Morphed Climate/Energy Bill is DOA in the Senate

“It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us. It’s American consumers who are tired not just of prices at the pump that soar each summer, but sick and tired of our oil dependency that makes Iran $100 million richer every day that Washington fails to respond.”
Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?
Just wondering…..

AFAIK, Iran is selling most of its oil to China.

“Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?”

The deals America has with Saudi Arabia forbids America from exploiting their own massive proven reserves.
The “civilised” Western nations have to control access to and use up all the oil in the middle East to prevent large reserves falling into the hands of “unstable” regimes.
Also, if you added all that oil to the market place at once, they could not charge the prices the do for it. The price would drop so low it would become massively uneconomical and the oil billionaires would become oil millionaires.
Besides, according to the MAX PLANCK SOCIETY we have to stop ALL use of carbon based fuel entirely.
Perhaps those who support such a measure could now be considered to be “thick as a Planck”?

@Martin Brumby
“Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?”
To me it appears that the US of A have taken a deliberate choice to use up oil reserves elsewhere in the hope that one day they will hold the remaining major deposits and therefore the global-political whip-hand. What a good job that oil reserves in certain parts of the world seem to be holding out longer or even regenerating.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crispin8.html
however – conversely..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
But…the jury remains out
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4J8D95X-1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F15%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1420851124&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=50ceb2d6e74f3a383cf1f1bfc41236f1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nt2m870w7568528k/
Can anyone find any ‘evidence based’ literature to prove/refute well regeneration ‘a la Crispin’ ?

@Rob Schneider, didn’t you know that nowadays the bills are passed first, and written afterwards?

Err……………presumably the rest of the world to whom America exports this that and the other might reasonably ask about how their dependence on American products makes America richer????
Don’t mean to be rude, but America’s as hard as nails when it comes to making money from foreigners. So why they complain when others do in oil what they do in all kinds of things just beats me……….
The unique nature of the immigrants who populated America in the past 300 years, perhaps????
Thoughts:
1. Put in some bullet trains between US cities to start cutting down on short-haul domestic flights.
2. Stop buying gas guzzlers and make do with a Yaris, a Mini, an Escort or the like.
3. Make some nicer friends who’ll sell you some oil.
4. Stop going to war for oil: you don’t make friends that way.
5. If you do go to war for oil, stop talking about doing it for democracy. It makes you out to be liars.
6. Remember you’re only one nation on this earth. And there’s nothing special or different about you. You just occupy a big chunk of land between the Atlantic and Pacific.
7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????
8. Build your houses better: then you’ll need less energy to heat them.
9. Embrace community public transport to reduce journeys of less than 3 miles. Ditto with bicycles. It’s called community pride, not socialism……
10. Stop blowing billions a year on drugs. Then you could afford more petrol.
11. Get as many as possible of you to generate micro-biomass generators to minimise your need for external energy.
That’ll do for starters.
Better than bombing the shit out of countries, isn’t it??
More respectful of human life, isn’t it????

Martin Brumby says:
August 4, 2010 at 12:36 am

“It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us. It’s American consumers who are tired not just of prices at the pump that soar each summer, but sick and tired of our oil dependency that makes Iran $100 million richer every day that Washington fails to respond.”
Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?
Just wondering…..

No. in fact just the opposite.
Imagine there were several shops, all selling stones dug up from a patch of land behind each shop, and the number of stones remaining fell each year, and the price increased each year. Now imagine you owned one shop (and land). Would you benefit more by digging up and selling all your stones now, or by waiting until the others had sold most of theirs?
Seems pretty simple to me.

This part should be separate from the blockquote:
The bigger problem is that the Americans that have no idea there are oil shales in Wyoming and Colorado while a majority of the total are only a subset of the Americans who don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics….
When someone finds a way to get 20 million barrels a day with an EROEI of at least 10 out of those oil shales, while being able to scale it up to at least 3 or 4 million within 5 to 10 years from now, then you can claim that there are X number of years of proven reserves and there is no problem.
Unfortunately the chances of this happening are as slim as the chances of the majority of Americans ever understanding the Second law…

“we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us”
No, they don’t hate the US otherwise they wouldn’t drive American cars (more popular in some Muslim countries than in Europe), drink Cokie, wear Levis or go to the movies or send their kids to international American schools.
The so called hate is stirred up by religion, racism, leftists and the military industrial complex which is invested in by many governments and individuals worldwide including terrorists and their financiers.

GM says:
August 4, 2010 at 3:46 am “………”
GM, uhmm entropy isn’t really a hard concept. For a listing of our reserves go to the USGS. I’m not sure about the 400 years, but here is something that has been shown over the length of time we’ve used oil. We continue to find more reserves every year. We increase our abilities to extract the oil constantly. We constantly learn more efficient techniques in our oil use. This nation, this globe isn’t running out of oil anytime soon and if we’re prudent with the use of oil, we’ll have plenty of it several generations to come. I’ve plenty more to say, but I’m late for work. It amazes me how people will totally ignore past experience in regards to our history with oil to try to make a point that we don’t have any. GM you don’t know how much oil we have left, no one does. We know we’ve plenty for a while and we know we’ll find more.

mikelorrey says:
August 4, 2010 at 4:02 am
If they want energy independence, why are they punishing coal the most?
—–
Punishing coal? Fossil fuels receive about 10 x amount of subsidies
compared to renewables worldwide. And those are the easilly traceable
subsidies. In addition, diffuse production supports.
For oil industries in USA, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?emc=eta1

Do not trust a politician.
They say what you want to hear to be elected then use “Good for the Country” when elected.

