Phillips says that the knowledge on the part of Bush and his people of peak oil having arrived (even if they're not publicly admitting it), led to the invasion of Iraq.

As a Canadian, I think this is valuable information ... because maybe we're next ??!!

(quoting Phillips, US oil imports from Iraq=481K kbarrels/day, oil imports from Canada=1,853 barrels/day .. plus a whole pile of natural gas and hydroelectricity).

Luckily Phillips lists Canada as the only "stable and reliable supplier". But then we do have some other trade disputes (softwood lumber, salmon etc.) .. not sure if these would justify invasion though. Hope not.

He does say something a bit odd about Canada:
"Threats to U.S. oil interests arose in places Washington had long taken for granted: Latin America, the Arabian Peninsula, in small ways even Canada."

He never elaborates on the Canadian threats, so I'm not sure what he's talking about.

I wouldn't worry though. My fingers are crossed, but I believe we've just about lost our taste for military aggressiveness for a couple of decades, and that distaste will only intensify once our troops start coming back from the Middle East en masse. I think the only invasion you have to worry about from us is retirees seeking affordable medical care.

That's funny because it seems to me that many experts actually predict an increase in the amount and severity of resource centered wars.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/0 ... e_wars.php

You've piqued my curiosity as to what Obama will actually do in meaningful terms of military spending. I may be wrong but bailouts aside I understand it is the best funded aspect of American society.



I'm not on this chapter yet but I'm sure there is a quote in there somewhere to back this up. Nothing worse than empty internet rhetoric.

Peak oil is not a new theory. The guy who basically started the whole thing back in the FIFTIES was M. Hubbert. This individual drew a simple bell curve to show how oil would be found in ever increasing quantities until it became exceedingly difficult to find more reserves.

- all supply side.

There is difficult math involved with the theory but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that a finite resource such as oil won't be around forever. Once it's consumed it's gone.

So, yeah - if there is incentive to find it, it'll be found till it can't be found anymore. (no shit, right?)

The scary thing is that policy makers worldwide have largely squandered this resource. Instead of saving it to produce things that actually require fossil fuels, we've burned it in cars. That's pretty stupid to burn such a valuable and limited resource to get back and forth from soccer practice or to mow the lawn. RETARDED. (I have a gas powered car and mower by the way)

I agree that we're going to see more and more posturing and aggressive behavior as oil becomes more scarce. The sad thing is - which Phillips stresses - unfriendly nations hold most of the world's oil reserves now. Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and China are a few. They're going to get powerful enough to bring more oil producing countries under their sphere of influence. This is already happening and one of the main reasons I listed China with the others.

It's only a matter of time before Russia does ask for oil to be traded with the ruble as Phillips suggests. The only saving grace is that China has invested so heavily in the United States - they're not going to want to see our dollar decline. They may ask for oil to remain tied to the dollar to save the value of their investment.

All I know is - oil is a finite resource that needs to be replaced immediately for the welfare of the entire world.

I also meant to add that I thought this chapter was nice fluff but he didn't really tie it into the rest of the book that well. I have a suspicion that this book ended a couple of chapters ago.

I think this book could have been 100 pages. That's what I get so far.

I went ahead and bought The Trillion Dollar Meltdown by Charles R. Morris to compare the two and see if they say the same things. I just don't think Phillips has that strong a grasp on the whole situation and if he does he isn't very good at relaying all the complex information. He hasn't broken it down enough for me. I still feel like I've barely scratched the surface of WHY this has happened. Just not enough of the right information for me.

President Camacho wrote:I also meant to add that I thought this chapter was nice fluff but he didn't really tie it into the rest of the book that well. I have a suspicion that this book ended a couple of chapters ago.

I think this book could have been 100 pages. That's what I get so far.

HAha

Easy Nancy,

What I get from what I read is a product of my own ability to comprehend and retain the information lifted from the page.

I read and take notes on what I've read. I also pay attention to what people say here on the forum and if I don't have anything constructive to add - I usually don't.

I do what I want.

President Camacho wrote:...and if I don't have anything constructive to add - I usually don't.

I do what I want.

Your funny.

I'm going to exercise some restraint... and I hardly ever exercise.

All I'll reply is that this is the thread for chapter 5. My comments are in the appropriate thread for the chapter of this book.

What I found interesting was the part on how the shift from energy types created new world powers. Dutch with wind and water, Britain with Coal, then the US with oil. It's not a stretch to see positive impact in this vein from massive efforts to create alternative energy sources. The first step is to beef up the grid to handle the distant production, such as what Obama plans for (North Dakota I think?).

Feeding the grid with renewable energy then using that to feed electric or hybrid cars can be considered a new dominant energy source. The problem is that it's not quite happening fast enough if we're at the brief plateau of peak oil.