articles.sfgate.com/2004-08-22/news/17440366_1_al-qaeda-qaeda-network-final-report>The Link Hope the links work. As usual mcbrett you assume things with no basis in fact. The links above talk about the budget for al queda and about the cost of the compound used in the recent bombings. 1 single arab sheik could fund al queda for centuries with what he has in his checking account. PETN (the chemical used by the yemen bomber) sells online for $1.15 per pound and the bomber had 80 grams. Used nitro to detonate. $35 may have been too high of an estimate.
Lot of good info on this thread. Sure the US could alter its consumption rate, and somewhat the technology development landscape, through policy. But politics won't really allow much of the former, and probably the same issue, in the form of internecene competition, with the latter. So, we'll muddle along grossly outconsuming our share and being the WWL in depleting the earth's resource base. And, this will be great for some of us whose employment and investments ride this wave. What's more American than "I'll get mine"? Clayton Williams may have had a point. Sure, we ought to be able to do better. But we won't. It is a fascinating world. Maybe there are other priorities. Better stare at my iphone.
mcbrett- what is your point? I am not arguing that folks in the ME don't sponsor terror. I have never argued that point. You are arguing a fact that is not in contention. I agree that the US buys a lot of oil from the ME. I agree that factions from the ME support terrorism. Now, stay with me here...I do not agree that if the US suddenly stops buying oil from the ME that it will have any appreciable effect on terrorism funding by the ME. I assume that was the point of your original post. Hopefully you did not make a post just letting us all know that we buy lots of oil from the ME and that terrorism is sponsored from the ME. water is wet. The sky is blue. I pointed out that funding for terrorism is not that great. I pointed to a comission study from the 9/11 panel that estimated Al Qaeda operates on a budget of maybe $2 M per year. I agree we don't know for certain. All we can do is take the info we do have. In your own words you said:
Good topic, mcbrett. There are so many reasons to make a real effort toward energy independence and renewable energy sources. Sadly, hard-line conservatives want to shoot every one of those reasons down. My father, who I love and respect more than anyone on this planet, is one of them who might argue: 1 Oil will last forever, or at least for centuries (highly debatable, especially as developing nations like China and India start to develop an appetite like ours). 2 No such thing as global warming, or if there is, we can't stop it, or if we can, the other contries won't, so why should we, etc. (Also all debatable. I don't want to turn your thread into a global warming debate, so let's just leave it at "jury is out, and clock is ticking."). 3 Oil money doesn't actually fund terrorism (seems to me that Bin Laden by himself would shoot this idea down. If not, look at Saudi Arabia, who Americans have made fantastically wealthy. As we send them countless millions of dollars, the Saudi textbooks at all grade levels teach their schoolchildren that the US is a great evil that should be destroyed. If there were a business in your town where the owner/proprietor repeatedly and publicly states that his goal is to blow up your house and kill your family, would you give him your business? Of course you wouldn't. Yet many Americans support policies that keep our country doing exactly this exact thing every day.) 4 Too expensive, so let's not even try (This is crazy. How much do we spend to have military bases scattered throughout the Middle East? How much to wage a decade-and-counting-long war in Iraq, to the tune of 300 million PER DAY? If you're concerned about the cost of wind power or solar power, etc., shouldn't you also be worried about the mammoth cost of the status quo?). 5 Government policies can't direct us toward renewable resources (I don't understand this argument. If you say that the government can't "out-legislate" the free market, then yeah, I agree. But can't we offer tax incentives to businesses who are working on cheaper/more effective use of renewable resources?). Anyway, it's sad to me that the idea of "energy independence" has become a politicized and sharply divided down party lines. If you could imagine a US in the year 2040 that is cleaner, does not rely on the rest of the world for power, does not spend a huge % of its money maintaining armies around the globe to keep our supply lines open, does not drill and mine for resources throughout its national parks, and does not send billions of dollars to countries that hate us, would't everyone want that? Apparently not.
Ag- you can still depress pricing and pricing still goes up- but not AS MUCH as it would have relatively speaking. As Bronco pointed out- global demand is typically up due to the developing countries- but had we not had a US and global recession we easily would have seen 2008 pricing- e.g. $110/bbl and up. $75/oil is cheap- and it is primarily so because of the recession in the EU and US. Bronco- Ok let me pretend I agree with you for a minute and say oil revenues has little or nothing to do with funding terrorism. Yet- as a country, we still spent about $1 trillion on the Iraqi war and about $500B on Afghanistan (don't kill me if those #s are off- not completely sure.) But- the point is US taxpayers are probably broaching nearly two trillion dollars, and I would argue that oil was the direct or indirect catalyst for both conflicts, and of course the 1990 Kuwaiti conflict. Oil has cost this country thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars. I am glad we are discussing the possibility of funding terrorism in a civil way- and can respectfully disagree on the minutia- but I think it would be more difficult to dispute the direct cost to US taxpayers of both wars- in money and lives. So- even if I give you the 'oil doesn't fund terrorism' part- I think you would concede the cost of these 3 conflicts as oil related. And- if you would, the cost of these conflicts, plus the annual foreign aid we give to Egypt, Pakistan etc to help ensure steady supplies of oil- are by far MORE expensive than if we were to completely transform our transportation sector.
You should come to Portland sometime for a visit. If you are interested in transportation and urban planning stuff(also, beer and natural beauty) it is a great place. I recommend waiting until about april, though, cause it sucks here right now. I really feel like this whole movement could be sped up with more energy taxes(that 40 cent kwh and $6 gas number would certainly do it). I know that this distorts the market or whatever, but it would be a STRONG disincentive against waisting fuel of all sorts.
Agreed Iheart- hope to make the trip soon. I hear wonderful things. Ag- when you live in the city- not everyone owns a car and there are other benefits to- such as having more time to be with family and friends- and not sucking fumes on a highway for 2 hours/day. What price would you put to see your family an additional 8-10/hrs/week? Or to walk to 20 different restaurants, shows etc? It's a different lifestyle. I used to live in Manhattan- sure I hated it but for other reasons. However- not paying for gas, insurance and a car did help blunt the higher costs of living. Plus- with all respect to Ft. Worth- I think the specific economy of a city plays a large role in determining costs of living. E.g. Palo Alto is a smaller city- but because it is filled with amazing VC firms and high paying companies the cost of living is super high. And vice versa for Detroit...
You get what you pay for, brother. count me as someone who likes living in a small house and enjoys his 30 minute on bike, rain, shine or otherwise. OK, sometimes I take the bus.
Lots of good discussions on this thread. Below are a couple of links that add this discussion and are quite sobering of our world energy crises in the making given the future demand vs. available fossil fuels (e.g. proven reserves). One is quite long, but worth the read from Matt Simmons, an energy investment banker from Houston, the other link from James Quinn (a strategic planner for a university) is also eye opening and parlays some of SImmons information and adds some additional info. The Link The Link Things will definitely get interesting over the next decade once world economies get back to sustainable growth. Something has got to give in our energy consumption, reliance on foreign oil, available supply, energy conservation and how we live and work globally in the future. I'm hoping the US takes a long hard look beyond the next election and starts making smarter choices about what's at stake both economically, financially, and environmentally. If we don't start investing a lot of time and resources in our country's energy infrastructure in the coming years, the US will be in one hell of a mess.