Not surprisingly, this article edited out the two primary reasons the bill died; Harry Reid wrote this bill himself (it was NOT the Kerry-Liebermann bill, which Reid never allowed to come to the floor) and he inserted two provisions guaranteed to make it fail in the Senate. And he *knew* this, and this was why they were inserted – Reid calculated that it would be better to have something he could make a negative campaign issue with in the fall rather than allow his opponents to join him in doing anything.
These are the two provisions – the first was increasing the liability cap for offshore drillers: it’s not that the idea was so bad, but it needed to be tied to the net worth of a company to be workable, rather than unlimited. The way Reid’s version was written it would have made liability insurance economically impossible to get for all but the 5 or so largest oil companies in the world (Exxon, Chevron, etc) and thus it would have driven several hundred smaller companies which operate in the Gulf area out of business.
Mary Landrieu and every other Democratic Senator in the region opposed this just as bitterly as any Republican, since this provision should have been labeled “Destroy 100,000 regional jobs and destroy all locally owned businesses in order to give Exxon, Chevron, and others a near monopoly lock on the segment.” But now Harry can campaign with the claim that nasty Republicans just want to let BP off the hook. (liability limits are waived in the case of gross negligence, so BP doesn’t get out of anything even under current law)
The second provision was a last minute addition by Harry, one that had never been part of any bill before last week – he inserted a provision which would have forced anyone developing shale gas in the US (the most promising energy segment in the country today) to have publicly listed anything included in the frack fluid. 2 problems here; all fracking companies have propietary blends and they have problems releasing their formulas, based on years of experience and tests, to their competitors.
But more importantly, the real goal of this provision was to give local activists the ammunition they needed to sue any drillers in local courts, since scary sounding chemicals are always a great way to excite the locals. (You mean they’re pumping Di-Hydrogen Oxide under My Land????) So, the practical effect of this provision would have been to shut down the one segment of American energy production which is booming and which truly is helping to achieve all of the goals that Reid and the Dem’s say they support.
And lest you have any doubt that this was intended to kill the bill, consider one final nail Reid himself put in this bill’s coffin – he wrote the bill himself, throwing out Boxer’s committee work, throwing out all of Kerry’s work, allowing no other Senators any input at all – and then he ruled that his bill had to be considered on a take it or leave it basis, no debate allowed, no amendments allowed. The reason you don’t see that happen much is because that kind of heavy-handedness pretty much guarantees a 99-1 vote against in the Senate no matter *what* the issue is – Senators don’t much like having their toes stepped on that way no matter which party they’re in.
So that’s why the bill died – Harry Reid quite intentionally murdered it.

mikelorrey says:
August 4, 2010 at 4:02 am
“If they want energy independence, why are they punishing coal the most?”
Indeed, and why do we have a moratorium on off-shore drilling, and why aren’t we building nuclear plants. Why haven’t we embraced hydrogen as an eventual replacement fuel?

@GM
“And when someone brings up the abiogenic “theory” of oil origin, you know the lunacy fest is on…”
I did ask if anyone had any harder evidence than one bloke called Crispin, a Wiki-entry and a couple of lightweight links. I’m not a petrochemical engineer or geologist but I do understand chemistry. So please GM – show us the colour of your money rather than go all disparaging on us.
If you’re degree is in either of those fields or something related, please contribute to the debate.
If methane can be formed abiogenically, it’s not beyond reason that other hydrocarbons and derivatives can be formed in like manner. At some point or other in the past, amines were formed abiogenically and became peptides and became life……

The dems will probably try to pass climate legislation during the lame duck session of Congress, after the elections, possibly by using the reconciliation process since the House already passed a bill, if the Senate can come up with a bill, however streamlined it might be Of course, the EPA is waiting in the wings to impose cap and trade, carbon tax, and other rules and regulations to accomplish the Administration’s goals, non-legislatively, if they are unable to pass legislation after the elections.
This battle is far from over.

