Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

BP Reports 3rd-Quarter Profit Up 34 Pct.


endzone_dave

Recommended Posts

BULLSH!T.

I am a liberal, and I want nothing of the sort. That is akin to me saying conservatives want the cost to be above $2.00 so the oil companies can make record profits on the backs of working Americans and the poor. . . Oh wait, they ARE doing that :doh:

New York Times columnist

is on a green crusade

Thomas Friedman stresses energy

alternatives to Mideast dependence

Thomas Friedman

Greg Martin

Grist Magazine

• Sign up for Grist by Email

As the green movement fends off accusations of impotence, Thomas Friedman has hatched an idea that could make a man out of environmentalism.

In January, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The New York Times debuted his "geo-green" strategy, a powerful proposal for reframing America's quest for energy independence to appeal to hawkish neocons and lily-livered tree-huggers alike. By aggressively curbing America's energy consumption, Friedman argues, the Bush administration could reduce the global price of oil to the point where it would force regimes in the Middle East to diversify their economies, thereby priming them for democratic reform.

Added geo-green benefits would include jumpstarting America's 21st century clean-energy economy, addressing the global-warming crisis, and allaying international umbrage over the Bush administration's royal diss on Kyoto.

Story continues below ↓

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We are, quite simply, witnessing one of the greatest examples of misplaced priorities in the history of the U.S. presidency," Friedman proclaimed in a March 27 column. "Look at the opportunities our country is missing -- and the risks we are assuming -- by having a president and vice president who refuse to ... marry geopolitics, energy policy, and environmentalism."

Friedman has been writing on matters of energy and diplomacy for nearly three decades. He began working at The New York Times in 1981 as a business reporter specializing in OPEC and oil-related news. He took time out of his vacation in Aspen, Colo., last week to talk to Grist about why neocons are taking a shine to renewable energy, his new book The World Is Flat, his geothermal home, and his brand-new Lexus hybrid.

Grist: If you were sitting down with President Bush to pitch your geo-green strategy in a few sentences, what would you say?

Friedman: I would say that geo-green is the natural successor to neocon. The neocons basically believe in using American military power to drive the democracy agenda in the Middle East, and that, idealistically speaking, was the purpose of the invasion of Iraq. The reality is we do not have the resources to do that again -- not in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or anywhere. Yet we have a fundamental interest in promoting political and economic reform in that part of the world so people have better governance, more opportunities, and less frustration. Like the president, I want to see that political reform agenda go forward.

Grist: So how would substantial reductions in American oil demand achieve that?

Friedman: It will help bring down the global price of oil, and when you do that you create a burning platform under these governments that forces change. As long as we have $60-a-barrel oil, Arab gulf countries won't diversify their economies and their regimes can buy off all the discontent. They will use huge oil windfalls to fund state-owned industries that soak up jobs, but don't create an educated or dynamic economy.

You could actually track on a graph the rise and fall of political reform in Iran that mirrors almost perfectly the rise and fall in oil price. And look at Bahrain, one of the first Arab gulf countries to discover oil, and the first to run out of it. It was also the first to hold a free and fair election where women could vote and run, and the first to totally revamp labor laws to wean itself off dependence on foreign labor. A similar trend happened in Jordan.

Grist: What if Bush said, "I'm all for energy independence, but I'm going to get there by opening up lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil extraction"?

Friedman: That's stuff and nonsense. It's brain-dead. It's Karl Rove-ism at its absolute, undiluted essence: Politics and polls uber alles -- over everything. The truth is, I'm not against drilling in ANWR. I mean, look, I don't want to be drilling in the wilderness, in the cathedrals of the environment. But if ANWR were part of a total strategy of geo-green, I can accept that, because it says we're not going to have to do the next ANWR, because we have a total strategy.

Grist: And of course, drilling in these regions is never going to have any significant impact on the price of energy globally.

Friedman: Exactly. And realistically, ANWR would be better for China than the United States -- it's much easier to get Alaskan crude to China than America. You'd have to take that oil from Alaska down through Panama Canal up to Houston, where the majority of refineries are. This whole notion that it would be a boon to America is absurd.

Grist: Where did your geo-green concept originate? The first dispatch on this idea came from the World Economic Forum at Davos.

Friedman: Yes, I was just sitting at the Davos conference and actually having a conversation with a friend of mine on the phone and I was ranting and raving -- this is where most of my ideas emerge -- and I said, "You know, what we really need is something that merges neocons and environmentalists because they both actually have the same interests right now." So I said we need a "neo-green" strategy, then I thought, no -- "geo-green." That's how columns get written.

Grist: Are you addressing this concept in your new book?

The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, Farrar Straus Giroux, 496 pgs., 2005.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friedman: Yes, my book is called The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. See, when the world goes flat it is a global leveled playing field. When 3 billion people who were out of the game called China, India, and the former Soviet empire walk onto the field with the American dream -- of a car, a house, a refrigerator, a toaster, utilities -- we are going to smoke up, burn up, or heat up the planet at a rate unlike anything we've seen before. There are about 800 million cars in the world today, and given what's happening with China and India, by 2050 there will be around 3.25 billion. So if we don't do something about this, we're going to melt both polar caps and you can kiss Manhattan goodbye. Dick Cheney's ranch out there in Wyoming might even feel the burn.

Grist: That raises a question about the plausibility of your geo-green proposal: Even if America and other industrial countries were to take aggressive measures to reduce our oil demand, won't the ballooning demand in India, China, Russia, and elsewhere keep oil prices high? Won't oil suppliers in the Middle East have plenty of takers even if our demand drops?

Friedman: It would certainly have an effect, but as it is the U.S. has towering influence over the global oil economy. We consume 25 percent of the world's energy and we've got 5 percent of the global population, so what we do matters not only in terms of what we do, but because our strategy will drive innovation and global trends. If we converted our entire auto fleet to hybrid, that would have a huge impact first in the U.S. and then in the rest of the world. As efficient technologies penetrate markets here, they will become the technology of choice and penetrate the markets globally. If we set the example, pioneer alternatives, and improve the energy products we export, it will hugely influence the level of demand created by the countries coming online.

Grist: You really think you could get the American people on board?

Friedman: Absolutely. I have my own kind of Nielsen ratings for columns. I know what's getting reaction from people and what isn't, and every time I write about this the reaction is off the charts compared to anything else I write.

Grist: You argue that the Bush administration should impose a fixed price of $4-a-gallon gas to accelerate consumer trends toward hybrids. First of all, wouldn't that have disproportionate effects on low-income families with long commutes?

Friedman: There are millions of ways to compensate for that with tax rebates. For people who earn a set amount of income and also those who are professionally dependent on low gas prices -- truckers, cab drivers, and so on -- you set up a rebate system that would basically refund part of the tax. At the end of the year, those who qualify would get money back.

Grist: Still, wouldn't a gas tax be political suicide? Given the outrage over rising gas prices, wouldn't people revolt?

Friedman: I don't think there's actually that much outrage -- show me the outrage. This is about leadership. The hallmark of George Bush's presidency is that he's never asked Americans, let alone his own base, to do anything hard. And a president like that is going to leave nothing behind. He needs to say, "This is something that is going to drive our reform agenda, pay down our deficit, strengthen our international standing, leave a greener earth for your kids, and make us energy independent." He could bring the whole country around. As my friend Michael Mandelbaum says, this is not win-win, it's win-win-win-win-win. This would be the equivalent of Kennedy's moon shot for the Bush administration. They'd get every young kid in the country excited about going into science and engineering and making us energy independent. It would vastly improve our reputation in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Peopl ecan carpool. Bike to work. Use mass transit. Telecommute.

For heating they can lower the temp in the house and wear sweaters inside.

Use a fireplace. Natural gas (just pointing out it's an option),

Im not saying we can totally go without using oil. Im saying we CAN do enough to make the market forces move back in the consumers favor.

I'll say this again. Im GLAD gas prices are high. I want them even higher. Not just for my own benefit, but I believe that the market will take care of itself.

If gas has hit 3 bucks and we havent changed our consumption habits, then it needs to go higher. And higher and higher and higher. Until we all wake the f@#k up and realize that we need to look at alternatives in both our consumption habits as well as our energy products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

Peopl ecan carpool. Bike to work. Use mass transit. Telecommute.

For heating they can lower the temp in the house and wear sweaters inside.

Use a fireplace. Natural gas (just pointing out it's an option),

.

That would be fine, IF the price of natural gas wasn't going to increase by 40%

Sorry to burst your bubble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05286/587563.stm

Personal Business

Natural gas price surge could have customers feeling the heat this winter

Costs could jump as much as 50 percent in coming months

Thursday, October 13, 2005

By Elwin Green and Teresa F. Lindeman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

More about home heating costs

Tips on how to save money on your home heating bill

Graphic: Average monthly heating bills

Graphic: Costly comfort

All right, class, today's topic is "How to save money on your home heating bill." This may sound familiar, but a reminder never hurts.

Winterize your home. Use weather-stripping, caulking, plastic film or storm windows or doors to seal out drafts. Install a minimum of R-30 insulation in attics and ceilings. Check ducts for cracks or broken seams and keep ducts and grills clean. Insulate hot water pipes and ducts in unheated areas. Use draft-stopping gaskets specially made to fit behind light switch plates and electric sockets.

Have your furnace inspected. Consider annual maintenance check-ups to keep the furnace working at top efficiency. Then, change your furnace filter monthly -- dirty filters make your furnace work harder.

Turn down the thermostat. Set the thermostat no higher than 68 degrees. Keep it lower at night and while you're away -- a programmable thermostat may be a good investment. Every degree you lower the heat can save as much as 3 percent on your heating bills. However, some experts recommend avoiding daily fluctuations of more than 10 degrees. (If you have a heat pump, keep it at an even setting or you'll waste more energy than you save.)

Turn down your water heater. A comfortable temperature is 120 degrees or less. If your water is so hot that you have to mix it with cold water to use it, you are wasting money. Wrap the tank with an insulated water heater blanket. Turn off the heater while away for extended periods.

Check your gas appliances. If they aren't operating properly, they could be wasting energy.

Close the fireplace. Make sure the damper is closed when not in use and install glass doors to prevent heat from being sucked up the chimney.

Close off unused rooms. Shut the door, put a towel across the bottom of the door and block off any cold air returns in the room. In rooms you use, don't block heating vents or return registers with furniture.

Close drapes and blinds at night. During the day open them to let the sun help heat your home.

Enroll in your gas company's budget plan. It doesn't save you money, but paying a similar amount all 12 months of the year eases the sting of winter bills. To sign up, pay the budget amount offered on your bill, or call your provider.

If you use fuel oil or propane, order deliveries in late summer and early fall when prices generally are lower and negotiate fuel delivery contracts for the entire season. Some heating oil companies no longer offer fixed-price deals because crude oil markets are too volatile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer the thing is the sniveling hasnt really been about the gas prices its been about the profit margin of the corporations.

Liberals would not mind gas actually being 99 cents as long as there was a $2 gas tax to keep inflated numbers.

I don't know if you ment to link the first sentence with the second, but if you were then you failed, and I don't even know why you put the word liberal in there, is Kilmer a liberal?

It isn't about liberals v. conservatives . It is about trying to get people to stop being so damn stupid and have more efficient lives. Oil and most types of fossil fuels are such an incredibly cheap energy source that people have taken it for granted and expect it to be the same price after demand has sky rocketed and the supply dwindling. Instead of cutting back on all the wasted energy people just clamor for increased production. 99 cents for a gallon of gas is not going to happen ever again, unless we can suddenly figure out how to make fusion work to our benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is calling Bull?? You?

The same person who would b!tch and moan about a $2.00 ATM fee from a bank yet would roll over like a whipped puppy when Democrats want to raise taxes 10%

Show me just ONE post where I even mention the premise that I want to raise tax 10% :doh: Maybe if you listened to what I have to say instead of assuming BS propaganda spoon fed to you by the RW media.

Oh, and what is the price of a gallon of Scope going for these days? And do not give me this baloney about commodities. Scope is scope, and gas is gas. $3.00 per gallon is a bargain IMO.

Maybe because you can afford a $50K car, you don't need to worry about the price of gas, but there others who DO have to worry about the cost of oil. What do you say to an elderly person who has to chose between heat, food or meds? Get a job? :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me just ONE post where I even mention the premise that I want to raise tax 10% :doh: Maybe if you listened to what I have to say instead of assuming BS propaganda spoon fed to you by the RW media.

Maybe because you can afford a $50K car, you don't need to worry about the price of gas, but there others who DO have to worry about the cost of oil. What do you say to an elderly person who has to chose between heat, food or meds? Get a job? :doh:

Oh, and you think $3.00 gas is the root of all evil?? Please, chrome. Would you be complaining if $3.00 gas was because of increased taxes? No? Then clam it and pay the price. Or move to Europe. Oh, gas is $5.00 over there.......... then just clamit. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not saying we can totally go without using oil.

Then oil is a necessity, like food and it does not follow standard supply and demand economics.

Im saying we CAN do enough to make the market forces move back in the consumers favor.

No you can't. Oil companies will ALWAYS have demand for their product because it is a necessity. You still have transportation of goods and services which require petrol, so even if you eliminate using it yourself, you still depend on it to get your other needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and you think $3.00 gas is the root of all evil?? Please, chrome. Would you be complaining if $3.00 gas was because of increased taxes? No? Then clam it and pay the price. Or move to Europe. Oh, gas is $5.00 over there.......... then just clamit. :mad:

No, I'm NOT saying that $3.00 gas is the root of all evil, I AM saying that oil companies are porking the American consumer, and Joe Taxpayer. They ARE price gouging the American consumer, and they are getting away with it because of the people in power are LETTING it happen. Don't for one second think big oil wouldn't like for anything better then to pork the AMerican public for everything they have, it is a business after all. And to further add insult to injury, you have an administration who RUNS big oil outside of politics.

What you are looking at is a fascist regime with big business running the government, and by that I mean they have one of their lackies in the White House. This IS the economic definition of fascism, busniess running the government. Do I need to show you how MUCH tax money has gone to big business? Do I need to show you how much money the oil companies have made during the past two years? Do I need to tell you how the sum total of well over $100Billion dollars is a hell of a lot of money?

No, you will still continue to blindly follow the pied piper right off the ship. The only problem is that this ship is MY country, and a man who has failed at almost every business endeavor he has ever touched is doing the same thing with our country. Meanwhile, every one of his buddies are making BILLIONS of dollars on the backs of Joe Taxpayer.

You don't have a problem with it, but I do. You can look the other way, but I can not. I would think and do the exact same thing if it was a democrat in power. That is one thing I learned from Bush, there are FAR FAR to many people in this country who put their ideology before the good of their country. I am damn proud that I am not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm NOT saying that $3.00 gas is the root of all evil, I AM saying that oil companies are porking the American consumer, and Joe Taxpayer. They ARE price gouging the American consumer, and they are getting away with it because of the people in power are LETTING it happen. Don't for one second think big oil wouldn't like for anything better then to pork the AMerican public for everything they have, it is a business after all. And to further add insult to injury, you have an administration who RUNS big oil outside of politics.

What you are looking at is a fascist regime with big business running the government, and by that I mean they have one of their lackies in the White House. This IS the economic definition of fascism, busniess running the government. Do I need to show you how MUCH tax money has gone to big business? Do I need to show you how much money the oil companies have made during the past two years? Do I need to tell you how the sum total of well over $100Billion dollars is a hell of a lot of money?

No, you will still continue to blindly follow the pied piper right off the ship. The only problem is that this ship is MY country, and a man who has failed at almost every business endeavor he has ever touched is doing the same thing with our country. Meanwhile, every one of his buddies are making BILLIONS of dollars on the backs of Joe Taxpayer.

You don't have a problem with it, but I do. You can look the other way, but I can not. I would think and do the exact same thing if it was a democrat in power. That is one thing I learned from Bush, there are FAR FAR to many people in this country who put their ideology before the good of their country. I am damn proud that I am not one of them.

They are making a profit, not porking the taxpayer. I am not going to read another word until you take the time to get look at the profitability of one of these companies over the past ten years. It is called economics. Learn it, love it. It is what makes this country great. SCOPE!!!!! $5.00 per gallon!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are making a profit, not porking the taxpayer.

If they are just "making a profit", they are making the largest profits ever seen. If they were just "making a profit" and not porking Joe Taxpayer, they would not be making more money then all but the top 13 countries in the world. So tell me, were you saying that California was just experiencing "energy problems" during the late 90's with Enron? You know, good ole' "Kenny Boy" :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are just "making a profit", they are making the largest profits ever seen. If they were just "making a profit" and not porking Joe Taxpayer, they would not be making more money then all but the top 13 countries in the world. So tell me, were you saying that California was just experiencing "energy problems" during the late 90's with Enron? You know, good ole' "Kenny Boy" :doh:

"Largest profits ever seen"...... Someone at CNN or NPR tell you that? How about showing me instead of just making this statement up out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then oil is a necessity, like food and it does not follow standard supply and demand economics.

No you can't. Oil companies will ALWAYS have demand for their product because it is a necessity. You still have transportation of goods and services which require petrol, so even if you eliminate using it yourself, you still depend on it to get your other needs.

Demand is not a simple yes or no equation chom. Lower demand is still demand, just not as much. The simple XY graph shows that lower demand equals lower prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is demand any higher? How would that account for an increase of profits by 34%?

Demand is up, when prices go up people flip and they fill up all the time, instead of waiting to when they need. Even though the prices are higher you still want to wait when you need to get gas, not just to beat the next days new price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...