Re: Bush's October Surprise: war with Iran

The truth is not what one would think. The US has more classified
energy technology then any other country.[1] Because of the
Petrodollar countries had to exchange goods for dollars in order to
purchase oil from a 3rd party. This system is now crashing in favor of
the native currency, or the Euro that will just follow down the drain
in the big crash. So there is no point in keeping everything
classified. They can at least convert nuclear reactors? The
government doesn't even have to declassify anything. On top of that,
continents are barely attached to the sea floor. It's the oil and
natural gas that keeps the land masses floating. Lindsey Williams
didn't lie in The Energy Non-Crisis[2], there is more then enough oil
inside America. Enough to burn the oxygen in the atmosphere 100 times
over. (We are already half way compared to 1930)

[1] - http://www.byronwine.com
[2] - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

On Jun 11, 4:30 am, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
<PopUlist...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
June 10, 2008 – Geneva (apj.us) – It is not often that the Bush crew
lets slip enough information for anyone to put two and two together,
but it dawned on me the other night in London that America might be in
for an extended war – along with her NATO allies – over this “oil
business.”

Here are a few facts that got me thinking:

There is no way we can replace fossil fuels as our main energy source
in time to stop climatic devastation. One need only look at pictures
of the arctic circle ten years ago and today to see the shrinking
window for action.
It is doubtful that the industrialized world can afford to pay much
more for oil – or even pay what it is costing today – and there is no
end in sight to the increases spurred not only by demand but by
futures trading among people without conscience.
The Bush Administration is hell-bent on attacking Iran.
In my hotel, I was watching the preeminent interview show on
television worldwide, “Hardtalk,” whose host, Steven Sackur, makes
Bill O’Reilly look like a prissy prom queen. Sackur doesn’t fool
around – and unlike O’Reilly, he has a razor sharp mind, asks well-
thought-out and very tough questions, and doesn’t insult people just
to insult them.

Sackur’s guest was Prof. Wallace Broecker, the world’s foremost expert
on climate change.

The gist of the interview is that we are about 50 years or more away
from replacing petroleum-based energy with anything – let alone the
usual culprits – ethanol, hydrogen, or rank used cooking oil from
Burger King.

Broecker, a extraordinary geo-chemist, cannot see a clear way to avoid
the necessity for the world to continue using oil for the next five,
maybe six decades. Neither can most experts, although my friends
cloaked in green as I am do not believe this problem is not solvable.

It is – but over a long, long time – so long that many of our
grandchildren will be in their sixties by the time we either “make the
switch” from fossil fuels or learn to live with them.

I spent much of career in Washington working on ethanol legislation,
and litigating against the then-Secretary of the Treasury regarding
Bob Dole’s chicanery in trying to protect his best friend Dwayne
Andreas (a political genius).

I was successful, and beat them in court, but I never believed that
ethanol could or would replace petroleum.

I know the problems that face alcohol fuels: they are far greater than
huge, and far beyond the use of food for fuel highlighted today.

That aside, Prof. Broecker, the grandfather of climate science, and
Mr. Sackur had me thinking – thinking hard.

Dr. Broecker is actually almost panicky about our unbridled production
of CO2. If we have no way to give up oil, and we have no way to drill
for it, in time, what are we going to do?

By “we” I mean the entire industrialized world, not just the United
States.

We now have 7 billion people on earth – and our food supply today can
only last one month.

Do we need to know more?

Broecker believes that we must turn off the oil spigot soon to stop
the continuous spew of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet he also knows that
this might be close to impossible. I think “there is no way in hell
that we can do that” says Broecker.

He does think we can slow down and use as little as possible, but this
will not solve the problem and we will be burning fossil fuel “for the
next couple of hundred years.”

Thus, he believes that we have to capture the CO2 and bury it. He
believes that we have to continue using fossil fuels – but stop the
harm caused by this.

Simple?

Because this is a global problem, all nations are obliged to get
together to solve the problem. But of course, all nations have never
come together about anything much. If you believe that America, or
China, or India, or Russia will give up their use of fossil fuels,
you’re whistling Dixie.

Thus, we have an immoral position. Developing nations – we believe –
cannot be allowed to do what we did: grow on the energy from oil, coal
and gas.

Broecker accepts the valid criticism that capturing polluting gasses
will also be next to impossible.

Yet he believes that Klaus Lachner, of Columbia Univeristy, has the
right ideas to clean the atmosphere of CO2 and, along with Alan
Wright, to start a company that developed a scrubber that would take
the CO2 out of the atmosphere around us.

Thus far they have not been altogether successful – save for the fact
that they have found a plastic that will pick up CO2 which reduces the
energy (a great problem with other scrubbing technologies) required
for cleaning up and then eliminating the CO2. This special plastic is
then isolated, soaked with water vapor and the CO2 is gone and ready
to be disposed of. Granted, there would have to be millions of these
machines around the earth. Each viable unit would take out a ton of
CO2 each day. The United States, for instance, would need 20 million
of them because that is the total daily spew of America – 20 million
tons!

Yet the truth is that any technology we use to clean up CO2 would
require millions of units – whether it’s windmills or widgets. Then,
think about this: If all the CO2 produced in the next 20 years was
captured and then liquefied – it would fill Lake Michigan.

Thus the captured CO2 would have to be buried. And that is a huge
problem. Where would we bury it safely?

Broecker nearly scoffed at the Bush Administration’s latest failed
project – that cost billions – and was peddled as a way to capture CO2
from coal – at the plant. Broecker does not think that Mr. Bush was
“serious” about this project which has now been scrapped.

So, either we do very little by doing what we can do today - which
will destroy us – or we move toward the capture and storage of CO2 as
Broecker suggests.

One other choice - get this – is that we can inject sulfur dioxide
into the stratosphere to lower the temperature on the earth’s surface.

Broecker thinks that this simply puts a band aid on the problem. Yet
he worries that the world will do this because it is a quick fix – and
we’ll decide to it only after the earth gets too hot to bear – so in a
sense, it would be the only choice at that time. The only choice.

Yes, we have to do as much as we can do today. Yet there is not enough
energy available to do it slowly.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) thinks that even
carbon capture will not be viable until 2050 – but the point is that
we can begin and perhaps accomplish it faster than anticipated today.

Look, the world cannot even meet the impractically low Kyoto standards
– even Germany is having a tough time here. Nations that claim they
will lower the CO2 output by as much as 60% are hallucinating say most
experts.

And remember, the nations that trying under Kyoto are the very richest
of nations like the UK. The rest of the world will continue, have to
continue to pollute – all 6 billion of them who also want better lives
for themselves.

Carbon capture and disposal will raise the cost of energy by as much
as 20% says Broecker. He believes that oil companies and coal
companies must pursue this strategy and I agree.

“We are stuck with fossil fuels,” says the guy who spent his entire
adult life studying it, “there is no way out, and if you say there is
– you’re a dreamer.”

Yet Broecker himself tells us taht it well might be impossible, or too
late to do this.

But we have to try.

Whether or not Broecker, Lachner, and Wright have the answer is not
the primary focus of this piece.

The focus, of course, is whether the governments of the world will:

Accept the fact that using oil, gas, and coal is here to stay.
Begin to prepare for capture and storage of greenhouse gases.
My reaction is that nationalism alone will not allow it.

And there is your October surprise.

If you truly believe that George W. Bush and, more so, *** Cheney
invaded Iraq to being Iraqis Western-style democracy then you are
living in fantasy land. They have tipped their hand a thousand times.
We are in Iraq to establish a beach head to protect that oil in that
region. There is no doubt this.

Does the White House – and the Congressional leadership – know more
than they are admitting to us? Do they see clearly that global warming
is far worse than any of us appreciate? Do they know that there are no
answers to our energy and climate problems but to try what we can
until we can continue our use fossil fuels as always without
destroying the planet?

If so, what is the next step? Are we going to simply ignore this
problem or are we going to take drastic and sweeping steps to tackle
it?

If you believe, as I do, that there is a snowball’s chance in Hell
that the world will unite around the problem – then perhaps the West,
including Russia, will go it alone.

I do not have that faith in man through my own knowledge of history.

That gives NATO and other allies only two choices. Force the
developing world to stop developing using fossil fuels, or force the
oil producing nations to produce more – and now.

I believe that George W. Bush and *** Cheney have made their choice
and it is not to scold the third world about its use of oil.

No, the White House is not only planning to bomb Iran to cripple it as
the controlling power in the Middle East – but may also be planning to
occupy the Gulf itself until the world can clean up its mess. That
means occupying the oil producing nations for as long as 50 years.

Of course, the tragedy is that such a plan would result in the
greatest war that the earth has ever witnessed. While we, the nuclear
powers, might be able to march into Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela
after a phone call – how would we occupy and control these nations?

One needs only look at the most modern history in Iraq and Afghanistan
to realize this plan, if it exists, is folly.

Then again, the gang in the White House by no means sees the forest
for the trees. They never look at the far-reaching consequences. Their
myopia might reveal itself in a “get the oil now” and worry about the
consequences later action or series of actions.

Face facts. The problems we face with energy are breathing down our
necks in the form of atmospheric pollution and economic collapse.
Already in Europe truckers and fisherman have stopped working. They
cannot afford the fuel for their vehicles and their fishing boats.

There is no vast alternative energy source available to us – not for
one hundred years or more.

The answer then must be to continue to use oil, gas, and coal for
energy. In order to do that we have to be in command of its price
which has now spiraled out of control and is not only threatening the
very backbone of the industrialized world, but also its food and water
supply.

This is like a crap shoot. Perhaps we can clean the CO2 and other
poisons from the by-product of these fuels, and maybe we can’t. Right
now, it’s the oil we want.

The world has gone to war for far more insignificant social and
economic reasons.

I think it’s time to buckle up and maybe duck and cover.

http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1440&Item...

.

Loading