Rhys Jaggar says:
August 4, 2010 at 3:04 am
Thoughts:
1. Put in some bullet trains between US cities to start cutting down on short-haul domestic flights.
2. Stop buying gas guzzlers and make do with a Yaris, a Mini, an Escort or the like.
3. Make some nicer friends who’ll sell you some oil.
4. Stop going to war for oil: you don’t make friends that way.
5. If you do go to war for oil, stop talking about doing it for democracy. It makes you out to be liars.
6. Remember you’re only one nation on this earth. And there’s nothing special or different about you. You just occupy a big chunk of land between the Atlantic and Pacific.
7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????
8. Build your houses better: then you’ll need less energy to heat them.
9. Embrace community public transport to reduce journeys of less than 3 miles. Ditto with bicycles. It’s called community pride, not socialism……
10. Stop blowing billions a year on drugs. Then you could afford more petrol.
11. Get as many as possible of you to generate micro-biomass generators to minimise your need for external energy.
That’ll do for starters.
Better than bombing the shit out of countries, isn’t it??
More respectful of human life, isn’t it????
Rhys, you bring up some interesting points, as you may imagine, as an American, I take some exceptions to some of your points.
You said, “Don’t mean to be rude, but America’s as hard as nails when it comes to making money from foreigners.”
Perhaps in some ways, however, our trade deficit has been a constant almost my entire life, so, I’d say you probably have a misconception about our trade policies. “Hard as nails” isn’t how I’d view a nation that freely gives away food to impoverished nations without using it a leverage for trade, but your free to have your own opinion. When we complain about the oil dependence, many aren’t complaining to others, but rather our politicians complicity in the dependence.
From your thoughts,
1. Probably a good idea
2. Maybe a good idea, or it may be a defeatist attitude. One of the wonderful things about the American culture is we don’t except we have to do without.(There are some here, but for the most part we don’t.) Further, an Escort isn’t a viable option for much of this country. I live on a gravel road, a new Escort doesn’t do well in those conditions. Experience has taught me that.
3. “Make nicer friends.”……???? Yeh? Honestly, as pointed out upward in this thread, we don’t need anymore than the friends we have. Not that most of our “friends” have ever repaid the kindness we’ve shown, in terms of saving their behinds in various wars. But they’re welcome anyway. We didn’t do it for enduring loyalty, and for the most part, we sure didn’t get it either.
4. “Stop going to war for oil.”? If it is in our national interest to secure oil, then I make no apologies for it. However, I don’t believe that is why we are in Iraq, but other than Iraq, can you name another war we were in that someone can conceive we were there for the oil? You make it sound like we are serial oil war mongers. History doesn’t agree. But again, if it is in our national interests, so be it. We have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury our dead.
5. If we did, indeed go to war for oil, as you suggested, then why haven’t we simply taken the oil? We didn’t. You should check where Iraqi oil goes. In 2008 57% went to Europe and Asia while the Western Hemisphere 41%. Maybe we went to war so you could have oil. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iraq/OilExports.html
6. Sir, I could go into excruciating details about what separates us from the rest of the world, but time and space prohibit such an endeavor. From our political and religious inception to the cultural melting pot, to the uniqueness of this land, we are indeed “special”. I don’t expect you to see it, but you should understand why I believe we are special.
7. Solar power may be the way to go, going forward. Today, however, this simply isn’t a viable alternative to fossil fuels. When one factors cost and reliability, it is laughable to suggest we can simply turn the switch on and have a replacement for our traditional energy sources. Please remember we still cannot store AC power.
8. Better built houses certainly is a reachable goal, thanks for pointing that out, I’ll pass that one the powers that be that don’t believe that is a direction we need to go towards.
9. Sis, if I had less than 3 miles to go, I’d probably just walk. But I don’t see how that contributes to the pride of the community. I’m not sure you understand the demographics of the U.S.
10. Another good call on your part. Again, I’ll pass that on to the crack and heroin users of this country.
11. We’ll have to take the micro-biomass generators under study. Wouldn’t it just be easier to build nuclear plants?
Maybe it would be “better than bombing the shit out of other countries”, but I haven’t read where much of the world was complaining in 1944 and 1945. Well, there were probably two countries, but that was about it. Maybe we should apologize for being mean to the Taliban? or Al Qaeda?
Rhys, I’ll join you an a call to show life more respect. However, the realities of this world shows us that the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.
Personally, I believe the U.S. is too involved in the machinations of the rest of the world. I believe the U.S. doesn’t need the rest of the world to maintain this nation. We have enough natural resources and food and manpower and technical abilities that we can do just fine without the rest of the world. And that whatever happens in the rest of the world, well, a smart man once said “People deserve the government they have.” and the condition of the public well being.

Dave from the “Hot” North East of Scotland says:
August 4, 2010 at 6:21 am
@GM
“And when someone brings up the abiogenic “theory” of oil origin, you know the lunacy fest is on…”
I did ask if anyone had any harder evidence than one bloke called Crispin, a Wiki-entry and a couple of lightweight links. I’m not a petrochemical engineer or geologist but I do understand chemistry. So please GM – show us the colour of your money rather than go all disparaging on us.
If you’re degree is in either of those fields or something related, please contribute to the debate.
If methane can be formed abiogenically, it’s not beyond reason that other hydrocarbons and derivatives can be formed in like manner. At some point or other in the past, amines were formed abiogenically and became peptides and became life……

It matters very little whether methane can be formed abiogenically, what matter is whether the oil we’re using was formed abiogenically (it wasn’t, which is backed up by mountains of evidence) and whether the amounts of oil we’re using are being replaced abiogenically (they aren’t).

@GM
Thanks for your opinion.
No links – No cred.

