Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

no call for green alternative energy is real unless it also calls for...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:00 PM
Original message
no call for green alternative energy is real unless it also calls for...
Edited on Wed Jun-16-10 07:14 PM by mike_c
...significant-- and rapid-- demobilization of the U.S. military, or at least its current incarnation.

In his recent speech, president Obama called for ending America's dependence upon petroleum. Although that's certainly a laudable goal, some have pointed out that simply calling for it and actually accomplishing it are so deeply divided from one another that the call for accomplishing it, without any specifics about how or where to begin that gargantuan work, is essentially meaningless. Just more political rhetoric. Pablum for the masses, who are gullible enough to swallow anything as long as American Idol doesn't suffer significant interruptions.

How are we going to reduce our dependence upon oil? If there are answers out there, why are we still dependent? The reason, of course, is that there aren't many good answers yet, or even any barely adequate ones. At this point, we have few genuine choices other than to continue dependence upon oil, or return to nineteenth century technology and industry.

But the most telling thing that Obama didn't say during his vague and unsatisfying speech was that the biggest U.S. customer for petroleum-- one of the biggest such customers in the world-- has no intention of reducing its dependence upon oil. The U.S. military is one of the largest consumers of oil on Earth, and one of BP's biggest customers.

Military infrastructure is entirely dependent upon petroleum fuels. Planes don't fly, ships don't steam (mostly), armor doesn't roll, and troops do not fight for long without oil and other fossil fuels. There are no broadly viable alternatives in the works presently, so the only way to significantly reduce U.S. dependence upon fossil fuels is to shut down much of the most pressing thirst for them-- and that means the U.S. military. Converting the military to some other energy source will take multiple generations, and we don't have that kind of time left UNLESS the U.S. continues to use its military and its foreign policy to bully and conquer our way to control of as much the world's remaining oil as we can. That seems to be the current strategy. It is not working. It will never work. It's a prescription for disaster and collapse.

The only way to make rapid progress toward reducing petroleum dependence is to start by standing down the biggest and most voracious military on the planet. Ours.

Obama isn't talking about that, so he isn't talking about real solutions that might begin to help us today. If he's not talking about real solutions, he's shining us on, yet again. Smooth talking, without substance. Mr. Obama, put some concrete action behind your proposals. End the wars, bring the troops home, cut the Pentagon budget to a tiny fraction, stand down the hardware and demobilize all but a few of the personnel, and stop the raging oil thirst that is destroying our environment. The time has come to decide between bombs and pelicans, between a future we can live in or a poisoned and polluted planet where corporations rule, the military does their bidding, and the best growth futures are in killing machines.

U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW, and the rest of the world TOMORROW!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Moving that goalpost must be a full time job.....
Edited on Wed Jun-16-10 07:07 PM by FrenchieCat
in order to stay at the exact same yard line, no matter how much movement on the field.

How else can one explain discrediting action before it even takes place?
And calling it nothing by simply asking for a larger action and then
being mad that one might only get half?

"Obama isn't talking about that, so he isn't talking about real solutions that might begin to help us today. If he's not talking about real solutions, he's shining us on, yet again. Smooth talking, without substance."

How obvious are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. you might disagree, but your response is just another ad hominem diversion....
What do you have to say about the substance of my comments, i.e. about the need to stand down the biggest oil consumer on the planet?

You and I disagree about the Obama administration. We'll take that disagreement to the ballot box in a couple of years. Let's just accept that and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. You ad hominem against this President just your cause
Edited on Wed Jun-16-10 07:23 PM by FrenchieCat
is what I find repugnant.

All those things that you wrote were fine,
in terms of what you'd like.

It was the dogging out of this President
by calling him a smooth talker and other
insinuation that got my goat.

I'm just tired of those who think they
elected Dennis Kucinich who couldn't even pull
3% in the Democratic primaries....so when they
find out that indeed Obama is not as progressive
as the one that couldn't get elected by anymore
than one district, they do nothing but denegrate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I find it repugnant that you take any criticism of Obama as a personal attack.
Even constructive criticism, with no personal attacks or insults (like the OP for instance). The poster is inevitably attacked for having an anti Obama agenda. The content of the post is mostly ignored.

This board would look like free republic if you had your way.

It seems rather obsessive. How the hell do you find the time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I didn't read any constructive criticism here.....
Unless Obama being a smooth talker that has no real solutions that might begin to help us today,
and is shining us on and is without substance is constructive, than yeah...maybe this is as close
to FR as I'm gonna get.

But thanks for jumping in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. How about here?
"Mr. Obama, put some concrete action behind your proposals. End the wars, bring the troops home, cut the Pentagon budget to a tiny fraction, stand down the hardware and demobilize all but a few of the personnel, and stop the raging oil thirst that is destroying our environment. The time has come to decide between bombs and pelicans, between a future we can live in or a poisoned and polluted planet where corporations rule, the military does their bidding, and the best growth futures are in killing machines."

This is unacceptable discourse for a political discussion board? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. So if one mixes in some constructive criticism
with some personal insults, it's all good?

Like I said, some parts of that post as someone's view were just fine....
but the arrogant doggit personal putdowns are not constructive, IMO.
And demanding something that won't happen is building up a false construct
in order to get pissed. Kucinich didn't get elected, and so firing off a
wish list of things that aren't on the table right at this moment, and then
equating anything short of the demands as useless is slick; but not
rationally close to anything reality could order up right at this moment.
Good rant though. Not in the country that we has been built up
over the past 30 years anyways. If we were Sweden, I'd say....it would be
a possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. And use the saved money to fund alternative energy research
Win/win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. win/win indeed, but more to the point...
...I don't think there's any way to win otherwise. Not with the military undoing every bit of conservation or alternate energy source that the civilian sector can generate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Recommended.
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well said. k&r n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.
And these stats are quite old. No doubt it is considerably more today. I searched for more recent stuff, but it wasn't forthcoming.

"According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage.

By the way, 144 million barrels makes 395 000 barrels per day, almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece.
The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world.

In 1999 Almanac edition of the Defense Logistic Agency’s news magazine Dimensions it was stated that the DESC “purchases more light refined petroleum product than any other single organization or country in the world. With a $3.5 billion annual budget, DESC procures nearly 100 million barrels of petroleum products each year. That's enough fuel for 1,000 cars to drive around the world 4,620 times.”


http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199

K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. And guess who the military's biggest supplier of oil is?
oh what a tangled web we weave...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. I hold out for a guarantee that green jobs will not be outsourced.
Not sure which one of us has a bigger dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. I think this makes sense. If we can't sell the end of the wars to the public based on
humanitarian reasons, then at least try to sell it to them through their pocketbooks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-16-10 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R. I think we can cut 75% from our DoD budget and still stay "safe" and "free"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC