whenever possible. the point is - there is more that we can all do, but in the end, the big changes are going to come from voices being heard by our government, and by spending our financial resources on things that make more sense than WAR.

yea - I'm bent outta shape on this issue - the question is: "Why aren't you?"


:idea: Here's one you haven't tried -


You could save a lot of energy by NOT getting bent outta shape over this. :D

[DIYOHMY]

Great comeback! :shake:

[Steven Hauser]

I'm probably gonna regret this but.... Gimme a break!!

Michael, It is wonderful to pontificate that one should change their habits and all can make a difference.

The practical reality is to reduce or stop dependence in one area the alternative has to priced closely and habits need not change so much.

Take a hard look at our urban and suburban layouts, take a look at the audience you address. We go great distances and use lots of fuel to work.

It's great you can ride your bike, telecommute, and carpool.

I can't. and if you want your home renovated, tile installed, or granite counters you don't want me to either.

:cool:

[flatfloor]

Alternative fuels, could you possibly consider one that is readily available to the rest of the world except the US, nuclear energy?

Ethanol? It takes a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol.

[Bri]

Technology is the answer. Look at the size of this puppy, and it gets the milage of a v6. :bow:

http://autonet.ca/Autoshows/story.cfm?story=/Autoshows/Toronto/2005/02/15/931910.html

[Eric Philson]

I have an 8,000 lb. skid steer that I trailer around. Tell me that pretty thing is gonna whip me out into traffic like my 460 Ford will. It gets 9 mpg. whether I need it or not, but it's there when I need it, and I do need it.

Eric

[Eric Philson]

PS. I'm sure it would recharge my cell phone though :twitch:

[Bri]

Any vehicle that gets 9 mpg should be illegal. :) ..or at least purdy like that truck. :laugh2:

[DIYOHMY]

Steven,
I think you missed my points...

the point is - there is more that we can all do, but in the end, the big changes are going to come from voices being heard by our government, and by spending our financial resources on things that make more sense than WAR.

Just do what you can. I'm not suggesting that everyone abandon oil. I realize that tranportation is a requirement for the reasons you suggest. It's great that natural gas is becoming quite popular for govt vehicles. Some day... maybe... it's possible that you too will be driving one.

I agree with you. Economics are the most significant factor...

The practical reality is to reduce or stop dependence in one area the alternative has to priced closely and habits need not change so much.



Imagine if all the money spent on the WAR in IRAQ was spent instead on alternative fuels, subsidies for the big industries that will be most affected, and for mitigating the cost to consumers?


But frankly, beyond public consumption, there are way too many forces fighting against alternative fuels. Like the OIL industry! That's where we need to apply the pressure. The cop out is that it's "too expensive". The fact is, it is... and that's why companies aren't working harder to solve the problem... because special interest groups and those who's livelihood is at stake MAKE it too expensive. I don't think consumers should have to pick up the bill for artifically increased prices that are simply designed to make alternatives FAIL! So people don't buy, then businesses don't produce, and the progress stalls.... like it has for MANY years.

The answer is encourage these people to change... and that encouragement is called subsidies, and that is paid for by our government... except that we are broke because we are spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars fighting a war for oil.

Kinda nutty - do cha think?

[jd77]

except that we are broke because we are spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars fighting a war for oil.

Kinda nutty - do cha think?

Oh. That's what we're doing? Well then.................

Where is all of the oil?????????

[Davestone]

We'd look pretty stupid riding around in our newly developed water sunshine cars while Muslim whackos took over the country. :)

[jjwq8]

As opposed to WASP whackos?

Come on Dave you can do better than that. :D

[Eric Philson]

Brian,

It ain't very purdy, but it sure hauls some stuff. Oh, and the radio works good too...yuk. I hear Canada has lots of oil.....and lots of terrorists.....I smell a military target. :bonk:

No really, if the technology is there to give an electric hybrid lots of torque, that's great, but at what cost? Sorry, I won't pay 40,000 bucks for a gas guzzler, and I sure won't spend 60,000 bucks for something like that. I probably couldn't even change my own oil............Oops, I said the O word again. :)

Eric

[John K]

We are greedy Americans. Lets take over Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. Jordan, look out, we are watching. We will control the whole area, the U.S and Israel. And best of all we have 4 more years to do it. Greedy damn infidels is what we are!


Saddam is sitting in his jail cell as we speak, telling Osama. " I told you not to knock down those towers, you dumb son of a b**ch". :D :D

[flatfloor]

The answer is encourage these people to change... and that encouragement is called subsidies, and that is paid for by our government... except that we are broke because we are spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars fighting a war for oil.

Kinda nutty - do cha think?

Yes it's nutty, more big government. We have a system in place to encourage R&D. It's called free enterprise and capitalism. Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.

[Bri]

I hear Canada has lots of oil.....and lots of terrorists.....I smell a military target.

Yeah, I guess Alberta has as much oil as all of the middle east sitting in the tar sands..too bad it's so expensive to get at it. You don't have to invade us...Alberta doesn't like the rest of Canada anyway..if you asked them nicely, they'd become the 51st state without much of a fuss. ;) :)

[Eric Philson]

The big government monster has been growing an long time, and it's bigger than the Democrat and Republican spectrum of thought. Gov't control/power has grown under every administration for a long long time. Trouble is, for everything we do that may be seen as just, there seems to be a second agenda tagging along too that is the fly in the ointment.

Eric

[Davestone]

That's the best i've got, but it's right on, and as long as we have more than most of the rest of the world, we won't get along with them unless we give them what we have, and nothing else means anything, people can say this or that but that is what it boils down to, and i don't give a rats ass what others in the world think of me, they cry for us to help, then bitch about everything we do, i have friends with kids in foreign universities being brainwashed with their leftist views, and i have to hear it from them all the time. But my stance is the same....don't live here!Wear a veil on your face, or pay 100% taxes,and live in caves,don't matter to me, but i ain't gonna take the flak for everything my govt. does that others don't agree with, or don't get a handout from.so there, i gotta go watch the American gas guzzling, corporate sponsored Daytona 500! :tongue: :D

[DIYOHMY]

Eric, I agree completely.

Jim - "free enterprise and capitalism" is idealic, but not realistic. Special interest lobbying and back-door funding make it impossible for the R&D industry to create cost-effective alternatives. The result is that
consumers will not pay the artifically increased prices that the R&D companies HAVE to charge to make a profit. That is why the alternatives are not taking hold.

It took me a long time to understand how subsidies work... and I'm not sure if they are the best alternative, but if we change how the incentive works, we can change the balance of the system... and once that change takes hold, the subsidies can be reduced/stopped. Once an alternative starts taking hold, the big guys will want to figure out how to make a profit there, too.
It would take far less than what we spent on the Iraq war to change that balance.

[Eric Philson]

Dave,

I think what you're describing is the other side of the same coin. Our country's leadership may not always have the best intentions(and they do their share of harm), but........We aren't the source of all that ills the world, in fact there is no other nation which has caused the kind of global benefits as the good 'ol U.S.A.

[DIYOHMY]

Dave, I hear what you are saying. Some people just like to complain about our govt, and Bush, and the Iraq war, and the missing WMD's and the non-existent ties to Al Qaeda. Yea, it gets old.

I was not raised with a "take it or leave it" mentality. I was taught to make a difference... to leave the world a little better than we got it. When I "complain" and "pontificate" (thanks Steven:)), it's because I think there are people out there who need to think about things with the bigger picture in mind. Remember the John Kerry thing about using too many big words in his campaign speeches?... well, that's the sad truth about our great land... too many people cant understand the big words and the big pictures. They float in the wind with every political pep-rally and media circus. So I feel it's my duty to help those people broaden their view, question their leaders, think freely, and make a difference.

I'm guessing that you don't have kids? If you did, you would probably want to make to world a safer and better place for them to live, and to raise their kids.

But if you like everything just the way is, I'm happy for you. Enjoy the race.

[Davestone]

Contrar Monfrer,i have four kids, and i am not satisfied with everything, and i'm not overly wealthy, and i don't have the pension plan our govt. officials have and i don't like being pushed around by my cell phone co....and on and on. But i also believe in our type of govt. and i don't believe in the current idea of everything big govt. does sucks, and, that i'm on the outside looking in.I believe we do make a difference, and i don't believe in everything our govt. is doing,but i do believe in the course we're taking,most of the decisions we've made,recently, and have optimism that these decisions will eventually turn out in general for the best.I don't believe we're perfect, or that Kerry, and his collegiate kronies such as Churchill, and Frankin, or Fonda, or Streisand,or Cindy Williams have a damn thing positive for this country.All they EVER do is complain, with not a single agenda,or answer :) of their own, it's easy to criticize, but be the one in the ring with blood on your face, like Teddy said.

[Eric Philson]

I'm by no means a fan of our current big government system, but it's what we've got for now and this is MY country and I love it. Although I'd like it to change a great deal, prudence tells me that I've got to embrace what we have, support what's best about it and work to change what's wrong with it. If you want an exercise in futility, try that in France. :laugh2: There are agenda driven destructive forces on both sides of the political fence in this country, but there are some constructive forces as well.

Eric

[DIYOHMY]

Interesting...

Well, I think the worst person for any political office is the one that wants to be there the most. :crazy:

Seems that it's impossible to make a difference from the chiefs post when all there is is political infighting that so frequently boils down to who's gonna get the money, and what the polls say;)

The real strength in our country comes from the people! And right now, WE are weak! We need more people who are willing to stand up and speak their mind, the challenge our "diplomacy", and to make sure that our elected officials represent what we need (not what so many are fooled into thinking they want). Unfortunately, there are too many people who just go along for the ride. IMHO, if you don't have a voice, you shouldn't have a vote!

I can't tell you how many people I spoke to about the war who had NO IDEA what was really going on. When people learn what's really happening... they become disgusted. Its a sad situation, but enlightening because the more people stop to question what is going on, the more educated voices we will have!

So I praise people who stand up and shout, and try to be heard... because its just so easy to not do anything.

[Davestone]

What IS really going on? :)

[DIYOHMY]

Didn't you know that?

One country at a time... we can use all sorts of excuses, uh, I mean "reasons" ;) why...

- because a little country with lots of oil needed our help
- because our commander-in-chief had to finish what his daddy started... but failed to finish (and also shouldn't have started in the first place)
- because there are mean, mean people who will eventually attack the US for no good reason (or could that reason be simply that we are trying to rule the world?)
- because they have WMD's (or do they)?
- because they harbor terrorists (the same people we trained and funded to protect their oil from the Russians)
- because they have an evil dictator
- because there is a little place called Isreal - that we supported due to the injustices from war, while showing total disregard for the people who previously occupied the land and had nothing to do with it.
- because we believe it's our right to do so
- because Democracy is best and it's the American way to have our way
- because of the drugs
- because after we do, there will be plenty of money for Hailburton
- because of the OIL
... need I go on?


And here are some questions for you?

Why did Bush celebrate with "Mission Accomplished" right after we conquered Bagdad? Wasn't the mission to free the Iraqi people by creating a democracy? Did he lose sight of the mission objectives or was he just starting to figure out that there was more work to be done?

Why didn't we find WMD's?

Why did we pull forces from Afganistan and going after Bin Laden, and instead suddenly go after Saddam? What was the tie between Saddam and Bin Laden?

Why did we train Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to protect Afganistan from the Russians? Could it have anything to do with oil or the pipeline?

Oh, heck - why did JFK get assassinated?

Why Why Why??? Don't you wonder?

[Eric Philson]

I think I just indirectly answered some of those questions in another string, but it would be a little :topicoff: here.

[Davestone]

I'm wondering something now, too much caffeine? We needed the troops ,experienced troops from Afghanistan to help for recon. We needed to protect Afghanistan from Russia because they were a legitimate communist threat.We didn't find wmd's because they moved them, hid them, or our info was wrong and they didn't have them.The ties between all the countries who dislike us are evident.The ties between countrie that act like they like us are not as apparent.I think you missed a lot of threads you'd be interested in some time ago.Look back into the mudbox. :)

[Eric Philson]

Scary isn't it? By the way, I want to clarify. I think there are entities in our world who hate us for our freedom more than for our conquest....also for their own gain and conquest.
I like Israel, and the jews were there first. The current people who call themselves palistinians are not who they would have us believe they are, nor is their leadership.

Eric

[Davestone]

Yeah, it takes courage to stand up to opposite forces constantly, especially when much of the opposition is right in your own country.I won't let it defeat or erode me,but the constant berating of America is wearing on my nerves. :)

[DIYOHMY]

We needed the troops ,experienced troops from Afghanistan to help for recon.

We needed to protect Afghanistan from Russia because they were a legitimate communist threat.

I think you missed a lot of threads you'd be interested in some time ago.Look back into the mudbox. :)

Ok, for recon... so why did we need to pull them... they hadn't finished the job in Afganistan. Why was Iraq a higher priority? And speaking of recon... how about that first strike. Let's see - we've got accurate information that Sadam is in his palace - so we bomb the crud out of it. Did we get him... nope. Great recon, huh. Oh, by the way.. why was is that we felt we had the right to kill him in the first place? I believe we were supposed to capture him, so he could be tried... and all that jazz... but no, we bombed his family instead... that'll show him, eh!

Why was Afganistan a legitimate "threat"? Spread of communism? (oh, and add that to my list below... that's another great reason!) It was about access to oil - the Soviets were trying to build a pipeline so they could easily distribute their oil... Through Afganistan was the closest seaport. Also - there was all this oil in the caspian sea... how convenient. They tried to take over Afganistan, but we didn't want that to happen... so the CIA trained this guy named Bin Laden, and gave him lots of cash and weapons... whoops! never mind... it was all about communism.

Speaking of missing a lot... :bang:

[DIYOHMY]

Well, seems there are too many people who think all is well... I guess I don't want to be a sheep and get in that line. I'd rather focus on the things that need to be changed.

[Davestone]

You sound bitter,i suppose you don't use oil so as not to propogate the war? Have you ever seen an enemy personally?Ever met a p.o.w.? I mean an American p.o.w..I think you want to rant, maybe a local college campus would suit you better, they like to pontificate on things they're too young to understand. Maybe Churchill is on cnn, or something to help get ya fired up before heading down to UCLA.I'm going to bed now to make money, to pay taxes to support our tyrranical govt.take over the world. Oh' wait just got an e-mail from my nephew in the Air Force, he's going to Iraq in a few weeks,gotta go. :)

[Eric Philson]

So Russia, our supposed ally, wants to pipeline oil to our enemies? And we're supposed to be ok with this? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!!!! And to boot make a major arms deal with Syria? Come on now, are you really gonna try to convince us that Syria is just an innocent little country trying to fend off big bully America from its mean mean attempt to keep them from SLAUGHTERING THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS IN COLD BLOOD ?

And about afghanistan, we're not finished there? Lets think back a couple of decades. Remeber our attack on Libya? We absolutely crippled them. Did we feel a need to rebuild their country? No. What's so different now, somebody fill me in. We didn't kill Quadaffi(sp?), and we didn't kill Bin Laden. but we sure gave em a smack that's gonna leave a mark. By the way, I hear that the reason that int'l terrorists haven't brought the fight here is because they got an indirect message from our administration that if it happens, Mecca is a grease spot. Now that's negotiation!!

Eric

[DIYOHMY]

That's exactly the point... call a spade a spade... so the american people can be well informed and voice their educated opinions. Now that's democracy!

[oma]

Gonna go back toward the beginning of this thread. Diyohmy, the idea of giving billions of dollars spent for the war in Iraq to research and development of alternative energy sources, has already been done (the billions and billions of dollars, that is). The DOE invested a HUGE amount of money into R&D of alternative fuel and energy sources some few years back. No dice. Nothing has been developed todate that will affordably replace current energy sources. And don't make the mistake of assuming the oil industry is lobbying against the development of alt energy. They will gladly capitalize on it. BP (British Petroleum) is currently marketing itself as "green" company. Oil companies don't have particular allegiance to oil. They want to make money, and money will be made in the energy industry, no matter what the source is.

[Eric Philson]

Great point Oma!! Glad you showed up. :)

[DIYOHMY]

The DOE invested a HUGE amount of money into R&D of alternative fuel and energy sources some few years back. No dice. Nothing has been developed todate that will affordably replace current energy sources. And don't make the mistake of assuming the oil industry is lobbying against the development of alt energy.

define HUGE? Hundreds of Billions of dollars? I don't think so. My point was that we spent SO much on the war, that we could ... ah here it is:


Imagine if all the money spent on the WAR in IRAQ was spent instead on alternative fuels, subsidies for the big industries that will be most affected, and for mitigating the cost to consumers?

...subsidies and mitigating costs to consumers... so it would take hold. I don't think that will ever happen - I was just making the point that the money could have been better spent :)

Oil prices are manged to maintain maximum profits, while keeping alternates out. No lobbying? Seriously? Seriously? What do you think lobbyist do? Go after the soy bean industry or something?

[Scooter]

One thing that can be said, is that Iran, unlike Iraq are:

Religous Fanatics. Sadamm Wasn't.

Have Confirmed WMD. We won't need weapon inspectors to prove nukes, they've admitted it.

Won't Allow Inspectors.

Sponsor Terrorism, e.g., Hezzbola.

Now I thought our President was a moron for going into Iraq, but if one buys into the justification argument at all, an immenent threat, there is more than enough justification for nailing Iraq. I for one would fully support a pre-emptive strike, with cruise missels, against country that sponsors terrorism, and has nukes.

Tell the Mullahs to have a nice day.

[oma]

No, I am not kidding. The last figure I read (a couple of years back) was approximately 100 billion dollars invested by the DOE plus all the private funding on alternative energy resources. The fact is, there's nothing out there that is viable and affordable as of yet. If there were, the energy (aka oil) companies would be all over it. They are not a bunch of purists who believe in oil. They are capitalists who want to make money whether it be in oil, wind energy, solar, or whatever is the profit-making market. You seem to be under the illusion that they are determined to keep oil as the only energy source, but they aren't so stupid as to think that oil is a never-ending fuel source. Anyone with two eyes and half a brain knows that is not the case. The problem is that with all the money that has been and is currently being spent in the energy research industry, the magic solution is yet to be discovered. As I have mentioned in other threads, I am not in favor of this war we have managed to get ourselves into, but we are there and we must deal with reality. All the conspiracy theories in the world won't accomplish anything, and if our recent presidential election had turned the other way (thank god it didn't), nothing would be changed. When the twin towers were destroyed, we set out on a path that we can't change. Regardless of any faults you can find with our country, our government, or our way of life, it's still the greatest country on the planet to many of us. There's lots of BS that goes on in governmental ranks, but we the sheeple are to blame for being lazy and expecting government to take care of us and solve our societal problems. Americans in general have gotten lazy, passive, and spoiled.

[jjwq8]

Eric,
Where are your information?

"SLAUGHTERING THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS IN COLD BLOOD ?"

There is no evidence of Syria electing or preparing to do any such thing. Syria has a large and thriving Christian Community.

And does it really matter one fig if those killed in a military campaign are of one religious pursuasion or another. Thet are fellow human beings and deserve our ultimate respect for that single fact alone.

You appear to be advocating a crusade. Please tell me I have misunderstood your statement and try saying that particular point again.

[DIYOHMY]

The last figure I read (a couple of years back) was approximately 100 billion dollars invested by the DOE plus all the private funding on alternative energy resources.

...If there were, the energy (aka oil) companies would be all over it. They are not a bunch of purists who believe in oil. They are capitalists who want to make money whether it be in oil, wind energy, solar, or whatever is the profit-making market.

Ok - so you piqued my curiosity, and thanks to the web, I had to investigate further. So let's take a closer look. DOE Web site - Budget (http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=AD_B)
DOE web site - 2006 budget (http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/06budget/Content/appropsum.pdf)

The FY 2000 request includes $837.5 million, an increase of $146.0 million over FY 1999, for energy efficiency programs to promote innovative R&D and deployment programs in the industrial, transportation, building, and federal energy use sectors. Within this request is $191.0 million for State Weatherization, State Energy and community partnership grants.


This point was made in a 1997 report by the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and is reflected in the FY 2001 request of $1.1 billion for climate change technology programs. This is a 19 percent increase over the comparable total for FY 2000 climate related activities. The Department conducts crosscutting work to accelerate the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of energy efficient and clean technologies. DOE is proposing a broad and balanced R&D technology deployment portfolio that includes: advanced clean renewable and fossil energy production; carbon sequestration; energy efficiency applications in the building, industry, and transportation sectors; basic and applied sciences support; targeted programs for baseline measurement and tracking of greenhouse gas emissions; and nuclear energy plant optimization.


Support for Nuclear Energy programs ($223 million) enables innovation for the future and maintains the human infrastructure necessary to increase nuclear power generating capability. Looking forward, this request includes long-term investments in Renewable Energy Resources ($237.5 million) to emphasize core R&D in alternative energy resources. The request for both activities is complemented by the Administration’s proposal to provide tax credits to boost incentives for private sector development and use of renewable energy, and modify the tax treatment of nuclear decommissioning costs.


The budget makes a strong investment in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. A total of $1.31 billion is requested in FY 2003 to develop and deploy efficient, clean energy technologies to meet our Nation's energy needs, enhance our environment, and strengthen our national competitiveness.




$24.5 million is proposed within the portfolio of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities ($15 million in renewable energy and $9.5 million in energy conservation),$13.2 million is proposed for the Fossil Energy program,and $2.3 million is proposed for the Nuclear Energy,Science and Technology program.



In FY 2005, the Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, with a budget request of $1.3 billion, will be at the forefront of implementing the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to reduce America’s growing dependence on oil.


The Department promotes a balanced and diverse energy portfolio of renewable energy,fossil energy and nuclear energy programs,as well as programs that support energy efficiency and related activities to maintain a reliable,robust electricity supply.In FY 2006,$2.6 billion will be invested to meet the Energy goal.

Go check it out for yourself. I think the total here is under $6 Billion and that figure includes fossil fuel and existing nuclear energy programs. For comparison, the 2006 DOE Defense budget is $9.4 Billion.

The DOE does have a much higher budget, but as you can see, a very small amount actually goes toward "alternate" fuels.

So - to my point - imagine what $200 Billion dollars would do.

And the OIL companies are VERY vested OIL. They stand to lose a lot of money if oil is no longer needed. The "engergy" companies broker energy... and they sell what makes money, and what makes money is OIL. They will look for other sources, but as I said in my previous post, the economics are not there for alternative sources. We agree on one point: Alternatives are NOT cost effective. But why is that? Do you think it's possible that those who stand to lose the most may have something to do with it?

[flatfloor]

You have it right.