—
At 3:04 AM on 4 August, Rhys Jaggar offers the following recommendations, which I address seriatim:
“1. Put in some bullet trains between US cities to start cutting down on short-haul domestic flights.”
Economically non-feasible. Were that not so, private companies would still be providing this service, as they had done in the years before commercial air transportation became technically feasible as a superior alternative. Even in the very densely populated northeast corridor (even in New Jersey, which has a population density equal to that of Bangladesh), neither light rail nor “bullet trains” have proven cost-effective in terms of capital and operating expenditure per passenger-mile. Metropolitan rail systems – like the subways in New York, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC – cannot even generate sufficient revenue to pay for normal maintenance and repairs, and rely upon tremendous federal subsidization for senseless expansions, which the entrenched lobbies of the contractors and labor unions impose upon the nation. Studies and experience have shown that buses work with greater flexibility and cost efficiency (both intra- and inter-city), but the bus manufacturers simply haven’t got the cash to buy enough politicians.
“2. Stop buying gas guzzlers and make do with a Yaris, a Mini, an Escort or the like.
What the Englishman dismisses as “gas guzzlers” are vehicles with four- and six-cylinder engines, structurally designed for American roads. Except for those who simply do not depart the confines of major metropolitan areas, no other vehicles are practical in these United States. Europeans do not have any real grasp on how big this country really is. For example, the distance between Chicago and New Orleans (which doesn’t look like much on the map) is about the same as that between Berlin and Moscow. Those Americans who are still employed in the wake of Dubbya’s administration and that of our current Fraudulence-in-Chief routinely commute to and from work over distances that would shock the average Eurozone citizen. A great many people who work in New York City and points east, for example, cannot find affordable housing anywhere closer than Carbon County, Pennsylvania, and must daily drive the full width of the state of New Jersey to get to and from their jobs. Little econobox cars are utterly impractical for such high-mileage, high-speed driving.
“3. Make some nicer friends who’ll sell you some oil.”
Don’t need to. As long as the currency currently being debauched by our Federal Reserve System is in any wise acceptable to vendors of petrochemical feedstocks in the global market, it doesn’t matter if those vendors are “friends” or not.
“4. Stop going to war for oil: you don’t make friends that way.”
Or simply stop engaging in armed conflict against other nation-states in the absence of a declaration of war, as is required in the U.S. Constitution.
“5. If you do go to war for oil, stop talking about doing it for democracy. It makes you out to be liars.”
See above. “…every human race tries every political form and that democracy is used in many primitive societies … but he didn’t know of any civilized planet using it, as Vox Populi, Vox Dei translates as: ‘My God! How did we get in this mess!'” (Robert A. Heinlein)
“6. Remember you’re only one nation on this earth. And there’s nothing special or different about you. You just occupy a big chunk of land between the Atlantic and Pacific.”
On the contrary. America started as the political instantiation of the philosophical Enlightenment, and to the extent that this nation yet retains the elements of that heritage, in which the institution of civil government is held to have no legitimate purpose except the defense of individual rights “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and is therefore obliged to operate under the rule of law, “American exceptionalism” is genuine and unassailable. The Brits might lay legitimate claim to John Locke, but the only place in the world where his Two Treatises finds genuine expression today is in these United States. By succumbing to victim disarmament (“gun control”), the British have forsworn Locke’s “right of rebellion,” and therefore their pretense to government limited by rule of law no longer rises even to the level of a farce.
“7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????”
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (National Socialist, California) has been implacable in blocking the construction of solar power electricity generation facilities in the sere and otherwise useless wastes of the Mojave Desert for many years. She and other entrenched National Socialist politicians (we’re not calling them “Democrat” any more) will continue doing such things in the name of “environmentalism.” Besides, solar power – unless you’re speaking about solar power satellites in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) – is far to diffuse a source of energy to significantly support an industrialized civilization. Figure it out in turns of watts per square meter of collecting surface (even if you assume 100% efficiency, which is impossible), and you’ll see that this is right.
“8. Build your houses better: then you’ll need less energy to heat them.”
Who pays for this? We are presently experiencing the “bust” phase of an economic bubble in the American housing industry, inflated by National Socialist Party political measures (reaching back into the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and sharply exacerbated during the malfeasances of Bubba, our Perjurer-in-Chief, but ever and anon sustained by the Republicans). “Energy efficient” residential and commercial construction is not without substantial monetary cost, and the question is never “How much will be saved?” but rather “How the hell do we pay for this?” You might as well ask why houses are not constructed like hardened concrete bunkers in the “Tornado Alley” states, or why the people living in the below-water-level flood zones of New Orleans did not have their houses constructed on pontoons or boat hulls so as to rise and float when the levees failed.
“9. Embrace community public transport to reduce journeys of less than 3 miles. Ditto with bicycles. It’s called community pride, not socialism……”
Economically non-feasible. Again, such mass transit systems have proven consistently far more costly in terms of both capital investment and operating expenses per passenger-mile. In America, the most cost-efficient transportation option is the privately owned automobile. Moreover, just how the hell many people in America even make “journeys of less than 3 miles”? I live in New Jersey, the only state in the union that is – from Cape May to the Water Gap, from the Delaware River to the Hudson – rated as entirely metropolitan, and I cannot go grocery shopping without driving five to ten miles at minimum. And you try getting anywhere on a bicycle in the heat of a typical American summer (a helluva lot hotter than anything experienced by northern Europeans) and the stormy cold of a typical American winter. Britons – in their “right little, tight little island” – get the balmy benefits of the Gulf Stream. We do not.
“10. Stop blowing billions a year on drugs. Then you could afford more petrol.”
Courtesy of Barry Soetoro (he never did change his name back to “Barack Hussein Obama” after being adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro) and the rest of the National Socialist Party, that number is trillions, not billions. And as we Americans succumb – by virtue of this entirely unconstitutional violation of our rights – to the equivalent of Canada’s socialized medicine system, let us take note that the provinces of Canada are being bankrupted by their government health care expenditures. Or were you referring to “recreational” drugs? Well, the solution to that is decriminalization, and let Say’s law operate as the drug warriors’ price support program is withdrawn.
“11. Get as many as possible of you to generate micro-biomass generators to minimise your need for external energy.”
Again, economically impracticable. Too diffuse in energy yield to matter. Remember, you’re speaking of an industrialized civilization, not a hippie commune succumbing to pellagra on a bit of waste ground in one of the flyover states. Such a silliness cannot confer any sort of economies of scale, obliging enormous inputs of time, effort, and materiel for minimal-to-zip energy output.
All of the obvious idiot “thoughts” of the watermelon types (“green on the outside, red to the core”) have been considered, evaluated, and dismissed, in every case for good and substantial reasons which have everything to do with objective reality in spite of well-intentioned fantasy.
—

GM says:
August 4, 2010 at 7:22 am
“It matters very little whether methane can be formed abiogenically, what matter is whether the oil we’re using was formed abiogenically (it wasn’t, which is backed up by mountains of evidence) and whether the amounts of oil we’re using are being replaced abiogenically (they aren’t).”
Really? That’s what matters? Not to me, but insisting on something that has “mountains of evidence” and then not providing any evidence is silly. I’m real interested in how you think the oil got there. But, whether it is a finite resource or not, doesn’t really matter to me and I’m curious as to why it matters to anyone. The alarmists say we should cease oil use today or we might run out. But if we do run out, wouldn’t we have to cease oil use then? How does this matter?
Regardless, to repeat, I’m very interested in hearing your theories of how oil got here.

Dave from the “Hot” North East of Scotland says:
August 4, 2010 at 7:39 am
@GM
Thanks for your opinion.
No links – No cred.

I don’t really have the time and energy to do your homework for you (I have actually been wondering why I am wasting them here since yesterday, but I get in that mood sometimes). Not that if I did it, it would have made any difference.

CodeTech says:
August 4, 2010 at 8:09 am
All of the hallmarks are there: experts dismiss abiogenic believers as idiots, there is a consensus in the field, I hear a lot of appeal to authority, and people who should be interested in researching the possibility just ignore it as whacko.

I am sure you are going to tell the same to the doctor that tell you that you really should have a surgery of that tumor he just found…

I spoke to my Two Senators via Conference Call. Here the long and short of what they said:
IT’S NOT THAT THE SENATE DOESN’T WANT TO PASS THE BILL, ask any currently serving lilly livered Senator in Closed Door Session and he/she will tell you that they really DO want to pass the Bill, we’ve already been paid more than enough, the problem is NOT the Will of the Senate but the Will of Some Stupid Worthless No-Account People in this country called VOTERS; about 85% of these ignorant idiots don’t want this Bill to pass and for any Red Blooded or Blue Nosed Senator to Vote for it would be worse than Political Suicide, they might even get Tarred and Feathered, and that hasn’t happened in over a century or two.
Remember, don’t blame your hard working Supreme Soviet Senate (or The Speaker’s “Peoples House Of Democratic Representatives”), it’s NOT their fault. BLAME the SCOTUS Gang of 9, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pope, the UN, the League of Nations, George II and George III Bush, your Parents, your Mother-In-Law, Jimmah Carteer, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson, Iran, Malta, George I (Washington). And if you want to know who the real troublemaker is, next time you spend a penny look up when you wash your hands.
__________
PS: Not sure what they ment with that crack about the penny.

Just wanted to correct my poor name spelling on the previous comment!
Doh!

Big Oil bashing. Koch bought Dupont fibres. You look good wearing spandex when riding your
TREK bike and make the oil company money when you protest oil. How about carbon fiber rims on the bike? Carbon free tires? On a non asphalt road?
Whenever the non thinkers get on a carbon free jag, I laugh.
The EPA wants to outlaw dust. (fugitive waste) For us that means all roads must be paved. How about some carbon free asphalt?

JER0ME says:
August 4, 2010 at 3:38 am
That, if the “convenient” lie about “fossil” fuels is right, which is not, as for the gigantic and recent findings in Brazil(in deeper water than the Gulf) and the Gulf of Mexico areas. That tale is just for keeping prices up.

Many places called this the spill bill. Legislation regarding the spill. The day of the explosion and the spill, Rush Limbaugh said 75% of this crude would dissipate by means of evaoporation. He was correct. The heavy duty MIT PHD’s like Joe Romm said it couldn’t. They also said don’t burn it. It looks like the “scientists” now admit Rush was correct and most is gone. The slow PHD’s will need millions to do studies to see if it is gone. Then millions more to find out where did it go.
The models of course ploted dates when it would blacken the sands of Atlantic City and the prime new England shores. The models were wrong. Again.

James Sexton says:
August 4, 2010 at 8:55 am
GM,
First, while I didn’t paste it into this comment, most here do not deny the earth is warming. I’m may be an extreme case that asserts you can’t prove that it is in any meaningful way and even if it is, it isn’t detrimental to the human condition. Your use of the word denier is a bit inflammatory to many here, but I’ve been called much worse so it doesn’t bother me as much in spite of the insulting tone.
Well, 2 out of 3 posts in the blog itself seem to be about how it isn’t as hot as it is supposed to be if the “alarmists” are to be beleived.
I use the word denier because this is the word I have been using for years, I was hardly aware that it is inflammatory here. Certainly, there is no shortage of people using the word “alarmist” in the comments

Given all the problems you’ve listed, the one overwhelming point you seem to be making is that we can in no manner provide sustainability for the “severe overpopulation and a social system that requires infinite growth..” Later and finally you go on to say, “Of course, the unchecked dominance of free market ideology provides no shortage of people who deny them all…” I believe this is where the disagreement lays with you and myself. While a free market is a base tenet in my beliefs, freedom in and of itself is most base.

Freedom is nice. But if in the long term it results in a disaster, it has to be limited, I am a biologist by training and profession and I take a long-term view on things centered on what is good for the species. On our case what is good for the individual in the short term is very bad for the species in the long term, which is why I hold the positions I do. I am not for totalitarianism for totalitarianism sake, for example, one of the major reasons why the Soviet Union fell apart was the excessive and completely unnecessary use of repression. People should have as much freedom as possible, but only within the limits of what doesn’t hurt the long-term survival chances of the species.

While you pointed out that at times reliance on history is sometimes errant, it seems to me the improper interpretation of history is more the problem. History(or observations, which all are historic) is all we have to base our assumptions on and the extrapolation of the observations. Like the doom and gloom we are constantly bombarded by the AGW crowd, history shows us they’re wrong. They’ve been consistently wrong ever since they started their apocalyptic prognostications. So, also, is the case of the population doomsayers. In my lifetime we were supposed to all have starved several times over, yet, we remain.

History is a very poor guide in this case. Malthusian predictions have been wrong in the past, but only regarding timing. In the long term they are axiomatically correct – can’t have infinite growth in a finite system. And they only have to be right once. This is one of the many fundamental problems with the way the human mind works – a crisis that has been prevented is difficult to be perceived as serious., and the same goes for a crisis that hasn’t happened. We are uniquely unprepared to deal with issues like ecological overshoot.

But more to the point, even if freedom and population causes a calamity on earth, it is better than the alternatives offered to us by the various apocalyptic prognosticators. Sir, I’ve seen the results of the alternatives. I’ve seen the effects the alternatives have on humanity. From Pol Pot to Stalin to the national socialists. I reject the idea of totalitarian population control and totalitarian rationing of energy.

Nobody is proposing that. The ideal solution is for everyone to understand that there restraint on human activity has to be imposed and do it voluntarily and peacefully.

It is beyond me how anyone else can see these alternatives as preferable to the animating contest of freedoms and the innovations that accompany.

The alternatives are made necessary not by the insanity of some crazy population zealots, they are made necessary the reality of ecological overshoot and denial about it.

I once read necessity was the mother of invention. I wonder if most still hold that to be true, for if it is, and we create a necessity from our own use of resources, would that necessity not give birth to another invention that frees us from that necessity?

The problem with invention is that it can’t beat the laws of thermodynamics.

Bruce Cobb says:
August 4, 2010 at 9:55 am
GM says:
August 4, 2010 at 8:15 am
Once again for those who have missed it – prices do not matter here
Maybe that’s true on your planet.
Here on planet earth, it is precisely the cost of energy which is the issue. Alternative energies up to this point are simply far too costly. We still need coal and gas for electricity, and oil for heating, transport, as well as thousands of products. In 50 years, who knows? Our energy sources then could be very different.

That kind of insanity is the root of the crisis. When people think that the laws of thermodynamics are secondary to the laws of supply and demand, it is no wonder that we’re where we are

Given the majority the democrats enjoy, blaming republicans for not passing legislation (they cannot) is like blaming slaves for slavery.

Mike McMillan says:
August 4, 2010 at 9:58 am
Rob Schneider says: August 4, 2010 at 1:12 am
Question: is there a link where we can read the bill they are debating?
No.
Per Nancy Pelosi, you have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.
_______________________________________________
Funny but sadly true.

Near Term Peak Oil hysteria is just another form of the Eco/Psycho/Politico/Religion
http://www.businessinsider.com/exxon-found-way-more-oil-than-it-produced-in-2009-and-has-been-doing-it-for-16-years-2010-2
Collectivist political ideologies are actually religious cults a-la Heaven’s Gate, Jonestown, etc. They’re just larger. Like their smaller brethren, they ultimately turn to Genocide, often thru denial of basic staples (starvation). See any similarity to efforts restricting US consumption? Agenda 21?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html
Long chain hydrocarbons are strings of Methane Molecules. The Russians aren’t the only ones who’ve signed on to Abiotic oil theory.
http://vodpod.com/watch/3821383-peak-vs-deep-oil-debate-3-cnbc-abiotic-oil-in-nutshell
The USA has the worlds largest known reserves of Coal.
http://www.clean-energy.us/facts/coal.htm
And extracting that coal (while a dangerous business) is a beloved business of many thousands of highly paid union workers. We need to be building clean burning coal fired power plants (1 each week) just like the Chinese. Dig Baby, Dig!
We need refineries and far more domestic exploration. We will never know what we have to work with if we don’t explore.
I work in the aircraft industry. Every few years we redesign air frames and re-engine existing models. There is constant evolution of efficiency. Today I can fly across country cheaper than the cost of fuel to drive it, and make the trip at 600 mph!
Yet I read that a recent expansion at Heathrow was postponed/cancelled over CO2 hysteria. The danger of this eco-political cult of collectivism destroying the western world is very real and very malevolent. Every one of us needs to become active in turning the tide.

Rhys Jaggar says: August 4, 2010 at 3:04 am
7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????
Actually, no I wouldn’t say. I’d say it shows your ignorance of the desert southwest. Yep, there’s plenty of sunshine. Yep, it can generate power. But who is there to use it? The power has to be transmitted to where people live and use the power with concomitant transmission losses. The transmission infrastructure would also have to be developed to get the power to where people are located.
Another point: how do you keep whatever you are using to generate the power clean? Atmospheric dust in the southwest contains calcium carbonate which dissolves in the slightly acidic rain. When this lands and evaporates it forms calcium carbonate blotches. If these aren’t cleaned they continue to accumulate. This is the source for the ubiquitous caliche in the southwest. Now these blotches can be cleaned off solar panels or mirrors, but that requires water. Oops, the southwest is a desert. Where do you obtain the water? Many types of solar plants also need water to generate the power. Again, where do you obtain the water? It’s environmentalist fighting environmentalist, see http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2236

Pamela Gray says:
August 4, 2010 at 7:56 am
________________________________
My lord, Pamela. . . WHY were you ever a democrat ??? ; )

Steve, could you change the color from white (which is cold) to green (which is more neutral)? That seems to be the issue. They have cut the center out of the spectrum and replaced it with a hot color (yellow). If they had put green in as “normal” (i.e. 0 deviation) that would be more visually accurate, leaving a less-hot looking map.

GM wrote:
“Malthusian predictions have been wrong in the past, but only regarding timing. In the long term they are axiomatically correct – can’t have infinite growth in a finite system.”
There is nothing axiomatic about this at all. Malthus based his observations on geometric population growth vs. arithmetic food growth. Although it is axiomatic that you can’t have geometric population growth indefinately, your reply was about infinite economic growth, so I will deal with that.
Economic growth is often interpreted by the laymen in simplistic terms, meaning an ever increasing amount of stuff being consumed. With that mindset, it’s no wonder that many well meaning people say you can’t have infinite growth. Over the past hundred years, individual wealth has increased enormously, but the correlation between quantities of stuff that individuals consume, and economic wealth is beginning to breakdown. Instead of consuming ever vaster quantities of raw materials on a per capita basis, many high value items contain relatively little mass of raw materials, with the myriads of cellphones, iPads, and personal computers. And each of these devices has spawned a huge market it something containing even less mass – software. Software, as Bill Gates will tell you, is a multi billion dollar industry, and growing rapidly. All this software is a real consumable product, providing real utility to the world and contributing massively to global wealth and GDP. So here we have a growth sector which consumes almost nothing of the earths resources, and contributes massively towards economic productivity.
But as society becomes wealthier, individuals consume an even greater intangible – leisure. This is all made possible by growth in economic productivity, that provides more free time, allowing people to consume movies, meals out, health clubs, hotels, beauty therapy, lifestyle coaching.
And what happens to all that raw material that is mined and used in making “stuff”? With the exception of energy itself, it remains on the planet, ready to be recycled and reused. If these products become scarce, the price signals will cause a growth in the recycling sectors, which at the moment are only in their infancy.
So I reject your assertion that you can’t have infinite economic growth. Malthusians are wrong because they don’t understand growth and merely attempt to project the present into the future. But I bet in a hundred years time, we will still be having the same arguments.

Vince Causey
August 4, 2010 at 11:53 am
Instead of consuming ever vaster quantities of raw materials on a per capita basis, many high value items contain relatively little mass of raw materials, with the myriads of cellphones, iPads, and personal computers.

Apparently you have no idea what is contained in those devices…

And each of these devices has spawned a huge market it something containing even less mass – software. Software, as Bill Gates will tell you, is a multi billion dollar industry, and growing rapidly. All this software is a real consumable product, providing real utility to the world and contributing massively to global wealth and GDP. So here we have a growth sector which consumes almost nothing of the earths resources, and contributes massively towards economic productivity.

Currently the energy use of computers is approaching 10% of the total. So yes, they information technologies use absolutely no resources…

But as society becomes wealthier, individuals consume an even greater intangible – leisure. This is all made possible by growth in economic productivity, that provides more free time, allowing people to consume movies, meals out, health clubs, hotels, beauty therapy, lifestyle coaching.

And those things don’t use any resources either….

And what happens to all that raw material that is mined and used in making “stuff”? With the exception of energy itself, it remains on the planet, ready to be recycled and reused. If these products become scarce, the price signals will cause a growth in the recycling sectors, which at the moment are only in their infancy.

Yes, it doesn’t leave the earth. But its entropy is much higher once it ends up in the oceans. You can look at landfills as mines, and they are in a sense, but hardly everything ends up in landfills.
So I reject your assertion that you can’t have infinite economic growth. Malthusians are wrong because they don’t understand growth and merely attempt to project the present into the future. But I bet in a hundred years time, we will still be having the same arguments.

By the way folks, the science on abiotic oil IS settled unlike the global warming nonsense:
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
September 7, 2009
Researchers at KTH have been able to prove that the fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world…
Together with two research colleagues, Professor Kutcherov has simulated the process of pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner strata of the earth’s crust. This process generates hydrocarbons, the primary elements of oil and natural gas…
http://alethonewsa.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/easier-to-find-oil-2/

aletho says:
August 4, 2010 at 12:45 pm
By the way folks, the science on abiotic oil IS settled unlike the global warming nonsense:

I just went to Google Scholar and searched for oil formation and I got back hundreds of article, old and new, in direct contradiction with oil abiogenesis. Yes, the science is settled. And it has settled at exactly the opposite conclusion to yours. To claim that the scientific consensus is the opposite to what it is breaks the anti-science-meter

All Congress has to do to make us energy independent (ie: not reliant for foreigners for our crude oil) is to reinstate the Oil Depletion Allowance. The ODA is what made Amercia the energy powerhouse within the world, and its repeal sent wildcatters overseas looking for oil and made us forever dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. Does Congress have the guts to reinstate the ODA? The answer is a resounding “NO!” And keeping ANWAR, off shore drilling, and drilling on Federal lands off the table doesn’t help either. Look no further than Congress for this mess we’re in.
In addition, we own 80% of the entire world’s supply of recoverable shale oil. So, what’s the problem?

[SNIP. You know better.]

Rhys Jaggar says: August 4, 2010 at 3:04 am
Err……………presumably the rest of the world to whom America exports this that and the other might reasonably ask about how their dependence on American products makes America richer????
………Don’t mean to be rude, but America’s as hard as nails when it comes to making money from foreigners. So why they complain when others do in oil what they do in all kinds of things just beats me
……….The unique nature of the immigrants who populated America in the past 300 years, perhaps????
Rhys : Talk about muddled thinking!
1. America is no different to any other nation that exports – people buy and people sell – it called business.
2. Ditto for 1 above.
3. What’s unique about the immigrants who populated America in the past 300 years? And what has that got to do with the argument?
Thoughts: All 11 of them
Rhys : I bet you haven’t thought through the logistics of any of the so called solutions you offer. You pontification is typical of a w—-ing greenee who has never actually done anything.
Doug

Counterintel ops:
Algore don’t give up easily, letter today from Al:
Dear ____,
The Senate has decided that we won’t get a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill before the August recess — which most observers interpret as a death-knell for the legislation this year.
This failure would be hard to understand at any time, to say the least. But coming as it does in the middle of a record-hot summer and a series of environmental disasters, Washington’s abandonment of this effort is all the more confounding and frustrating.
However, this setback only makes our work more necessary. As long as we care about our country, our planet, and the future we’re leaving for our children and grandchildren, we must continue to fight.
Remember: The climate crisis isn’t going away. And neither can we. It is getting worse, so we have to redouble our efforts.
We’re already planning the next phase of our work, and I’m counting on your continued involvement. I’d like to invite you to join me next Tuesday, August 10, for a conversation to discuss how we should move forward from here. I’ll be answering some questions from Repower America members like you — so please submit a question for discussion.
“Next Steps for the Climate Movement”
Virtual Town Hall
Tuesday, August 10 at 8:30 p.m. EDT
RSVP to join and submit your question
The Senate’s decision is a major disappointment for the climate movement, but there is a silver lining. In the last year, supporters like you have organized on an unprecedented scale. And we’ve built overwhelming popular support for action on comprehensive climate and clean energy solutions.
But by using the right-wing media echo chamber, record campaign contributions and an army of well-paid lobbyists, the oil and coal industries have stopped at nothing to protect the status quo and their profits. They want to keep using the atmosphere as an open sewer for the dumping of their greenhouse gas pollution.
The Senate’s inaction reflects that reality. We have always known that solving the climate crisis is a generational challenge — and the urgency of the climate crisis demands that despite these substantial obstacles, we must fight for every inch of progress. The science has never been more clear and the evidence is mounting day by day.
For those of us who understand the stakes, it’s a moral obligation.
And so we must fight even harder. Together, we must continue to beat back repeated assaults on the authority in the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon pollution. We must continue to pressure our elected leaders — local, state and national — to stand with the American people instead of the fossil fuel industry. We must each take individual action to transition to clean energy in our daily lives. And we must win the ongoing battle of science against spin.
We can and must continue the fight. Please join me on Tuesday, August 10 at 8:30 p.m. EDT to discuss our next steps.
http://acp.repoweramerica.org/jointhecall
Thanks for all you do — we’re all in this together.
Al Gore

GM says:
August 4, 2010 at 12:58 pm
aletho says:
August 4, 2010 at 12:45 pm
By the way folks, the science on abiotic oil IS settled unlike the global warming nonsense:
“I just went to Google Scholar and searched for oil formation and I got back hundreds of article, old and new, in direct contradiction with oil abiogenesis…….”
GM, you score more points here if you provide a couple of links to the articles that back your assertions. Many here would actually read them.

