[Athens]

I see the next world war starting some time in the next 50 years with 2 key factors. North America will be attacked by Asia for water resources, and North America, mostly the US will be the aggressor in the middle east for oil resources. With the US so dependent on oil, I cant see how it will be avoided that to maintain there level of life they will have no choice but to secure oil from the middle east. And Asia, much of the water is supplied by melting glaciers which will run out with in the next 50 years will have no choice but to secure water to maintain life. Question is which will happen first.

[Doofy]

No, nothing to do with resources. Especially not NA being attacked by Asia over water resources (do you think it never rains in Asia or something?).

The next World war will start in Europe as one country (either the UK or France) becomes an islamic republic. Once the first country has been "lost" to islam, the other western countries world-wide will become aware of their own precarious situation and take measures to stop their own downfall. The results will be a world-war, islam vs everyone else.

[Athens]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/sci...eut/index.html

It's a scary thought, but scientists say the 40 percent of humanity living in South Asia and China could well be living with little drinking water within 50 years as global warming melts Himalayan glaciers, the region's main water source.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, nothing to do with resources. Especially not NA being attacked by Asia over water resources (do you think it never rains in Asia or something?).

The next World war will start in Europe as one country (either the UK or France) becomes an islamic republic. Once the first country has been "lost" to islam, the other western countries world-wide will become aware of their own precarious situation and take measures to stop their own downfall. The results will be a world-war, islam vs everyone else.

That also sounds pretty racist, im guessing you don't like Muslims.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Athens

That also sounds pretty racist, im guessing you don't like Muslims.

There was nothing racists in that post, nor anything to suggest the author doesn't like muslims. The point of this thread is to speculate on the next world war. He did.

[Sky Captain]

Considering islam is a collective belief/idealology and not something of a genetic trait.
Kinda like the Boy Scouts.

[Millennium]

At least everyone seems to agree that the Middle East will play a much more central role in World War III than it did in the previous two. That said, my money is on an escalation of the Palestine-Israel conflict getting way out of hand, to the point where someone uses a nuclear weapon. The international community's reaction will be swift and extreme on both sides: some will rush in to remove the government that dared to use a nuclear weapon while others will rush in to defend it.

Ironically, even though I think the war will start with the use of a nuclear weapon, I don't think any others will actually be used during that war. Anyone who dares would split the war into multiple fronts, not unlike the European and Asian fronts in World War II. Whichever side never uses a nuclear weapon will eventually win, and the side which used them will be branded as analogous to the Axis in WWII. The only alternate outcome would be if the side which first used a nuke continues to use them, and the outcome of that is nasty enough that I'd rather not think about it right now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens

That also sounds pretty racist, im guessing you don't like Muslims.

Repeat after me: Islam is not a race.

And for the record... ...I don't mind muslims but don't like islam. Sort of in the same way that I don't mind Windows users but don't like Windows.

[MacManMikeOSX]

I think it'll be within a decade and not because of islam, Probably some former U.S.S.R. republic will try an orange type revolution and Russia will interfere in the fear of losing influence, then the U.S. will get righteous and try and also intervene on the other side prompting a war. In this war most likely fueled by dislike of current U.S. policy the Europeans will enter it against the U.S. despite that they have an interest in an open Eastern Europe. The U.K. will back the U.S. though. China will play both sides and prefer to not enter at all until Japan allies with Europe at which point China and Japan will war, while China still will refuse alliance with the U.S.

[rambo47]

I don't think the next war will be fought with weapons like we're using today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, there will be skirmishes fought all over, and the killing will be done the old fashioned way, but the next "BIG ONE" will be fought with $$. Economic warfare, with China playing a central role.

[mojo2]

http://www.sablesys.com/artofwar.html

I first heard of Sun Tzu about 15 years ago and have read his teachings, "THE ART OF WAR" interpreted by business professors. Ditto for von Clausewitz in his classic text, "On War."

http://www.clausewitz.info/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm

Anyone wanting to know what the generals study in war college would do well to give these sites at least a quick look. Better would be to read it and compare it to what's going on in the world today.

Then apply the teachings to future potential battles and foes and ask yourself if the US government, military and the US population are ready to take on China. Or, if China is ready to take on the US.

[Macrobat]

Besides, the US receives the majority of its oil from Canada and Venezuela, we could simply send two Boy Scout troops and the New Hampshire State Police to take Canada, why even leave the continent? No World War and your scenario collapses.

BTW, "scientists" simply means at least two. Is there any empirical evidence to support this theory of the Himilayan glaciers melting? Does this theory take into account the massive reservoir the Chinese are about to fill with the proceeds from the huge dam they are building?

Unfortunately, Doofy's scenario is far more believeable.

Why would Asians cross the Pacific Ocean in search of water when it's FAR easier to build desalination plants, like the Saudis and Kuwaitis?

This marks the second time you've forwarded some sort of North American invasion by Asians here, perhaps you are the racist one?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Athens

I see the next world war starting some time in the next 50 years with 2 key factors. North America will be attacked by Asia for water resources, and North America, mostly the US will be the aggressor in the middle east for oil resources. With the US so dependent on oil, I cant see how it will be avoided that to maintain there level of life they will have no choice but to secure oil from the middle east. And Asia, much of the water is supplied by melting glaciers which will run out with in the next 50 years will have no choice but to secure water to maintain life. Question is which will happen first.

I doubt there'll be a world war for water resources, regional ones perhaps but not a world war. And Asia attacking North America for water makes no sense - consider the logistics and expense (if they win) of transporting the water back to Asia. I would say if they are thirsty to go west young man - China, Russia and the EuroAsian land mass have plenty of water resources to fight over, a land war is easier to fight than a seaborne invasion of another continent, especially one that has the military muscle of the US. More than likely, in the next 50 years technology will be advanced enough to make desalinization on a mass scale cheap and reliable and water issues would be more one of infrastructure - pipelines and what not - than available resources.

As for oil wars, those are going on now and have been for sometime and will subside in the next 10-20 years when the oil starts to dry out and alternative fuels are cheap and available on the level that petroleum is today.

Europe might have some regional conflicts such as those in the Balkans during the early nineties but more likely what will happen, as more and more Muslims and Africans immigrate there for job opportunities you'll see the rise of nationalism (perhaps in a trans Europe sense but more likely in a French, British, German identity sense) and racism - there'll be immigration limitations and tensions will increase to the point of at best civil unrest, at worst all out religious/racist conflicts. Though the bin Laden's of the world point the angry finger at the US in reality we don't have a sizeable Muslim population (compared to the population in general) whereas Europe does. For example 10 percent of the population of France is Muslim, 2.5 of UK, 3.7 of Germany, 5 of the Netherlands, 3 of both Switzerland and Sweden, 11 of Bulgaria. In America it's only 2 percent. The potential for sparks is greater, IMO, in Europe.

The next world war will be between the US and China over regional influence in Southeast Asia - it'll probably start over Taiwan and roll in Japan, the Koreas, and potentially Europeans with interest there (UK, France, Netherlands), India, Russia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and Cambodia.

The alliances would proabably work out:

US, UK, France, Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam (yeah, they hate the Chinese), Thailand and Singapore (they are one of our best allies in the area and the Navy has been cultivating a strong relationship with them for years) and India. The Chinese would probably get the Pakistanis on their side to slug it out with India, I could see Iran coming in on China's side (their current President see's Asia as rising and obviously does not like the West.) If it spreads that far then you could also see Israel involved against Iran and the entire region.

Unknowns would be Russia, they'll probably hang out and wait till the dust almost settles then join in with the winner, same with Indonesia.

It would probably go nuclear between Pakistan and India but not China and the US, though N.K. might take a shot at the West Coast.

But I don't think a WWII total war scenerio is likely, more likely it'll be trade wars and small regional conflicts for influence, trade routes, resources and what not.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I doubt there'll be a world war for water resources, regional ones perhaps but not a world war. And Asia attacking North America for water makes no sense - consider the logistics and expense (if they win) of transporting the water back to Asia. I would say if they are thirsty to go west young man - China, Russia and the EuroAsian land mass have plenty of water resources to fight over, a land war is easier to fight than a seaborne invasion of another continent, especially one that has the military muscle of the US. More than likely, in the next 50 years technology will be advanced enough to make desalinization on a mass scale cheap and reliable and water issues would be more one of infrastructure - pipelines and what not - than available resources.

As for oil wars, those are going on now and have been for sometime and will subside in the next 10-20 years when the oil starts to dry out and alternative fuels are cheap and available on the level that petroleum is today.

Europe might have some regional conflicts such as those in the Balkans during the early nineties but more likely what will happen, as more and more Muslims and Africans immigrate there for job opportunities you'll see the rise of nationalism (perhaps in a trans Europe sense but more likely in a French, British, German identity sense) and racism - there'll be immigration limitations and tensions will increase to the point of at best civil unrest, at worst all out religious/racist conflicts. Though the bin Laden's of the world point the angry finger at the US in reality we don't have a sizeable Muslim population (compared to the population in general) whereas Europe does. For example 10 percent of the population of France is Muslim, 2.5 of UK, 3.7 of Germany, 5 of the Netherlands, 3 of both Switzerland and Sweden, 11 of Bulgaria. In America it's only 2 percent. The potential for sparks is greater, IMO, in Europe.

The next world war will be between the US and China over regional influence in Southeast Asia - it'll probably start over Taiwan and roll in Japan, the Koreas, and potentially Europeans with interest there (UK, France, Netherlands), India, Russia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore and Cambodia.

The alliances would proabably work out:

US, UK, France, Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam (yeah, they hate the Chinese), Thailand and Singapore (they are one of our best allies in the area and the Navy has been cultivating a strong relationship with them for years) and India. The Chinese would probably get the Pakistanis on their side to slug it out with India, I could see Iran coming in on China's side (their current President see's Asia as rising and obviously does not like the West.) If it spreads that far then you could also see Israel involved against Iran and the entire region.

Unknowns would be Russia, they'll probably hang out and wait till the dust almost settles then join in with the winner, same with Indonesia.

It would probably go nuclear between Pakistan and India but not China and the US, though N.K. might take a shot at the West Coast.

But I don't think a WWII total war scenerio is likely, more likely it'll be trade wars and small regional conflicts for influence, trade routes, resources and what not.

Other than the fact that your prediction might fit your personal view of the world, is there any basis for your conclusions/predictions?

There's quite a bit of info on wars over water.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0...256B66005C8705

http://www.worldwater.org/conflictIntro.htm

http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/154/lonergan.html

http://jubileesouth.org/news/EpZyVVZykEBFJPggba.shtml

http://www.aidc.org.za/?q=book/view/111

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....icle_id=18055#

================================================== ========
http://www.rediff.com///news/2005/mar/21pak.htm

"India, Pak war over water likely'

PTI | March 21, 2005 | 08:51 IST

A strategic think-tank has said a war over water between Pakistan and Kashmir was 'inevitable'.

"If India and Pakistan take a political decision to restructure their relations, they will have to ensure that water serves as a flow to bring them together, rather than taking them further on the course of conflict," the Strategic Foresight Group said in a report 'The Final Settlement: Restructuring India-Pakistan Relations'.

The report of the Mumbai-based body said Pakistan's per capita water availability had declined from 5,600 cubic metres at the time of independence to 1,200 cubic metres in 2005. It was expected to reach the threshold level of 1,000 cubic metres before 2010, or even earlier by 2007.

"While all (Pakistani) provinces are suffering from water shortages, there is a tendency to force Sindh to bear a disproportionately higher share of the burden than Punjab," it said.

The Pakistani army leadership was keen on ensuring water supply to Punjab at the cost of Sindh.

"Senior officers, including General Pervez Musharraf, have purchased land in Punjab," the 109-page report said.

Keeping this in mind, 'Pakistan's primary interest in Kashmir is to secure its water resources in order to satisfy Punjab and contain Sindh. This is in confrontation with the interests of the people of Kashmir on both sides of the LoC [Line of Control]', it said.

"A conflict over land between the people of Kashmir and the government of India will soon become a thing of the past. On the other hand, a water war between Kashmir and Pakistan is inevitable in the future," the report said.

Then, as for the oil wars you predict in the next 10 - 20 years, to be followed by cheap plentiful oil alternatives, can you substantiate ANY of that? At ALL? Can you make a logical argument to convince me of that other than because it seems reasonable to you and you'd LIKE that to be the reality that this is anywhere close to being possibly true?

If we discovered this MIRACLE energy alternative to oil TOMORROW, how much money would it cost to convert all the cars and all the homes and all the factories and all the manufacturing and all the oil based products and all the industries that depend on oil and all the jobs that depend on oil based products and etc.

Then, when you figure out how much time it would take, figure out how much money it would take. Oh, and figure into that the fact that we'd be fighting a major war for oil off and on or continually from now until then, some 10 - 20 years from today. So, the economics will play a role in your computations. Will we devote most of our economy to the changeover that will be our salvation? Or do we go into further debt to finance a war that just never ends, but is important to our daily survival?

Then figure this...

That MIRACLE alternative to oil is nowhere in sight.

*sound of wind whipping through old deserted wild west town. sage brush and tumbleweed blows down the main street*

As much as I go on and on and on about our energy situation, the false hope just remains.

Only when we ALL are hopelessly crapping our pants about the bleakness of the future will big business and government get serious about working on discovering the MIRACLE.

But they don't get serious about it because WE AREN'T SERIOUS ABOUT IT.

We still believe SOMEONE will pull a rabbit out of a hat, like someone alsways does, and save our asses.

You still have this false belief.

Well, I want you to show me why you feel so optimistic.

And if you can't, I want you to become scared crapless and become a wild man and demand in your town, in your newspaper and to your representatives that false hope, when it comes to energy strategy, is going to KILL US.

Our national economy can't exist without growth. If we don't grow, we die. It's a fact.

Oil is what makes it possible for us to grow and for us to have reasonable faith that growth will continue.

If there is a shortage of oil, our economy weakens before it becomes ill and it will lose consconsciousness before it dies but that whole process can happen in weeks.

If we SUDDENLY one day realize we are fxxcked and we HAVE to devote every possible dollar towards discovering a new alternative to oil, that will take away our growth and we'll die.

If we keep our economy going along as it is and remain viable and keep growing but fail to invest enough into finding an alternative energy source to replace oil, one day we'll wake up and find that we are racing headlong over a cliff.

The key is to spend as MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE NOW WHILE WE CAN to find a replacement for oil as well as continue to grow our economy.

THAT'S WHY I WANT YOU TO BE SCARED SHXXLESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

That's why I go on and on and on.

That's why I sound like Dr. Doom.

[Doofy]

Mojo: If we were truly running out of oil, all of the oil companies would be diversifying into alternative energy sources in a big way in order to preserve their future existence. They're not.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Mojo: If we were truly running out of oil, all of the oil companies would be diversifying into alternative energy sources in a big way in order to preserve their future existence. They're not.

Wrong!!!

Royal Dutch Shell is one of the biggest investors on the planet in solar energy research.
Read more about it here and here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Wrong!!!

Royal Dutch Shell is one of the biggest investors on the planet in solar energy research.
Read more about it here and here.

Originally Posted by the first link

The key objective for the solar business is to grow in line with the market, which is currently growing at around 25 percent a year.

Reactive to demand, not planning towards future company problems caused by lack of oil.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Let's make some odds and bet with money! 5/3 USA to fight against Tazmania.

[Randman]

The UN just called. They want to speak with Athens on how he was able to glean which countries will start the next world war in such a correct manner.

[Macrobat]

Well, we Americans are rather pissed off that our wells are sitting idle. The US is evidently planning on an oil shortage sometime in the near future, because we are relying on importing oil from abroad, while the government pays the well owners to refrain from pumping here.

The usual reason given is the Strategic Reserve. The tanks built for the Strategic Reserve are full, however.

[mojo2]

dcmacdaddy is right. Here are some more things that might sway you.

These TV commercials are very low key messages. Chevron is REALLY trying not to panic anyone.
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/advertising/television/

http://www.chevron.com/about/real_issues.asp


Now more than ever we need to work together.

Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century, and one thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond.

The trends are in motion.

Energy demand is soaring as never before and driving economic growth. And improved standards of living are requiring increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today.

The facts are compelling.

Many of the world’s oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract—physically, technically, economically, and politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.

The only energy we have in abundance: Human energy™.

We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts? Whatever actions we take, we must look not just to next year, but to the next 50 years.

We need your help.

At Chevron, we believe that innovation, collaboration and conservation are the cornerstones on which to build this new world. But we can’t do it alone. Corporations, governments and every citizen of this planet must be part of the solution as surely as they are part of the problem.

And so, we ask you to join us.

There are many factors in the new energy equation, and we encourage you to consider all of them. We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and policymakers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of reshaping the next era of energy.



================================================== ======================
Home » blogs » Mathew Gross's blog
Chevron: "The Era of Easy Oil is Over"
Submitted by Mathew Gross on July 7, 2005 - 6:54pm. Energy
Although peak oil isn't the topic du jour in the political blogosphere that it was three months ago, it hasn't gone away.

In fact, one of the signals that it's about to become much-more-common knowledge is Chevron's new "blog" and advertising campaign.

Willyoujoinus.com:

Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century, and one thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond.

The trends are in motion.

Energy demand is soaring as never before and driving economic growth. And improved standards of living are requiring increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today.

The facts are compelling.

Many of the world’s oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract—physically, technically, economically, and politically.3 When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.

That ain't James Howard Kunstler, folks. That's Chevron telling you that peak oil is here.

Holy ****, to say the least.

» Mathew Gross's blog

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Well, we Americans are rather pissed off that our wells are sitting idle. The US is evidently planning on an oil shortage sometime in the near future, because we are relying on importing oil from abroad, while the government pays the well owners to refrain from pumping here.

The usual reason given is the Strategic Reserve. The tanks built for the Strategic Reserve are full, however.

The Strategic Reserves would last us HOW long?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Reactive to demand, not planning towards future company problems caused by lack of oil.

Umm, that's basic supply and demand. As the demand for oil increases the cost will go up. Those who no longer can afford oil at the higher cost will look for energy sources elsewhere. One of those areas could/would be solar energy.

What are you looking for, some company to renounce use of fossil fuels to completely embrace alternative energy sources? That would be foolish. What is not foolish is planning for a time when it is better to get energy from non-petroleum-based sources because demand for alternative sources of energy WILL increase as demand for (increasingly limited) petroleum-based sources increase.

[mojo2]

By the way, in one of the TV commercials for Chevron they say that it would take 20,000 windmills to provide for the power needs of a city the size of Paris, France.

This fact is mentioned to help instill in peoples minds that the alternatives they THINK will do the job, really aren't up to it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, that's basic supply and demand.

Yep. They're supplying the demand for alternative fuels because the demand exists due to these "oil running out" scare stories. Not because the supply of oil is going to dry up anytime soon.

They're not planning for an oil-loss. They're simply meeting existing demand for alternatives. Big difference.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, that's basic supply and demand. As the demand for oil increases the cost will go up. Those who no longer can afford oil at the higher cost will look for energy sources elsewhere. One of those areas could/would be solar energy.

What are you looking for, some company to renounce use of fossil fuels to completely embrace alternative energy sources? That would be foolish. What is not foolish is planning for a time when it is better to get energy from non-petroleum-based sources because demand for alternative sources of energy WILL increase as demand for (increasingly limited) petroleum-based sources increase.

Right. But the alternative energy sources on hand now, in testing now, or on the drawing boards now are not seen as being cheap, efficient, capable, durable or suitable in all other ways necessary to be a replacement for oil. So, even if you put ALL the solar and all the wind and all the hydrogen and all the bio-fuel aletrnatives together, we STILL fall waaaay short of JUST the power we need.

When you look at the PRODUCTS we get from oil, then you look at converting our industry and our whole way of life over to something other than oil, then you should be concerned.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. They're supplying the demand for alternative fuels because the demand exists due to these "oil running out" scare stories. Not because the supply of oil is going to dry up anytime soon.

They're not planning for an oil-loss. They're simply meeting existing demand for alternatives. Big difference.

How much blood can a man lose without dying?

How dehydrated do you have to be before you die?

Running out of oil? You are right. It won't happen. But, if the economies that can exist with industries built on a plentiful supply of oil at a pretty cheap price will quickly go out of business causing chain reactions as people lose jobs and can't pay their mortgages and stock and commodity markets reflect a sense of panic and things will quickly happen and before you know it the world is in chaos.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

By the way, in one of the TV commercials for Chevron they say that it would take 20,000 windmills to provide for the power needs of a city the size of Paris, France.

This fact is mentioned to help instill in peoples minds that the alternatives they THINK will do the job, really aren't up to it.

Alternatives are just that. And no one here is advocating switching over to another single-source of energy, away from petroleum-based energy. The point in all of this is that countries have multiple sources of energy at their disposal. For some areas it might make sense to be more heavily reliant on solar (south and soutwest) than wind (West Coast, Pacific Northwest, New England). And what I have been adovcting all laong is that we invest in these technologies and deliberately choose to become less reliant on petroleum-based energy sources. No one solution will solve all our energy needs but a concerted effort to emrbace other solutions, where appropriate, can greatly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based energy sources (and the country's that own those resources).

As for your example about Paris, it all depends on the size of the windmill generator. Within a couple years 1-Megawatt windmills will become the norm and 5-Megawatt windmills will be standard within a decade. In the domestic US typical electrical consumption is 1 Megawatt = 1000 homes. So, for smaller communities just a handful of windmills could supply all their energy needs.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The Strategic Reserves would last us HOW long?

The Strategic Reserve is not for "us," it's for our military's use.

Saw a program on the History Channel last night where the City of Los Angeles actually built a new sewage treatment plant where human waste is processed in airtight tanks and the methane gas scavenged, then piped to a electricity generating plant located directly next door.

The manager of the treatment plant was interviewed, he said that it would cost $12 million per annum to run the plant without the methane reclamation, but only $4 million with, who knew poop was the next alternative fuelsource?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

When you look at the PRODUCTS we get from oil, then you look at converting our industry and our whole way of life over to something other than oil, then you should be concerned.

Stop dealing in absolutes.

I have always and ONLY been talking about petroleum-based energy sources. I have never addresed the issues of a) eliminating use of petroleum altogether or b) finding new ways to produce commercial good with the use of petroleum. I have been talking about petroleum as an ENERGY source not as a manufacturing element.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Let's make some odds and bet with money! 5/3 USA to fight against Tazmania.

If I were an animal I think I'd be a Tazmanian Devil. I LOVE those little guys. They fight and can't help themselves! It's in their nature and all they know to do.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

dcmacdaddy is right. Here are some more things that might sway you.

These TV commercials are very low key messages. Chevron is REALLY trying not to panic anyone.
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/advertising/television/

I'll translate:

Originally Posted by Chevron

Now more than ever we need to work together.

We want your money.

Originally Posted by Chevron

Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century, and one thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over.

We want you to believe that we're having a hard time getting oil, so we can bump the price up.

Originally Posted by Chevron

What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond.

If you buy stuff off us instead of BP, we'll look after you in the future.

Originally Posted by Chevron

The trends are in motion.

Mojo has an Internet connection and is using it.

Originally Posted by Chevron

Energy demand is soaring as never before and driving economic growth. And improved standards of living are requiring increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today.

Some also say the opposite, but that would mean we'd have to lower the price to you.

Originally Posted by Chevron

The facts are compelling.

Give us your money.

Originally Posted by Chevron

Many of the world’s oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract—physically, technically, economically, and politically. When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.

It cost us more to get, so it's gonna cost you more to buy.

Originally Posted by Chevron

The only energy we have in abundance: Human energy™.

We've been on a marketing course.

Originally Posted by Chevron

We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together,

Give us your money, stupid hippies!

Originally Posted by Chevron

and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations?

How do we continue to get paid if everyone moves over to producing their own energy via solar panels and the like?

Originally Posted by Chevron

What role will renewables and alternative energies play?

How can we continue to have you give us your money?

Originally Posted by Chevron

What is the best way to protect our environment?

What is the best way to protect our bottom line?

Originally Posted by Chevron

How do we accelerate our conservation efforts?

We've no idea what that means, but it'll keep the hippies happy.

Originally Posted by Chevron

Whatever actions we take, we must look not just to next year, but to the next 50 years.

The CEO isn't due to retire next year and would like his pension fund bumping up a bit before he does.

Originally Posted by Chevron

We need your help.

We want your money.

Originally Posted by Chevron

At Chevron, we believe that innovation, collaboration and conservation are the cornerstones on which to build this new world.

A new, better Chevron world. Where you give us all your money.

Originally Posted by Chevron

But we can’t do it alone.

We want your money.

Originally Posted by Chevron

Corporations, governments and every citizen of this planet must be part of the solution as surely as they are part of the problem.

Hey, let's put some generic clap-trap about problems and solutions in there.

Originally Posted by Chevron

And so, we ask you to join us.

We ask you to give us your money.

Originally Posted by Chevron

There are many factors in the new energy equation,

We're not sure how we can charge you for it yet.

Originally Posted by Chevron

and we encourage you to consider all of them.

As long as they're made by us.

Originally Posted by Chevron

We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and policymakers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of reshaping the next era of energy.

We call upon you to buy your energy from us.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Stop dealing in absolutes.

I have always and ONLY been talking about petroleum-based energy sources. I have never addresed the issues of a) eliminating use of petroleum altogether or b) finding new ways to produce commercial good with the use of petroleum. I have been talking about petroleum as an ENERGY source not as a manufacturing element.

Uh, I think I got carried away. That whole time I was writing the post I was thinking only Doofy would be reading it. I knew you and I were on the same page and so I gave no thought to your possibly misunderstanding where I was coming from.

My bad.

I know you understand, dcmacdaddy and it brings a smile to my heart that you GET IT!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. They're supplying the demand for alternative fuels because the demand exists due to these "oil running out" scare stories. Not because the supply of oil is going to dry up anytime soon.

They're not planning for an oil-loss. They're simply meeting existing demand for alternatives. Big difference.

So, if there were no "oil running out" stories then the petroleum-based energy companies would have no need to be investing in alternative energy sources which they could sell to the public? Is that what you are trying to argue? That the only reason why the petroleum-based energy companies are in fact investing in alternative energy sources is because of the scare stories?

The point I was making is that companies in the petroleum industry already are looking to sell alternative energy sources, whether or not their is an oil shortage. You argued that the only way companies in the oil industry would look to invest in alternative energies is if there was an oil shortage.

Originally Posted by Doofy

"Mojo: If we were truly running out of oil, all of the oil companies would be diversifying into alternative energy sources in a big way in order to preserve their future existence. They're not."

...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, if there were no "oil running out" stories then the petroleum-based energy companies would have no need to be investing in alternative energy sources which they could sell to the public? Is that what you are trying to argue? That the only reason why the petroleum-based energy companies are in fact investing in alternative energy sources is because of the scare stories?

Yep. That's about the top and tail of it.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The point I was making is that companies in the petroleum industry already are looking to sell alternative energy sources, whether or not their is an oil shortage. You argued that the only way companies in the oil industry would look to invest in alternative energies is if there was an oil shortage.

That's not what I said at all. I stated that if they were running out of oil they'd be running around like headless chickens to look for a way of saving their companies. I didn't state that they wouldn't play with alternatives in order to supply demand (where there's a market there's money to be made).

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'll translate:

We want your money.

It is a corporation's legal obligation to make money. Without the profit motive what would we be typing on? Bill Maher or Carlos Mencia says about pot smokers (not saying that you are a smoker) who complain about the big money grubbing corporations while getting high, that they sit down on their Ikea and munch Doritos and drink Budweiser and watch their Sony or listen to their Pioneer and call Dominos on their Nokia.

No offense and I still consider you an ally and all, but you remind me of the people in New Orleans who poo poohed the idea that Katrina would be anything special. So, they just stayed where they were and didn't take precautions.

However, I know you are better equipped than most to deal with a disruption in the basic luxuries of life, so I want to make clear to the casual reader that Doofy could live indefinitely without gas or oil or electricity or running water. He lives on a farm and has provisions.

The average person is not so well situated. So where Doofy can thumb his nose at the possible economic breakdown of society due to oil shortages, most people would suffer dire consequences.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That's not what I said at all. I stated that if they were running out of oil they'd be running around like headless chickens to look for a way of saving their companies. I didn't state that they wouldn't play with alternatives in order to supply demand (where there's a market there's money to be made).

Your not making logical sense here so I can't figure out where you stand on the issue.

I said
"So, if there were no "oil running out" stories then the petroleum-based energy companies would have no need to be investing in alternative energy sources which they could sell to the public? Is that what you are trying to argue? That the only reason why the petroleum-based energy companies are in fact investing in alternative energy sources is because of the scare stories?"
And you replied,
"Yep". This is agreeing with my question that "the only reason why the petroleum-based energy companies are in fact investing in alternative energy sources is because of the scare stories?" So the question now becomes a statement in the affirmative.

So, if you agree that "the only reason why the petroleum-based energy companies are in fact investing in alternative energy sources is because of the scare stories" then it would make logical sense that there should be little or no evidence of "petroleum-based energy companies investing in alternative energy sources" prior to the scare stories of the past few years. But that is not the case. The links I provided show that this type of investment in alternative energy sources by the petroleum-based energy industry has been going on for quite some time prior to the recent scare stories.

So, either petroleum-based energy companies have been investing in alternative energy sources for regular business reasons--there is a profit to be made--or they have been investing in alternative energy sources simply in reaction to the recent scare stories.

Which is it you believe because your original reply to mojor above pointed towards the latter but your replies in response to my post point to the former. And if you believe it is both then retract your statement to mojo so we can clearly understand where you stand on this issue. Thanks!

(I happen to believe it is purely the former. If a petroleum-based energy company can invest in non-petroleum energy industries and make a profit I think they will.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

It is a corporation's legal obligation to make money. Without the profit motive what would we be typing on?

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I like making money myself - I use that very same BS that Chevron came out there with to pay for my Budweiser.

Originally Posted by mojo2

No offense and I still consider you an ally and all, but you remind me of the people in New Orleans who poo poohed the idea that Katrina would be anything special. So, they just stayed where they were and didn't take precautions.

I'm not saying don't take precautions - it's a foolish man who doesn't do everything possible to guard against any future problems. Just that I think the case for peak oil is somewhat overstated. To me, there's more important things to be worried about at the moment (click the sig for an example).

Originally Posted by mojo2

However, I know you are better equipped than most to deal with a disruption in the basic luxuries of life, so I want to make clear to the casual reader that Doofy could live indefinitely without gas or oil or electricity or running water. He lives on a farm and has provisions.

The average person is not so well situated. So where Doofy can thumb his nose at the possible economic breakdown of society due to oil shortages, most people would suffer dire consequences.

This is true.

A week ago I got to thinking about "normal" folks in such circumstances - brought on by the UK fuel protests which were planned but never materialised. After a week or two of no fuel, normal folks would pretty much starve. What's the cause of that? "Centralisation" of food production and transportation. How should we plan to minimise the problems? Less centralisation... ...it's the only way. Which kind of fits in with my "buy local" philosophy (hence the sig link).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Your not making logical sense here so I can't figure out where you stand on the issue.

So, either petroleum-based energy companies have been investing in alternative energy sources for regular business reasons--there is a profit to be made--or they have been investing in alternative energy sources simply in reaction to the recent scare stories.

I'll try to be a little clearer.

The oil companies are out to make money. No problem.
The scare stories aren't recent - they've been on the horizon for at least 15 years, perhaps longer.

If oil isn't running out, the oil companies would still be putting a little into alternative energies for a variety of reasons.

One reason would be to maintain those who believe the scare stories as customers - if someone is no longer going to buy oil in order to "do their bit", then it's better for the oil company that they not lose them as a customer completely. Thus they attempt to sell them the alternative. That's meeting demand.

Another reason is that if the oil companies go along with the scare stories somewhat, the laws of supply and demand (or perceived supply and demand) dictate that they can get away with bumping up their oil prices (price isn't entirely based on actual supply - it can just as easily be based on perceived supply).
For example, if I'm running a fruit and veg store and there's a rumour going around that apples are in short supply, it's in my interest to go with the flow - even if I'm sitting on a load of them. If a customer walks in and asks if there are any apples, I could say something like "we just got a few in but they're in really short supply. Due to this they're now $5 each instead of $1". And the customer, thinking they're getting a rare luxury item which they may not be able to get again for a month or two, will buy it. Due to the public perception of there not being many apples, I'd also make a killing in pear sales.


If oil were running out, those oil companies would be seriously pushing their alternatives. They're not - they're just playing the scare stories to their own advantage. They're meeting the "scare-story created" demand not the "supply shortage created" demand.

Did that make sense?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'll try to be a little clearer.

The oil companies are out to make money. No problem.
The scare stories aren't recent - they've been on the horizon for at least 15 years, perhaps longer.

If oil isn't running out, the oil companies would still be putting a little into alternative energies for a variety of reasons.

One reason would be to maintain those who believe the scare stories as customers - if someone is no longer going to buy oil in order to "do their bit", then it's better for the oil company that they not lose them as a customer completely. Thus they attempt to sell them the alternative. That's meeting demand.

Another reason is that if the oil companies go along with the scare stories somewhat, the laws of supply and demand (or perceived supply and demand) dictate that they can get away with bumping up their oil prices (price isn't entirely based on actual supply - it can just as easily be based on perceived supply).
For example, if I'm running a fruit and veg store and there's a rumour going around that apples are in short supply, it's in my interest to go with the flow - even if I'm sitting on a load of them. If a customer walks in and asks if there are any apples, I could say something like "we just got a few in but they're in really short supply. Due to this they're now $5 each instead of $1". And the customer, thinking they're getting a rare luxury item which they may not be able to get again for a month or two, will buy it. Due to the public perception of there not being many apples, I'd also make a killing in pear sales.


If oil were running out, those oil companies would be seriously pushing their alternatives. They're not - they're just playing the scare stories to their own advantage. They're meeting the "scare-story created" demand not the "supply shortage created" demand.

Did that make sense?

Yes. Thank you. Now I know where you stand on this subject.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'll try to be a little clearer.
(SNIP)

If oil were running out, those oil companies would be seriously pushing their alternatives. They're not - they're just playing the scare stories to their own advantage. They're meeting the "scare-story created" demand not the "supply shortage created" demand.

Did that make sense?

Yup.

(NOTE TO SELF: Look into what the oil companies are doing re: alternatives. IF they are investing in them or not. And if they are not, then WHY the oil companies aren't HEAVILY investing to protect their future business revenues.)

[Pendergast]

The next war will be over weather control.

[sminch]

attacking another continent to nick their water? wtf? how many tankers would you need to send back and forth each day to supply china, say, with water from the usa???

a big shiny dollar says that the next world war will be over nuclear waste dumping rights.

sminch

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

The next war will be over weather control.

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but before anyone ridicules your assertion, the bill permitting us to conduct weather controlling activities will soon become law.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but before anyone ridicules your assertion, the bill permitting us to conduct weather controlling activities will soon become law.

Until now, we've merely been testing our capabilities in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but before anyone ridicules your assertion, the bill permitting us to conduct weather controlling activities will soon become law.

If it goes on like it is now, we may need to develop defensive weapons against tornadoes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Until now, we've merely been testing our capabilities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Right Spliffy, have a word with George for me. Snow, 25th December, middle of England. Thanks.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Right Spliffy, have a word with George for me. Snow, 25th December, middle of England. Thanks.

Forget England. I want snow right here in DC on 25 December. Besides, George will be in Crawford so he doesn't have to worry about it. Me, I want a white Christmas.

[sminch]

don't joke - i know full well what you've been up to...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4630443.stm

"A state-run newspaper in Zimbabwe has suggested the UK and US are to blame for droughts in southern Africa."

sminch

[mojo2]

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s517.html

109th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 517


To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


March 3, 2005

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation


A BILL

To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the `Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.


It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.


In this Act:

(1) BOARD- The term `Board' means the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.

(2) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The term `Executive Director' means the Executive Director of the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.

(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term `research and development' means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.

(4) WEATHER MODIFICATION- The term `weather modification' means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere.