The Guardian has a look back at a long ago warning about global warming to the oil industry - On its 100th birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming.

Over 300 government officials, economists, historians, scientists, and industry executives were present for the Energy and Man symposium – organized by the American Petroleum Institute and the Columbia Graduate School of Business – and Dunlop was to address the entire congregation on the “prime mover” of the last century – energy – and its major source: oil. As President of the Sun Oil Company, he knew the business well, and as a director of the American Petroleum Institute – the industry’s largest and oldest trade association in the land of Uncle Sam – he was responsible for representing the interests of all those many oilmen gathered around him.

Four others joined Dunlop at the podium that day, one of whom had made the journey from California – and Hungary before that. The nuclear weapons physicist Edward Teller had, by 1959, become ostracized by the scientific community for betraying his colleague J. Robert Oppenheimer, but he retained the embrace of industry and government. Teller’s task that November fourth was to address the crowd on “energy patterns of the future,” and his words carried an unexpected warning:

Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the past must be supplemented. First of all, these energy resources will run short as we use more and more of the fossil fuels. But I would [...] like to mention another reason why we probably have to look for additional fuel supplies. And this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [....] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [....] The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is transparent, you can’t smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so why should one worry about it?

Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.

Michael Klare has a look at "Trump’s Carbon-Obsessed Energy Policy and the Planetary Nightmare to Come" - Donald Trump's Energy Nostalgia and the Path to Hell.

“American energy dominance will be declared a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States,” he declared at the Williston forum in May. “We will become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.” He seems firmly convinced that the accelerated extraction of oil and other carbon-based fuels will “make America great again.”

This is delusional, but as president he will undoubtedly be able to make enough of his energy program happen to achieve both short term and long term energy mayhem. He won’t actually be able to reverse the global shift to renewable energy now under way or leverage increased American fossil fuel production to achieve significant foreign policy advantages. What his efforts are, however, likely to ensure is the surrender of American technological leadership in green energy to countries like China and Germany, already racing ahead in the development of renewable systems. And in the process, he will also guarantee that all of us are going to experience yet more extreme climate events. He will never recreate the dreamy America of his memory or return us to the steamy economic cauldron of the post-World War II period, but he may succeed in restoring the smoggy skies and poisoned rivers that so characterized that era and, as an added bonus, bring planetary climate disaster in his wake. His slogan should be: Make America Smoggy Again.

Alex Steffen has a look at the "carbon bubble" and the potential for a lot of stranded assets to be created during the period the big oil / Putin axis has control of the US government - Trump, Putin and the Pipelines to Nowhere.

If we can’t burn oil, it’s not worth very much. If we can’t defend coastal real estate from rising seas (or even insure it, for that matter), it’s not worth very much. If the industrial process a company owns exposes them to future climate litigation, it’s not worth very much. The value of those assets is going to plummet, inevitably… and likely, soon.

Currently, though, these assets are valued very highly. Oil is seen as hugely valuable, coastal real estate is seen as hugely valuable, industrial patents are seen as hugely valuable.

When there’s a large difference between how markets think assets should be valued and what they are (or will) actually be worth, we call it a “bubble.” Experts now call the differences between valuations and worth in fossil fuel corporations, climate-harmful industries and vulnerable physical assets the “Carbon Bubble.” It is still growing.

The New York Review of Books has an article discussing the Rockefeller family fund's divestment of holdings in Exxon and other fossil fuel firms and the company's role in promoting disinformation about climate science - The Rockefeller Family Fund vs. Exxon.

Earlier this year our organization, the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF), announced that it would divest its holdings in fossil fuel companies. We mean to do this gradually, but in a public statement we singled out ExxonMobil for immediate divestment because of its “morally reprehensible conduct.” For over a quarter-century the company tried to deceive policymakers and the public about the realities of climate change, protecting its profits at the cost of immense damage to life on this planet.

Our criticism carries a certain historical irony. John D. Rockefeller founded Standard Oil, and ExxonMobil is Standard Oil’s largest direct descendant. In a sense we were turning against the company where most of the Rockefeller family’s wealth was created. (Other members of the Rockefeller family have been trying to get ExxonMobil to change its behavior for over a decade.) ...

What we had funded was an investigative journalism project. With help from other public charities and foundations, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), we paid for a team of independent reporters from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism to try to determine what Exxon and other US oil companies had really known about climate science, and when. Such an investigation seemed promising because Exxon, in particular, has been a leader of the movement to deny the facts of climate change.3 Often working indirectly through front groups, it sponsored many of the scientists and think tanks that have sought to obfuscate the scientific consensus about the changing climate, and it participated in those efforts through its paid advertisements and the statements of its executives.

The Independent has a report on discussions between the British government and BP in the lead up to the Iraq war - Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq. Hands up if you are surprised by this. More at Empty Wheel and Patrick Cockburn at The Independent - They denied it was about Iraq's resources. But it never rang true, along with another article at The Indy on Iraq's "untapped potential" - Black gold rush was fuelled by enormous untapped potential.

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

I watched the first episode of the series Burn Up on (ABC) TV tonight and quite enjoyed it - Burn Up. Next episode is on next Sunday (for Australian viewers - British viewers got to watch it back in 2008).

From the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the boardrooms of London, Burn Up is a two-part topical thriller set in the real-life context of climate change as oil company executives, environmental activists and politicians collide in the battle between economic success and ecological responsibility.

Starring Rupert Penry-Jones (Spooks, Whitechapel), Bradley Whitford (The West Wing), Neve Campbell (Party Of Five) and Marc Warren (Hustle), Burn Up is a potent mix of fiction and fact that will enlighten as much as entertain.

Tom McConnell (Rupert Penry-Jones) has just been made head of Arrow Oil, a hugely powerful and wildly profitable oil company. With a happy family and lucrative promotion, life couldn’t get any sweeter. But the assassination of six geologists working in the Saudi desert will turn Tom’s world upside down and Tom will slowly uncover a sinister side of business.

Always the company man, Tom is as loyal as they come and a staunch defender of the oil business, denying any link from the work of Arrow Oil to climate change. His charismatic best friend and oil lobbyist Mack (Bradley Whitford) helps confirm his convictions. But when a young Inuit, Mika (Sandrine Holt), alleges that Tom and Arrow Oil are ruining the lives of her people, with scant regard for the environmental impact of their work, Tom starts to question Arrow Oil.

Joined by his environmental advisor Holly (Neve Campbell), Tom takes a trip to Mika’s homeland and learns first-hand the growing climate change problem, a problem he can’t ignore any more. He also can’t ignore his growing attraction to Holly. But when Mack reveals that she is a spy in collaboration with environmentalists, Tom is stunned and starts to question who he can trust.

The saga of Iraq's oil has made the press again, with international oil majors making major inroads into their goal of tapping Iraq's oil fields. The ABC reports on the auctioning off of production rights for some of the country's largest fields - Untapped oil fields auctioned in Iraq.

Iraq has completed its second international oil auction, awarding seven foreign firms the right to exploit some of the country's largest untapped oil fields. One of the biggest contracts was won by a consortium of Russia's Lukoil and and Norway's Statoil. Another went to Royal Dutch Shell and Malaysia's Petronas. ...

The Iraqi oil minister says the successful deals will boost the country's oil production by almost five million barrels a day, almost double the current production rate.

The BBC is headlining a greatly increased Iraqi oil production capacity -Iraq oil capacity 'to reach 12m barrels per day'.

Iraq's oil capacity could reach 12 million barrels per day (bpd) in six years, the country's oil minister says.

Hussein al-Shahristani told reporters in Baghdad that oil producers would not necessarily operate at full capacity, but would take into account demand. Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, has a capacity of 12.5m bpd.

Earlier, a joint bid by Russian and Norwegian oil firms won the contract for the "supergiant" West Qurna field, said to have reserves of 13bn barrels.

Lukoil and Statoil will get $1.15 a barrel and will work to raise output from West Qurna Phase 2, in the Basra region, to 1.8m bpd. In June, a winning bid to develop another Iraqi field received $2 a barrel.

On Friday, the contract to develop the 12.6bn-barrel Majnoon field in southern Iraq was won by a consortium led by Shell. It also pledged to increase daily production to 1.8m barrels, up from only 46,000.

Rights for the eastern Halfaya field, with 4.1bn barrels of reserves, went to a consortium led by the Chinese state oil company, CNPC.

Patrick Cockburn at The Independent reports that the Iraqi government is claiming that it isn't giving up control of the fields - Rush for Iraq's oil in defiance of bombers.

The profits for the oil companies will be limited under contracts now being agreed, but they have evidently decided to accept this to secure an entry ticket to a potential Iraqi oil bonanza.

"The second round of bidding represents a new era in the history of the Iraqi oil industry," said the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as he opened the auction. For once such hyperbole may be true because it will see foreign oil companies returning to Iraq en masse for the first time since oil was nationalised in 1972.

Iraqis are intensely suspicious that President Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 was motivated by a plan to get hold of Iraqi oil. The government is intent on showing that it is not giving away control of Iraqi oil, the country's only asset. "The old way was in darkened rooms, behind closed doors," said Mr Maliki. "But today what is happening is clear to everyone."

The success of the oil auction is crucial to the future of Mr Maliki because present oil revenues, at around $60bn a year are only just enough to pay salaries and government expenses. There is little left for development and reconstruction of the economy, ruined by continuing conflict and sanctions since the start of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980. Critics argue that Iraq's own oil industry could have raised ouput by itself, but it is crippled by lack of money, organisation, equipment and personnel.

The Oil Ministry's strategy seems to have paid off. In the first auction in June only BP and China's CNPC were willing to accept a fee of $2 for each barrel of extra crude above a minimum production target produced in the super giant Rumaila, one of the largest oilfields in the world. But in recent weeks other big companies have followed suit. Mr Shahristani said: "They will not have a share of Iraqi oil, and our country will have total control over production."

The Guardian had an article before the auction wondering what it means for Iraq - Will oil empower or emasculate Iraq?.

The timing could not have been worse. On Tuesday afternoon, set against the sleek backdrop of a London hotel, the vice-chairman of Iraq's oil and gas committee, Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani, told the BBC that the time is right to invest in Iraq as the government has "gone from strength to strength".

A short distance across town, Sir John Scarlett, head of MI6 and gatekeeper to some of the precious "intelligence" that triggered the war, refused to confirm or deny the report that an Iraqi taxi driver was responsible for the "45 minutes" WMD claim.

While the future and the past of Iraq were being discussed in London, Baghdad was burning in the present, as fire engines were still dousing the smouldering car wrecks and the ambulances were still carefully collecting the remains of some of the 127 people who had been blown up in the co-ordinated blasts that hit the capital.

Despite the progress in reducing levels of violence, clearly Iraq remains a highly dangerous and significantly underdeveloped place. In the first six months of this year only 25,000 Iraqis returned to the country and 4.6 million Iraqis remain internally and externally displaced. In the past six years the country's scores on press freedom and corruption perception indexes have got worse. February's statistics showed only 20% of Iraqis have access to sewage and 45% clean water.

The Toronto Globe and Mail has an interesting update on the state of the Iraqi oil industry - Kurdistan: A lot of oil, a lot of risk.

In the bright, open lobby of the Erbil International Hotel in the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq, Western businessmen in blue jeans huddle with regional officials in business suits. Sitting quietly nearby, their weapons checked at the door, is a gaggle of security men, many of them former Kurdish fighters, now in civilian clothes.

These days, Kurdish leaders and international investors assembling here speak a common language: oil. Kurdistan sits on plenty of it, and the region's current peace is a welcome feature for oil companies looking to explore here.

But Kurdistan's oil fields pale in comparison with the mega oil fields to the south. The Kurds are staking a potentially explosive claim on the area around Kirkuk, which holds vastly more rewarding, but risky opportunities.

Just 90 kilometres south of Erbil, Kirkuk and its resources are at the centre of a power struggle between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs that threatens the fragile stability of the entire country. The resulting sectarian strife makes the region a dangerous place in which to do business.

Unlike Erbil, Western executives rarely venture to Kirkuk. When they do, they travel in three-car armoured convoys, accompanied by heavily armed private security forces, and they mostly stick to the outskirts to avoid trouble, like the car bomb that killed six in a market last month.

With nearly a quarter of the world's easily accessible, light oil reserves and huge tracts of unexplored land, Iraq's oil industry offers immense rewards, both to the country and the international oil companies that are warily pursuing deals.

And for a growing number of companies, the threat of political violence re-erupting in Iraq is a risk worth taking. International oil giants coming to Iraq are already looking past the days of war and regional conflict, as they jockey to secure a piece of the prize early.

On Dec. 11, the major oil players will have a key opportunity to place their bets on Iraq's future. Baghdad plans to auction off the right to develop 10 unexplored but highly prospective oil and gas fields, including some near Kirkuk, following a similar auction earlier this year.

Some 40 of the world's biggest oil companies are qualified to bid next week. Their ultimate success hinges on Iraq's ability to forge political compromises that will allow for peaceful development. The crucial test is Kirkuk, where Kurds and Arab Iraqis battle for control of the area, while coveted oil resources offer lasting economic benefits. ...

If things go well – an enormous if – Iraq could boost its production from 2.5 million barrels a day to more than seven million by 2016, making it the third-largest producer after Saudi Arabia and Russia.

That additional Iraqi supply would have a major impact on world oil markets, helping to moderate prices by replacing production from depleting reserves elsewhere and meeting rising demand from the developing world.

In Iraq, the usual geological and financial challenges for international oil companies are magnified by sectarian violence, legal minefields and political strife. The conditions are less than ideal, and some early projects will likely produce only a modest return on capital. ...

Mr. Gheit says all the major oil companies are struggling to maintain production as current fields decline and international opportunities remain limited. Companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. have to increase production by 200,000 barrels a day from new fields just to offset declines from existing production. That's the reason such companies are investing heavily in Canada's oil sands, even though costs are enormous.

From where Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani sits – in the ministry's rundown office building on the north side of the capital, shielded by concrete barriers and layers of Iraqi forces – the country's oil policy looks due south.

While the northern regions of Kirkuk and Kurdistan figure prominently in Baghdad's plan to boost its oil production over the longer term, it's the vast array of giant, proven fields in southern Iraq that are expected in the short term to catapult the country into oil's big leagues.

The LA Times has a report on foreign oil majors efforts to secure contracts to develop Iraq's oil fields - Exxon Mobil-led consortium to develop major Iraqi oil field.

The Iraqi government Thursday signed a deal with a consortium led by U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. to develop a major oil field in southern Iraq, marking the first entry by an American-dominated group into Iraq's oil industry since it was nationalized in 1972.

The deal coincides with a flurry of activity this week that suggests major oil companies are finally poised to return to Iraq, more than six years after the U.S.-led military invasion raised firms' hopes of gaining access to some of the world's largest and most underdeveloped oil reserves.

This week, a group led by Italy's Eni that includes the U.S. company Occidental Petroleum Corp. initialed a preliminary agreement, and China National Petroleum Corp. and Britain's BP finalized an accord to develop oil fields in the south.

The deals are service contracts. That means the consortia will invest money to improve the yields of the fields and receive in return a fixed fee. The agreements came after the oil companies dramatically lowered their fees to match those offered by the Iraqi government at a public auction in June.

The consortium, 80% controlled by Exxon Mobil, will invest $25 billion to improve the yield of the West Qurna 1 field from 290,000 barrels a day to 2.3 million barrels a day, Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani said at the signing ceremony. ...

There are some doubts about the legality of these contracts, because the Iraqi parliament has still not passed new oil legislation. That's a risk the companies appear willing to take to gain access to Iraqi oil, Kemp said.

UPI has a report on oil companies cutting deals with the government to access Iraq's oil - Big Oil cuts deals with Iraq.

The government's gamble that the lure of Iraq's oil wealth will persuade major international oil companies to invest billions of dollars in upgrading the country's ramshackle energy on Baghdad's terms seems to be finally paying off. Several weeks before a crucial auction of licenses for some of Iraq's biggest oil fields scheduled for mid-December, Iraqi officials say that several global oil giants have lowered their demands and cut deals with Baghdad.

This will likely intensify pressure on other bidders to fall in line with Baghdad's demands if they want to get their hands on Iraq's immense energy riches. These total 115 billion barrels of proven, recoverable oil reserves, the fourth highest after Saudi Arabia, Canada and Iran. But industry analysts say that untapped reserves could double that. Major oil companies were booted out of Iraq in 1972 when the oil industry was nationalized. Now they want to get back in.

Energy Bulletin has a good mini-round up of news from Iraq, starting with a report from The Times on a large oil find in northern Iraq - Heritage Oil strikes big in Kurdish Iraq.

A huge oil discovery in Kurdish Iraq sent the share price of Heritage Oil, the London-based explorer, soaring yesterday and added further pressure on Baghdad to issue permits for long-awaited exports of crude oil from the region.

Heritage said that tests completed on a well drilled in its Miran West concession revealed reserves of between 2.3 billion and 4.2 billion barrels. Heritage reckons that between half and 70 per cent of the oil is recoverable, suggesting that at least one billion barrels can be brought to the surface.

...The find has potentially greater political consequences: at present there is no export route for Kurdish oil because of continuing arguments between Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Arbil. Negotiations are under way to secure permits from Baghdad to allow oil from Tawke, a separate discovery by DNO, a Norwegian oil company, to be transported via Iraq’s northern pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

The FT, meanwhile, is noting that even though the infamous Iraq Oil Law still hasn't been passed, the majors are heading back in anyway - Oil groups set to end 40-year exile from Iraq.

International oil companies are preparing to go back into Iraq by the end of the year, despite Baghdad's failure to pass an oil law and continuing concerns over security.

BP and Royal Dutch Shell are among companies expected to bid for oil service contracts next month, with the long-term objective of being allowed to develop the world's third-largest oil reserves.

In the past week, executives from many of the world's biggest oil companies - expelled almost 40 years ago - have assured Iraqi officials they plan to commit to working in the country.

...For five years, following the US invasion of Iraq, oil executives had been insisting on better security and the passage of a hydrocarbon law - seen as crucial by the Bush administration as an indicator of political stability - before they would be willing to invest billions of dollars. Now the companies say they are prepared to return to Iraq even though the country's oil law remains bogged down by political discord and its fragile peace faces two imminent tests: the forthcoming elections and the US military's departure.

Thamir Ghadhban, chairman of the advisory board to Iraq's prime minister and a former oil minister, told the Financial Times that the coming bidding round - the first since the end of the 2003 war - would be heavily subscribed.

"International oil companies are short of reserves and opportunities and countries control almost 88 per cent of oil reserves. The only real opportunity is Iraq."

The Times reports that CFR head Richard Haass is lobbying for Obama to renege on his promise to pull all troops out of the country by 2012, due to a surge in militant activity (after they stopped paying the Sunni tribesmen enough to keep them docile - looks like the success of the "surge" was due to the surge of cash, not of troops) - we'll see how much change in US foreign policy really has happened before too long, I guess - Iraq bloodshed rises as US allies defect.

IRAQ is threatened by a new wave of sectarian violence as members of the “Sons of Iraq” – the Sunni Awakening militias that were paid by the US to fight Al-Qaeda – begin to rejoin the insurgency.

If the spike in violence continues, it could affect President Barack Obama’s pledge to withdraw all combat troops from Iraqi cities by the end of June. All US troops are due to leave the country by 2012.

A leading member of the Political Council of Iraqi Resistance, which represents six Sunni militant groups, said: “The resistance has now returned to the field and is intensifying its attacks against the enemy. The number of coalition forces killed is on the rise.”

...Richard Haass, president of the US Council on Foreign Relations, who returned from a visit to Iraq last week, said: “It is obvious there are still multiple faultlines in society. In my view, Iraq and the United States are going to have to adjust the timelines and leave a residual force of tens of thousands beyond 2011.”

The resistance council recently issued a call to disaffected Sons of Iraq to take up arms against US and Iraqi troops after the government of Nouri al-Maliki failed to integrate them into the national security forces.

...The US had been paying nearly 100,000 Sons of Iraq to participate in its security “surge”, but handed over responsibility for their welfare to the Iraqi government last month. Their pay has since dried up. Only 5,000 members of the Awakening have been employed by the Iraqi security forces.

...Obama may now become a hostage to events, Haass fears. “This administration has so much on its plate in terms of foreign policy that the last thing it needs is an Iraq that unravels. If it has to do a bit more than it wanted, that could be a pretty good investment.”

AutoBlogGreen points this clip of the Colbert show, where Stephen explains that big oil is a non-profit entity and that this should be well understood by anyone who pays attention to their advertisements.

You may have seen an ad or two by "The People of America's Oil and Natural Gas Industry" lately. With price reaching $120 a barrel and $4 a gallon, the monopoly fuel for transportation in the U.S. apparently feels the need to do a little explaining. A spokesmodel on TV tells us there's enough oil here to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years (if only we let the oil companies go get it.) A voice on radio suggests we stop knocking oil companies because they are us; we all own a piece (through our pension funds). We really ought to stop beating up on ourselves.

Last night, Stephen Colbert took a closer look at a newspaper ad on "The Price at the Pump." He discovered "oil is a zero profit business."