James Sexton says:
August 4, 2010 at 1:43 pm
GM, you score more points here if you provide a couple of links to the articles that back your assertions. Many here would actually read the

Random research article:
http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/591
Nice review on abiogenesis:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121502173/PDFSTART

Pamela Gray says:
August 4, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Don’t give up, Pam: That’s exactly what they are counting on.

GM, your link to the review on abiogenesis is behind a paywall. Your first link, while it may be of interest to geochemists, is probably wasn’t what I was looking for. I’m happy for the Chinese in finding some more oil and gas reserves and the chemical compositions and weight had me animated. It didn’t seem to add to any of the conversations. You did say it was random. 😐

But this is the same administration that wants to shut down 30 percent of the nation’s crude oil supply with its counter-intuitive moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. If Sen. Kerry is concerned about importing foreign oil, he should tell his friend Obama that we can’t power autos by putting a windmill on top of them yet…

A sterling piece of evidence for abiogenic hyrdrocarbon creation is Titan, where there are lakes of oil etc. exceeding the total known “biogenic” reserves of Planet Earth.
I wonder just when Titan’s “Carboniferous” era was.

Brian H says:
August 4, 2010 at 11:49 pm
A sterling piece of evidence for abiogenic hyrdrocarbon creation is Titan, where there are lakes of oil etc. exceeding the total known “biogenic” reserves of Planet Earth.
I wonder just when Titan’s “Carboniferous” era was.

Completely different geology. Do not compare apples and oranges

James Sexton says:
August 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm
GM, your link to the review on abiogenesis is behind a paywall. Your first link, while it may be of interest to geochemists, is probably wasn’t what I was looking for. I’m happy for the Chinese in finding some more oil and gas reserves and the chemical compositions and weight had me animated. It didn’t seem to add to any of the conversations. You did say it was random. 😐

Sorry, I wasn’t aware it was not open access, I was able to open it with no problems, but then I have the university library account behind my IP. I can upload it somewhere if you really want to read it (it is a minor enough crime I guess)
The Chinese article was completely randomly chosen (it was the first one that examined isotops and origins of the organic molecules in a field I saw). The point is that those were organic molecules that came from organisms (which you can tell by the isotope composition). As such it is very relevant to the subject. It doesn’t directly state that the abiogenetic theory is rubbish, but it doesn’t need to, as this wouldn’t be the objective of a regular research article in the field, given that the standard model in it is biogenesis of oil.

GM,
“Currently the energy use of computers is approaching 10% of the total. So yes, they information technologies use absolutely no resources…”
But computer processor speeds increases with time, does it not? By Moore’s law, doubling every 18 months or so. But as far as I am aware, a PC today, does not consume more power than one produced 10 years ago – actually less power. So there we have it, processor speeds are outstripping GDP growth by a factor of about 20 times, which means growth in computing can be acheived with no increase in energy use per capita while contributing to economic growth. I call that a win win situation.
I then wrote:
” But as society becomes wealthier, individuals consume an even greater intangible – leisure. This is all made possible by growth in economic productivity, that provides more free time, allowing people to consume movies, meals out, health clubs, hotels, beauty therapy, lifestyle coaching.”
And you replied: “And those things don’t use any resources either….”
You got it. They actually consume less resources. When a family, using the wealth provided by economic growth goes and eats a meal in a restuarant, they forgoe preparing and eating at home. The restaurant buys food in bulk, and by economy of scale is able to prepare meals for the diners at a lower energy cost than if each of them cooked separately at home. Wealth of the dinners is transfered to the wages of restaurant staff who provide the service in return.
“Yes, it doesn’t leave the earth. But its entropy is much higher once it ends up in the oceans. ”
Why should it end up in the oceans? Materials to be recycled are taken to recycling centers, not left to be erroded for thousands of years. The whole point of recycling is that it costs less energy to process say an aluminum can than it does to extract the metal from bauxite.

Entropy? Oceans? Gah. All material and energy interactions end up increasing entropy, but it’s the steps inbetween which are fun. The sun’s entropy is increasing massively, but we’re siphoning off some of that action with our local negative entropy mini-loop.
EMS;
Excellent post. Thx for the links.
GM;
August 5, 2010 at 12:59 am
…
I wonder just when Titan’s “Carboniferous” era was.
Completely different geology. Do not compare apples and oranges
___
Sez who? The geology of planets and planetoids in the solar system and beyond is only trivially and barely comprehended, with major terra incognita on all sides. And as Feynman said, when the evidence contradicts the theory (“guess”) the theory (“guess”) is wrong. That’s the definition of science.
The solar system makes hydrocarbons in overwhelmingly large quantities. Anyone who claims to know how it got distributed is simply a liar.

Brian H says:

The solar system makes hydrocarbons in overwhelmingly large quantities. Anyone who claims to know how it got distributed is simply a liar.

PhilJourdan says:

I am not saying (nor was the OP) that oil on Titan proves abiogensis oil on Earth. But it does prove that carbon life is not necessary to create it.

Bingo, and bingo.
As I said before, I’m not jumping onto an abiotic stand, but I am questioning the factual assertion that the gasoline I put in my car last night came from deceased animals.
People who argue based on “because I said so” or “because that’s what everyone says” are not very convincing.
If petroleum is biotic, why is it rising and why does it pool underneath nonporous formations? Wouldn’t you expect it to be sinking and pooling above such formations? If it has sunk over millions of years, what changed to cause it to rise now?
Again, I’m asking questions, not making factual assertions.