- Image via Wikipedia
While Egypt is not a major oil producer, it does control the Suez canal as well as a major pipeline. As such, what is happening in Egypt could have a profound effect on the world economy. While it is possible to transport oil without using Egypt, this would add thousands of miles of travel distance-thus making the oil more costly and also slowing things down. There is also the obvious concern that the ships will be at greater risk making the longer journey.
As with almost every other incident in the Middle East, this latest episode exposes how unwise it is for the United States to rely so heavily on foreign oil for our energy needs. There is also the more general concern about the entire world economy-how it is effectively held hostage by a few countries in an incredibly unstable part of the world. This has always struck me as bordering on madness.
The obvious way to mitigate the impact of the Middle East is to develop alternative energy sources such as solar and biofuels as well as exploiting other sources of fossil fuels in the short term. Doing this on a sufficient scale would help stabilize the world economy by making energy costs more consistent and would also help reduce the relative value of the Middle East. This would also help cut the financial support for some terrorist organizations. On the minus side, this could mean serious economic woes for the countries in the Middle East which could in turn lead to instability, revolution, war and a spike in terrorism. As such, effort would need to be made to transition the Middle East as the world economy shifted away from their oil. Of course, given the success rate of almost anything attempted in the region, failure is the most likely outcome.
Naturally, there will be considerable opposition to such a transition from Middle Eastern oil and oil in general. There are major political players who have a vested interest in oil in general and the region’s oil in particular. They will. of course, fight any attempts to change things by casting these attempts as being left wing, unrealistic, unpatriotic and so on. However, freeing the world economy from such a deranging factor would seem to realistic, patriotic and not left leaning at all.
Thoughts?
Alternative energy? What alternatives? It’s easy to argue that there are alternatives to any existing situation but are the alternatives practical? Are there really practical replacements for oil? The ethanol effort has failed miserably costing billions of dollars and there is the possibility that it has contributed to this very situation. The most practical source of energy that has been available for the last 50 years has been nuclear. You state that alternatives to oil are dismissed as left-wing ideas, but it has been the political left and far-left who have opposed any and all efforts to build nuclear facilities. Of course, perhaps those lefties are funded by The Big Oil Interests.
But let’s consider for just a minute your fantastical ideal of our ability to replace all of the imported oil from the US with an alternative energy sources. Unless the entire world goes along, which is highly unlikely, the oil-rich states will still acquire wealth and power beyond their ability to handle it responsibly. And do you really think terrorism is going to stop because they no longer get their financial support from oil? They’re terrorists. First of all, most of these organizations run on shoestring budgets not on the billions we spend on oil. If necessary, they’ll get their support some other way. They’re not fighting us because we buy their oil. They’re fighting us because they fundamentally disagree with everything we stand for. And so long as we are successful and they are not, they will continue to fight us.
And as you state, “On the minus side, this could mean serious economic woes for the countries in the Middle East which could in turn lead to instability, revolution, war and a spike in terrorism. “ So is the solution is to make life worse for these people or to try to make it better?
Alternatives would be solar, wind, nuclear, and biofuels. Nuclear reactors are problematic, but might be a good short term solution while we develop alternatives (by short term, I mean 10-30 years). In any case, we will need alternatives eventually. Obviously, the fossil fuel reserves are finite and will thus run out at some point. It seems wise to be prepared for that.
We don’t need to replace all imported oil-just what comes in from the Middle East and perhaps from our pal Chavez.
Reducing the worlds dependence on oil won’t stop terrorism, but it will help cut their funding and reduce the political importance of the region and hence our involvement. They will thus has reduced grounds for sustaining their hate. They don’t attack us just because we exist-most of their anger is about what we have done and do in the region.
The “solution” might make things worse for them. After all, I could be taken as suggesting that we more or less cut the Middle East loose. That could be very bad for them.
The problem isn’t the funding. The problem is the people. They tolerate and/or support terrorist groups. And as I said, terror groups don’t require much funding and without a global boycott of their oil, it will still get sold to someone else. You’re addressing the wrong end of the problem. The problem is terrorism based on Islamic fundamentalism. Not that we buy their oil. For all of the problems we have with Chavez, we really don’t have much trouble with him like we do with the Islamics. Why is that?
