bush visit to europe met with protests..question to bush supporters..

Here is a snippet I found:


OPEC may reduce oil production to counter falling gas prices
The average price of gasoline fell about 1.75 cents a gallon nationwide in the past three weeks to $1.49, continuing the downward trend of the last three months. The survey of 10,000 gas stations by the Lundberg industry newsletter credits the drop to lower prices in crude oil and lower demand for gasoline during the winter months. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is set to meet Jan. 17 in Vienna, and is expected to decrease oil production in order to raise crude oil prices. One OPEC official put the likely cut at 1.7 million barrels a day. OPEC increased production last year to ease oil prices, but according to Kuwait's oil minister, there is now a consensus among members to reverse that decision.

So, yes, they do care about profit and will manipulate things to keep it high.


I did misunderstand # 2, as well.

In regards to the Emitter upgrade cost, I garee that they can make money, even without vouchers, etc. The initial cost will be higher, but over time, they can easily even that out and continue their high profits (even with the initial cost, they would still keep a profti, just not as high as they like).

I'll look for more OPEC stuff, just out of curiosity.

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

 

Oh, most definitely!

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

 

It seems...and correct me if I'm wrong...that your optimism centers entirely around the possible positive effects of signing the treaty for one sector of our economy..namely, the energy sector. What about manufacturers who are forced to comply with these new regulations for emissions, assuming new costs...while Chinese manufacturers (for example) do not have these impediments to making a profit. Did I miss something??? It wouldn't be the first time!

------------------

 

MadMax,

BINGO...this is really the only part of the discussion that requires creative politicians figuring out how to soften the blow of upgrading facilities.

This is where the Voucher system comes into play. The industries can control their own destinies. I am not saying they all make a profit, but it is proven to not be as bad as the numbers indicate. Plus when the Energy Service sector sells more upgrades on a global scale, their prices should come down more, and their products (emission efficiency products) should become even better.

MadMax, it is an upfront cost. I am saying the upgrades eventually lower costs, and the voucher system rewards you for upgrading early, and you then sell your unused vouchers on the open market to the companies who choose not to upgrade early.

I am also saying that we won't lose market to China. We'll just move manufacturing plants there....

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

heypartner -- I don't remember going back and forth with you like this before...but I appreciate the fact that you don't take a "look down your nose/ I'm smarter than you" approach. Some other folks could stand to learn from that.

I hope you're right, is all I can say. I'm ultimately not convinced that global warming is what it is billed to be. It seems to me to be a new way to package "socialism" in a way that doesn't sound like a bad word. I would hate to see us take a risk like that because some scientists think something is happening that others don't think is happening. That concerns me.

------------------

 

well, you debated me once on Jew Don Boney in a fair manner, and I've always wanted to return the favor.

damn, how do I remember these things? That's what I love about cc.net. Remembering the past and sharing it again. If Clutch ever has to delete the archives, I'll be sad.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

I'm ultimately not convinced that global warming is what it is billed to be. It seems to me to be a new way to package "socialism" in a way that doesn't sound like a bad word.

I must say I do not understand this, could you clrify? Are you speaking of Kyoto or in general?

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

 

shut the f*ck up sirhangover, and get yourself a hangover in Europe. geez.

Have you ever heard of internet stock windfall??? You should be glad I currently have time to bash your bashers while you are galley vanting around searching for computers back me up?

Now it is time for me to go take a ****.

 

MadMax,

My counter-point is the effect on the economy is neglible if Bush doesn't sign it. Why would you walk away from a Treaty like this in a global economy when you could negotiate exclusives for US companies, like Cheney's Halliburton.

Here are some facts to help eliminate my economic speculation:
<ol>
[*]The Kyoto Protocol can only be successful if gas emitters get more efficient. It is a losing proposition to expect to force consumers to consume less energy. The plants are going to have to use less at the some production capacity in whatever industry they are it. That is a FACT. Read the Protocol and the UN Conference for their suggestions on how to implement this.

[*]US Companies currently have the largest global market share in the Energy Service sector. They are positioned to benefit the greatest from #1.

[*]China is not really an economic competitor of Exxon in your terms, because Exxon and others just want to sell oil to China. But China has all the oil fields they need, on their on turf. They just found one of the largest fields in the world. Yet, it is highly speculative to think China is going to compete globally with Opec and Exxon. And if they did, it would flood the market with more oil production thus decrease oil prices!!!! making any cost-benefit analysis or consumer scares mentioned in this thread, moot.

[*]Making gas emitters more efficient lowers demand, so how does that increase the price of oil, only via the supply chain, and only in the shortterm.

[*]NASA spending has negligible scientific value, but tremendous economic value in supporting peripheral economies.[/list=a]

I could go on, but do you see my point. Bush has NOTHING to gain in a global economy by refusing to sign the treaty. I believe he and Cheney (the freaking ex-head of Halliburton, a company likely to be a major winner on signing that treaty) are stalling in order to position themselves the best they can in a global economy.

MadMax, why are you afraid of this Treaty from an economic standpoint?

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

Heypartner:



1.The Kyoto Protocol can only be successful if gas emitters get more efficient. It is a
losing proposition to expect to force consumers to consume less energy. The plants
are going to have to use less at the some production capacity in whatever industry
they are it. That is a FACT. Read the Protocol and the UN Conference for their
suggestions on how to implement this.

I think this is a bit of an overstatement. What about alternative energy sources, like nuclear and solar PVC's? As I've said before, solar PVC's are projected to eventually cost less than half per kw/h than coal currently does.

And about conservation... California has successfully cut down energy consumption by 11% this year. I know they've had particular incentive... just saying it's possible to substantially conserve.

I do agree, though, that making gas emmiters more efficient is the best short term solution.

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

California reduced use via efficiencies, within a Voucher system. Read the UN Conference before you assume they disagree with my #1 above.

Why do you assume #1 is an exaggeration?
Why does MadMax think my economic forecast is risky speculation?

Seems suspiciously like you are trying to win an argument here. Can we not agree on #1, or new economies? That's crazy. I'm out of this thread if you guys can't agree on those things.

There is no proof that new energy sources can come on-line fast enought to abide by the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto protocol is based on proven efficiency upgrades, not on speculation about new energies.

Do you really think Japan is going to rely on a nuclear reactor?? ontop of those earthquake faults!!

And solar energy is a long long way from running major plants that release the most CO2.

[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

California reduced use via efficiencies, within a Voucher system. Read the UN Conference
before you assume they disagree with my #1 above.

Why do you assume #1 is an exaggeration?
Why does MadMax think my economic forecast is risky speculation?

Seems suspiciously like you are trying to win an argument here. Can we not agree on #1,
or new economies? That's crazy. I'm out of this thread if you guys can't agree on those
things.

There is no proof that new energy sources can come on-line fast enought to abide by the
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto protocol is based on proven efficiency upgrades, not on
speculation about new energies.

Do you really think Japan is going to rely on a nuclear reactor?? ontop of those
earthquake faults!!

And solar energy is a long long way from running major plants that release the most CO2.


Heypartner, I disagreed with you on a minor point. I'm not required to accept what you say 100%. I concede the fact that PVC's aren't currently viable for global, mass use. But they probably aren't as far away as you think, either.

I really think that the solar/hydrogen based energy economy is the way of the future. Yes, it's not ready now... but eventually it has the prospect of providing energy cheaper than coal with ZERO emissions.

I think that PVC's and the like get neglected too much, when discussing energy policy. If we invest more money in R&D, and use them on a limited basis to create economies of scale, then they'll come into mass use more quickly.

You're right about nuclear power in Japan, if there are earth quake faults. Solutions are going to be regional. Hydro-power works very well in France... not so well elsewhere in places without rivers. I just sort of threw it out there as a viable option in some circumstances. It's also significantly more expensive than fossil fuels .

What do we disagree about?


------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

[This message has been edited by haven (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

Oooh, ooh, let me play to prove my intelligence!

#1 is definitley true.

#2 Is not true (to companies) because of initial upgrades. The big guys don't really want to do that...short term vs. long term.

#3 is sound except for my point about...

#4 more efficiency means lower amounts of gas being purchsed. In order to keep profits at a maximum, gas prices have to go up. That is why efficiency is fought...lower profits. Same with tire industry. Why make tires that will last 30 years (possible) when it would mean fewer tires sold?

#5 not sure, I profess ignorance.


------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

 

Europe's opinion of the US has always been poor. I read a funny quote in an op-ed piece the other day in the Chronicle...I don't remember it exactly but it went something like this...

while the US is at the height of its power as a world superpower, the nations that ravaged and sacked the rest of the world when they were at their height of power want the US to bow down to third-world nations.

just kind of ironic and funny.


------------------

 

Ahem....

------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines

 

that is funny MadMax.

Was the title Hegemonic Hypocrasy?

 

Fossil fuel consumption increases exponentially. For that reason, increased production can only lengthen its utilization by a few years at best.

A five percent reduction in consumption through conservation steps, or through the use of alternative sources, will double the amount of time fossil fuels can remain a viable energy source.

Inasmuch as Bush cannot pronounce, spell, or define "exponential," much less understand it, there is little hope that any progress will be made in his first and only term. He is an oil and gas lap dog.

Before he is finished, he will make the old man look like a genius by comparison.

Other nations see him for the simpleton that he is.

------------------

 

blah blah blah...bush is stupid

blah blah blah...the rest of the world hates us and him

blah blah blah...we're all gonna die of heat exposure due to global warming

meanwhile, I read in today's paper that even Clinton's old advisors are now saying signing the Kyoto Protocol would be a huge mistake that would put the US at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace.

the "he's stupid so nothing he can do can possibly be right or good" is tired already. come up with real alternatives or facts to back up what you say instead of name-calling.

------------------

 

I'm a broken record:

I'm ultimately not convinced that global warming is what it is billed to be. It seems to me to be a new way to package "socialism" in a way that doesn't sound like a bad word.

I must say I do not understand this, could you clarify? Are you speaking of Kyoto or in general?


------------------
I have just realized that the stakes are myself
I have no other
ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life
my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over
the roulette table, I recoup what I can
nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu
nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag
this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with
this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move
as we slither over this go board, stepping always
(we hope) between the lines