Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Big oil: greed, graft, waste, war, smog and sickness

  1. Apr 27, 2005 #1
    World governments need to take an objective stance about the evils of oil and make definite actions toward eradicating our dependence on it. Here in the U.S. only an anemic attempt towards conservation and clean fuels has been realized. Our president religiously supports the petroleum industry, addicted to its crude philosophy and good old boys. What will it take to alert the gas hogs to consider humankind and the health of their descendents?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 27, 2005 #2

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7646880/

    I was just reading this article with thoughts of posting it in the thread on Environment. I had the same thoughts as you. The proposal is how to perpetuate the use of oil rather than replace it, with the exception on nuclear (nu-cu-lar) power, which will meet resistance so it appears not to be much of a plan. Technology is key--where is it in this plan--maybe new ways to drill in protected lands?

    Aside from his usual support of big-business, it also seemed to be about more federal control. I keep wondering when people will connect the dots and realize Dubya is just a Ross Perot who made it past the radar screen with the family name.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2005
  4. Apr 27, 2005 #3
    I quite sure the evil will end when the high grade oil runs out, which won't be long.
     
  5. Apr 27, 2005 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ironic how you stated that people need to look "objectively" on the situation when you are obviously the one who needs to look objectively to the situation. A substance found on earth cannot be "evil" or "good" and very few organizations are "evil". And your attacks on our President are very ironic seeing as how they happened on the same day he introduced an energy plan that re-introduced the the construction of nuclear power plants and increases tax credits for the purchase of high-efficiency cars (such as hybrids). I wont even bother with the 'war for oil' idiocy as im sure its been debunked out of its mind in this forum.

    Please think about your conspiracy theories before you post em.
     
  6. Apr 27, 2005 #5

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Is that an objective statement? Can you prove it, or at least put up a convincing argument that it is so? Suppose I said that yes, only a few organizations are evil, but that among those few are a majority of the largest organizations. How would you respond? Could you refute me?
     
  7. Apr 27, 2005 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well can the author prove or make a full-scope convincing argument that said company/industry is evil?
     
  8. Apr 27, 2005 #7

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I just thought he meant that evil is inevitable given a very limited supply of a precious commodity. Same thing if you have a ton of people living in an arid desert - some are going to dehydrate and inevitably there will be fights. It isn't anybody's fault per se. He does seem to be assigning blame, but I don't think he was blaming the oil. Obviously a collection of intentionless organic polymers is not at fault. I wouldn't blame the oil companies, either. They're just doing what all companies have to do to stay in business - maximize their profits. A capitalistic system relies on consumers and, in regulate markets, whoever is responsible for the regulation. Oil consumption is already plenty regulated, so the only people left to blame are the consumers. In this case, however, the bulk of oil consumed is consumed because it is the only available resource that will perform the needed job. Ultimately, all we can do is cut down consumption every bit that we can and develop alternatives. I don't know that this necessarily needs to be pushed by the government. There are market incentives in that whoever does develop a viable, long-term alternative to oil will make a killing. I guess it's just easier to blame Bush than it is to blame a nameless, faceless mob of millions, each of whom isn't a whole lot different from any of us.
     
  9. Apr 28, 2005 #8
    Aside from evils (see the thread title), let's deal with ignorance. "W" has balked for long enough in his career to promote technologies that compete with depleting oil. No doubt Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan could all have been more effective stewards of petroproducts. Maybe some of you would like to compare the recent energy policies of our current president with those of Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer.

    What about a program to educate the average consumer about conservation and invest in practical, safe, and renewable energy sources accessible to the individual - before we have to operate in a panic mode? The U.S., and other countries as well, must adopt energy primarily from native sources.

    Oil companies have some useful infrastructure for distribution of energy to consumers. They may find soon the financial incentive to modify their delivery to alternative "fuel." Auto makers are beginning to face reality by phasing out SUVs and phasing in hybrid cars. The market, if not policy, will drive them to it. With foresight the transition will be gradual.
     
  10. Apr 28, 2005 #9

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Believe it or not, the market is actually moving toward hybrid SUV's. Ford introduced one last year and it's been fairly popular. My girlfriend is on the waiting list to buy one when more become available (she has a regular SUV right now).

    Did anyone watch The Daily Show tonight? God, it was hilarious. They had clips of Bush's speech about alternative energies. He was speaking of how we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and turn to renewable energy sources, so that's why he's asking Congress to devote $10 billion over the next two years to . . . coal. Coal is a non-renewable, fossil fuel, you dope! Then it had him saying that he believes American technology will get us through this crisis, the answer will lie in the greatness of American technology. At that exact moment, the lights went out and the feed was lost. I swear, timing like that is only possible if there really is a God and he is some kind of merry prankster. That had to be the funniest thing I've ever seen. I could not stop laughing.
     
