76
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 06:18 pm
Quote:


Yet another example of the pernicious side effects of government intervention, motivated by the reforming impulses of authoritarian zealots who assume they are endowed with the wisdom to perfect mankind.


Hahah, everything is an example of this, to you.

On oil subsidies, they exist mostly in the form of tax breaks.

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2005/08/03/umbra-oil/

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 06:50 pm
I think you need to get more specific to prove your point, for example lower sales tax on gasoline is not necessarily a favor to oil companies any more than no sales tax on food benefits farmers. And there is plenty of other tax tacked on at the gas pump that other items are not subjected to.

People like to cite depletion allowances for oil fields, but if I understand it correctly, that is nothing more than allowing the legitimate allowance for inventory, as any merchant would be allowed to deduct on his income tax.

Again, more specifics are needed to prove the point, than what your links show.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 06:52 pm
Perhaps you are right. I do look at much of public policy as merely yet another layer of added intervention to correct yet another unanticipated side effect of previous intervention. However -- I am RIGHT!

Similar, indeed far more generous, tax breaks also exist for producers of wind and solar power. The term "tax break" is itself of uncertain meaning. One man's tax break is another's necessary removal of an unintended disincentive contrary to the public interest.

Finally, the arguments offered in the piece you cited are weak in the extreme. Petroleum is indeed taxed far more than other commodities, contrary to what is asserted. Police, highway, and fire protection services benefit virtually all economic activity. Very weak, even duplicitous arguments all - not worthy of serious consideration.

Another interesting fact you may wish to consider - the total production of power from renewable sources (excluding for the moment nuclear) has actually not increased at all in the last two decades, despite all the hype. The only innovation during the last five decades that has displaced a significant fraction of our consumption of fossil fuels is nuclear (we had developed nearly all of our hydroelectrical potential by 1950).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 06:52 pm
okie wrote:
I think you need to get more specific to prove your point, for example lower sales tax on gasoline is not necessarily a favor to oil companies any more than no sales tax on food benefits farmers.

People like to cite depletion allowances for oil fields, but if I understand it correctly, that is nothing more than allowing the legitimate allowance for inventory, as any merchant would be allowed to deduct on his income tax.

Again, more specifics are needed to prove the point, than what your links show.


Bad analogy. Humans can live without oil and gasoline, they cannot without food. One is infinitely more important to survival then others.

Also, we aren't talking about tax breaks at the pump only, but corporate tax breaks.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 08:06 pm
Given today's culture and economy, I seriously doubt we could live without oil and gas, without catastrophic economic collapse, leading to massive starvation, rampant disease outbreaks, wars, etc. I personally think oil is just as essential as food, because without it, many people would have no access to food and other essentials.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 08:23 pm
Has anybody seen this? (Emphasis mine)

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is ?'Futile'
Canada Free Press
Thursday, December 13, 2007


"Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (Canada Free Press)

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ?'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]

The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."

"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ]

Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007:

Don't Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change
Dec. 13, 2007

Link to Letter
Key Quote from Scientists' Letter to UN: "Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems."

His Excellency
Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General,
United Nations New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

*Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

*The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

*Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ?'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ?'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology

Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/963
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 08:51 pm
I'd feel the need to point out that the Iraq war is a GIANT subsidy for the oil industry.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:25 pm
okie wrote:
Given today's culture and economy, I seriously doubt we could live without oil and gas, without catastrophic economic collapse, leading to massive starvation, rampant disease outbreaks, wars, etc. I personally think oil is just as essential as food, because without it, many people would have no access to food and other essentials.


What we COULD live without is foreign oil. We should be exporting oil and not importing it and the only possible way to get from here to there is the same thing you do to give up smoking, i.e. just stop. The very first thing I'd do if I were sworn in as president tommorrow, would be ban the importation of oil. It would mess us up about as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year, and it would mess up almost all of the chief villains in the world permanently.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Has anybody seen this? (Emphasis mine)...


I posted that on a separate thread a day or so ago. Kinda gets to you, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:28 pm
maporsche wrote:
I'd feel the need to point out that the Iraq war is a GIANT subsidy for the oil industry.


Stop taking the ignorance pills for a week or two and the feeling will go away.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:30 pm
gungasnake wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I'd feel the need to point out that the Iraq war is a GIANT subsidy for the oil industry.


Stop taking the ignorance pills for a week or two and the feeling will go away.



