quote:

---

Jamaica became the first Caribbean country to sign an agreement with Venezuela on a new plan for the South American nation to supply oil to countries throughout the region at below-market prices.

---

When you live in a desperately poor nation where you know...Hybrids and hydrogen and mass transportation, etc. don't exist...Then you're going to need that oil to A: increase the economy's effectiveness B: allow for transportation in the rural areas C: gradually impliment progressive fuel consumption ideas.

Ideally I would sell sustainable methods/technology cheaper instead of oil, but for lack of a better alternative and also because thats what Venezuela has in big amounts, at the moment, it's a good initiative in my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Is selling oil below market prices, something that will increase and encourage fossil fuel consumption, a good thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Is selling oil below market prices, something that will increase and encourage fossil fuel consumption, a good thing?

---

Can you provide any evidence that oil consumption in this country or the USA has gone down with the recent price increases? Or was it about the same at 20 dollars a barrel?

And as to the waste pointed out by Jeff have a look at the graph in this post and notice how much more efficiently than the USA and Canada everybody in the world uses oil.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=000806#000141

Scroll down a bit; I give up struggling with the board trying to make the link work

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dano:
If prices go up 3X, 4X, 5X all of a sudden, then it will have an impact

---

They did increase 3 times since a barrel sold for 20 bucks.

If you mean the barrel prices have gone up this year from 20 to 60, then possibly... but I certainly didn't see the prices of gas go up from 0.77$ to 2.31$... (canadian/L)

Btw I did say "all of a sudden"

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: dano ]

Yesterday it was reported that chains such as WalMart and others which sell a lot of cheap crap are losing business because many can not afford to drive to go shopping as often as before. And the cost of shipping is going way, way up as oil prices climb.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
[qb]I don't think it is necessary to be so harsh with Gir as he asks a valid question.

---

All I did was to ask for some evidence because to my knowledge demand has not decreased siginificantly while prices tripled. I also suggested he look at a relevant graph.

Is that harsh all of a sudden?

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

But yes it is true that higher prices will certainly affect people in socioeconomically disadvantaged situaions a lot more, simply because we are so dependant and because there are close to no alternatives, nor are they being developped very ferociously.

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: dano ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Is selling oil below market prices, something that will increase and encourage fossil fuel consumption, a good thing?

---

It also points out the same thing as the graph I tried to link to. (Post 114 on the above linked thread): Europe and Japan (which should have a much lighter green than it has) use oil a lot wiser than we the guzzlers

What the heck here's the graph again:

It plots oil used in relation to GDP and how this changed over time

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

The Venezualans are helping out their poor neighbours. Plain and simple. America and others can afford high oil prices. The Jamaicans and the Cubans cannot.

---

They lived without cheap oil before. It does mean they won't have all the wealth and convienience of Canada and the USA. But considering the ecological impact of our level of consumption spreading, it's probably better that they don't. I don't begrudge them propserity, but the fact with air pollution is that the planet doesn't care if it is an American or a Jamaican gasoline engine belching out noxious fumes and greenhouse gasses.

Developing countries where very few can afford market priced oil would probably be more ready to embrace sustainable energy than our own country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chubbybear:
Gosh, why would we criticize the people of a developing nation for wanting to be able to afford transportation and to lower the cost of moving goods around?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
I don't think it is necessary to be so harsh with Gir as he asks a valid question. I think the replies our equally valid in that the lower price will benefit the Jamaican economy rather than SUV's racing to the mall to purchase gas fueled power washers.

---

quote:

---

Is that harsh all of a sudden?

---

But I do think it is a valid question and I thought some of the responses were a little bit sarcastic like how dare he ask it.

I think it needs to be asked. Gir and I seldom agree, and I don't disagree with the Chavez gesture, but I do think it is important to question where the balance between economic properity and ecological degradation lies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Developing countries where very few can afford market priced oil would probably be more ready to embrace sustainable energy than our own country.

---

And you do realize that sustainable energy is expensive. So, if they can't afford market priced oil, you're willing to drive them further into the ground to clear you conscious as your neighbours and friends drive around fume belching SUVs?

The simple fact of this Gir is that until they gain sufficient wealth to develop and purchase green technology gasoline and oil is going to be their way of life.

Compressed air cars is a valiant effort to reduce smog for example and if I'm not mistaken they have contracts to develop in Mexico, but you need energy to compress the air and that energy comes from often pollutin power plants.

The rest of the technology isn't super advanced or has been hidden away, bought off, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I'm just wary of developing Jamaica's economy based on oil so that they too may one day drive their SUVS to the mall to pick up a power washer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

And you do realize that sustainable energy is expensive. So, if they can't afford market priced oil, you're willing to drive them further into the ground to clear you conscious as your neighbours and friends drive around fume belching SUVs?

---

I don't know if it's similar in Jamaica, but when I was in Guatemala there were lots of pickups. Even if they are often high gas consumers, you very often see trucks carrying something like 10-20 people. Taxis could take up to 6-7 people.

I'm sure at least the fact that very few people can afford to own any type of tranportation method reduces the impact this would have GREATLY.

There is also a point to be made into what Gir said: it is "almost" wrong at this point to encourage them to develop a oil-based economy if we are about to reach peak-oil production levels.

But Venezuela is not in a position to be responsible to lead the world in developping sustainable technology... far from it.

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: dano ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chubbybear:
Many of my relations live in Jamaica, and it's tough enough for most people to afford basic staples, much less a vehicle. Most private vehicles are used very communally - for example, it is almost unheard of for a cab to carry only one passenger - it's usually hailed by up to 6 people while in transit. Thus, a slightly lower fuel cost would not contribute in any meaningful way to harmful vehicle emissions.

---

Canadians are at the top of the list when it comes to polluting the environment with fossil fuel emissions. Think about how much we burn every winter so we can continue to live in what would otherwise be an inhospitable environment four or five months out of every year. In nova scotia, whether you have an oil furnace for heat or electric "radiators", you burn oil, as the main power plant for the province located in dartmouth burns oil, bunker "c", to generate electricity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
It's not what they do now that is the problem, it's what they would do with cheap and abundant petroleum.

---

quote:

---

but we cannot expect developing countries to forego current ambitions for economic prosperity

---

Okay, so fine. You know, we take the exact same position. George W. Bush just set some awfully low vehicle emission standards for SUV's and exempted Hummers for that very same reason. Economic prosperity.

As though guzzling down all the oil will somehow perpetuate economic prosperity.

What if Chavez offered the oil on the condition that nations like Jamaica use the available energy to develop alternative green energies that can then be licensed to idiots like us who are too stupid to read the writing on the wall.

Wouldn't that offer real economic prosperity as oppsosed to the illusion of economic prosperity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

What if Chavez offered the oil on the condition that nations like Jamaica use the available energy to develop alternative green energies that can then be licensed to idiots like us who are too stupid to read the writing on the wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
What if Chavez offered the oil on the condition that nations like Jamaica use the available energy to develop alternative green energies that can then be licensed to idiots like us who are too stupid to read the writing on the wall.

---

What an asshole.

There just isn't the infrastructure there to do what
Canada can do with alt. fuels and energy...And there can't be until there is a marked (non-tourist) improvement to the economy. The nation has a lot of problems right now, and I'm pretty sure 2 million people using polluting vehicles, although not exactly a proactive solution, isn't going to push the Earth over its limit. China and other super-nations with gigantic economies move forward with rabid industrialization without environmental checks...They're a bigger worry at ths point. But I digress.

The third world needs to get out of its terrible poverty before we can even THINK about having them have completely modernized economies that allow for the growth of a sustainable energy system. Sure, we can put solar panels there. We can put wind turbines. In small amounts, mind you, but it doesn't mean that they will be well kept (the infrastructure and professional training isn't there). It would be good for the small islands over all energy needs to have green electricity...But for vehicles and what have you...The economy needs a swift kick to the bum in that region to allow for safe, reliable mass transportation. Plus, there isn't really the urbanization on Jamaica that would be needed to justify a large scale system. So, like I've said in all my arguments thus far, we can't go green and clean until the nation is more stable and has more monies to use.

Edit:: Burns: That's an awesome link. But for the sake of this argument. Jamaica isn't Venezuala. It doesn't have loads of riches necessary for the upkeep of such a venture. I hope that one day it does, though...Or at least will have the professional base to take care of such projects (which, not advanced, do require expertise) all the while taking care of the terrible crime and poverty.

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

Jamaica's first priority should be lifting themselves out of poverty. Venezuela - with relative wealth - can and should consider spending their oil revenues on alternatives to oil.

quote:

---

Amazingly, Chavez has instead asked that nations like Jamaica use the energy savings to, um, feed starving children.

What an asshole.

---

However, Jamaica can lift itself out of poverty and feed its people well past the age of oil if it uses the opportunity to develop an industrial strategy around technologies and the economy of the future.

Jamaian families will not each one extra meal if Jamaicans continue using arable land for cash crop exports rather than for domestic consumption.

Cheaper energy only provides a comparative advantage if you are trading in products for which there is a diverse and wealthy market willing to buy.

Cheap oil will only benefit North American share holders in an economy still tied to multinational corporations, the WTO, and global markets.

I don't think that's rocket science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
I'm pretty sure 2 million people using polluting vehicles, although not exactly a proactive solution, isn't going to push the Earth over its limit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
I'm pretty sure 2 million people using polluting vehicles, although not exactly a proactive solution, isn't going to push the Earth over its limit.

---

helping your neighbours

for America's poor

40$ for a barrel of oil is still really high. What these types of agreements are doing are to cushion the impact on the Jamaican and Dominican governments who are already going bankrupt because of high oil prices. It demonstrates the sense of solidarity at the heart of the Bolivarian revolution.

And high oil prices profit the big oil companies. Demand hasn't really been effected as people are way too addicted. Something else has to change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

What are you? Some kind of jerk?

---

Looks like the media campaign against Chavez is beginning here too.

And what is a "New Latin Threat"? Are Latins inherently threatening or what? Jerks.

quote:

---

most people in impoverished countries would react far more rudely when confronted with a lecture on the evils of gasoline from a North American.

---

quote:

---

However, Jamaica can lift itself out of poverty and feed its people well past the age of oil if it uses the opportunity to develop an industrial strategy around technologies and the economy of the future.

---

Basically, being poor enforces oil consumption. So if Jamaica can get a little more money they might be able to invest in alternatives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
It would be better if Chavez sold the oil to the U.S. for as much as he could get, then shared some of the revenue with the jamaicans

---

Oil IS revenue.

The same paper notes that a $5 increase in the price of oil adds about 20 per cent to an oil importing "developing nation"'s current account deficit. Considering the price has gone up about $20 this is a potentially devestating impact. In real terms this is when impoverished countries are forced to strip government services down to the bare bones - this is when children start dying of malnutrition, houses burn down because the fire department's broke, people die without healthcare, etc. etc.

If Chavez wants to mitigate this in Jamaica and other Carribean countries I say more power to him.

[ 26 August 2005: Message edited by: Burns ]

quote:

---

Basically, being poor enforces oil consumption. So if Jamaica can get a little more money they might be able to invest in alternatives.

---

I do not believe any nation can drag itself from poverty with the support and cooperation of global capitalists.

However, the links you provide are quite interesting and point to a way Carribean nations can establish regional trading relationships based on mutual respect and fairness that could lead to an escape from both gobal capitlsim and poverty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
[QB]
No.

---

So it seems I put on a shoe that wasn't meant for me as I don't recall doing that.

I thought it was a little too tight.