http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4665758.stm


I know of many people who'd accuse him of the pot calling the kettle black, but I think its good that he's warning/stating the very real dangers of "isolationism and protectionism leading to "danger and decline"." He also says that ""America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology.""

You realize this is mostly an economic statement. It is in keeping with everything Bush is for on the economic front: exportation of jobs, no restrictions on trade, building of American manufacturing plants in China, legalizing immigrant worker in the U.S. and paying them a lower minimum wage, increased power of the WTO and NAFTA.

So, that's what that statement means. At one time, as an economic purist I would have supported it. But what breaks the WTO model is that the laws and levels of life aren't the same everywhere. Maybe that model would result in a more homogenized and economically equal world in the end, but it sacrifices generations of Americans between now and then on the altar of free trade, and I cannot support that. The day China's environmental and labor protection laws, and wages, match ours, then I'll support unfettered free trade. Not before.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Plus, Bush has his eye on Alberta oil sands. He is quite aware that much of future oil will be coming from north of the border from Saudi Alberta. We now have the technology to strip mine this oil so it can make a profit. Those trucks that transport the oil sand for processing are amazing and you don't relize how large they are until you stand next to one, the electric shovels are even more impressive.</font>

[ 02-01-2006, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Well, that's more sense than I'm used to hearing from President Bush, especially about addiction to oil. Looming elections obviously do him some good.

[ 02-01-2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color=8fbc8f>This is a pretty much cut and dry truth. However, the technology is what gets me. He wants to spend more money on another project and call it advancement for a replacement fuel. Well, as a young Private in the Army circa 1982, I have very vivid memories of placing ethanol based fuel into the gas tank of my 'light wheel vehicle'. So, circa 2006 we need to cut our dependency on unstable oil, and pursue a replacement fuel, something along the lines of ethanol, if I heard correctly. If not, and might it be methanol, then again, we are producing quite a volume of that as we speak. Not sure what he was attempting to finish with, but me tinks it has something to do with already monetary well to do'ers, and powerful <s>robber barons</s> oil men.

I agree we do have a very wasteful lifestyle, and we use way too much natural resources from abroad. But, me tinks the technology is already here, all we need to do is subsidse it, and let'r rip. That country dude, Willie Nelson is doing pretty good with his "Green Diesel", I'm sure we can all pull together on this, and make a better alternative, quickly, and cheaply .

I agree that subsidies are the way to go. Ideally you'd ramp up the price of petrol to reflect the true cost of use, but as that would give the economy something of a headache I can cope with subsidies instead.

Ah well, we'll just have to see if any of this actually happens.

<font color = lightgreen>Contrast that with the economic tidbit released a day or two ago about Exxon-Mobil recording a record $12 billion profit for last year; they claim that their margin on sales is only 8%, but still...that is a huge pile of money. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] They probably won't like us lessening our dependence upon oil, at least until they can buy controlling interests in newer technologies. </font>

I seem to recall urban rumors (snopes has something like that, I think) about OPEC buying majority shares of all the "serious" alternatives to gas and such, and then scrapping the project, or something to that effect. Can anyone comment on it?

intereting tidbits you might not be able to see in other news articles.

smh.com

hydrogen fuel within reach

There are some serious problems with Ethanol and just about any other similar fuel replacement, you spend more energy in making it than you can ever get out of it (Boyles Law), and in order to get enough Ethanol to power a large US state (population wise, not necessarily landmass) it would require a vast majority of the farmland in the country being used strictly to grow corn for fuel. There was an article a while ago about a University of Idaho student doing his masters thesis on wood based fuel, but again it takes more energy to produce than can ever be recovered from the fuel.