Peak Oil

[welshred]

I was wondering what everyones views were on this topic.

[Psy]

I was wondering what everyones views were on this topic.
There is a peak rate of extraction of oil, you simply can't keep increasing the rate of extraction indefinitely. Yet peak oil is more a problem with capitalism, see when you hit this peak extraction rate for oil, oil will still be extracted you just can't extract it any faster which is bad when your in a system dependant on perpetual compounded growth like capitalism.

[jake williams]

There is a peak rate of extraction of oil, you simply can't keep increasing the rate of extraction indefinitely. Yet peak oil is more a problem with capitalism, see when you hit this peak extraction rate for oil, oil will still be extracted you just can't extract it any faster which is bad when your in a system dependant on perpetual compounded growth like capitalism.
Um, no, it's not really that. Peak oil implies a fall after the peak, after which, eventually, you can't extract much anymore at all. So basically we run out, so even if we don't try to "grow" anymore, we're still completely fucked.

[Psy]

Um, no, it's not really that. Peak oil implies a fall after the peak, after which, eventually, you can't extract much anymore at all. So basically we run out, so even if we don't try to "grow" anymore, we're still completely fucked.
But a gradual decline, so we won't run out just the rate of extraction will decline.

[Pawn Power]

I would recomend doing a search...there have been many threads here on this topic.

***

I don't think peak oil will cause any sort or catostrophic occurance or an end to civilization.

Yes, the oil will run out... but one of the other energy sources will be used. Probably ethonal, which, to be sure, is no better for the enviornement.

[Cult of Reason]

Well, corn-derived ethanol is largely dependent upon petroleum in order to be produced.

I am more in favour of cellulosic ethanol, second and third generation biofuels, all of which can (theoretically) be done without any petroleum products and with a negligable effect upon food production (making ethanol out of wheat-straw (and so using the entirety of the plant for once) or switchgrass, anyone?).

[ckaihatsu]

Well, corn-derived ethanol is largely dependent upon petroleum in order to be produced.

I am more in favour of cellulosic ethanol, second and third generation biofuels, all of which can (theoretically) be done without any petroleum products and with a negligable effect upon food production (making ethanol out of wheat-straw (and so using the entirety of the plant for once) or switchgrass, anyone?).


Absolutely -- plus the concept that fossil fuels (oil) come from fossils is a misnomer. See:


The Deep Hot Biosphere - by Thomas Gold, Ph.D. (2001)
Amazon.com Description of Thomas Gold's book [link above]:

Suppose someone claimed that we are NOT running out of petroleum. . . . Or that life on Earth began below the surface, in the dark airless pores of our planet's rocky crust. Or that oil and gas -- so-called "fossil fuels" -- are not the product of biological debris. You might expect to hear statements like these from an author of science fiction. But what if they come from a renowned scientist, someone who has been called "one of the world's most original minds"? In THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE, Thomas Gold sets forth truly controversial and astonishing theories: First, he proposes that Earth supports a subterranean organic domain of greater mass and volume than the biosphere -- the total sum of living things -- on its surface. Second, he proposes that the organisms inhabiting this Deep Hot Biosphere are not plants or animals but heat-loving bacteria that survive on a diet of hydrocarbons -- natural gas and petroleum. And third and perhaps most amazingly, he advances the stunning idea that most hydrocarbons on Earth are not "fossil fuels" but part of the primordial "stuff" from which Earth itself was formed some 4.5 billion years ago. The Deep Hot Biosphere may seem difficult to believe at first glance, but its theories are supported by a growing body of evidence, and by the indisputable stature and seriousness Thomas Gold brings to any scientific enterprise. In this book we see a brilliant and boldly original thinker, increasingly a rarity in modern science, as he develops revolutionary conclusions about the fundamental workings of our planet, the origins of life on Earth, the nature of earthquakes, and even the likelihood of life on -- or within -- other planets.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/


Chris



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, labourstart.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[jake williams]

Okay, to respond to everything, because I take this issue as sort of special...


But a gradual decline, so we won't run out just the rate of extraction will decline.
No, that's sort of an abstraction, and a misunderstanding, I think, of the original theory. What'll actually happen is that between supply shortages (due to Hubbert's theory more or less) and demand spikes, the price will completely spiral up (not necessarily instantly, but sharply and irreparably). Because of this though, it will be completely impossible to maintain a world economy on its basis. So (oversimplifying a bit), people will basically just stop using oil. Not voluntarily, mind you, but they will. The general point is that it's not going to look like the smooth side of a bell curve, and it's kind of irrelevant anyway.


About ethanol, ethanol's basically bullshit. A bit of it maybe, if it miraculously turns out to be carbon-neutral, but look - the two main ethanol centres just now are in Brazil and in the central US. Sugar and corn. In the first case you're destroying a huge carbon sink (ie. the rain forest, fuck the geckos, I'm a little more concerned with carbon just now) and in the second you're completely fucking with world food markets and creating very dangerous situations for millions of people.


On the issue of "catastrophe"... it's kind of a difficult question. At this point so much shit is swirling around (global warming, the weird situation in the States, other environmental issues, overpopulation, the general class of religious and ethnic things, nuclear weapons and terrorism and so on, broadly "technologically enabled death", and so on) that it's going to be a very strange next couple of decades. It already looks, however, like petroleum prices are getting messy and this is doing serious damage, again, already. Petroleum is finite and exploitable even less than its absolute quantity. It's also completely fundamental to everything in modern industrial societies, not just transportation but the whole enterprise of industrial farming. Basically you'd need a miracle cure. It's conceivable but you're not only insane but dangerous if you depend on that, and it's not altogether likely, especially not if it's expected that markets'll just do their thing and work it out.


And ckaihatsu is just a nut quoting from a "free energy" website so I'm not going to bother.



My view? We're probably basically fucked.

[MarxSchmarx]

About ethanol, ethanol's basically bullshit. A bit of it maybe, if it miraculously turns out to be carbon-neutral, but look - the two main ethanol centres just now are in Brazil and in the central US. Sugar and corn. In the first case you're destroying a huge carbon sink (ie. the rain forest, fuck the geckos, I'm a little more concerned with carbon just now) and in the second you're completely fucking with world food markets and creating very dangerous situations for millions of people.

You're right, ethanol based on food crops is a non-solution. However, right now they can make ethanol from bacteria, algae, wood chips, things that don't require massive infrastructure and can be made in places like Taiwan or Iceland. I am extremely optimistic that this technology will be able to solve the bulk of our petroleum problems.

Indeed, the days when we get our biofuel from sugar and maize are numbered.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/15/eabiofuel215.xml
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18476&a=

The neat thing about this stuff is that it can be distributed across existing oil pipelines, so the petroleum infrastructure need not be crushed.

Whether that means oil companies will let it thrive is a different question, but given the capitalist class's own interests in switching to cheaper reliable fuel I am quite optimistic about the solution to our energy shortages.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I heard recently that they're finding ways to make fuel out of pond scum. Yes, pond scum. Oil IS a limited resource; however, I'm pretty sure that the market will respond to whatever situation arises as a result of that fact. I hardly think that those who make their money off oil will just throw up their hands and say, "Well, we're fucked!".

The transition may very well be turbulent, but I'm not expecting a "Road Warrior" situation anytime soon.

[ckaihatsu]

Petroleum is finite and exploitable even less than its absolute quantity. It's also completely fundamental to everything in modern industrial societies, not just transportation but the whole enterprise of industrial farming. Basically you'd need a miracle cure. It's conceivable but you're not only insane but dangerous if you depend on that, and it's not altogether likely, especially not if it's expected that markets'll just do their thing and work it out.


And ckaihatsu is just a nut quoting from a "free energy" website so I'm not going to bother.



My view? We're probably basically fucked.


Well, jammoe, you're not much of a revolutionary if your grand conclusion is that "we're probably basically fucked." You might want to drop your political title down to 'primitivist' in that case.

If you can get past labels for a moment and focus on the *substance* of what's being discussed, I was merely pointing out that some critics don't accept that the supply of petroleum is finite.

If that's the case then the 'peak oil' supposition is false, and all of the current questions about 'civilization policy' -- if you will -- boil down to the politics of how much petroleum will be supplied, and how much labor (or exploitation of labor) the rest of us will put up with in pursuit of that energy.

Here's a news article to illustrate what I'm talking about:




OPEC says oil supply adequate

From Herald News Services

Published: Wednesday, April 16, 2008

OPEC is pumping enough oil and the U.S. economic slowdown may weaken consumption in the second quarter, the group said Tuesday, underscoring its reluctance to raise supply.

The comments, in OPEC's latest Monthly Oil Market Report, underline the group's view that factors beyond supply and demand are sending oil to all-time highs. Crude hit a record high of $113.66 US a barrel on Tuesday.

"The fundamental picture in the second quarter of 2008 appears to be in line with the typical seasonal pattern for this time of year," the report by economists at OPEC's Vienna headquarters said.

"Current OPEC production . . . will be sufficient to both meet demand growth and contribute to further stock builds."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Tuesday urged producers to act to counter high prices.

But the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries says factors such as the weakness of the U.S. dollar, speculative trading and political tension are lifting prices, not a lack of oil.


© The Calgary Herald 2008

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=00661802-da4b-4bf4-bfae-a600fddca7f9

[welshred]

Opec IMO cannot be relied upon. Their member countries oil reserves doubled overnight so they could sell more oil. Plus they arent going to admit that peak oil is real now are they? as long as they are making money now they dont give a shit about the future.

[ckaihatsu]

Opec IMO cannot be relied upon. Their member countries oil reserves doubled overnight so they could sell more oil. Plus they arent going to admit that peak oil is real now are they? as long as they are making money now they dont give a shit about the future.


I agree entirely -- I wouldn't look to OPEC as a progressive force for anything. They, along with other oil producers, are capitalists and are looking to sell their product for the best return they can get.

Even more to the point is that now, with the capitalist economy rapidly running out of markets for their tangible (and intangible) goods -- as indicated by the current atrophying of their financial superstructure -- the role of energy supplies with which to fuel society / civilization really comes to the fore.

In lieu of competitive alternative energy supplies the role of the (petroleum) energy suppliers becomes almost an independent variable of its own in the economy, orienting us in a Mad-Max-like direction, unless we, the international proletariat, take control ourselves.

We shouldn't fall victim to chastising ourselves by picturing ourselves as energy "junkies" either, especially not at the consumer level -- the point is to liberate the vast energy supplies for ourselves, not leave them in the hands of the energy capitalists.

[Comrade Rage]

But a gradual decline, so we won't run out just the rate of extraction will decline.
We will run out eventually. However, the gradual rate of decline will cause a sharp increase in oil prices due to the supply/demand pricing that capitalism relies on. These sharp prices are already causing problems in capitalism, and the price hikes have only begun.

When the last capitalist is hung, he will be hung with the rope he manufactured. That adage is proving true.


I don't think peak oil will cause any sort or catostrophic occurance or an end to civilization.

Yes, the oil will run out... but one of the other energy sources will be used. Probably ethonal, which, to be sure, is no better for the enviornement.Ethanol is a shitty fuel, IMO, and it's already causing sharp inflation in food prices around the world. The price of wheat has gone up since farmers are switching to corn, so expect to pay more for bread and pasta as well.

[Sentinel]

There is so much myths, pseudoscience and urban legends involved in the various Peak Oil theories, that we should perhaps start moving them into the Religion forum. I am only half kidding, redstar2000 used to call Peak Oil a 'secular rapture', and that's what most of it is: inane doomsday prophecies.

It's not like the world as we know it will end, should oil run out. It is important, but we have other means to generate energy and oil is being replaced by nuclear power and renewables as we speak. It's polluting crap anyway -- an antiquated method.

As soon as Fusion Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power) gets it's breakthrough these problems will be solved once and for all, mankind will have energy forever.


http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/7631/jointeuropeantorusinterrd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

'Internal view of the JET tokamak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak) superimposed with an image of a plasma taken with a visible spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum) video camera.'

[Sendo]

the problem with alternative fuels is that too many are looking for technological "miracles" and want to put green energy in their SUVs and Trailers rather than use busses and trains (humans and goods respectively). We either have to stomach incredibly high fuel prices and global warming disasters more often or bite the bullet and be better off in the long term by making US cities more like Portland, OR (apparently the most bike friendly city in the US). I'd love to rest assured that we'll "figure somthing out" but I'm quite doubtful and I'm looking for ways to cope in the immediate short term as I leave the educational bubble. Brace yourselves for $3.50-$5/gallon oil prices for the next year and a half (that's as far as I'll guess into the future).....unless we get revolution, but unfortunately Americans of late are much more hesitant to riot than our more progressive amigos to the south (ie the whole western hemisphere)

[Comrade-Z]

There is so much myths, pseudoscience and urban legends involved in the various Peak Oil theories, that we should perhaps start moving them into the Religion forum. I am only half kidding, redstar2000 used to call Peak Oil a 'secular rapture', and that's what most of it is: inane doomsday prophecies.

It's not like the world as we know it will end, should oil run out. It is important, but we have other means to generate energy and oil is being replaced by nuclear power and renewables as we speak. It's polluting crap anyway -- an antiquated method.

As soon as Fusion Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power) gets it's breakthrough these problems will be solved once and for all, mankind will have energy forever...

There are several strands of the peak oil debate that need to be distinguished:

1. The argument that oil is a resource that is produced in the Earth on geologic timescales and is being unsustainably extracted. This basically boils down to biotic vs. abiotic theories of the origin of oil. Assuming you concur that oil is of biotic origin and is created over very large timescales, it should be obvious that oil is, for the purposes of our civilization, a finite resource, and its rate of extraction will peak and decline at some point and in some manner. This part of the peak oil debate is not "secular rapture," it's just common sense.

2. Then there's the debate concerning how we should respond to this resource depletion. This is where things split off between three groups, in my opinion:
A. Cornucopians who have faith that "human ingenuity," "the market," or other abstract entities will come up with new things and solve our challenges for us without requiring any serious thought, introspection, or re-assessment of the foundations of our society.
B. Realists who see challenges ahead, who see the possibility for both success or failure, and thus see the need to buckle down and solve practical problems.
C. Doomers who have faith that human society is doomed to destroy itself and cast itself into a mad-max post-apocalyptic world.

Note: True realists would not rule out the possibility of a mad-max, post-apocalytic world if we make really bad choices in the next 100 years, but true realists aren't going to make wild speculations that that will indeed happen or rule out the possibility of any reasonable responses to our problems.

I would classify both A and C as "secular rapture." One ends in a glorious ascent to heaven, another in an awful descent into hell, but in both lines of thought there's no sense that the masses have any place in determining the outcome, that the future human history of energy usage is pre-determined, on auto-pilot. I think this is a dangerous assumption. Both are excuses for inaction and hesitancy to squarely face up to the challenges of oil depletion.

(Concerning fusion power: it is not yet a given that it will work. Until we have a commercial model up and running, we need to be very engaged with the politics of its funding, research, etc., because political winds could still blow this potential gold-mine of energy off-course, and we need to determine whether it will even work in the first place before we start putting our eggs in that basket...for instance, consider that the U.S. refused to fund its share of the ITER project this year...an ill omen....)

In my opinion, the internet hotspot for level-headed, scientific, peak oil realists right now is theoildrum.com. Check it out.

[Red Equation]

Capitalism is largely to blame, oil giants won't allow the economy to produce fuel efficient cars, when i say fuel efficient, I don't mean a dinky 50 mile per gallon car, I mean a 150-200 mile per gallon car. Seems crazy? That's what capitalists want you to think...

There are already a broad variety of solutions to solve this problem. Production of electric cars that run on batteries have already started to be created, and after a few years, will drop to the price of $15,000 USD (more or less due to inflation and recession...)

Ethanol is not the solution, it is.. if you plan on destroying the earth even faster.

If all else fails, we might be reduced to riding goofy looking solar paneled cars, but those will run, with oil or without.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oil is a finite resource, and sooner or later it's simply going to take more energy pulling it out of the ground than we get energy from using it. With the price of oil rising as it is, and the fact that the Russian oil fields have recently peaked, it's imperative that we need to start changing the way we use energy now, not later. This doesn't mean regressing to some primmie's wet dream, nor does it mean discouraging the developing world from progressing - it means we need to favour public transport over private, build more nuclear power plants, send freight by rail rather than road, make sure fusion research is well funded, and hundreds of other things that will make what oil we have last longer while we (that is to say, the world as a whole) make the transition to a world without fossil fuels.

The important thing to remember that we don't need to reduce our energy consumption at all, we simply need to consume it in a more rational and efficient way. In fact, were we to more sensibly use our available energy output, the quality of life for everyone on this planet would significantly increase, and using more energy in such a fashion would only improve matters.

[Bluetongue]

The Deep Hot Biosphere - by Thomas Gold, Ph.D. (2001)
Amazon.com Description of Thomas Gold's book [link above]:

I haven't read this book but find the hypothesis unlikely. If there were DNA floating around in oil, surely it would have been detected by now. Archean DNA is quite different from bacterial DNA - this would have been noticed. If there are thermophilic bacteria in the deep earth, would they not consume petroleum? Life requires energy and carbon - I can see consuming high energy hydrocarbons, but not producing them. If you know more, please fill me in. The idea is interesting.

[ckaihatsu]

There is so much myths, pseudoscience and urban legends involved in the various Peak Oil theories, that we should perhaps start moving them into the Religion forum. I am only half kidding, redstar2000 used to call Peak Oil a 'secular rapture', and that's what most of it is: inane doomsday prophecies.

It's not like the world as we know it will end, should oil run out. It is important, but we have other means to generate energy and oil is being replaced by nuclear power and renewables as we speak. It's polluting crap anyway -- an antiquated method.

As soon as Fusion Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power) gets it's breakthrough these problems will be solved once and for all, mankind will have energy forever.


Sentinel, thanks for clearing this up -- I recall that recent explorations of Titan, one of Saturn's moons, have indicated that hydrocarbons are produced from methane -- not necessarily from decayed, previously living, matter.

And, as much as I'm pleased to see new, non-hydrocarbon-based possibilities for the creation of energy supplies, I would still have to ask who the ownership would be and what the capacity and cost might be.

Would one of these generators be sufficient for the energy needs of the entire world's population? Or would several be needed, and where would they then be built? The politics of imperialism could easily just transfer over to target the countries that were producing fusion-generated power, in the way that Iran's nascent energy self-sufficiency has been targeted by the U.S.'s neoconservatives for several years now.

On a more optimistic note I could see the possibility of energy becoming as freely available as open-source software is today, with a minimal infrastructure needed to produce a super-abundance of supply for everyone's basic needs, without returns on investments even needed.

I certainly hope it will be the latter scenario, but of course we would have to see these arrangements formalized and widely understood for an open-resource energy supply to be a permanent reality. I think the mass availability of information in the current age, due to the Internet, creates a stability of mass consciousness that may have been unrealizable before the existence of the Internet. This Internet-mediated awareness / consciousness could go a long way in creating a mass politics that would welcome and nurture mass energy solutions, even to the point of circumventing the profit motive altogether.



I would classify both A and C as "secular rapture." One ends in a glorious ascent to heaven, another in an awful descent into hell, but in both lines of thought there's no sense that the masses have any place in determining the outcome, that the future human history of energy usage is pre-determined, on auto-pilot. I think this is a dangerous assumption. Both are excuses for inaction and hesitancy to squarely face up to the challenges of oil depletion.


Comrade-Z, I like the taxonomy you've supplied -- I am a fan of good taxonomies -- but I think you're relying too much on linearity and you're overlooking that many developments come about through *emergence*. Evolution, for example, is a rational, describable, manipulable process, but even with all that at our command we're not necessarily able to make *predictions* within the realm of biological evolution the way we could do so easily within the realm of physics, for example. There are so many variables interacting within the process of evolution that it can be correctly termed *complex* -- there are too many factors to take into account to be able to map out a simple linear trajectory for its future unfolding, especially along longer spans of time.

I bring all this up to say that perhaps Marx had it right in saying that the victory of the proletariat *is* automatic, which would include full energy liberation as well. Perhaps his calculations foresaw stages of emergence which would only assist the proletariat in finally overcoming the predations of the capitalist class, The events of the 20th century have certainly been -- shall we euphemistically say *dramatic* -- on the road to the liberation of humanity, but I would like to think that the end of oppression is near.

The ability to home-brew personal energy supplies as easily as one home-brews beer would go a long way in empowering the proletariat for the final battle -- perhaps Sentinel is pointing us in the right direction after all....

[jake williams]

Oil is a finite resource, and sooner or later it's simply going to take more energy pulling it out of the ground than we get energy from using it. With the price of oil rising as it is, and the fact that the Russian oil fields have recently peaked, it's imperative that we need to start changing the way we use energy now, not later. This doesn't mean regressing to some primmie's wet dream, nor does it mean discouraging the developing world from progressing - it means we need to favour public transport over private, build more nuclear power plants, send freight by rail rather than road, make sure fusion research is well funded, and hundreds of other things that will make what oil we have last longer while we (that is to say, the world as a whole) make the transition to a world without fossil fuels.
Approximately sort of agreed. A few sort of general, objections or questions or something come to mind. For one there's a differentiation between technological infrastructure and social infrastructure, what we can do technically versus what we can do politically. The former needs way more work but it's sort of on the borderline of possibility, whereas the latter is hard to be hopeful about.

Also there's the issue of non-energy uses of hydrocarbons - plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and the chemical industry generally. A lot of these could be solved by technological innovation, but remember that this means more industry and more energy consumption. I don't know how much, and it may work out to be trivial, I don't have the numbers, but it's worth considering.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree entirely -- I wouldn't look to OPEC as a progressive force for anything. They, along with other oil producers, are capitalists and are looking to sell their product for the best return they can get.


Hey, all, gotta update this particular part, above -- I forgot history, just for a moment, till I was reminded by the following rundown on the '70s energy crisis. It makes a poignant point about the major Anglo oil companies circling the wagons when faced with a political challenge to their Zionism, played out through oil economics:




Relief for high gas prices lies in high gas prices.

The big news in the 1970s wasn't that gasoline prices were high. They were. The big news was that gasoline wasn't available at any price. And we all sat in long lines at gasoline stations instead of working or shopping or being with our families. The entire episode tanked the economy.

Ask just about anyone from that era what happened and they'll tell you that gasoline lines were the result of the Arab Oil Embargo.

They would be wrong.

Economically speaking, the Arab Oil Embargo was a non-event. They didn't "embargo" the United States. What OPEC did was vow to reduce oil production by five percent each month until the U.S. withdrew its support for the State of Israel. The fact was then and is now that the market for oil is worldwide. Once the product is loaded on a tanker, the producer has no control on where the tanker goes. The impact of the 1973 OPEC production cuts on world markets was trivial.

Gasoline came to be in short supply because of wage and price controls imposed under the Nixon administration in 1971, the effect of which prevented oil companies from passing on the full cost of imported crude oil to consumers at the pump. In the face of increasing world oil prices, so-called "Big Oil" acted rationally: It cut back on imports and stopped selling oil to independent service stations to keep its own franchisees supplied.

Posted May 6, 2008 08:38 AM PST

http://whatreallyhappened.com/



Also please note this blatant politicking around the issue of oil:




May 05, 2008
Categories: Hillary Clinton

Clinton: OPEC 'can no longer be a cartel'

Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

Clinton has cast herself as a warrior for working people against the oil industry and malicious "speculators," and made that -- along with her push for a gas tax holiday -- central to her closing message in Indiana.

It's a potent message, like the attack on "Wall Street money brokers," with deep roots in American politics. It' It's also very hard to figure out what exactly she means by the threat to break OPEC.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign points out that Clinton has not signed on to cosponsor a bill that aspires "to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal."

UPDATE: Clinton's campaign says she voted a version of the bill in 2007 and has long favored filing a WTO complaint against OPEC.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_OPEC_can_no_longer_be_a_cartel.html



Chris




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u