Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Make Oil a Public Utility
The furious moans and groans about gasoline and heating oil prices have been met with a public-be-damned attitude from the oil industry -- and nothing is being done to rectify the problem. Prices continue to sky-rocket.
Why not designate oil companies as public utilities?
A public utility has been defined as "a business that provides an everyday necessity to the public at large" -- such as water, electricity, natural gas, telephone service, transportation, cable TV and other essentials.
Because of the need for and dependence on these commodities and products, the business of supplying them is readily subject to abuse. Without regulation, price gouging can become rampant in a time of great demand and economic turmoil, such as this.
A public utility regulated by the state or federal government, or the two working together, is entitled to charge reasonable rates for its products and services. It also is entitled to earn a reasonable profit. But that's far less than what Big Oil is making. Public utilities are corporations that distribute dividends to their shareholders amounting to perhaps 5 percent a year of the stock's value.
Oil energy fits squarely into the criteria for a public utility. How can it be distinguished from electricity and natural gas? It can't be. But right now, it's a political "untouchable."
The oil industry recently posted record earnings for 2007, as it had for the previous two years. Exxon Mobil, known as the industry gold standard, had a net income of $40.6 billion, attributed to surging oil prices. For every blink of a second in 2007, that amounted to $1,287.
Exxon Mobil's sales exceeded $404 billion, which was more than the gross domestic revenue of 120 countries. Chevron and other big oil companies also announced the largest profits in history.
"Congratulations to Exxon Mobil and Chevron -- for reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas station," said New York Sen. Charles Schumer.
Some members of Congress have supported an excess profits tax. Others have said the tax breaks accorded two years ago to encourage domestic production should be rescinded. Advocacy groups say the profit margins are unjustifiable.
The oil industry's defense relies on the economics of the market place and the mounting difficulties of competing with subsidized foreign oil companies -- PetroChina, Petrobras in Brazil, Gazprom in Russia.
The lack of domestic refinery capacity also has been cited as a reason for escalating prices.
What is left out of these various assessments and ripostes is, most importantly, the consumer. The consumer's only recourse is to reduce consumption. But consumption most often is an economic necessity -- the most harmful effects falling on those who may be the neediest and who can least afford the price increases. What is a less-than-wealthy person who must drive to work or pay for home heating oil to do?
None of the proposals, such as an excess profits tax or a retraction of tax incentives, will directly benefit the public or make up for the overrides paid for oil products in the last several years.
On 9/11, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline was about $1.25. It has climbed almost vertically since then. In the past year, it has more than doubled and is now close to $3.50.
Part of the problem is that the United States has no comprehensive energy policy or oversight. For example, the war in Iraq for the last five years has placed a great demand on the availability of oil products -- both because of their use for military purposes and the lack of the predicted production of Iraqi oil.
Neither of these down sides have been quantified or publicized. Both are important contributors to the high cost of oil energy.
And while our government wrings its hands, what is it really doing, geopolitically, to bring down prices?
Given the political implications and the strength of the oil industry's influence, the chances of regulating it are presently nonexistent. However, the inordinate profits in the past several years, regardless of the explanations, cry out for demanding that oil be treated as a public utility. It is an indispensable commodity, and the opportunity for abuse at the public's expense is undeniable.
The industry has demonstrated that it will not regiment or control itself. If the industry were confronted with even the mere possibility of becoming a government-regulated utility, gasoline and heating oil prices would come tumbling down in a hurry.
Ed Ludwig is a U.S. District Court judge in Philadelphia.
© 2008 The Times Union
91 Comments so far
Show All"obscene profits "
Just curious, what levels would be considered OK, if they should be absolute dollar values or percentages of sales, and who the arbiter of "obscene" should be.
Exxon's profits, while large in dollar amount, have been around ten percent of sales, a lot less than in some other industries.
As vital as (green) energy production is to every part of our economy and our constituencies well-being, all types of energy production should fall under the category of "public utilities."
Jakenewton:
"Maybe the historic facts reflect on the viability of the theory? Just wondering. Seems to me individuals like to own stuff if they can. That should be part of the theory, and a good explanation for historical facts."
---
The viability of a theory does depend on its a application. Hence socialism hasn't really worked. However one should also note that socialism has NEVER been applied in its truest form due to individual greed as you pointed out.
Comparatively capitalism hasn't worked as well. Both the above theories make the pre-assumption that they are for the good of the people. When you actually put capitalism to test you find that "the good of the people" aspect is restricted to a very small segment of the society. So capitalism also doesn't work.
Coming back to why socialism hasn't worked? Well for starters since the dawn of the modern era capitalists have made sure they strangulated markets to an extent that socialist economies do not prosper on their own. I'll keep aside the examples of US, UK, France, etc destroying socialistic economies in the far and middle east through sheer military power.
India was plundered for 200 years by the East India Company which after independence started functioning on socialist, closed market principles promoted by its freedom fighters turned political leaders. The reasoning behind it was India's large agro-based economy with 85% of its population working in the farms. They found natural allies in USSR. All along the US kept India on the radar and avoided any/all forms of trade with India and supported Pakistan as a counterweight to the Indo-Russian alliance. This continued until India opened up its markets in 1992 and now 4 of the riches men in the world live in India. For an American its growth because the GDP of the nation has grown rapidly and we hear India's progress daily on CNN/Fox. But in reality, the poor are getting poorer by the day. Prior market subsidies have been given away to make way for
1) Foreign companies
2) WB loans
Result: Prices of commodities have shot up. The real estate market is booming in India but most of the poor will never be able to buy anything. Agricultural securities now erased have exposed the indian farmer to an extent that 100,000 of them on the western coast have committed suicide because they can't compete in the same market as Cargill.
All this is done through corrupt officials in the government who exposed their own people.
So now we know that socialism didn't work because of
1) Corrupt leadership
2) External pressure from capitalists
The same happens with capitalism with further eradication of government aid for the poor. I'll still the prefer the latter to the former even though I belong to the upper middle class of this society.
Dennis Kucinich would not be afraid to take this one on as President.
JFK ran on a Democratic Party Platform which called for nationalizing the oil industry ---
It's long overdue --- and having not done it has deeply hurt America and the cause of world peace.
Nationalize oil ---
and follow up with ELECTRIC CARS ---
Let's go, America !!!
Sounds like a good idea, but I wouldn't count on either the oil barons or their political puppets to support it. Expect cries of anti-american "socialist conspiracy" in reaction to this.
Here's why this concept fails.
http://www.ericsundwall.com/2008/03/the-nature-of-the-beasts.html
Headed out the door. Just a few thoughts.
American consumers are subsidizing Big Oil profits (corporate welfare) in more ways than one.
Not only do we pay inflated prices at the pump so an Exxon CEO can be paid $400 million in salary, but we pay for corporate access to oil reserves via U.S. military muscle. Thus we are supporting the profits of Big Oil and the mayhem of the MIC.
We are also forced to live with Big Oil foreign policy "blowback" such as 9/11 and the erosion of our constitutional republic with anti-terrorist legislation...etc.
The energy industry MIC campaign donation lobbyist network actually has more influence in Washington than the American voters thus corrupting any viable system of representative democracy.
The insane McCain Iraq policy set in motion by both parties has cost about $3 Trillion+ !Thus, a 100 year mission would cost taxpayers $60 Trillion. And estimates of Iraq's oil reserves are in the vicinity of $10 Trillion. This is fiscal madness apart from the death and destruction. With this kind of money we could become nearly oil independent via a variety of alternative low-carbon technologies.
Interesting racket. We pay for the oil wars and then we are ripped off at the pump.
And Afghanistan is all about Big Oil pipelines for hegemony over the marketing of Central Asian oil and gas throughout Asia and has nothing to do with American domestic needs. We could even learn to live without Middle Eastern oil which accounts for less than %20 of American consumption.
But a curious example of the present political corporate system is that the electric car that tested successfully in California was buried by Big Oil, the auto industry ,and their Washington puppets. Check out the film, Who Killed The Electric Car.
And arguably, our entire economy has been destroyed or at least seriously weakened by the current oil wars. The so-called "credit crisis," now in the Trillions was created by Fed policy designed to pump up the economy with cheap unregulated credit to compensate for war-related economic problems. Higher energy prices and the devalued dollar and steady inflation are also linked to war crime spending.
A nationalized non-profit energy system would not only lower costs to consumers but it would also stabilize the energy related economic wild card and allow for steady growth and a sane foreign policy.
I plan to ride my bicycle as much as possible this year. Low carbon technolgy. Burn fat rather than oil.
An excellent suggestion by Judge Ludwig. But who amongst them will be willing to cast the first stone? Some controls MUST be put in place to put a stop to this vulgarity. Of course it could be done, but how and when?
To accomplish this, the public should lobby Congress to repeal the Oil Depletion Allowance created under LBJ in 1964. The logic of the depletion allowance was that by pumping its resource, oil companies faced increased expense and a decreased horizon for future resources. However, the oil reserves under the earth do not belong to the oil companies, only that oil which they pump belongs to them and that remaining belongs to the public. Depletion should therefore be taxed.
The repeal should be retroactive to the date of inception and it should be replaced with a retroactive Oil Depletion Tax of the same amount. The oil companies would then owe all taxes unpaid under the allowance scheme, plus the same amount again as unpaid depletion tax. They will be unable to meet such a great tax burden and the government will be required to seize their assets in lieu of payment.
"....Why not designate oil companies as public utilities?...."
In two words EXXON MOBIL CP(NYSE: XOM)
a 463 Billion dollar monster, no politician would dare tangle with....
"Check out the film, Who Killed The Electric Car."
Be sure to check out the critisism of this movie as well, an Amazon and elsewhere.
As well as the critique of this article supplied above by ESun67.
I'm not sure that nationalization is exactly the right mode, BUT resources
of this kind MUST be publicly owned one way or another, and I am pleased to see the issue enter the debate. The oil parasites have drained our blood for much too long...and let's take a look at the other parasites while we're
at it.
This sounds like a good solution to the wrong problem.
The problem is not that gasoline is too expensive; the problem is that production will increasingly fail to meet demand. There is growing consensus that light sweet crude is a dwindling resource. Prices are high because demand is exceeding supply. Record oil company profits are a symptom, not a cause.
In infinitely-large, free-market systems (as imagined by Adam Smith and Milton Friedman), higher prices are supposed to cause increased investment, resulting in increased production. However, as Kenneth Deffeys said, you can't show up at the cashier's cage with a lot of money and ask God to put more oil in the ground.
Assuming (and many may disagree) that supply is inelastic, or even in decline, then this is the perfect rationale for the government to step in. It's the government's job to mediate and regulate resources that are, by their nature, limited, such as wilderness, scenic beauty, clean water, and clean air.
Petroleum has been treated like a limitless resource. If we treated places of special value this way, there would be no National Parks, and the Grand Canyon would be lined with condos. (I'm sure Milton Friedman would love it that way!) Or put another way, if we don't treat oil like a National Park, only the rich will have oil in the future.
So yes, the government should take over oil. But not to reduce prices, but rather to limit demand in such a way as to break even with supply. All the hard work has been done; the government simply needs to implement it:
Hey, Ed Ludwig, you trying to start a revolution? And I see the Libertarians are infiltrating this CD site. In my opinion the private sector sucks at maintaining public services. When profits have priority over delivery of service, we have a serious problem. health care is a prime example, but there are plenty to choose from.
kathyodat
And what about hemp? Why do we Americans drown ourselves with more wars for oil and more PRIVATIZATION when we could just put a sock in it all and open the doors to the plant whose 26000 industrial uses would BANKRUPT Big Oil?
http://www.hemp4fuel.com
And while at it, why aren't we pushing further for energy saving alternatives such as electric car and even solar-powered cars?
None of these require any petroleum whatsoever. Instead of fighting wars for oil, empowering more coal burning plants, or even pushing for nuclear, why not do the following:
1. Resuse
2. Recycle
3. Conserve
4. Push for alternative renewables and make them affordable.
Our ancestors did rather well without petroleum and so can we !
Sundwallon,
I followed your link and the writing was incoherent.
Mr. Butterfield,
With all due respect, your comment includes no justification or reason why you think so.
The technology exists to start making electric cars. Start up shops all over the place making these cars, they will be shabby at first, but so were the first oil cars. Depots with cars that are recharged can be situated where the gasstations used to be, you own the right to a car, its a technical way to get around the low range. How about, instead of fighting oil companies, we just kill them by ignoring them when we plug our cars into the already existing public utility...
"Make Oil a Public Utility"
Commie! Pinko! A terrorist plot! Omygod!
From chapter heading in "the Road to 9/11"
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9959.php
p.65
"In a democracy, important questions of policy with respect to a vital commoditylike oil, the lifeblood of an industrial society, cannot be left to private companies acting in accord with private interests and a closed circle of government officials."
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Multinational Corporation, 1975
We know what happened to sentiments like this.
Really Mr. Butterfield, what would be your *very best* example of incoherence in the article in question?
SOCIALISM!!!
I'm all for it. Should I write my Congressman or the PR department of Exxon/Mobile?
jakenewton,
How about Sundwall defining "delivery" as the defining quality of a utility? That doesn't make a lick of sense. It's need, not delivery, that defines a utility. No one's pumping turkey gravy through our waterworks because water is a vital necessity. Anyone who says gasoline is not a vital necessity, and therefore requiring regulation as a utility, must own stock in Exxon.
I am 100% in favor of nationalizing the oil and transportation sectors. Have you seen the Acura car commercial which purports to show how Acura is envisioning the wonderful future? But it falls flat because the future must be electrically powered mostly mass transit. And of course a car commercial shows an auto based future, which simply cannot happen.
How about a fast train like the TGV in France with solar panels lining the tracks? Now that is a future that makes sense.
But as long as Big Oil has the money and power to control the media and the agenda we will never move beyond the situation in the 50s when General Motors bought up and closed all the electrically powered light rail in the country and scrapped it so we would be forced to buy their products.
Socialism is a good idea!
"How about Sundwall defining "delivery" as the defining quality of a utility?"
He doesn't say that exactly. He says:
"It can be distinguished simply based on delivery. Electricity and natural gas have traditionally been given special privileges based on the need (the perceived one) to deliver the product to individual homes and businesses. Often times eminent domain is employed in order to create a public space or area that is regulated in order to insure delivery of said service. Regardless of the merits of such a monopoly, the delivery of oil can be attained by the oil guy or a quick stop at the local gas station. "
The first sentence does not limit the distinction to delivery by saying that trait *can be" a distinction. As to his explanation around that, regarding eminent domain and right of way, how is it "incoherent"?
As usual the U.S. is behind many of the other nations, including some of the emerging nations in clean rail transportation, alternative energy, nationalizing or regulating their oil, nationalized health care, and better standard of living etc. This may sound like the dreaded "Socialism" to some but Capitalism is failing most of us, unless you're rich & getting richer at our expense. Regulating or nationalizing oil (under a different administration) is a good place to start.
Nietzsche:
No problem. It's a "two-fer." The US Congress is the PR firm for Exxon Mobil, not to mention the rest of the Fortune 500.
Excellent idea. Where I live we have a [Public Utility District] for electricty. Although it isn't perfect it is light years ahead of privately run ones. At least we know who runs it and have someone to complain to if we don't like the way it's being run. Also nationalize the mineral resources in this country, that politicians give away to their cronies.
At the same time we would be taking a way one of the biggest sources of coruption money being funneled to our politician's. Sign me up for the band wagon.
We might start with each of our state's Public Utilities Commission. I've begun a conversation with mine, and am still trying to get some clarification. The New Hampshire statute 362:2 Public Utility. –
I. The term "public utility" shall include every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, partnership and person, their lessees, trustees or receivers appointed by any court, except municipal corporations and county corporations operating within their corporate limits, owning, operating or managing any plant or equipment or any part of the same for the conveyance of telephone or telegraph messages or for the manufacture or furnishing of light, heat, sewage disposal, power or water for the public, or in the generation, transmission or sale of electricity ultimately sold to the public, or owning or operating any pipeline, including pumping stations, storage depots and other facilities, for the transportation, distribution or sale of gas, crude petroleum, refined petroleum products, or combinations of petroleum products..."
I was thinking more in terms of heating oil, but of course gasoline would be included. Currently the NH PUC doesn't seem to do much with petroleum. Maybe someone can help me change that in NH, and then we can copy that strategy state by state. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Contact me at: wallerlett@comcast.net
I don't think we will achieve the objective of limiting (to eliminate) oil for transportation if the government is even more dependent on revenue from its nationalization. (please remember the gov't takes far far more in tax revenue than the oil companies take in profits)
The problem of high prices is due to the government effectively mandating us to this single commodity. The gov't is dependent on the tax revenue from oil so will they really help us get off it? Maybe but not if they also own the American oil production.
We do need the gov't to help get OFF oil. This will be done by the gov't not trying to tax the bajeezus out of every new method (i.e. hydrogen, biodiesel) and by encouraging or mandating multi-fuel vehicles and alternatively propelled vehicles.
I'm not sure why people call what we have now Capitalism. Its anything BUT a free market in energy. Let's not forget Big Business and Socialism are very much alike....especialy big business.
The Straussian economists have been struggling for years to turn our public utilities into for-profit corporations--witness the brief and turmultuous experiment of privatizing electrical distribution in California and the resultant 10-fold increases in rates in the early 90's. Think ENRON.
We already have in place in our local utilities the billing practices necessary to divvy-up the profits; see your bill for separate delivery charges, service charges, and electricity charges allowing for separate business entities to collect for the juice, the meter, and the wires delivering the juice. These did not exist 10 years ago. It's the same for gas.
The vultures are poised to privatize. They have the experience gained in numerous third world countrys whose leaders were coerced by offers foreign aid in exchange for the privatization of utilities. The result is always the same; huge increases in rates and service charges that leaves marginal consumers unable to afford basic utilities. We're trying to do this in Bagdahd right now and it's not working. As we speak, the utility mongers are trying to disolve your state's utility regulatory boards and regulations. And it won't stop at electricity and gas; just wait till they get control of your water.
The age of cheap oil has gone. Gasoline costs in the US because of world demand and supply, and the declining US dollar. Billions of US dollars of profit do not buy enough euros for profiteering oil companies. If you think that Oil companies keep their profits in the bank in US dollars you are nuts. The dollar devalues and the price per oil barrel in US dollars goes up as soon as you look at it. The high price should make US look more for non-oil alternatives, and even non-carbon alternatives. At a projected rate of oil price rise and dollar devaluation, renewable energy starts to look like it is the next thing to free in a couple of years. That is if you invest in the capital infrastructure while your money is still worth something. Fail to invest now, and later on and the nation will be stuck in the coal and climate change age. That is the big tragedy of the Iraq war. All that money and energy thrown away for lies, death and torture, and not an extra drop of oil to show for it, that could have been used to prepare for the post carbon age. The accumulated debt, still to be paid, from the wars could have gone a long way to free the US of I from its oil dependence. But you had to elect the right wing world supremacy criminal team of Cheney and Bush. What the US of I really needs is an invasion from Mexico or China, to overthow its world destructive corporate dictatorship, dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, and bring real democracy.
"Why not designate oil companies as public utilities?"
Really want an answer?
Because they'd do what our other so-called 'public utilities' do...they'd Cheat the price/profits up just as high as they (successfully) do now (and your government will continue to look the other-way).
Now, here's a question for YOU...
"Why not Nationalize the entire Energy-sector/'businesses' -- like every other 'successful' country has-already (that we haven't sanctioned/de-regimed/destroyed as-of-yet)?"
hmmm?
[I'm waiting your answer...tick-tock!]
Also, why not convert our light-truck/car fleets to clean/cheap LPG, for longer motor-life and riddance of all that EPA-crap that eats 'mpg'? And waste/grease/surplus/veggie bio-diesel for our large-engines/trucks/generators (which should be community-based, smaller, and DC instead of massive/non-competitive AC/'Public-Utilities')?
And, how about we close all those stupid nukes for weapons&'power', until we invest more in cleaner/better Fusion-power?
[And, don't answer the first-above with "six-packs for $50.00" -- for a fine example of Nationalized-efficiency, just look at Social-Security (with it's 1%-overhead...or, Venezuela's gas-pricing for it's citizens).]
Nationalizing oil is a great idea in the short term but we still need to get off the juice completely. But even if we did nationalize oil, as other countries have tried, then we'd have to invade ourselves to protect "American" interests. But at least we'd save a lot of fuel on troop deployment!
I didn't say "Nationalize oil" -- I clearly stated (and meant) "Nationalize-Energy" (a country's Energy&Food&Economy is FAR too important to its national-security and well-being to trust them to any 'private-sector' or corporation or Bank -- motivated solely by 'profits').
And, we can't and won't-soon 'get off the juice' (unless you think the Western-world will opt for privative-Feudalism real-soon-now). And, we don't need-to -- because 'global-warming' is a contrived-Farce, 'peak-oil' means only 'peak-refinement', and there is PLENTY of oil-based Energy to go-around for more than 100-years of even the stupid and unsustainable 'current-consumption-levels' plus-margin-of-error for the coming 'developing-world'.
