[MonteQuest]

Here's another in the never-ending production of peakoil papers from the top. Two more are coming next year, one from the GAO.

Council on Foreign Relations Report of an Independent Task Force
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to examine the consequences of dependence on imported energy for U.S. foreign policy. Since the United States both consumes and imports more oil than any other country, the Task Force has concentrated its deliberations on matters of petroleum. In so doing, it reaches a sobering but inescapable judgment: the lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.

The Task Force goes on to argue that U.S. energy policy has been plagued by myths, such as the feasibility of achieving ‘‘energy independence’’ through increased drilling or anything else. For the next few decades, the challenge facing the United States is to become better equipped to manage its dependencies rather than pursue the chimera of independence.

[aahala]

I wish every politican and talking head could be required to
read and repeat on their sound bites some of the cited paragraphs
of this report.

"Energy independence" is becoming the new buzz term. I have
yet to hear a single speaker of it to furnish any details as to the
nature, or extent of the problem or the list of painful policies
necessary to EVER achieve it.

BTW, does anyone know the last time the US was not a net
oil importer? I have yet to find any figures on the subject prior
to 1949.

[Frank]

I always thought (assumed) we exported until circa 1970...

[TonyPrep]

"Energy security" seems to be another buzz-phrase. The New Zealand government's new energy policy was released recently and contains that phrase, as do articles reporting it. However, it still seems to be believed that non-renewables can be part of the answer to achieving energy security. Although renewables are encouraged, they aren't mandated, even though "energy security" is paramount. In reports, we had energy company chiefs reiterating the phrase in explaining some of their non-renewables projects.

Energy security is not possible as long as you are reliant on non-renewables.

[slick]

The amusing thing about the current situation is that everyone, and I mean everyone, every top politician, is talking about this issue behind the scenes, but there is such a strong sense of the need not to "panic the horses" that not much is coming out in public, except when they make little slips.

[RdSnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll told, an incremental approach to the challenge—as advocated in this report—will not be adequate.

[EnergySpin]

Hm, nice finding but It is instructive to read the whole report because they sure write/say things that make a lot of sense.

Top of page 32:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Consumers and businesses want energy services, such as transportation, lighting, and air-conditioning.

[TonyPrep]

Hmm. I haven't read the report but, from the quotes given here, does this seem like a good characterisation?

The American way of life is not negotiable. All the energy services that Americans want (though the report says "need") can be provided by using a mix of energy sources. Implication is that these "needs" can be met indefinitely. Reduce oil consumption but there is no need to remove it completely. If the US can't produce all the ethanol it "needs" remove trade barriers to getting it from elsewhere (with the implication that the world can produce all it needs indefinitely). Nuclear power is renewable (that is the implication of a recommendation to increase the dependence on nuclear).

I didn't notice a quote about actually making do with less energy in future and there appears to be no realisation that the only energy security is in using renewable energy at or below the rate of renewal. Is there such a realisation in the report?

Tony

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Council has no affiliation with the US government

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')
I didn't notice a quote about actually making do with less energy in future and there appears to be no realisation that the only energy security is in using renewable energy at or below the rate of renewal. Is there such a realisation in the report?

Tony

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') didn't notice a quote about actually making do with less energy in future and there appears to be no realisation that the only energy security is in using renewable energy at or below the rate of renewal. Is there such a realisation in the report?

Tony

[Kingcoal]

When I read stuff like this I can't help but wonder what life would be like today had Gore won the 2000 election. Both Bush’s' have undone a lot of the environmental and conservation standards which were put in place during the Nixon/Ford/Carter administrations. The entire Bush family is a disgrace and will be remembered by future generations that way. I can see myself with my Grandchildren in 20 years lamenting about these times.

[128shot]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Council has no affiliation with the US government

[HonestPessimist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', 'W')hen I read stuff like this I can't help but wonder what life would be like today had Gore won the 2000 election.

[TonyPrep]

No, the report that came out in February is a consensus document (and, as such, very conservative) from 2,500 climate scientists about the changes already seen and coming in the climate, and the highly likely causes. How people choose to respond is up to them.

Depression is coming whether we like it or not. It sounds as if you are in complete denial about both PO and climate change. Hard decisions need to be taken; it sounds like you don't want to contemplate those decisions.

[dmtu]

Anyone who suckles at the teat of the CFR should have a look at the elitist membership and think about what they really stand for. Need an example? Listen to the evil A$$es cackle as Cheney stands proudly and admits to his LIES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdxLYuvvbgs

These are the people who keep you enslaved through debt, who promote Real ID, and embrace Socialism. As you watch your freedoms erode and rant about the abuses Bush has levied against you, just remember these are the people who tell Bush what to do. They probably tell that drooling idiot which end he needs to wipe.

[funzone36]

Video is removed. And wrong, it's Americans themselves who are willing to go into massive debts, get real ID and not care about freedoms. And no, it's the State Department that tells the executive government what to do, not the CFR. They might have the influence but so do Americans. Americans, for the most part, do not give a care much about these issues while you keep reading conspiracy theories. You might as well say that I work for the government. It's people like you who largely doesn't care about the accuracy of conspiracy theories. Keep entertaining yourself.
Lastly, since when did Americans had full freedoms? Since when did Americans did not need to give up privacy during various applications?

[Fiddlerdave]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HonestPessimist', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', 'W')hen I read stuff like this I can't help but wonder what life would be like today had Gore won the 2000 election.