Why no one (not even the U.S.) can fix the middle east.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-03-2015, 06:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Drill for now, crush the Middle East economically, and in the meantime look for alternatives to oil.    We shouldn't let enemies get stronger while we are looking for alternatives.

So I did a quick google search and as much as it pains me to say this...Blutarsky is somewhat correct The USA is always in the top 3 producers of oil, along with Russia, China and Saudi Arabia.  No amount of drilling here at home is going to crush those economies (though we don't really consider them our enemies).  Looking for alternatives should be our prime objective.  Don't get me wrong, we are and will dependent on fossil fuels for quite some time.  However lets start getting things in place now before the SHTHF.  Like I said we do know it is a finite source of energy, our answer to all this can't be drill baby drill.  The only thing the middle east has that matters in global politics is oil, it matters little that we can out produce them here at home, and even that's debatable if you look at some of the links I provided below.  That region has nothing else to offer.

(10-03-2015, 07:09 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Not by stopping oil imports from that region. The U.S. remains the #1 oil producer in the world, and most of the oil we need to import comes from Canada, Mexico and Central America. Saudi Arabia is a minor player and the only Middle Eastern we import oil from..

Supposedly oil will run out some day. Alternative energy sources are only good for one thing...to conserve oil, not to replace it.
Oil is the lifeblood of the world. There is no other substitute.

I don't ever expect a C-5 cargo jet delivering supplies to a earthquake ravaged county on the other side of the world to be flying on solar power.
....even though solar flight has been accomplished.

It's not a matter of if...it's a matter of when.  And we need to start looking for the answers now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

http://financesonline.com/top-10-oil-producing-countries-in-the-world-wheres-the-greatest-petroleum-dominion/

Saudi Arabia is anything but a minor player in oil production.  I looked at several articles, these are just two of those, and every one of them has Saudi Arabia as a major player, and many times at #1.

[Rotobeast]

We are consuming oil from other countries, so we might conserve our own reserve.
At some point, we will be the only country with oil.

I don't agree with the dependency.
I was very hopeful for the advent of hydrogen vehicles.
There was a college professor that had invented a material one could make the frame of the vehicle out of, to actually store the hydrogen in the solid frame.
That fellow seemed to disappear.
:snark:

[Blutarsky]

(10-04-2015, 12:12 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Saudi Arabia is anything but a minor player in oil production.  I looked at several articles, these are just two of those, and every one of them has Saudi Arabia as a major player, and many times at #1.

In that context I meant that the U.S. imports most of its oil from Canada and Central America, not from Saudi Arabia or the Middle East.... Saudi without question is a major oil producer. Common knowledge there.

[StLucieBengal]

I'm for exporting oil.

[Rotobeast]

(10-04-2015, 05:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I'm for exporting oil.

I'm sure we will...... in 30-40 years, at $600/barrel.

[6andcounting]

(10-03-2015, 09:40 PM)GMDino Wrote:

The government didn't need to make the first 3 things happen because they were better quality and cheaper alternatives. People wanted them, they didn't need a tax credit and no one had to ban the alternative to create a demand. Renewable energy sources will get their eventually, but overall their not a better or cheaper alternative at the moment.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2015, 09:14 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The government didn't need to make the first 3 things happen because they were better quality and cheaper alternatives. People wanted them, they didn't need a tax credit and no one had to ban the alternative to create a demand. Renewable energy sources will get their eventually, but overall their not a better or cheaper alternative at the moment.

Not the point.  People don't want to change.  

[6andcounting]

(10-04-2015, 09:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not the point.  People don't want to change.  

They will if something is cheaper and better. No one is driving Model T's or hunting with handcrafted muskets.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-04-2015, 09:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not the point.  People don't want to change.  

I really disagree on this. Most people would be glad to stop spending an enormous portion of their income on fuel if the technology was available and affordable, even folks brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry into believing the greenhouse effect is a myth.

[Blutarsky]

(10-04-2015, 09:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not the point.  People don't want to change.  

LOL.. Hows that flip phone still workin for you?

[Blutarsky]

(10-04-2015, 09:55 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I really disagree on this. Most people would be glad to stop spending an enormous portion of their income on fuel if the technology was available and affordable, even folks brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry into believing the greenhouse effect is a myth.

And you're a brainwashed simpleton if you believe reducing carbon emissions would result in any meaningful reduction in global warming.

[Benton]

Stewie— if you're lurking around, maybe you could clear this up.

The way it's been explained to me is the type of oil we have doesn't matter much as far as having an impact on gas. It's dirty, usable for manufacturing and other things, but not gasoline. So we can open the tap like the RINOs want and it won't matter much to us, it just makes manufacturing cheaper in China, Mexico and other countries. That's why we export a lot of oil and import a lot more.

So people can talk about 'Drill baby drill' but it won't matter much. The oil on protected lands, if drilled, would be a temporary relief to a long-term problem. One which we aren't taking any steps to address.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2015, 09:37 PM)6andcounting Wrote: They will if something is cheaper and better. No one is driving Model T's or hunting with handcrafted muskets.

People will try to save money, no doubt.  But how many fools stood in line for the new iPhone?  Was it cheaper?  Did it do that much that was "new"?

(10-04-2015, 09:55 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I really disagree on this. Most people would be glad to stop spending an enormous portion of their income on fuel if the technology was available and affordable, even folks brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry into believing the greenhouse effect is a myth.

I'd like to think so, yet we still have a large part of the population fighting against the new technology tooth and nail.  If we really felt that way we'd embrace the government investing rather than complaining that they should spend that money are important things like new weapons.  :snark:

(10-04-2015, 09:55 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: LOL.. Hows that flip phone still workin for you?

See above.

I'd still have a flip phone if mine hadn't been left in the rain.  And don't get me wrong, I love my phone and all I can do with it...but its an optional choice.  I have to put gas in the car.

[Blutarsky]

(10-05-2015, 07:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: People will try to save money, no doubt.  But how many fools stood in line for the new iPhone?  Was it cheaper?  Did it do that much that was "new"?


I'd like to think so, yet we still have a large part of the population fighting against the new technology tooth and nail.  If we really felt that way we'd embrace the government investing rather than complaining that they should spend that money are important things like new weapons.  :snark:


See above.

I'd still have a flip phone if mine hadn't been left in the rain.  And don't get me wrong, I love my phone and all I can do with it...but its an optional choice.  I have to put gas in the car.

You're contradicting yourself.  People standing in line must mean they are not opposed to change... if you want to call extra bells and whistles the kind of change we are talking about.
If you were happy with just a flip phone then that's just you.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2015, 10:20 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: And you're a brainwashed simpleton if you believe reducing carbon emissions would result in any meaningful reduction in global warming.

Says the man who believes that once we run out of fossil fuels it will be impossible for large planes to fly.

[WhoDeyWho]

Reading this made me lose all hope of reform in the Middle East:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html?_r=1

[Devils Advocate]

Oil as a finite energy source is only a theory, one that is becoming antiquated.

Discrediting the fossil fuel theory

Quote:... As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA's new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science.  No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all ...

[C0de_M0nkey]

(10-04-2015, 10:20 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: And you're a brainwashed simpleton if you believe reducing carbon emissions would result in any meaningful reduction in global warming.

Quote:A survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are causing global warming.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

[samhain]

(10-03-2015, 01:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have said this for years. The oil will run out. Why are we not developing both alternative sources, and the infrastructure necessary to deliver them? Oil riches in those countries have allowed terrorism to be funded. For example, Bib Laden was a Saudi from a wealthy family. If those countries lost their oil revenue, they would be inconsequential once again. On top of that would be the added benefit of both sustainability and less pollution and greenhouse gases.

The main reason this doesn't happen is two fold in my opinion. First, the oil lobbyists. Second, Americans are too comfortable with a cheap energy source to want to worry about making a change.

I honestly think that the alternatives are there right now.  Oil companies want to get all they can out of fossil fuels before they run out.  When that time comes, they will swoop in and save the day with "new" energy resources and look like real heroes.  They will, of course, have figured out ways to make everyone pay a shitload of money for them, too.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-08-2015, 08:45 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Oil as a finite energy source is only a theory, one that is becoming antiquated.

Discrediting the fossil fuel theory

Can't tell if serious.

Abiotic oil is pseudoscience.