Oil is the new smack!
A quite remarkable statement from Dubya in State of the Union speech - unsurprisingly, the State of the Union was pronounced 'strong' but what is this? -" the US is addicted to oil"!! says W - D'uh! - I thought this was pretty obvious. What is amazing is that this is coming from a former oil man (at least on paper - no-one is quite sure whether he actually did any work) who only became a candidate on the back of his name and "big oil"; and invaded Iraq to ensure that the US could take full advantages of Iraq's "resources".... The hypocrisy is so brazen it takes your breath away. You think to yourself "why can't people see through this man?". Still, despite the scepticism about his motives and thought processes it was quite a statement - I wonder how it will be received especially by his big oil contributors.
Probably won't bother them if what he said is looked at carefully. First, he claims he wants to reduce dependency on middle east oil by 75% (and that too only be 2025). But, the US only imports about 20% of its oil from the middle east so that would only really mean that the instead of importing 20% of its oil from ME it will import 15%. Now, on the basis that the oil consumption will probably rise in the US (how can it not!) this may not mean that there is any quantum reduction.
Second, what about using ethanol as a substitute for oil? Well, the first thing is that this benefits a different type of industry, that owns the rights to manufacture ethanol and to grow the corn required - I'm thinking here of the Monstanto's etc (remember them from the GM food debate?)...also, there is some debate about how efficient ethanol actually is. Sure, it might be a substitute for oil but, here's the catch, some people say that it actually takes more oil to produce ethanol than is saved by its subsequent use - see this piece on the website of NPR - it also says that even if all the corn grown in the US was to be allocated for fuel purposes, the oil produced would only be about 10% of the US present consumption - can anyone do the Maths here?
What was also interesting about the SOTU is that although Bush identified the addiction, there was no push to stop people unnecessarily using oil - I'm thinking here in particular of the massive and omnipresent SUVs in the US (and "Hummers" which I suppose is one of the nicknames which most accurately describes the relationship between cars and dicks). Will legislation be introduced to ensure that the auto industry imposes a minimum fuel economy for SUVs? Answers on a postcard please....
No, the speech was meant to reassure Americans that, although the addiction to oil is a problem the problem isn't down to inflated consumption, but down to being addicted to the wrong thing! and then only because it's running out or in the hands of those nasty a-rabs...
anyway, the rest of the speech was pretty much the same as ones given in the past - I don't t know how many times he can say we're winning the war in Iraq until it becomes true...
There was also a bit saved for Iran, as there was last year. Last year it was taken as a signal that there would be an invasion last year. I read that June was the preferred month. the language was a bit more mellow this time - references to the "World" not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons as opposed to the "US" doing what it wanted. And still the debate continues. This morning, news is that Iran has said that it will retaliate if it is attacked. Front page news!! As Shadi said, 'isn't that obvious'?
Probably won't bother them if what he said is looked at carefully. First, he claims he wants to reduce dependency on middle east oil by 75% (and that too only be 2025). But, the US only imports about 20% of its oil from the middle east so that would only really mean that the instead of importing 20% of its oil from ME it will import 15%. Now, on the basis that the oil consumption will probably rise in the US (how can it not!) this may not mean that there is any quantum reduction.
Second, what about using ethanol as a substitute for oil? Well, the first thing is that this benefits a different type of industry, that owns the rights to manufacture ethanol and to grow the corn required - I'm thinking here of the Monstanto's etc (remember them from the GM food debate?)...also, there is some debate about how efficient ethanol actually is. Sure, it might be a substitute for oil but, here's the catch, some people say that it actually takes more oil to produce ethanol than is saved by its subsequent use - see this piece on the website of NPR - it also says that even if all the corn grown in the US was to be allocated for fuel purposes, the oil produced would only be about 10% of the US present consumption - can anyone do the Maths here?
What was also interesting about the SOTU is that although Bush identified the addiction, there was no push to stop people unnecessarily using oil - I'm thinking here in particular of the massive and omnipresent SUVs in the US (and "Hummers" which I suppose is one of the nicknames which most accurately describes the relationship between cars and dicks). Will legislation be introduced to ensure that the auto industry imposes a minimum fuel economy for SUVs? Answers on a postcard please....
No, the speech was meant to reassure Americans that, although the addiction to oil is a problem the problem isn't down to inflated consumption, but down to being addicted to the wrong thing! and then only because it's running out or in the hands of those nasty a-rabs...
anyway, the rest of the speech was pretty much the same as ones given in the past - I don't t know how many times he can say we're winning the war in Iraq until it becomes true...
There was also a bit saved for Iran, as there was last year. Last year it was taken as a signal that there would be an invasion last year. I read that June was the preferred month. the language was a bit more mellow this time - references to the "World" not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons as opposed to the "US" doing what it wanted. And still the debate continues. This morning, news is that Iran has said that it will retaliate if it is attacked. Front page news!! As Shadi said, 'isn't that obvious'?
posted by Akash at 1:28 PM
3 Comments:
The American car indstry is far too fragile at the moment to impose additonal costs. Given their current levels of stress, both Ford and GM are packing their charity bags and heading off to Washington for assistance. I think we can all picture the motor industry lobbyists working the halls of the West Wing to great effect.
Nohting of greta substance in the speech i imagaine, although i haven't bothered reading it, for the man has little or no relevance any longer.
I was initlally sceptical when US commentators starting call GWB a lame duck, but it's feeling much more convincing now. I doubt his current malaise, events aside, is anything to do with simle ennui on the part of the US people. That's not generally their nature, and it reflects more the absolute amount of poo that follows him around.
This is the stinkiest amdministration since Nixon, and it looks like the people have woken up and had their coffee...
Interesting post though. There is some good stuff on the TheBigAsk website on climtae change type issues if you are in the area.
Yes.... Very well written Bobs. You are becoming quite a profilic blogger.:))) You know..... We have all known that that this administration is full of S**T but to be allowed to so brazenly get away with the things that they have got away with, (I hope I do not need to list examples as I would be here all night) is still a complete and utter puzzlement to me.
Keep up the good work Bob. I wish I could write as well.
liked this one
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1703234,00.html
Post a Comment
<< Home