Mar 28, 2003 6:09 AM
|I wonder all of you who criticize American policy, and go on to say the war is about oil, if you will get into your cars today and drive to work? I wonder if you will turn on your heat when it gets cold? I wonder if you will ever fly across the country to see an old friend or family member, or maybe go on a vacation with the family. I wonder how many of you drive your bikes to the local bike clubs century. I wonder if you go to a supermarket or store that the products a trucked or flown in, or you naturally produce these items for youself like the Amish used to. If you truly live a life that is totally non dependent on the use of oil, then I salute you, but we all know you are hippocrits. We know you are anti corporation, anti capitalism, anti Bush, anti American government, and anti American. I first ask you where were you when Clinton was using the military. I hardly heard a voice from any of you peace wussies when Clinton was in Sudan, or spanked Saddam. What about Kosovo? Second of all, how many of you same people ride bikes from large corporations like Trek, Giant, or the company that owns Raleigh and Univega. If you truly believe your arguments, the throw away your corporate bike and buy your frame at a premium cost from someone like Richard Sachs. Of course then you will have to support a major corporation once again like Shimano, Campagnolo, or Mavic who rely on the use of oil to get these products to you. Gee, for all you people who complain about oil so much, your life sure depends on it, and you can't deny it.|
|But we can consciously reduce, not conspicuously consume........||Spunout|
Mar 28, 2003 6:16 AM
|Sorry for the big words.
What I mean, is that it is possible for you to reduce your need for oil if you drag your fat a$$ out of that big Cadillac(a village in France, BTW). Many countries do not need to import oil. Maybe you should do your part to make it possible in the US.
It isn't, you say? So, try it anyways! The benefits accrue to our future generations.
|But we can consciously reduce, not conspicuously consume........||TSuprano|
Mar 28, 2003 6:21 AM
|Well, you say that we should reduce our need to import oil, but everytime that is attempted, like in Alaska, the typical environmentalist shoot it down. So what is it going to be?|
|The proven reserves in Alaska...||rwbadley|
Mar 28, 2003 7:44 AM
|are not the panacea they are cracked up to be. It is true, we are more dependent on oil than any other society. Drilling for Alaskan oil is but a temporary solution, some sources claim Alaska to hold as much as 3% of the worlds reserves...Hmmm 3%
Figures vary, go to google.com and you can search easily for just about any number you would like to see. If the number isn't what you want to see, go to another site... I won't kid you about this, the more you look into it, the more you sift through the figures, the worse it all looks.
It will vary with the source, however, even using the higher estimates the amount contained is low compared to our (world) consumption of approx. 18-20 million bbls/day. If 20% of the drivers of the 12-14mpg rigs were to increase economy to 20-24mpg it is most unlikely we would need the oil contained in Alaska, providing our current import of foreign sources remains constant. If we lose our foreign source of oil- Katy bar the door- because NO source we have will cover that loss. If the Mideast erupts, I will bet the $5+ gallon gas and severe shortages will be here in a heartbeat.
While many reserves are still contained in CA, Texas, the Gulf states and Alaska, you will be surprised to know that our ability to get 'cheap' oil out of the Stateside wells has been on the decline for years. Many Texas wells have been tapped out, same for CA. Of coarse, with $50 bbl prices we would find a way to get some of that oil out.
The real bottom line is this, the World will be here after our species demise. 'Environmentalist' thinking is an attempt to prolong our (and our fellow inhabitants) quality of life. 'Environmentalist' is an epithet when uttered by Rush and others. In reality, conservation of resources would best suit all our needs if we intend to survive in this world with multi-billion human population...
Ride your bike...
|The proven reserves in Alaska...||TSuprano|
Mar 28, 2003 7:54 AM
|Well considering the last report I heard was only 7% of our oil comes from the middle east. We get a lot more from South America and Mexico. I guess that 3% might help lower the 7% dependency that we have from the middle east.|
|I don't think your hearing is accurate...nm||rwbadley|
Mar 28, 2003 8:17 AM
|How about reducing our dependency on oil in the first place?||hrv|
Mar 28, 2003 10:57 AM
|3%, 7%: Who gives a flying f*#k? Why are we so dependent on
oil in the first place? Why are there no incentives to develop alternative energy sources? Why is the trend toward bigger and bigger vehicles? I live in a farming/horse community and many of the big rigs here are used to pull horse trailers and such; what are they used for in the city? I just don't get it?
|re: I wonder...why this isn't on the non cycling board (nm)||PEDDLEFOOT|
Mar 28, 2003 7:13 AM
|Post your non-cycling crap somewhere else, nm||RJF|
Mar 28, 2003 7:15 AM
|PLEASE DON'T FEED nm||JS Haiku Shop|
Mar 28, 2003 7:46 AM
Mar 28, 2003 7:52 AM
|Take this someplace else. nm||dzrider|
Mar 28, 2003 7:52 AM
|re: I wonder||russw19|
Mar 28, 2003 9:43 AM
|And yet your logic's own parallel path seems to elude you....
You don't get it do you? The USA is THE NUMBER ONE MOST OIL DEPENDENT COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!!!!!
