It's not the end of American empire we should be worrying about, but the end of civilization itself.

The two most pressing problems are peak oil (which translates into declining available energy for the world economy) and climate change (which will literally drastically reduce the carrying capacity of the planet).

Throw in deforestation, resource depletion, desertification, overfishing, ocean acidification, species loss, fresh water overutilization, etc., etc., and on and on and we are approaching a full scale ecological catastrophe - one side effect of which will be the collapse of industrial civilization.

I view the "end of the world" hyperbole surrounding climate change in the same light as the "end of the world" hyperbole that surrounds the "war on terror": as a bogeyman to line the wallets and enhance the control over society by our governments and their corporate sponsors.

Unfortunately for all of us, I'd say your view is the majority one, and is the only explanation I can think of for our collective apathy in the face of looming catastrophe.

I feel it is hubristic to suppose that we *can* change the climate in a deliberate manner.

The climate doesn't give a rats a** what you think or feel. It just responds the only way it can, by obeying the laws of physics and getting ever warmer as we spew more CO2 into the air.

I also know that climate change has occurred before in an ongoing way and that it was not by virtue of human actions. Guess what, the solar system and our planet are stochastic systems. Are they stable? Remarkably so in absolute terms, but perhaps not so much on the scale that matters to us (ice age vs. heat wave).

Well, sure. In the past there were no humans to f*ck things up. Now we're here, and our actions are having a large effect on climate.

Your response simply shows you haven't seriously studied the issue. There is no doubt that human activities are have seriously altered the environment generally, and climate in particular.

Aren't you confusing what is good for the oil companies and their major stockholders, and what is good for America?

I don't think so - I said high oil prices are bad for America. I was responding to limiting factor, who claimed that high oil prices were good for America (if I read him correctly). Clearly high oil prices are beneficial to the oil companies, but I recognize that the the oil companies are not America.

Do you really believe that those oil companies give a rat's ass about America when they can achieve wealth beyond their wildest expectation by actually controlling the source of oil, along with its distribution, refinement, and re-distribution? (See also Iran circa 1952)

Two points:

1) The oil companies are clearly chasing profits, and do not, as you say, give a rat's ass about American generally.

2) The US oil companies do not control the source of oil. I believe Exxon/Mobil (the largest US oil company) produces about 2 million barrels of oil per day (mbpd), out of a world total output of 85 mbpd. They are big and powerful, for sure, but don't have the market power you ascribe to them in the above paragraph.

In the 1950s, most gas stations in the US were privately owned by individuals. In the 1970s (coincidentally when the first real oil crisis began) those family owned gas stations were taken over by and finally owned by the oil companies or their subsidiaries.

I don't know much about gas station ownership, but I do know that it did not cause the first oil crisis. And, as I mentioned above, the US oil majors just don't have the market muscle to control oil prices (OPEC did and does, however). The situation may have been a bit different back in the early '70's, that is, US oil majors probably controlled a higher fraction of global output, but I have never heard the oil majors accused of withholding oil from the US market during that time.

Multinational Big Oil and Friends give a damn about America?

They give as much about America as Goldman Sachs.

On this we agree.

since most pension/retirement funds carry a heavy allocation of energy and auto stocks, it would seem that most of the country anticipates benefit from expensive oil.

This is a strange argument. Let's follow it to it's logical conclusion.

Say oil prices double, and the average American makes an additional 50% on their energy stock holdings. So far so good.

But high oil prices are no good for the auto industry - people will start biking instead of driving, and will move to more fuel efficient cars. They may put off new auto purchases altogether, since high oil prices also increase the price of:

1) food

2) gasoline

3) all transported goods

4) heating oil (if you live where the weather gets cold)

So, that argues for a decline in automobile stock holdings, airline equities, transportation companies, etc. Maybe the value of my overall portfolio won't go up after all.

And maybe my heating bill will double, and the cost of my commute will double, and my grocery bill will go up. If I'm really unlucky, perhaps the high price of oil will spark a recession and I'll lose my job.

Then even if my 401(k) goes up, I'll have to cash it out just to make the mortgage payment for the next 6 months while I look for work and hope I find another job.

You get the idea.

The bottom line is: when energy is abundant and cheap, it's good because energy is an excellent proxy for wealth. When energy is scarce and/or expensive, it's bad.

it's convenient to only consider the scope that makes one's arguments look best.

Indeed.