You say “The US produces nearly half of the world’s food”, this is certainly a possibility. Do you have any sources for that?

Does that mean we export most of that food or do we eat it all ourself?

rg

The US produces nearly half of the world’s food. All of that production requires a lot of energy. I would think that would account for a good part of it. I don’t think our consumption is completely do to the fact that we are just greedy Americans burning oil for the fun of it (not that you were necessarily implying that, but others have). That is just one industry off the top of my head…

I could look into it more deeply, but it’s unlikely that anyone will dig back and see this comment anyway!

I think the way to go is to first reduce the need by:
1. reconsidering the need to travel
2. increasing public transportation use
3. pushing for vehicles that use fuel more efficiently (hybrids and small cars vs. SUVs)

Secondly, I think a combination of solar, wind, water, and maybe some new future super technology should be the long term solution.

When the Republicans were in control, there was no crisis so it’s not really fair to blame them for not doing anything when there wasn’t anything to do.”

Richard says: Well, I think you’re being too kind to the Republicans. First of all, are you advocating we should wait for a crisis before we act? We couldn’t see this coming? The much maligned Jimmy Carter saw it coming back in the 70’s. He promoted energy independence through conservation and research for alternative sources.

When Reagan came in, he immediately made it clear that the oil crisis was overblown and that world supplies were adequate as far as the eye could see. From that point on, any efforts to to avert a crisis were deemed unnecessary and little attention was given to the problem until recently. The successive Bush administration did nothing to encourage conservation or search for alternative sources. The pat answer was to drill in Anwar, as if that was the ultimate solution, if indeed any problem actually existed. Clinton was not much better, in that he only half heartedly supported a rise in the cafe standards. So the there is plenty of blame to go around.

However, one disturbing aspect is what the Republicans are now doing to Oback Obama, labeling him as belatedly running for Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term, because of his energy policies, the policies that if had been followed from the 70’s through to day, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. today.

The problem is to devise alternatives for oil for our cars, trains, planes and other oil dependent forms of transportation. Inevitably,the solution appears to be to find ways of converting the “all other” into a form we can use for transportation. Specifically, we have huge coal resources that can be directly converted to a mobile form; high intensity efforts should be focused on how to make this an environmentally friendly and efficient process. The same could be said for electricity, natural gas, hydrogen, etc.

Private industry has been rather meager in sponsoring and funding such projects because they are enormously expensive to make happen and implement. For some, the needed infrastructure alone is so formidable as to discourage private investment. Some will decry this, but only government has the ability to raise the resources to sponsor such investment, which eventually will be carried out by private industry. (My friends, computers and the internet would never be where they are today without government sponsored research brought on by the need to increase our national security.).

Until our politicians can get behind this is in a bipartisan way and support the necessary research and development, the very slow progress we have seen up to now will continue. If you want progress, tell your congressman what you want. Be persistent and don’t let them get off the hook, or worse yet of the track.

However, looking at this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/EIA_IEO2006.jpg

World demand has definitely not increased enough to justify increasing the price by as much.

Any GOOD explanations out there?

rg

And thanks to @David B for your responses to various people on June 13th, 2008 at 11:45 am. I fully agree.

Now lets think about this. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum, the per capita energy consumption, oil equivalent (barrel/person/year) is:

United States 68.81
European Union 29.70
Japan 42.01
Switzerland 34.64
France 32.43
Germany 32.31
United Kingdom 30.18

Now, I have lived many years in each of these countries and feel that the standard of living is VERY similar in all of them.

Can anybody come up with a GOOD explanation why the US “need” twice as much oil than other? Remember, this is per capita.

I know the USA also has a high GDP, but certainly not double that of the EU (40% higher)

Some people might say, “but Canada uses even more oil (69.85) than the US”. But is that a good enough reason?

rg

I can say without a shadow of a doubt this is not my fault. I’m only 22. That being said, I AM a minimalist and I already DO drive the minimum. In fact, my home IS efficient and my demand is low. But everyone else not cutting back (the street I live on has 6 huge trucks, 3 boats, an RV, a hummer, 5th wheel…basically we have the smallest cars in the neighborhood. And until last month we only had a single car).

The only reason we have 2 now is because it is cheaper for insurance to not trade the first one in… figure that one out.

Free includes the freedom not to sell, not to produce, and not to develop. Free markets aren’t panaceas. They don’t prevent us from crises and transitions. They are full of imperfections. About the best government can do is to fund fundamental research, explore options, and provide incentives for those situations where solutions are feasible but the control is too fractured to admit them.