Thursday, June 05, 2008

America's Energy Policy

America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

~George Will

18 Comments:

At 6/05/2008 12:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

exactly. sounds good to me

 
At 6/05/2008 12:49 PM, Anonymous bob wright said...

Actually, I have wondered for some time if this is in fact our policy - use their oil, keep our oil.

This could be beneficial for long term national security - Another version of the SPR.

 
At 6/05/2008 1:42 PM, Anonymous E. Harokopos said...

"America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy."

This statement has a Ppeculiar conclusion that is disconected from the premises, anyway. This is a common logical fallacy.

The main premise is:

P: America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours,

An interim conclusion that makes absolutely no sense is:

c: thereby lowering its value, for our benefit

Empirical evidence says otherwise, so c is false.

The conclusion is:

C: Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

which is disconnected from the premises, whatever it means because it employs a double negation (not be said - no energy policy), a linguistic trick that can mean either of two things, depending on whether it is evaluated as:

It is not the case that (Let it be said that America has no energy policy)

or

Let it be said that America HAS an energy policy


Actually, P is the American policy
and one conclusion may be that:

C: Americans want to preserve their own oil for the future, that is the policy.

Politics <==> deception

 
At 6/05/2008 1:42 PM, Blogger das Kapitalist said...

As T. Boone Pickens once said, if there is a limited resource doesn't it make sense to use up the other guy's first?

On the other hand I am not going to pretend that there is a method to the madness of US energy policy.

 
At 6/05/2008 2:16 PM, Anonymous Lars said...

Energy policy seems to be: "WE WILL NOT BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT" Since we are a global economy, we must be dependent on other coutries to make it fair.

 
At 6/05/2008 3:33 PM, Blogger rufus said...

We are, hopefully, going to be here for a long time. We, probably, should use less of ours than we are.

 
At 6/05/2008 7:06 PM, Blogger juandos said...

America has an enrgy policy?!?!

Wow! Who knew?

Preserve our own oil?!?!

What the heck for?

Oil Reserves Are Increasing

Peak Oil Theory vs. Russian-Ukrainian Modern Theory

The Usual Drill
Doom-and-gloomers say we’re near tapped-out of oil. Rubbish


No Evidence of Precipitous Fall on Horizon for World Oil Production: Global 4.5% Decline Rate Means No Near-Term Peak: CERA/IHS Study

Our only real problem with the cost of oil is that we are sending clueless clowns to Washington DC: Five Myths About the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Legislation

 
At 6/05/2008 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, it makes so much sense to support the economies of Russia, Venezuela, and Iran, etc.

Maybe it's time to check the playbook to see what we did to get out of the last energy crisis.

 
At 6/05/2008 7:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juandos,

Some interesting links especially Liebermann-Warner.

Liebermann mentioned that there is a hike in the gas tax in the bill. There have been very few in Congress or the Senate who support a gas tax increase so the bill is likely to die on the floor.

 
At 6/05/2008 9:41 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Maybe it's time to check the playbook to see what we did to get out of the last energy crisis.

I think it was un-electing Jimmy Carter.

The equivalent today would be not electing Obama. Remember that in November... Otherwise, you'll have four years of misery to kick yourself over before you can fix the mistake.

Trust me -- 1976 to 1979 was a VERY long four years.

 
At 6/06/2008 3:09 AM, Anonymous rg said...

"America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy"

Really? Does that take into account the "indirect" cost for occupying countries, in order to "secure" that the oil keeps flowing?

rg

 
At 6/06/2008 2:15 PM, Anonymous Is said...

Really? Does that take into account the "indirect" cost for occupying countries, in order to "secure" that the oil keeps flowing?

Here are the Top 15 exporters of crude oil to the US, and the average daily amounts in thousands of barrels per day according to the EIA.

CANADA 1,795
SAUDI ARABIA 1,535
MEXICO 1,232
NIGERIA 1,154
VENEZUELA 858
IRAQ 773
ANGOLA 384
ALGERIA 247
ECUADOR 231
KUWAIT 199
BRAZIL 188
COLOMBIA 135
RUSSIA 108
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 105
CHAD 101

I did not realize the United States was occupying Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, etc...

I am sure that your heart filled with glee noticing Iraq at number 6 on the list with their whopping 8% of US imports, as your comment was no doubt meant to make the statement that the Iraq war was a sinister move to secure Iraqi oil for US use.

Here is a yearly total of U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq (in Thousands of Barrels) from the EIA again.

1999 - 264,764
2000 - 226,804
2001 - 289,998
2002 - 167,638
2003 - 175,663
2004 - 240,191
2005 - 193,987
2006 - 201,866
2007 - 177,009

We were already importing before the war. There was a production pick up during the late 1990's after the first Gulf War, but this was before the "occupation".

In conclusion, come on! Seriously? This bash Bush, political junk gets old. And, with respect to America's Energy Policy, neither side has been that impressive.

 
At 6/07/2008 5:23 AM, Anonymous rg said...

is,

Why immediately so aggressive/defensive?

"I am sure that your heart filled with glee noticing Iraq at number 6 on the list with their whopping 8% of US imports, as your comment was no doubt meant to make the statement that the Iraq war was a sinister move to secure Iraqi oil for US use."

Actually, I neither mentioned Iraq nor Bush, I was talking about cost. Just like every other American I "know" Iraq happened because of the WoMD. Just like all the other US bases all over the world are there to protect the world from itself and to protect the oil producing countries from the "bad" people who want to steal it from them.

But, just imagine how much better off we Americans could be, if the would not protect the world. We could even afford higher oil prices. After all we are such good people.

rg

 
At 6/08/2008 6:44 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"But, just imagine how much better off we Americans could be, if the would not protect the world. We could even afford higher oil prices. After all we are such good people"...

Funny how folks like rg are all about worrying that fielding armed forces is far to expensive but say nary a word about the massive expensenes of that loser war, the war on poverty...

 
At 6/09/2008 2:22 AM, Anonymous rg said...

juandos,

There are many other things "folks like rg" have not said in these few lines. Could it be that you might have missed the IRONIC aspects in my response to "is"?

BTW, I do agree with you on the "loser war on poverty".

Also, it is rather sad that the same people who are so concerned with the poor in their own western country, do not seem to show the same concern for people in the so called developing world.

Did we ever think that when we said, they should live as well as we do, that this could have unwelcome consequences for us in the west?

rg

 
At 6/09/2008 8:08 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> as your comment was no doubt meant to make the statement that the Iraq war was a sinister move to secure Iraqi oil for US use.

I concur, and this has to be one of THE most dunderheaded pronouncements of the anti-war crowd.

Simply put: If it were a "war for oil", then why are we still there?

If all we wanted to do was gain control of the oil, then all we had to do was:
1) Go In, knock down the existing government (90 days) -- check
2) Find and kill Saddam (+130 days) -- check
3) Install our own strongman to replace him. (+5 days) -- ch--OOPS!! Forgot that part! DOH !!!!

And we're out in not more than 9 months...

But somehow, for some reason, that bastard Gee-Dub has kept us there with our boys dyin!!!

I know!! He must just get off on the thought of young men getting killed because he can order it!

Yeah, that's the ticket!! That's EXACTLY the way Chimpy McBushitler would think!!


OW!! That hurts! (Sorry, when my eyes roll that far back in my head it's rather painful...)

The first thought that runs through my mind when anyone says "No War for Oil!" is "You dumbass friggin' moron!"

 
At 6/09/2008 8:25 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Also, it is rather sad that the same people who are so concerned with the poor in their own western country, do not seem to show the same concern for people in the so called developing world.

Did we ever think that when we said, they should live as well as we do, that this could have unwelcome consequences for us in the west?


rg, your comments are rather unclear as to your position.

On just about everything.

You do appear to be anti-military, thinking that the richest nation on the earth somehow has nothing to fear from those who might like to steal our riches from us, were we stupid enough NOT to have those military bases all around the world, which you also seem to support.

Are you under the impression that a really, really rich guy who is also really nice has no need for a security force -- just because he's so nice? Hopefully, you can grasp what's wrong with that idea.

Those bases serve two purposes -- they do help to protect the world from "bad guys" -- like Saddam and Jim Jong Il. But they also serve to protect US from others. And that includes the far larger class of minor-league bad guys who would do things like "nationalize" resources we've paid for.

The military is the equivalent of a policeman's gun. Do you give a cop a gun so he will shoot people?
No. You give a cop a gun so he won't shoot people.

That seemingly paradoxical statement is accurate and true.

No one wants a cop to shoot someone. But the cop himself is far safer -- and there is far more social order -- because he is armed and able to apply force -- even lethal force -- if need be.

Likewise, we certainly hope we won't use our military -- but if we don't have it, we can certainly bet that at some point, we'll wish we had one.

Using Iraq as a case in point, Saddam violated all manner of treaties and rules he had agreed to abide by in order to stay in power after invading Kuwait, something he had no international right to do. By thumbing his nose at those treaties, he made it clear: "Come and get me!!" -- he had no intention to follow the rules he'd agreed to abide by. Se we sent in our military for a number of reasons, and this was clearly, inarguably justified by the UN Orders which he had signed so that he could remain in power. He should have been taken out years earlier by a UN force, but, after we got sick and tired of UN dithering (since revealed to be due to the most flagrant case of bribery and misappropriation of funds in human history), we decided to act, regardless of the UN's useless Chamberlainesque pronouncements. We formed a coalition of wide ranging international support, and took him out. End of problem.

 
At 7/18/2008 12:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

runescape money runescape gold tibia item tibia gold runescape accounts tibia money runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia item buy runescape money runescape items tibia money

 

Post a Comment

<< Home