Saudis: If world cuts oil consumption, We will need foreign aid

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
BANGKOK - There are plenty of needy countries at the U.N. climate talks in Bangkok that make the case they need financial assistance to adapt to the impacts of global warming. Then there are the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia has led a quiet campaign during these and other negotiations ? demanding behind closed doors that oil-producing nations get special financial assistance if a new climate pact calls for substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels.

That campaign comes despite an International Energy Agency report released this week showing that OPEC revenues would still increase $23 trillion between 2008 and 2030 ? a fourfold increase compared to the period from 1985 to 2007 ? if countries agree to significantly slash emissions and thereby cut their use of oil. That is the limit most countries agree is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Story continues below ?advertisement | your ad here

The head of the Saudi delegation Mohammad S. Al Sabban dismissed the IEA figures as "biased" and said OPEC's own calculations showed that Saudi Arabia would lose $19 billion a year starting in 2012 under a new climate pact. The region would lose much more, he said.

'Very serious'
"We are among the economically vulnerable countries," Al Sabban told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the talks ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen in December for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

"This is very serious for us," he continued. "We are in the process of diversifying our economy but this will take a long time. We don't have too many resources."

Saudi Arabia, which sits atop the world's largest proven oil reserves, is seeing economic growth slide because of fallout from the global meltdown, but experts still expect the country, flush with cash from oil's earlier price spike last year, to be better able than other nations to cope with the current crisis.

Al Sabban accused Western nations of pursuing an agenda against oil producers, under the guise of protecting the planet.

"Many politicians in the Western world think these climate change negotiations and the new agreement will provide them with a golden opportunity to reduce their dependence on imported oil," Al Sabban said. "That means you will transfer the burden to developing countries, especially to those highly dependent on the exploitation of oil."

Al Sabban said his country wanted a new deal and was not impeding progress in talks as some activists have claimed.

Click for related content
China, U.S., Europe clash at climate talks
EPA moves to curb greenhouse gas emissions

An Arab environmental group IndyACT and the environmental group Germanwatch released a report Thursday accusing Saudi Arabia of blocking key elements of the negotiations. Among their tactics, the groups said, was slowing negotiations by insisting that the economic woes of oil producers be included in the text.

"Despite the variability in the region, the current Arab position is mainly focused around protecting the oil trade rather than saving the planet form the adverse impacts of climate change," said Wael Hmaidan, the executive director of IndyACT.

Most countries have agreed that any new pact should include provisions to avoid temperature increases of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels ? the threshold at which most scientists say serious climate change will ensue.

That would require emissions cuts from industrial countries of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, far above the 15 to 23 percent cuts rich countries have offered so far. It would also require developing countries to scale back their emissions.

Both rich and poor countries are counting on a transition to a low carbon economy as a key component of meeting their reductions, a move that would require them to away from fossil fuels and toward renewables like solar, wind and hydro power.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33...s/us_news-environment/

I believe there once was a saying "dont keep your eggs in one basket" but the Saudi's did not listen...
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
I hope everyday that we find an alternative source of energy, so we no longer have to pander to/protect the ME.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Link

The Saudis are worried about the reductions in fossil fuel use due to climate pacts. Well, boo hoo.

?We are among the economically vulnerable countries,? Al Sabban told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the talks ahead of negotiations in Copenhagen in December for a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012."
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
I really don't think they are in any sort of trouble. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy landscape for the next 50 years. No other technology, save for nuclear, is ready to take charge.

However, I hope this is a wake-up call to that region to diversify their economies and actually provide for their citizens instead of the opulent rich. The stagnation of the Arab world is one of the key causes of terrorism.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
I believe there once was a saying "dont keep your eggs in one basket" but the Saudi's did not listen...

that's because making baskets is womens' work and since women can't drive in SA they couldn't distribute enough baskets. oops.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Well the Saudi's better all plan on raising goats in the desert. Isnt that what they use to do?

I dont recall them having any compassion on the rest of the world when Oil was selling for over $100 a barrell and gas was $4.00 a gallon. As far as I am concerned they can go to hell.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
The House of Saud is going down, it's just a question of when. The rank and file probably aren't going to tolerate things getting much worse for them over there.

I just hope that whatever emerges on the other side isn't some wackaloon theocracy.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
Originally posted by: OCguy
I hope everyday that we find an alternative source of energy, so we no longer have to pander to/protect the ME.

+++

Hell just froze over. If it wasn't for oil, we wouldn't give a rat's ass about that region. And yes, that means Israel, too.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I really don't think they are in any sort of trouble. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy landscape for the next 50 years. No other technology, save for nuclear, is ready to take charge.

 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I really don't think they are in any sort of trouble. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy landscape for the next 50 years. No other technology, save for nuclear, is ready to take charge.

But since we can't have nuclear (thanks liberals) we are suck with fossil fuels.

Funny how that works. We could get ride of fossil fuels but then how would the liberals justify their existence?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
and the point is what? that they can't fuck over the world and make billions doing it? boo hoo.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I really don't think they are in any sort of trouble. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy landscape for the next 50 years. No other technology, save for nuclear, is ready to take charge.

But since we can't have nuclear (thanks liberals) we are suck with fossil fuels.

Funny how that works. We could get ride of fossil fuels but then how would the liberals justify their existence?

By winning elections and watching wingnuts like you scream with rage. It's quite entertaining. Weren't you supposed to ship out to Afghanistan and single handedly win the war, anyways? What, with you being such a bad ass, and all...
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Why is Saudi Arabia so disliked?

This thread has a lot of people who want some sort of pay back. Pay back for what?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: JKing106
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I really don't think they are in any sort of trouble. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy landscape for the next 50 years. No other technology, save for nuclear, is ready to take charge.

But since we can't have nuclear (thanks liberals) we are suck with fossil fuels.

Funny how that works. We could get ride of fossil fuels but then how would the liberals justify their existence?

By winning elections and watching wingnuts like you scream with rage. It's quite entertaining. Weren't you supposed to ship out to Afghanistan and single handedly win the war, anyways? What, with you being such a bad ass, and all...

so you want to continue to use fossil fuels just to piss people off? great idea.

both of you are idiots.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why is Saudi Arabia so disliked?

This thread has a lot of people who want some sort of pay back. Pay back for what?

Well, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, for one thing...

In essence, Saudi Arabia got very, very rich by selling us oil. That's fine, but now that they're rolling in cash they can't turn around and claim that we should pay them even MORE for not buying oil. Just because we did business before doesn't mean that we owe them that income in perpetuity.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Fuck 'em. They need to diversify, provide for all of their people, or go down in flames.

Works for me.

Then, perhaps, maybe they can become a REAL ally and friend to our nation on the basis of a mutual respect for human rights, freedom, and the pursuit of non-fiscal and non-theological happiness.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Originally posted by: OCguy
I hope everyday that we find an alternative source of energy, so we no longer have to pander to/protect the ME.

:thumbsup:

The sooner, the better.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Fuck 'em. They need to diversify, provide for all of their people, or go down in flames.

Works for me.

Then, perhaps, maybe they can become a REAL ally and friend to our nation on the basis of a mutual respect for human rights, freedom, and the pursuit of non-fiscal and non-theological happiness.

you win my vote bud!
ecology!
To be a active member of the modern world, you have to have some modern values and show action in accord to those values- Human rights, Democracy and very importantly sustainable ecological management, they should be investing in creating some more arable land(reversing the man made increases to the size of their deserts, caused by deforestation over many millenia) and some productive capacities to guarantee themselves a future in a post oil scenario.
A guy recently got 5 years jail and 1000 lashes for speaking on tv about his heterosexual behaviors, basically talking about enjoying his sex life in an adult and honest way. If he was a woman I wouldn't want to imagine what the punishment would be.
I do not fear repercussions of terrorism, because once the oil money is dried up, they won't be able to fund shit anymore. It might be a better way to defeat ill Quaeda, nip at its stem, not the bud.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Their "business cooperation" amongst fellow oil producers is a threat to a truly free market and skyrocketing energy prices will only further the advancement of alternatives.

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I really don't think they are in any sort of trouble. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy landscape for the next 50 years. No other technology, save for nuclear, is ready to take charge.

Well said, fossil fuels will still have a place for the foreseeable future thanks to it being both powerful and portable (cars, small boats, etc.) even if we steam full speed ahead with nuclear power.

 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,181
23
81
Another vote for F'em, these SOB's sure have caused or worsened many a recession with their cartel. I agree, sell them flour at $100/lb or "Let them drink oil"
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: Patranus
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I really don't think they are in any sort of trouble. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate the energy landscape for the next 50 years. No other technology, save for nuclear, is ready to take charge.

But since we can't have nuclear (thanks liberals) we are suck with fossil fuels.

Funny how that works. We could get ride of fossil fuels but then how would the liberals justify their existence?

when was the the last time you saw a nuclear power car, plane, or truck? Battery technology just isn't where electric cars are really practical yet. Oil powers very few power stations and will be that way for the forseeable future. and do you want the spent fuel rods stored in your back yard? That the problem, no one want the waste anywhere near them.