Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (7940)	6/25/2008 8:33:48 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24225

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) for peak oil? by Chris Steele In 1896 a brilliant chemist, Svante Arrhenius, theorized that increasing atmospheric carbonic acid would cause ground temperatures to rise by trapping heat within the earth’s atmosphere. It took 110 years for most of us to hear of and understand Arrhenius’s theory and to finally listen to the “radicals” who had been trying for years to get our attention about greenhouse gases and climate change. The news media presumably could have done its job by researching, asking politicians hard questions and reporting. But the media didn’t. Instead, it was a former Vice President and defeated presidential candidate who managed to get our attention with the blockbuster documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Were it not for the Al Gore’s persistence and his movie, the public would be mostly unaware of the greenhouse effect of CO2 and Global Climate Change. And congress – because it generally follows, not leads, public opinion – would be indifferent to rising CO2 levels and changing climates. Now that Vice President Gore has our attention, the media is finally doing it job with this issue. Unfortunately, there is a potentially bigger issue that awaits either another “rock star” documentary or the press and voter attention that will follow: Peak Oil. I’d be satisfied with either a movie or reporters, but because I still believe in the Fourth Estate I’m hoping for the press starts doing its job informing us about the biggest energy challenge. Peak Oil Because there is a finite amount of oil in the earth. At some point extraction and production of liquid fuels – gas and oil – will peak and with that peak, the availability of oil will start to diminish. This truth is as dependable as gravity. While there will always be some oil, when demand exceeds availability unpleasant things – real unpleasant things if there are no substitutes – will likely follow. Prices will rise, spot shortages will occur, wars will be fought, blood will be spilled and dislocations will be inevitable absent alternative energy sources. Virtually ever significant issue our society and government faces requires money. Want secure borders and a strong military? Better healthcare system? Fiscal integrity of Medicare and Social Security? Good schools? Better roads, bridges, water and sewer systems? Stronger levies? Research & development? A secure future? All of these require money, most of them lots of money. And money comes from economic growth. Harnessing and consuming energy is how we get economic growth. Lower availability of affordable energy means less economic growth and less money. More availability yields more growth and more money. Which do you prefer? So When Is Peak Oil Going to Happen? (1) Good question. Because we won’t know until after it occurs, there are different answers from various experts regarding when Peak Oil will occur globally. Some say it happened a couple years ago. Others think we’re a few years from Peak Oil. While others say we have several decades. Surely there is an official US Government answer to this question, but your government isn’t giving it to you. Because of the strategic importance of the answer, there is undoubtedly a National Intelligence Estimate that provides a forecast that should be guiding government policies and legislative action. But getting our government to share its insights is seemingly impossible. I’ve asked my senators, congresswoman and the President, “What is the National Intelligence Estimate forecast for when Peak Oil will occur and how is this forecast shaping policy?” there have been three types of answers: (a) no response, (b) there’s a NIE but we can’t find out what is says and the ever helpful (c) we appreciate your input! I should be more discouraged but my disappointment is saved for the media. When was the last time you read or heard an interview where substantive questions and follow-ups were asked? Why don’t reporters ask real questions such as, “Senator you say we need to be energy independent. Since we cannot grow our way out of our need for oil, specifically what do you mean by ‘energy independent’ and how will we achieve what you claim we must?” Or how about, “What does the NIE say about Peak Oil and how are you using this to shape policy?” Maybe reporters don’t ask questions such as these because they’re waiting for Al Gore to make another movie. Note 1. Peak Oil in the lower 48 happened in the 1970s, in 1980s for the north slope of Alaska, in the late 1990s Norway's North Sea and probably a few years ago in Mexico. Chris Steele retired from Best Buy in 2002 where was vice president of finance. In addition to various roles at Best Buy, Mr. Steele worked for The Limited, Dayton Hudson Corporation (now Target) and Norwest (now Wells Fargo). Additionally he served eight years on nuclear submarines. He has written for the Boundary Waters Journal and has had commentaries on Minnesota Public Radio. He lives on the edge of the wilderness at the end of the Gunflint Trail in northern Minnesota. energybulletin.net

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (7940)	6/25/2008 8:38:51 AM
From: SG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24225

I'm afraid only fictional characters come to mind.. either Indiana Jones or MacGyver for resourcefulness. Real life...hmmn,...hmmm..let me think a bit... SG

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (7940)	6/25/2008 10:16:24 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24225

CAPITAL JOURNAL By GERALD F. SEIB Oil Woes Fail to Stir Leadership June 24, 2008; Page A2 Why is Rep. Randy Forbes all alone out there? Rep. Forbes is an earnest Republican congressman from Virginia who has distinguished himself by calling for a "Manhattan Project" to fully end the U.S.'s dependence on foreign energy within 20 years. The Manhattan Project label harks back to the government's crash project to develop and field a nuclear weapon within just a few years to prevail in World War II. The implication is that the country's fate is no less at stake now that its economy is being held hostage by a world oil market so out of control that even Saudi Arabia is watching helplessly. The surprise here lies not in Rep. Forbes's proposal, though it is an interesting call for mandated higher auto fuel efficiency and expanded use of biofuels and nuclear and solar power, overseen by a new national science commission and fueled by big cash prizes dangled before scientists to conjure up solutions. The surprising thing is that there aren't 100 Randy Forbes out there, issuing similar calls to arms to seize this moment and finally cure the country's oil addiction. As it happens, Rep. Forbes says he went roaming the Capitol looking for partners -- and found no takers. "We scoured the halls of Congress because we wanted to join up with somebody else who's thought about these issues and who's come up with some ideas, and we kept coming up empty," he says. Here, then, is the real energy shortage in America. The stunning part of Washington's reaction to $4-a-gallon gasoline is that there has been so little reaction at all. This is as close as the country has been to a genuine energy crisis in 30 years, yet there has been no unifying cry to mount the ramparts as a nation, to rally together to rid America of the curse of oil addiction, to rise to this challenge as America has to others in its history. INSTEAD, the energy "debate" that has emerged is mostly a lame repeat of 20-year-old arguments over the virtues of offshore oil drilling and a series of congressional hearings on the role speculators have in driving up the price of oil that have nothing to do with actually increasing the production of energy. As presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama are at least trying to rally the country -- Sen. McCain by devoting virtually two whole weeks of his campaign to the topic -- but the effort has served mostly to highlight their differences. Newscom Randy Forbes There are several possible explanations for this meekness in the face of challenge, but the most likely, and the most distressing, is this: America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so. A political system that expects failure doesn't try very hard to produce anything else. If you wonder why voters have made "change" the catchword of this campaign year, that's a pretty good explanation. This timidity in the face of challenge troubles Rep. Forbes. "Maybe one of the reasons we've developed some of the mediocrity we have is that we aren't thinking bigger," he says. "I really hope for once we can lay aside the partisan bickering, and we can lay aside the posturing." THE PROBLEM, of course, is that there is little sign that Washington, in its current state of gridlock and partisan paralysis, is capable of doing that. When President Clinton tried to overhaul the health-care system, he couldn't get even a committee vote on his plan in a Congress his party controlled. When President George W. Bush tried to revamp Social Security, he couldn't get even a committee vote on his plan in a Congress his party controlled. Last year's effort to overhaul the U.S.'s deeply flawed immigration system collapsed what once looked like a rare bipartisan success. President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education program has become a partisan football. An energy bill that passed after much effort earlier in this Congress now seems limp when compared with the threat that energy prices suddenly pose to the American economy. Washington, in short, has no recent track record in solving big problems. That hardly means the only route for such solutions is big-government programs. Rep. Forbes, for example, is hardly a wild-eyed liberal proposing a bureaucratic solution on energy. He's a conservative Republican who in 2006 won a 100% rating from the Chamber of Commerce for his voting record. He doesn't argue that government can or should solve the problem for Americans watching in horror as the dollars add up at the gas pump. "Government won't do it for them," he says. "Government can't. But we're saying we can lay the challenge out for the American people." What he proposes, in short, is that government lead by providing inspiration and incentive. A bill he has introduced lists seven areas where America needs to do more -- gas mileage, energy efficiency, solar power, biofuels, clean coal, nuclear-waste storage and nuclear fusion -- and proposes that government form a national science commission and offer cash incentives to prod academics and private scientists to solve the problems blocking progress in each area. It may not be the perfect answer, but its author hopes it's at least an inspirational start. Write to Gerald F. Seib at jerry.seib@wsj.com online.wsj.com