Thoughts?Why do some people believe that moving away from oil as a primary fuel will solve all geopolitical problems?
I seriously believe that we should be looking for alternative fuels that will be better on our environment because whether or not you are a democrat or a republican we can all agree that this is our home and we need to keep it safe.
However, I do believe that when we find these new alternatives the government, or other businesses with find ways to drive up the prices. These prices will probably be around the same as a gallon of gas now.Why do some people believe that moving away from oil as a primary fuel will solve all geopolitical problems?
Up to a point you make good points but. The idea in the US is to use the resources in our own backyard that are renewable. Oil isn't and never will be renewable. Once we are using our own resources places like the Middle east become far less relevant to our daily lives. Thus we need not involve ourselves in there local problems and the locals there would appreciate that very much. It would also help in the problem of global warming or change whatever term turns your crank. Oil is a major contributor as well as coal to this problem. The other is that oil IS running out it is only a matter of time. So the soon we get of the black drug of oil the better off we will be economically we will be.
Yes that is a good point.
I would think the resources needed would be less first of all. Like solar panels and wind turbines, for example, require a large amount of materials, but after they're built you don't need as much anymore.
But I think the main reason the problems wouldn't be as big because these resources are much more spread out. Different materials would be made in different areas so it'd be more interconnected.
I think there would be some alleviation to geopolitical problems. But I suppose we have to be realistic and realize these problems will always exist.
No one say it will solve ALL geopolitical problems.
But it is a fact that control of resources and control of territory are related. When the largest consumers of a resource like oil(China and the United States) is not possessed in any quantity by EITHER of the two largest users... then you will inevitably (and our history has borne this out) have conflict.
If you replace that scarce energy resource (oil) with others that almost ALL nations have (either sunshine... wind... geothermal....wave or tidal energy... or if they can get fusion to eventually work just good old water) then you REMOVE the object of the fight... and you solve ONE geopolitical problem.
Right now... that ONE is the biggest one there is.
I agree, however I'd have to see what the alternative options were to judge if they would be more controversial than oil. Resources will indeed always cause geopolitical problems, but I think some more than others.
We don't know - oil could be the least of our problems or it could be the worst option. As a more varied range of fuel options become commercialised, I guess we will have to see what happens in regards to territorial, power and religion issues. For now, laissez-faire...
Good question! First, I believe since we are rapidly using oil, the price is increasing just as well. Oil isn't a renewable source on a human time line, so moving to something that we can restore seems wise. Plus, the reason we've fought over resources is because of the location, we want to claim it on someone else's land. However, with an alternative (ahem steam) we could easily prevent war over something so trivial by moving the product, not the extrator.
I think it would do a few things...
Give us Americans and other Westerners cheaper energy and thus more disposable income. This would help our current economic issues.
We could concentrate our military efforts on places that really need help, such as genocidal regions of Africa. This would create good will, and Africa will be helped.
Now, one may think the Middle Eastern nations would be hurt, but they still will produce for China and India, who are well behind the times, and the average Middle Easterner doesn't benefit much from the oil wealth, which is in the hands of a few.
I see it as a win-win for Westerners; and perhaps other regions, such as Africa, could benefit indirectly.
Moving to alternate fuels is mostly a political decision. You see, the Democrats want to get their tax-hungry hands on fuels that are now on the ground-floor. Too late to get oil money, so that is why they push for alternate energies. ...hence, 'global warming' fears will speed this process up.
Of course, but weaning ourselves off the oil teat will also spread the wealth around instead of concentrating it in the hands of a few people/countries that don't really like us.
And how much of these resources are here in the US that we can use, rather than importation?
It won't but it sure as h-ll can't hurt. As far as the fuel goes for anything other that cars solar as well as wind and some other newer technologies is absolutely the way to go because nobody controls the sun or the wind or the heat in the deep ground.
I would break the back of the evil ruling elite. Banking and energy are what they have managed to control. That is a lot of wealth to buy politicians, police and armies.
Every major party Presidential candidate has said so since Nixon took the stump. That's 35 years of thought process to overcome.
The only thing that will finally solve all of mankinds problems is total extermination.
The idea is that we would obtain our power from local sources such as our abundant coal or nuclear or wind.
No comments:
Post a Comment