Juan, your are exactly correct as far as you go. But, using just pollution created within the United States as a calculation of U.S. pollution production is disingenuous. Many heavy industries and manufacturing have left the United States, but their products are consumed here. As such, the pollution created in the manufacture and shipping of those products must also be included in U.S. pollution figures if they are to have any meaning. When you do this you will find that pollution caused by the U.S. is rising more rapidly then almost anyone realizes or wants to admit.
You seem to skip over the part about the "West" instigating this by trying to attract the Ukraine away from the Russia. Are Europe and the U.S. ready to provide billions in aid to Ukraine, or provide them energy at discounted prices. I hardly think so! So you have baited the bear, and now what? The Ukraine owes 145 Billion mostly to Russia, and is dependent on Russia for on going loans and discounted energy. Maybe the "West" miscalculated on the violence of the revolution, but there it is. And now our Sec. of State visits representatives of an unelected government that has used violence to overthrow the elected government. Russia's move into the Crimea may be the only thing that forestalls civil war. The Ukrainian Army will not move against ethnic Russians as long as the Russian Army is in place. And most certainly, if they did, the ethnic Russians would resist and there you have civil war.
Number 11? All of our allies would probably walk away if they believed the right wing in the US was trying to start another war. We would end up going it alone! And it would be very easy for them to do that. After all nobody around the world really trust the U.S. anymore!
You are most certainly right about almost everything. However, China and India are far more efficient in their use of petroleum than the US. Very small cars and very high mileage. A gallon goes much further over there. As for declining oil production there has also been substantial declines in the North Sea, both the UK and Norway, and the Alaskan North Slope and Mexican production. World petroleum production has stagnated for 5 years in spite of high prices even when NGL's are added in. Russian production has leveled off at about 10 million barrels a day after growing by 4 million barrels a day over the last 10-15 years. Saudi production also seems topped out at about 10 million barrels a day. If either Russian or Saudi output goes into decline it is likely that world production will have seen its peak. We will be scraping around for very expensive, hard-to-get, and very dirty oil. While these resources may last some time in ever diminishing quantities, the price will be very high!
Haven't you noticed?! Well almost nobody else has either! World crude oil production has been stagnant for the last six years. Total liquid fuels (including natural gas liquids, condensates and tar sands have only increased production about 600,000 barrels a day over six years. (BP annual statistical revue of energy) This despite a frantic search for oil with record numbers of drilling rigs. Why do you think we are now going to the ends of the earth, and into ultra deep water in search of oil. This oil will not be cheap. The majority of older wells are in declining production. The North Slope of Alaska produced 2 million barrels a day at its peak in the 80s and today is a little over 600K bpd. This is being repeated the world over. There may be many factors that affect world oil prices, but, if we are truly at "Peak Oil", that is the world peak of oil production, and there is a growing body of evidence that we are, or are very close, then we have only just begun to see the upward spiral of oil prices. And, if we truly are at peak oil, prices are the least of our worries!
One question that I have not heard anyone ask: Who is the final authority in the executive branch who decides who is to be killed? Seems that nobody has stepped up to the plate on this one. And of course nobody in government has unequivocally accepted responsibility for the decision, not unsurprisingly.
Juan, your are exactly correct as far as you go. But, using just pollution created within the United States as a calculation of U.S. pollution production is disingenuous. Many heavy industries and manufacturing have left the United States, but their products are consumed here. As such, the pollution created in the manufacture and shipping of those products must also be included in U.S. pollution figures if they are to have any meaning. When you do this you will find that pollution caused by the U.S. is rising more rapidly then almost anyone realizes or wants to admit.
You seem to skip over the part about the "West" instigating this by trying to attract the Ukraine away from the Russia. Are Europe and the U.S. ready to provide billions in aid to Ukraine, or provide them energy at discounted prices. I hardly think so! So you have baited the bear, and now what? The Ukraine owes 145 Billion mostly to Russia, and is dependent on Russia for on going loans and discounted energy. Maybe the "West" miscalculated on the violence of the revolution, but there it is. And now our Sec. of State visits representatives of an unelected government that has used violence to overthrow the elected government. Russia's move into the Crimea may be the only thing that forestalls civil war. The Ukrainian Army will not move against ethnic Russians as long as the Russian Army is in place. And most certainly, if they did, the ethnic Russians would resist and there you have civil war.
Number 11? All of our allies would probably walk away if they believed the right wing in the US was trying to start another war. We would end up going it alone! And it would be very easy for them to do that. After all nobody around the world really trust the U.S. anymore!
Professor Cole,
You are most certainly right about almost everything. However, China and India are far more efficient in their use of petroleum than the US. Very small cars and very high mileage. A gallon goes much further over there. As for declining oil production there has also been substantial declines in the North Sea, both the UK and Norway, and the Alaskan North Slope and Mexican production. World petroleum production has stagnated for 5 years in spite of high prices even when NGL's are added in. Russian production has leveled off at about 10 million barrels a day after growing by 4 million barrels a day over the last 10-15 years. Saudi production also seems topped out at about 10 million barrels a day. If either Russian or Saudi output goes into decline it is likely that world production will have seen its peak. We will be scraping around for very expensive, hard-to-get, and very dirty oil. While these resources may last some time in ever diminishing quantities, the price will be very high!
Juan,
Haven't you noticed?! Well almost nobody else has either! World crude oil production has been stagnant for the last six years. Total liquid fuels (including natural gas liquids, condensates and tar sands have only increased production about 600,000 barrels a day over six years. (BP annual statistical revue of energy) This despite a frantic search for oil with record numbers of drilling rigs. Why do you think we are now going to the ends of the earth, and into ultra deep water in search of oil. This oil will not be cheap. The majority of older wells are in declining production. The North Slope of Alaska produced 2 million barrels a day at its peak in the 80s and today is a little over 600K bpd. This is being repeated the world over. There may be many factors that affect world oil prices, but, if we are truly at "Peak Oil", that is the world peak of oil production, and there is a growing body of evidence that we are, or are very close, then we have only just begun to see the upward spiral of oil prices. And, if we truly are at peak oil, prices are the least of our worries!
One question that I have not heard anyone ask: Who is the final authority in the executive branch who decides who is to be killed? Seems that nobody has stepped up to the plate on this one. And of course nobody in government has unequivocally accepted responsibility for the decision, not unsurprisingly.