[NEOPO]

Heinberg silly? Never!!

Ok wheres this darn CNN file anyways??

[Leanan]

There's a torrent here:

http://68.50.233.253/cnn-oil.rm.torrent

[NEOPO]

That link dl's a 10k file named cnn-oil.rm.torrent.

Do I need to DL the app. at maybe this website....?
[web]http://www.bittorrent.com/[/web]

[Daculling]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Now they want to tell us we are wrong we waste too much oil and gas. Well tuff sh$%^&*t. thats life. Our next generation want to survive. Let them create that world. Our world was created for our generation they can do the same.

[Leanan]

Well, "We Were Warned" aired unexpectedly last night. Turns out the bit that previewed on CNN a few days ago was not in the documentary. So I've uploaded it here:

http://www.savefile.com/files/4331820

SaveFile.com is a free file hosting service. They make you look at ads while you download, but it's not too obnoxious. (With Firefox, you won't even see them.) They do not try to install adware or spyware on your computer, as some free file hosting sites do - I checked first.

[Alnitaka]

Is Roscoe Bartlett truly a Peak Oil aware congressman? He wrote a substantial paper last year on how cheap oil is going to run out, but look at his voting record:

Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

He has gone along with the Bush administration, which never talks about peak oil and has taken steps counter to it, like blaming the oil companies. He voted no on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and on raising CAFE standards. To me this means that he is not that much concerned about peak oil.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alnitaka', 'H')e voted no on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and on raising CAFE standards. To me this means that he is not that much concerned about peak oil.

[bart]

Alnitaka, could you identify yourself?

Your post sounds very much like the talking points I've seen posted elsewhere, that come from Bartlett's Democratic opponent in Maryland.

1. If you are indeed from a political campaign, it is less than honest to make anonymous postings. (Yes, I know the Republicans do it. Doesn't make it right.)
2. Talking points are no substitute for thoughtful argument.

I'm a green/Democrat, but Bartlett is far ahead of almost anyone else in Congress on energy issues. I looked into Bartlett's Democratic opponent, and his positions on energy were not very good.

Bartlett is a Republican, and votes with his party on many issues. Fine. So what are the Democrats doing? Practically nothing.

If you want to fight Bartlett on fair grounds, do it by developing a better position on energy issues.

[Alnitaka]

I am not part of any political campaign. I also don't live in Maryland. I am the same as jimvb on the Storm2K forum. I am just wondering why it's the Republicans that come up with a legislator that knows what may be coming up with Peak Oil, with all the Democrats' talk about preserving the environment.

You immediately identified what I said as being a Democratic talking paper. Actually, it is Bartlett's record in Congress, but apparently this Democrat keeps parroting this over and over again. This tells me that at least one of Bartlett's two Democratic opponents is a robot candidate. This opponent keeps spewing off the same stuff to everyone, and does not seem to encourage dialogue on the issue. I have felt that way about candidates of both parties - Kerry was a robot candidate, and so was Bush.

Bartlett seems to be two people - one parroting the same Republican rhetoric over and over again, and the other warning us about Peak Oil and organizing conferences on the issue. I don't think he'll be elected President, because the economy has to be good to elect the incumbent party, but if it is, it takes away Bartlett's main point.

Bartlett's other Democratic challenger goes into a lot more detail about Peak Oil -apparently he attended Bartlett's conference - but still concludes that such things as rejecting the Kyoto accords makes Bartlett a flawed candidate.

Given what you said, if I were in Maryland's Sixth, I would probably vote for Roscoe Bartlett.

[Shadizar]

Rep. Bartlett is one of the only members of Congress that is Peak Oil aware. If you haven't listened to his various speeches, then I suggest you do (everyone should).

He has at times given his reasons for voting against certain policies (like the energy ones were not enough).

From what I can gather he is working against the tide. His Republican contemporaries for the most part have no idea (or are burying their heads in the sand).

From a recent media interview I gathered that he was practicing what he preached (i.e. hybrid car, solar cells, etc..). If anything his public announcements have been highly critical of the reigning Republican Party.

He may not be perfect (I totally disagree with him on same sex marriage for instance), but he's in the forefront of energy issues (both in addresses to congress and activism on PO).

He's said time and again that PO means our whole political infrastructure has to be remodoled to adapt to PO. Those aren't the words of a naysayer of PO. That man is courageous in my opinion. It takes bravery to say what he is saying.

He's trying to get the word out (at a time when others are not). If I could vote for him, I would. Again, if you haven't, listen to him and what he has to say about Peak Oil. He is knowledgable about it, and not afraid to get that information out. I can't say that about my own representive (in Florida).

-Shadizar

[thorn]

Full text:
http://www.xecu.net/thorn/PO/PO-May02-2006-17th.html


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Madam Speaker, I have here in my hands two pretty big reports that were paid for by our government and have for reasons that it is difficult for me to understand been pretty much ignored apparently by the organizations that paid for them.

The first of these is a big report paid for by the Department of Energy called The Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management. This is generally known as the Hirsch Report, because the project leader was Dr. Robert Hirsch from SAIC, a very prestigious scientific and engineering organization. This report is dated February, 2005.

For reasons that we are trying to find, this was bottled up, apparently, inside the Department of Energy, because it didn't become publicly available until several months after that.

The second report I have here is the report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This obviously is paid for by the Army. It is dated September of 2005, and it was just about 2 months ago that it finally got out of the Pentagon into the public. This one is called Energy Trends and Their Implications For U.S. Army Installations. I would submit that wherever they mention ``Army,'' you could substitute ``the United States'' and it would be completely appropriate.

What I would like to do for the first few minutes is to look at some of the comments and recommendations in these two reports; and I would like to keep asking the question, why have these two government agencies which paid for these reports done essentially nothing to promulgate this information across the country? Rather, it would seem that there was an intent to keep this information from the public, because the Hirsch Report was bottled up inside the Department of Energy for several months, and the Army Corps of Engineers report is dated September of 2005, and it says on the cover here, ``Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.'' But there was essentially no distribution of that until just about 2 months ago.

As you will see, Madam Speaker, if the content of these two reports is correct, if their observations and recommendations are correct, you would have expected these two government agencies to be using every vehicle at their disposal to get this information out to the public.

[SoothSayer]

Excellent article.

I hope the US govt listens .. they can't say they haven't been told.

[dinopello]

Good 'ole Roscoe. He deserves a medal.

You would think all the other idiots in congress who are 'walking' to gas stations to wring their hands over the high prices might start to take notice of Roscoe's multiple speeches on this. What's the chance?

[emailking]

Well, I doubt a lot of them were there however late this took place.

[thorn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'G')ood 'ole Roscoe. He deserves a medal.

You would think all the other idiots in congress who are 'walking' to gas stations to wring their hands over the high prices might start to take notice of Roscoe's multiple speeches on this. What's the chance?

[emailking]

"If we are talking about transportation, Madam Speaker, that is indeed true. Because the average automobile and small truck is in the fleet about 17-18 years and the average 18-wheeler about 28 years. So any improvements that we ever make, we are making in energy efficiency in automobiles and trucks, is going to take quite some time to show any meaningful effect because of how long they are in the fleet."

This line is being cited to me as evidence that Bartlett is full of crap. Upon doing a google search, it does seem like the lifetime is less than 10 years on average. Anyone have an explanation here? Am I missing something?

[emailking]

Ok then, I guess that means Bartlett really effed this one up!

[Shadizar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'O')k then, I guess that means Bartlett really effed this one up!

[emailking]

My particular interest in this was to try and convince this person that the speech is worth reading. I was told this:

'When someone is clearly incorrect about a simple issue like the avg life of an auto, it makes the remainder of the argument harder to be convincing."

I can't really argue against this point as the number does seem to be way off. (I mean, how many 17 year old cars do you see still being driven? It's a very small fraction of the total.) I'm not trying to slam Bartlett. It's just frustrating when you're trying to convince someone of this stuff and they can legitimately bring up something like that. I just hope this line was written by his staff.

[Shadizar]

Well, when confronted by that issue, perhaps you could ask them how many SUV's they see on the street (i.e gas hogs)?

Beyond that, you could perhaps ask them how often they change out their own vehicles? Then, you could point out how well off they are financially. Then, they could consider how much better off the lower class is (and point out that more people today are falling into the "poor" category than ever before-Its too late for me to find that info, but its not hard to find).

In my town (Tallahassee, FL) I see quite a few vehicles that are 15+ years old. I do see a great deal of newer cars as well. What is the demographic there? I see a lot of poorer people driving older cars....

That argument is not as difficult as others, depending perhaps on the perceptive abilities of the person. Then remind them that the U.S. saving rate is in the negative range. That means people are saving less than they spend. If you've got yourself a hard headed person, nothing will help.

I'm surrounded by them They refuse to look at the world around them, and prefer to watch American Idol (or other similar programs).

Personally, I think some people have become so immersed in the popular culture, that they cannot face reality (U.S.). Some will at least consider it. Most of my friends and family will not even look.

Granted I (and we) could be wrong, but at least I'll look at it...

-Shadizar