Subtitled, "Behold a kernel seed corn."
It is still evident that the politicians want to avoid the difficult facts surrounding the energy challenges that face America. There are two distinct attitudes that are pervasive, from the standpoint of the public and that of the energy industry.
"Behold, the head of an Oil Executive" is in response to the record profits that oil and energy companies are producing. This to the public seems like gouging as they encounter higher prices as a consequence of deregulation policies and TV ad spots which promote what seems to socially responsible agendas, utilitarian recognitions, nationalistic appeal, and populist themes. The public cheers when terms such as big business and specifically oil companies are cited on the campaign trail as being what will be changed, what constitutes change, and what needs to be changed irrespective of if that appeal is made as a basis of national security energy independence or global warming.
"Behold a kernel seed corn." is the attitide of the oil companies as they survey the globe and recognize and seek to procure exclusive concessions to limited resources. There is a dichotomy in the two messages and the public is aware of the competing narratives as they consume what the media sources that they subscribe to produce.
I have had the opportunity to listen to CSPAN on a commute and recently heard a person advocate the solution that drilling in America was the solution for energy independence if the prices remained globally sufficiently high enough to do so. Their attitude appealed to the energy independence crowd, the isolationists, and sectors of an economy that would profit from federal legislation opening feilds that states who hold geographic interests might support or oppose. As an example LA is friendly to oil while FL is not.
But there was an even deeper economic issue that was ignored and is at issue as well. And it is market circumstances and the means in which energy is priced and delivered which is why I choose the topic to blog.
The two terms are ubiquitous commodity and distribution that are a core issue when one discusses energy policy. And lets consider their impact from a national, economic, global, and implementation standpoint. An executive level summary might be, Greenspan Testifies on Oil Dependence, and Few Pay Attention but the actual testimony, and the impact of energy upon the larger US economy, global economy, trade, and weighted value of the dollar was covered in the actual testimony. (which can be found here)
And in summation, if you have actually watched the testimony, is this:
Moving to OIL exploration in the US is a 'seed corn' approach to the challenge of economics and meeting the need for US energy. And the key difference is that while oil and electricity are an "ubiquitous commodity" where the source of the commodity is not known to the consumer, origin of the product a secondary consideration the distribution system of the commodity is not!
To the point intra-state and North American electrical grid distribution of electricity cannot be 'exported' in a tanker directly as energy to China or India, but US oil products can.
While electricty from TX used in MD can turn on a light with the flip of a switch, and that distribution system is in place today, the ability to introduce ethanol as a large scale solution as Greenspan testifies does not exist. So one needs to ask, why is there still a push for the mirage of ethanol? Is this a seed corn approach to our energy policies?
What we do know is that when there is talk of "US Workers competing in a global market" we seem to ignore the fact that individual workers do not compete at global economics but companies and corporations do. And while there is talk of healthcare, tort litigation, and greenhouse caps being obstacles to US job growth, the fact is that the most important economic factor to an economy is the price of energy and then wages.
So if you agree with the above, and agree with the summations of Greenspan, then one needs to ask why electricity as a distribution system for national energy policy was not prioritized, why electric plug-in hybrids was not promoted, why there is a push to spend as much federal dollars on ethanol, and why is it that the US has not set a goal of lowering the Kwh cost of electricity to promote national security, promote economic growth, meet greenhouse goals, create jobs, and promote North American trade?
Well there is a seed corn and greed factor in the Electrical Energy sector as well, and the goal of this group is not meeting national security needs, meeting economic growth needs for the nation, assisting US companies compete globally, and as a matter of a simple statement: "Electricity is the most ubiquitous commodity" that the United States has to levergae with an existing distribution system, that is NOT meeting economic growth, oil conservation, greenhouse caps, and promoting a sustainable economy.
California learned this lesson when Enron ass-fucked them with electricity charges.
And you see California leading with a handful of other states in setting carbon cap limits.
But the larger question, the larger unstated question, is why is it that the "PUBLIC" doesn't own the electrical companies as a consequence of paying for them? How is it that privatization and deregulation in core societal needs is still promoted when we evaluate the benefits from communications deregulation, financial deregulation, utilities deregulation, and healthcare deregulation?
It is a good thing that Dee Illuminati is not running for POTUS as there would be a nationalization of the nations Electrical grid, power generation, and power distribution system. Then the goal would not be returning earnings to shareholders, but instead cheap ubiquitous energy to the private sector and the public to promote economic growth.
What really needs to be asked is how can we expect our nation to recover economically, compete globally, and to provide to the energy needs of today and tomorrow, when the current system is predicated on a 'seed corn' greed motivated system?
The first step for US national security, economic revival, and competition globally is to nationalize the US electrical grid and production, promote private sector grid-tied systems (both corporate and private) and to treat this system as we do the internet, as a system that can withstand natural dissasters, be self-healing with local outages by redirecting energy from other locations, and as an UNTAXED public basis of commerce for the public good.
The truth be told, the answer is easy.
But it takes not demonizing the oil executives, but instead nationalizing electric.
Any policy that does not promote the above will fail as it does not meet the requirements that are genuinely needed by corporations and the public, access to clean and affordable energy with an existing distribution system.
No need to demonize the oil exec, instead nationalize electricity and legislate that it cannot be taxed!
That will solve allot of the problems that the politicians talk about, but really don't want to solve.
Dee Illuminati always speaks the truth to power, and let this be succinct, I want to nationalize all electrical grid assets, as this 'state of emergency' unfolds.
How oil burst the American bubble By Michael T Klare points out that OIL is not the answer, we need electricity transformation immediately, it will be interesting if his book makes this point or he sells survival products instead.
PARIS — A senior prosecutor examining the trading scandal at Société Générale recommended Friday that the bank’s chief executive, Daniel Bouton, be questioned by judges in connection with accusations he has made about a rogue trader’s role in the loss of billions of euros.
Yes you can get tomorrows news today.
On Ann Coulter: seems like she is swallowing allot of shit these days. Any suggestion that this segment of the Neoconservative and fascist segment of the party is not fully discredited and rejected will be evident the day after super tuesday.
Ann, vote for Ron Paul or David Duke and stay with your ilk.