if i was in charge i would outlaw cars and focus on public transport infrastructure and bringing people back in from the suburbs. also i would ban avacados cuz they are fucking gross
because our whole way of life is dependant on it on every level
you diddnt do anything today that diddnt consume fossil fuels
I was with you until the avacado ban, avacados are nature’s most perfect food
national defense is 100% reliant on oil (the US military is the worlds largest consumer of oil)
the US economy is 100% reliant on oil
food production is 100% reliant on oil
and last but not least the oil industry has a massive influence over the US government
Now explain to me rationally and reasonably how this is somehow not blindingly obvious to everyone?
without any allusions to the Cold War, loony
Using the logic of mattemuse the US military, economy and food industry is entirely comprised of a black liquid. I’m pretty sure the army could revert back to militia if it had to.
that’s pretty retarded. militias typically keep up to date with the latest ICBMs and stealth bombers*, do they?
*not powered by fossil fuel, of course
I’m pointing out your flaw in saying that it’s ONE HUNDRED percent dependant upon oil. I’m not saying a large contingent of the military needs it.
I am pretty sure (or at least can imagine) that the burning of fossil fuels is somehow connected even with the manufacturing of small military grade firearms and ammunition, so even foot soldiers are reliant on it in a way. Unless you only equip them with knifes - oh wait, you gotta burn coal to forge a knife. Damn…
The factories that produce weapons use fossil fuels, so yes. I also imagine many plastics being used in most of the things soldiers use, so more fossil fuel usage there.
Of course, the stuff that’s already been produced isn’t going anywhere.
Well Palin could have become President, so…
Oh wait, that could’ve actually happened. And its not funny. My bad.
My point is that its not likely. At all.
Firstly, a general point about Oil. Oil will never actually ‘run out’. The issue is that it will become far too expensive to extract, which will make it supremely unprofitable as supply proves totally incapable of matching up with demand. As it runs out and becomes more expensive, every industry that can will shift away from it in an effort to reduce costs. This will mean that the only industries still using the fuel will be those that can’t readily switch (e.g. planes and, probably, the military).
What’s required for them is longer term change. They can’t just whack a hydrogen engine in the front of their vehicles and go; they need more innovation. If this innovation isn’t present by the time oil starts to dwindle to drastically low levels (which, frankly, wont be soon), then the army can keep consuming oil until it develops the technology to completely convert.
If the Government wants to monopolise on the oil currently coming into America, it can very easily do so. How? It raises the tax on oil to over 9000% (or some similarly large number). This means nobody will buy it. That means that it can use it all for its own purposes, while it commits to long-term change in operating procedures to bring costs down.
As for the rest of your examples, I don’t see how the US Economy and food production is 100% reliant on oil, nor do I see why they would want to still be that reliant on oil when the price skyrockets. They will much prefer technological development over another costly armed invasion of another, most likely Arab, country to requisition oil supplies.
Lastly, to Big Oil. Its true that they have a massive stake in Washington. Three issues. Firstly, Obama just told them to get stuffed over the incident in the Gulf of Mexico and I’d look for big reforms both there and in relation to the relationship between Washington and the other Big industries. Secondly, they wont have that same kind of power when the loss of oil takes the wind out of their sales and they have no money. Thirdly, they will be as interested in developing and moving away from unrenewable sources of energy as anyone else, since the cost of not doing so would be huge. Even if America goes to war and physically takes over every single oil field, oil will still run out. Big Oil realises this and will, either by its own volition or that of its shareholders and consumers, be forced to develop.
On that point of invasion; who says invasion is the best way to acquire resource security anyway? What are you going to do, waltz into these countries and hold the workers at gunpoint? Occupy the countries and bring in your own workers? How on earth is that the economic decision to make? Not to mention the fact that its just a stop-gap solution that will effectively destroy every other aspect of America’s international relations? Will Washington really dive that blindly into a massive military incursion just so one industry in America can screw it up for everyone else? I think not.
Does not compute.
He’s saying that “running out” means “it won’t be cost effective to get any remaining oil”. So it’ll run out in the sense that it will stop being extracted.
Yeah, that would be really dumb. Good thing nobody would ever make such a stupid decision. Oh wait…
The only reason he was able to justify the invasion was because the US populace wanted him to. That was the issue Clinton ran into in Somalia; when nobody at home wants you to invade, they wont stand by while US troops die, which is why he was ultimately forced to pull out.
The reason why it’ll be different is, perhaps, twofold (and that’s assuming you get another Bush). Firstly, the people in the US have already been shown the massive toll of trying to sustain a war in a Middle Eastern country. Furthermore, the issue wont be able to be disguised as ‘national security’ any more. Secondly, and perhaps most notably, given the current shift away from using oil, when the time comes when oil is ‘running out’ (thanks for the clarification above), people wont be as doggedly supporting of a military invasion aimed at securing the last remnants of an outdated energy source. Ergo, no popular support and, therefore, no war.
It’s just crazy reading this stuff, do people really think like that? The US populace was aggresively propagandized before the Iraq war, and it still barely had 50% support. Now it’s more like 30% and it’s still going on with no signs of stopping! How does this example support your point about popular support? And furthermore, when a propaganda campaign can create 50% support for a pointless and counterproductive war, imagine how easy it would be to convince the US populace to fight a war for possession of the substance that our entire way of life (economic, consumer society, military) is totally dependent on! In fact I’m surprised it hasn’t started already (hm).
I can imagine the propaganda ad already:
“Our American Way of Life. Isn’t it grand? Shopping in the Mall, HDTV, Playstation 4, Hummer Truck in the 'yard… seems perfect. But - what if it’s not? Friends, your future could be in serious danger, because all of these things you have and can do are dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. Our national ressources are already running out. What will you do when your Mall is no longer supplied, when no new computers, video games and TVs can be produced, when your car won’t drive anymore?
Thankfully, though, there is a solution. American Intelligence has discovered a large oil supply readily available for exploitation. The only thing standing in our way to continue our great American Way of life as it used to be, is a couple of ragheads guarding it because of some religious mambo-jambo. We’d just have to bomb the shit out of them and our future would be secured. What do you say?”
American Public: “DO EEET FAGGOT!”
I’d bet on it.
I believe you’re confusing Bush’s election with popular support for the Iraq war. If you look at this Wikipedia page, you can see this:
And this:
That may have changed quickly, but at the time Bush went to war he did so with popular support.
Moreover: Obama announced that he’s leaving. Why? Because popular support has disappeared. That and because he’s nice.
Yeah. Just crazy. I’m doing a Politics major at University, with one unit on the Middle East, so I’m fairly confident that what I’m spouting isn’t completely ludicrous.
Two reasons: Firstly, the US populace has already seen how destructive one military campaign in the Middle East has been. They’ve seen the images of TV, they’ve seen the destruction it has wreaked on their economy, and they have seen the death tolls that have resulted. They will not be eager to fight another.
Secondly, the public trend has been away from oil dependency, especially since the whole global warming revelation (and the spill in the Gulf of Mexico didn’t help), and I can’t see them fighting a war to preserve the diminishing supplies of a resource that, by the time this becomes an issue, we will, most likely, no longer require.
Ok, looking at wikipedia, it’s obvious you’re cherry-picking the highest poll number to support your argument. You’re citing numbers from May and February, but none from March, the actual date we invaded:
I may not have your fancy college education, but the public’s total non-reaction to Obama escalating the Afghanistan war with 50,000 more combat troops and expanded military operations Pakistan, and planning to “leave” Iraq with only 50,000 combat troops and 70,000 Blackwater mercs staying behind, implies the US populace hasn’t learned the lesson you seem to think they have learned. Also note the non-reaction to Obama walking back his deadline for the Iraq deadline, most people don’t even know he did it.