It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are the fuel prices artificially high due to a Green Conspiracy?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   


LONDON (Reuters) - High fuel costs and a biting economic downturn are proving effective measures in cutting road congestion, a report showed on Wednesday.
Fewer people are opting to use their cars -- put off by petrol prices topping 120 pence per litre and diesel at as much as 140 pence per litre -- and those who do take to the roads drive more slowly to save fuel, the Trafficmaster report showed.

Congestion was 12 percent less in the first six months of 2008, compared with January to June 2007.


Full Story here

After reading that it struck me that they tried everything else they possibly could to get traffic off the road, when that failed they decided to hike up prices to a stupid level to achieve their aims. But that got me thinking about who really wanted that and how could they do it? Then, i considered some of the worlds ills, like the problems in the gulf, the tension with Russia etc and i wondered if they could be secretly behind it all? Could the Greens actually be the NWO, not the illuminati or any of the other usual suspects? We all thought crude oil prices were driven by greed, but could it be even more serious?

Could everything thats happening be part of a shadowy green party secret manifesto to get cars off the road, get everyone to become vegetarian and wear sandals


ok, im joking about the sandals part
, but could it be that the Green party has more power and influence than they were given credit for and that sinister shadowy eco warriors are controlling world events behind the scenes to achieve their aims of getting all cars off the roads??

Or am i just hung over and paranoid ?




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I don't think that environmentalists are behind the runaway speculation that brought up oil prices to $150 a barrel. But I do know that many "environmentalists" like what they're seeing.

After a few minutes of trying to get Nancy Pelosi to explain her position on the recent energy bill, George Stephanopoulos tried one last time. Nancy finally answered the question.


www.newsbusters.org...


STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?

PELOSI: No, what I'm saying to you is, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is something that -- you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I'm not giving the gavel -- I'm not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?

PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we're spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?

PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don't you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don't want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they're allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it's drill, drill, drill, drill and we're going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we're going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.


Notice how she rejects a bill that includes everything she wants just because it includes one thing she doesn't want: increased production of oil. She wants gas prices high because high prices, she believes, is the only thing that will be an incentive to research and develop other sources of energy.


Edit to add: Notice, also, that her words tell us she wants to reduce our dependence on "foreign oil", but her actions show us that she wants to reduce the availability and affordability of any oil.



[edit on 27-8-2008 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Notice how she rejects a bill that includes everything she wants just because it includes one thing she doesn't want: increased production of oil. She wants gas prices high because high prices, she believes, is the only thing that will be an incentive to research and develop other sources of energy.



She/husband are also heavly invested in Natural Gas.(radio interview I heard) also, in and interview with Tom Brokaw, she is quoted as saying that Natural Gas isn't a fossil fuel.........



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinktip
She/husband are also heavly invested in Natural Gas


A-ha! I'd heard and read the "fossil fuel" gaffe, but didn't hear nor read about the investments in natural gas.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

MR. BROKAW: You just mentioned natural gas, and you emphasized it as well in your last radio address...

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: ...talking about the energy plan. And then we read in The Wall Street Journal that you and your husband have made a substantial investment in the plan that T. Boone Pickens has put forward, which has a heavy emphasis on natural gas as well.

REP. PELOSI: But let me see if you call substantial 03 three percent of our investments.

MR. BROKAW: Oh, it's what, between 100 and $200,000.

REP. PELOSI: No, no, it was between 50 and $100,000, and it's part of an, you know, entrepreneurial package. This is the package we sign up for, this is what they invest in. But that's not the point. I'm, I'm, I'm investing in something I believe in. I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

MR. BROKAW: But you're also in a position to influence where the emphasis will be in where we're moving.

REP. PELOSI: Well, that's not--that is, that is the marketplace.
The fact is, the supply of natural gas is so big, and you do need a transition if you're going to go from fossil fuels, as you say, you can't do it overnight, but you must transition. These investments in wind, in solar and biofuels and focus on natural gas, these are the real alternatives. You have to ask yourself why, why is the administration not doing this? This is the challenge of our generation. It's a national security issue. President Nixon said we must end our dependence on foreign oil. President Carter said it's a moral equivalent of war. It's a national security issue, it's an economic issue, it's an environmental health issue, and it is a moral issue to protect this environment.


So, Nancy says, in effect: "No, I don't influence it, the market place does." And then influences the marketplace by stonewalling production.

What a piece of work in Nan.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by expatwhite
 


I think the answer is right under our noses... and yes it is the because its all a plan outlined below...




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
No, fuel prices are high because the oil corps are keeping it artificially scarce. It's the very reason the US went into Iraq in the first place, to keep the oil in the ground and the ME from making money (and keep prices in the west high), which could upset the balance of economic power as TPTB grab for control of the world economy.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join