If the oil barrel was on the other foot...

[The Peon]

What if most of the oil reserves of the world was located in the USA... What differences in the political landscape do you think would be present, and how much more ambitious would the US be in its foreign policys?

[Jim]

What if most of the oil reserves of the world was located in the USA... What differences in the political landscape do you think would be present, and how much more ambitious would the US be in its foreign policys?

 

If the United States was self-sufficient in natural resources, I think we would be less engaged globally. I doubt we would have fought Iraq for invading Kuwait but, then again, if Kuwait's oil resources were in the United States, Iraq would not have invaded in the first place.

[john5746]

What if most of the oil reserves of the world was located in the USA... What differences in the political landscape do you think would be present, and how much more ambitious would the US be in its foreign policys?

 

There would be much less emphasis on human resources - education, production, etc.

[Sisyphus]

If the U.S. were merely self-sufficient, I'd imagine we'd be a lot more isolationist. However, if the U.S. was literally the only source of oil, we could pretty much make other countries do whatever we wanted.

[The Peon]

So it appears from the above posts you think the US would be more isolationist? I was leaning more towards the US being more aggressive in its foreign policys and being more bully like than it is now.

[gcol]

Unless my history books are wrong, the U.S. was self -sufficient and a major exporter. Shame it burned it all away on air conditioners and making Henry Ford rich. Who will be at home to answer the bailiffs when they come knocking at the door?

[Jim]

Unless my history books are wrong, the U.S. was self -sufficient and a major exporter. Shame it burned it all away on air conditioners and making Henry Ford rich. Who will be at home to answer the bailiffs when they come knocking at the door?

 

The remains of the richest oil field the world had yet known is about fifteen miles from where I now sit.

[ecoli]

If we had all the oil reserves then I would feel really bad for the environment. The oil companies would probably have enough influence to hush all the tree-huggers for good. (I mean for bad)... Forget about alternative energy in the united states.

[Pangloss]

If we had all the oil reserves then I would feel really bad for the environment. The oil companies would probably have enough influence to hush all the tree-huggers for good. (I mean for bad)... Forget about alternative energy in the united states.

 

The US was self-sufficient until the 1970s. It's still the one of the largest oil producing nations (fourth?). Since consumption and production have both gone up, and the environment has improved, the above statement is not logical. In fact arguably our coal consumption would be less in that scenario, which would cause an improvement in the environment. And automobile consumption would be exactly the same as it is now, which is what causes most air pollution. (I.E. the actual drilling of oil doesn't cause the air pollution.)

 

But your last sentence seems logical enough.

[ecoli]

The US was self-sufficient until the 1970s. It's still the one of the largest oil producing nations (fourth?). Since consumption and production have both gone up, and the environment has improved[/i'], the above statement is not logical.

Well, how the hell do you know? We wre proposing theoretical situations, so how would you know what actually would happen. don't forget, the environmental and political idealism all but disappeared in the 80's. Imagine a population of workaholics and overconsumers with all the oil they could eat? I wouldn't like to see the results of that.

 

My point is, this thread is speculation, so how can you say what I think would happen as illogical?

 

In fact arguably our coal consumption would be less in that scenario, which would cause an improvement in the environment. And automobile consumption would be exactly the same as it is now, which is what causes most air pollution. (I.E. the actual drilling of oil doesn't cause the air pollution.)

 

But your last sentence seems logical enough.

 

If we had cheaper oil (less transportation costs, more control over prices, etc.) I don't see why oil comsumption would be the same. I believe there would be less of a drive to find alternative energies (which is driven by oil prices now, not really concern for the environment) which would mean more oil consumption.

 

If there oil companies are drilling in US soil, does it not stand to reason that they would be more powerful in government and elsewhere? They'd control more jobs and have more of an investment at stake at the outcome of political decisions.

 

I hardly see how this is illogical, Pangloss.

[Jim]

If there oil companies are drilling in US soil, does it not stand to reason that they would be more powerful in government and elsewhere? They'd control more jobs and have more of an investment at stake at the outcome of political decisions.

 

Wouldn't it be better for American oil companies to have that power compared, to say, Saudia Arabia?

[swansont]

The US was self-sufficient until the 1970s. It's still the one of the largest oil producing nations (fourth?). Since consumption and production have both gone up' date=' and the environment has [i']improved[/i], the above statement is not logical. In fact arguably our coal consumption would be less in that scenario, which would cause an improvement in the environment. And automobile consumption would be exactly the same as it is now, which is what causes most air pollution. (I.E. the actual drilling of oil doesn't cause the air pollution.)

 

But oil would likely have remained inexpensive, and there would have been little incentive to improve gas mileage. We would probably have more consumption than we do today, and more pollution as a result.

[Pangloss]

I hardly see how this is illogical' date=' Pangloss.[/quote']

 

I think you might have misread part of my post -- I supported what you were saying about having abundant oil would have meant less drive to find alternative fuels. Although I must admit it's hard for me to imagine how our society could have been any less motivated over the years in the search for alternative fuels than it already has been.

 

At any rate, it's certainly possible that cheaper oil would mean more consumption. But you've missed the point -- that's what DID happen. We had cheap oil, and consumption grew, all the way to the point of production and beyond.

 

And yet, the environment hasn't gotten any dirtier. In fact the opposite has happened. So I think you should demonstrate how higher oil production within the US would produce a dirtier environment, or at least counter my logical speculation about decreased coal consumption and the obvious corresponding environmental improvement that would represent.

 

(And don't curse, please.)

[Jim]

And yet' date=' the environment hasn't gotten any dirtier. In fact the opposite has happened. So I think you should demonstrate how higher oil production within the US would produce a dirtier environment, or at least counter my logical speculation about decreased coal consumption and the obvious corresponding environmental improvement that would represent.

 

(And don't curse, please.)[/quote']

 

WHile I've not seen these statistics, this makes perfect sense. Certainly the oil and gas production industry has become gentler on the environment. The "Wild Mary Sudik" blew oil across Okla. City for 11 days before it was finally plugged. Today, such an event would herald the death by litigation of an oil company. My state is slowly but surely plugging abandoned oil wells which pepper these old fields.

[Pangloss]

But oil would likely have remained inexpensive, and there would have been little incentive to improve gas mileage. We would probably have more consumption than we do today, and more pollution as a result.

 

Sure, but I think that's the *existing* history. Gas has been cheap up until fairly recently, and it's hard to imagine automobile traffic exploding even faster than it has. But the air hasn't gotten dirtier, it's gotten cleaner. (Mind you, I'm not saying it's clean now, or that we shouldn't improve it further, so please don't read a Rush Limbaugh argument into my post here.)

 

The point is that it didn't get cleaner because of flucuations in gas prices. It got cleaner because people got tired of air pollution and demanded that something be done about it. So in the 1970s, even though gas prices were going up, the EPA was created, and emissions standards were set.

 

So it doesn't stand to reason that lower gas prices would result in higher air pollution, or greater overall damage to the ecology. It's reasonable to speculate in a push in that direction, but as I've just demonstrated, we already had a push in that direction, and we did something about it. There's no reason to think that people would sit idly by and let it happen, unless someone can give me a reason why people would do that.

 

Put another way, the premise of Ecoli's argument is that higher gas prices equals cleaner air. I think that premise is flawed. If anything the current situation is proof -- gas today is three times what it was 30 years ago, and consumption isn't decreasing or even leveling off -- it's increasing.

 

But hey, if you can tell me how cheap gas is more pollutive than expensive gas, when people are consuming the same amount of expensive gas or more, then hey, I'm all ears.

[john5746]

But hey, if you can tell me how cheap gas is more pollutive than expensive gas, when people are consuming the same amount of expensive gas or more[/i'], then hey, I'm all ears.

 

Within the boundaries you mentioned, it may not make a difference, but if people favor more fuel efficient cars over big SUV's, then I think it can make an impact, assuming the fuel efficient cars are less polluting, which may not be the case.

 

Of course, if the US was THE major producer of oil, then we might be fighting to keep prices higher, to make money on exports.

[Pangloss]

Yes, in fact I see the drop in SUV sales as a silver lining in the cloud of high oil prices as well. Cutting our dependence on fossil fuels should be a national priority.

 

Being a computer guy anyway, I can't help but think about it every time I work on a system to try and eliminate "single points of failure". Western Civilization has a great big honkin' immersurably dangerous SPoF, and it's not doing a darn thing about it.

[swansont]

Sure' date=' but I think that's the *existing* history. Gas has been cheap up until fairly recently, and it's hard to imagine automobile traffic exploding even faster than it has. But the air hasn't gotten dirtier, it's gotten [i']cleaner[/i]. (Mind you, I'm not saying it's clean now, or that we shouldn't improve it further, so please don't read a Rush Limbaugh argument into my post here.)

 

The point is that it didn't get cleaner because of flucuations in gas prices. It got cleaner because people got tired of air pollution and demanded that something be done about it. So in the 1970s, even though gas prices were going up, the EPA was created, and emissions standards were set.

 

So it doesn't stand to reason that lower gas prices would result in higher air pollution, or greater overall damage to the ecology. It's reasonable to speculate in a push in that direction, but as I've just demonstrated, we already had a push in that direction, and we did something about it. There's no reason to think that people would sit idly by and let it happen, unless someone can give me a reason why people would do that.

 

Put another way, the premise of Ecoli's argument is that higher gas prices equals cleaner air. I think that premise is flawed. If anything the current situation is proof -- gas today is three times what it was 30 years ago, and consumption isn't decreasing or even leveling off -- it's increasing.

 

But hey, if you can tell me how cheap gas is more pollutive than expensive gas, when people are consuming the same amount of expensive gas or more, then hey, I'm all ears.

 

Then the thesis that "more oil = less coal" would result in less pollution is also incorrect. We would have as much pollution as the political will allowed. Which is to say, the same amount we have today.

 

I'm not sure what you meant by "gas today is three times what it was 30 years ago" Do you mean price? Adjusted for inflation, oil only got expensive in the last couple of years, and is still cheaper than it was in the early 80's. And because of improvements in gas mileage, gas is a smaller fraction of the total budget for most people. And the increase in driving also has to be tied in with population growth. More consumers would imply more consumption.

[ecoli]

Yes' date=' in fact I see the drop in SUV sales as a silver lining in the cloud of high oil prices as well. Cutting our dependence on fossil fuels should be a national priority.

 

Being a computer guy anyway, I can't help but think about it every time I work on a system to try and eliminate "single points of failure". Western Civilization has a great big honkin' immersurably dangerous SPoF, and it's not doing a darn thing about it.[/quote']

First off, I want to apoligize for misintepreting your post.

 

Secondly, I would have to disagree with on the matter of degree. While we are obviously doing better in terms of the environment, I still don't think it's enough. CO2 emmisions are still really high, and I think alternative energies (especially solar) could do with more funding. However, I suppose this is just a matter of degree.

 

We have been able to reduce heavy metal, halohydrocarbon, mercury and other emmisions, and that's good. But we still have a long way to go in order to clean up the environment and decrease our oil dependency.

 

If oil reserves were in America, yes, we would have more control of the environmental implications, I just believe that there would be less of a drive to.

[Pangloss]

From what I understand, we should also be concerned about sulfur emissions, which continue to be underappreciated by the power industry and government regulators.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what you meant by "gas today is three times what it was 30 years ago" Do you mean price? Adjusted for inflation' date=' oil only got expensive in the last couple of years, and is still cheaper than it was in the early 80's. And because of improvements in gas mileage, gas is a smaller fraction of the total budget for most people. And the increase in driving also has to be tied in with population growth.

 

These would really seem to be on a different subject from the one we were discussing, and doesn't refute what I was saying. I'm already aware of these points, but... thanks for contributing? If you want to talk about consumer confidence and popular opinion... welll... that might be an interesting direction to take the discussion, so I'm down with that.

 

It's certainly something that must be driving Detroit nuts. The SUV saved the auto industry, and now they're stuck with vast inventories and a consumer interest that's changing faster than it ever has before.

 

I think we may be approaching another period of pressure-derived innovation. Americans like big cars not just because they're more comfortable but also because they're safer. Amongst other things it will be interesting to see if innovation can produce safer (big) cars that are also fuel efficient.