Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 2, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL....The Bush administration's energy policy:

George Bush, Tuesday: "...new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

Wednesday: "One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally....'This was purely an example,' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said."

George Bush, later on Wednesday: "Bush expressed hope, as he did in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, for cutting oil imports from the Mideast. 'I believe in a relatively quick period of time, within my lifetime, we'll be able to reduce if not end dependence on Middle Eastern oil....I meant what I said last night, that America's addiction to oil is bad for this country.'"

Which is it, guys? Are we trying to cut back on Middle Eastern oil or aren't we?

Kevin Drum 11:42 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (75)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

One thing everyone respects about George W. Bush is that he MEANS what he says. That's why terrorists around the world fear him so much.

Posted by: cq on February 2, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

The secret is in the phrase "in my lifetime." Since Bush is a vampire, he is going to live for 10,000 more years, and by then I can absolutely guarantee that we will have reduced oil imports from the Middle East, or practically anywhere you care to name.

Posted by: craigie on February 2, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

I'll await the breathless "Bush administration in disarray" stories in the MSM.

Posted by: jimBOB on February 2, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

A friend of mine had a suggestion. Bush's statement about reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by 75% by 2025 was a metaphor for: when the Middle Eastern oil fields are ours, they won't be Middle Eastern anymore, will they?

Posted by: maurinsky on February 2, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

"Within my lifetime, we'll be able to reduce?" Is there something Bush's doctor isn't telling us? He's not planning on living until 2025?

Or is he saying that he's planning to 'replace' 75% of our Middle Eastern oil by then, but not reduce our dependence on it?

Posted by: biggerbox on February 2, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.

Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles
New York Times
February 2, 2006

Posted by: David W. on February 2, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

The Bush quotes are from "campaign style" appearances. The realist quotes are from insiders. Which kind do you think won him reelection in 2004?

Posted by: greg wirth on February 2, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

For me, the beauty of this retraction is that it's going to compel the extreme rightwing, out of talking point discipline, to defend the idea that Middle East oil dependency is a good and necessary thing. For the Democrats speaking from the populist angle, it could be like shooting fish in a barrel. Harry Reid should speak out strongly in support of what Dumbya said Tuesday night. It's the only bold and valid thing the Chimperor said all night! Of course it was carefully vetted and approved for public consumption. The retraction on Day 2 didn't receive the same attention, so unless the Dems call them on it, it would be a net political gain for the bad guys.

--
HRlaughed
rktect.blogspot.com

Posted by: HRlaughed on February 2, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe he plans to nuke the Middle East off the Earth before the end of his lifetime. So, there'd be no oil to get anymore...

Posted by: rusrus on February 2, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

We are addicted to Mideast oil! We're gonna be quitting. Well, we're gonna scale it back 75%. Well, metaphorically speaking.

Tomorrow. Tomorrow, we're DEFINITELY gonna quit. Yep, tomorrow.

He's so cute when he's resolute.

Posted by: theorajones on February 2, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

The puppet has gone rogue. The bright lights might have confused him, but we're sure the re-election has gone to his head: He thinks he's in control.

Posted by: Tx Bubba on February 2, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

It's an election year. The bouncing ball will be exactly this hard to follow until Dec.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on February 2, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

By 2025 we'll have outsourced all manufacturing and mainly get to our Walmart bikini waxing jobs by bicycle or pedicab (if you're in management).

Posted by: B on February 2, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

The Dad nails it. Reid should start prodding Bush at every opportunity to make good on this promise.

And while he's at it, he needs to insert the phrase "The Republicans think you have too much health insurance" into every American's head.

Finally, finish up with Jack Ambramoff, and 50+ seats in November, here we come!

Posted by: craigie on February 2, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

We're going to need an alternative source of energy to power all those trips to Mars...

Posted by: The Fool on February 2, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Thank god that flip-flopper Kerry didn't get into the White House.

Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft on February 2, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

so many oil corps have too much at stake in milking that cow dry.

i'm sure bush will talk reason to them, for the good of the environment, national security and the american consum- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

almost kept a straight face.

Posted by: benjoya on February 2, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

I'll state the obvious.

Both. He's going to keep saying it even though it isn't connected to any policy.

Posted by: matt on February 2, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Bush should have launched a crash program to wean the U.S. of our dependency on Middle Eastern oil on September 12th, 2001. This initiative is five years late and Bush is also shamelessly co-opting a progressive idea:

See http://www.apolloalliance.org/

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 2, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

mr bushwacker comments at different times has included the hydrogen fuel cell. this has been a dream since 1890 .
it takes another fuel source to produce hydrogen fuel
( fossil fuels ) , so how can the hydrogen for the fuel be any cheaper than the gasoline for the gasoline fuel cell? WONDERING

Posted by: WONDERING on February 2, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop . . .

Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip . . .

Boing!

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 2, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Are we trying to cut back on Middle Eastern oil or aren't we?

"We import oil from the Middle East? I thought oil came from Exxon?"

ash
['Those boys at Exxon are good people.']

Posted by: ash on February 2, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

The first principle of catapulting the propaganda is that the masses judge you on the basis of the first statement you make.

Modifcations, corrections and retractions are just for the chattering class that does not really matter.

Posted by: lib on February 2, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

What stands out is that in two days it's gone from specific goals with clear metrics, to watered-down statements designed to absolve the Bush admin from any responsibility for the SOU statement. That's just par for the course for this administration, no real surprise.

But...I'm really baffled. What do Bush's supporters really like about him, other than the fact that liberals loath him?

Posted by: Paul on February 2, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

"The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget."

That sucks. NREL does great work. Nobody with more expertise in cellulosic biomass to ethanol. Hopefully Dear Leader's speech will mean a turnaround in their fortunes, at least.

Posted by: Urinated State of America on February 2, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Translation: The Persian Gulf will have run dry anyway and the dollar will be worth 25 cents by the running yard as bathroom wallpaper.

All kudos to those same those wonderful guys who managed to exhaust the Permian Basin in 50 years flat and the North Sea in half that.

Am I the only one here who remembers when we were the premier petroleum exporting country and OPEC was dreamed up by a guy from Curacas, a proud UT grad, who patterned it on the Texas Railroad Commission.

Posted by: CFShep on February 2, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Which is it, guys? Are we trying to cut back on Middle Eastern oil or aren't we?

Old, old joke. Somebody asks three professionals the same question, what are '0' and '1'? The answers:

Engineer: A '0' is a voltage between 0 and 0.5. A '1' is a voltage between 4.5 and 5.5.

Programmer: A '0' and '1' are the two digits in binary mathematics.

Salesman: What do you want them to be?

Clearly the SOTU address was a sales pitch.

Posted by: Tripp on February 2, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Serious question here.

A lot of conservatives talk about the need to invest in new safe nuclear energy plants but has anyone actually introduced a bill for funding it? Not a bill for studying it, but a bill for actually funding it. Who's going to stick out there neck?

Posted by: B on February 2, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

This dispute can only be resolved by a cage match.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on February 2, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

"In my lifetime" surely equals at least 30 years. We will reduce our dependence on Mid Eastern oil when it runs out, in about 30 years. We all know the OPEC countries boosted their reserves in 1986 to increase their quotas, so that would be about when there is seriously not a lot to import from the ME.

Posted by: Mimikatz on February 2, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Which is it, guys? Are we trying to cut back on Middle Eastern oil or aren't we?

It's the Bush energy policy's version of Schrdinger's cat.

Posted by: Ugh on February 2, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

On a related topic, everyone must read the letter that Murtha sent to the President yesterday, it should have been the response to the SOTU address. See huffpost or yahoo.com for the whole story. essential reading.

Posted by: greg wirth on February 2, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I'm going to play the bad guy here and bail Bush out...a little:

As we know from Iraq, there's a difference between setting a goal, and setting a timetable for achieving it. I think what Bush was doing in the SOTU was setting a goal - that we should aim to cut our dependence by x-and-y percent - without declaring that he would personally or immediately achieve it.

Now, in a normal universe, that might be a good thing. Even if we can't achieve that goal, orienting a massive governmental bureacracy towards it will probably have the effect of inching us closer to the goal, even if we don't reach it - much the same way that setting wildly unrealstic goals for reducing toxic emissions helps orient us towards making baby steps. So, that's a good thing, and may be worth announcing in the SOTU even if you don't mean it literally.

Of course, we live in the Bush universe, so he'll pretend to be doing something while either doing nothing or actively impeding progress.

