[Gil-Galad]

As someone who lives in the UK but has been to the US on many occasions I would say the major US problems are

Obesity - linked to diabetes, disability caused by wear & tear on joints from obesity.

Lack of health care - too expensive for many people

Reliance on drugs, to control obesity, statins to keep people alive, etc.

Religion - keep them uneducated and keep them happy

[Revi]

Why mention oil addiction if there's nothing they intend to do about it? It seems like we are a nation that does not plan ahead any more. We planned the superhighway system, anticipating growth in traffic.
We planned for growth. Why not plan for the reverse? Why not plan for a country without as much energy? Maybe not planning is a kind of planning.

[handforged]

thats the only defense you'll hear me give to politicians i understand why they might not be telling us what is going on, but it doesn't excuse not doing something this big because its hard to say and it'll be unpopular.

oh, saying "oil addiction" is just a way to rephrase what has been public since the 70's. every time we hear or repeat "reducing our dependance on foreign oil" we have been saying we are addicted just not in so many words.

stop listening to what the people in power say and watch what they do instead. a pattern emerges rather quickly...

[bart]

The oil addiction line is one of the best things Bush has done -- even if it doesn't make much sense, at least it is in the realm of the reasonable. It shows he's been listening to Bartlett, Raintree and Simmons.

I don't think there is any deep plot to his proposals. President Bush is confused and at a loss about what to do.

No wonder. Wise energy policy is something that has defeated all presidents since Carter.

[csimba]

Loved Phebagirls post. I also live 8 miles from a local grocery store but shop in a bigger town 35 miles away. My folks and friends live there and I can get stuff there cheaper than the local offerings - enough to pay for the extra fuel cost. So the calculus isn't really about saving fuel- it's still pure economics. I spend at least an hour planning out my weekly trip to town. Most efficient way to go from point A to B to C to get everything I need including the social contact that keeps me sane.
I'm an energy conscious guy - I'll cook on the woodstove rather than use the propane, spend my life turning OFF lightbulbs, I sit by the fire rather than crank the central heater to 70 degress and etc. But it's a cost thing, not an altruistic energy saving thing. I'll spend two hours cuttin and splitting wood and feeding the fires to save 5 bucks worth of propane.
My wife is more normal. Why am I always turning off lights? Thermostat wars! But it's funny how she doesn't feel as bad about her old toyota tercel in her staff parking lot of suvs and shiny new gunboats when gas hit 2.50 a gallon. Gas for the car is part of her fixed "allowance".

So my question is will fuel usage always be a money thing or can some sort of mindset be created in the general population that makes it sorta immoral to use oil mindlessly? Some pretty brutal measures have been implemented that has caused attitudes to change about smoking, drunk driving, and sexual harrasment to name a few. What can make oil consumption as unattractive?

[Graeme]

Solving The U.S. Oil Dependency

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ere is an interesting email conversation I intitiated with 'Ask an Expert' at the EIA. I wanted to get an independent confirmation of some calculations I did regarding replacing imported oil utilizing Nuclear Energy to generate electricity to power electric hybrid vehicles.

The question posed was: "If we were to replace the energy equivalent of 10 million barrels per day of imported oil, how many kilowatts of electrical generation capacity would be required? This is really hypothetical, but an interesting question. For example, a statement could be made that if we added N number of 1Gwatt power stations running some fuel (coal, nuclear) we would need X of these plants to offset our imports of oil (assuming we had a way to power cars, etc, using just electricity)."

In Summary:
A couple hundred 1G power plants coupled with an electric hybrid fleet would solve the US oil dependence issue.

[dub_scratch]

If we were to toss into the equation what the energy & money costs are in order to maintain and rebuild the aging gigantic highway system, I wonder that the total bill will be for us to maintain our National Traffic Jam or miserable commuters. I also wonder how such as stupid public (mis)investment would compare to an urban & transport project where we see to it the end of the auto age. In the long run that system would be the clear winner. It would not leave us with the same problem we are faced with right now with peak oil once we peak in coal or uranium.

EVs are fucken retarted!

[oilfreeandhappy]

This discussion is good for illustration of the required energy. In reality, the move away from oil will be a more gradual move. As the price of fossil fuels go up, other alternatives will start emerging. We're already seeing that with wind energy, solar and ethanol.