Isn't the US taxpayer paying BILLION of dollars to secure the oil fields in Iraq....so that in a few years Exxon can sell it to us at the pump?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:31 pm
I think you have to consider the vast amount of money and time that the federal government spends to secure oil fields around the world. If that isn't a subsidy then I don't know what is.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:39 pm
We also secure grocery stores, Walmarts, and everything else here in this country. Is that a subsidy? We are securing almost everything in Iraq and Afghanistan, so are those subsidies? I think you are misusing the term, subsidy.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:45 pm
Quote:
We also secure grocery stores, Walmarts, and everything else here in this country. Is that a subsidy? We are securing almost everything in Iraq and Afghanistan, so are those subsidies? I think you are misusing the term, subsidy.


hadn't noticed that the military was securing the walmart store in watertown the last time we were visiting there in october .
camp drum is close by , so i wonder why they didn't send a few battlegroups over .
we did see quite a few soldiers and their families at the cracker barrel - i thought they were just having lunch there .
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:45 pm
gungasnake wrote:
okie wrote:
Given today's culture and economy, I seriously doubt we could live without oil and gas, without catastrophic economic collapse, leading to massive starvation, rampant disease outbreaks, wars, etc. I personally think oil is just as essential as food, because without it, many people would have no access to food and other essentials.


What we COULD live without is foreign oil. We should be exporting oil and not importing it and the only possible way to get from here to there is the same thing you do to give up smoking, i.e. just stop. The very first thing I'd do if I were sworn in as president tommorrow, would be ban the importation of oil. It would mess us up about as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year, and it would mess up almost all of the chief villains in the world permanently.

I doubt that very seriously, gunga. You would seriously cripple and maim the economy of this country in a very profound and sudden way, and the effects would be devastating. We might recover eventually after all of the serious effects had taken their toll, but we would not be the power in the world that we have been, no way. You are talking about two thirds of the oil that we consume. It would be an interesting experiment, but I would certainly not be dumb enough to try it to see how bad it might be.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:47 pm
hamburger wrote:

hadn't noticed that the military was securing the walmart store in watertown the last time we were visiting there in october . hbg

Its called the Police Department, hamburger. Look it up in the phone book.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:52 pm
i think gunga has a valid argument .

Quote:
What we COULD live without is foreign oil. We should be exporting oil and not importing it and the only possible way to get from here to there is the same thing you do to give up smoking, i.e. just stop. The very first thing I'd do if I were sworn in as president tommorrow, would be ban the importation of oil. It would mess us up about as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year, and it would mess up almost all of the chief villains in the world permanently.


sometimes you have to go "cold turkey" to effect change .
we certainly wouldn't be driving/flying about as much as we all do now , but that should be no more than an inconvenience and not crippling to the whole economy .
hbg
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:56 pm
okie wrote:
We also secure grocery stores, Walmarts, and everything else here in this country. Is that a subsidy? We are securing almost everything in Iraq and Afghanistan, so are those subsidies? I think you are misusing the term, subsidy.


Yeah, I might be a little liberal with the term subsidy, but I think the concept of a subsidy applies to securing oil fields in ANOTHER country.

I don't think it's too much of a leap.




And techinically, you could probably say that we are subsidizing grocery stores and Walmarts.

The cost of doing that in our country PALES in comparison to the 'subsidy' given to the oil industry in Iraq and around the globe.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 09:58 pm
hamburger wrote:
i think gunga has a valid argument .

Quote:
What we COULD live without is foreign oil. We should be exporting oil and not importing it and the only possible way to get from here to there is the same thing you do to give up smoking, i.e. just stop. The very first thing I'd do if I were sworn in as president tommorrow, would be ban the importation of oil. It would mess us up about as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year, and it would mess up almost all of the chief villains in the world permanently.


sometimes you have to go "cold turkey" to effect change .
we certainly wouldn't be driving/flying about as much as we all do now , but that should be no more than an inconvenience and not crippling to the whole economy .
hbg


Well, Walmart would be f**ked....and I think that's what pisses Okie off more than anything.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2007 10:00 pm
hamburger wrote:
i think gunga has a valid argument .

Quote:
What we COULD live without is foreign oil. We should be exporting oil and not importing it and the only possible way to get from here to there is the same thing you do to give up smoking, i.e. just stop. The very first thing I'd do if I were sworn in as president tommorrow, would be ban the importation of oil. It would mess us up about as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year, and it would mess up almost all of the chief villains in the world permanently.


sometimes you have to go "cold turkey" to effect change .
we certainly wouldn't be driving/flying about as much as we all do now , but that should be no more than an inconvenience and not crippling to the whole economy .
hbg

Watch a few airlines cancel alot of flights or go bankrupt, or lay off large numbers of people. Watch auto sales drop and manufacturers go belly up and lay off workers. Watch refineries fold and plastics and other connected industries shrink or fold, and employees laid off. Watch truckers unable to have enough fuel to deliver food and other products. Watch truckdrivers laid off, watch stores sales drop, watch store employees layoffs, watch prices rise out of sight for many products, watch buying power shrink, watch government entitlements soar and tax revenues shrink, watch as the chain reaction continued.

The only hope is that those industries to suffer would be replaced by other industries to replace the vacuum of energy required, however the one caveat is that those replacements are not nearly as efficient, and they will be much more costly, thus burdening an already devastated economy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 03/15/2026 at 01:37:01