[It's our stupid/forced 'choice' of Gasoline over LPG that creates most pollution/'shortages', and bad-mileage/high-costs of Oil-based-fuels. And it's HAARP (and coal-fired/unregulated 'public-utilities', and factory-farming, and cattle/meat) and above-ground-nuke-testing that created most of our so-called 'warming' -- not CO2!]
That, cactuspie, is exactly right: Nationalizing oil is a good idea, but, since the US tends to make a habit of taking over or invading countries that want to do the same thing, why in the heck would anyone think the US would nationalize its own oil interests?
Jan Steinman is right on target.
Peak oil is here--or soon will be--and we're just wasting our time vilifying oil companies, the Bush administration, etc. Americans, including progressives, need to grow up and accept the fact that the Post-Carbon Age is coming, whether we like it or not. Cheap petroleum and gasoline are permanently gone, and that is the reality we must all adjust to.
All energy, fossil fuel and otherwise, should be brought under the umbrella of public utilities for purposes of, as Jan Steinman says, careful husbanding and conservation. But for this to work, most Americans will have to downsize their lifestyles and material expectations to a significant extent.
We can either get to work on that project now and have a chance to save at least some things that are worthwhile, or we can continue our dysfunctional finger-pointing and hasten the day when fate deals us the harsh judgment we will have so richly earned.
You all amaze me. You talk like everyone lives in your back yard and nobody has it worse than you. Get a grip. We can't all sit at our computers day after day, hour after hour deciding what should be done or what revolution to join. We can't possibly follow your leads because YOU DON'T LEAD. Bitching about the problems and telling me to get out and "Do Something" does not mean a damned thing because YOU aren't doing a damned thing other than giving opinions about what should be done and how I should do it.
My eyes and ears are bleeding due to the horror and bleakness you've now predicted for my future. I don't see any out way but to kill myself and family to spare us all the horrible consequences that you tell me "I" have condemned us to.
Does that make you happy?
Think about what you're saying and remember...we're not all living in YOUR house.
Does everyone on this thread drive a car? Sorry. You'll never spin that coal into gold.
I sold mine and only ride a Specialized.
Okay, I can't make it to Wal-Mart.
Get it? SELL YOUR CARS-SELL YOUR CARS-YOU CAN DO IT.
And you people with Free Tibet bumper stickers please sell your cars first.
hypocrites.
"Does that make you happy?"
You surely weren't addressing Me (I gave practical-suggestions -- and, if anything, I was 'overly optimistic' about "human intelligence and willingness or capacity to achieve common-sense solutions").
[If addressing 'Spinoza'-above, then don't take him so seriously -- he's either a shill, or 'seriously-misinformed' and propagandized...]
The 'world' won't end-soon (it may for billions of the world's poor/undeveloped/unfed) if these 'Realist's -- and the elites they work-for' have their-Way with us (but, probably NOT you and your-family -- worst-case-scenario for most Americans will be 'serfdom', and some serious 'belt-tightening'). [Which, frankly, is 'overdue' and 'Just'...]
It's the world's (and Our) 'Poor' who are most at-risk...not people at/in commondreams.org discussions...
"And you people with Free Tibet bumper stickers please sell your cars first."
[HAR!] ...please!
I drive a 80-mpg dirtbike, AND a heavy BlaZeR-2 -- both converted for $1.40 per gallon LPG [C5H8 + O2 = CO2 + H2O ... just like when you exhale!]. All LPG is cheap & domestic-production, never contaminates by evaporation/ground-spillage/'age', and is FAR cheaper to 'crack'/refine from crude-or-Nat-Gas...AND avoids stupid 'food-Ethanol' that reduces mileage by equal-to-percentage-added AND drives-up food-costs (oh, and my oil changes are cut in half, while my engines run twice-as-long between rebuilds).
I DO produce a lot of CO2 (just like all-others-here)...but, trees/etc. NEED most of that carbon-dioxide to produce my/your Oxygen...right? [And, higher than needed CO2 cools the planet so other-fuels methane/nitrates/sulfurs won't 'kill us all'...not 'warming it up' at-all -- get a Degree, and/or 'read' something not profligated by 'corporate-Interests'...]
"No worries -- Be Happy" ... and Nationalize (you'll be glad you did!]
Making Oil a Public Utility: Great idea.
Realistic? Not really, not quite yet. Who controls the oil controls the world. That's the way energy-use is currently arranged.
The oiligarchs (sorry, oligarchs - couldn't resist the pun) controlling oil also overlap strongly with those controlling weapons-production, and with those controlling profit-levels - i.e the Bush-administration & friends. Cf. Bilderberg-group. These people are not likely to give up profits freely.
Controlling oil-profits is a fine idea, and the time for it has come.
Getting there will take some work, though. Quite apart from wrestling control away from the oiligarchs, controlling oil-profits means rearranging the world. It will take a release of dependency on oil for energy, instituting some form of fair world government of oil-resources, and generally have everyone start thinking about the human community as one.
That's a start. Then on to rearrange industries for the good of all globally. Plus rearranging everyday-concerns and the forms of everyday-pleasures for everyone (what's not oil-dependent directly or indirectly?). Sure it can be done. But it will take effort and strife.
Let's go.
mikepeters March 24th, 2008 5:17 pm:
"Does everyone on this thread drive a car? Sorry. You'll never spin that coal into gold.
I sold mine and only ride a Specialized.
Okay, I can't make it to Wal-Mart.
Get it? SELL YOUR CARS-SELL YOUR CARS-YOU CAN DO IT."
mikepeters March 24th, 2008 5:18 pm:
"And you people with Free Tibet bumper stickers please sell your cars first.
hypocrites."
Se what I mean? To begin with-I don't believe for a minute that this guy doesn't use transportation of some sort "other than his bicycle".
Secondly- even if has the ability to do so, does that mean that it's in my family's best interest to sell my car? Will my boss forgive me if I arrive at work several hours late because I don't drive?
It's all very good and well to tell people what you think they should do to inprove YOUR quality of life, but please don't preach to me (and then ridicule me because I don't follow your directions).
I don't recall seeing your names on the list of attendees at any of the recent rallies. All I remember is hearing you here saying "You Go Girl, Go".
It must be very comforting to you to sit at your PC.(which uses energy) and decide how the world should work.
Please go to bed tonight wondering why you're spending all your time scanning CD and not out doing the things you advocate. Aparently you have the time, but you can't seem to find the disconnect between your will and your keyboard.
The last fellow who tried something like this, Hugo Chavez, wound up on he neocon s__tlist. Ayatollah Pat Robertson even issued a fatwa on him!
Every other industry sees margin go down when raw material prices go up. Only the oil industry has some sort of multiplier that makes finished good prices always go up much faster than crude. Utilities have to make a case before a commission before being allowed to raise prices. Great idea!
Its probably just talk, but truckers are talking about a one week work stoppage nationwide to protest $4.25+ / gal diesel.
Heh-heh. I totally agree with the article. We can also dump the Fed while we are at it. Bang bang.
Big Oil, International banking and the MIC are inexplicably linked with the British System of free trade to dominate nations, as opposed to the American protectionist system in which trade would mutually benefit both nations trading, with each country protecting its own nations interests.
There are 4 ways for a leading politician to get early retirement, going up against one or the other. JFK (oil, banking, and MIC), Lincoln (banking), McKinley (banking, and against free trade), Garfield (goal to spread the American system to South America and reduce British influence) are examples of Presidents who got in their way. FDR may have been another one since he wanted to keep the Soviets and free China as allies which was not part of their plan for a Cold War which would keep America from reaching it's full strength and prevent the British from recovering it's empire. Things went down the toilet after FDR went down and the Truman traitor took over.
We are nothing more than an extension of the British empire and a crypto-Commonwealth nation. Those Presidents who do not do their bidding get crushed. We are their poodle. Working together for a Global Empire.
I can think of another reason. Global warming. Oil is not something we should feel entitled to, it is something that is killing our planet.
Let's move beyond oil to sustainable ways of living, and if it takes the government to invest and get the ball rolling, that's what we should advocate, not cheap oil.
J CONRAD & CLASS ACT: Good posts.
BERT D: As per your comment about privatizing water, kind'a reminds me of the new reports that our water is fouled by the cocktail detritus of big pharma. You know how Monsanto and its biogenetic ilk goes after farmers for the ill-fate of their seed blowing onto distant lands and taking root? I can envision big pharma charging US/consumers for using their product, that is, its remnants in our waterways. Just say no... to drugs! in our water supply!