Peak oil - is it a distraction set up by republicans?

[Deja Q]

Think about it folks.

It isn't. Not by a long shot.

The Dems can utterly annihilate Bushco* and the GOP completely and forever with this.

The repukes are long known for supporting the oil industry and entities that have squandered this resource.

If we get Kerry to ram Peak Oil into the mainstream, I say we have a gigantic winning issue here. The repukes have no defense WHATSOEVER because they are part of the problem.

We need to be out there. First. With a solution or something to go on.

The repukes want to bury this issue under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist because that'll hurt wall street, if nothing else until peak oil subsides... :eyes:

What do you think?

[salib]

1. But, is it a distraction, period?

Sorry, I like the topic, but it is not an issue that is so important in the current election.

[Deja Q]

3. We need to be proactive. Not reactive. Besides,

when do we wait for change? After peak oil subsides and people start dying?

Neither is gay marriage supposed to be an important issue. Look what * is doing with it. Besides, gay marriage is a bullshit issue meant to distract. (I'm gay and I have no qualms with saying this issue should have waited until January 2005, as anybody could have seen this coming as a repuke talking point to be used to create a divide, and the last I saw, more people are not in favor of gay marriage... meaning, for this one paltry issue, GLBT folk may have helped * win. In which case I will have nothing to do with the GLBT community ever again.) Just as abortion is. But * has used abortion before to help him win. He'll do it again, and the gay marriage situation only helps him as well.

[salib]

4. OK, People are going to die?

There are SO MANY assumptions in that statement! Do you really believe this, or is it POTENTIAL hyperbole. Right now, we are looking at long term issues that this election IS hitting that are bigger than simply one particular resource, even if it is *'s favorite. So let's concentrate on the ones that are important to us now and into the long term and get at the heart of what is progressive and democratic.

[arcos]

6. Can't you see further than the current election?

Do you really think that is ALL there is??

Obviously it's VERY IMPORTANT, but there are other things to worry and care about too.

[Career Prole]

2. Distractions only hurt repukes.

Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Yupster]

5. What is peak oil?

I've seen it talked about but really don't know what the term is saying.

[Dissenting_Prole]

8. Links

Listen here:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/

Or read about it here:
http://www.oilcrash.com/

This is a good explanation, but examines the worst case scenario. Have some Prozac ready:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Excellent commentary on the consequences for America, especially suburbia:
http://www.kunstler.com/

[Yupster]

9. Sounds a little overboard to me, but

certainly eventually oil will become much more expensive to get, and in smaller amounts.

We need to be getting alternatives going, which probably means nucular (spelled so president Bush can follow) power.

Still, it's my belief that there are gigantic oil reserves that are currently not being exploited, so time may not be as pressing as some say. My biggest guess for untapped reserves would be the north slope of Russia where you have these giant rivers like the Ob flowing into the sea.

Long term though, certainly oil is not the answer forever.

[Indiana_Dem]

11. I think it needs to become a mainstream issue.

Sure. It might not occur until 20 years from now or even 50 years but it will happen. Better to start on it now than wait until the 12th hour when everyone is panicking.

If you read some of the literature and links provided thoroughly you will find they didn't find as much as they thought in Russia. Even if they do, it will be really expensive and demand is ever-increasing in the world.

You're right we need to get alternatives going.

[bpilgrim]

16. 'eventually oil will become much more expensive to get' -currently

it is much more expensive and there havn't been any major discoveries in the world since 1962...

But things have changed since 1956. Most of the world *has* now
been gone over with a fine-toothed comb (so to speak) by field
geologists. The peak year for discoveries of giant oil fields
worldwide ("giant" fields are fields containing 500 million bbl or
more of ultimately recoverable oil) was way back in 1962; and the rate
at which such fields have been discovered has been declining ever
since. No amount of human ingenuity has been able to reverse that
trend. There has been a similar, though slower, fall-off in the rate
of discovery of "large" oil fields. All this seems a rather good sign
that, by now, a substantial percentage of the petroleum that has been
available to be discovered, has been discovered.

more...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=36920a77.626090%40news.mindspring.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlarge%2Boil%2Bdiscoveries%2Btrend%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg

unless by 'long term' you mean within the next decade?

google what geologist M. King Hubbert had to say on the topic since his perdiction models have almost a half centuary of historical statistics to back them up.

peace

peace

[Dissenting_Prole]

7. No votes in that.

How many Americans are going to vote for ANY candidate who tells them that they are going to have to conserve more energy and buy less stuff? The public will never believe that they will have to give up their SUV's.

How many corporations are going to fund a campaign based on less energy use and less consumption?

It's not going to happen. You would be better off putting your efforts into getting out of debt and preparing your local community for the impact. Sorry for the bad news.

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

[Indiana_Dem]

13. He ought to bring up thermal depolymerization

the process that's being tried in Carthage, MO, with a partnership with ConAgra. Corporations would buy into that if available. So would communities.

www.changingworldtech.com

I hope this proves to be something we can use!

[Dissenting_Prole]

14. Fine, until

you run out of garbage to feed the machine. Where does all that plastic garbage come from anyway?

Oil.

As a matter of fact, most garbage of any type requires massive amounts of fossil fuels for it's creation.

[Piperay]

15. Unfortunately I have

to agree, the public doesn't like to be told that they have to sacrifice. No politician can tell the public either that he will raise taxes, we know what happens to those who do...they lose.

[bpilgrim]

17. frame the debate in a POSITIVE, a new CHALLENGE to the american people

a new GOAL to CONQURE like jfk's NATIONAL race to the MOON.

you can wrap it up patriotic and couple it with our war on terrorism by seeking an alternative fule source to reduce our dependancy on OIL me or not.

CHEAPER, CLEANER and ABUNDANT ENERGY :bounce:

if you SPIN IT right you can certainly win on it.

:hi:

peace

[brokensymmetry]

10. At the risk of sounding like a corporatist....

it's all in the packaging.

If Kerry were to come out for energy independence - i.e., no more importation of oil through development and deployment of sustainable energy projects - and that by doing this, we could extract ourselves from the Middle East, reduce the trade deficit, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs while doing it...that's something people would buy into. This is an issue that could unite and inspire, just as John F. Kennedy's effort to put a man on the Moon.

* tried to do this with talk of going to Mars, but everyone knows it's just politics. He'd rather send $87,000,000,000 to Iraq than use if for anything worthwhile.

Anyway, after progress is made on putting something in place to soften the blow - then start bringing the reality of peak oil into everyone's consciousness...

[Indiana_Dem]

12. That is a good strategy people might buy.

And it's the truth. But you realize he must say all of this while also explaining the plan for foreign policy and strategy for Iraq and terrorism. Otherwise, the repubs will say Kerry isn't focusing on terrorism or that he doesn't have a foreign/military policy plan for which they feel is important. Ordinary people forget what is said after the spin is put on things so he must say it all in the same breath--interlinking the two. Hope that makes sense.