Michael Moore USA Today press pass

[Bill Glasheen]

I didn't mean to drop a smoke bomb and split, folks. Sorry...it was a nice vacation in Warm Springs, VA. Just another simple place in God's country.

I would like to make a few comments.

First, I do agree with cxt that Salute's existence is a damn good reason why we should be concerned with the likes of Michael Moore being given any status of legitimacy. It's easy to make an argument against the backdrop of his defense of Moore - particularly with all the material already out there on F911 and a few other recent films by Moore.

Second...

When you state how tasteless it was for MM to flash the loser sign at McCain - what you so gleefully failed to mention is that McCain had directed his gaze and derogatory remarks to the press box where Moore sat. If someone was trashing me in public, those are not the fingers I would wave.

Once again, Salute makes it easy to make the original point. Moore was hired to provide an alternative perspective on the activity at the RNC. When the Democrats had their convention, Jonah Golberg - "editor-at-large of National Review Online and syndicated columnist" - was chosen by USA Today to provide the alternative perspective to the DNC. I submit that there is no parallel between a "liberal filmmaker" and a "conservative ... syndicated columnist." At least USA Today got their descriptions right. My point all along is that a journalist should report and comment on the news, and not make him/herself the topic of the news. Obviously that subtle point went right over Salute's finge...er...head.

Oh and by the way, if Salute had bothered actually to READ what Moore wrote...

Still, McCain has offered to soldier on for Bush. So how does Bush's campaign treat him? It doesn't tell him I might be in the press section, officially credentialed.

...he would not have made the statement he did above. How could McCain be gazing at the press box as vicious attacker and clueless dupe at the same time? But then I shouldn't be surprised at the absence of logic - this is a man on a mission to defend Moore.

I'm happy when there is healthy debate, and glad that people give a damn. As for Moore, let him stick to "filmmaking" and let's not cast him as representing either the truth or a noble cause.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

By the way, I want to express my appreciation of the arguments made on behalf of both sides of the political spectrum here. While I don't agree with everything written, it has been both enlightening and entertaining.

Keep it up. This is good stuff.

- Bill

[mikemurphy]

Cxt,

I think what I was speaking of was germain to the topic as I see it. I think MM's movie was pure propaganda. I think the spin put out from the politicians is also propaganda. How the president justifies US policy to the people of the US is no better than what MM did either for entertainment value or for political value in my opinion. MM portrays Iraq as this little paradise while George W tells the American people we are in this war to succor Iraqi freedom. It's all propaganda no matter what venue they do it in?

--

<<Moore--do you not care about he the 100s of 1000s folks being butched in Africa?
Why does he only show problems in Iraq?
Iraq children dead=Problem
African children dead=No problem>>

You see, this is where I think you are wrong. MM's movie is about US policy like it or not. MM's movie was about Iraq, not Africa, but do you think that he have included it if he wanted to expand his cimematic masterpiece?

As for the other examples of US intervention, I don't agree with them as you use them, but that is another post if you wish to start that.

Using the fact that we guzzle gas as an economy to justify going into Iraq or other oil rich nation because it keeps food on my table is rediculous. The US has plenty of options other than middle east oil, but I guess you have to check where a lot of the soft money comes from in Washington and check where people were and will collect money from when they are out of their seat of power. The oil lobby is one of the most powerful in the capital, is it all that of a suprise that we have depended on it for so long and will continue to do so?

To answer your question, I think that we should exercising a little isolationism. Not the isolationism of the early 1900s, but a little descretion. Parents and family members do not think much of having their kids getting killed for a lie (i.e. looking for weapons of mass destruction). At least the truth helps it become a little more paletable. How about getting international support for these efforts? At least in Bosnia there was real evidence of mass genocide and an international effort to end it (NATO).

I agree with you that as the sole super power left we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. There is no real answer to any of this, but let's at least get the whole picture before we commit troops and resources, and we are definately not getting that from the present administration nor from his political rivals.

mike

[Bill Glasheen]

The US has plenty of options other than middle east oil

I suggest you and others see if you can get the following issue of National Geographic.



The End of Cheap Oil

The online article has some of the facts. Some of the most imporant (and scariest) statistics and plots are only in the paper version of the article.

I guess you have to check where a lot of the soft money comes from in Washington and check where people were and will collect money from when they are out of their seat of power. The oil lobby is one of the most powerful in the capital, is it all that of a suprise that we have depended on it for so long and will continue to do so?

This is the propaganda line given by the Bush opposition. It just isn't true, even though the vast majority of Bush haters buy it. Read the National Geographic article, and you'll see what the real problems are.

We got into this foreign oil addiction over a period of decades. Our domestic oil production peaked in the 1970s. Since then - through both Democratic and Republican administrations - we have imported a greater and greater proportion of the oil we consume. Now we are addicted just like a long term cigarette smoker.

And what do the consumers do? They buy bigger, uglier, more dangerous, gas guzzling SUVs, and punish politicians who let the price of gasoline go up more than the dirt cheap price we pay vs. most of the rest of the world. Just ask Jimmy Carter. Find out why the Reagan revolution left so many people happy and with a better lifestyle. So who do you blame? If you drive a gas guzzling vehicle, stop right there. Look no farther than your own mirror.

And who gets hurt the worst if we allow the price of gasoline, diesel, and heating oil to go up to create more incentives for alternative energy production? Everyone in the lower 80% of the socioeconomic spectrum: teachers, policemen, laborers, service industry workers, health care workers, etc., etc.

Beware the politician with the pat line. This is a nasty problem, and most Americans aren't (yet) willing to do what it takes to solve the problem. At the end of the day, CXT is right. We'd rather go to war and defend our ability to get more cheap, foreign oil.

Meanwhile, Osama et al understand the truth. This is why they want to take over oil producing countries, and drive the prices sky high. It means strangling our oil-dependent economy and lifestyles, and more money for their next Ottoman empire.

IS ANYBODY LISTENING???

Stop blaming the oil companies. Blame your fellow Americans, and politicians who tell you what you want to hear.

There's a reason why I go on and on in my own forum about alternate energy sources, and unusual new vehicles. There's a method to my madness. Those who understand the dirty truth are scared poopless.

- Bill

[cxt]

Bill

If we had just sucked it up and did what was needed back in the 70's when OPEC first tried to tighten the screws we would not be in this sitution now.

We have had 30 years to cut the cord so to speak--but we refused to do so.

There are any number of things that we should have done, alternative renewable fuels, incresed effecieny, mass transit, etc we have another chance to focus hard on them-and maybe we won;t have to repeat this again in another 30 years.

[Bill Glasheen]

I agree. It's very, very sad.

Back in the seventies (seemingly in another life), I worked as a geochemist and geologist for a small company - North American Exploration. I helped get the company a massive contract to analyze tens of thousands of soil samples per year for over 20 different elements as part of a government sponsored campaign (NURE - National Uranium Research Exploration program) to help gain energy independence. I considered winning that government RFP my crowning achievement in my working life there. It doubled the number of employees in the lab - just before I hung up my lab coat to go off to graduate school.

Unfortunately the fickle electorate punished Jimmy Carter for all the effects of Middle East shenanigans: Iran hostages, high energy prices, high inflation (no surprise...), high interest rates, and a stagnating economy. Smiling Jimmy was out, and Hollywood Ron came in. Pretty soon Ron had put the fear of Allah in the Middle East in many subtle ways, and the price of a barrel of oil plummeted. But it came at the cost of an ever increasing proportion of our energy coming from Middle East oil.

Within a year after Reagan was elected, he killed the NURE program. And North American Exploration - a company that put almost all its resources on one major contract - died shortly thereafter. Talk about timing...

And you know what? Polls were taken back then about the use of military force. The population overwhelmingly said they would support the use of our troops to maintain our supply of oil. Imagine that! How prophetic those 25-year-old polls were.

My friend Rich supports a "predatory capitalist" attitude about all this. Maybe... Certainly with China and India growing like gangbusters economically and competing with us in the marketplace, we don't want to be in a position to sell products more expensively (in the short run) because they used cheap imported oil and we did not.

But...I do believe we need to prepare for the future ASAP. Look at it from a selfish point of view. If we get all the patents on these new technologies that we ALL will have to use sooner than later, then that's that much more economic prowess that we can exercise in the long run.

I get really tired of the bull$hit rhetoric coming from politicians these days on all this. If ever there was a good use for government (and there rarely is), this is it. It's a matter of long term national security and economic survival. It's fine draining the Middle East of its oil as cheaply as possible while saving our own. But I sure would like an energy ace in our back pocket. And having that ace ready to play today means nobody can blackmail us. That means lower risk of using troops, and a more competitive energy market (a.k.a. lower energy prices).

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Back to ther original subject...

This is our lovely "correspondent" gesturing to John McCain at the RNC.



And this is the latest on his motives. I find this article absolutely fascinating in many ways. In particular, Moore's explanation for shunning the "Best Documentary" Oscar appears extremely transparent and even patronizing to me. But that's my biased point of view...

Moore to pursue Best Picture Oscar

This whole thing is so political - and Hollywood so politcally biased - that I have no stomach for the result, no matter what it is. I have no hope for the judges assessing this film strictly on its merits.

- Bill

[mikemurphy]

Bill,


<<This is the propaganda line given by the Bush opposition. It just isn't true, even though the vast majority of Bush haters buy it. Read the National Geographic article, and you'll see what the real problems are. >>

WHAT? The oil lobby isn't powerful? You have to be kidding. Oil drives our nation and it dictates world policy. Our war on Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or to rid the world of Saddam Hussain; it was our aim to take control of the world's second largest oil reserves and dictate the flow of oil to the world market.

In 1990 Sec. of State James Baker stated at a South Asian conference to the PM of India that oil was this country's civilization and that the US would never permit a demon to sit over it. Imagine Baker saying this. Like somebody appointed the US as the world's conscious. It all has to do with the money.

<<We got into this foreign oil addiction over a period of decades. Our domestic oil production peaked in the 1970s. Since then - through both Democratic and Republican administrations - we have imported a greater and greater proportion of the oil we consume. Now we are addicted just like a long term cigarette smoker.>>

Is it any different than the robber barons of the steel industry, or the railroad industry? We consume, and consume, and consume the cheap product so that a few can get extremely wealthy. You support it by driving anything that takes oil products, or turning on the heat in the winter. Stop this crusade that it is the gas-guzzling SUV's of the US that is driving the prices up. Now unless it is the government lying to us, then prices are up because of a reduction of drilling and inefficient specultion in ordering oil shipments.

<<And what do the consumers do? They buy bigger, uglier, more dangerous, gas guzzling SUVs, and punish politicians who let the price of gasoline go up more than the dirt cheap price we pay vs. most of the rest of the world. Just ask Jimmy Carter. Find out why the Reagan revolution left so many people happy and with a better lifestyle. So who do you blame? If you drive a gas guzzling vehicle, stop right there. Look no farther than your own mirror.>>

Who do I blame? Everybody who thinks that it's those people who are driving SUVs that caused all this. We consume the most oil in the world, no doubt, and all of us drive big, expensive guzzlers, in relation to the rest of the world, and that includes you Bill (unless you have bought that Le Car you were eyeing). We are an expansive nation, unlike the rest of the world and consumption will continue.

<<And who gets hurt the worst if we allow the price of gasoline, diesel, and heating oil to go up to create more incentives for alternative energy production? Everyone in the lower 80% of the socioeconomic spectrum: teachers, policemen, laborers, service industry workers, health care workers, etc., etc. >>

Are you assuming that the profits made by the big companies will go into research for alternate energy?

<<Beware the politician with the pat line. This is a nasty problem, and most Americans aren't (yet) willing to do what it takes to solve the problem. At the end of the day, CXT is right. We'd rather go to war and defend our ability to get more cheap, foreign oil. >>


You are wrong here. Most Americans will go to war if they feel the cause is justified. We went to war in the Revolution to gain our freedom; we went to war in 1812 because our seamen were being illegally impressed; we went to war in Mexico because Santa Anna was killing Americans in Texas; we went to war in the Civil War because we believed in States' Rights and the other side did not (I'm not excluding slavery); we went to war with Spain because the Maine was blown up in Cuba; we went to war in Europe because of unrestricted submarine warfare; we went to war in WWII because we were attacked; we went to war in Korea to stop Communistic expansion in an era that was still suffering from the Red Scare; we went to war in Vietnam for the same reason, but couldn't get out; we went to war in the first Gulf war because poor Kuwaitis were being murdered; and we went to war in the second Gulf War because Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Now, since it was basically proven he didn't have these weapons, then is it safe to assume we went in for another reason? Uh yup. Mr. No Show deferment had other reasons for sure.

<<Meanwhile, Osama et al understand the truth. This is why they want to take over oil producing countries, and drive the prices sky high. It means strangling our oil-dependent economy and lifestyles, and more money for their next Ottoman empire. >>

I can't remember when Afghanistan was part of OPEC or a major oil producer. Relating that Osama and others are trying to create another Ottoman Empire is a bit too much, don't you think? His support already comes from places like Saudi Arabia, and yet, he doesn't control it.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to see my children grab a gun to go fight this kind of war. Maybe you would be proud to see your children go, but if my kids are going to risk their lives for this country, then let it be about this country's freedom and security. There is no argument that can be made that signifys that the lives that have been wasted thus far over there (almost 1000) have died fighting for the good ole US of A. Unfortunatley, it's been the almighty dollar doing the talking.

mike

[cxt]

Mike M

WMDs were only one of a number or reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

Granted it was the one that was hammered on--but it still was only one.

Others included.

-Failure to comply with the specific terms of the cease-fire agreement that concluded the first Gulf War.
Which included proof that he he had in fact destryed his stockpiles of WMDs--which Saddam was unable or unwilling to do.

That alone means he was in breach of the agreement and was well aware of the consequnces--ie. military action.

-Providing material support to terrorist-which he also was most certainly doing.
Providing $$$ to terrorist groups, families of murder bombers in Isreal, safe houses and medicial treatment to Internationaly wated terrosist.

-Numerous violations of the no-fly zone--ie. repeatedly shooting at planes patrolling it.

There is no question that WMD's was what the admin used to "sell" the war.

Very much the drum they beat to get the people involved.

But it most certianly was not the only reason.

Weird as it sounds here in the light of day OSB stated purpose is world domination of his fascist brand of Isalm.

You might notice he speaks of the "tragady of Andalusia" this is a specific reference to the Reconquesta or re-conquest of Spain by Christians.

Its something that OSB wants very much to "right."

In his mind the the invasion and rule of Spain was perfectly justified as a blow for Islam--the ousting of the invader by the folks that lived there is treated as an attack upon his version of God.

In his mind he and his supporters were THE factor in the collaspse of the USSR--he seriously thinks HE is responsible.

Lets also put the death toll in perspective--AND I IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM FEEL ITS "OK" TO LOSE A SINGLE LIFE.

But 1000 people is lfar ess than the death toll in any major city in any given year from violence.

Its far far less than those folks killed in traffic accidents each year.

Far, far less than the folks killed by smokeing EVERY YEAR.

Ugly truth is that people die in war-and this one has been remarkably LESS costly in terms of overall American lives than any in recent memory.

AGAIN I DON'T WANT TO LOSE EVEN ONE LIFE!!!!!!!

I have some buddies over there.

[Bill Glasheen]

Mike

Did you read my post? Did you bother to read the National Georgraphic article I provided, or any of the many references included in that article?

"The oil lobby" is a figment of your imagination. You might check it out yourself. Look at each of the campaigns, and check out who and what groups support each of the candidates.

This fictitious oil lobby is less evil corporation and more typical American consumer.

Yes, SUVs have everything to do with it. Obviously you don't read my forum. My feelings are hurt... By employing a legal technicality, they have avoided the CAFE fuel economy restructions by being classified as trucks. That's total bull$hit. So they are allowed to guzzle and pollute at higher levels, and get sold cheaper than they would be if they were classified as the cars that they really are. And if you think I'm wrong, go take your typical SUV out for some offroading some time. And then see if your warranty is still valid after you tow the broken pieces back to the dealer.

Perhaps you missed some pictures of a busted up H2 that I posted last year. A woman tried driving one up on a curve (just like in the TV commercial) and broke the axle. What a surprise!

I drive a relatively inexpensive van that is usually full of kids because I am the school bus. Per person, my mileage probably beats yours, and most Americans for that matter. I am waiting for a vehicle that matches my desire to be even more frugal energy-wise, and have fun as well. Yes, it is possible. My wife drives a Subaru. AWD so she can make it to work in bad weather (she's a health care practitioner) and nice mileage, by the way. So, I don't fit the ugly picture. Sorry...

My home is ICE Block construction - concrete walls with double layers of polystyrene insulation. The insulation of the walls in my house is likely the same as that in your roof (R30). All my windows are double paned. I have an extremely unusual heating system/water heater that is hyper efficient. My home was written up in The Richmond Times Dispatch (while it was being built in 1994) for its unusual energy efficient design. I don't fit the ugly picture. Sorry...

Please tell me more about how I waste energy.

Please tell us all more about the evil of Big Oil. And while you are telling us about all their ugly profits, please give them as a percentage of gross revenue. Then tell me why you wouldn't be fired if you ran any company in this country with a lower profit margin. Then...tell us all more about where that oil is being used, and by whom.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I thought I'd help you a bit on your data.

Here are the campaign contributions that can be linked to oil and gas.



They ae ranked 17th (seventeenth) in year 2004 in total campaign giving as compared to more than 80 other industries.

Want to know what group donated the most? The most in every election since statistics were collected at opensecrets.org way back in 1990? You guessed it - the {censored} lawyers/law firms.



And...whoa...the industry as a whole gives 72% of their contributions to Democrats.

I'm shocked!!

- Bill

[Panther]

Just a minor nit to pick... simply 'cause it's one that I always pick...

You are wrong here. Most Americans will go to war if they feel the cause is justified. We went to war in the Revolution to gain our freedom;

Including freedom from taxation at a rate that is a small fraction of what we're burdened with today.

we went to war in 1812 because our seamen were being illegally impressed;

But dont' forget the economic reasons, but having a convenient excuse for going to war was nice...

we went to war in Mexico because Santa Anna was killing Americans in Texas;

Texas was a country in it's own right... the Republic of Texas... and before that parts of Tejas were part of Mexico... Some would argue that Santa Anna was being imperialistic and trying to increase the size of Mexico and take back the parts of Texas that were previously Mexican... to, if you will, reassimilate the rebelling/seceding regions!

we went to war in the Civil War because we believed in States' Rights and the other side did not (I'm not excluding slavery);

I fear that you are attempting to take the "high road" for the USA in this comment. The documented facts support the notion that it was the CSA that was for "States' Rights", NOT the USA. And it is also well documented that the CSA military went to war voluntarily while the USA military was in no small way conscripted. Slavery was a brilliant rallying tool, but the existence of that abominable institution is documented to have knowingly been on the decline by the time the war broke out. Regardless, the purveyors of and profits from the slave trade (which continued to the end of the 19th century) are also well documented and traced back to... the Massachusetts Bay Company and Rhode Island.

we went to war with Spain because the Maine was blown up in Cuba;

I must again insist that there were more pressing economic reasons with the attack on the Maine used as the convenient excuse...

we went to war in Europe because of unrestricted submarine warfare;

And yet again... Economics backed up with an excuse to enter a war that by all indications was planned to happen...

we went to war in WWII because we were attacked;

AGAIN, there were other motives and reasons... and the fact that it is NOW documented that the Japanese codes were broken long before AND that the FDR adminstration ALLOWED Pearl Harbor to be attacked as an excuse to enter the war for other reasons... An attack on us by the Japanese gives us the excuse to go to war in Europe? Hmmmm... other reasons...

we went to war in Korea to stop Communistic expansion in an era that was still suffering from the Red Scare;

We went to war in Korea because we were SUPPOSED to go to war in Korea! This was the first "UN war" and the Truman adminstration willing jumped in... which is why there wasn't any "end" to it.

we went to war in Vietnam for the same reason, but couldn't get out;

Another "UN war" which we were setup to lose and which we got into for dubious reasons. A few Eisenhower "advisors", but the real entry took the Kennedy and Johnson adminstrations... The lose goes in the Nixon column, where it was meant to be.

we went to war in the first Gulf war because poor Kuwaitis were being murdered;

You don't really believe that do you?!?! Why would we go into the Gulf the first time to save Kuwaiti lives when we didn't go there to save Kurdish lives or a whole host of other groups' lives? Doesn't make sense...
and the hands of the UN coalition are all over this one as well... and while we're at it, remember that there have been hundreds of "UN military actions (wars)" since the creation of that despicable organization that was supposedly formed to foment "world peace". And while mentioning that, how about all of the "conflicts" and troops that died on Clinton's watch... War is a truly bipartisan desire regardless of the postulations of some candidates for both support and non-support...

and we went to war in the second Gulf War because Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

So, North Korea should be next... right? There's oil in Iraq and the desire to put an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, but we didn't go into either and help with the new governments for oil.

Which leads to Bill's comments... Very nice, BTW... Anyway, IMNSHO, it isn't about the "oil lobby", it's about economics. You see, China has now come online as the second largest user of oil in the world and growing at a phenominal rate. The need for petroleum products permeates everything in our modern lives... even those alternative energy "hydrogen" cars... What do you think it would cost in petroleum products to build that car? The mining of the ore, the melting and fabrication of the metals and plastics as well as all the paints and solvents, transporting those materials to factories that don't exist which would run on electricity that is generated from petroleum products and not to mention the fact that even the hydrogen to power those vehicles is produced from natural gas! Plastics are made from petroleum and so are an endless array of consummables. Here in the USA, if the price of petroleum goes over-the-top, things are going to collapse economically and the powerful will have their hands full. Fuller than they could handle. But there's lots of oil... right? Ummmm... According to a large number of scientists, studies and even if you look at the discovery rate of required "mega-fields", we are fast approaching "Peak Oil". I realize that for some the idea of "Peak Oil" is hard to grasp, but it really doesn't take much science, but rather some basic math...

The knowledge of "Peak Oil" has been around for awhile and is know on all levels of government and business. It's really simple...

Discoveries of large oil deposits have been in steep decline since 1962. DEMAND for those products has been SOARING. The situation is unsustainable, plain and simple.

[RACastanet]

Bill said: "My friend Rich supports a "predatory capitalist" attitude about all this."

Yes, I am a predatory capitalist. My many years at GE, the flagship of multinational conglomerates, led me in that direction.

Back in 1980, GE was a typical US company. Slow, bureaucratic, bloated with management. When my hero Jack Welch took over in 1981, he recognized this problem and the coming globalization of the economy. His philosophy was to be number 1 or a strong #2 in every business we were in. Failing that, the plan was to fix it, sell it or close it down. Also, the business had to be profitable. Being #1 in a money losing business, like toasters and clothes irons, did not cut it. So, the small appliance business went away (to be built offshore somewhere), and the high tech systems businesses were expanded, such as Medical Systems.

Following this strategy, GE became the largest company by market value in the world. It is also hugely profitable. So, companies like Westinghouse Electric, Allis Chalmers, ITE Imperial, Fridgidaire are no longer with us as they did not 'get it'. Some of those names are still around but only as 'labels'.

Speaking from experience on the oil companies, they are in a terrible dog eat dog market. They spend huge sums of money to wring out any productivity gains they can so they could compete in a global commodity market. Nope, no conspiracies here (by the way Bill, excellent charts). By using the latest technologies retail oil products (in constant dollars) are as cheap or cheaper than they have ever been. And this is in spite of $Billions of environmental controls that added not a single penny to their bottom lines. By GE standards, the petro business is a loser and would have divested any such businesses decades ago.

Now, to defend US energy consumption...

By various methods of measurement, the US consumes about 20 to 25% of all of the energy used in the world. However, it is not being pissed down the toilet. We also drive the world's economy. The US has the highest worker productivity in the world by a wide margin. The Europeans, and Asians, can only dream of achieving our ability to produce products and services. Tie down the US economy because we use too much energy, and the world economy would flounder.

Despite what you hear from John Kerry and his gang, the US manufacturing economy is enormous. It has shifted away from low entry level, unskilled jobs to higher tech jobs. Those that choose not to shift with the economy are left behind and would prefer to whine than do something about it.

An example... I grew up in Pittsburgh, once the steel capitol of the world, and as a result, also a coal mining capitol. Those high paying union jobs have all but vanished in the Pittsburgh area, shifting to high tech, education and research. However, when I visit, there are still legions of displaced steel workers and coal miners that just will not get over it. They would rather be on welfare and whine about the good old days than get off their butts and find work elsewhere. They will vote for John Kerry.

On another front, some would have you believe that the cause of our energy woes is the SUV. I will admit that they use a lot of fuel, but they are a small part of the equation. Industry uses incredible amounts of petroleum products to drive our economy. People in services (this is not aimed at anyone, just easy examples), such as health care, or academia, and who have never been out in the world of manufacturing really have no clue what drives businesses. Or, how difficult it is to compete and survive in a global economy.

Many fertilizers are petro based. Those fertilizers have made the US a breadbasket that could and does feed much of the world. Plastics require huge amounts of petro products. However, they make products lighter, more durable and less expensive... cars use less fuel because engineered plastics have helped to lower the weight.

Power generation... The environmental rules have driven many power companies away from coal (which we have billions of tons of) to oil. the NIMBY crowd will not allow Nuclear plants, which are very clean and efficient. The newest steel mills have switched to electrode furnaces, away from coke furnaces because of environmental concerns. They are buying gigawatts of oil fired energy. Lots of inter-related unintended consequenses in the world.

Here in VA, the NIMBY crowd is fighting a company that wants to put up windmill generators in the mountains. "It will ruin the view." "It will kill birds". Household cats that are let out at night to prowl kill millions of birds annually. I bet a lot of those NIMBY whiners have cats that they let out at night. GE was going to put a windmill farm off the coast of New England... really far out beyond the line of site of land in fact, but that is tied up in courts as well.

Dominion Virginia Power is considering a third nuclear facility at its Lake Anna plant. The area residents are already forming committees to fight them. I boat regularly at Lake Anna, and it is beautiful. The lake is there because the power company built it to store water for cooling. Now, the very people who moved to the area because of the lake are working against the very company that created the lake for them! Can't win.

And we use oil or petro based electric generation to heat our homes and cool our homes. Years ago, before central heating became a reality, upper respiratory problems killed thousands every winter. If you visit Monticello in C'ville (or a similarly restored 18th century period piece), note the length of the beds... four feet max. Why? People slept sitting up as there was so much repiratory congestion in the cool and cold months from the primitive heating methods of the time you did not want to sleep fully horizontal.

Big industry does use huge amounts of energy, but to its credit, since the end of the first oil embargo in 1974, the use of energy today has dropped 50% of per unit output of what it was then. That is huge.

The average automobile pre-embargo did not get the mileage of today's SUVs, and they put out huge amounts of CO, NOX, sulphers and other particulates. Give the auto industry a round of applause for that instead of bashing it. And they accomplished that with pretty dirty fuels to boot.

There is so much more to consider than the size of a vehicle or oil company 'conspiracies' when trying to solve the world's energy dilemma.

The predatory capitalist ways that makes our US economy so great will solve this problem for our children and their children... as long as government allows it to function.

Rich

[RACastanet]

duplicate post

[Panther]

BRAVO!!!

I completely concur Rich! You've also made clear the problem with "Peak Oil" and attempting to move to alternative energies. In no small part it is the NIMBY and the "watermelons"....