Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton: "We May Be At Peak Oil"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Strelnikov_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 06:39 PM
Original message
Clinton: "We May Be At Peak Oil"
Another indication that the power brokers know what the score is.

There is just too much money to be made in the initial stages, money that will not be made if the 'consumers' catch wind of the energy future, and begin to make other economic and political arrangements.

Speech: The Opportunity for Private Citizens to Effect Positive Change in an Increasingly Interdependent World

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/5728

. . .

The Indians and Chinese are in this huge fight now to see who can get the most oil. We may be at a point of peak oil production. You may see $100 a barrel oil in the next two or three years, but what still is driving this globalization is the idea that is you cannot possibly get rich, stay rich and get richer; if you don’t release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That was true in the industrial era; it is simply factually not true. What is true is that the old energy economy is well organized, financed and connected politically.

. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. may be, huh?
and... oh never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. The more voices from leading figures we hear, the quicker the
Edited on Mon Apr-24-06 06:46 PM by Old Crusoe
critical mass will manifest for renewable and alternative energy sources.

The long-term advantage of this comment is its accumulative value, and everyone will benefit if our government is not bombing the crap out of unarmed civilian populations so our economy can greedily suck oil out of the sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. well well they are finally prepping u.s. for $100/pb
next 2/3 yrs? more '07
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pissed Off Cabbie Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-24-06 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Oil in the Arctic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Frankly, I think he's optimistic about that prediction.
I see $100 per barrel this time next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. I like Bill Clinton, but truth be told, he could have done a lot more
on energy than he did.

He was hardly prescient - and he wasted his political capital on frivilous things.

Other than purchasing the Russian weapons plutonium based fuel, he did very little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOPBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I agree with you.
I say that a lot, that I wish Bill Clinton did more on the energy issue than he did. It was a wasted opportunity, because as we see now, huge coalitions can be built on this issue: environmentalists, security hawks who want to end our dependence on middle eastern oil, and now, even evangelical groups are coming out in favor of fighting global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. "It was a wasted opportunity..."
Frankly, I think that sums up the majority of the Clinton Presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. He *was* the greatest Republican president of the late 20th century...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-25-06 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Oh, no; not you, too!
Edited on Tue Apr-25-06 10:53 PM by Pigwidgeon
:o

"Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had" ... that's the King of Clichés, even more so than "Can you spell Fred Rogers? I knew you could," and assertions of one's conscience.

Sure, he was far from perfect. I disagreed with him often. But compared to what preceded him and followed him, the man is the best president we've had in decades, from either party. To read Counterpunch, you'd think he was a combination of Vlad the Impaler and Jack the Ripper with a smile. (And they didn't like Al Gore any better.)

I remember that for about a week in 1995, the price of gasoline dipped below one dollar a gallon for Premium. But even more important, optimism -- which had disappeared in 1973, and only made a comeback among the rich for a few months in the mid-80s -- marked at least six of the eight years of Clinton's time in office.

The Right hates him. The Left hates him. That's the best reason for contarians like me to want to repeal or modify the Presidential Succession Amendment.

:evilgrin:

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Oh, I think he was a good president.
In my opinion, he rises to the top of the heap just for balancing the budget. And with a hostile Congress! Just one of the many accomplishments that Junior pissed away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Some of Counterpunch's writers savaged John Kerry, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Clinton was definitely an upper tier President, but his energy programs
were far less than outstanding.

His optimism in this place was very, very, very badly misplaced and his inaction might have become legion, except that he was succeeded by the worst possible human being ever to have occupied the White House. He will probably get a historical bye because of that, although people may damn him in history to the extent that d'affaire de blowjob was responsible for the tragic events surrounding the 2000 election.

I suppose that Clinton was no worse than his people in his inaction on energy and global climate change, but one longs for a President who will be better than his or her people. The greatest Presidents have taught the American People as much as they listened to the American People. Clinton missed his shot at that kind of greatness.

Of course, I would certainly support repeal of the succession amendment which may seem out the realm of possibility, but may not be ultimately be so when the scale and width of the disaster - coupled with a healthy dollop of nostalgia for the "good times" all clicks together.

Probably the nostalgia would help with the other alternative to repeal - the coronation of Hillary, although personally I am sick almost to death of high office rotating through family members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. When it came to issues of environment and energy...
the nation slept after Carter. Clinton was no exception. Although that project of burning weapons plutonium for energy was a good idea.

It seems to me that the nation slept for two reasons.

1) OPEC turned all the cheap-oil knobs up to 11.

2) We exported our polluting extraction and manufacturing indutries to poor countries with no labor or environmental regs.

Thus allowing pundits to write endless articles about how technology was giving us all the Star Trek lifestyle: limitless growth in standard of living with no environmental or economic consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-26-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I can offer no better analysis than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC