Bush calls for end to oil 'addiction' - hidden message?

[Huck]

Hello,

During his state of the union speach, Bush asked the american people to end the addiction to oil. On the surface, it sounds like a very noble cause, but we all know that the Bush familly has worked for the oil industry, oil company lobbies are EXTREMELY powerful and that the USA have been geared towards oil resource control.


So, my question is, after all this, what is the hidden message in bush's request? are they finally getting oil conscious and ready to stand up to corporate america and their powerful influence? is it just pure hypocrisy to ensure republicans win the next upcomming election, or is it some sort of other hidden agenda? :twisted:



thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Mogz]

It probably has to do with the fact that the U.S. has stirred up a hornet's nest in the Middle East, and isn't confident they can count on that region as a steady source of oil for much longer.

 

[Huck]

Up to now, one of the main strengths of the USA was that they could pursue imperial type operations accross the world, while getting their people to belive it was for good and freedom.

IT is well known that in any nation, controlling communications and how information is dispersed to the people is easily one of the biggest keys to imperial success. Doesn't matter what you do, as long as the people are convinced that it is for their good (or better yet, if they are looking elsewhere)

Hence, i wonder if it is not another bold attempt to make their actions and intentions look good in the face of the world, while they hypocritly begin looking at iran's, venezuela's & even perhaps canada's oil supplies. As they go and get the 'conviniently' evil iranian & venezuelian governemnts (& oil), they get to be heroes of the new age and enegry efficiency (ridding them of any future blame about oil imperialism).

What do you think?

 

[Jay]

I worry more about the vacuums this could create, and who will fill them.



I doubt Canadian oil is truly considered foreign oil to the Americans.

 

[I think not]

All imported oil is considered foreign, the sooner we develop alternate sources of energy, the better.

 

[Huck]

I guess another very important factor to consider when answering the question about Bush's sayings is the rise of China.

It is a well known fact that China is rising at an incredible pace. 1.3 billion people, rushing to cities, growing at a pace never seen before in the history of humanity. All this growth gives china an incredible and fast growing thirst for oil.

This thirst will innevitably put it in the path of the USA eventually. And one may wonder if this will not eventually cause the swords to cross. The main thing to consider is that china is an incredible strength. Even worst, contrairy to the old soviet union, china has a big advantage: it holds the USA by the nuts.


China produces most of the goods in the USA and with india is the main reason the west's buing power is so great. It is also known that the banks of china have been lending vast amounts of money to help the USA maintain their economies. This being said, china is in a very strong position of negotiation, which gets stronger every day.


I wonder if these perspectives may reflect an increaing discomfort of the americans versus the new true powers, and bush's speach may reflect this increasing fear. Avoiding a resource clash with china me be so important as to justify the speach he did yeasterday (conflicting wiht the powerful oil lobbies for which the bush have been working so tirelessly for).

anywhays, this is mostly speculation of my part, but wondering if...

 

[The Gunslinger]

A lot of that Chinese growth is from American capital and American firms. So, technically, China and the USA are mutually dependant.

In a war though, it would come to who owns more of the others country. Plus, the American navy would trounce the Chinese navy with ease.

 

[Huck]

Re: RE: Bush calls for end to oil 'addiction' - hidden messa

A lot of that Chinese growth is from American capital and American firms. So, technically, China and the USA are mutually dependant.

In a war though, it would come to who owns more of the others country. Plus, the American navy would trounce the Chinese navy with ease.

This is still true now, but as days go by, china's strength is getting strong and stronger. Soon will come the day where china will be the main superpower, easily capable of facing american might.

As for the economy, again its true the are mutually dependent, but if the USA dont stop outsourcing all their work, they will eventutally fall in a submission position to china. When willing to the scare the americans, all china will have to do is tighten its foreign and exports pollicy and the usa will begin sufficating, kneeling to its knees beging for mercy (an analogy would be the famous magical power of raising the hand to choke people at a distance we often see in movies (think star wars and the force)).

perhaps an expert economist could enlighten my sayings about china, and see if their might could be related to the changing stance of the USA on resource management.

 

[tawker]

RE: Bush calls for end to

And yet Canada still gives aid to China. Is it just me or why are we giving aid to a country that in many ways has more modern technology than ourselves?

We should fire that money over to Africa where it's pretty clear people are starving.

 

[the caracal kid]

China and America are already competing over oil.

Remember the little American Oil outfit (sorry forget name) that the chinese tried to buy and the congress cried its protectinistic tone over it? The issue is China wants and needs the oil, and if America won't let them buy it up (where they can stop them), what alternative measures will china take?

We could tell very quickly if bush is serious. All he has to do is slowly reduce the subsidization of the oil industry. Allow the "consumer" to pay an unsubsidized price for oil products. That will reduce consumption and make alternatives more competative.

 

[Mogz]

All imported oil is considered foreign, the sooner we develop alternate sources of energy, the better.

Actually under NAFTA you don't always count Mexican and Canadian imports as "foreign" in the whole sense of the word. The U.S. is immensely dependant on Canadian energy, whether it be oil or hydro power. I highly doubt your nation will ever be self-sufficient in terms of providing enough energy reliably. Take Califiornia for example, that State suffers from frequent brown outs and the vast majority of power in California is hydro provided by British Columbia. Out East, the New England States rely solely on Quebec Hydro for their power, and if you'll recall in August 2003, much of the Northeastern U.S. was in a total blackout after the Niagra power plant overloaded. The small amount of U.S. power plants couldn't compensate for the loss of the Niagra plant and all hell broke loose. The U.S. has simply over-stretched it's means in terms of energy, and without help from Canada and Mexico you guys are boned. The only region of the U.S. that is by and large self-sufficient is the Inland Northwest, and much of that power is wind provided. Perhaps a step the U.S. will take in all States, but I doubt it'd be effective. For now you'll continue relying on your allies, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. It's better to rely on allies than nations you're currently at war with.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Bush calls for end to oil 'addiction' - hidden messa

Actually under NAFTA you don't always count Mexican and Canadian imports as "foreign" in the whole sense of the word. The U.S. is immensely dependant on Canadian energy, whether it be oil or hydro power.

Imports of Canadian energy amount to less than 7% of total US energy consumption. NAFTA is an agreement between countries, it's foreign, unless you have recently flown the stars and stripes over Parliament and I'm not aware of it.

I highly doubt your nation will ever be self-sufficient in terms of providing enough energy reliably.

Even Canada imports electric power from the US, hopefully new technology will make a dent on both sides of the border.

For now you'll continue relying on your allies, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. It's better to rely on allies than nations you're currently at war with.

Can't argue with you here.

 

[Toro]

There's no hidden, nefarious meaning.

His speech means what it means.

Its forward looking and makes sense. Some day, the age of oil will end. Its not particularly wise to be caught unawares when that happens.

 

[Toro]

BTW, there may be 2 trillion barrells of oil equivalent in various shale deposits running from Texas to Colorado to Utah.

Shale development is roughly where tar sands development was a few decades ago.

 

[Mogz]

Imports of Canadian energy amount to less than 7% of total US energy consumption. NAFTA is an agreement between countries, it's foreign, unless you have recently flown the stars and stripes over Parliament and I'm not aware of it.

I take no stock in that number, considering that a power failure in Canada brought the entire Eastern U.S. seaboard to the dark ages.

Even Canada imports electric power from the US, hopefully new technology will make a dent on both sides of the border.

Yes we import power in regions, but only because it makes sense to draw from the closest source. Cut us off from U.S. power today and we'll all be watching TV off of Canadian power by tomorrow.

There's no hidden, nefarious meaning.

His speech means what it means.

Its forward looking and makes sense. Some day, the age of oil will end. Its not particularly wise to be caught unawares when that happens.

Yeah I agree totally, far too often we as a society tend to focus on the here and now, and not what's to come.

 

[Virtual Burlesque]

When I hear “end oil addiction” from George W Bush’s lips, I hear echos of “Clear Skies Initiative” (read: expansion of emissions trading), “Healthy Forests Initiative” (read: timber giveaways), or the “Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate” (read a toothless pact with no enforcement mechanism) and how could I forget that clawback of civil liberties he calls “The Patriot Act.”

There is an old dictum about advertising, which, at least, seems true of this Bush Administration:

Whatever they take the trouble to say it is, it ain’t!

 

[Huck]

There's no hidden, nefarious meaning.

His speech means what it means.

Its forward looking and makes sense. Some day, the age of oil will end. Its not particularly wise to be caught unawares when that happens.

If i understand correctly, this would make bush's speach completely hollow. Suggesting the age of oil will end someday is nothing new, many know that. The real strenght is to begin action and effectively reduce oil dependency and turn the countrie's pollicitical interrest of the resource away from it.

as someone stated above, true will power of the US governemt would be easy to see. if they really wanted to do something, they would act to quickly erase oil for our vision of the future and political agendas...

 

[Toro]

These things take time.

You are way overestimating the US government if you think that oil can be "quickly erased" from our every day lives. This is something that will take decades.

 

[Huck]

Re: RE: Bush calls for end to oil 'addiction' - hidden messa

These things take time.

You are way overestimating the US government if you think that oil can be "quickly erased" from our every day lives. This is something that will take decades.

perhaps so, interresting point

 

[Huck]

There is an old dictum about advertising, which, at least, seems true of this Bush Administration:

Whatever they take the trouble to say it is, it ain’t!

LOL!! i will remember that one!