Manx

The George Bush administration is being given credit for long term thinking. In the Middle East, his policies which were rightly questionable are being championed as demonstrably effective once the long term goals are visualized. His (failing) efforts to significantly alter Social Security are, again, intended to address problems that will not manifest themselves for decades and decades.

I don't agree that his tactics are beneficial long term, but many people do. In the case of his tactics in the Middle East, even many Democrats are stating that they believe his long term vision seems to be working.

So where is the long term thinking when it comes to oil?

In the long term, oil prices will continue to rise, assuming oil is even perpetually available. The extraction and processing methods will continue to become more costly, the military costs in securing access will continue to rise and the environmental impact costs are unquantifiable, though hardly deniable. The long term solution to these issues is to ween the U.S. from oil dependence.

Yet there is no leadership from Bush down this path which is ultimately beneficial in the long term.

We have a stated quest by Bush to put humans on Mars. That's about as long term as it gets. Why do you think there is no desire to seek the most beneficial long term solution to the multiple and massive problems associated with oil?

Zar

I doubt we will see any policies from the Bush administration which could conceivably hurt the oil industry -- it seems clear to me that generally, the Bush agenda and the oil industry's agenda are one and the same. See Halliburton. The only solution Bush seems to advocate for the coming oil crisis is to grab as much of the stuff as we can, while we can. Ironically, our attempt to do just this in Iraq has rendered much of the oil production facilities in Iraq unusable, as the insurgency has and continues to destroy much of the oil infrastructure in the country.

Sources:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/...get_iraqi.html

http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm

http://www.energybulletin.net/3422.html

So now no one gets to use the oil, at least until some degree of normalcy is restored to Iraq, and I make no predictions as to when that will come about.

The coming energy crisis is the most pressing issue civilization faces, and it is coming quickly. I find the Bush administration's lack of initiative or even comment on the matter deeply disturbing, if unsurprising. All of Bush's "forward thinking" concerning these other matters is irrelevant in the face of our dependancy on oil. For an informative, if extremely depressing read on the situation, go here:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I concede it is a doomsday scenario. But it is a doomsday scenario supported by science, and it seems hard to refute. And before there are calls of crackpots, cranks, and conspiracy theorists, I think it is interesting that Rep. Bartlett just recently gave a presentation to Congress concerning the ramifications of peak oil, and quoted extensively from this very website. Here is a transcript of his presentation:

http://www.energybulletin.net/4733.html

flstf

I think it is because gasoline prices are not that far out of line yet considering how much everything else costs. I'm on a fixed income and my truck only gets about 12 mpg but the price of gas doesn't effect me nearly as much as healthcare costs.

zen_tom

"Longterm Planning" is a handy spin-line that allows you to take credit for things that looked as though they were going to end-up terribly to everyone, but which turned-out right at the end.

If something is bad, it will be due to 'Unknowable Unknowables' or 'New Developments', while surprise successes will be down to Bushes "Longterm View".

This isn't a comment on policy, just a way to take advantage of unexpectedly positive news. It's marketing and spin, nothing more.

meembo

Regarding oil, it's difficult to imagine this administration doing anything to impede American oil interests. I mean this business-wise, policy-wise, and alternative fuel-wise.

His political clout was purchased by big business, especially the energy industry. Whatever changes he proposes for the long term (e.g., Social Security, democracy by invasion, etc.) are changes purchased with political capital paid for by faithfulness to petroleum interests.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

kutulu

No doubt. About 16% of my post-tax income goes towards my health insurance premiums.

nofnway

Trillions of barrels of oil....there is no oil shortage
http://www.financialsense.com/Expert...2005/0228.html

The price is high because the costs of getting at Middle east oil is so low discouraging investment in developing new sources that are slightly more difficult to retrieve. There are 100s of years worth of oil......at our current rate.



How long term are we talking about....

Get off oil altogether? that is very long term....nobody really feels the need. How much do they pay for fuel in europe....how high will the price be before they ween themselves from middle east oil?

Apparently the "powers that be" perceive the costs of pursuing the current policy is outweighed by any alternative and without convincing evidence of an economical replacement I doubt they ever will change.

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

Manx

The notion of the "non-coming oil shortage" has been around for decades.

We can each cite study after study demonstrating one side or the other - but the inarguable facts remain:

- oil is finite
- as long as the methods for processing continue to lag behind the methods of extraction, oil will run out
- it is not the end of access to oil that is the problem - it is the end of cost-effective access to oil that is the problem

This all leads to one conclusion: the assumption that oil prices (both the price of the gallon as affected by the cost of extraction and affected by the price of militarily securing access and the price of militarily securing access) will remain low is a short-term concept.

Add in the human lives factor of the military aspect, the progressive negative impact on environment (which also goes to the human lives factor), and there is compelling reason to begin ardently working towards a non-oil based energy economy.

There is no question that it is a long-term goal. But it will remain a never-term goal until there is a plan and leadership to actively make it happen.

Locobot

Obviously with oil profiteers holding the highest offices in the nation we're going to see the price of fuel rise to the cusp of causing economic recession (if it isn't already there).

It's basically at that level for me now. I cannot afford to fill my car's gas tank at $2.19 a gallon. Looking forward to biking weather...