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

[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

thinking about it, something is still wrong. First, for the record, i never thought it could be done quickly. I just believe that to reduce dependency on the oil, real and concrete actions will need to be taken. (ie. invest in research, elimintate clear interrest in oil filled countries, etc.). And, abviously, current world affaires dont seem to indicate any disinterestment in oil and its politics.

plus, i am still wondering what will the oil industry do in all of this. We all know they are extremely powerful in the world. Plus, oil is a resource that still trillions of dollards of profits to extract from (just think exxon reported this week 10 billion in porofits for the last semester alone). No corporation will ever let this profit potential go to waste, hence in the laws of capitalism (at least, in practice), it will be their duty to ensure we consume as much oil as possible, and for the longest possible, without any other alternative to chose from. It is said that to survive, you must make people need you.

It has also been known that oil companies have been buying out research patents of clean energies, only to burry the projects for ever, making sure that no new discovery comes to the expense of oil profits. Add to this the powerful lobbies, who under the cover actively ensure that politicians go the way they want it to (and obviously, iut worked up to now). In light of this (and knowing bush has up to now worked in the oil industries best interrest), how could we even believe he is speaking the truth, but rather just using smoke and mirrors to give us the illusion of progress.

 

[I think not]

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

hence in the laws of capitalism....

Breed competition Huck.

BP is committed to creating a sustainable solar business

General Motors recently set one of the most aggressive targets: To build a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle by 2010 that can compete economically with conventional gasoline-powered car. It’s a huge bet. So far, the company has invested $1 billion in the program and will probably have to spend another $1 billion to pull it off, according to Larry Burns, who heads the project as GM’s vice president of Research and Development.

Change is blowing for wind power industry


US Department of Energy Carbon Sequestration Program

 

[Toro]

Huck

Oil's not going away. Won't for a long, long time. Rather, there will be a gradual shift away from reliance on hydrocarbons. Nuclear fuel, which meets 80% of France's needs, for example, is coming back. The government has tax credits for alternative fuels. My guess is that those will accelerate. And, most important, the high price of oil increases the incentive to invest in alternative forms of energy.

BP is the largest spender on alternative energy sources in the world. The energy companies do not see themselves as oil companies. They see themselves as energy companies. Think about it. If we know that oil will eventually run out, surely they do too. Thus, if they do not diversify away to other energy sources, they are finished.

 

[Huck]

I think not, i surely hope you are right.

BUt, have you seen the documentary "the corporation"? ( http://www.thecorporation.com ) There is an interresting part in the movei that discusses how corporations have been incresingly demonstrating a consicous mind to ecological and social problems, even when they go aginst their main line of activity. (ie. BP in solar power and philip morris in anti-tobbacco campains).

sadly, these social concerns usually fall short of any 'real' innovations and concrete actions and are mostly there as public relations campaings to deter critisims or embilish public image. In the background, these companies usually go for what they do best: profit making in their main field of action and increase of shareholder returns.


(Note that i may be wrong, but several publications (such as the corporation) support this view)

 

[Huck]

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

Huck

Oil's not going away. Won't for a long, long time. Rather, there will be a gradual shift away from reliance on hydrocarbons. [...]

Hi Toro, good post. I guess at this point my question would be. will we gradually decrease our oil dependency and make the complete switch to other sources when there is no more oil left, or will we switch, 'as soon as feasable'?


(i ask as the profit incentive for oil will remain strong. so i wonder how strong will be the resistance to change...)

 

[Toro]

The higher the price of oil and natural gas, the sooner it will be.

 

[I think not]

I think not, i surely hope you are right.

BUt, have you seen the documentary "the corporation"? (http://www.thecorporation.com[/url)...ained that part in the documentary, did they?

 

[the caracal kid]

Indeed toro, governments need to stop subsidizing oil/gas.

Oil is used for so much, the faster we stop burning it, the better.

We don't have a clean fuel yet though, and one of the problems has been how the "consumer" is sold the story of "increased efficiency" as an excuse for not doing their full part in reducing consumption. I am for far more invasive solutions to reducing the waste of oil.

 

[Toro]

When you say "gas", there are two types of gas - the refined gasoline you put in your car, and natural gas, which you use to heat your house. The Clean Air Act provided incentives to switch from dirty fuels such as coal and oil to natural gas because nat gas is clean burning. So, if your objective is to use clean-burning fuel, providing incentives to use nat gas makes sense.

 

[Huck]

I think not, i think we are entering the realm of subjective interpretation, but hell, its fun


i dont believe the corporation (documentary) tries to say that all corporations are bad and fo eveil. But, any entity large enough to have a real impact on the world is automatically given high responsibilities; and most corporations dont assume them. Pollution is a crwling problem, support of despotic governments, etc. These are all real issues where corporations had the choice to do right or wrong, and some chose wrong...

As for deliberately hurting their customers, corporations dont do it. They just dont care. A corporation's legel stature forces it to do all it takes and all it can for maximal profit for the shareholders. In the USA, the laws are very strict on this matter and corporations that dont do all they can for profit can be severly punished (think google on chinese censorship lately). So, by filling their mandate of doing all they can to maximize profit, companies will sometimes (often?) do anything, even if it means hirting their customers. This is not deliberate, its just colateral damage.


PS: i did read stories about certain new medications that could have a high impact in curring cancer and aids, that have been dropped because the commercial numbers did not justifify the commercialisation. 90% of all drug discoveries are related to rich country diseases. Although i would need proof to support that, it seems the marketing departments are the ones really deciding which drugs make it to the stores and which dont...

 

[I think not]

I think not, i think we are entering the realm of subjective interpretation, but hell, its fun

Ya

i dont believe the corporation (documentary) tries to say that all corporations are bad and fo eveil. But, any entity large enough to have a real impact on the world is automatically given high responsibilities; and most corporations dont assume them. Pollution is a crwling problem, support of despotic governments, etc. These are all real issues where corporations had the choice to do right or wrong, and some chose wrong...

You're right, they don't come out and just say it, they imply it throughout the entire documentary. Examples would be the Union Carbide disaster in India, this is where they blamed the corporation, instead of........? The Indian government by not implementing safety regulations, and they do that why? Because they are stupid? I think not, they do it to attract businesses by limiting safety standards that would in turn reduce costs. Now, don't get me wrong, should the companies have a sense of doing whats right? Yeah, who can argue with you on that? But it's up to the governments to implement regulations.

As for deliberately hurting their customers, corporations dont do it. They just dont care. A corporation's legel stature forces it to do all it takes and all it can for maximal profit for the shareholders. In the USA, the laws are very strict on this matter and corporations that dont do all they can for profit can be severly punished (think google on chinese censorship lately). So, by filling their mandate of doing all they can to maximize profit, companies will sometimes (often?) do anything, even if it means hirting their customers. This is not deliberate, its just colateral damage.

Corporations exist to turn profits, which in turn fuels the economy, but they will not do all it takes, if governments impose regulations by keeping them in check.

 

[Toro]

I think not, i think we are entering the realm of subjective interpretation, but hell, its fun


i dont believe the corporation (documentary) tries to say that all corporations are bad and fo eveil. But, any entity large enough to have a real impact on the world is automatically given high responsibilities; and most corporations dont assume them. Pollution is a crwling problem, support of despotic governments, etc. These are all real issues where corporations had the choice to do right or wrong, and some chose wrong...

As for deliberately hurting their customers, corporations dont do it. They just dont care. A corporation's legel stature forces it to do all it takes and all it can for maximal profit for the shareholders. In the USA, the laws are very strict on this matter and corporations that dont do all they can for profit can be severly punished (think google on chinese censorship lately). So, by filling their mandate of doing all they can to maximize profit, companies will sometimes (often?) do anything, even if it means hirting their customers. This is not deliberate, its just colateral damage.


PS: i did read stories about certain new medications that could have a high impact in curring cancer and aids, that have been dropped because the commercial numbers did not justifify the commercialisation. 90% of all drug discoveries are related to rich country diseases. Although i would need proof to support that, it seems the marketing departments are the ones really deciding which drugs make it to the stores and which dont...

You can't possibly be in business, or have much experience in business, if you say that companies don't care about their customers.

I've spent a lot of time in business and looking at many, many businesses, and its simply false to say that corporations will do whatever it needs to do to maximize profits. Poor reputations hurt profits. Also, the US does not have laws that punish corporations that do not maximize profits.

Finally, interesting that you bring up drug discovery, since almost all drugs offered and brought to market are through private corporations. I'd suggest you take a look at what Genentech is doing with their cancer drugs Avastin, Tarceva and Herceptin before coming to the conclusion that corporations are deliberately burying drugs.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Huck]

I think not, I agree with you completely. then i guess it all boils down to one simple question:


Can gonvernments be trusted to be completely independent of outside influence of powerful corporations and lobbying?

