Sign the petition to outlaw OPEC

[goga12]

America defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The result? $70+ oil.The U.S. law prohibits price-fixing. OPEC manipulated the oil price, driving it to 50 times above the cost oil extraction cost. Oil is more profitable than heroin.The OPEC members use oil proceeds to fund religious fundamentalists who incite against America.We prosecute foreign drug cartels which violate the U.S. law without entering the country. We can similarly do away with the OPECStop the oil racket! Sign the petition to outlaw OPEC at www.petitiononline.com/opec Another public initiative by www.SamsonBlinded.info. Google banned the site’s advertising and Amazon deleted all reviews

[Godless Dave]

It's their oil. They have a right to sell it for whatever price they want. If we don't like it we can buy it somewhere else.

[Dingfod]

Besides, they're pretty much producing at capacity, production has peaked in Saudi Arabia and most other OPEC countries. Less supply, more demand means higher prices, it's basic free-market economics.

[livius drusus]

Online petitions are notoriously ineffective means of activism.

[Kevlar]

I want to sign a petition to ban online petitions.

[LadyShea]

Ditto both Godless Dave and livius drusus.

[Stormlight]

Outlaw OPEC? What the hell does that even mean?

[TomJoe]

Since the technology exists to transform current gasoline running vehicles into biofuel users (at least E85) I suggest that the government give tax incentives to people to seek those conversions (which only cost a couple of hundred dollars). Ethanol fuels (which can be made from corn, sugar and a new cellulose biomass process) are readily generated in the United States. That eliminates our reliance on foreign oil.

[California Tanker]

I'm curious as to just how it would be enforced...

Or if that means that people can petition to ban NATO, NAFTA, EU, ASEAN or any other multinational group they don't like...

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

Dontcha know?

All those OPECers will see how distressed we are and voluntarily disband.

It only makes sense, no?

[Dingfod]

Oh, they'd just reorganize into another organization, maybe something like Producers Of Oil, Petroleum Distillates, and Energy Cooperating Kinetically, POOPDECK for short.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by goga12

America defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The result? $70+ oil.

No, what is causing $70 oil is Chinese demand and Iraqi wars.

ObPeeve: spammers.

[Shake]

Originally Posted by goga12

America defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The result? $70+ oil.

The latter is not a result of the former. See Sauron's (and others) posts above.

Personally, I blame the production and glorification of the Hummer (H1, H2, and H3s). I find it really hard to believe that anyone needs such a vehicle (military aside). Americans are too obsessed with having our own vehicles and not willing to put the effort into building effective mass transit systems.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Shake

Americans are too obsessed with having our own vehicles and not willing to put the effort into building effective mass transit systems.

I've always wondered about that, and have concluded that it's just not practicable because of the lack of population density. I've found the mass transit systems of the cities to be generally quite good, New York City particularly comes to mind, though other cities like San Francisco and Washington DC I've found to be quite navigable without a car as well. (If not recommended, due to lack of parking).

The problem occurs when you get out to the less central suburbs, where there is room for nice spacious shopping strips, houses not on top of each other, and so on, or worse, when you get to the countryside. Unlike somewhere like Ireland or Switzerland where a single bus stop is within a reasonable walking distance of a large number of people and/or destinations, the amount of routes and stops required in America would be prohibitive: They would presumably increase at a 'squared' function compared to a decrease in density. The story of the American passenger rail network is pretty much a case in point. These days the only profitable parts of the passenger network are those where there are high population densities: The NorthEast Corridor and the California Corridor. As it is, Amtrak is repeatedly on the verge of extinction because of the costs incurred in keeping even a vestigal nationwide route, let alone creating a network capable enough that it would provide a rational alternative to cars.

NTM

[ChuckF]

One of the comments.

I would like to see the US leave OPEC and create North American Oil organizion that Sells oil to all 3 north american countries.

[beyelzu]

i agree with california tanker but i would add as someone who lives in metro atlanta that some of the problem is the cognitive dissonance of the voting public who want to insist that mass transit be financially self sufficient while having no problem with paying huge dollars to build more roads. Marta (metropolitan atlanta rapid transit authority) being a great example of this.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

One of the comments.

Don't laugh, I'm meeting people for beers about an hour from now that have this exact mindset regarding the oil industry. One of them even claims to be an engineer that has worked in the energy industry. Right, dude, riiiiight.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I've always wondered about that, and have concluded that it's just not practicable because of the lack of population density. I've found the mass transit systems of the cities to be generally quite good, New York City particularly comes to mind, though other cities like San Francisco and Washington DC I've found to be quite navigable without a car as well. (If not recommended, due to lack of parking).

The problem occurs when you get out to the less central suburbs, where there is room for nice spacious shopping strips, houses not on top of each other, and so on, or worse, when you get to the countryside. Unlike somewhere like Ireland or Switzerland where a single bus stop is within a reasonable walking distance of a large number of people and/or destinations, the amount of routes and stops required in America would be prohibitive: They would presumably increase at a 'squared' function compared to a decrease in density. The story of the American passenger rail network is pretty much a case in point. These days the only profitable parts of the passenger network are those where there are high population densities: The NorthEast Corridor and the California Corridor. As it is, Amtrak is repeatedly on the verge of extinction because of the costs incurred in keeping even a vestigal nationwide route, let alone creating a network capable enough that it would provide a rational alternative to cars.

NTM

Well...gee willikers, NTM...If they stop providing rail service and force Amtrak under, then the U.S. should reclaim all that land that was granted them to build and maintain the rail systems.

And, you are right, it requires sufficient density and sufficient disincentives (negative incentives - gridlock, high parking costs, increased break-ins, etc.) to use a car to make mass transit "pay its own way". Even then, it's pretty marginal at bringing in sufficient revenues to update the system when needed. Almost every major mass transit system in the U.S. is subsidized by the taxpayer. Here in Oregon, we get a chance to vote on it before they ignore the electorate and do what they want anyway. In the past, increases in mass transit subsidies (through an employer tax) have been approved by healthy majorities of the regional electorate. Yet, the members of this healthy majority do no seem to be actually utilizing the mass transit system...the reason why? They voted to get more motorists off the streets; that means everybody else but them. They can't understand why there are still all those idiots driving their cars, getting in their way, driving like nincompoops, and not using the mass transit system.

I don't think you'll pull American drivers out of their cars until the disincentives outweigh the benefits of having total control over your immediate environment. No smelly drunks. No rude people. No wackos or other societal marginals. None of that crap to deal with, and nobody criticizes your selection of music to travel by.

[Crumb]

Is this petition the work of the same people who thought up the one day gasoline boycott?

[Godwhacker]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Don't laugh, I'm meeting people for beers about an hour from now that have this exact mindset regarding the oil industry. One of them even claims to be an engineer that has worked in the energy industry. Right, dude, riiiiight.

Agree with the Dingster. BTW, if they can figure out a cheaper way of getting the oil out of the sand in Canada, that, along with all the fresh water they have, and global warming, means that its time to

"Taaake off...to the Great White North"!

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

One of the comments.

I don't get it. Is it funny because the US is not and never has been a member of OPEC?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

I don't get it. Is it funny because the US is not and never has been a member of OPEC?

It is funny because not only does the US consume all of it's own oil, but all of the exported production of Canada and Mexico too and a whole lot more. The US is not a net oil exporting country.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

i agree with california tanker but i would add as someone who lives in metro atlanta that some of the problem is the cognitive dissonance of the voting public who want to insist that mass transit be financially self sufficient while having no problem with paying huge dollars to build more roads. Marta (metropolitan atlanta rapid transit authority) being a great example of this.

Sort of like how Amtrak is expected to break even but private airlines get taxpayer-funded bailouts all the time.

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Oh, they'd just reorganize into another organization, maybe something like Producers Of Oil, Petroleum Distillates, and Energy Cooperating Kinetically, POOPDECK for short.

LOL

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Since the technology exists to transform current gasoline running vehicles into biofuel users (at least E85) I suggest that the government give tax incentives to people to seek those conversions (which only cost a couple of hundred dollars). Ethanol fuels (which can be made from corn, sugar and a new cellulose biomass process) are readily generated in the United States. That eliminates our reliance on foreign oil.

I think biofuels require more energy to produce than gasoline (but I could be wrong), but you're right that we do grow plenty of the raw material here, and unlike petroleum it grows back every year.

Better than giving tax incentives to consumers would be to give incentives to automakers to make more cars E85 compatible. As I understand it, most cars just need a computer re-program, not even any extra parts. GM has a few multi-fuel vehicles but they're all big trucks and big sedans.