Clinton: "We May Be At Peak Oil"

[Strelnikov_]

Another indication that the power brokers know what the score is.

There is just too much money to be made in the initial stages, money that will not be made if the 'consumers' catch wind of the energy future, and begin to make other economic and political arrangements.

Speech: The Opportunity for Private Citizens to Effect Positive Change in an Increasingly Interdependent World

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/5728

. . .

The Indians and Chinese are in this huge fight now to see who can get the most oil. We may be at a point of peak oil production. You may see $100 a barrel oil in the next two or three years, but what still is driving this globalization is the idea that is you cannot possibly get rich, stay rich and get richer; if you don’t release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That was true in the industrial era; it is simply factually not true. What is true is that the old energy economy is well organized, financed and connected politically.

. . .

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. may be, huh?

and... oh never mind.

[saltpoint]

2. The more voices from leading figures we hear, the quicker the

critical mass will manifest for renewable and alternative energy sources.

The long-term advantage of this comment is its accumulative value, and everyone will benefit if our government is not bombing the crap out of unarmed civilian populations so our economy can greedily suck oil out of the sand.

[katty]

3. well well they are finally prepping u.s. for $100/pb

next 2/3 yrs? more '07

[Pissed Off Cabbie]

4. Oil in the Arctic

should be keeping them busy for a while.

http://pissedoffcabbie.blogspot.com/2006/04/after-new-gold-rush.html

[Javaman]

5. Frankly, I think he's optimistic about that prediction.

I see $100 per barrel this time next year.

[NNadir]

6. I like Bill Clinton, but truth be told, he could have done a lot more

on energy than he did.

He was hardly prescient - and he wasted his political capital on frivilous things.

Other than purchasing the Russian weapons plutonium based fuel, he did very little.

[GOPBasher]

7. I agree with you.

I say that a lot, that I wish Bill Clinton did more on the energy issue than he did. It was a wasted opportunity, because as we see now, huge coalitions can be built on this issue: environmentalists, security hawks who want to end our dependence on middle eastern oil, and now, even evangelical groups are coming out in favor of fighting global warming.

[IrateCitizen]

11. "It was a wasted opportunity..."

Frankly, I think that sums up the majority of the Clinton Presidency.

[phantom power]

8. He *was* the greatest Republican president of the late 20th century...

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Oh, no; not you, too!

:o

"Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had" ... that's the King of Clichés, even more so than "Can you spell Fred Rogers? I knew you could," and assertions of one's conscience.

Sure, he was far from perfect. I disagreed with him often. But compared to what preceded him and followed him, the man is the best president we've had in decades, from either party. To read Counterpunch, you'd think he was a combination of Vlad the Impaler and Jack the Ripper with a smile. (And they didn't like Al Gore any better.)

I remember that for about a week in 1995, the price of gasoline dipped below one dollar a gallon for Premium. But even more important, optimism -- which had disappeared in 1973, and only made a comeback among the rich for a few months in the mid-80s -- marked at least six of the eight years of Clinton's time in office.

The Right hates him. The Left hates him. That's the best reason for contarians like me to want to repeal or modify the Presidential Succession Amendment.

:evilgrin:

--p!

[phantom power]

10. Oh, I think he was a good president.

In my opinion, he rises to the top of the heap just for balancing the budget. And with a hostile Congress! Just one of the many accomplishments that Junior pissed away.

[Kolesar]

12. Some of Counterpunch's writers savaged John Kerry, too

http://www.google.com/search?q=dick+measuring&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org">Stan Goff in particular. I'd been in a few flame wars over that essay.

[NNadir]

13. Clinton was definitely an upper tier President, but his energy programs

were far less than outstanding.

His optimism in this place was very, very, very badly misplaced and his inaction might have become legion, except that he was succeeded by the worst possible human being ever to have occupied the White House. He will probably get a historical bye because of that, although people may damn him in history to the extent that d'affaire de blowjob was responsible for the tragic events surrounding the 2000 election.

I suppose that Clinton was no worse than his people in his inaction on energy and global climate change, but one longs for a President who will be better than his or her people. The greatest Presidents have taught the American People as much as they listened to the American People. Clinton missed his shot at that kind of greatness.

Of course, I would certainly support repeal of the succession amendment which may seem out the realm of possibility, but may not be ultimately be so when the scale and width of the disaster - coupled with a healthy dollop of nostalgia for the "good times" all clicks together.

Probably the nostalgia would help with the other alternative to repeal - the coronation of Hillary, although personally I am sick almost to death of high office rotating through family members.

[phantom power]

14. When it came to issues of environment and energy...

the nation slept after Carter. Clinton was no exception. Although that project of burning weapons plutonium for energy was a good idea.

It seems to me that the nation slept for two reasons.

1) OPEC turned all the cheap-oil knobs up to 11.

2) We exported our polluting extraction and manufacturing indutries to poor countries with no labor or environmental regs.

Thus allowing pundits to write endless articles about how technology was giving us all the Star Trek lifestyle: limitless growth in standard of living with no environmental or economic consequences.

[NNadir]

15. I can offer no better analysis than that.