Oil Price Rise Causes Global Shift in Wealth

I wonder if a Republican presidential candidate ran on drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf, would he win? I think one of the candidates should come out for drilling and see what happens. I bet if he links it the war on terror, it would resonate ("Why are we funding our the war against us?").

High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone.

The consequences are evident in minds and mortar: anger at Chinese motor-fuel pumps and inflated confidence in the Kremlin; new weapons in Chad and new petrochemical plants in Saudi Arabia; no-driving campaigns in South Korea and bigger sales for Toyota hybrid cars; a fiscal burden in Senegal and a bonanza in Brazil. In Burma, recent demonstrations were triggered by a government decision to raise fuel prices.

High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone.

The consequences are evident in minds and mortar: anger at Chinese motor-fuel pumps and inflated confidence in the Kremlin; new weapons in Chad and new petrochemical plants in Saudi Arabia; no-driving campaigns in South Korea and bigger sales for Toyota hybrid cars; a fiscal burden in Senegal and a bonanza in Brazil. In Burma, recent demonstrations were triggered by a government decision to raise fuel prices.

[...]

Two of those nations -- Iran and Venezuela -- may be better able to defy the Bush administration because of swelling oil revenue. Venezuela has used its oil wealth to dispense patronage around South America, vying for influence even with longtime U.S. allies. And Iran could be less vulnerable to sanctions designed to pressure it into giving up its nuclear program or opening it to inspection.

Read the rest here.

Clinton's solution to our dependence on foreign oil? Let's throw more money at the problem. Yes, the government is well-equipped to handle our country's energy needs. Here's her New Hampshire ad:

CLINTON: We've got to get serious about ending our dependence on foreign oil. We could create millions of new jobs through new energy.
CLINTON: Let's start investing in what I've called a strategic energy fund that will put 50 billion dollars to work with wind and solar and biofuels.
CLINTON: And where would I get the money? I would take away the tax subsidies from the oil companies. They don't need your tax dollars anymore.

A candidate from the Republican side should seize this opportunity to shape the debate in a way that will actually end our dependence on foreign oil by drilling for it ourselves. I think that's a winning message (yes, I do because deep down we say we car about the environment and yet that doesn't stop us from using private jets and driving SUVs).

Happy Earth Day!

I discovered it was Earth Day because the Google logo was a melting iceberg, I figured something was up. Evidently, Earth Day has become Global Warming Day, in the past we would celebrate Earth Day by figuring out ways to recycle or use less of Earth's resources but today, let's all think of ways that we can celebrate the day by reducing our carbon footprints. Here are some suggestions how to observe the day:

Why not cut down some trees to celebrate?

Or go appliance shopping. (What do you do with the old one? Don't they just sit around rusting in land fills?)

You could replace your light bulbs with energy-efficient light bulbs.

Or how about a barbecue? Now, I know what you're thinking but following the example of Gore and carbon offsets, it really is eco-friendly because there is one less cow producing greenhouse gas, which should offset the smoke from the grill (and if you are like me and use a smokey joe, you recycle the smoke so that you aren't releasing too much into the environment).

Fell like that's not enough? How about spending the day worrying about the polar bears and the ice caps?

Now, global warming is heating up as an issue. News about melting glaciers and ice caps and endangered polar bears have had a huge impact on our psyche. The UN studies are unsettling, even if some question the data.

Or determining which candidate cares the most about the environment:

Change can be measured in the way the presidential candidates are practically falling all over themselves to come up with new proposals. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) announced a new initiative on Friday to establish a national low-carbon fuel standard based on a California proposal. By 2020, Obama would require that all transportation fuels sold in the U.S. contain 10 percent less carbon.

In a new idea, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign announced it would go "carbon neutral" beginning today, meaning it would offset electricity generated with fossil fuel with purchases of "clean energy" electricity (such as wind).

Republican Sen. John McCain has long been one of the leaders in Congress in pushing for a ceiling on carbon-dioxide emissions and a trading system where clean-energy credits can be bought and sold. Other GOP candidates are jumping on that bandwagon, as Obama and Clinton already have, along with other Democrats.

Can you imagine a separate presidential debate on global warming? Well, if the warnings issued by the United Nations are to be taken seriously, the candidates should be dealing more seriously with the issue.

But doesn't Clinton know that the windmills kill the birds and are an unsightly eyesore to Kennedy and Cronkite? And with the amount of travel that she and her campaign will be doing, that's a lot of windmills!

And who knew that a Republican would be a leader in this fight against global warming?

You could also spend the day contemplating how successful the MSM have been in brainwashing the American public about this issue:

New polling has documented the shift in the public's attitude. A Washington Post, ABC News and Stanford University poll showed that a third of Americans now say that global warming is the world's single largest environmental problem, double the number of a year ago.

The poll showed that seven in 10 Americans want more federal action on global warming. About half of those surveyed said that believe the government should do much more than it is now. Some 52 percent said the issue is "extremely" or "very" important personally, double the percentage recorded a decade ago.

Or you could observe the day by taking tomorrow off from work:

For most of us facing gridlocked roads and packed trains, the Monday morning commute is a more pressing concern than climate change.

But there may be a single solution to both, according to business leaders.

The Institute of Directors is calling for flexible hours and more home working to help tackle global warming.

(via)

I'm sure that your boss would think that was a great idea, especially when you tell him that you're doing it to save the planet.