[seahorse2]

Read this report and weep. It is scarier than the GAO report. Someone asked if the gov't was PO aware, read this and answer it for yourself. Read how the report says America could become a third world country, everything the pessimists have been saying. Read how they say energy is hopelessly entwined with policy in the ME, Russia, China, the "war on terror" (this is published pre 9-11) etc. Sounds like it was written by Michael Klare.

Worth the read.

Baker Energy Task Force Report

[seahorse2]

Notice the following recommendations in the report:

(1) the world needs maximum oil production on-line, meaning changing diplomatics tracks with countries like Iraq and Iran. He recommends working with UN in Iraq to develop Hussein's oil;

(2) getting access to Caspian oil - recommends changing approach with Iran to transfer Caspian oil through Iran, use Iran as counter-weight to Hussein

US has not followed any of these recommendations.

[Valdemar]

Not strictly true. We did invade Iraq, so one out of two ain't bad.

Course, we're not exactly pumping much out of the ground.

We're on our way to buggering any Iranian oil help too. I smell another invasion (as impossible as it is to mount).

[seahorse2]

The Baker report linked above says the US should work with the UN to use diplomacy with Hussein to open his oil and gas up to development. That recommendation was not heeded. Nor does it look like the recommendation to use diplomacy by Baker then, or more recently in 2006 will be heeded.

Baker recommended diplomacy, Klare reluctantly predicted "resource wars." So, Klare's 1-0 right now.


We should put Baker on the PO experts list.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'N')otice the following recommendations in the report:

(1) the world needs maximum oil production on-line......US has not followed any of these recommendations.

[chuck6877]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I only skimmed the report:

--The report does not use the term peak oil.

--The report does not give the possibility that global oil production could decrease.

Chuck

[seahorse]

Chuck,

You are correct, it doesn't use the term PO. However, it does use at several points maximum production capacity blah blah blah along with other "downstream" problems like refinery/pipeline/lack of expertise issues that all reek of PO - and it was written in 2001 long before PO was in MSM here in US (prior to Simmons for example). So, although is doesn't specifically say PO, all the PO symptoms are discussed in detail and it recommends a plan to deal with it, so I don't see how we can separate it from the PO issue.

[chuck6877]

Seahorse,

I agree it is very important, especially to see that some of our govt. was aware of future oil and natural gas problems. Also like you said it is great since it gives such good recommendations.

This report for the Council on Foreign Relations is very similar to the latest report by the CFR on oil supply problems. The latest one that came out puts a LOT more urgency on the issues though.

Just like the one from 2001, the 2006 CFR report was hesitant to use the term "peak oil".

Chuck

[seahorse2]

Now, this report typifies why I have no hope that "we" will solve the energy problems by powering down or diplomatically. As evidenced by this report, we've been ignoring this issue, despite dire warnings of the implications, since this report in 2001, we ignored the Hirsch report done for the US DOE, we ignore the GAO report, all at our own peril. We ignore it just as we ignore the other issues which plague us like US deficits, Social Security, Medicaid etc currently being discussed by the US Comptroller General who is at this very moment warning to deaf Americans of a fiscal crisis on the horizon.

USA Today

These problems will all be solved via pain, resource wars, etc. Time will ultimately prove the most dire predictions of Klare and company right.

But, why should we be surprised? The above report warns that change will be hard because Americans are loath to change.

[JasonHam]

seahorse2, I agree with you. I'm not a doomer. In fact, I beleive technology and new sciences will solve alot of the problems that exist today wrt climate change(although, that might be out of humanbeings scope), the energy crisis, overpopulation, overconsumption,bird flu pandemeic, etc etc.....

However, it won't happen until something occurs that jolts this country or forces people to tackle the problem. The transition is going to be rough...very rough....And something BIG has to happen for people to take it seriously. What could that something be?????????

The problem is, America is overwhelmed with information. 24 hour news with stories of the world coming to an end every half hour. Bird flu, Peak-Oil, Global Warming, earth killing Asteriods, Mega Tsnuamis, Super Volcanoes, Mega earthquakes, World War 4 , Terrosism, cancer, fatty acids, cholestorhol, child molesters, corruption, economic depressions, rigged elections, lack of healthcare insurance and rising costs, Sun Flares, Dirty Bombs, have i missed anything? Meanwhile, most people are just trying to get their kids to school on time, get to work, beat the traffic so they can get dinner before 8:00 at night and maybe to bed before 11:00pm. They are just trying to make it through the day.(most families, there are some more fortunate). But MOST, dont have time worry about all the stuff coming at them, after awhile(just like voilence on tv and in video games) you just get used to it. You blow it off.....

[vision-master]

"All we are saying, is give peace a chance"

[pup55]

I ran a search for the word "conservation" in this report: It shows up 8 times, mostly in reference to how the federal government can provide a leadership role in developing new technology by using their purchasing power, etc.

The word "sacrifice" was in there 4 times, once was to thank the family of one of the writers for patience during the work, the other three talk about how Americans won't do it.

The word "rationing" does not appear at all.

There are 27 instances of the word "shortage". 49 instances of the word "regulation"

Zero instances of the following words: "walking", "bicycling" "gasoline tax", "fuel tax", "mass transit"

There is some talk of use of taxation to reduce demand on page 110, but most of the references to tax policy are to the effect that people will not like it therefore we should not do it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, we come to the report’s central dilemma: the American people
continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice
or inconvenience

[dinopello]

Noted neocon Richard Perle weighs in on a question about this report on the Washington Post discussion

The case for war - with Richard Perle

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')rlington, Va.: In 2001, The James A. Baker III Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations released a report on "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" It says: "The resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government." Do you believe that access to energy is a justification for a more assertive (military) foreign policy in the world ?

Richard Perle: I think we should get serious about--and pay the price for--a significant reduction in our dependence on imported oil. This would include action on the multiple fronts of exploitation of indiginious sources of oil, nuclear energy, alternative fuels, conservation and the like.

[Newsseeker]

Yeah the report is okay but I don't expect too much from Baker and ilk. Much fanfare and little talk about the impending oil crisis. It is interesting that they wanted to get Iraq's oil.