On the issue of killing the thread - this is something I've never understood - if you don't find a thread interesting, think it has become too long, boring, tedious, whatever - why not just avoid reading it? So long as there is no outright name calling or other problems (i.e. plagiarism, making completely false claims, etc.), what is the problem?
[ QUOTE ]
We all have our opinions, many of us are so set on them that we won't change no matter the circumstances. Probably better to keep heated political debates to PM's or emails... /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
True. But, since all of the political and international problems associated with petroleum are a large reason why many of us use biodiesel, when somebody makes a statement like:
[ QUOTE ]
Powerstroke:
Again, you can pour bio in your tank, and also at your own silly expense, but why? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Should we not be allowed to answer it, since the answer will likely involve politics? The fact is, many of those who use biodiesel (including the US military! THe BIGGEST user of biodiesel in the US) do so because of a desire to rid us of our petroleum dependence - because of the associated economic issues, as well as the fact that being dependent on petroleum requires military interventions that would not otherwise be required. So, if somebody asks why anyone would use biodiesel (and asks it in a manner clearly intended to make it seem like anyone who does choose to use it is an idiot), should we not be allowed to answer?
(an aside - for anyone who thinks the notion that petroleum dependence requires military intervention every now and then is completely wrong, try to find a copy of the report prepared by the Congressional Research Service for the US Congress (specifically for the Committee on International Relations) back in 1975 entitled
"Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study" (first session of the 94th congress, August 21, 1975, if it helps you find it)
Also read:
Multinational Oil Corporations and U.S. Foreign Policy - REPORT together with individual views, to the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, by the Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations; (Washington, January 2, 1975, US Government Printing Office).
Additionally,
here is a very interesting report on the state of the worldwide oil industry, as prepared for the US Congress back in 1995. The report discusses the problem with worldwide demand rising, and worldwide supplies likely not being able to accomodate that increase in demand - with most of the increase in supply worldwide being in the middle east. A key problem they discuss is the sanctions on Iraq, which prevent them from fully developing their oil fields. Throughout the 90s, as this report demonstrates, there was much expectance that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be able to increase their output by a significant margin (around 30+ percent), to help deal with rising demand, and dwindling reserves in the rest of the world. Unfortunately, things didn't work out that way. Saudi Arabia has been discovering that their reserves, in fact, are not nearly as high as they had been predicting back in the 90s (actually, they may have known that, and just made those higher predictions for political reasons). Thus, around 2000, the emphasis in the oil community shifted from hoping that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be able to increase production to meet demand, to looking at Iraq's large undeveloped oil fields as the main potential solution. Throughout the 90s, the US was the main importer of oil from Iraq (under the sanctions). Around 2000 and shortly afterwards, various other countries (primarily France and Russia -actually companies within the countries, more so than the countries themselves) started working out deals with Iraq to develop their oil fields if/when sanctions were lifted. This was really the start of the tensions between the US and France/Russia (and Germany, to a lesser extent).
Consider also the old Afghan war in the 80s, when the USSR was seeking to take over Afghanistan, and we were determined to prevent that from happening. Why was the USSR so interested in that country, and why were we so set on preventing it from happening (sure, we could say it was about preventing the spread of communism, saving democracy, etc.. The problem with that is that once we beat back the USSR, we abandoned Afghanistan, as we didn't care at all about what type of government was established in the country. If we didn't care that the Taliban moved in and set up an extremely repressive religious dictatorship, how could our interest have been about democracy, preventing the spread of communism or dictatorships?). The USSR was interested in Afghanistan because of the plentiful natural gas wells (see
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html ) and as a route through which an oil pipeline could be run (and then likely through Pakistan) to get the plentiful oil in the Caspian Sea to the ocean, so it could be sold.
Petroleum has played a pivotal role in world politics for the past 60+ years - including MANY wars fought over it. When you look at the history over that time span, it's simply impossible to believe otherwise. When our government has readily stated on multiple occasions (particularly throughout the 70s) the potential to go to war specifically over oil, when we went to war in 1991 specifically over oil (because Iraq had invaded Kuwait over an oil-field dispute (Kuwait was slant drilling into oil fields in Iraq), etc., how can anyone believe that oil does NOT play a large role in many military conflicts throughout the world?
