However, the birth of this 'strong strategic partnership' is accompanied by a stream of very dubious information. On the one hand, there is a lot of harsh criticism of Kazakhstan in the US. Some news agencies in Russia have been asserting the US is ready to invade Kazakhstan. Certain Russian military analysts have been quoted as saying they are alarmed by the verbal attacks on the country of certain highly placed officials in Washington.

Indeed, in the very US congress there is talk of 'Nazarbayev's totalitarian regime' (and, somehow, no mention of Turkmenbashi). The US representative at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe said, 'America is concerned about politically motivated incidents occurring in Kazakhstan. We cannot put up with the selective persecution of the leaders of lawful political opposition'.

http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2002/09/04/49976.html

The wars of the future will still carry a strong odor of petroleum.

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/mcollon.htm

These latter actions led US and other western leaders to begin wondering whether Russia was demanding too great a role, and whether Moscow sought to reap the benefits of an empire without sustaining most of the costs of maintaining it. The numerous bottlenecks that Chevron encountered in trying to negotiate a pipeline across Russia to ship Tengiz oil to market began to look to outside observers like key figures in Russia’s political establishment were more concerned to cripple Kazakhstan economically than to extract fair transit fees. This impression was further strengthened when Russian leaders began to challenge contracts signed between western firms in both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan , saying that the Caspian wasn’t these nations’ to develop; Caspian Sea reserves had to be divided and developed through agreements made by all the littoral states. Russia’s hold over transit routes made their objections more than mere idle threats.

http://www.ceip.org/people/olccaspw.htm

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2...12003172423.asp

quote:

Russia’s hold over transit routes made their objections more than mere idle threats. http://www.ceip.org/people/olccaspw.htm

I wanted to comment quickly on these two articles you gave.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes, the "war on terror" has provided many across the world with the excuse to crack down on their own with some semblance of legitimacy: http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_id=2173160

Excellent editorial. Harold Hongju Koh nails a number of points right on the head.

quote:

Hopefully not for very long. http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_id=2155717 Countries around the world, not just the United States, need to take concerted efforts to eliminate this rediculous reliance.

Have to say I'm a little incredulous of this guy's optimism. It seems that our reliance is not going to be weakened anytime soon. I appreciate his optimism, but I have troubles believing his vision of hydogen fuel cells. Besides, isin't oil supposed to be the primary energy means of H2 fuel cell operation? IOW, don't you need oil to run the fuel cells? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It seems that our reliance is not going to be weakened anytime soon.

Our reliance is also tied to the fact that our fossil fuel economy would be shattered if superior alternatives were found.

Money talks, and the oil conglomerates speech is a deafening roar.


Electrogravitation and the Biefeld-Brown effect would be an interesting topic of discussion... if only someone really knew about it.

"Do you remember how electrical currents and 'unseen waves' were laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy."

- Albert Einstein

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Have to say I'm a little incredulous of this guy's optimism. It seems that our reliance is not going to be weakened anytime soon. I appreciate his optimism, but I have troubles believing his vision of hydogen fuel cells. Besides, isin't oil supposed to be the primary energy means of H2 fuel cell operation? IOW, don't you need oil to run the fuel cells? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

I actually think that it is far more attainable than we realise. If not hydrogen, then most certainly other fuels such as bioethanol ... I mean even today it's possible to convert a diesel engine to run on grease alone ...

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/d...ior/6913203.htm

If two college kids can do it, I'm certain the car industry can find SOMETHING to use besides gasoline. If push came to shove, the car industry could probably quite easily (however none too cheaply) make hydrogen cars a feasible technology. Yes it does require power to initially create H2 fuel cells however, it does not necessarily have to be oil powered plants ... we could use nuclear powered plants, coal plants, hydro-electric plants, etc. Although this might not be environmentally attractive (however I still bet it's more enviro friendly than a trillion cars spewing out CO) the point is to reduce our strategic reliance on other countries.

quote:

Our reliance is also tied to the fact that our fossil fuel economy would be shattered if superior alternatives were found. Money talks, and the oil conglomerates speech is a deafening roar.

It doesn't have to be that way however. Oil companies wouldn't die out if we converted over to hydrogen cars. The oil industry is already set up to deliver us whatever fuel we use, whatever fuel that may be. There is no other competitive infrastructure or distribution system to compete with the oil companies ... the government simply needs to kick the oil companies (or car companies) in the ass to get them moving on alternative fuel sources.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I actually think that it is far more attainable than we realise. If not hydrogen, then most certainly other fuels such as bioethanol ... I mean even today it's possible to convert a diesel engine to run on grease alone ... http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/d...ior/6913203.htm If two college kids can do it, I'm certain the car industry can find SOMETHING to use besides gasoline. If push came to shove, the car industry could probably quite easily (however none too cheaply) make hydrogen cars a feasible technology. Yes it does require power to initially create H2 fuel cells however, it does not necessarily have to be oil powered plants ... we could use nuclear powered plants, coal plants, hydro-electric plants, etc. Although this might not be environmentally attractive (however I still bet it's more enviro friendly than a trillion cars spewing out CO) the point is to reduce our strategic reliance on other countries.

Oh I certainly don't disagree that it's possible to attain alternative energy resources. I have a cousin that attended NW Missouri State University with a major in Geography, and they're pioneers on some of the alternative fuel energy resources:

http://www.nwmissouri.edu/sloan/Cos...ativeFuels.html

http://www.nwmissouri.edu/academics/ag/bioenergy.htm

Amazing how much money could be saved.

quote:

It doesn't have to be that way however. Oil companies wouldn't die out if we converted over to hydrogen cars. The oil industry is already set up to deliver us whatever fuel we use, whatever fuel that may be. There is no other competitive infrastructure or distribution system to compete with the oil companies ... the government simply needs to kick the oil companies (or car companies) in the ass to get them moving on alternative fuel sources.

My problem, however, and the crux of my argument is I really don't see our desire for oil to be decreased anytime soon. The oil industry is just too strong. Too much money, too much lobbying, too much power.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The oil industry is just too strong. Too much money, too much lobbying, too much power.

Too many friends in the government.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/featu..._oil/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 My problem, however, and the crux of my argument is I really don't see our desire for oil to be decreased anytime soon. The oil industry is just too strong. Too much money, too much lobbying, too much power.

See I think the problem is that oil is too cheap. What we need is another Arab oil embargo on the US. Make oil expensive as hell and you'll see consumers happily running towards alternative fuel sources. As long as oil remains cheap, consumers will gladly continue to purchase gasoline and endorse the oil companies ... OPEC will still set oil prices to be juusssstt right, not too expensive to gouge us, but just enough to milk us. There is no greater example of an oligopoly market than oil. It's inefficient and it makes the middle east, not us artificially rich. The oil companies will happily do whatever OPEC says becuase they'll get their fair share. Of course oil companies don't want to switch over to alternative fuel sources ... that's expensive and they don't want to piss off their opec masters!

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See I think the problem is that oil is too cheap. What we need is another Arab oil embargo on the US. Make oil expensive as hell and you'll see consumers happily running towards alternative fuel sources. As long as oil remains cheap, consumers will gladly continue to purchase gasoline and endorse the oil companies ... OPEC will still set oil prices to be juusssstt right, not too expensive to gouge us, but just enough to milk us. There is no greater example of an oligopoly market than oil. It's inefficient and it makes the middle east, not us artificially rich. The oil companies will happily do whatever OPEC says becuase they'll get their fair share. Of course oil companies don't want to switch over to alternative fuel sources ... that's expensive and they don't want to piss off their opec masters!

Most definitely! Though I personally wouldn't be too happy in the short term with a huge spike in prices - I currently spend about $2500 alone in gas each year commuting to work. Anymore taken out of my paycheck and I'd be screwed!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...