Explosion heard in London - political part

[Bereta_Eder]

What and displease its clients?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by PLATO


Dauphin, while I agree in principle, this solution offers its own problems.

Unless the replacement energy source is cheaper than oil, then you are still likely to have developing economies coming up through the increased use of oil. For example, is China likely to convert to a new source if it is more expensive? Is India?

This will create a new political dynamic in the ME as the west will begin to loose interest in the region. China and India may well not be in a position to carry the same political influence that the west currently does. Without political influence then their military options for ensuring their flow of energy become more important. This could lead to some devastating and unforseen consequences.

A replacement energy source for oil must be cheap, efficient, and internationally available to not impact the ME situation is a negative way.

So your concern is that India and China will become militant? I would think that they are more likely to use coal supplies in the absence of renewables or oil.

[DAVOUT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explosion heard in London - political part

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Were it not for the propensity of other suspects to be killed "while resisting arrest" in France, he'd have been extradicted quickly.

This is worth an example :
In december 1994, on the Marseille-Marignane airport, all Algerian terrorists (about 6) threatening to kill all passengers of the Air France plane Alger-Paris, were killed by the GIGN (Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale).
The terrorists were resisting arrest; if I understand the implications of your statement, they should have been send confortably to Londonistan for serious judicial protection.
It is on this example that you justify the refusal of extradition.
By the way, Rachid Ramda is still in UK, ten years after the request made by a French juge.

[PLATO]

No, not so much that they will become militant. It is more that they will become dependent and, in the absence of political firepower, will result to military firepower to secure their energy sources...much as the US is doing now.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Winston
President Bush has repeatedly stressed that U.S. dependancy on foreign oil (and fossil fuels in a wider sense) is both a national security and economic concern in a long term perspective. I think we'll see the U.S. lead the way into researching substitute sources of energy in the near future, on a much larger scale than today.

No. Bush has complained about foreign oil dependency in order to push for more drilling in the U.S., especially the pet GOP ANWR project. The administration has done little, if anything, to address reliance on fossil fuels in general or promote alternative fuel sources. You think Bush and Cheney, two oil tycoons, would seriously advocate alternatives to oil?

[Winston]

Yes, I do, Boris Godunov. That's why my post looked the way it did.

He said it again only a few days ago at a press conference here. It's also part of his argument for rejecting the Kyoto protocol - going the tech route instead.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No. Bush has complained about foreign oil dependency in order to push for more drilling in the U.S., especially the pet GOP ANWR project. The administration has done little, if anything, to address reliance on fossil fuels in general or promote alternative fuel sources. You think Bush and Cheney, two oil tycoons, would seriously advocate alternatives to oil?

All Things Considered, June 15, 2005 · President Bush says it's time for Congress to do something about high oil prices and dependence on foreign oil. Speaking at an energy conference, the president urged increasing incentives for domestic production, alternative energy research and for buying hybrid vehicles.

[Az]

June 16 2005 - President Bush says it's time to cede power, and make way for the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of America

See, talk is cheap! Oil , OTOH, isn't.

[DAVOUT]

PLATO,

I cant see the oil flow stop. The price will be so high that no producer could accept the idea to loose that big money. Even islamists need money, and they will love taking our money.
The real problem is that the texans will not accept to see their profits going to the ME, this being aggravated by the reduction of the US consumption through industrial improvements (automotive) and use of new energy sources.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
PLATO,

I cant see the oil flow stop. The price will be so high that no producer could accept the idea to loose that big money. Even islamists need money, and they will love taking our money.
The real problem is that the texans will not accept to see their profits going to the ME, this being aggravated by the reduction of the US consumption through industrial improvements (automotive) and use of new energy sources.

While I understand your feelings on Texans (such a misunderstood group! ), most oil is sold on the spot market. If world demand continues to increase, even in the face of new energy sources, then those "gentlemen" from Texas will be just fine.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by GePap
This attack does not change anything political, in even the slightest way. The Blair government was commited to Iraq, and this attack won;t change it nor will it make the war in Iraq significantly more popular. Ditto in all other countries. In 2 years this will be at most a date to remember. Heck, even 9/11 (nearly 100 times more deadly) is starting to lose significance, if it hasn;t already.

But probably they wanted to provoke a political change. After Madrid's bombs they might think that the UK was like Spain. Even if they didn't expected to put public opinion against Blair they probably hoped to provoke the cancellation of the G8 meeting, which would have been a great victory for terrorists. Fortunatelly for the British people (and also thanks to them) they have honoured their well earned fame. They still stand as defenders of the Western Civilization.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO

All Things Considered, June 15, 2005 · President Bush says it's time for Congress to do something about high oil prices and dependence on foreign oil. Speaking at an energy conference, the president urged increasing incentives for domestic production, alternative energy research and for buying hybrid vehicles.

You think Bush and Cheney, two oil tycoons, would seriously advocate alternatives to oil?

Talk is cheap. What has Bush actually DONE to promote alternative energy research? Bush's budget slashed programs promoting alternative energy sources by a third in 2004. When he first took office, he tried to slash the budget for renewables by half, but Congress rejected it. Bush also replaced a Clinton Admin program to push for a mass-market hydrogen fuel cell cars in the next couple of years with one that had half the budget and the target date pushed to 2015-2020.

A lot more examples here:

http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/06/11/alternative/

Try to ignore his spin and look at what he's actually done. Slashing budgets for renewables while continuing multi-billion dollar subsidies for fossil fuel companies is hardly what I'd call a serious effort to promote alternative energy.

[PLATO]

Perhaps it is just a difference in where the funding should come from.

Clinton proposed government spending to promote development. Bush promotes reducing government taxation for private enterprise to develop alternative sources.

The net-net to government coffers is consistent to both. The difference is that Bush leaves it to the free market to determine the most viable sources whereas Clinton put the government in charge of research direction.

Perhaps Clinton's view is more consistent with your fiscal views...Bush's is more consistent with mine.

However, I would take issue with the viewpoint that these incentives to produce alternative fuel are "protecting" domestic oil producers.

[Velociryx]

But Boris...it does not matter, in the end.

The fact of the matter is...we're gonna run out. And long before that happens, the price is gonna go thru the roof.

It WILL happen (it's already happening, gas prices jumped fifteen cents in two days here, and over the last four months, have increased by 40%).

This is not conjecture or maybe, and no matter how clever we humans might be, we still have to obey the basic laws of supply and demand.

Smart money already knows it, and isn't waiting around for the government to fund research.

-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Another private sector initiative offered by Bush on May 16:

"To help more consumers conserve gas and protect the environment, my budget next year proposes that every American who purchases a hybrid vehicle receive a tax credit of up to $4,000."

The difference is not the goal, but the path. I think even GW gets the fact that oil is a limited commodity.