Bush says you depend too much on Mideast Oil..here are the facts.

fossten said:
I could ask you a similar question.

"What are we saving the oil for?"

Why shouldn't we use it while it's there?

Duh.
Gasoline and diesel are not the only products derived from oil. Plastics, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries would be affected by total depletion of oil. Imagine what your life would be like, fossten, without your ritalin, or for others whose meds are no longer available. Use it at full tilt till it's gone is a foolish and selfish plan of action, figures you and the other RWW would endorse it.
 
More Bu:q:q:q:q!!!


Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...38.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth.

Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands." The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.

Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett made a similar point in a briefing before the speech. "I think one of the biggest concerns the American people have is oil coming from the Middle East. It is a very volatile region," he said.

Through the first 11 months of 2005, the United States imported nearly 2.2 million barrels per day of oil from the Middle East nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That's less than 20 percent of the total U.S. daily imports of 10.062 million barrels.

Imports account for about 60 percent of U.S. oil consumption.

Alan Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, projects that America will import 6 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East in 2025 without major technological changes in energy consumption.

The Bush administration believes that new technologies could reduce the total daily U.S. oil demand by about 5.26 million barrels through alternatives such as plug-in hybrids with rechargeable batteries, hydrogen-powered cars and new ethanol products.

That means the new technologies could reduce America's oil appetite by the equivalent of what we're expected to import from the Middle East by 2025, Hubbard said.

But we'll still be importing plenty of oil, according to the Energy Department's latest projection.

"In 2025, net petroleum imports, including both crude oil and refined products, are expected to account for 60 percent of demand ... up from 58 percent in 2004," according to the Energy Information Administration's 2006 Annual Energy Outlook.

Some experts think Bush needs to do more to achieve his stated goal.

"We can achieve energy independence from the Middle East, but not with what the president is proposing," said Craig Wolfe, the president of Americans for Energy Independence in Studio City, Calif. "We need to slow the growth in consumption. Our organization believes we need to do something about conservation" and higher auto fuel-efficiency standards.
 
It really would be great though to just go ahead and take Iraq's oil as part of the cost of removing Hussein. (just kidding) Those people have lived in that area full of natural wealth for centuries and the majority of people still live in mud huts. Do they really need to be in charge of 25% or more of the worlds oil supply. Same for Africa. There might be a problem when the general intelligence of the people is so little that they cant even take advantage of the natural wealth sitting in front of them for centuries. I guarantee that there wouldnt be as many natives living in mud huts and tents if we were to manage it. We cant trust anyone over there. Those arabs are so stupid they honestly cant tell that we are actually trying to help them the right way. (and the only way that benefits us as well)
 
97silverlsc said:
Gasoline and diesel are not the only products derived from oil. Plastics, chemicals and pharmaceutical industries would be affected by total depletion of oil. Imagine what your life would be like, fossten, without your ritalin, or for others whose meds are no longer available. Use it at full tilt till it's gone is a foolish and selfish plan of action, figures you and the other RWW would endorse it.


I see. And are you going to take the lead, Phil, Mr. Personal Attacker? You gonna go buy a (gasp) Honda Prius? No, I don't think so. You are going to keep "selfishly and foolishly" driving that gas-guzzler Mark VIII, aren't you? Figures you and the other LWW hypocrites on this site will continue the same path. You need to practice what you preach, and sadly, nobody on your side wants to be the first to make a sacrifice. So shut up until you can say something without being a total hypocrite.

*owned*
 
fossten said:
I see. And are you going to take the lead, Phil, Mr. Personal Attacker? You gonna go buy a (gasp) Honda Prius? No, I don't think so. You are going to keep "selfishly and foolishly" driving that gas-guzzler Mark VIII, aren't you? Figures you and the other LWW hypocrites on this site will continue the same path. You need to practice what you preach, and sadly, nobody on your side wants to be the first to make a sacrifice. So shut up until you can say something without being a total hypocrite.

*owned*


Forget your Ritalin today fossten? :p
 
97silverlsc said:
Forget your Ritalin today fossten? :p


You might as well have said, "Your points are too strong, fossten, so I'm going to resort to the usual horse's a$$ method of attacking you personally."

horses_ass.jpg
 
Censoring Truth
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/opinion/09thu2.html
Published: February 9, 2006

The Bush administration long ago secured a special place in history for the audacity with which it manipulates science to suit its political ends. But it set a new standard of cynicism when it allowed NASA's leading authority on global warming to be mugged by a 24-year-old presidential appointee who, quite apart from having no training on that issue, had inflated his résumé.

In early December, James Hansen, the space agency's top climate specialist, called for accelerated efforts to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming. After his speech, he told Andrew C. Revkin of The Times, he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for aggressive action.

This was not the first time Dr. Hansen had been rebuked by the Bush team, which has spent the better part of five years avoiding the issue of global warming. It was merely one piece of a larger pattern of deception and denial.

The administration has sought to influence the policy debate by muzzling the people who disagree with it or — as was the case with two major reports from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and 2003 — editing out inconvenient truths or censoring them entirely.

In this case, the censor was George Deutsch, a functionary in NASA's public affairs office whose chief credential appears to have been his service with President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee. On his résumé, Mr. Deutsch claimed a 2003 bachelor's degree in journalism from Texas A&M, but the university, alerted by a blogger, said that was not true. Mr. Deutsch has now resigned.

The shocker was not NASA's failure to vet Mr. Deutsch's credentials, but that this young politico with no qualifications was able to impose his ideology on other agency employees. At one point, he told a Web designer to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang.

As Dr. Hansen observed, Mr. Deutsch was only a "bit player" in the administration's dishonest game of politicizing science on issues like warming, birth control, forest policy and clean air. This from a president who promised in his State of the Union address to improve American competitiveness by spending more on science.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top