We consume more barrels of oil per day than all of ASIA and Oceania combined if you take out Austrailia (large country, shipping goods across it is taxing on the amount they use)
Did you know that Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is bad for the Environment? Why? Because in order to preserve Vermont jobs, they make all the ice cream they sell world wide there. Then they have to ship it to California, Oregon, Ohio, Florida.... Good for the local economy, but very bad in a pure business sense and bad for the environment.
And to try to use the arguement of buying a Sachs frame is equally flawed. Large corporations ship overseas frames via ship to large ports and distrobution centers located in various places in the US. It is more efficient than having Richard Sachs build me one single frame and ship it to me. When Trek ships out bikes, most of the time, they ship from a warehouse that is closer to your location than others, and they ship many things on one truck. More efficient, hence better for the economy.
But that's a whole other point you probably won't get if you don't even see that your whole arguement is exactly why people who know better see this war is about oil. Every single example you listed is what the american public does everyday, yet we are so oil dependent that it forces our hand in regards to foriegn policy. How in the heck did your arguement prove any point? All it shows is exactly why we are in the war... it's just that we see it and you don't. And that's cool, I wish I didn't see it. I would be a lot less stressed everyday by not worrying if my driving a car is the reason some American soldiers and Iraqi children are going to have their lives ended today. But the fact is that even if I ride my bike to class today, like I always do, I am going to get passed on the road by a freaking Ford Excursion with a BUSH/CHANEY sticker on the back bumper.
Oh yeah, and by the way... up until January I drove a Range Rover that gets 14 miles to the gallon. I parked it and it's sat in front of my apartment since because I refuse to talk out of one side of my mouth while the other side is singing songs driving down the road in it. I will sell it super cheap if anyone wants it. It was my dream car, but it got in the way of my morals... guess which won.
|re: I wonder||Sharkman|
Mar 28, 2003 11:10 AM
|Just because the US is a net oil importer, and a big one at that, does not prove the war is about oil. There are lots of equally defenseless countries we could attack to control their oil, if that were the motivation to the war, to wit, Mexico, Venezuala, etc. all of which are located more closely to the US and therefore would be of greater strategic value if oil were the main motivation.
I completely agree it would be better if the US could reduce its consumption of oil. I drive a Jetta Diesel that gets 47 mpg. But this country is about freedom and the markets give us that freedom. When market forces produce alternatives that reduce oil consumption and which make sense economically, they'll succeed in droves. The Toyota Prius, the Honda Insight and others are a start down that road. Higher fuel prices will accelerate the process. But none of this proves the war is about oil.
If you dislike President Bush, that's your right. I believe he has more honor and integrity than Bill Clinton ever had. All you have to do to understand the real motivation for the war is to study history. The peaceniks prevailed in the 1930s and Hitler's Germany was the result. Why do think the result would be any different if Saddam Hussein is allowed to remain in power? It would not be different. He has weapons of mass destruction, hates the US, and its far better to get rid of him now while he is weak, rather that in five years when he has nuclear weapons.
If the US has control of his oil fields in three years, you may have a point. But you are judging something that has not happened yet, probably becuase you dislike Bush, not becuase of facts on the table that demonstrate the war is about oil.
Russ, I generally admire and respect your posts, you are very knowlegdable about cycling and very informative. But like many who oppose the war, you have lept to conclusions, ignored history and hopped on the popular counter culture bandwagon. But most of the US is with me (3 out of 4 people according to the latest polls).
The arguement about not developing the Alaska oil fields becuase of environmental concerns and wildlife concerns is a complete red herring. I lived in Alaska from 1983 - 1987 and travelled on business to the North Slope of Alaska twice a month. There is absolutely zero impact on the caribou population there. I frequently sat in a pickup truck on the haul road next to the pipeline because we were stuck waiting for thousands of caribou to cross the road. No impact on wildlife from that pipeline, thats for sure.
No the argument about Alaska is all about symbolism, not substance. The left leaning environmentalists have picked this as their Custers Last Stand, and that is what it is all about. As one poster above pointed out, if we import 7% of our oil from the middle east, but could produce 3% of our need from Alaska, then we could cut our middle east dependence by 50%. That is in the best interests of the American people. So is more conservation. The real answer is to attack the problem from both ends. Reduce demand through conservation and efficiency, but dont overlook supply solutions either.
End of rant
|Possibly, 'tho in a world market economy||rwbadley|
Mar 28, 2003 12:52 PM
|it is fallacy to think that just because we might get (let's use your figure for fun) 7% of our oil from the mideast, and might cut it in half by using Alaska's 3%, the real truth is that a MUCH higher number percentwise is supplied to the World by the mideast.
Market forces dictate that if world loss of mideast oil occurred (for whatever reason), the price/bbl would skyrocket, making the 3% Alaska contains certainly some help, but still quite meaningless on the market. If WORLD price shoots up, it doesn't really matter the relative small amount that may be supplied by all US sources will not counter that.
|Take your soap box and go to Hyde park (nm)||52-16SS|
Mar 28, 2003 10:07 AM