[DIYOHMY]

Well, at least that's settled. Thanks Jim for your keen insight and observations.

[flatfloor]

Diy,

Would it make you feel better if I paraphrased Oma and posted it as if it were mine? :)

[DIYOHMY]

No not really. Not if you've don't have anything new to add...

You see, in response to my "imagine if" inquiry, OMA suggested that we were already spending ~$100 billion on alternative fuels. I did some research and found that we actuall spent ~$6B over the last 6 years, and that was not even solely on "alternative fuels"... also muddled in there is fossil fuel and nuclear research... so what do you think that nets out to... maybe $1B?

My other point, which OMA agreed with, is that alternative fuels are not cost effective. Where we differ is why... I believe that there are negative incentives that make it not cost affective. I'm not sure why OMA feels they are not cost effective, but OMA seems to think that big business, the oil companies who have the most to lose, are just sitting idley by and not using their powerful lobbying efforts to help protect their businesses. I disagree.

I was just refuting some of OMA's points. So in the spirit of healthy debate, (of which "yea", is typically not considered), I'd rather you not say anything. But what I'd prefer, is that you add something of value to the discussion... and I hope you can.

Respectfully,
Michael

[flatfloor]

Michael, I will add or not as I see fit. I have seen and been involved in similar discussions jere and in other forums to the point that I grow weary of them. You are welcome to post and say what you wish, as am I. :)

Numbers, as any politician can tell you, can be twisted to prove any side of any argument.

Somewhere in here I also stated that not all alternative fuels are cost effective.

[DIYOHMY]

Diy,

Would it make you feel better if I paraphrased Oma and posted it as if it were mine? :)

I was answering your question. And my answer was NO! But hey, you are certainly free to speak your mind, as am I.

Now that we agree on the fact the alternative fuels are not cost effective... wanna exercise your mind a little and talk about WHY they are not cost effective?

And my numbers were taken from the DOE website... I provided a link so you could see for yourself. All "quotes" below are copied and pasted (not twisted) from the text versions of the last 6 years of budget data.

[flatfloor]

What question was that? I didn't mean to imply you twisted them.

[flatfloor]

Try this on:)

http://johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20356

You want to hear a funny story about those windmills? If you don't I am going to tell it anyhow!!!! I really don't mind them, you know as far as I am concerned studying other potential sources or add-ons to electricity is good but this story is funny. So the environmental folks now are pissed off at the natural energy producing windmills LOL!!!! Turns out that birds fly into them now and get killed especially the idiot of dunceville bird which is by the way endangered (j/K). There is an endangered bird that they are worried about. So now they want to rip out those natural energy producers!!!!

[oma]

I can't remember where the source I read regarding federal expenditures for alternative energy resource was, but I printed it out a couple of years ago because I was so shocked at how much money has been spent for no return. I will try to find it and post my source, but it's probably put up in storage somewhere. The point was that the amount of money spent has been huge, and it wasn't in the 2005 or 2006 budget. This was prior to all the problems we are currently experiencing in the Middle East. We have known for some time that oil is a finite resource, and started making a concentrated effort in the eighties to find alternatives. If there was a viable alternative, it would already have been put forth. The answer probably lies in the private sector with private funds when some technologically brilliant individual comes up with an answer. Government expenditures on this type of R&D is usually a waste. It gets all wrapped up in bureaucracy and politics. Until someone comes up with that brilliant idea that will work, you can bet our government will attempt to keep oil flowing in this country. They would be crazy not to. I have no bias toward the oil industry, and if alternatives were available, you can bet I would readily use them. The problem is they are not there. Fuel cells have not been sufficiently refined yet. Windmills are unreliable in areas that don't have at least 14mph winds on a consistent basis. Solar only works well in areas where sunlight hours are numerous enough and direct enough. From what I understand, hydrogen power requires heavily polluting energy to produce. I don't have any real solutions, do you? If we all went back to living off the land, growing our own food, and staking a claim for our homestead, I can do that, can you? I am very capable of feeding, clothing, and sheltering myself completely, are you?

[Steven Hauser]

:rofl:

Michael,


I for one enjoy your fervor.

I'll digress and state that many of the same topics you are interested in were discussed.

OK,

Do you really believe that if the war in Iraq had not been waged the $200 Billion would have gone into R&D? :deal:

I for one am always interested in what can practically happen. :crazy:

I agree with OMA that we must stay the course and see this through. :nod:

Michael,

What technology is close enough to economically viable and reliable? :confused:

It is true that fossil fuels are depleting rapidly? :cry:

We will figure out how to get oil from the the oil flats before we abandon oil as an energy source. Watch out Canada? :devil:

If you would cool your jets about his fault or her fault, because frankly both of the major parties in this country are two sides of the same coin, and get down to which alternative industry is more viable. :sick:

Does nuclear energy come to mind? :eek:

Does bird killing windmill float your dress? :laugh2:

Does hydrogen powered jet packs get you moving?:rolleyes:


:)

[oma]

Please note that this is NOT the source I got my information from years back, but it may help clarify where I am coming from. The linked website has old information from the mid-90's. In the linked article, energy r&d expenditures for 1996 were 4.4 billion dollars and that was after a declining trend over twenty something years. If that is a decrease in expenditures, this leads me to believe that my figures in memory are pretty accurate, and does not take into acoount what has been spent since that time. The main page has links to articles on expenditures by other countries around the world also.

http://energytrends.pnl.gov/usa/us001.htm

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

Think Lebanon.

[jjwq8]

Eric
I can think Lebanon and can't think of an instance of Syrians slaughtering Christians simply because they subscribe to the teachings of Jesus.

You also said that you like Israel and the Jews because they were there first.

WRONG

The Semites were there long before the Jews. My wife is a Semite and Magda is not nor has any of her family ever been Jewish.

Do not confuse adherence to religion doctrine with a right of abode.

The sciptures clearly establish that the historic people of Israel were nomad shepherds who by definition have no home, any more than a modern bedou considers himself a person bound by modern borders.

[Davestone]

And one scripture says you die, and return in the embodiment of a cow,and some in a rat...and some say a man built a huge ship and put two of each animal in it,cobras, panthers,hyenas, crocodiles, polar bears,eagles,ants,termites, and fed them for forty days, and forty nights......you get my drift :yeah:

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

During the Clinton admin. Israel(the coward Barach) wrongly succumbed to pressure to back out of Lebanon. After that, Arafat's thugs went through raping, pillaging and killing...christians...Arab christians. There was also Syrian participation and it was mutually a Syrian initiative although Arafat's thugs got most of the credit. The Syrian army then pushed the christian resistance fighters out of the country. It was bloody. If you want to argue that the Lebanese wanted Syria to come in, I think that the recent headlines and events will prove you wrong. Perhaps I did word it strongly though. I don't know how many were killed, but it was not insignificant.

First, I said I like Israel, but not BECAUSE they were there first.
You're right about your wife's people. Unless you're talking about the ancient Philistines, though, they never settled the land really. If I'm wrong about that, feel free to correct me, isn't that the definition of a nomadic people?. My main point, though, is that the people who are currently calling themselves Palestinians are a hodge podge of arab peoples from all over the place. They share some heritage, but have no more claim to that particular area than the Jews historically. Even Arafat and his uncle/predicessor was Egyptian. Since the Jewish dispersion, there has always been a Jewish population inhabiting the area too. The term Palestinian, when I was a kid, referred to the people living in the region regardless of heritage, like we're all called Americans(meaning U.S. citizens). Now the term seems only to apply to arabs, and to boot, many of whom are not native people, at least not within the last few thousand years.

If you want to discuss the influx of Jews after WWII and debate that the Jews pulled a dirty fast one then, we can discuss that too, but I don't think history will support that arguement.

I don't think modern Israel is perfect any more than I think modern U.S. is perfect. But, please don't try to portray the arab peoples as innocent victims, it just doesn't wash.(although you haven't so far)

I haven't brought up the flaws in anyone else's religious convictions here, so please don't attack mine. I never brought up anyones convictions. Let's not go there, at least not on this thread, it would be off topic, but only somewhat, since the Arabs claim Jerusalem to mean so much to them, which it didn't so much before Jewish occupation. It was just another holy sight, not the religious epicenter they make it out to be now. I really don't want to go there in this thread though.

Very respectfully,
Eric


Dave,

but........what if one of them is true? :shades:

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

I realised that I didn't clarify something. When I said the Jews were there first, that isn't totally accurate. They conquered the land in ancient times. They were in turn driven out of the land(all but a few). They returned to the land, but were later forcibly scattered widely abroad. Since then, the area has been in basic turmoil, under varying forms of occupation. They have, now returned to the land.

Eric

[DIYOHMY]

Eric,
I have always been facinated by the history of Isreal. I realize that there are very complicated, one might say of "biblical" forces going on, and the conflict is immense. The more I learn about it, the more I can't figure it out.

It all depends on how far back you look, to some extent, it reminds me of arguing as kids. "Well, you did this", "yea, well last week you did that", "yea, well last month you did this", "yea, well last year you did"....

I think they all have equally valid and justified reasons, to themselves, to stake claim in any specific area. And they have religious passion - which creates a lot of momentum.

But I honestly don't know how much I know, and am always interested in learning about it. And I prefer to avoid religious debates, respectfully, so I'll just say this: I don't know who belongs where. I'm pretty sure that we don't belong there. I'm not sure what our role, if any, should be in getting that settled.

Should we stop swinging at the bee hive?

***
I want to go back a little to the point I was making. I think I should have been clearer about something. My point about "imagine if we spent $200B" was fantasy - and intended to be. I wasn't suggesting that it was a realistic option. The point was that we spent a lot of $$$ on the war, not that if the war didn't happen, we would have spent it on alternative fuels. I was just imagining and trying to put things into perspective. So I'm sorry if I got ferverous about trying to make that point and defend my fantasy.

It is faciniting to dream about what we could do with $200B. Everything has a price tag - sometimes money, sometimes lives, and other stuff too. Helping Iraq has a price tag, just like Asian Tsunami support, and Ethiopian Food supply. When all is said and done and we are no longer involved in Iraq, we will have to ask ourselves if Iraq's freedom was worth the lives or cost? I personally think we have already passed that point. And similarly, I see this as swinging at the bee hive.

Having said all that - OMA, I agree with you WRT expenditures, progress, barriers, etc., regardless of how much was actually spent. I imagine that $200B would make a big difference if $100B of that was spent to temporarily remove some of the cost preventative factors. Money on that scale can do amazing things. But with reality in mind - I totally agree with you. And I acknoledge that there are fundamental physical and scientific limitations to alternative fuel. I'm glad that we are making progress and someday will have a renewable energy supply.

( :topicoff: As a 25 year vegetarian, nature loving, hippie, I'd love to chat about living off the land, but I fear I'll take that way too far :topicoff: )

A similar example of this is recycling. It was too expensive to recycle by hand, but the quanities didn't warrant the high efficiency machinery or "trucking" to properly handle it. It took a long time to get community programs going, but it eventually took hold. Imagine if we spend $200B on recycling programs (research and "facilities) in the 70's when we first figured out that it was necessary. We would have had curb-side recycling collection in the 70's, instead of the 90's and 00's, and probably would have paid itself off by now. and I realize that not everyone has curb-side service, and am not complaining about how it was handled. But we have the capabily of hindsight and learning from the past, and we should use that.

