The oil and gas demons in Europe

Stav

I hope you find the following interesting - so comments please:-

Despite its cool Green parties and ambitious wind and solar agendas, Europe remains by far the world’s largest importer of oil and natural gas.

Oil output in the North Sea and off the coast of Norway is declining, and the European Union is quietly looking for fossil fuel energy anywhere it can find it.

Europe itself is naturally rich in fossil fuels. It likely has more reserves of shale gas than the United States, currently the world’s largest producer of both oil and natural gas. Yet in most European countries, horizontal drilling and fracking to extract gas and oil are either illegal or face so many court challenges and popular protests that they are neither culturally nor economically feasible.

The result is that Europe is almost entirely dependent on Russian, Middle Eastern and African sources of energy.

The American-Iranian standoff in the Middle East, coupled with radical drop-offs in Iranian and Venezuelan oil production, has terrified Europe — and for understandable reasons.

The European Union has almost no ability to guarantee the delivery of critical oil and gas supplies from the Middle East should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz or harass ships in the Persian Gulf.

Europe’s only maritime security is the NATO fleet — a synonym for the U.S. Navy.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia supplies an estimated 30 percent of Europe’s oil needs. In times of crisis, Putin could exercise de facto control over the European economy.

In other words, Europe refuses to develop its own gas and oil reserves, and won’t fund the necessary military power to ensure that it can safely import energy from problematic or even hostile sources.

It’s no wonder that Europe’s traditional foreign policy reflects these crazy paradoxes.

Energy neediness explains why the EU was so eager to maintain the so-called “Iran deal” with the theocracy in Tehran, and also why it was nervous about the anti-Russia hysteria that arose in the United States after the 2016 election.

Past European distancing from Israel reflected Europe’s fear of alienating Arab oil producers in the Middle East and North Africa.

Europeans are also uneasy about the Trump administration. They see the current U.S. government as nationalist and unpredictable. Americans appear not so ready as in the past to enter the world’s hotspots to ensure unimpeded commercial use of sea and air lanes for the benefit of others.

The result is a sort of European schizophrenia when it comes to America and foreign policy in general. On one hand, the European Union resents its military dependence on Washington, while on the other it prays for its continuance. The EU loudly promotes freedom and democracy abroad, but it is careful to keep ties with oil-exporting Middle Eastern autocracies that are antithetical to every value Europeans promote.

Germany agrees with its allies that Russian imperial agendas could threaten European autonomy. But privately, Berlin reassures Putin’s Russia that it wants to buy all the gas and oil that Moscow has to sell. Germany increasingly seems far friendlier with a suspicious Russia than it is with an America that protects it.

In sum, what ensures that Europeans have enough daily gasoline and home heating fuel are not batteries, wind farms and solar panels — much less loud green proselytizing. They count instead on a mercurial Russia, an array of unstable Middle Eastern governments and an underappreciated U.S. military.

In a logical world, Europeans would retake control of their own destiny. That recalibration would entail beefing up their military power, and their navies in particular.

They also would begin to frack and horizontally drill. Europeans would push ahead with more nuclear power, hydroelectric projects and clean-coal technologies — at least until new sources of clean energies become viable.

Europe should applaud U.S. gas and oil development, which has upped world supplies, diversified suppliers and lowered global prices. Europeans should especially remember that the U.S. military keeps global commerce safe for all vulnerable importers such as themselves.

But these remedies are apparently seen in Europe as worse than the disease of oil and gas dependency.

The result is again chaos. Europe lectures about greenhouse gases while it desperately seeks supplies of fossil fuels. Germany usually sets the tone in Europe, and it is the most hypocritical in both denouncing and buying fossil fuels from unsavory sources.

The danger for Europe now is that the charade may soon be over.

Americans are self-sufficient in gas and oil. They have lost interest in Middle East quagmires and petro-regimes. And they don’t like patrolling the world for countries that both count on and ankle-bite the U.S. military. Meanwhile, the more Europeans pander to oil-rich Russia, Iran and various Gulf states, the less respect they earn in return.

It is hard to be both the world's largest importer of gas and oil and the loudest critic of fossil fuels, but Europe has managed to do it.

It does not matter where it comes from - I Europe in fact the biggest importer of oil and gas  in th world?

Have they resources to protect import  routes when under threat?

Why must America protect their strategic interests?

You get your opinions from CNN - but I would like to have opinions on the matter so please supply same.

Anyway I know Fox news is in general supporting the RP - but they get inputs from all contributors - also Democrats and they have Democrats in their employ as well.   So they are more objective than the hysteric CNN and other fake news agencies,   Inciden tally I watch CNN as well.        

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have the Biased Bullshitting Corporation and David Attenborough at it again:

Petroleum in the United States - Wikipedia

In Alaska - which is not Canadian.  The only issue is that the main pipeline through which oil is delivered to  the rest of the USA from Alaska runs through Canada.  

The USA still import a certain amount of a special kind of oil from Venezuela, but even that is declining.    

OK - lets look at facts.  According to confirmed Canadian Sources:-

*   Canada produce in total 1 720 000 barrels of oil per day

*   Canada consumption per day is  2 428 000 barrels per day. 

The figures are both based on the situation in 2017 - but Canadian oil production has taken s alight dip from then and there is no indication that the consumption has taken a dip too.

Just a question - how can a country which is short of oil export oil to another country and then have to import oil to make up the massive deficit export would cause?  

They are 708 000 barrels per day short and needs to import that from somewhere.  Due to proximity most of that is likely coming from Alaska.     

"The largest sources of U.S. imported oil were: Canada (40%),"

That's 40% of their imported oil, not 40% of the oil they use.

This is at the top of the page you referenced Shark: "This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. In particular: Most graphs end 3-7 years ago. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2018)"

Just look under google for Canada oil production and for Oil consumption in Canada and you will find the info easily,    

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised?t=1580219678844

Since the Arab oil embargoes of the 1960s and 70s, it's been conventional wisdom to talk about American dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. But the global oil market has changed dramatically since then.

Today, the U.S. actually gets most of its imported oil from Canada and Latin America.

And many Americans might be surprised to learn that the U.S. now imports roughly the same amount of oil from Africa as it does from the Persian Gulf. African imports were a bit higher in 2010, while Persian Gulf oil accounted for a bit more last year.

Where The U.S. Gets Its Oil

Source: Energy Information Administration

Credit: Nelson Hsu / NPR

America is one of the world's largest oil producers, and close to 40 percent of U.S. oil needs are met at home. Most of the imports currently come from five countries: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Desert Kingdoms Versus The Great White North

Canada is far and away the biggest purveyor of crude to its southern neighbor, hitting a record 2.2 million barrels a day last year as its share of the U.S. market grew by 12 percent.

Energy expert Robert Rapier says the take-away for Americans may be "marry a Canadian," because he or she will be a citizen of an increasingly rich country. "Their budget looks good, and they're sitting on top of tremendous reserves," he says.

Saudi Arabia is a distant second, providing the U.S. with barely half as much crude as Canada. Other Persian Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. oil imports, but make up a relatively small share overall.

That article of your's is from 2012....in the meantime:

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that the data is dated. Best I could find was from Dec 2017 when they still imported 19% of their crude.

Edit: And even if they are net importers ATM, I can't see them continuing these kind of figures in the long run. Some time or another, theses reserves are gonna be depleted. It reminds of StarCraft where you rapidly deplete your resources to get strong enough to grow and expand and look for even more resources to deplete. In the long run, that will only work in an infinite world...

SB 

What was the source of that story and where did it come from.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

Sorry I was wrong and admit it freely,  I looked at the Opec figures as to USA imports and exports of oil in 2018.   Th fact is that the USA imports 9 940 000 barrels of oil per day and exports 7 600 000 million barrels per day.  The net import figure is 2 340 000 barrels per day - which is less than 10% of daily consumption in the USA.

The following from the 2019 amd 2020 year forecast:-

"US expects domestic Crude Oil production to reach new heights this year and next, and that prices.

And both crude and gasoline will be lower than in Y 2018.

Government forecasters are sticking to their forecast that the United States, already the world’s biggest Crude Oil producer will become a net exporter of crude and petroleum products in Y 2020.

The US Energy Information Administration said (EIA) Tuesday that it expects the United States to pump 12.4 BPD in Y 2019 and 13.2-M BPD in Y 2020. The January average was 12-M BPD, up 90,000 from December.

Most of the increase is expected to come from the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico, where production has been booming for several years as operators use hydraulic fracturing and other techniques to squeeze more Oil & Gas from shale formations."

I essence it means that the USA will have to increase production by about 11% to reach the stage where the USA will be a met exporter of crude,    That is part of the reason why the US economy is booming and the rest is struggling,       

The oil from shale project was recently moved to Pennsylvania where it accounts for 50 000 new job opportunities,   That is enough to put the USA as a ne exporter of crude oil this year.

As production in the USA increases the imports from other countries decline.   The import of oil from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States has dropped drastically in 2019 already, 

the Bushes and Obama banned certain production methods in the USA and was happy to import oil from other countries,   That was the reason for the gulf wars and the USA involvement in it, 

That was changed under Trump and the ideal of a net exporer status is certain this year,    

 https://www.livetradingnews.com/record-us-crudeoil-production-coming-in-2019-2020-123576.html#.XjBGSLNuLcs

@clevermike

"Despite its cool Green parties and ambitious wind and solar agendas, Europe remains by far the world’s largest importer of oil and natural gas.

Oil output in the North Sea and off the coast of Norway is declining, and the European Union is quietly looking for fossil fuel energy anywhere it can find it."

Virtually every European country has a Green Party but that doesn't mean the Greens are in power in any of those countries. Looking at the numbers in general the European Green Parties are quite small and in the EU they occupy just 74 of the 751 seats. So while they have a certain amount of power and influence they are are not in control of  EU/Europe's energy policy.

Looking up the numbers at the either the EU or the all the countries in the European continent, it does indicate the EU/Europe does import more oil than other single nation. But the numbers also indicate EU carbon emissions are significantly lower than China's and 4% lower than America's (despite the EU having 185 million more people). EU carbon emissions have been trending down for quite a long time.

But its also important to distinguish between the EU and Europe as a whole. Because if we are talking about Europe as a whole you can remove Russian oil from European imports as Russia is a European country. The continent of Europe and population of Europe is also larger than that of the USA (328 million vs 741 million) so even more so than the EU the larger population or Europe would explain its greater needs for oil than the USA. As for China while they have a bigger population than the EU/ Europe they import less oil yet they emit substantially more carbon emissions (more than EU/USA combined). Its to do with China's heavy reliance on coal a greater CO2 emitter than oil.

Europe itself is naturally rich in fossil fuels. It likely has more reserves of shale gas than the United States, currently the world’s largest producer of both oil and natural gas. Yet in most European countries, horizontal drilling and fracking to extract gas and oil are either illegal or face so many court challenges and popular protests that they are neither culturally nor economically feasible.

 The result is that Europe is almost entirely dependent on Russian, Middle Eastern and African sources of energy.

Across Europe, their is notably less skepticism to the evidence of man made climate change driven by CO2 emissions from both the general public and politically parties than there is in the United States. As it stands Europe can't do without oil, but its not politically viable to start producing its own energy supplies so it imports most of it, which will attract less attention from its general public. Its like the only adage, out of sight, out of mind. 

Again Russia is a European country, but yes many European countries energy dependence on Russia (like Germany) has been noted for many years now and its been an ongoing concern. After Russia's antics in the Ukraine there was concern if Europe was too tough on Russia, they would simply cut of gas supplies into Europe. 

As for oil from the Middle East well, I would personally like Europe to be less dependent on it, so less reason to be involved in middle east conflicts.

"The American-Iranian standoff in the Middle East, coupled with radical drop-offs in Iranian and Venezuelan oil production, has terrified Europe — and for understandable reasons.The European Union has almost no ability to guarantee the delivery of critical oil and gas supplies from the Middle East should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz or harass ships in the Persian Gulf.

Europe’s only maritime security is the NATO fleet — a synonym for the U.S. Navy.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia supplies an estimated 30 percent of Europe’s oil needs. In times of crisis, Putin could exercise de facto control over the European economy.

In other words, Europe refuses to develop its own gas and oil reserves, and won’t fund the necessary military power to ensure that it can safely import energy from problematic or even hostile sources."

The Iranians closing the Strait of Hormuz would be a disaster for Europe's energy (probably not good for the world economy in general)  and yes its a factor in Europe's hostility to Trump. He unilaterally ended the Iranian nuclear deal despite every intelligence agency in the world (including the US) saying Iran was complying with just to spite his predecessor providing proof in Europe's eyes Trump ergo America is an unreliable partner on the world stage.

Some European countries have navies, they aren't that big but probably are superior to Iran's. I've no idea if they alone could keep the Straights of Hormuz open, maybe for a short time. However in European eyes the only reason Iran would close the Straights would be in large part due to American actions, at which point America can go sort it out, and they needn't expect any help from Europe on that (maybe the UK would).

As mentioned already Russia's control over European gas supplies is a concern. It gives them leverage. But what's the likely hood of that occurring. Russia has been belligerent on Europe's borders but would they go as far as cutting off gas and oil supplies.  If they did would what that warrant a military response from Europe?. Is that justification to go to war with a country, they won't sell you oil and gas. How long could Russia do with European energy money and sustain possible trade sanctions against them.  Even if it justified military action and say the EU wanted to build up a military force to counter Russian aggression, you would be the first on here to criticize the EU as you would no doubt claim its military was going to be used to suppress its own people. You have already said it several times on this forum. 

I think Europe in general is very wary of countries have large military forces and I think its a hang over from WWII. 

"It’s no wonder that Europe’s traditional foreign policy reflects these crazy paradoxes.

Energy neediness explains why the EU was so eager to maintain the so-called “Iran deal” with the theocracy in Tehran, and also why it was nervous about the anti-Russia hysteria that arose in the United States after the 2016 election.

Past European distancing from Israel reflected Europe’s fear of alienating Arab oil producers in the Middle East and North Africa.

Europeans are also uneasy about the Trump administration. They see the current U.S. government as nationalist and unpredictable. Americans appear not so ready as in the past to enter the world’s hotspots to ensure unimpeded commercial use of sea and air lanes for the benefit of others."

Both Europe and America's foreign policy are full of paradoxes.

Already explained Europe's feelings on the Iran situation. Anti Russia hysteria? Russia has annexed part of a European country and militarily occupied another part of it. It's committed chemical nerve agent attack in another European country and has been showing to engage in cyber activities against western countries to foster political division within in them. So yes Russia is a concern for Europe and yes Russia has leverage over Europe.

Distancing themselves from Israel. On morale grounds a majority of Europeans disprove of Israel's occupation of Palestine territory and the treatment of its people. The Irish for example would see strong parallels between what Israel is doing now and the Ulster plantations. They also view America's unequivocal support for Israel as a major detriment to peace between the two sides. Israel will never have to contemplate a fair deal as long as America has its back.

Yes Europe does think that about America under Trump is unpredictable. I think with good reason too. But if Fox News is trying to imply America went into Afghanistan and Iraq to "to ensure unimpeded commercial use of sea and air lanes for the benefit of others." they can pull the other one.

I'll reply to the rest of the article later. Need to head out now.

Stav

Appreciated,  There is a lot wrong in the world and very little right.  

I think that Trump pulled the plug on many deals signed by Obama, mostly trade agreements,  The problem  with most of the agreements was it did not protect the interests of the workers in the USA and was not done on the basis of beneficial benefit for all parties concerned,   There were two many cases which led to industrial plant closures in the USA and relocations of industries to countries with lower labour costs and no real trade unions.  The products are then imported with no custom duties payable.   Big problem changes resulting in tens of thousands losing their jobs in the USA.   

As to the Iran nuclear deal there are two issues that made Trump unhappy, namely -

*   satellite spying indicated that Iran moved most of its nuclear activities into army camps where no inspections were allowed: and

*    proxy wars involving Iran in the ME in particular.   

The latter is financed by the relaxation of sanctions.   Both needed review of the agreement and even though Trump tried to start renegotiations before he tore up the previous treaty, but they played hardball. 

There was  not so long ago a massive oil and gas field discovered of the coast of SA.   The Government has recently released the conditions for mining and the closing date for submission of proposals is 31 January.   I think a lot of European countries should show an interest - if not  US companies  would love to be on on the deal to the detriment of the EU.  

By the way Merkel is Chancellor with the grace of the SDP and the Greens - basically a coalition government.   

Back to respond more to that article.

"The result is a sort of European schizophrenia when it comes to America and foreign policy in general. On one hand, the European Union resents its military dependence on Washington, while on the other it prays for its continuance. The EU loudly promotes freedom and democracy abroad, but it is careful to keep ties with oil-exporting Middle Eastern autocracies that are antithetical to every value Europeans promote.

Germany agrees with its allies that Russian imperial agendas could threaten European autonomy. But privately, Berlin reassures Putin’s Russia that it wants to buy all the gas and oil that Moscow has to sell. Germany increasingly seems far friendlier with a suspicious Russia than it is with an America that protects it.

In sum, what ensures that Europeans have enough daily gasoline and home heating fuel are not batteries, wind farms and solar panels — much less loud green proselytizing. They count instead on a mercurial Russia, an array of unstable Middle Eastern governments and an underappreciated U.S. military."

Some countries within the EU in general as well as European politicians and EU politicians do resent have to rely on America military. But its far from the entire EU/Europe. France/Sarkozy would be a country politician that believes the EU should have a military for its own security but their isn't a political will across Europe for this. The resentment is aimed at other EU/European countries for this.  As for dealing with middle Eastern autocracies. We get oil from Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Didn't think present day Iraq was an autocracies. Saudi Arabia, yeah personally I wouldn't too have much business dealings with them but the USA can hardly complain about the EU doing business with the Saudi's now can they? Link on EU Energy imports

Yes Europe does have concerns about Russia. The question is how far are Russia going to go and whats the appropriate response. The generally feeling is Putin would like to see a version of the Soviet Union return but not as in Russia occupying Eastern and part of central Europe. More he wants to try to push these states into a Russian sphere of influence. I'd imagine the Germans would like to not be as dependent on Russia for energy but I suspect the reason they can't simply switch over is simply cost.  They already have pipeline infrastructure in place and importing oil from American would take longer and cost more. Do German ports have the infrastructure to handle a massive increase in oil tanker arrivals. Would the German people be willing to pay higher energy costs?

Its summation is partially right and wrong.  Batteries, solar panels, wind farms are what means the EU has a smaller carbon footprint than the USA.  For any country it will take time to switch from fossil fuels to green energy. You could argue Europe isn't doing enough as it is, but that's still more than the US. Changing over from Russia would cause massive disruption to Europe, the middle east supply is overstated and its the trigger happy US foreign policy that's most likely going be the cause of disruption of oil from the middle east.

"In a logical world, Europeans would retake control of their own destiny. That recalibration would entail beefing up their military power, and their navies in particular.

They also would begin to frack and horizontally drill. Europeans would push ahead with more nuclear power, hydroelectric projects and clean-coal technologies — at least until new sources of clean energies become viable.

Europe should applaud U.S. gas and oil development, which has upped world supplies, diversified suppliers and lowered global prices. Europeans should especially remember that the U.S. military keeps global commerce safe for all vulnerable importers such as themselves.

But these remedies are apparently seen in Europe as worse than the disease of oil and gas dependency."

Europe by and large believes in man made climate change. Its politically not possible to start fracking and drilling. If you believe the man made climate change will in the mid to long term have significant long term negative environmental impact on the planet, then its the moral and logical thing not to produce more sources of carbon emissions which are whats driving man made climate change. Europe is very far from being perfect on green energy and it can be hypocritical in this matter but is remains far ahead of the US on the issue. Europe is pushing ahead with green energy projects. As for nuclear power, the Fukashima incident scared the Germans away from using nuclear power perhaps an over reaction. Nuclear power is still used in Europe but again issues dealing with nuclear waste and the fear of potential disasters mean their is no political will to expand on them.

No Europe won't applaud more sources of carbon emissions but for now we will take advantage of the lower oil prices. The money it saves can be pumped back into green energy.

Could it be that the US wants to make money selling oil at the expense of the middle east and Russia and are wipping up the threat posed by both?

"The result is again chaos. Europe lectures about greenhouse gases while it desperately seeks supplies of fossil fuels. Germany usually sets the tone in Europe, and it is the most hypocritical in both denouncing and buying fossil fuels from unsavory sources.

The danger for Europe now is that the charade may soon be over.

Americans are self-sufficient in gas and oil. They have lost interest in Middle East quagmires and petro-regimes. And they don’t like patrolling the world for countries that both count on and ankle-bite the U.S. military. Meanwhile, the more Europeans pander to oil-rich Russia, Iran and various Gulf states, the less respect they earn in return.

It is hard to be both the world's largest importer of gas and oil and the loudest critic of fossil fuels, but Europe has managed to do it."

This last part is just deflection. Europe acknowledges the science behind the climate debate and is ahead of the US on this issue, the current 2nd biggest carbon emitter and historically the biggest emitter who are going through a denial phase at the moment. Yes Europe which is larger than the US may use more oil than them, but has lower carbon emissions. 

Great America, stay out of the middle east, you usually only make a complete hash of it. Most Europeans would support less American intervention there. 

As for earning less respect, no country in Europe elected Donald Trump as its President. Since Trump came to power globally respect for America has dropped through the floor and is probably down at the level of earth where the US is drilling for oil. And as if America doesn't deal with Gulf states. Now who's being hypocritical? The only people who have lost respect for Europe are Trump supporters and to be honest most Europeans wouldn't mind that either.

There are some very interesting points raised by you.  I know the fact is that Europeans dislike Trump massively -  probably for a number of reasons,  Some has to do with his stance on serving America first and then the rest of the world.  In that he is not the typical rightwing dictator - but rather a centrist in his policies.

Trump has been a difficult customer to deal with.  He is more a businessman than a career politician and accordingly has political problems at home with a flood of negative publicity worldwide.   One of his most disliked policies related to NATO.   The Europeans for many years have not met the contractually required funding for NATO and  Trump said that unless the other NATO members contribute what they should he is going to downgrade American contribution which could have let to virtual destruction of NATO as a military alliance.   The EU members quickly complied, but not without some bitterness - no doubt.

Trump did what Obama refused to do and that is provide arms aid to Ukraine.  He complained that Europe does nothing to assist Ukraine militari ly  at all and at one stage he froze the aid because of that and a refusal to grant aid to corrupt regimes worldwide.   However, there are elements in the Democratic Party and even in his own party that his links to the Arms Industry in the USA and they like endless wars,   When Trump announced he was going to withdraw the US military from the ME - they wanted to have a fit,   The same applies to Afghanistan and Korea.   Trump really want to stop military adventures in other countries, but the politic system bounds his hands.   

The fact is the major sects in the Islamic Religion has been at war in the ME for a thousand years and more and it is only an idiot that would get involved with that part of history,   The major two sects involved are the Sunni's  centered around the southern and African regions and the Shi'ites are found mostly in Iran, part of Syria, Afghanistan. Pakistan. Malaysia and Indonesia.  When the recent attack of Iran  on the  Saudi oilfields  happened - Trump tightened sanction on Iran though and when the Saudi's  pleaded for military assistance he agreed to send US troops in on condition that the Saudi's cover the full cost attached to it.

As to green energy provision - sure it is an option and even becoming more attractive in  SA,  But the problem remains it does not as yet cover enough of the power needs of any country and there is no chance that it would in the next twenty years removed the need of using oil and gas for that purpose.  I think it is a nice dream - but hardly achievable.   Europe  should rather go for nuclear power,  It must be remembered that Japan is subject to major earthquakes and Europe is not,   

Anyway I think that if humans have am impact in climate change  it is largely through population increases and one wonders how that will be dealt with by the Greens and the left - of center politicians?                       

In essence what he stands for is often misrepresented in the media and his attitude us that Europe must not exploit and use the USA by not bringing to the table their part.  Enough to make him very unpopular in Europe                              

"There are some very interesting points raised by you.  I know the fat is that Europeans dislike Trump massively -  probably for a number of reasons,  Some has to do with his stance on serving America first and then the rest of the world.  In that he is not the typical rightwing dictator - but rather a centrist in his policies."

I of course don't speak for all Europeans but in general most Europeans dislike Trump for many reasons. In no particular order, his personality, his trade war threats against Europe, pulling out of the Iranian deal and his position on climate change being the primary reasons. Trump by European standards is a far right politician, no where near centrist. The democratic party in the US would be considered at best center right over here.

"Trump has been a difficult customer to deal with.  He is more a businessman than a career politician and accordingly has political problems at home with a flood of negative publicity worldwide.   One of his most disliked policies related to NATO.   The European for many years have not met the contractually required finding for NATO and  Trump said that unless the other NATO members contribute what they should he is going to downgrade American contribution which could have let to virtual destruction of NATO as a military alliance.   The EU members quickly complied, but without some bitterness - no doubt."

I generally agree with Trump on the Nato payments issue, as I've said before here. If the European powers believe in Nato and the security protection it provides them then they should pony up their fair share of the money. However I suggest part of the issue European politicians have some issue here is that if you go back over some of his quotes about Nato from earlier in his Presidency he wasn't too complementary about the organisation, implying it was a waste of time. Its here where some feared Trump would just pull out unilaterally. On its own Trump policy towards Nato and getting European powers to stump up more money wouldn't be enough to earn Trump the dislike he currently gets. Its more than that.  

"Trump did what Obama refused to do and that is provide arms aid to Ukraine.  He complained that Europe dis nothing to assist Ukraine at all and at one stage he froze the aid because of that and a refusal to grant aid to corrupt regimes worldwide.   However, there are elements in the Democratic Party and even in his own party that his links to the Arms Industry in the USA and they like endless wars,   When Trump announced he was going to withdraw the US military from the ME - they wanted to have a fit,   The same applies to Afghanistan and Korea.   Trump really want to stop military adventures in other countries, but the politic system bounds his hands. " 

Trump was wrong to complain about Europe not sending aid to the Ukraine, its given the Ukraine vastly more money than the US did, into tens of billions of Euros. And in general few in Europe believe his reason for cutting aid to Ukraine. Someone with nothing to hide on that issue would not be blocking witnesses.

"The fact is the major sects in the Islamic Religion has been at war in the ME for a thousand years and more and it is only an idiot that would get involved with that part of history,   The major two sects involved are the Sunni's  centered around the southern and African regions and the Shi'ites are found mostly in Iran, part of Syria, Afghanistan. Pakistan. Malaysia and Indonesia.  When the recent attack of Iran  on the  Saudi oilfields  happened - Trump tightened sanction on Iran though and when the Saudi's  pleaded for military assistance he agreed to send US troops in on condition that the Saudi's cover the full cost attached to it."

I would agree its best not to get involved in the middle east. Best to stay out of there as much as possible.

The attack on Saudi oilfields was conducted by Houthi Rebels using Iranian equipment. It wasn't Iran who attacked them, they obviously supported the attack to further there own goals. But put the shoe on the other foot. When the Saudi's attack the Houthi rebels with American military equipment, do the Houthi's get to complain America is attacking them?

"As to green energy provision - sure it is an option and even becoming more attractive in  SA,  But the problem remains it does not as yet cover enough of the power needs of any country and there is no chance that it would in the next twenty years removed the need of using pol and gas for that purpose.  I think it is a nice dream - but hardly achievable.   Europe  should rather go for nuclear power,  It must be remembered that Ja[an is subject to major earthquakes and Europe ois not"

No one is suggesting its feasible possible to get rid of fossil fuels completely right now, civilization would collapse in such an event. But there has to be serious and urgent action take to reduce CO2 emissions by switching over to green energy sources where possible. 

Anyway I think that if humans have am impact in climate change  it is largely through population increases and one wonders how that will be dealt with by the Greens and the left - of center politicians?        

Forgot what politicians, activists, bloggers or celebrities say but look at the science. Its man made carbon emission fueling an increase in global temperatures. It doesn't matter, what you or I think, its what the scientific evidence indicates is the truth.

In essence what he stands for is often misrepresented in the media and his attitude us that Europe must not exploit and use the USA by not bringing to the table their part.  Enough to make him very unpopular ibn Europe       

His arguments and the arguments of his supports often misrepresent the other side. Another reason why his unpopular here.

Even if the whole world converts to green energy at the fastest pace Germany (the most ambitious converter) has managed....you only get about 20% of the way the doctrine demands by mid century.  Nuclear is the only practical answer and of course the answer the Greenies walk away from because they have been against nuclear long before they were against carbon.

Strav, is this graph BS?

Most of the meteorologists I've seen and listened to suck at physics...or ignore most of it and ignore most of the long term historical evidence/data too.

Obviously we should look after the environment and stop unbridled pollution and development.  What is obvious for those thinking outside the box is that we are deliberately being lied to and that reports and research is being slanted to adhere to an obvious agenda.

Things like the Paris Accord is being used to play on people's sense of social responsibility to extort money from the masses. Most politicians are into GREEN for the money...and I actually would have been able to live with it, if it actually improved the environment...it doesn't help one iota if Amerca burns coal from South America rather than their own...in fact, the transport leaves an even bigger footprint.

This BS is fearmongering to extort money.

Poor Stav is quietly crying because Britain has left the EU. Talk is that Britain will be the first of many. The cat is out the bag. The Globalist ruled EU vs undemocratic and intends destroying the European nation states. This is not going down well.

Anyone see that Finnish MEP give the EU globalists hell!!

But worse is to come. The USA, a far bigger economy that the EU, has a trade deficit with the EU of over 150 Billion dollars. Trump said the other day Europe is next. Once again Trump holds all the aces!

The greatest President in US history keeps on winning. Black approval sitting at 42% according to Rasmussen Poll. Three earlier polls had Trump approval rating at 34%. Bye Bye demonrats!

McConnell has 51 Senate votes at a minimum. Only Mi ttens and Collins out of line and will pay huge price.

Trump unmasked the hypocrisy of the Europeans. They don't pay their Nato bills. They want the USA to defend them, they put tariffs on US goods etec. Then they go and buy oil from Russia rather than the USA! Russia uses the oil revenues to help support its military.

You have to be profoundly unpatriotic and a hater of your nation to like the open borders globalist ruled EU!. Someone like poor Stav!

Of course the struggling EU doesn't use as much oil as the USa they have a significantly smaller economy.

What will these loons say when the world doesn't end in 12 or 11 years from now! More and more people realize man made climate change is a hoax. Wonder what the spin will be 12 years. My guess that will find something else to sell to gullible twits!!!!.

Face facts the EU has been terribly badly run. These goons cant last too much longer. Girlie boy Macron is on his way out. Le Pen is ahead in the polls and France like so many European countries desperately needs a Trump to save their countries from the mess they are in. Those French firemen gave Macrons goons hell!

Man it's all going very well. Britain is OUT of the EU. HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!! Domino 1 falls. Trump heading for landslide election win with GOP taking back the House. Hooray. Trudeau (of the falling eyebrows) lost his majority and will be out next time around.

The vote was just finalized against witnesses and the result was that the vote was 49 for allowing further witnesses and 51 not to.  

The two Republicans who voted with the democrats were Romney and Collins.  Collins waa re-elected in 2014  and is facing an election in Maine in November,  main traditionally is a democratic state and her voting record is quite often with the Democrats - bit for the rest she is more on the liberal side of the RP.    I do not think that the RP will nominate her again as their candidate and that would mean the end of her political career.

Romney is another RP problem.   Romney was always a representative of the Washington political elite.    He is more like the Bushes and like them always liaised with the Democrats to try and find consensus and help them in their efforts,   He was elected as Senator of Utah in 2016 and his term ends in 2022,   He approached Trump to ask for his support in the 2016 election  Senate Election in Utah and got it,  He was then angling for the Secretary of State appointmen t when Trump became President but a unsuccessful in that effort.  Since then he has opposed a number of policies suggested by the Trump Administration sued I do not know what will happen to him, I am not sure whether there is a way to force him out by a recall vote           

@DbDraad

What do you think that graph proves?

Is it that CO2 levels are lagging temperature increases by say roughly 800 years and this disproves the idea CO2 can drive temperature increase.  Yes its known accepted science that CO2 levels can be driven by an increase in temperature but also temperature can be increased by rising CO2 levels, the science proves both are possible and one does not preclude the other.

"Most of the meteorologists I've seen and listened to suck at physics...or ignore most of it and ignore most of the long term historical evidence/data too.

Obviously we should look after the environment and stop unbridled pollution and development.  What is obvious for those thinking outside the box is that we are deliberately being lied to and that reports and research is being slanted to adhere to an obvious agenda.

Things like the Paris Accord is being used to play on people's sense of social responsibility to extort money from the masses. Most politicians are into GREEN for the money...and I actually would have been able to live with it, if it actually improved the environment...it doesn't help one iota if Amerca burns coal from South America rather than their own...in fact, the transport leaves an even bigger footprint.

This BS is fearmongering to extort money."

You got it the wrong way round I'm afraid. Most of the climate skeptics are the one's ignoring or misunderstanding the science and historical data. Science and evidence are not on the climate skeptics side so the only way to hold a viewpoint contrary to the evidence is to believe in a conspiracy where all the science and data is false and made up to serve some agenda.

So is the data in the graph wrong?

@DbDraad

Short answer is I don't know.

Long answer

In order for me to answer that I would have to know the source of the data used in the graph

The graph appears on the website of oceanographer John Englander and according to Englander is based on the work of Dr James Hansen and Mikiko Sato. 

https://www.johnenglander.net/420000-years-of-temp-co2-and-sea-level-what-a-coincidence/

But he doesn't state what work exactly it was of Hansen and Sato's. So I can't check the work myself and even if I could as I'm not a climate scientist I doubt I'd understand it.

Englander on the page uses the graph to show a link between higher CO2 levels leading to sea level rises.

The graph does look legit as does Englander but I doubt it proves the point you think it does, which you have yet to state?

Strav and Shark...I'm not a climate change denier.  I'm just saying there is something very wrong with the way it's being reported and some things are blatantly ignored. 

1. The temperature, sea levels and CO2 levels has been in constant fluctuation for millions of years, naturally.
2. The climate will change even if we cease all carbon emissions immediately. 
3. We are near the top of the curve of a hot cycle, so extreme weather events are to be expected.
4. Humans should chance as little as possible, because we do not know how the changes we do make will affect the equilibrium of the planet as we know it. There are just too many variables for scientists to accurately predict any kind of outcome. Pretending that they can is just plain dishonest.
5.  There are much worse things than burning fossil fuels, but nobody is talking about it.
6. The real elephant in the room is the population explosion in the poorer countries.  
7. Humans are destroying the planet. The only way to start reversing the damage is to drastically decrease the population...and there are no socially acceptable way of doing that yet.

I totally agree with you Draad.

1. There are much worse things than burning fossil fuels, but nobody is talking about it.
2. The real elephant in the room is the population explosion in the poorer countries.  
3. Humans are destroying the planet. The only way to start reversing the damage is to drastically decrease the population...and there are no socially acceptable way of doing that yet.

The biggest oil producer in the world is Sinopec and along with Petro-China. I think Shell comes next.

The 3 biggest ones in Russia are Gazprom, Lukoil and Rosneft. Just over 50% of Gazprom is owned by Russian government…and the rest private,including Putin. But they come way down individually but I suppose combined they are close to the top producer in fossil fuels.

Gazprom supplies 50 regions in Russia and 17 countries, ie Bulgaria,Croatia, Finland Georgia ,Italy, Netherlands, Turkey,USA and a few others.

Does the Russian government use revenues generated to fund military power, I’m sure they do but so do other nations.

To single them constantly out as the bad boy smacks of hypocrisy.

I too support the break away from the EU. Leave other countries alone and let each nation in the world get their own houses in order first.

Yes Stav…I too have direct Irish ties too from Cork and Limerick and not an Ulster descendant and support the claim that the whole Ireland should be Eire from way back...no I'm certainly not a Michael Collins fan but want an independant Ireland. Neither am I Catholic either or grandad but such topics are emotional with certain folk. But that's really off the subject.

Thanks, I mean no nastiness and respect other views.

Russia does not need EU to buy it’s oil…it will sell to anyone who pays but so do other nations.

The UK can always buy from US and Russian Fed.

"Scientists know the most about science. "

Nooit!

@DbDraad, what people mean by climate change denier, is a person who denies man made climate change. That's what you are.

On points one or two, no one disagrees with you these points. The climate changes naturally and proponents of man made climate change absolutely acknowledge that. It's common scientific knowledge.

What the evidence points too, is that the current rate of temperature increase is not occuring at a natural rate and it's been caused by man made carbon emissions 

There is massive reams of historical data and evidence supporting the theory of man made climate change. Pretending their isn't is either dishonest or due to person's inability to look at evidence from a non biased perspective.

The rest of your post is mostly a diversion from the actual issue. Everyone knows the population of earth is growing and that will create pressure on food supplies and likely lead to a further increase in pollution. But that doesn't change the current evidence that overwhelming points to man made climate change. 

If you dismissing scientists just because you don't like the conclusion the evidence points too you can literally dismiss any form of expertise. What do dentists know about dentistry, what do real estate agents know about selling houses, what do lawyers know about the law, what do police know about law enforcement etc etc etc.

Just a small point:

Stav I don't think Draad was saying or insinuating that all  scientists are wrong...that's really dumb but merely saying you cannot swallow everything they claim...you are quite a knowledgeable fellow that obviously reads a lot and analysing data...and by nature are an analyst and there is a certain amount of respect and credit I give you but really what is really credible in the absolute context..is .there is too much nonsense and clandestine information put out today that gullible people swallow...we know we at times we are all guilty at times of being too naive but there again too cynical at times as well.

Intelligent people really listen to what the other person is really saying or should be trying to say in the right context and not what so many here jump to conclusions what they determine and it can be way off what they really mean.

That's my 2cents worth.

I'm not trying to be a devils advocate at all...what for?? I too get frustrated here when replies are misconstrued.

This happens here daily but this forum is really a game and should not be taken so seriously but with a good dose of salt.

https://youtu.be/HHjKzr6tLz0

"There is massive reams of historical data and evidence supporting the theory of man made climate change. Pretending their isn't is either dishonest or due to person's inability to look at evidence from a non biased perspective."

Of coarse there is man made climate change, but there is natural climate change too and most of the views getting media attention totally ignores this. There is another political aspect to the debate that you either ignore or reduce to insignificant.  The whole issue is more complex than just black and white answers. If you really think that reducing CO2 is the most important thing we can do to curb changes in the environment, you are in for a big surprise. 

PS, I'm not denying the problem, I'm calling BS on the proposed solution. 

@sebastienchabal

It's not a question of swallowing anything, it's a question of what does the evidence indicate.

The nonsense usually comes from the climate skeptic side of the debate and not to be offensive to you but suggesting  that there is some sort of clandestine campaign of disinformation from climate scientists or from some political entity controlling them is exactly that, nonsense.

Intelligent people base their world views on what the evidence suggests, not what they want to believe or are biased towards.

@DbDraad

The media is not ignoring naturally occurring climate change, it's just not what's causing the current warming trend. An increase in temperature that would normally take thousands of years to occur naturally is occuring in decades.

It doesn't matter what I think is the most important thing we can do to stop man made climate change, it's what the scientific evidence indicates is the most important thing we can do to stop it. Science doesn't care about politics it only cares about evidence, facts and the truth.

You are basically saying you agree there is a serious issue with man made carbon emissions driving an increase in global climate temperature, yet you don't believe reducing man made carbon emissions is a solution or its a BS solution. Are you not seeing a flaw in your logic?

No one is denying that coal and carbon emissions add to the pollution issues. 

But until all countries stop burning coal and use oil-based fuel products we will continue with the problem.

The big issue really is to nail down the truth about CO2's because many an expert has discovered that by installing the fear of a "Doom's Day" around the corner they are raking in dollars in one form or another.

Take Al "Erect One" Gore who is a multi-millionaire or billionaire and going around and spreading the fear with no concrete evidence to back his claims but gaining financially with his theories.

The biggest polluters are China and India without a doubt but what is the world going to do about it....DIDDLE SQUAT because we are all aiding the problem by supporting these countries through trade and purchasing their goods.

Both these countries have large rural squatter populations with no sewers and debatable clean water who earn a meager living by growing crops and selling it to co-ops who in turn sell to the Western world.

So besides breathing in polluted oxygen, we are also eating food that is grown in polluted soil and growing in s--t and watered with u---e.

So when you are driving your gas guzzler down the freeway enjoying that fast-food burger you just purchased and washing it down with a sugar-loaded pop, by all means, enjoy it as the clock is ticking as AOC and Bernie keep reminding us.

We are now in the 11th year of DOOMSDAY I am led to believe.

But we never learn and we are all going to end up the same way I'm sure.