10/1/14, "Could the US start sending its oil overseas?" BBC, Paul Blake, Washington
"A US oil drilling boom has some people calling for the ban to be lifted so that US oil can flow onto the world market....
The current policy dates back to
the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974, when Opec countries reduced
production to punish the US for giving aid to Israel during the Yom
Kippur War. In order to protect itself from future volatility, the US
instituted the export ban (exceptions were made for oil from Alaska and
parts of California).
The ban's opponents say that leaving it in place could stifle future growth in the booming US oil industry by driving up domestic supply, lowering costs.
Some prominent liberals have come out in favour of ending the ban, however....
"I believe that the question of whether the United States should have a substantially more permissive policy with respect to the export of crude oil and with respect to the export of natural gas is easy," President Barack Obama's former chief economic aide, Larry Summers said at a Brookings Institution event. [on 9/9/14]
"There is no environmental argument for a policy that distinguishes between oil produced in the United States for domestic consumption and oil produced in the United States for foreign consumption.""...(near end of article)
================================
9/9/14, "Larry Summers Argues Case for Lifting the Crude Oil Export Ban," Brookings.edu, Fred Dews
"Geopolitical Reasons to Lift Ban".
"On the geopolitical front, Summers observed that within the next 18 months, American production of oil will exceed Saudi production of oil. From that fact, he posed a series of questions:
Do we want the world’s largest and most vital democracy … to be able to have the kind of influence when it is also the world’s largest oil producer that comes from being able to sell oil freely on the world market, or do we wish to deny ourselves that on some a priori ground? The question it seems to me answers itself.
Do we want others to depend on us, and have all the consequences that come with that dependence—which includes a certain amount of influence on our part—or do we wish them to depend on the Middle East?
In this context, he also mentioned Russia's supply of heating oil to countries in Europe to the west. "If we wish to have more power and influence in the world, in support of our security interests, and in support of our values," he said, "and if we wish to have an influence that we pay for with neither blood nor taxes, I do not see a more constructive approach than permitting the export of fossil fuels."Do we wish the routes through which oil travels to be dominantly those of the contested seas of the Pacific, or those that are more proximate to us? Seems to me that question answers itself as well.
At the end of his remarks, Summers observed that the president of the United States has statutory authority in the 1975 law to lift the ban if he judges it to be in the national interest. "He has that authority," Summers said, and if Congress is unable to act legislatively, he said that he hopes the export ban will be lifted "as rapidly as possible.""...
=========================
Comment: If US superiority is imminent, this may explain the ongoing panic of globalists, in particular European monarchs and parasites, and other elites. The single most urgent goal of these groups for decades--long before this nightmare US energy boom--has been to formalize UN authority over the US taxpayer. US politicians have fed this hope since at least 1980 by turning over vast portions of the US government to solving imaginary global CO2 scare endeavors and financing the efforts with US taxpayer dollars. US politicians will continue this theft indefinitely because no one will stop them, though a formal treaty would make things easier. The current hoped for vehicle is a so-called "global climate treaty" (to regulate excess CO2 which only exists in China and which China has no intention of mitigating and couldn't even if it wanted to). Climate profiteers believe the Obama admin. is their best chance for getting this done so they're in a hurry. The idea of the US dominating the world energy market is a dagger in their hearts, a crimp in the festivities. Certainly, every effort will be taken to stall if not prevent this new US prosperity from happening. Since 2001 the US has been in massive decline so it's been easy-- with the help of the US political class--to kick it further into the gutter. The $1 billion a day climate scare industry couldn't have happened without decades of media providing 24/7 scary reports about imaginary climate dangers the main purpose of which is to demonize Americans and create an imaginary urgency that a "global climate treaty" (ie a legal agreement with the US taxpayer) is needed to save humanity. The problem is every last dime of the trillion dollar "carbon" industry rests on a single idea, that man made CO2 causes global temperatures to increase, that the US is the main cause of this excess CO2, and that Americans must pay for their crime in perpetuity. If there's no constant transfer of US dollars, there's no reason for a catastrophe. The hope that CO2 caused ever higher global temperatures, and therefore human and planetary extinction, hasn't proved to be the case. Among scientific evidence disproving the catastrophe is that though CO2 has continued to increase, global temperatures haven't risen in over 15+ years. In any case the US has lowered its CO2 greatly in the past two decades while China's has skyrocketed and has to go higher. No action or amount of money the US spends at this point can appreciably lower global CO2. EPA scientists and others have said as much. No matter what harms other countries inflict on themselves in the name of CO2 reduction, China erases their efforts. Everyone knows this. Therefore everyone knows the "global climate treaty" has nothing to do with climate and is strictly about enslaving US taxpayers. As to the UN, it's been a unique partnership. US politicians funnel billions of no-strings US taxpayer dollars to the UN yearly including millions that fund UN IPCC jet setters. US voters and taxpayers have no say about any of it, are tied to a whipping post and gagged. UN personnel could legally put all the money we give them into personal bank accounts, give it to equatorial dictators, or throw it out the window. UN personnel can't be prosecuted for any crime anywhere on earth, civil or criminal. They're unelected and unaccountable. No one in their right mind would be a member of such a group much less finance it. Except the US taxpayer.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment