In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/9123
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
SHANE ALGARIN 10/10/2008 11:34 AM Report
It's well past the time for the Democrats and Republicans to grow a spine and win back our respect. They can be much more persuasive with honesty, rather than deception. A ban on offshore drilling is not a significant explanation for high gas prices.
The top reasons for high gas prices:
1. Lack of competition translates into paying more at the pump.(Exxon merges with Mobil, ChevronTexaco, BPArco, etc )
2. Were the diplomatic skills of this administration up to par, oil prices would be far more stable. Invading Iraq has only brought instability. Angering Russia by placing our military and our missiles at their doorstep only brings more instability.
3. If the dollar was as strong today as it was when Bush took office, $140 would fetch closer to 2 barrels of oil.
It seems like our President wants high oil prices. But that would make him an oil man...inconceivable!
WE NEED ATTACK DOGS BRAVE ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO BIG OIL! Instead we get politicians too eager to roll over.
sock puppet 08/26/2008 02:14 PM Report
Shane - damn straight. Well said.
Hideko Shiroyama 07/25/2008 06:37 PM Report
I enjoyed this eye opening discussion by the excellent panel and of course Charlie Rose's insightful questioning on the price of oil, how we got in this mess and it's implication to all of us in the United States. Is there a possibility of ever re-showing this excellent piece again.
cwyckoff 06/28/2008 12:19 PM Report
Charlie Maxwell has been warning people about this issue for decades. Too bad our "leaders" did not heed his advice...we would have been ion a very different place today if they had...
It is easier to swallow medicine a little bit at a time than all at once.
We are now faced with addressing the problem now and the sad part is that the "fixes" are 5-10 years off.
cwyckoff 06/18/2008 03:21 PM Report
Charlie Maxwell has been warning people about this issue for decades. Too bad our "leaders" did not heed his advice...we would have been ion a very different place today if they had...
It is easier to swallow medicine a little bit at a time than all at once.
We are now faced with addressing the problem now and the sad part is that the "fixes" are 5-10 years off.
Concerned 06/16/2008 01:29 AM Report
Oil price rice mystery is the most expansive mysteries of all other commodities. Major Oil industry CEOs organize themselves as a CARTEL to set the price of oil. I heard some suggesting maybe International Republican Institute (IRI) could be very deeply involved in allowing this CARTEL to operate freely, I suspect people with resentment of non-white progress (ECONOCOLONIZERS) are responsible for all the mess of the Iraq war, which some explained it was for controlling the oil fields of Iraq. Now that they see China and India up and coming, they are trying to make sure that these countries do not develop with cheap oil like the Western world did. They want to make these third world (non-white) countries pay tremendously hefty energy price for growth in order to slow down their development. At the same time they see Russia (white country) who is equipped with many more nuclear than us with plenty of hydrocarbon energy under their ground to sell off and get money and not be a threat to our allies in Western Europe. Although that scenario seem to be on false base, because as Russia is getting more money they are using it to strengthen their military house more so than for wealth distribution for their people. The factors for oil price rise have somehow fit in so well with all those ill intentions, so the request for price hike by the oil industries CEOs would pass at The Heritage Foundation with ease.
-->>An important question Mr. Rose asked during the conversation was "why did we fail to see this coming?" Well, some of us saw this coming. Unfortunately, whenever we raise the issue we were shot down early on called all kinds of names including environmentalists and anti-business. All we said was instead of making larger and more gas guzzling vehicles we mentioned that more attention should be dedicated to develop non-hydrocarbon energy source consuming engines. That way, we could save the environment from going bad to a whole a lot of people at the same time maintain our car industries grow in the right direction and flourish. No one was listening the early warning, somehow Japanese scientists and their automobile industries realized the massage and dedicated their attention toward developing smaller size automobiles and more efficient engines. Even before they came out with hybrids, they were working in energy efficiency engines with hydrocarbons, while our automobile industries were competing for size, appeal and engine strength. What a contrast that was! Personally, I knew our car industries would be in difficulties way back in the mid 1990s. I had made several attempts in my undergraduate class to keep discussions on energy efficiency engines. Most of the time I was perceived as annoying pain in the neck than someone with valid concern. Just like the creation of IT vindicated nerds, the loss of many jons in our car industries may have somehow proven me that I was in the right; only if I could have benefited of my anticipated prediction.
Steve 06/14/2008 07:30 PM Report
I would love to watch this segment. It comes highly recommended. However, I was disappointed to discover that you are charging for this. I understand that you have production costs but when I went to buy this on Amazon, I was shocked to learn that I have to pay $25 to watch / buy this episode. I would think for $25 I could view 25 episodes. Please rethink your pricing strategy, Charlie. It would be nice if people could actually afford to watch the show online, moreso as this is aired on PBS, which I already support.
Allan Ramesh 06/14/2008 03:06 AM Report
Interesting discussion but far too mild in the prognosis of the future. We need a more radical vision of the future that includes decoupling from fossil fuels. The US and the rest of th world is discussing a 70% to 80% reduction in fossil fuels by 2050. Let that sink in - that is the percent reduction. In other words, we would be living on less than 30% of the current CO2e emissions with a larger population. To acheive this, almost everyting we do today has to change. From our urban planning to tranportaion to manufacturing processes to food production. Nothing will be spared. Unless we are not serious about climate change and addressing peak oil, we need to turn up the intensity of the discussion and scope of changes needed several notches to be in line with the goals, or else we're just deceiving ourselves that we're being serious about tackling these challenges meaningfully.
scarred blogger peon 06/14/2008 12:39 AM Report
I just wanted to add that I enjoy posting in pseudonyms to mock the elite who earn a living doing real work. Bulogging complements my government checks well and lets me feel special and important. Oil prices concern me very much, as I must every so often drive to meet up with comrade bloggers. Thanks!
Mark 06/13/2008 12:36 AM Report
Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
Rigged by the Cheney Energy Commission and protected by Fat Tony Scalia.
Hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds allowed to manipulate the market. DoJ and the White House do nothing.
P.S. Nice to see Charlie's staffers have finally decided to post interviews on this website.
Mark 06/13/2008 12:36 AM Report
Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
Rigged by the Cheney Energy Commission and protected by Fat Tony Scalia.
Hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds allowed to manipulate the market. DoJ and the White House do nothing.
P.S. Nice to see Charlie's staffers have finally decided to post interviews on this website.
Uncle Ron 06/12/2008 11:27 PM Report
One more comment I forgot to mention: If you want to read an amazing book about how the environmental groups operate and how co-ordinated they are, get a copy of former Sierra Club activist Ron Arnold's "Undue Influence."
Uncle Ron 06/12/2008 11:13 PM Report
Sorry - a typo. The first line should be: "can't" tell the truth
Uncle Ron 06/12/2008 11:09 PM Report
Some good discussion but it is unfortunate these
experts can tell the "real truth" about domestic oil production. The simple primary reason is as follows: The radical environmetal groups in this country (Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, NRDC, Enviromental Defense, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.) receive "billions" of dollars from leftwing Foundations (Ford, Turner, Rockefeller Fdn.,
Mott, Pew, etc.) which in turn is used to support the Democrat Party and file lawsuits to stop resource production. This is what the "polar bear," "sage grouse" and other species protection suits are really all about. In fact, the Ctr. for Bio. Diversty's "Wildlands Project" wants to empty the mountain west and midwest of all people to allow these massive areas of the U.S. to return to their natural state. The Democrats will never say this is why they oppose oil production and nuclear power which the enviros
still oppose for the most part. A previous comment that nuclear power is unsafe is wrong as 98% of the waste can be (and is) recycled and the remaining 2% safely stored for the needed 75-100 years not thousands. As the "Economist" noted in the 9/8/07 issue,
offshore drilling technology is proceeding to the point that fewer platforms are needed today and it may be possible to do away with them in large part by 2023. Several of the panel indicated a lack of resources in the U.S. but this isn't true. There are trillions of units of natural gas, billions of gallons of oil potential in the Midwest, a possible 50 billion barrels of oil in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska, at least 86 billion barrels beyond the 50 mile point offshore, ten billion barrels in ANWR which can be safely developed despite the hysteria of the enviros. Add in nuclear power and renewables as technology improves (but these will never be more than 20% of total power needs) and clean coal and this country can
produce a high percentage of its own energy needs. The public should be outraged at the Democrats and the environmental extremists who have put this country in the energy state it is today. The oil companies exist to produce energy but the Democrats just want to demonize and tax them. The industry's profits are not excessive compared to the trillions of investment dollars they must expend not only on exploration but the high cost of bringing the product to the public. The cost of a single oil platform in the mid-1980s was $3.1 billion dollars and this doesn't include the millions to operate it.
As for Kyoto, the "Economist" regulary documents its failure in Europe as predicted in David Victor's book "The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol" (2001). The magazine noted: "the EU often seems more committed to grand statements of intent than to practical steps to achieve their aims" (3/17/07). "Kyoto" is essentially a plan comparable to Communist Central Planning or the United Nations' "Agenda 21" Plan for world governance. I think it would have helped if a representative of the "American Petroleum Institute" had been on the panel so its view was represented. When Mr. Rose conducted two highly informative interviews with the former Exxon Chairmen that gentleman pointed out that the "pure energy" in just one gas station was immense. There is no "massive" substitute for that energy today but the Democrats just want to survive politically so they demonize and obfuscate the truth.
Ronnie H. 06/12/2008 04:05 PM Report
Great discussion piece. What they did NOT focus on that I wish that they had is that the Congress was warned about the production / exploration problem well more than 30 years ago and has done absolutely nothing to make it easier for our domestic companies to 1. explore for, 2. drill for, 3. produce domestic reserves of oil and gas and in fact have made it more difficult, and at the same time have put off limits to exploration and drilling areas where there are vast known reserves of oil and gas (Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve, the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelf ) and have made it virtually impossible to build and bring into production new refineries. Consequently, while China drills for oil and gas on behalf of Cuba less than 50 miles off the coast of Florida and while we now must import ever increasing amounts of refined product, our own industry must sit and watch while vast known domestic reserves remain unavailable to us. At the same time the Congress has done nothing to incentivize US companies to spend the large amounts of money and time that it will take to develop clean coal alternatives and coal to oil alternatives that would release the energy in our coal reserves which would, by themselves, supply us with all the energy we need for the next 250+ years. Nor has the Congress taken steps to further incentivise our domestic oil and gas industry to find better, more efficient ways to mine the substantial oil reserves locked up in various oil shale fields located in the continental US which could supply enough energy, again, by themselves, to supply the energy needs of the US for many decades. This same Congress also has made the process of building new nuclear plants so cumbersome that it takes at least ten years to bring a new one on line. We are capable of solving this problem with domestically available solutions but our Congress has been cowered into preventing us from doing so while it enacts feel good legislation requiring the use of biofuels from corn without giving a thought to the predictable effect on the price of food stuffs!
In short, the discussion did not focus any attention on what is, perhaps, the most culpable and notorious culprit in this unfolding problem: the US Congress! It has been a joke for over 40 years and continues to do nothing but make things worse while it seeks to tax and spend away all incentives for productive citizens in one wealth transfer program after another!
Jack 06/12/2008 03:59 PM Report
Decent show, although it didn't address everything. Guys, <a href="http://blackandwhiteprogram.com/report/oil-and-gas-prices">read this</a> for a better view on the oil price issue.
William F. Klein 06/12/2008 02:39 PM Report
Iâ??ll have to say that the CR â??Oilâ?? show left much to be desired! In fact an important point made by one of the contributors was very close to an outright fabrication. He said that the tanking dollar was good for the US trade deficit even in this energy price spike environment. Now mind you, these people are supposed to be financial and commodity â??experts.â?? Itâ??s their business to know
that the opposite of his statement is true. To wit:
â??TRADE DEFICIT JUMPS HIGHER
The trade deficit soared to the highest levels in more than a year as an improvement in exports was swamped by record-high levels of imported crude oil.â??
(San Francisco Chronicle, Business; June 11, 2008. P C1.)
No one on the show called him on this sleight of hand.
Nor did anyone mention the five hundred pound elephant in the room. One of the major reasons why weâ??re hurting in consumption is the far-flung US military empire. How can a true â??expertâ?? not mention a military/industrial establishment that spends more money than the rest of the world combined? To wit:
â??â?¦the Pentagon (is) the single largest oil consumer in the world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.â??
(Retrieved on June 11, 2008 at: http://www.energybulletin.net/26194.html)
Nor did any participant speak of the oil bourses being established around the world with the dollar rapidly diminishing as the worldâ??s energy reserve currency. Nor did anyone mention the overstatement
of reserve assets (stated oil reserves for the purposes of stock reporting) by big national and corporate oil. Now it is convenient for them to â??fess upâ?? about the â??overstatementsâ?? because peak oil actually makes their commodity more precious. And, of course, due to their conflict of interest, they greatly downplayed the scope and size of hedge fund activity in the futures market and how that is hiking the spot market.
This program presented a very narrow viewpoint of the issue to the point of being quite misleading.
IT Slave 06/12/2008 03:29 AM Report
Ok let me give this to the big picture. When in 2001 GB, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfawitz locked themselves in a room with big oil, finance execs, and the mil-industrial complex and all colluded to create our national energy policy in secret, like everything they do, for the next 4-8 yrs. most americans just kept on trucking. To say as one guest said, we didn't do anything because in the recent past we had plenty of low priced oil is a total distortion of truth. What he meant was "we thought or we believed". What I don't understand is why this collusion and manipulation that is done in every sector of our lives by global elites is not mentioned in this segment discussing oil. Stop discussing market forces illusions and discuss the human beings behind the curtain of secrecy please.
Shalom Freedman 06/12/2008 02:37 AM Report
I learned much from this interesting discussion though I would have appreciated more on the political implications of the rise in the price of oil.
I thought Amy Myers Jaffe was particularly forceful in noting 1) That the US consumption of oil is largely in transport. And this is where alternatives answers have to be put into place 2) The large oil companies have not been investing in bringing new oil online, and have unwisely used their capitol.
Jim Burkhard made an interesting point regarding the complexity of finding and developing new sources of Oil.
The initial point made by Charles Maxwell that the long- term problem of increasing demand meeting non- increasing supply is going to be with us for a long time.
He also suggests that this is a crisis which will not be easily gotten over.
My great question is how the leaders of the United States could have been so irresponsible in not foreseeing this problem. After all the Chinese and Indian economies have been growing for some time now.
The point that the U.S. needs what it lacks now, an overall Energy Policy also seems critical.
In any case the feeling given by this discussion is that the world, and U.S. economies are in for a quite long period of relatively slow development.
No one made the point that the countries getting the windfall money, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, are not exactly pillars of human rights and freedom.
IT Slave 06/12/2008 01:56 AM Report
First, I must say sorry to Charlie for the harshness of my previous comment. He has always done a very good job on average of getting out facts in a way the sheeple can understand them.
I'm on edge from seeing past all this analysis that is done to support one view or another when, deep down, we should all be in agreement that oil is a precious highly dense energy source that is finite in nature and can not be equalled in time to prevent harsh socio-economic repercussions by any combination of alternate sources in the near future and we need to deal with it on that basis. That is an indisputable scientific statement in the exact way global warming is now known and can't be disputed by any sane person who breathes air and doesn't own stocks.
We need to look at the who and why of fossil fuel control policy. I mean cmon, if we can find hiddens reserves we can easily know the amount that is left and act responsibly, fast and justly. Only a small section of our countries citizens banded together and sent a man to the moon in 8 yrs. If we all pull together we can solve this crisis witht the minimum loss of societal function.
LBorok 06/11/2008 07:17 PM Report
The utility companies in San Francisco and San Diego both have solar farms under construction that will be finished in the next 24 months, and will each provide electricity for 500,000 homes. The fuel cost is zero.
Ray 06/11/2008 07:12 PM Report
I thought that the session on the price of oil was quite good. It is interesting to note that none of the panel mentioned that the Saudi's cannot seem to find additional or new buyers for their oil and seem to be producing all that they can sell at the current market prices. Why would anyone want to sell for less than normal market price? It is a commodity after all. I also did not hear mentioned that the US currently imports 66% of its crude oil consumption; 2007 numbers. 19% of this imported products comes from Canada, 15% from Saudi Arabia, 14% from Mexico, 11% from Venezula, 11% from Nigeria and 30% from various other sources. 2007 World Crude Oil Production numbers indicate that China produces 5%, the USA 5.3%, Iran 7%, Saudi Arabia 12%, Russia 13% and all other sources combined 57.7%,
Walt Purdy 06/11/2008 06:02 PM Report
NO comments by panel members on extraction of oil from shale fields (Colo, Wyoming, Utah)...
nearly 3 trillion barrels oil reserve there...all within borders of US...enough to
make the USA independent from foreign oil sources for many decades (allowing us to develop better and cleaner alternative fuels). Also, NO mention made about rationing gasoline (on a reasonable basis...NOT War 2 levels)...practical people learn to reduce their use of anything when shortages exist or
prices go up. Government imposed rationing (again, at REASONABLE levels) on POVs would
help us cope with supply and demand until we
can go it alone. Rationing could result in
improved environmental conditions.
Walt Purdy 06/11/2008 06:02 PM Report
NO comments by panel members on extraction of oil from shale fields (Colo, Wyoming, Utah)...
nearly 3 trillion barrels oil reserve there...all within borders of US...enough to
make the USA independent from foreign oil sources for many decades (allowing us to develop better and cleaner alternative fuels). Also, NO mention made about rationing gasoline (on a reasonable basis...NOT War 2 levels)...practical people learn to reduce their use of anything when shortages exist or
prices go up. Government imposed rationing (again, at REASONABLE levels) on POVs would
help us cope with supply and demand until we
can go it alone. Rationing could result in
improved environmental conditions.
Greg Bownik 06/11/2008 05:54 PM Report
CNN reported today that domestic oil supply inventory has recently seen its largest drop in 23 years. This is what probably pushed gas prices over the $4.00 per gallon mark. So we are suffering from the perfect storm. Low domestic supply, continued threats to the supply line, and war. Unless these factors are managed society won't see any decrease in the price of a barrel of oil and gallon of gas.
Fred 06/11/2008 05:20 PM Report
Am I the only one to notice the media blackout as regards Mr. Kucinich's articles of impeachment?
Judy Truett 06/11/2008 04:19 PM Report
Finally peak oil makes it to the mainstream...sort of. Agree with Rick on this. Good discussion.
Not answered by experts 06/11/2008 03:25 PM Report
The oil price is much related to the oil inventory data. Last weeks, the inventory has been declining, so the oil price went the other direction. A few weeks ago, Bush went Saudi to ask them to hike the production, they said no need to increase the production because all orders were filled and there was no lack of oil in the market. the question is who build the us inventory( I assume the oil companies for the most part)? Do they buy all they can to avoid the inventory deficit? If OPEC increased the production, does it would translate to us inventory increase?
IT Slave 06/11/2008 11:30 AM Report
Charlie Rose was an attendee at both the Bilderberg and Trilateral Commisson meetings recently.
He is now to me, a very dubious character. Unless proven otherwise. The question is...is he a true patriot or a fascist insurgent. Sorry Charlie...you must answer this question for the good of your country and viewers.
pockyclips2020 06/11/2008 11:20 AM Report
Amy Myers Jaffe is one of the few authorities on oil that has it right; The major oil companies are doing little to nothing in regards to oil exploration. I know that in New Mexico they are absent from the San Juan and Permian Basins. They do not deserve to be getting tax breaks to produce $20/barrel oil discovered in the 1980s.
However, I am disappointed that Jaffe earlier this decade wrote for the CFR, worried that low oil prices threatened economic stability. We should have put on a import tax on the underpriced crude to prevent the mega-mergers of big oil, and the insolvency of independent
producers. We are now all paying dearly for this lack of foresight.
TABS 06/11/2008 05:05 AM Report
The sign over America should read "UNDER NEW MANAGMENT"...........
The forest of the problem is being ignored for the trees of the problem. The basic problem is 6.5 Billion people headed for 11 Billion people by 2050. This planets resources simply can not sustain that many people. Some place between 6.5 Billion and 11 Billion catastrophe is going to take place. As the population increases so will the level of chaos as different nations and peoples fight over a dwindling amount of resources. We are just getting a first taste of our own bitter fruit.
Robert G. Ortega 06/11/2008 03:29 AM Report
The IEA has called for no less than an "energy revolution" to confront the issues touched on in this episode and has outlined possible solutions in a new report ("Energy Perspectives 2008 - Scenarios and Strategies to 2050"). But I believe much of what is presented by the IEA wuold benefit from a review of basic natural resource science. Although tonight's hour was very informative, I would suggest a follow on program from a scientific perspective such as that of David Goodstein of Caltech, author of "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil". Also, Brian J. Skinner of Yale University and others have looked at similar issues for other natural resources (copper, precious metals) and hint that we may be facing the same fate here ("Toward A New Iron Age?: A Quantitative Modeling of Resource Exhaustion"). Both utilize M. King Hubbert's peak oil theory as a starting point for discussion. What is really needed now is a clear understanding of not only how we got where we are, but how very important it is to put into place strategies to move us forward based on information from predictions that seem to have been proven correct. It appears the "when" has become "now". We must end doubt about whether certain resources will run out, accept real limitations and put into place policies, laws, and, practices before not only the resources run out, but also time.
Ricardo Amaral 06/11/2008 03:04 AM Report
Reply to Chris Baker. You said, 1. Allow free trade in ethanol - meaning eliminate the tariff on the import of ethanol, from Brazil in particular.
That is a terrible idea, since that would eliminate the advantage that Brazil has in energy right now. Exporting ethanol from Brazil it would increase the market price of ethanol inside Brazil. My suggestion is for a tax from the Brazilian government high enough to discourage the exporting of ethanol from Brazil.
Besides importing ethanol from Brazil it would not do much to help the US and its energy industry mess.
Besides why should Brazil want to export ethanol to the United States and start accumulating a currency that is becoming confetti?
Brazilians have a good thing going on in Brazil regarding its independence from foreign oil, and now that the United States is in deep trouble they are going to try to mess things also for Brazil?
charlies sheep 06/11/2008 02:15 AM Report
PABLUM FOR IMBICLIES--MONEY DOESNT GROW THE WORLD, IT INCUMBERS IT--REACHING OUT, DOES NOT MEAN THE THEFT OF OTHERS GOODS AT THE COST TO SURVIVAL OF THE PLANET--AMY JAFFE IS A PLASTIC FACED --NAYSAYER--GLOBAL HUMAN HELP IS WHAT MUST SAVE THE WOLRD NOT --MONEY --WORLD BANKS I.E.BANKRUPTING PEOPLES REAL BASICS NEEDS---CHARLIE CURLS UP IN CLOSET FILLED WITH FRIENDS-- DEAD ONES--FRANKLINS ETC--ALL ABLE TO STAVE OFF HIS DORIAN GRAY LOOK AT HIS EGO, THE WORLD--AND TREAT--ALL WITH CHARITY AND COMPASSION
Greg Bownik 06/11/2008 01:45 AM Report
I think the oil industry experts should have mentioned the other factors that contribute to the price of oil: 1) domestic supply, 2) threats to the supply line, and 3) ongoing war. It was reported recently that domestic oil supply is the highest since 1998. That leaves the other two factors to consider. Threats to the supply line have always been with us. So it is reasonable to consider the impact that war is having on the price of gas. Regardless of the supply and demand issues related to inceased consumption by China and India, it is reasonable to expect the price of oil to fall to about $40 per barrel once the war in Iraq is over. Hopefully, this will happen before the high standard of living that America has known completely collapses.
Chris Baker 06/11/2008 01:36 AM Report
This was my list of recommendations from the segment's guests:
1. Allow free trade in ethanol - meaning eliminate the tariff on the import of ethanol, from Brazil in particular.
2. Raise or lower the gas tax to keep gasoline effectively priced around $4 per gallon.
3. Raise corporate average fuel economy.
4. Emphasize the development of technologies for clean-burning coal as well as nuclear, both as long-term projects aiming for the 2020 time frame.
5. Implement a carbon-policy which most companies anticipate but don't know how to estimate. Companies are investing in new power plants and other projects with up to a 40-year horizon, but there are too many uncertainties over the cost-of-carbon and carbon-policy. Congress needs to spell this out, especially as it relates to current CO2 emissions.
6. Reduce consumption as a short-term strategy.
The guests also said US Energy policy was a disaster and coincidentally I recognized only one of their recommendations, reduce consumption, as partially met in the Democrats Energy bill currently before Congress. A problem not mentioned was the export of US coal to countries that burn it without regard to the impact on the environment and climate change.
anambrose 06/11/2008 01:28 AM Report
I watched a Congressional Hearing last week on oil prices. One of the panels which had reps from the independent oil distributors along with former State's Atty General, a consumer advocate, a Bush regulator, i.e. an empty pants suit, and other watch dogs. It was stated that large Investment Banks like Morgan Stanley were holding huge positions of oil futures while simultaneously touting $200 a barrel oil. The common thread was that institutions that normally would not be in the futures market were now fueling the price spikes by holding such large positions when they were not in the business of actually delivering any oil. This was in effect squeezing out the mid level suppliers like family owned Home Heating Oil companies as they were being priced out of the market. This effect is also going on in the other commodities that are now traded in the US by outside traders and not subject to our trading regulations and are in effect in an Enron style black hole of no accountability, transparency, and no law. The law passed in the dead of night in 2000 by Republican Congress totally deregulated commodity trading. Even US commodities that are being traded inside the US would now be exempt from having to report their positions and could hide other conflicts like insider trading self dealing and other types of market manipulation. One man basically said it's a $40 $40 $40 situation. Taking a Lehman Brothers analyst who said fundamentals should have oil priced at $55 barrel and others who said anywhere from $30 to $60 a barrel this guy used $40 as where the fundamentals are as far as price. He said the next $40 is tacked on by OPEC who has the power to price fix and adds the premium. The final $40 is produced by an out of control commodity market where hedge funds and investment banks are piling on and
holding large positions hedging against the falling dollar with no regulation and oversight. If you or I choose to buy a margin position
in stocks we have to pony up 50% of their value. In commodities the margin requirement is only 03%. So its no longer an investment its a seat at the biggest crap table on the planet and what's being done is gambling and using power and wealth to insure the market will go where you want it to. Meanwhile this next winter could see $5000 a month home heating bills. Are some of the issues talked about on this show valid? Yes but to a far lesser degree when you factor in that almost everyone Charlie had on the panel is making a killing in the market they're being asked to critically comment on. The commodities
market and future exchanges need to be re regulated or we will see the boom x bust x war 20 year cycles in every area of investment return as they already have with housing and credit as starters. So when you hear oil dealers calling for re regulation you know we're in trouble. Whenever there's a story it would be great if CR didn't always get the shills opinions out first. I though some of the testimony at the hearings were great news but apparently no one not even PBS thought so and that's a big mistake because everything I have heard, read and seen on this on major networks, newspapers keeps plowing the same old tired field of excuses like the ones heard on the CR show. Its time you started getting some guests who are of by and for the oligarchy and Imperium. They are the problem not the solution.
disingenuous 06/11/2008 01:26 AM Report
Development of hybrids and Chevrolet Volt etc. are doubtless years delayed due to complicit conspiracies with big oil that have backfired on US car makers. US carmakers are now emasculated relative to oil (because of their very complicity). So never knowing when enough is achieved, our egregiously greedy capitalists will consume themselves and our system into oblivion - ala subprime mtgs. The irony of self-imposed implosion due to a combo of arrogance and greed is extremely sad.
Rick Parmelee 06/11/2008 01:23 AM Report
Sounded a lot like peak oil to me this evening. A great show but if people had been listening to Matt Simmons, Colin Campbell and Richard Heinberg for all these years the show whould have been old hat. At least half of your guests tonight would have said a year ago that oil would stablize at $65 per barrel. Maybe you should have the experts that have been predicting this for many years on your show sometime. Congrats to you and your staff. Very informative.
Ricardo Amaral 06/11/2008 01:20 AM Report
Sorry I just checked Brazzil magazine and they had posted this message on their web site. This site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon.
Ricardo Amaral 06/11/2008 01:12 AM Report
If you had the chance to read my article about Brazil and China then you would understand why Brazil is energy independent and the United States is on its knees.
In that article I explain how Brazil was able to develop the ethanol industry from sugar cane and how the United States made a big mistake regarding ethanol.
The Smartest Thing China Could Do Right Now: Invest US$ 200 Billion in Brazil Written by Ricardo C. Amaral, Tuesday, 16 October 2007
http://www.brazzil.com/articles-mainmenu-80/184-october-2007/9985.html
I am just finishing my latest article about Petrobras that it will be a bombshell when my article is published. I am finishing my last part of the article regarding ethanol.
I am 100 percent against Brazil exporting ethanol to any country, since ethanol from sugar cane is only an energy solution for Brazil, and I am completely against Lulaâ??s request that the US lower its tariff on imported ethanol.
I am a member of the most politically influential family in Brazil and our family still has many influential politicians in Brazil, and I am contacting them to organize a barrier in Brazil to keep producers from exporting ethanol from sugar cane to world markets.
Akro 06/11/2008 01:03 AM Report
Hugh Sansom aka Alex, everything you said applies to the laughable EU. The USA imposing its will? And the European nations have not imposed their will in the past? They are still trying to impose their will on certain regions in the world but are failing miserably. European "experts," that is, if there are any left, are not only delusional, ill-informed, ignorant and discredited but also suffer from feelings of inferiority. No one is buying your delusional propaganda about reform and resurgence.
Ricardo Amaral 06/11/2008 12:49 AM Report
Reply to LE Gundrum. You said, Sugar cane from Brazil threatens the rainforests.
That is not true, soybean is the commodity that is growing very rapidly in such places as Mato Grosso and very soon it will reach the Amazon area.
The destruction of the Amazon area is being caused mostly by the ranchers to raise beef, and the areas where they plant soybean is fast approaching the Amazon.
RE Mant 06/11/2008 12:09 AM Report
In the end there can be no significant transfer of wealth from oil users to oil producers for the simple reason that what is transferred will be of ever decreasing value. That is why they subsidize us now and have for many years. Our lack of productivity is what makes for low interest rates, since it reflects the lower value of the dollar. It is possible that power will be transferred temporarily, but like the Soviet Union's trajectory, it can be only temporary. Despite all of the discussion of demand, the present situation is largely a matter of imprudent monetary and fiscal policy as well as consumer expenditure and consequent speculation. Speculators such as hedge funds don't invest, they gamble. That's the straight and narrow of it. And they have been allowed to start gambling in oil futures with borrowed money, and without oversight. Meanwhile the prim business-types, blame it on the Arabs or China, and the Democrats on rapacious oil cos, when the enemy is all the banks, endowments, pension and other funds who have ppl's money there, looking to use easy money to leverage and swindle each other, because there's no other way to profit from this. Just to make sure that it stays unregulated, the markets are being moved overseas, or that threat used to keep regulators at bay here. There has been a 6x increase in commodity trading since 2000. I think the observation that the old oil cos are moving into finance sage. It has been happening in a lot of other areas in the past few decades. BTW, I would not expect an oil production increase from any of the Muslim nations because they now know they can get us to change Middle East policy by sitting tight.
LE Gundrum 06/10/2008 11:32 PM Report
This program omitted an option that all too many commentators skirt around, and that is the development and use of wind, solar, and hydro electric power. Mr. Maxwell advocated nuclear and coal. Both of these sources of energy involve digging into the earth and both pollute (in the case of nuclear, we have no way of safely disposing radioactive waste and, given our track record, I shutter to think of the trouble we can get ourselves and the earth into with such a dangerous process). Sugar cane from Brazil threatens the rainforests, and corn threatens the natural ecology of the Midwest. Would you please have a show that explores truly renewable options that don't exploit earth's resources?
Alex 06/10/2008 11:28 PM Report
"That's how democracy works."
WRONG. European nations have had better policy. The US stands out as the most blithely _stupid_ nation in the world. And we could go back a year or two to Charlie Rose and listen to a witless wonder like Thomas Friedman tell us how globalization would solve all problems. So, frankly, American "experts" have been just as delusional -- or worse -- than most Americans.
The average American can at least claim a defense of being ill-informed (by _exactly_ those institutions and individuals that claim to be expert).
Hugh Sansom 06/10/2008 11:21 PM Report
After decades of the US imposing its will on the entire world -- throwing its weight around with no regard to the rights or wishes of others -- it is genuinely amusing to hear Americans fretting over oil-rich nations enjoying a power that the US supposed it alone had a natural right to.
Americans will get what they deserve, just as previous empires have.