  11. Apr 28, 2005 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Pff, its all made in China :D blame the chinese lol. If you watch the daily show for your political content lol... well... think the rest is assumed.

    And exactly what program to "educate the average consumer" has ever worked lol. Fact of the matter is, no one cares and the only way you'll force em is if you hit their wallets or run a dictatorship. Look at drugs, how many billions upon billions have been put into 'public awareness' for that and pff, i dont see much change.
     
  12. Apr 28, 2005 #11

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Who said I watched the Daily Show for political content? My girlfriend watches it because it's funny and every now and then I'll walk into the room. I'm far from being a Bush-basher (I voted for the guy both times), but it's funny nonetheless.
     
  13. Apr 28, 2005 #12

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Per the link provided above in my original post in this thread:
    To trust oil companies to behave responsibly, and to think the consumers can MAKE the oil companies behave responsibly without government pressure, is irresponsible. It is in oil companies' best interest to milk fossil fuel for as long as they can. Inventions for/implementation of alternative energy are not in their best interest in maximizing profits.
     
  14. Apr 28, 2005 #13
    This is a parallel discussion to posts in the thread on Environment. There are individuals in the US who are environmentally minded. They recycle, buy more energy efficient products, participate in peak energy time programs, etc. However, it is difficult to do as much as is needed on an individual basis. For example, who packages products, and still uses materials such as styrofoam, etc.? We could make a long list of such things.
    More awareness is needed, though unfortunately many people don't invest even their time to learn about it. It doesn't help that our president dismisses scientist's warnings about global warming.

    It is true Americans have a high-tech lifestyle they don't want to give up, or are only willing to give up to a certain extent economically or as sacrifice in some other way. Unfortunately it isn't really a practicality in many ways. How can people make a living? How can they get to their jobs? How can they heat and cool their homes? They are in a technology trap.
     
  15. Apr 28, 2005 #14
    Quote:
    So let me see if I have this right. Bush's plan is to have more refineries to improve use of fossil fuels. Further, he proposes to help oil companies in this endeavor by using federal funds/government-owned military bases for these refineries. The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. And if other people don't find this just as appalling as I do, we might as well make the Rapture people happy and blow this place up now and get it over with.
     
  16. Apr 28, 2005 #15

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You don't suppose it has anything to do with his family being in the oil business and the many people Bush owes:

    Someone sold his soul all right.
     
  17. May 5, 2005 #16

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Another reason nation-building doesn't work

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7737306/

    A little OT, but I didn't want to start a new thread to post this. What is the problem with this administration? We are seeing so much corruption, and interestingly by the same folks who claim to represent morals and values.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2005
  18. May 5, 2005 #17
    http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
    With 5% of the worlds population the U.S. consumes about 25% of the worlds total energy. As oil reserves are depleted the Middle East will become an even more important source of resources. Hopefully alternative sources of energy will become more readily available. Nuclear energy seems a viable alternative. In comparison to oil and coal it is responsible for far less deaths.
     
  19. May 5, 2005 #18

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    What part of that article indicated administrative corruption? The investigation thus far has found that there is money unaccounted for. It has not found that any of this money was spent on anything other than what it was meant for: rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure. As the article points out, the worst-case scenario is that "someone took it home." That doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened (hence "worst-case scenario").
     
  20. May 5, 2005 #19

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Who oversees the war--under what administration? If the current administration isn't responsible for the planning, managing, etc. of the war it has promoted, and the nation-building it touts, than who is? And isn't Dick Cheney associated with Haliburton?
     
  21. May 5, 2005 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Problems are of course Bush's responsibility, but you're using the word "corruption" where it doesn't belong. Corruption is criminal - this is a mess (we all knew Iraq was a mess, right?) that is proving itself to be a mess. Frankly, I'd be shocked if they were able to track all the money that they gave to Iraqi contractors. Its hard enough to handle American contractors, much less figure out which ones in Iraq are good and which ones aren't. The worst that can be alleged here is that Bush isn't adequately dealing with the mess - I'm not sure that's the case in this particular instance, but it has been in the past wrt Iraq.

    If you want some real corruption, Philadelphia's mayor's brother started a construction company shortly after his brother became mayor. He has no construction experience, but hey - why should that matter? Needless to say, when you pay him to do a construction project, the money tends to disappear.

    And yes, Dick Cheney has ties to Haliburton. So...?
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Big oil: greed, graft, waste, war, smog and sickness
  1. The dirty war for oil! (Replies: 77)

  2. Greasing Big Oil (Replies: 2)

  3. Wars for oil? (Replies: 6)

Loading...