If they truly are independent, then perhaps we can hope that the proper legislations will soon come to our respective gornements and impose the proper rules of conduct to corporations. On this day, i will truly trust george bush's sayings about reducing addiction to oil and look ahead with great optimism as i will know that the only obstacle to imprvement will be the rate at which we humans can innovate and find new technologies.


Now, i dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but by reading history, it seems that corprations basically "sleep" in the same bed as the polliticians, and have a rather extended influence on pollitical decisions. In this respect, i would trust that the hunger for profit will push companies to try and stop goverments from imposing laws that would benefit the public interrest, and adapt them for their own good. As long as this goes on, im not sure we can trust speaches like we heard yesterday.... :?

 

[the caracal kid]

"Can gonvernments be trusted to be completely independent of outside influence of powerful corporations and lobbying? "

in a word, NO. The old saying of "follow the money to find the power" is very true. When political hopefuls receive money to aid in their elections, a payback is expected.

 

[Huck]

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

"Can gonvernments be trusted to be completely independent of outside influence of powerful corporations and lobbying? "

in a word, NO. The old saying of "follow the money to find the power" is very true. When political hopefuls receive money to aid in their elections, a payback is expected.

right on, I couldn't have said it better myself

 

[I think not]

Can gonvernments be trusted to be completely independent of outside influence of powerful corporations and lobbying?

Well honestly, I don't think they can be trusted, and I don't think one particular philosophical ideology is the answer either. I think activism plays an enormous role in keeping governments in check. The opening statement of our Constitution is very clear, We The People, it is we the people that have struggled to make changes in my country. Many right wingers will utterly condemn for example the ACLU, and yet they know very little of what has been accomplished by them. People make the difference, and there are lobbyists that advocate good things to society. Activism my friend, keeps governments from getting the wandering eye, sometimes anyway.

If they truly are independent, then perhaps we can hope that the proper legislations will soon come to our respective gornements and impose the proper rules of conduct to corporations. On this day, i will truly trust george bush's sayings about reducing addiction to oil and look ahead with great optimism as i will know that the only obstacle to imprvement will be the rate at which we humans can innovate and find new technologies.

I think the only thing leaders can do is be visonaries and lay the groundwork for future generations, sadly, I never believed GWB is a visionary, I hope history will prove me wrong. What you said up there in bold hits the nail on the head, it's human innovation and invention that will help us. I have always had alot of faith in the human spirit. I think the Bush administration has made "some" strides towards energy alternatives but it needs much much more work. He's spent too much money you see "over there".

Now, i dont want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but by reading history, it seems that corprations basically "sleep" in the same bed as the polliticians, and have a rather extended influence on pollitical decisions. In this respect, i would trust that the hunger for profit will push companies to try and stop goverments from imposing laws that would benefit the public interrest, and adapt them for their own good. As long as this goes on, im not sure we can trust speaches like we heard yesterday.... :?

I only listen to what he has in his thick stubborn head in terms of this years legislation, to me, he hit on two important issues, energy and health care, if he can somehow get congress to agree on a progressive plan that helps Americans in the long term, then I would go for it. The rest of his speech was the usual blah blah.

 

[Huck]

Toro, you took everything i said and brought it to the extreme. I never said that companies hurt their customers. But, when a paper mill company, which wants to bring a good to its customers (paper) wants to minimize cotss and pollutes the local river, it did not intend to hurt, but they do, as collateral damage.



as for coporations, they are legally bound to do all they can to ensure dividents to its shareholders, even if it goes angainst public good.



finally, i didn't say private corporations didn't find drugs. but, in certain circumstances (merck as an example), certain drugs may be dropped if the projected financial results may not be high enough or be under the costs of developement (which often get in billions od USD).

 

[Toro]

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

"Can gonvernments be trusted to be completely independent of outside influence of powerful corporations and lobbying? "

in a word, NO. The old saying of "follow the money to find the power" is very true. When political hopefuls receive money to aid in their elections, a payback is expected.

Can governments be trusted to be completely independent of the political ambitions and desires of the people in power?

Remember, most countries are not democracies.

 

[Huck]

i think not: we understand each other perfectly. let us hope in the end, it will all all turn out for the best