Iraq

[Edric O]

And so, it begins...

[Edric O]

...we are one step closer to the end of democracy...

[DjCiD]

guys if Armageddon starts it's been nice knowing you...

[nemafakei]

If armageddon starts, the four horsemen will need visas.

[Edric O]

Mark my words: 30 years from today, 10th October 2002, there will be no more democracy in the United States of America.

In 2032, I will remember what I have said here today.

[quoudam72]

If armageddon starts, the four horsemen will need visas.

Not only that they will be considered terrorist.

[zamboe]

OPEC does not have the same power like they had before in the world oil market. Although OPEC still controls more than half of the world's crude oil exports, the world league of top-10 oil producers now contains just three OPEC members. With memebeship like that shoring up prices by cutting production can be undermined by non members (Russia, Norway and Mexico).

The following are OPEC members:

Saudi Arabia

Iraq

UAE

Kuwait

Iran

Qatar (the location of Ordos45) ;)

Africa

Nigeria

Libya

Algeria

Asia-Pacific

Indonesia

South America

Venezuela

There is something wrong. South America is not a country is part of a continent, and the only oil producer country that participates in OPEC is Venezuela, the other countries (in South America) that export oil non-members are Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia and Brasil, anyway their level of exportations is not relevant since most of their production is sold inside their countries. (I am not sure about Colombia being a member, i might check it later, however it's levels of production are not relevant)

[quoudam72]

I could see how that is a little confusing what I did was list South America as the region/continent and then underneth put Venezuela as I did the same with Asia-Pacific and then listed Indonesia underneth. I have corrected it to make it better understood in how I categorized the information.

[Acriku]

Edric, stop being so pessimistic, the fall of democracy may bring upon the rise of a new, better system that surpasses all. It can have some good in it.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

I hope so Acriku, the system today in Europe and in some other countries is really messed up.

Edric O and his funny comments. ;D

[SurlyPIG]

I say firmly that in the World (includes US) the whole oil business is totally unregulated. You obviously don't know what regulation means. The existance of laws doens't mean that markets are regulated. And btw basic economics are not enough to understand the situation you need more much more than the first chapter of any economy book (supply and demand) to get it.

Like emp said, you need to post your definition of regulated. By regulated I do not mean controlled as many utilities are. By regulated, I mean that there is some level of supervision to assure that a total monopoly doesn't develop. A total monopoly is like what Jon D. Rockafeller had in the early 1900s with his oil trust. He owned literally all of the oil drills/pumps and many of the refineries. He could quite literally charge whatever he wanted. Anti-trust laws were formed to prevent total monopolies from occurring. I agree that there is not enough regulation in the oil market, but make no mistake there is some.

Where did I say "Get some education on these countries"? You are making that up.

Continue with your insulting indirects, it talk by itself about you.

It just proves that you are not ready for respectfull debate, where people will never make personal atacks or so, in a good debate you will never see that.

Here:

Well, perhaps you don't realize exactly how the situation in the whole middle East is, try to get the big picture.

And here:

It's impossible to understand Iraq's situation without considering Israel, Palestina, Saudit Arabia and Kuwait (to mention the most related) situation.

The Kioto protocol is not a one page list of intentions. It's formed by several chapters that were discussed for years, and those chapters after the approval of the administration should be present to their local congress for the total approval.

THE MAIN chapter of that protocol (Kioto) is about commitment to reduce emissions in periods of 5 years (in a whole of 25 years) each reduction is based on actual emission of each country (it considers that branches of international companies are considered local in terms of accounting emissions if those are in other countries than their H.Q.) and also the principles for economic transaccion of emissions for those countries who don't use all his emission rights. Well, that's the heart of Kioto protocol and the US is the only one that has not signed it. In the other chapters US has signed some of them.

No matter how many chapters and nick-nacks they add to the protocol, it still won't work for one simple reason: Third-world nations do not have to ratify it. All that will happen is economic success from emmission-related industries will be limited to international wings of western businesses. Basically, it'll mean the money comes from the developing nations instead of being local to western society.

Then the GREAT OZONO WHOLE IN THE SOUTHERN POLE IS JUST A JOKE. The increment in skin cancer that afects people ? What kind of prove are you looking for ?

You need to check your science. I am talking about global warming, which is caused by greenhouse gases, the two most common being carbon dioxide and methane. You are referring to a completely unrelated phenomenon called ozone depletion. Ozone depletion is caused by CFCs such as in aerosol cans. Refer to this:

"ODS (ozone-depleting substances) include CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. ODS are generally very stable in the troposphere and only degrade under intense ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. When they break down, they release chlorine or bromine atoms, which then deplete ozone. A detailed list of class I and class II substances with their ODPs, GWPs, and CAS numbers are available."

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/defns.html

The fact that you were not able to discern between two completely different pollution-related environmental phenomenon makes me wonder if you really know what you're talking about on this matter. Clearly, your understanding of the iol industry and economics is more than basic, though you should check a few of your definitions, but you REALLY need to check the basic science behind this issue.

At the present time with the GDP of the world growing at 1.2%, the proved reserves of oil would last about 112 years more.

But wait, if the world economy recovers, I mean Japan comes back to old years, US gets back and Europe speeds up a bit more, for every 0.1% of increment in the GDP then the oil would last about 0.4 years less. (That's called crossed elasticity), at the good times economy would grow about 4.5 %, then you do the math and sourprise how much oil we have left.

Good news are that prospection and exploration continues in new territories, such as Eastern Russia and South America, maybe Alaska too, so potencial new reserves might be discovered.

Agreed. However, I do not believe additional sources of oil is going to help industry. I think the best thing for the world economy would be the invention or perfection of a highly-efficient way to split the molecules of water to retrieve clean-burning hydrogen. Hydrogen is ridiculasly efficient. Adding 5% hydrogen to gasoline would make it 45% more efficient in modern automobiles. That's a nine-fold return! However, I belive hydrogen is best used in electric fuel cells.

There are so many reactants in fossil fuel that it's no wonder the world is up in arms about the effects the pollutants are causing. But until that is invented, electricity from natural sources (hydroelectric, solar, wind) would be ideal. Also, currently, the best solar pannels science can make are only able to harness less than 1% of the enery provided by the sun. If they could be made more efficient, our energy problems would almost vanish.

Agree in that, just to add that one of the main interests of Bush is the oil in Iraq, besides other interests. Terror ? Iraq of course is a potencial source of destruction and terror at a major scale.

If you wish to make that speculation, so be it, but don't forget that it's only speculation. In theory, nobody knows what Bush's REAL reasons are except Bush himself, but even I, who thinks he's an imbicile, believe him at least partially.

Well to finish, for emprworm, I might go the easy way and say it your way "emprworm : dont be brainwashed by the PR of the white house, think your self, dont believe your LOCAL media", but let me tell you something that's not the way to continue a constructive and educated debate. Besides yesterday, I watched CNN, just because i was courious (because simply i dont watch that channel), a program called "American Edition","Money Line" and live reports from the debate that is currently in progress in US Congress, well now that I see that at all levels in the US there is no consensus about what Bush want to say and what reasons he is giving. Makes me think I am not wrong.

You are correct - there IS support for the war on Iraq at all levels of government. Besides the predictable Republican reaction, the anti-war anti-oilish Democrat party, on average, support the war. Even some socialist interest groups support the war. You know why? Not oil, most could care less about oil. They saw what happened after the war in Afganistan, and they want that for the Iraqi people. Despite popular opinion, almost all Americans care about the best interest of the rest of the world. That is why anti-war interest groups protest that the cost of Iraqi live will be very high. It's a valid fact, but in the opinion of the American governmant, AND it's people, that is a terrible but just cost for removing Hussaine from government.

[emprworm]

I concur. I have nothing to add to what Ace said. My response to Zamboe is simply a cut-and-paste, so I'll spare the actual cutting and pasting. :)

[zamboe]

No matter how many chapters and nick-nacks they add to the protocol, it still won't work for one simple reason: Third-world nations do not have to ratify it. All that will happen is economic success from emmission-related industries will be limited to international wings of western businesses. Basically, it'll mean the money comes from the developing nations instead of being local to western society.

Well that's your personal opinion, that even if I don't like it I respect it. Besides the Third-world nations do have a part in it. Since the part of Kioto protocol concerning about emission right transferences, since 3rd world countries and countries in development that uses less emissions than it's right can sell those rights to other countries, and for that part THEY NEED TO RATIFY IT. Since it requieres a common commitment so total emissions will be less or equal than the forecast for every year.

You need to check your science. I am talking about global warming, which is caused by greenhouse gases, the two most common being carbon dioxide and methane. You are referring to a completely unrelated phenomenon called ozone depletion. Ozone depletion is caused by CFCs such as in aerosol cans.

The fact that you were not able to discern between two completely different pollution-related environmental phenomenon makes me wonder if you really know what you're talking about on this matter. Clearly, your understanding of the iol industry and economics is more than basic, though you should check a few of your definitions, but you REALLY need to check the basic science behind this issue.

First, in polution and regenerations of all gases and precursors it all works in a virtous/vicious circle, so there is no aislated/individual phenomenon, C02 and CH4 does come from the same source of precursors as the ozono, so what you are saying is simple incorrect.Period.

About your afirmation that there is no evidence of glabal warming, there is plenty of evidence, ni

[emprworm]

zamboe, I'm going to butt in now. Global warming may indeed exist. But the CAUSE for global warming is totally unproven- in fact the cause is more likely to be natural than manmade. Most scientists believe this earth was once under a vast ice age. What was it that melted the ice? GLOBAL WARMING

And I doubt there were any pollutants back then.

If the earth is getting warmer, there is nothing we can do about it. And vice-versa, if its gonna go back into an ice age, we are helpless to stop it.

If you want to help the environment, tell those guerillas in brazil to stop chopping down the Amazon forest. That is what causes massive global warming too. Ok?

plain simple truth: the Kioto protocol needs more evidence to back its claims, and it needs ratification by its participants or its meaningless.

And finally, since you ignored this, I will requote it:

Kyoto Protocol targets: Emission limitations and reduction requirements

Country Kyoto Target

(percentage change from 1990 emissions)

Australia +8

Bulgaria -8

Canada -6

Croatia -5

Czech Republic -8

Estonia -8

European Union (15) -8

Hungary -6

Iceland +10

Japan -6

Latvia -8

Liechtenstein -8

Lithuania -8

Monaco -8

New Zealand 0

Norway +1

Poland -6

Romania -8

Russian Federation 0

Slovakia -8

Slovenia -8

Switzerland -8

Ukraine 0

United States -7

Source: Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 3, Annex B (U.N., New York, 1997). Available online at: http://www.unfccc.de//font>

The US is doing JUST FINE without the stupid protocol. We lowered our emissions as much as anyone else, even better than many who signed the protocol. THe US lowers its emissions better than many who sign protocol, and the US does not need the protocol to do it.

[SurlyPIG]

Well that's your personal opinion, that even if I don't like it I respect it. Besides the Third-world nations do have a part in it. Since the part of Kioto protocol concerning about emission right transferences, since 3rd world countries and countries in development that uses less emissions than it's right can sell those rights to other countries, and for that part THEY NEED TO RATIFY IT. Since it requieres a common commitment so total emissions will be less or equal than the forecast for every year.

Ah, but you see that's only if those third world nations voluntarily ratify the accord. Now, why would a developing country purposely miss out on a major cash cow of foreign business entering their nation? Another problem is that some nations would take advantage of it. You cannot enforce a treaty.

First, in polution and regenerations of all gases and precursors it all works in a virtous/vicious circle, so there is no aislated/individual phenomenon, C02 and CH4 does come from the same source of precursors as the ozono, so what you are saying is simple incorrect.Period.

About your afirmation that there is no evidence of glabal warming, there is plenty of evidence, ni

[zamboe]

zamboe, I'm going to butt in now. Global warming may indeed exist. But the CAUSE for global warming is totally unproven- in fact the cause is more likely to be natural than manmade. Most scientists believe this earth was once under a vast ice age. What was it that melted the ice? GLOBAL WARMING

And I doubt there were any pollutants back then.

If the earth is getting warmer, there is nothing we can do about it. And vice-versa, if its gonna go back into an ice age, we are helpless to stop it.

If you want to help the environment, tell those guerillas in brazil to stop chopping down the Amazon forest. That is what causes massive global warming too. Ok?

plain simple truth: the Kioto protocol needs more evidence to back its claims, and it needs ratification by its participants or its meaningless.

And finally, since you ignored this, I will requote it:

Kyoto Protocol targets: Emission limitations and reduction requirements

Country Kyoto Target

(percentage change from 1990 emissions)

Australia +8

Bulgaria -8

Canada -6

Croatia -5

Czech Republic -8

Estonia -8

European Union (15) -8

Hungary -6

Iceland +10

Japan -6

Latvia -8

Liechtenstein -8

Lithuania -8

Monaco -8

New Zealand 0

Norway +1

Poland -6

Romania -8

Russian Federation 0

Slovakia -8

Slovenia -8

Switzerland -8

Ukraine 0

United States -7

Source: Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 3, Annex B (U.N., New York, 1997). Available online at: http://www.unfccc.de//font>

The US is doing JUST FINE without the stupid protocol. We lowered our emissions as much as anyone else, even better than many who signed the protocol. THe US lowers its emissions better than many who sign protocol, and the US does not need the protocol to do it.

About the global warming.

It exists, I think at this point we all agree on that.

However, and I concur, that the main causes are not clearly and empirically diferenciated yet. But at least the science knows what with a very high posibility is the menkind that is causing the global warming, the earth pollution and the reduction of the forests, of course there are several other sources of damage.

By saving the amazon forest is one step, not nearly enough, but one. And I agree that the amazon area, should be kept intact, and the countries that owns those territories should be compensated as well.

Btw, the only country where are non regular military forces is in Colombia (which owns a part of the amazon forest) but there is not such activity in Brasil.

I didn't ignore (the data about the reduction in emissions) but those reduction were not directly related by the kioto protocol agreements, those as I understand were (in the US situation) were made just as a part of the Clinton's administration program, it would have been done anyway. The Kioto protocol goes even further, because it's a nations commitment, and therefore with much more value than a party program proposal, besides it's know the difference between the republicans and democrats when it's about enviroment issues.

Last but not least, the only way the kioto protocol would be a success is if EVERY one do it's part, since we live in the same planet, there is no such things as I do and I dont care if you do or not, we all must understant that this will affect the live in the entire planet, and all the countries that do reduce their emission have the obligation to ask and force others to do so.

How come are we talking about amazon forest, if we were debating about Iraq's oil ? :O

[zamboe]

I find it odd that you say CO2 and this CH4 substance I've never heard of and can't seem to find on the net contribute to ozone depletion. I find it even more odd that you don't post a link of your own to back it up. Look back to the paragraph I quoted, or go see the site yourself. It provides a complete scientific lists of ODSs (ozone depleting substances). Now, I can't be certain the list is complete but the site looked pretty official and credible to me. I suspect you will probably ignore this as there is now no way you can prove that CO2 and this apparent CH4 break down the stratosphere. And yes, the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion are caused by different pollutants, have different consequences and are therefore different phenomenons. I assume you ARE in fact referring to the "hole" in the ozone that's bubbling around Antarctica near New Zealand. Are you referring to something else?

Hehe I meant HUMAN-CAUSED global warming. The Earth warms and cools in cyclic fashions, it's nothing we've done. We are still coming out of the ice-age of 10,000 years ago. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the Earth is in a warming trend right now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the warming is caused by the sun. I read this in an article...I wish I could post a link now but it'll have to wait. This warming period MAY be accelerated and capped off by the greenhouse effect theory. Unfortuneately, there is absolutely no way to tell.

CH4 = methan, I just recalled your own post, you mentioned it "methans".

Besides, CH4 in reaction with non regulated amounts of air in a combustion process can generate dangerous amounts of NOx, which in the bottom line are precursors too.

Human-Caused global warming, well, there is a global warming, but the efect of 2000+ years of the man living in earth has some efects, what I can't tell is how much it affected, but it afected, no doubt about it.

LOL, turbines in cars? ??? What kind of ride are you driving man? ;D I agree, natural gas is a much more efficient and environmentally-friendly substance than oil. I think it'll help make the transition from oil to hydrogen easier on the fossil fuel industry.

Hydrogen is NOT unlimited. It is in extremely short supply, so much that it isn't even used. The only way we can get it is to split the molecules of water, because underground entrapments are rare and as soon as it enters the atmosphere it rises right out up to the stratosphere (after all it is the lightest substance) You may have a fuel cell drill but not all fuel cells are hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is extremely reactive, which makes it a damn good battery. I don't know about stability when stored, but that isn't even an issue since it would either be in the form of a hydrogen fuel cell or as a mixture in gasoline.

Yes, gas turbines in Cars, since the 80's, first good engine made by Mercedes Benz, as I read in the Car Enciclopedia. Much more efficent that a regular combustion-piston-cilinder engine adapted to work with natural gas either, but much more inconvenient for the speed regulation.

??? I never said a word about you as a person! I compared one characteristic of your debate style to Nav's, nothing more. I think you're being a wee bit too sensitive about this, but hey if you want me to tone it down thats ok with me. I can be more boring and less passionate if required.

Compare anyone in this board with Nav is something not good. Besides it's not the first time you do it, I remeber in other post you wrote something else too, i've even sent you an IM about it. Ok. So if you think i am like Nav, ok go ahead. I don't care. I won't tell you what I think about your style, and btw being passionate in a debate doens't mean having bad manners.

[emprworm]

i agree that nations which show a tract record of being unable to reduce emissions should sign the agreement. Nations like the US, which show a steady track record of reducing emissions have no need for the agreement. Our track record proves empirically that agreement is not necessary.

And yes, i think a modest amount of world-wide sponsored compensation is a good idea for south american countries that protect the amazon forest as well as other scientifically important land areas on the earth.

But Kyoto? Bah! not necessary. Its a big sham anyway. I would not jugde any nation based upon whather or not they sign the kyoto agreement. Right now, at this moment, it means nothing. Most who sign it havent even ratified it. Its just worthless piece of paper. The US already has good reduction in place. This goes for the United States: Dont try to fix what isnt broken.

[SurlyPIG]

CH4 = methan, I just recalled your own post, you mentioned it "methans".

Besides, CH4 in reaction with non regulated amounts of air in a combustion process can generate dangerous amounts of NOx, which in the bottom line are precursors too.

Human-Caused global warming, well, there is a global warming, but the efect of 2000+ years of the man living in earth has some efects, what I can't tell is how much it affected, but it afected, no doubt about it.

Ah methane, how silly of me. I never referred to methane as an ODS. It is one of the apparent greenhouse gases and, in theory, traps the infrared radiation "bouncing" off the Earth's surface much more than carbon dioxide. Perhaps you are getting confused with methyl bromide and methyl chloroform, which are ODSs. They may share a similar name but just as water differs from hydrogen and oxygen their properties are completely different.

About man-made global warming...our climactic science has been deployed on a global scale for a very, very short period of time in OUR history. Mankind's total existence on Earth is a miniscule fraction of Earth's history. We know little if not nothing about the overal climate trends in history, we can only see what our modern instruments tell us. If our modern instruments happen to observe the Earth during the warming part of it's climactic see-saw, then we'll get paraniod about global warming caused by greenhouse gases. If our modern instruments observed the Earth during the cooling portion of its climactic see-saw, then we'll get paraniod about global cooling and scientists would find or make up a theory to somehow relate it do what we've done. Sometimes I believe we, as humans, think too much of ourselves...

Yes, gas turbines in Cars, since the 80's, first good engine made by Mercedes Benz, as I read in the Car Enciclopedia. Much more efficent that a regular combustion-piston-cilinder engine adapted to work with natural gas either, but much more inconvenient for the speed regulation.

Hehe I guess my mechanics class hasn't covered that one yet.

Compare anyone in this board with Nav is something not good. Besides it's not the first time you do it, I remeber in other post you wrote something else too, i've even sent you an IM about it. Ok. So if you think i am like Nav, ok go ahead. I don't care. I won't tell you what I think about your style, and btw being passionate in a debate doens't mean having bad manners.

Like I said, I compared 1 characteristic not the whole person. Didn't you recieve the IM I sent you back? I explaied what I meant in it. If you still don't understand what I meant, IM and I'll explain in more detail.

[Acriku]

News is that the hole in the ozone layer is getting smaller and has already shrunk a considerable amount, separating into two even smaller holes and different shapes. Good news eh?

[Inoculator9]

Definitely good news, but it's just going to be an excuse to loosen pollution regulations.

[Acriku]

Of course not, but it sure does quiet the extreme protesters a bit.

[zamboe]

[quote author=Acriku

[Inoculator9]

I don't think we should get used to it.

[SurlyPIG]

[quote author=Acriku