If you note this link (also above), Paul Roberts, author of The End of Oil explains "why forging a sustainable energy future is dependent on foreign oil." In the process, he pretty much advocates conservative changes to U.S. energy policy. The point that getting a sustainable energy system up and running isn't easy is well-taken, but some of the other stuff is so defeatest and apologetic, and his pessimism about the state of renewable energy is so baldly biased, it turns the stomach. For example, WHY does he not focus on the pathetic amounts of tax dollars going toward solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal sources? His commentary about the futility of corn-based ethanol is certainly appreciated, however. The best part of the article is actually the user commentary, in which the people who reply talk about what they ARE doing, and how we CAN do this.

It seems like its a bit of a concerted effort, as I just came across this article in CNN money as well, about how the internal combustion engine is "here to stay." I do hope and doubt that Roberts is not associated with the folks at CNN-Money, because this piece is nothing short of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). He says "Experts say we better get used to pumping gas..." and then goes on to offer a short quote from an executive director from General Motors. Those who are up to asking questions about what's going on know that this is all about keeping the consumer base hooked up to a system where they need to come back repeatedly to a centralized pump so they can keep people dependent, instead of just being able to generate their own power and be independent, or better, interdependent, with some give-and-take.

So annoying... The pessimist theorist within me is wondering if there's a deliberate media push on this issue.


chant/prayer/mantra: time to work together, but under who's terms?


pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel