Richard,
While many of your facts are indisputable, I'm going to differ
with you severly on several of the matters that you present.
The first is the representation that GWB's (#43's) energy policy
is "responsible." A policy heavily weighted towards new
production in fossil fuels - primarily coal and oil (including
production in environmentally sensitive areas (as if there are
any areas that are not - go figure!), extended licensure of aging
nuclear plants, fast track for more nuclear power (eliminates
most public comment), relegation of negawatts to inconsequential
status and perpetuation of the gross subsidy imbalance for AE
relative to fossil fuels are just a few of the highlights.
The principle (no mis-spelling) reason for Congress not passing
Mr. Bush's policy is its high degree of irresponsibility. To vote
in favor of the policy is to vote for massive new production at
the expense of a planet and its peoples (in order to attain "self
sufficiency). To vote against it is to perpetuate the present
cycle of dependence upon imports, which will eventually force the
formulation of an energy policy that is considerably more
weighted towards efficiency, AE, appropriate technologies and
conservation.
In essence, perpetuation of the status quo will sooner force a
crisis, which will dictate radical and immediate changes in order
to continue to meet demand, much less future demand. This "no
vote policy" is considerably more far sighted than Mr. Bush's
near sighted policy. Painful and seemingly irresponsible in the
short term, but no more so than Mr. Bush's in the short and long
term. One would think that supposed adults would have the common
sense to avoid a crisis while at the same time effecting a
responsible energy policy. Apparently not if the self-servance of
US politics is any indicator.
One might note that GHWB (#41) accomplished more towards the goal
of cleaner energy and energy efficiency by signing EPACT than
does GW II with his existing policy. Granted, cleaner energy and
energy efficiency are not the same as self sufficiency. But they
are integral parts of it.
You also state that the US national debt of $6 trillion is
entirely attributable to oil imports over time. While you are
correct that a responsible energy policy effected 1/4 century ago
would have foregone many of the costs which have contributed to
the national debt, their total sum over 25 years are not the
primary source of the national debt. Gross fiduciary
irresponsibility by politicians in the full spectrum of the
people's business is the primary cause. One should take note that
the trend in annual increases in US national debt correlates more
directly with particular administrations, rather than the steady
stream of successive years of foreign oil consumption.
Mind you, even had the US and other nations spent the last 1/4
century moving steadily and without pause in the direction of
efficiency, conservation and AE, most of the expenditures made
for protecting foreign oil would have been initiated for the very
same reasons already on the books - national and international
security - as the potential for crippled national and entwined
international economies would still exist to one degree or
another.
Again, I will say that many of your facts and premises are in
order. Yet several of your considerations appear to have a rather
un-even, heavy handed intent and inaccurate foundation. What you
choose to dismiss is that the present day results of US energy
policy are the accumulation of all efforts and lack of effort of
the entire body politic - all parties and all peoples at all
levels for the past 1/4 century and longer - not simply one
faction or one party as you would represent or have another
believe.
Still looking forward to seeing the true costs of petroleum fuels
being represented at the pumps - $5 - $6 a gallon,
Todd Swearingen
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: [biofuel] Dependence on foreign oil - REPLY
In a message dated 07/27/2002 12:04:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Todd: I like your statement: "> The only president in US history
that has
> been willing to shit or get off the pot relative to energy
policy and
> "national security" was Jimmy Carter. Anyone remember "the
moral equivalent
> of war?" However its not entirely accurate in that President
Bush is the
> first one to submit a written energy policy to the Congress.
Jimmy Carter
> did not. However, since you appear to be a student of energy
(as I am
> since 1958) here might be some interesting facts for you.
>
> In 1978, Jimmy Carter pleaded with Congress for a responsible
energy policy
> saying it is costing the American people $250 million a day for
imported
> foreign oil.
> Four presidents later in early 2001, George Bush put forth the
first
> responsible energy proposal for the Congress to consider. A
year later and
> now with America involved in a "world war on terrorism" the
Congress has
> failed to pass a responsible energy plan.
> ·
In 1978, when Jimmy Carter pleaded with the Congress to come
up with a
> responsible energy policy, the national debt was less than $1.0
trillion.
> Today it is over $6.0 trillion.
> ·
In 1978, America was importing about 36% of the oil we
consumed. Today
we
> import over 52% of the oil America consumes.
>
· In 2000, America produced only 5.8 million barrels of the
almost 20
million barrels
> consumed each day.
>
· In 2000, America consumed 27% of the worlds daily
consumption of oil, yet
only
> has 5% of the world's population.
>
· In 2000, the transportation industry used 150% of American
oil
production.
· In 2000, transportation accounted for 68% of America's oil
consumption.
· 94% of everything we eat, wear or use gets to us by diesel
fuel.
· Since the 1990, Gulf War estimates have ranged from $6 to
$60 billion a
year for
> the United States Armed Forces to defend oil flowing from the
Middle East.
> The best guess is $32 billion annually of the DoD budget. This
adds over
> $4.00 to each barrel of imported oil. Since 9/11 - add to the
cost of the
> DoD another $1 billion monthly. Now adding over $6.00 per
barrel of
> imported oil. The American people do not see this at the
pump…it is hidden
> in taxes and other fees (taxes) they pay.
>
· Since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo foreign oil has cost the
American economy
> about $7 trillion. Today the national debt is a little over $6
trillion;
> all of it due to our imports of foreign oil because elected
representatives
> failed their fiduciary duty to work for the American people.
>
>
If America is to survive as we have known and our forefathers
fought for it,
we must
> all help get a responsible energy policy in place (now) for the
security of
> our children and grandchildren to live free as we have done.
To do nothing
> will insure that those wishing to kill off the "American Spirit
of Freedom"
> will surely win.
>
Consider this: What will America's domestic oil production be in
30 years?
Far
> less than today! Unless we take action to reduce our need for
foreign oil,
> our debt will be at least another $7 trillion. Foreign
interests hold over
> 23% of our national debt. Who controls America's future?
>
>
In 1870, America was exporting two-thirds of its oil production.
Only 100
year later
> in 1970, America was only producing 21% of the total world
production, while
> consuming over two-thirds of the world's oil production - a
complete
> reversal. Two World Wars took its toll on American oil
resources.
> Congress has avoided difficult energy security decisions for
more than 40
> years. The Congress that ignored Jimmy Carters plea was
controlled by
> Democrats. The Senate that has derailed much of President
Bush' s proposed
> energy policy (once) again controlled by the Democrats. Take a
closer look
> at the Democratic party since the 1960 platform and you will
quickly see
> the problem and how we created a national debt since Carter of
over $6.0
> trillion by spending over $7.0 trillion on foreign imported
oil.
>
>
> The choice for our future is easy: Either do nothing and
America will cease
> to exist as we know it in this century. Or, appropriately
exploit all
> sources of energy for the many and varied uses in the United
States. In
> 1999, I helped bring a technology to the United States that
(TODAY) will
> greatly reduce our dependence on oil (5-17%), while reducing
emissions,
> while we explore all other possible energy technologies. Look
it up at
> www.Dipetane.com.
>
> Richard McPherson
> Managing Director
> Combustion Technologies LLC
> 25121 Via Portola
> Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 USA
> 1-949-290-3519
C
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here to find your contact lenses!
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/NsdPZD/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