I'm just saying that $200B is a lotta cash! ... but I digress

***
I was chatting with some friends after the Tsunami... he suggested that there were over 1M people homeless and said that that seemed like a lot of people, but he couldn't put that into perspective. I suggested that he consider a population the size of San Diego... Imagine if EVERYONE in San Diego were suddenly homeless - you should've seen the look on his face... :eek: he walked away with this glare on his face.

but I digress - all I'm saying is when I step back and consider the bigger picture, $200B seems like a lotta cash.

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

I know exactly what you're saying. All I can conclude is.....God knows.

Eric

[oma]

Diy, I agree 200B is alot of cash, but no matter how much money you throw at the energy problem for development of alternatives, the technology is not yet there. I am not an old hippie, but am an organic gardener and beekeeper, and am very conscious of environmental problems. The recycling issue to me is not to keep building recycling centers which are very cost-ineffective. The problem lies in our throwaway society. We over-package everything in plastic, we don't reuse glass jars on a large scale, we build cheap crap furniture out of particle board or thick cardboard products and throw it away in a few years to buy more crap. Some of my furniture is one hundred years old and is in good condition. Everything has become disposable inclusing relationships and marriages. Our throwaway attitude encompasses our lives, and it's pathetic.
Like I said, I think alternative energy is a great idea, but its time has not yet come when it can be employed on a large scale.

[DIYOHMY]

I agree with EVERYTHING you said. and I didn't know you were a beekeeper when I made the swinging at bee hives comment ;)

[Eric Philson]

I don't know if we're technically organic or not, but we have lots of GOAT POOP. Anybody want some? By the way, Oma, my kids want to start keeping bees. Maybe I'll pick your brain sometime. We have several 100+ year old pieces of furniture ourselves. Problem is it's become cost innefective to make stuff that'll last that long. Don't get me wrong, When I sell stone work my big push is toward the beauty and longevity of the natural product. Problem is, it's real expensive. So my market and income is limited too because people in this area would rather pay a few bucks for fake stone that is ugly IMO and that will be dated, faded and out of vogue in a few years, cause it's cheap. The modern mentality is, get as much as you can afford instead of having less that will last. So our society gets bogged down with piles of trash that, unlike my goat poop, isn't cheaply re-used. As long as the trash pile is out of whiffing distance from our window, we don't really care. Our society feels that it's more profitable in the long run to build on the cheap and invest the difference. It's just the world we live in.

[flatfloor]

Question, aren't Jews Semites?

[Eric Philson]

Yep, here's a short read that will give you the low down.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/semites.htm

Eric

[oma]

Eric, if you lived within driving distance, I'd come and pick up the poop. We used to have goats, but the coyotes are pretty bad in this area, and I didn't want to see the little babes killed (probably just a woman thing, lol). They aren't much good for eating, anyway. Just good at keeping the weeds and vines in check.

Beekeeping these days is a challenge due to some bee pest and disease problems, but it's an enjoyable hobby. I keep my beehives organically, so I tend to have a greater hive loss than the usual beekeeper who uses drugs and chemicals in the hive. I do have one hive that is remarkably strong, though. It appears to have natural tolerance and resistance, but the bees in that hive are really agressive and difficult to handle.


Last I heard, the terms Jews and Semites are used interchangeably, but to be honest, I've never researched the subject.

[John Bridge]

Steven wrote:

>>>We will figure out how to get oil from the the oil flats before we abandon oil as an energy source. Watch out Canada?<<<


I'm with ya, Steve. I think it's high time we went up there and whupped up on those ungrateful Canucks. All through history we've been going up there trying to help them out, and what do we get? They run us off every time. I say let's go kick ass.

:D

[Eric Philson]

Oma,

Not good for eating? You've never lived until you've had goat cooked correctly. There is a large Arab population here and goat is a staple. I don't know how they cook it, but I've eaten it as authentic cuisine, and I'm here to say, it is one good feed. We have ours for dairy. milk and cheese.

I'm familiar with some of the hurdles with bee keeping. We've researched it some. Sounds fun to the kids though so...........

The web page I posted is a short, but very good synopsis of what it is to be a semite. It's worth the read.

Eric

[flatfloor]

Thank you Eric. Especially interesting about the Sunnis.

[Eric Philson]

Yep, the whole fight goes back to Isaac and Ishmael...the son of the promise and the son of the slave. Over 5,000 years of the same feud, and we are arrogant enough to think we can end it with a little land for peace deal.

[flatfloor]

Those folks have loooooooooong memories.

[Eric Philson]

by the way, the difference between Sunni and Shiite islamics is, sunnis are semmites, shiites are called schismatics (would take a while to explain that one).

[Westie]

I'm with ya, Steve. I think it's high time we went up there and whupped up on those ungrateful Canucks. All through history we've been going up there trying to help them out, and what do we get? They run us off every time. I say let's go kick ass.

:D

We'll just all line up at the border and shoot hockey pucks and throw beer bottles at ya. Besides it's too cold up where the oil sands are for you Yankees. Won't last one winter. :stick: :rofl:

[Fant]

Guess all them NHL guys need something to do :crazy: I was just up in Calgary a couple of weeks ago. Left my coat in the car the whole time.

[jjwq8]

All the peoples of the area are semtitic Jim. That was my point. Antisemitism is not simply or exclusively aimed at jews, though it would appear so if the jewish defense league is to be heeded.
Semites are bounded to the north by caucasians (turkey and the levant) to the east by persians and the west by africans though throughout the mediterranean coast and down into sudan and the red sea coast the semitic influence is pronounced.
The diaspora argument is one for both sides. Nobody is ever going to convince me that the Ethiopean jews that were resettled by Israel a few years back had any right of abode. They were and remain africans.
Jew is not a race. Jew is not a nation. Jew is faith. Period. There remain jews in Iraq. They are Iraqis and have expressed no interest or claim to right of abode in jerusalem or it's environs.

[Eric Philson]

The term Jew refers to the decendents of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, a bloodline. The region they dwelt in came to be referred to as Judea. Although, the term "jew" is used loosely to identify,wrongly, all descendants of Isaac, also a bloodline. Oodles of jews fled Iraq fleeing persection under Sadaam. Incidently, in the recent iraqi election, native Iraqi's in many countries who fled under Sadaam recently had the opportunity to vote in absentia. That is except for jews. Jew is part of a faith, but also a promise to a bloodline. It's both.

[Eric Philson]

PS. Anti-semitism is aimed at many semite groups. Mainly for two reasons. One, they are all lumped together with the descendants of Isaac. Two, they are viewed as the sons of Dirty, sheep herding nomads. Although, in truth, they are in many ways an honorable people. If there is another reason, I am unaware of it.

[Scooter]

I'm full blooded Irish on both sides, and I too have experienced anti-semitism, because I am often viewed as a dirty drunk sheep herder. Indeed, for my wedding, my best friend got me a blow up doll, but not of a woman, but of a sheep. It said I love Eew.

[flatfloor]

Scooter, sheep aren't so baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad! :)

[Bri]

I think it's high time we went up there and whupped up on those ungrateful Canucks.

Hey, the PM just added 13 billion to our military budget for 2005, so you'se better smarten up eh! :)

[flatfloor]

Yeah well, 12.5 of that is for horses for the Mounties. The ones they have now are kinda beat.

[Bri]

Oh Man, I want to laugh...but that is just sad. :cry:





...but good try Jim. :) ...oh yeah....take off eh! ;)

[jjwq8]

Eric
Where do you get your information?
It is inconceivable that a US sponsored election would be permitted to exclude a specific group based on religion.

[Davestone]

Oh, that Flatfloor sense of humor,ya couldn't find any pics of starvin babies? Now that's comedy! :rofl: :rofl: Just kiddin. :)

[flatfloor]

They don't starve babies in Canada. They use the unwanted ones as practice stones for curling matches. :D

[Eric Philson]

Jeremy,

Read this
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42426

Eric

[Eric Philson]

It appears that i was partly mistaken. It seems that only the 90,000 Iraqi Jews that fled to Israel were denied the right to vote. I appologize for the mistake.

[DIYOHMY]

Just when I thought I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore, I found a very interesting article in Newsweek this week: Imagine: 500 miles per gallon (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037844/site/newsweek/)

Coupla things I thought were mighty interesting:


Bush: "We are all concerned that the industrialized world, and increasingly the developing world, draw too much of their energy from one product, petroleum, which comes disproportionately from one volatile region, the Middle East. This dependence has significant political and environmental dangers for all of us..."

"It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum."

*** (in regards to hybrid technologies which are already available )
If things are already moving, why does the government need to do anything? Because this is not a pure free market. Large companies—in the oil and automotive industry—have vested interests in not changing much. There are transition costs—gas stations will need to be fitted to pump methanol and ethanol (at a cost of $20,000 to $60,000 per station). New technologies will empower new industries, few of which have lobbies in Washington.
***
And the West's reliance on foreign oil is not cost-free. Luft estimates that a government plan that could accelerate the move to a hybrid transport system would cost $12 billion dollars. That is what we spend in Iraq in about three months.

[Steven Hauser]

Michael,

I guess I never got back to this thread.

Do you want to discuss something you can do?

Going back to 1973 a new phrase was introduced into the lexicon it was "energy crisis"

OPEC had slapped an embargo on oil exports to punish the US for its support of Israel in the Six Days War.

The embargo only lasted 5 months.

Look how profound that effect is on the US.

US passenger cars were only getting 13 mpg.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 instituted a new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.

Succinctly auto manufacturers were to double the efficiency of the cars they sold. It started in 1978 with a target of 18 mpg to 1985 where it was 27.7 mpg.

Guess what that is where it is today but fuel efficiency for all new vehicles has declined from a peak of 26.2 mpg to 24.7 mpg in model year 2004.

Why :nod: you guessed it. A loophole in CAFE regulations. "light trucks" are treated more leniently than passenger cars.

In 2002 The National Research Council (NRC) published a landmark study of the CAFE standards.

The salient issue to you is that the technology to acheive increases in fuel efficiency is not somewhere out there nor reliant on on some future breakthrough technology. It already exists today. :yipee:

Fuel Cells and hybrids are beyond the 15 year horizon.

The reality is this. In 200 the United States consumed 125 billion gallons of gasoline. With no real changes to the CAFE standards this will increase to 190 billion gallons by 2030.

By making significant changes to the CAFE standards now a 25 year delay in creases can be acheived.

In 2005 it is projected that the US will use 130 million gallons of gasoline. With more rigid standards the same amount could be used in 2030.

This transfers to real savings to consumers by 2010 as older vehicles are scrapped and replaced with new more efficient ones. Attrition.

How much consumers can save depends on a few variables.

1) how much gasoline will cost. The more it costs the more they save. :idea:

2) How much the more effecient vehicles cost.

The true savings depends on several factors but I think this should excite you about what you can do now.

:)

[DIYOHMY]

Oma, You have it right.

Jim, Oma? Did you get a chance to read that Newsweek article?

[flatfloor]

Which one? Sorry I haven't looked in here for a while.

[oma]

Sorry, I've been hanging sheetrock all day and haven't had a chance yet to read it. From the excerpts, it sounds interesting. I hope there's something valid to it. I would love to see us lessen, dramatically, our dependence on oil. I just hope I can still buy a Toyota pick-up to haul all my garden stuff and building supplies :)

[DIYOHMY]

Check #97 (just a few below).

You'll find some interesting comments related to some of my earlier points regarding availabilty, impact of oil, cost to subsidize vs. Iraq war costs, need for momentum, oil/auto industry and lobbyist interference.

Have a good read :)