Peak Oil Bill submitted to House

[Ludi]

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr. WYNN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the `Man on the Moon' project to address the inevitable challenges of `Peak Oil'.

Whereas the United States has only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves; Whereas the United States produces 8 percent of the world's oil and consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, of which nearly 60 percent is imported from foreign countries;

Whereas developing countries around the world are increasing their demand for oil consumption at rapid rates; for example, the average consumption increase, by percentage, from 2003 to 2004 for the countries of Belarus, Kuwait, China, and Singapore was 15.9 percent;

Whereas the United States consumed more than 937,000,000 tonnes of oil in 2004, and that figure could rise in 2005 given previous projection trends;

Whereas, as fossil energy resources become depleted, new, highly efficient technologies will be required in order to sustainably tap replenishable resources;

Whereas the Shell Oil scientist M. King Hubbert accurately predicted that United States domestic production would peak in 1970, and a growing number of petroleum experts believe that the peak in the world's oil production (Peak Oil) is likely to occur in the next decade while demand continues to rise;

Whereas North American natural gas production has also peaked; Whereas the United States is now the world's largest importer of both petroleum and natural gas;

Whereas the population of the United States is increasing by nearly 30,000,000 persons every decade;

Whereas the energy density in one barrel of oil is the equivalent of eight people working full time for one year;

Whereas affordable supplies of petroleum and natural gas are critical to national security and energy prosperity; and Whereas the United States has approximately 250 years of coal at current consumption rates, but if that consumption rate is increased by 2 percent per year, coal reserves are reduced to 75 years:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(1) in order to keep energy costs affordable, curb our environmental impact, and safeguard economic prosperity, including our trade deficit, the United States must move rapidly to increase the productivity with which it uses fossil fuel, and to accelerate the transition to renewable fuels and a sustainable, clean energy economy; and
(2) the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency of the `Man on the Moon' project to develop a comprehensive plan to address the challenges presented by Peak Oil.

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/572

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr109-507

[kentauros]

I remember Jim Hightower mentioning this a year or so back. I always wondered whatever happened to it. Let's hope it eventually makes it out of committee, too :)

[Smoothie]

Have you read any of Michael Ruppert's Peak Oil literature?

http://www.copvcia.com/

[Ludi]

I've mostly avoided Ruppert because he's a conspiracy nut.

[Smoothie]

It's rather ignorant to avoid reading something because you stereotype its author. It bothers me when people automatically dismiss things because of pointless labels that do nothing but perpetuate a misconception about individuals like Michael Ruppert.

[Ludi]

It's rather rude of you to call me ignorant. I've been studying this issue intensively for over a year. I'm hardly ignorant of it. I can hardly say anything rude enough to you right now to express how I feel about your comment above. If you like Ruppert, that's great. Good for you.

[Ludi]

http://www.peakoil.com/forums.html

[Smoothie]

I never said I think you are ignorant in general. In fact, I think quite the opposite. I just think what you said about MR was.

[Ludi]

Yeah, well, I'm sure you have some "ignorant" opinions too.

Look, I have very little patience with this kind of poopola. You can have your opinions and I won't call them ignorant, or probably not. I'm really tired of this kind of thing, sick of it in fact. If you want to talk about the issue of peak oil, I'm happy to discuss it, but I have nothing kind or friendly to say about your opinion of my opinion. I'm a nut and I know a nut when I see one. Ruppert is a nut. An intelligent nut, but a nut nonetheless. Like I say, if you enjoy his theories, great. Enjoy. I have read some on FTW, but not a lot because I tend to spend most of my time reading Energy Bulletin and PO.com.

[Ludi]

And the horse you rode in on.

http://www.energybulletin.net/index.php

[Smoothie]

:baby:

[Ludi]

If you want to discuss something, I'd be happy to do so, but further insults aren't helpful. (I'm interpreting that icon to be an insult, which it may or may not be.)

[Ludi]

Ok, Smoothie, I'm going to extend the olive branch and maybe we can actually have a discussion! :)

What, in your opinion, does Ruppert have to say about peak oil that is especially important or noteworthy?

[Ludi]

Geologist Kenneth Deffeyes predicted today, Thanksgiving Day 2005, as "peak oil day" in his book Hubbert's Peak.

In this interview, there is the typical disagreement between geologist and economist:

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/358

[Ludi]

Another article about "peak oil day"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112105I.shtml

[Smoothie]

My interest in the issue of peak oil and indeed oil in general is somewhat limited to understanding its influence on the US government in so far as it may shed light on various events that have occurred in recent years, namely 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is in this regard that I have found MR and other 'conspiracy nuts' helpful. That does not mean I concur with their every assertion; but I will pay attention to what they have to say.

It seems to me that all too many people dismiss certain theories before investigating their validity just because they cannot open their minds to the possibilty of their leaders performing unspeakable acts against the American people. They lock-out such ideas because of a stubborn and idolatrous sense of patriotism, attributable in no small part to a biased mass media and the government's own "you're either with us or against us" declarations. In any event, I was just curious as to what you might have thought, but am not sure that this thread was intended to be for the discussion of such things.

I read the articles to which you posted links, and although interesting did not find anything particularly revelatory in them. As you have offered no commentary on the resolution in your OP, I wonder what your feelings are about it.

[Ludi]

So from what you say there's nothing special about Mike Ruppert, even though you were happy to insult me about my opinion of him, which is based on some things he has said which to me seem like genuine paranoia and not reason. Specifically about his office supposedly being bombarded by microwaves. Being a paranoid person myself, I feel I am somewhat qualified to judge another person on this point, so my opinion is not actually "ignorant." You called my opinion ignorant even though you hadn't a clue from whence my opinion derives. So it seems to me you were really more interested in attacking my opinion than understanding anything about it. I'm still not really sure if you're interested in knowing anything about my opinions, though it does seem like you're happy to leap to nebulous conclusions about some theories I may have dismissed, even though you have no information about what theories I may or may not have actually dismissed.


Regarding the resolution, I think it may be helpful if it brings the issue of peak oil to the attention of the public and gets a public discussion going about how we will deal with the problems we're facing. On the other hand, Bartlett has given multiple presentations about peak oil to congress, and these have gleaned virtually no attention from the public, as far as I can tell.

[otomik]

I've discussed this issue with Ludi in the past, he/she is relatively informed. Bartlett is spot on in this issue, the free market is going to fix this problem but we've got to take some initiative or it will be painful. Bartlett's criticisms of existing policies are great too, his comparison of ethanol to a lion that uses the energy it takes from eating two gazelles to catch one gazelle is something I've since used myself.

Michael Ruppert, to call him a conspiracy theorist is an insult to conspiracy theorists, he's a raving madman. I'm was disappointed in seeing him in the documentary The End of Suburbia, even though it contained many researchers I disagreed with.

ukraine has a new cargo plane called the AN-70 which uses very efficient turbo props rather than turbofans, there is minimal decrease in speed and as evidenced by the antonov it can be applied to aircraft of all sizes (makers of the largest flying planes in the world such as the AN-225) I wondered why passenger airlines aren't using this while they claim high oil prices are destroying their profitability.

[Ludi]

Bartlett is spot on in this issue, the free market is going to fix this problem but we've got to take some initiative or it will be painful.


Glad to see you joining in here, otomik.

I agree the market will "fix" the problem; for me the salient issue is how painful the fix will be; as you point out, unless we decisively direct the market, it may be quite painful. There is so much cultural and asset inertia.

[das_nut]

Isn't the free market already acting to offset high oil prices by looking for alternatives? I could have sworn that I posted a few links to Canadian companies who are extracting oil from alternative sources... They aren't the only ones...

[Ludi]

Isn't the free market already acting to offset high oil prices by looking for alternatives? I could have sworn that I posted a few links to Canadian companies who are extracting oil from alternative sources... They aren't the only ones...


At this point it's unclear if the alternatives can actually offset high oil prices. They can only do so if the alternatives are cheaper than expensive oil, which at the present time they aren't. Some of those alternatives you've posted about, such as tar sands, only become economically feasible because of high oil prices. Because tar sands are very expensive to produce, they can only compete when oil becomes expensive. But this still doesn't eliminate the fact that they are expensive to produce.

[Ludi]

We're insulated quite a bit from the effects of high oil prices in the First World, but in the Third World there has already been some serious suffering because of high oil prices, and let's face it, prices haven't really been all that high. But in places like Zimbabwe, people have been suffering a lot because they are so poor they can't accomodate any increase in prices. There have been riots in various other countries because of gas prices recently. So alternatives won't help these people much, if alternatives cost as much or more than slightly expensive oil, which they currently do.

[das_nut]

The US economy does not seem to be suffering because oil is at $2/gallon. Canadian alternative oil sources are competitive at that price.

As for Zimbabwe, the country would be lucky if oil prices were their main problem. The country had (and probably still has) severe problems with poverty, famine, land reform, hyperinflation, political corruption and AIDS.

[Ludi]

As I say, oil is not especially expensive right now.

However, just a little while ago when it jumped to over $3.00 a gallon because of Katrina, truckers were going out of business. That was a very short term problem.

The Third World will suffer more from higher oil prices than the First World, as I say, they have very little ability to adjust to higher prices.

[Ludi]

Please post a reference for Canadian alternative oil sources being competitive at the current per barrel price.

I really hate to have to repost references I posted in response to your other posts about tar sands. But I will if I have to.