I'm just saying, you can see how, were this an entirely different reality, that would be a totally rational comment.

Posted by: Daniel A. Munz on February 2, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Unless one can convince Americans to pay a $3/gallon gas tax, then all this talk about reducing the fraction of oil coming from foreign lands is just hot air.

We will stop using foreign oil when it runs out.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 2, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

greg wirth: ...everyone must read the letter that Murtha sent to the President yesterday, it should have been the response to the SOTU address.

Excellent suggestion and I agree. Read Murtha's statement at HuffPost. Cripes, the trolls over there are as mean and stupid as they are here, not that that is any consolation.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 2, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Nice try Daniel, but no cigar.

It's no different than saying these three things:

Day 1: "My goal is to have a million dollars"

Day 2: "My hope is that within my lifetime I will have a million dollars."

Later on Day 2: "Let's just keep watching American Idol"

Posted by: craigie on February 2, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Unless one can convince Americans to pay a $3/gallon gas tax, then all this talk about reducing the fraction of oil coming from foreign lands is just hot air.

We will stop using foreign oil when it runs out.

Alternatively, you could reduce the US median wage down to the level where the average American can not afford oil at all. China and India can deplete it all by themselves -- manufacturing TV's for the Chinese and providing technical support to Indians with new Dells.

Posted by: B on February 2, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Cripes, the trolls over there are as mean and stupid as they are here, not that that is any consolation.

What's up with their 'is this comment abusive?' thing? Is that their way of getting comments removed?

I tried posting over there but quickly discovered they want echo-chamber stuff only. I read things over there, I don't bother to post. I'm pretty much banned everywhere else.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 2, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Cutting back on ME oil, uranium from Africa, whatever this dope says in the SOTU speech, or any other speech, just don't believe it.
Rule of thumb.

Posted by: Ringo on February 2, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

We will stop using foreign oil when it runs out.

Yes. Yes we will. AND by 2025 we will be using 75% less because that's all that will be left.

Posted by: Tripp on February 2, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Which is it, guys? Are we trying to cut back on Middle Eastern oil or aren't we?

The answer is a resolute "Yes!" (the Senate stands).

Posted by: Tripp on February 2, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

I've never posted over at HuffPost either. And that "abusive comment" thing, from what I can see of the posted comments, isn't enforced.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 2, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Another old old joke. Army General stands in front of the latest super computer, which has been programmed to analyze every situation. The General asks a question:

General: "What is it going to be, war or peace?"

Computer: "Yes!"

General: "Yes? Yes what?!"

Computer: "Yes Sir!"

Posted by: Tripp on February 2, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Let's get the definitive answer on this. Somebody ask Cheney.

Posted by: tomeck on February 2, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Someone needs to attend a short tutorial on "there", "their" and "they're".

While driving up West Judge Perez in Chalmette I used to pass a Taco Bell. The first day the sign, announcing a new and heavily advertised menu item, read: "Their Here". Someone apparently knew, however dimly, that this was not quite right and so the next day the sign read "There here". The next time I passed they'd clearly given up the struggle. The sign read: "Double Fajita Taco is here."

Society for the Preservation of Homonyms

Posted by: CFShep on February 2, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

This is supposedly the heaviest - reviewed speech Dear Leader gives -- every line vetted by the particular agency involved weeks in advance, etc.

So why are we getting a "correction" one day later? Two possible explanations:

1. Their usual incompetence, plus maybe the wheels really are coming off, or;

2. That was the plan, i.e., grab the headlines on Day One, quietly retract on Day Two.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: fbg46 on February 2, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, we "only" get 20% of our oil imports from the middle east. The rest comes from Canada, Venesuela, and Nigeria, and Mexico. Reducing oil imports from the middle east by 75% mean only reducing oil imports by 15% - am I am sure the Russia would like to send us that 15%.

Posted by: heron on February 2, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

nuclear energy plants are easy to build , but getting rid of the waste of every nation that wants to produce it ;
would be like trying to get all of the salt out of the oceans ! !
harness all of the wind and bullshit in washington , and enough electric power could be produced for a four state area. HOWLER MONKEY

Posted by: HOWLER MONKEY on February 2, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly there was no substance to that comment by GW. He set a goal for 19 years from now with no mileposts in between. More importantly, no goals for the period while he is in power.

The thing he should have mentioned is conservation. This has so many great benefits. It saves money, it is easy to do, it reduces CO2 generation, it reduces pollution and more. However, raising CAFE standards or telling people to consume less is not GW's style.

I doubt we will invest much in nuclear. It is really quite expensive (lots of hidden costs) and it uses lots of fossil fuel.

Posted by: JohnK on February 2, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Clearly the SOTU address was a sales pitch."

Sales pitch, Pep ralley, you make the call. But then they ALL are. ALL of them since they've been delivered to the public anyway.

Posted by: Lurker42 on February 2, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Correction: All of them in MY lifetime anyway.

Posted by: Lurker42 on February 2, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's great that President Bush has finally taken on the hint from the Liberals, who have been on this position towards energy policy for 30+ years.

Great move Bush!

Now start to consider Liberal policies towards corporate fraud, white collar crime, and environmental protection, and we can talk about that disappointing approval rating of yours.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 2, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

'This was purely an example,' Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said."

This word, "example." I do not think it means what he thinks it means...

Posted by: Stefan on February 2, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

The thing he should have mentioned is conservation.

Well, conservation IS technically a technology - so he just didn't mention it directly. I'm sure he intended this to be taken in by the listener though. Bush really IS shaping up to be a great President in his second term.

Now if he can just put some real effort into getting that whassis name - the guy who did all that killing and blowing stuff up on 9/11/01? That'd be good too, because there are 3000 dead Americans who deserve some justice.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 2, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

It looks like Reagan all over again.
So, is Laura in charge now, or is it lil dick?
Didn't that the last time...Nancy and VP quibbling about who was in charge?

Posted by: sheerahkahn on February 2, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

That was indeed a valiant effort to defend Bush, Dan Munz, but fbg46 above makes the key point: every line in every SOTU is carefully engineered and, frankly, they're mostly applause lines.

What this whole flap about "Middle East oil" reveals is the sheer magnitude of Bush administration cynicism. It's just another hoop they've got to jump through to convince the majority of America's population - the majority that really doesn't pay too much attention to much of anything anyway - that Bush is actually doing anything that resembles leadership.

It really doesn't matter at all what the SOTU transcript says. A few speechwriters pull a few all-nighters and, presto, you've got product. The speech is given, everyone in the House is wincing like hell, even though they're applauding like hell at the same time, and the thing is over.

Stick a fork in us, we're done.

Posted by: Wonderin on February 2, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares? Its not as if most of the US oil comes from the Middle East anyway; so reducing the US imports from the Middle East by 75% is not really a big deal. Note that he doesn't talk about reducing total imports in any of these speeches.

The Middle East is important to the US with regard to oil not because most of our oil comes from there, but because so much of the world's oil comes from there that, no matter where we actually get oil from, conditions in the Middle East play a large role in setting the price we'll pay.

So it really doesn't matter whether he meant it or not, the objective is meaningless.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 2, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

CFShep: most of the people that post to this board know the three "er"s just fine (I wonder if that IPA will show up for anyone else -- hmm, not the middle symbol, it really should be a curly 'e.')? What you see is an unedited medium like this is overwhelmingly typos -- it's bad form to correct people. It's just a waste of bandwidth.

I'm interested that all of the feeble defenses I've seen of Bush's SOTU are of the form: he's just sayin' what he wants.

Yup, I want to sleep with Salma Hayek (sorry, Salma). I want a flying car. So, is that what the SOTU is for? A laundry list of pony wishes, with nary a plan to achieve any of those things?

Why no, it's not what the SOTU is for.

Posted by: teece on February 2, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Stick a fork in us, we're done.

We're on the road down that's for sure. Paid Bush operatives will try to silence those who recognize reality by saying "you can't win an election by being pessimistic" but that is BS.

I big part of politics is rocking the boat and convincing people only you can save them from the storm.

Well the boats rocking on its own. The problem is the Dems can't tell us how they'll save us and Bush blows smoke up our butts telling us to ignore the waves.

Posted by: Tripp on February 2, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

congressional agenda thru 2008 , campain for relection
should be keeping all very busy ! ! BRASS MONKEY

Posted by: BRASS MONKEY on February 2, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

President Cuckoo-Bananas strikes again! For what he says to be true then either space aliens will land and provide us with cheap, effective and safe fusion technology or the nation as a whole is going back to a horse-and-buggy level of technology. Either that or Iraq is about to become the 51st state of America. Sigh!

Posted by: E. Nonee Moose on February 2, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

God only knows what Bush wants to do in regards to energy policy, other than inflate profits for U.S. oil companies. I highly doubt he's thought about it in any more detail than that.

What's important here is what the Dems have to do, in every interview and Sunday morning talk show: State in no uncertain terms that Bush flip-flopped in the most important address of his presidency, that America can't take him at his word, that we can't trust anything he says. We need to make that the one theme that people take away from the 2006 SOTU.

Like Karl Rove says, attack them at their strengths. Bush the square-shooter, ha ha ha.

Posted by: Boots Day on February 2, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Putting aside the silliness of the flip-flop statements, I would ask the other posters, troll and regular alike, what the hell it actually means to "reduce our "dependence" upon Middle Easter oil."

In particular:

1. As far as I know there is nothing special about middle eastern oil as opposed to any other oil. As oil is a world wide market, would it not be possible to eliminate (forget "reduce") "our" (in the sense that the world refers to the United States) use of Middle Easter Oil tomorrow, by law. We would just buy more from elsewhere.

2. Because of the nature of oil, I have never subscribed to the "its all about oil" argument. China needs oil, Inida needs oil, and I don't seem them invading middle eastern countries. To the extent the middle eastern countries have oil, they sell it to whomever buys it. I don't believe even the hard-corest of the hard-core Islamists are proposing a ban on selling oil to infidels. And, the last time I noticed, 9/11 was a criminal act put up by 10 guys in a cave, not an oil embargo.

3. Finally, to imply that we invaded two countries and are entwined in the Israel-Palastinian conflict because of the use by this country of middle-eastern oil seems so simplistic that it shouldn't even be mentioned in a SOTU adress, let alone proposed as some solution. Isn't it obvious that we first became involved with people such as the Shah of Iran, and Israel, and even Saddam, as a byproduct of the Cold War. Of course, since during the Cold War we did not actually trade with the Soviet Union, there was an actual incentive, then, to wage the cold war for natural resources. If the USSR had conqured the Middle East, it might have simply refused to sell us the oil out of spite. Now THAT would have certainly been appropriate fodder for a SOTU address!

However, isnt' the reality that we, out of what can only be called "military-industrial-complex-momentum" continue to behave internationally as if the Cold War is still in full swing, when in fact we could completely disengage from the Middle East and the only result would be --- wait a second, I can't think of a bad result for this country. Certainly the countries there might have problems, but those are their problems, not ours.

And finally, isn't the reality that every friggen drop of oil is going to be burned? I don't see how the entire population of the earth is going to make the sharp, simultaneous U-turn that would be needed to convert from oil to whatever next.

Hopefully, some time in the next 50 years some scientist will discover a better, lighter way to store electic power. Then, this better, lighter way will be used to convert automobiles to electricity. Then, the electricity will be generated by solar or other clean means, and carried about by these "better batteries."

Either that, or in 50 years we'll all be driving golf carts.

I'll put one of those fake fronts on mine.

Posted by: hank on February 2, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, maybe W knows that there won't be enough oil left by 2025-2050 in the region and we will only be able to get 25% of what we get now from there.

Posted by: webz on February 2, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

rdw says that Pale Rider can post at his site anytime. The site is called Political Animal - He never writes a thread, but he and CN dominate the discussions.

Enjoy reading HuffPo, but the trolls remind me of going to a college chat room a while back at the University of Kansas. Wanted to learn about Roy Williams possibly leaving for NC. However, the site was virtual name calling, with comments about the sexual orientation of star basket ball players. No one discussed basketball per se.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 2, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

"nuclear energy plants are easy to build , but getting rid of the waste of every nation that wants to produce it ;
would be like trying to get all of the salt out of the oceans"

Within the next century or so we'll certainly have the technology to de-activate nuclear waste, so we will only need to arrange storage for a maximum of ca. 200 years. Or else we'll be extinct, so it won't really matter anyway.

Conservation may be a great idea, but it'd Dull --this is America! We need something more, you know, activity oriented.

Posted by: cld on February 2, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

KD: Which is it, guys? Are we trying to cut back on Middle Eastern oil or aren't we?

We are talking about an addiction aren't we? This is exactly the behavior you would expect from an addict. Swear off booze in the morning and go on a drinking binge in the evening.

Posted by: tripoley on February 2, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Crude oil varies based on it geographical source region. The oil industry classifies crude oil based on relative gravity, specific gravity, consistency and sulfur content.

Consistency varies from light and volatile to a sort of semi-solid thickness. Crude is generally classified "light," "intermediate" or "heavy" based on consistency, although "intermediate" is sometimes not used or ignored. Low sulfur crude is often called "sweet" while high sulfur oil is called "sour."

Consistency and sulfur content are particularly important for refining as they affect how the oil is processed at each refining step and how much of the various products, include pollution, are produced from each load of crude processed. Light sweet crude is considered the best crude for use in refining gasoline and kerosene (jet fuel).

"Light sweet" crude is generally the highest priced of the various crudes. The highest light sweet benchmark classification is WTI - West Texas Intermediate. It pumped in the USA, Canada and Latin America. Another light sweet benchmark is Brent Crude, which comes from the North Sea oilfields.

WTI is lighter and sweeter than Brent and generally commands the highest prices, usually at least a dollar or more per barrel higher than Brent and $2 or more above most Middle East oil.

While crude oil is basically fungible, there are enough differences to make oil from some geographic areas more desired than that from others.

Posted by: Paul E. Tickle on February 2, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Since Bush is a vampire ..."

Hilarious.

Looks like someone didn't get the latest version of the talking points!

Posted by: mags on February 2, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

hank wrote: Hopefully, some time in the next 50 years some scientist will discover a better, lighter way to store electic power. Then, this better, lighter way will be used to convert automobiles to electricity. Then, the electricity will be generated by solar or other clean means, and carried about by these "better batteries."

The latest lithium-ion batteries are much improved over earlier technologies and are getting better all the time. Pluggable lithium-ion electric / flexible-fuel internal combustion engine hybrid cars can be built today, without "inventing" any new technology, that can be charged from standard home A/C outlets at night and can go up to 60 miles on battery power alone (typical American cars are driven no more than 25 miles per day) and get the equivalent of 80mpg or more overall (in mixed electric-only and fuel-powered long range driving).

If they are fueled with ethanol or biodiesel then they consume no petroleum products at all.

This is a solution that is at hand right now. No new technology is needed, only the willingness of the auto manufacturers to start making these vehicles.

For more info see http://www.pluginpartners.org

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 2, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

'Enjoy reading HuffPo, but the trolls remind me of going to a college chat room a while back at the University of Kansas. Wanted to learn about Roy Williams possibly leaving for NC. However, the site was virtual name calling, with comments about the sexual orientation of star basket ball players. No one discussed basketball per se.
--thethirdPaul

Reminds me of the old Newsmax Forum, hosted by the extremely right-wing NewsMax.com (Richard Mellon-Sciafe is on the Board of Directors, for perspective). It was the snakepit of the Internet. They finally had to take it down, because people were posting death threats to one another, they were finding out people's IP addresses and sending e-mails to their wives, bosses, etc., exposing the messages that they had posted. It was in existence from roughly 2000 - 2002.

A really interesting (and ugly) study in human psychology. It was good fun to bait the righties by saying things like Ronald Reagan was homosexual, and watch them go berserk......

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 2, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Crude oil varies based on it geographical source region. The oil industry classifies crude oil based on relative gravity, specific gravity, consistency and sulfur content. Paul E. Tickle

Ah, yes. Reminds me of my days in Crude Oil Accounting at Mobil when we referred to the coffee as BS&W - that's 'basic sediment and water' and calculated field unitisation schedules by hand on spreadsheets called 'horse blankets' because they overlapped one's desk on both sides.

Ah, yes. Life before PCs.

Posted by: CFShep on February 3, 2006 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINK

Notice ...He said in quick period of time. ie:His lifetime ...wonder if there is a parade into Dallas coming up soon...I,ll be near the grassy nowel (sp)?

Posted by: Steve on February 3, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

I like my life!

Live Chat
Live Videochat
Trabajo
Pagerank

Posted by: sam on February 4, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly