Skip to main content

I posted this in another thread, but wanted to hear your thoughts on it. So...

If the President orders an invasion of an oil rich country & world supplies are therefore threatened, do you not agree that this affects oil prices? Of course the President doesn't dictate the price for a gallon of gas. But our foreign policy plays a huge role in the price of oil.

Remember when gas prices went up during the first Gulf War? Then the second Gulf War? Even more recently, during all of the sabre rattling by Bush & Ahmadinejad over Iran's nuclear program?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Oil & Politics.

This isn't necessarily aimed at the current Whitehouse or GOP, we all know there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. It is intended to point out that politicians say one thing then do another for money, power and control. And to touch on oil, peak oil and to drive home the real reason we are there in the Middle East. We're following a plan, a poor one at that, laid out by the powers that be to get access to the largest single pool of high quality oil left on the planet.
Last edited by miamizsun
The price of oil is definitely affected by instability in the world. The price is set by OPEC but bid on in the spot market. Because of ever increasing demand and a finite supply the price will rise no matter what. It is what the war in the Mideast is all about. China and India and other developing countries are increasing their demand but they make contracts, deals and supply aid to oil rich countries. The US has built it's military up since Reagan so it can steal it. It was planned back in the 80's.

Also US oil corporations have not built any refineries so the amount of refined oil is limited even though their supplies are full. They blame environmentalists for the lack of new refineries but they must build them so they do not pollute and cause damage. I don't have the exact facts in front of me but it's been pointed out a few times that they could have built these plants but chose not to. So they will buy oil when it is low and stock it then sell it when it's high. Basic Business yes, but oil is a necessary commodity. Our children are sent to defend their interests and our money is spent to defend also.

We need to be off oil. It pollutes and is a major factor in global warming. It is a very short sighted policy to spend billions of dollars for oil when it will run out one day. It serves only the interests of the oil corporations and the defense establishment.

We need safe, renewable alternative sources. That's real security. No more blood for oil.
The plans for alternative energy are already out there by a number of environmental organizations and others. Wind power can supply most of the US energy. Electric Cars were a success but pressure from the oil industry stopped production.

It's only early technology. The money spent on the war if it were diverted to alternative energy could produce results in a short time. It's not secret, only to the corporate media and those who rely on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Pogo142:
The plans for alternative energy are already out there by a number of environmental organizations and others. Wind power can supply most of the US energy. Electric Cars were a success but pressure from the oil industry stopped production.

It's only early technology. The money spent on the war if it were diverted to alternative energy could produce results in a short time. It's not secret, only to the corporate media and those who rely on it.


Wind power costs a lot of money and some states/areas are simply not windy enough. South Dakota can but then the problem is sending it to other states. Electric cars are an example of the free market-they suck and nobody wants them. There is no quick, easy, or cheap fix to replace oil. There is no conspiracy to keep oil as the main source of fuel. It is simply the cheapest and easiest form of fuel now.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

CharlieFoxtrot:


Wind power costs a lot of money and some states/areas are simply not windy enough. South Dakota can but then the problem is sending it to other states. Electric cars are an example of the free market-they suck and nobody wants them. There is no quick, easy, or cheap fix to replace oil. There is no conspiracy to keep oil as the main source of fuel. It is simply the cheapest and easiest form of fuel now.


________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is enough wind power on the West Coast and Midwest to supply most of the nation. It's not such a problem delivering the energy and I have never read that it is more costly. As I say the technology is still in it's early stages and if developed will easily be more efficient and cheaper.

Electric cars were a success but they were only leased and then recalled. Owners did not want to return them but were forced to. The car companies were pressured by the oil companies.

There has been a conspiracy to keep oil as the more source of fuel for decades. Jimmy Carter, realizing what was to come, began research on alternative energy sources and put solar panels in the White House. He gave tax credits and incentives for business and people to develop and use alternative energy. Reagan and Bush Sr were heavily backed by the oil corporations. When they were elected they ended all research programs and removed the solar panels.

OPEC reduced the price to freeze out alternative research then when the programs were killed raised it again. That's just one example.

Another is the war for oil today in the Mideast. What kind of sense does it make to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives over a resource that is finite and will only increase in cost? We should be developing alternative sources but it's really only "discussed" as a token issue.
quote:
Originally posted by just saying:
This Sunday (Sep. 9) at 2:45PM the Sundance channel (Comcast:165 Directv:549 Dish Network:332) will air
A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash.

I watched it this morning and thought some here would like to see it as well.


That was a good program. It reinforced most of what I already know....oil is going to get more expensive and tough times are coming.

And a reality check for pogo: wind is extremely low density and not even close to providing a small fraction of the energy that we use.
I haven't watched the program but I know that oil is a finite substance and as the supplies dwindle price will increase. But we are in for "tough times" only if we continue to depend on it.

I have read that there is enough wind power to supply most of the US and I once heard the head of "World Watch" do a report on it. I forget his first name but I believe his last name is Brown.

I also have read how different energy companies are setting up wind farms and the technology is just beginning. What we can do in ten years is not even known now. Same with electric cars which were a success but were taken off the market. When the first airplane stayed up for less then a minute they didn't give up but continued to develope it.

There also a report in Sunday's NY Times about farmers in Africa using a bean as biofuel. Anyone who tells you we can't switch from oil, or that we have to use nuclear energy, is propaganda.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×