How do you like having to beg Saudi Arabia to save our economy?

Question

" Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices"

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/?iref=hpmostpop

Instead of fighting about global warming, why can't we come together on dramatically reducing fossil fuel use? A coalition of conservatives and environmentalists with a consensus plan to do that would be VERY powerful.

To cite just two easy examples, conservatives could get nuclear power approved by the coalition (many environmentalists are already on board), while the environmentalists would get a phaseout of new fossil fuel burning power plants (unless they have CO2 capture) and a mandated shift away from fossil fuel use in transportation. Everybody wins, in oil importing countries such as the US.

Answer 1

Can't we just take over Russia or Venezuela next?  They have plenty of oil they don't really need....lol...j/k.  It is the main reason we have to work on other sources for power.  The second reason is the other pollutants that petroleum and coal emit. Switching cars to electric is not the answer yet because of how much more coal we will have to burn, unless you live in a nice hydro-electric area. Coal is cheap but devastating to the environment both in how it is mined and its emissions. I know coal will not go away for a very long time because we need the heat generated from it for making steel. Bio fuels are ok by me but I hear it still scares the AGW crowd.  How ever we need to use something other than a food source.  Switch grass and algae are ok because they are hardy, you can grow them almost anywhere in the continental US, and they do not compete with our bellies.  Sugar cane is good for the Hawaiian Islands. I am surprised the pineapple companies didn't get on board with that as they decrease pineapple production. Nuclear is fine by me, we even have a big hole in the Rockies to bury the waste without it affecting very much around it (Yucca Mountain repository, unfortunately this has been delayed and it's new proposed opening is 2020). There are even safer methods of using nuclear power these days. Solar and Wind are good sources.  there are many uninhabitable, hot, sunny areas in the west that can be used to make solar electricity.  I think in the end we need all of these because there is no one answer. We could wean ourselves off foreign power sources if we worked hard enough, it is imperative not only from an environmental prospective, but also from a national security stand point.  we shouldn’t rely on any other country for the fuels that keep us going.

Answer 2

yet another eco-sponsored myth to be dispelled... you cannot conserve your way into progress or the future.

You must provide more of what you need or develop a better alternative source.

The main problem is democrats... and some republicans refuse to allow us to drill for oil and build more refineries, until these are solved we will continue to depend on opec.

-edit-

The oil isn't there because we can't drill it. We haven't built a new refinery since the 50s because of all the gov regulations.

Every time someone talks about drilling some, some people start whining an moaning about the env. So your plan is to not drill at all? yeah thats a real "solution".

In the seventies when Nixon provided us with that EPA, about the 1st thing they did was mandate fuel formula changes and that sliced production to a fraction of what it was. Now we have 3 octanes, and formulas that change every season and are different for different regions of the country.

This is insane, drill more, refine more... corn will do nothing except make food more expensive and the only  ones who get soaked is us.

Answer 3

I do not like having to beg the Saudis, a more odious set of people I cannot imagine.  However, it is interesting to get a little historical perspective on the relationship of the Bush family with the House of Saud.  It goes back years and years and is fairly corrupt from the beginning.  Kevin Phillips does a good job of presenting the connections in his book "American Dynasty."  A disturbing but interesting read.  

http://www.amazon.com/American-Dynasty-A...

Answer 4

How about the dems letting us drill in Alaska and while we are doing that build some nuclear plants. And since the dems are in charge of both houses of congress how about having them pass bills that will encourage alternative fuel research, new technologies that will make people want to try to develope as of yet undeveloped, fuel efficient transportation.

But NO. Let's just blame Bush and try to hold things up and hope that things get bad enough to turn the nation against him.

THAT's Just Sick!

Answer 5

Pathetic isn't it?  

Some of us remember we were promised energy independence in 10 years.  In 1973.  Oil would be $20 a barrel and we wouldn't need it for burning.  

The trouble with nuclear is the mining and the waste.  We could reprocess, but the global industrial complex it would create would be a security and environmental nightmare.

The trouble with drilling in ANWR is eventually every bit of the globe with oil will be fouled.  Should we stop drilling before or after that happens?  Sarcasm - After everything below 40 N is an unihabitable desert, lets move to northern Alberta - Oops, they strip mined the entire northern half of the province for the oil sand.

What is so bad about solar, renewables, efficiency and limits on consumption?  Anybody who has done any research and is not a dogmatic fool knows that we can have a eminently satisfying life on 1/10 of current North American consumption, and more solar energy is available than we can use.  Look at this months Scientific American for a plan for NA to be 66% solar by 2050.  With current technology.

Same arguments as 1973.  What's the problem?

Pathetic.

Answer 6

Just like Bill Clinton used to do.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

Answer 7

Face it, both U.S. energy policy and public opinion are simply extensions of ExxonMobil's corporate strategy.

The faster we consume oil, the sooner it will reach $1000/barrel.  ExxonMobil can make even more, by doing less (producing less oil).

Answer 8

I hate it. That is why I support all kinds of alternative fuel projects and ways to get more energy while using less fuel. And I support use of shale oil and coal for that reason, despite the impact that would have on global warming.

Answer 9

I've been hating buying oil from the Saudis for a quarter century now, and all of my suggestions to switch to nuclear have been ignored by environmentalists to whom "conservation" was the buzzword of the day.  Meaning....."lets push the problem aside till later".

So now its later and you already know where we are.  The inevitable switch to nuclear is still being stalled by litigation over where to store the waste and by alternate schemes of dubious reliability and availability, the clunkiest of which are solar and biofuels.

Answer 10

You are correct regarding the economic implications. Using fossil fuesls is basically relying on an obsolete technology that dates from the 1800s.

But you are talking about bipartisanship between genuine conservatives and environmentalists and Democrats.  The people causing the problem are NOT the mainstream conservatives--they are the right wing and the fossil fuel industry.  They have no intention of cooperating with anyone  on anything. And certainly not on anything that will reduce oil and coal company profits--including nuclear powr.

I'm quite serious. Stop and think: given the dominance of (neo)conservativesover the last dozen years and the marginalized status of environmentalism, do you really think we wouldn't have new nuclear power plant consruction if the neoconservatives really wanted it? They don't--because the coal companies have been lobbying and giving campaigncontributions to prevent new nuclearpowerplant  construction.

We've seen the same thing last year with the push to increase automobile fuel efficiency--the opposition came mainly from the oil companies spending millions lobbying Congress to kill the bill. They did succeed in getting it watered down, though not in killing it completely.

One of the thinngs  that needs to be emphasized (to counter the misinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry and the right wing--again, I'm NOT talking about real conservatives) is the very real economic benefits of alternative enrgy--which is competative with fossil fuels in cost.  Modernizing our outdated energy production technology will create new jobs and spur economic growth.  That--and energy efficient products--will lower consumer costs for energy (also helping economic growth by freeing up money to be spent on other things, increasing consumer spending).  All that's in addition to getting us free from dependance on foreign oil.

When you add it all up--scrapping fossil fuels is simply good economics, even if the environment were not an issue.

Answer 11

Shameful.  We should be drilling ANWR and building Nuclear Power plants.  

We're at least 10 years behind where we should be.

[Edit] You hit the problem on the head Bob.  One group doesn't want to drill for oil, another group fights against nuclear power.  Other groups want to keep 'pure' and only discuss wind and solar.  and other groups demand conservation.  In the end nothing gets done.  The only actions that don't require a political consensus is begging.

To depend on the gvmt to limit energy is just like using the gvmt to enact prohibition to eliminate alcohol consumption.

Answer 12

I just find it hard to believe that environmentalists would support nuclear energy.  Patrick Moore is a co founder of Greenpeace and according to him, they are against such a move.  As a skeptic I have no such problem.  You just have to convince the supporters of the AGW theory.

Answer 13

I don't know if I agree with the specific tactics, but the overall strategy is acceptable.  We have long been in the position of being slaves to foreign oil.  I recall when I was a kid President Carter talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and how it was hampering us.  It hasn't gotten better, has it?

I can't see how drilling for MORE of a finite resource (oil) is going to change anything.  Yes, gas prices might go down, and we might be buying more domestic oil...but when that runs out, and it will, then what?  Conservation is a good first step, but it just puts off the inevitable.  Replacing the fuel source would be the best idea.  I don't really like nuclear, because it's proven to be dangerous and then the expended materials are a problem as well.  

There has been a tremendous increase in the effciency of solar power collection over the last few years.  I'd like to see more research on that.  If we put some research money into it at a federal level, we might be able to really produce clean, renewable power.  I think us begging the Saudis to produce more, or cut prices is simply the act of a desparate administration.  I don't know that is makes us look any worse than going to China and Japan to fund our war effort, though.

Answer 14

It's not the first time we've begged them.

Answer 15

It is the Republican thing to do.

Answer 16

Beg and save are maybe a little emotive.  He was most welcome as the US is Saudi's biggest customer.  Everywhere he went, entire cities were shut down for his convenience and security.  

I know Saudi doesn't have a good image in the states, but they are steadily libralising their society.

Answer 17

I doubt a small fall in oil prices will save our economy, but then again, we aren't to the point where we need saving.

If we would invest in the rapid proliferation of solar power grids, wind farms, and geothermal energy stations, we could lower the cost of energy overall. From there, gas prices would fall due to a lack of need for natural gas as well as lower demand for gas( 10% of US oil importation is used to transport the other 90%).

Answer 18

Bush wants Saudi Arabia to flood the economy with cheap oil just before the November elections, -- as if such a thing could sway “gullible” America voters.

Answer 19

ANWR has approximately 1 year's worth of oil based on the current US consumption rate.  Destroying a valuable wildlife refuge to get 1 year's worth of oil is not the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refu...

Saudi Arabia was the country of origin of most of the 9/11 attackers, it's a monarchy in a region where we're supposed to be pushing for democracy, and we're increasing our dependency on their oil?  That makes no sense whatsoever.

We should be working to decrease our dependency on fossil fuels for many reasons.  Increasing our dependency on Saudi Arabian oil just to get fuel prices a few cents lower in the short-term is counter-productive.