I agree that EVs are inefficient, but what is the long-term future alternative? Most of the high speed rail is a form of EV, except it's Mass Transit.

[ClassicSpiderman]

Jerome Corsi has a PhD in political science (aka the art of BS), which probably explains why he has been able to 'win' his debates against proponents of the peak oil theory. Still, it's funny to see this shill for the Republican party whine about Bush after all the effort he put into swiftboating Kerry.

I'm quite sure that most of you here could pick apart this article. I'm not going to bother--I'll just provide a link to it and a couple of my favorite highlights.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')link
The real problem is that Bush has bought into the “peak oil” hoax. Believing that oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, the President believes we inevitably have to run out. After all, there only were so many dinosaurs, so there has to be only so much fossil fuel. When the dinosaur fuel is gone, we’re out. Why? Because there aren’t any more dinosaurs to make more fuel. That’s the inherent logic of the fossil fuel theory.
... No Democratic President has given us so much rhetoric about “oil
addiction” as has Bush. America’s economic strength depended upon a ready supply of affordable energy. Oil is still abundant and there is no reason it should be this costly. Oil companies are actually partnering with radical environmentalists these days. Why? Because both share an agenda to restrict the supply of gasoline, the oil companies because they want to exploit their huge reserves at the highest possible price, the environmentalists because they have an anti-capitalist agenda and they hate our use of hydrocarbon fuels in general as much as they hate the wealth that results from the use of that fuel.

[TorrKing]

It doesn't take a very smart person to get a degree, anyone can do it with a little inclination. This guy's statements are double up Bush-stupid in a sense!

Torjus Gaaren

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The real problem is that Bush has bought into the “peak oil” hoax.

[killJOY]

Corsi is an oil Creationist, i.e. abiotic oil.

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'C')orsi is an oil Creationist, i.e. abiotic oil.

[Wildwell]

'Economist Julian Simon documented more than a decade ago that “peak
production” hoaxes of energy theories. In the 1800s, at the height of
the industrial revolution, the British were worried that the nation
was going to run out of coal. Today, coal is no longer the industrial
fuel of preferences, yet we still have abundant coal throughout the
world, more than we will ever need or use. One hundred years from
now, when we may well have nuclear batteries that run our cars, we
will still have abundant oil worldwide. Probably, 100 years from now
we won’t know what to do with all the oil, just like today we don’t
know what to do with all the coal. '

I predict 200 years from now we'll run cars on fairy dust, and 300 years from now scientists will allow us to grow huge wings and fly. Well let's hope he's right. Meanwhile in the real world there is very little slack in demand compared to supply, which is why the price is high. It's not a question of 'putting the price up', it's the only way to control demand, or heaven forbid the C word to reduce demand side or (gasp) rationing. That's why the prices are so high! Honestly.

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')conomist Julian Simon

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il companies are actually
partnering with radical environmentalists these days. Why? Because
both share an agenda to restrict the supply of gasoline, the oil
companies because they want to exploit their huge reserves at the
highest possible price, the environmentalists because they have an
anti-capitalist agenda and they hate our use of hydrocarbon fuels in
general as much as they hate the wealth that results from the use of
that fuel.

[Clouseau2]

"Oil companies are actually
partnering with radical environmentalists these days. Why? Because
both share an agenda to restrict the supply of gasoline"

I guess if you don't believe in peak oil, you have to believe things like this, otherwise you brain explodes from the data that doesn't match your reality.

[Free]

Bwahahaha, I guess Corsi didn't get the memo that the wind has changed and he sooner or later will have to turn around his swift boat...

Because it's now actually opportune to talk about PO to take pressure from the oil cronies and keep the mob with the pitch forks at bay...

[advancedatheist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')conomist Julian Simon

[Rincewind]

Widlwell quoted this
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ''')Economist Julian Simon documented more than a decade ago that “peak
production” hoaxes of energy theories. In the 1800s, at the height of
the industrial revolution, the British were worried that the nation
was going to run out of coal. Today, coal is no longer the industrial
fuel of preferences, yet we still have abundant coal throughout the
world, more than we will ever need or use. One hundred years from
now, when we may well have nuclear batteries that run our cars, we
will still have abundant oil worldwide. Probably, 100 years from now
we won’t know what to do with all the oil, just like today we don’t
know what to do with all the coal. '