I do agree on this much, I also would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for any number of reasons. But as I said, right now the only viable alternative is nuclear, and that has its own limitations. Oh, yeah, and natural gas, fwiw. This isn’t a new crisis. We went through this back in the 70s also. All sorts of ideas were coming out of the woodwork for more efficient use of oil and exploration of alternative fuels. They are simply not financially viable.
As for your concern about running out of oil, that’s nothing new either. I remember hearing in school that we were going to run out of oil by 1978. Old story. There is enough oil to last quite a long time. Even still, if/when we run out, we run out. We’ll be well on our way to something else that far into the future.
“The obvious way to mitigate the impact of the Middle East is to develop alternative energy sources such as solar and biofuels as well as exploiting other sources of fossil fuels in the short term.”
You make it sound so easy, as if people who could exploit those other fossil fuels would not would to make money doing so. If there were a true energy alternative at this point, don’t you think someone would love to get rich selling it? It like an Obama Sputnik moment: Say it and it will be true.
I’ll tell you what’s silly: The fact that our wars in the Middle East, including the First Gulf War, brought accusations from the left about how it was all for oil. If only it were! That would pretty much solve a lot of America’s problems. Invade Saudi Arabia and Iran, take the world’s most precious resource from its irresponsible owners, sell it back to them if they play nice and watch the world become a better place. Thus fixing our energy problems and taking away the power of evil regimes.
And we gave them the technology to extract the oil in the first place.
The liberals are geniuses! Let’s go to war for oil!
Like Confucius and Aristotle, I’m fine with people getting rich. I’m just against people doing evil things to do so.
Oh, it was pretty much about oil. But, I do agree-if I was playing a war game, I’d take the Middle East and subjugate the inhabitants in order to control the oil. Pump the place dry and then bail out. Then I’d use tactical nuclear strikes against Chinese cities to collapse their civilization. If India didn’t play along, I’d do the same to them.
Of course, if I was playing a more subtle game, I’d use the region both as a source of oil and as a source of exploitable turmoil (for political purposes).
Hey, I’m only saying that that’s what the Left is implying we already did. But maybe we should have since we get accused of it anyway. Are you saying we couldn’t do better with it than the regimes of teh Middle East? Surely even a liberal could admit thus…I mean, we confiscate the means for criminal enterprises to make money, right? It would be better than what we’re doing in Afghanistan and Iraq now: Fighting with the enemy just so we can rebuild their nation which will again fall into disrepair in less than 10 years after we leave.
“Then I’d use tactical nuclear strikes against Chinese cities to collapse their civilization.”
Why do that in a world ecconomy? You’re putting words in my mouth, too. You’re answer is usually whatever puts America ad a disadvantage and when someone says we should fight back, you resort to hyperbolic slippery-slope arguments. On the one hand you constantly cry that we get oil from Saudi, then you say we need alternatives. Well no kidding. Why don’t you just pull some anti-matter out of your pocket and run half the East Coast on it. It’s so easy. Why didn’t all the evil business people think of that?
How was it about oil? It’s like Patraeus said in his testimony when the nut from Code Pink started screaming non-sense about blood for oil: We could have bought all the oil in Iraq for the money we put into the country during the war. Or we could have just taken it. But we didn’t.
Well, we have two primary energy needs, electricity and fuel for combustion engines.
Nuclear power is our best option for electricity — wind and solar are nice ideas, but can’t do more than contribute a percentage; the backbone should be nuclear.
Nuclear is hampered by a widespread, irrational fear of radiation. I don’t know why; the glow keeps you warm, what’s to dislike? Seriously, though, what makes it irrational is that our choices are literally between fossil and nuclear, and the collateral damage of fossil is the more dangerous of the two by a large margin. For reason, we find it less scary despite its greater actual danger…I’m guessing that familiarity is the only way to explain this.
For vehicle fuel and the like, hybrid engines and biofuels are the future; the corn biofuel debacle is a politically-driven mess, a real joke that’s not representative of biofuels’ actual potential. For starters, corn is an inefficient base to do this with…we picked it because of special interest lobbies. Thank you, lobbyists of America, yours is the sweet nectar of corruption and profiteering.
Anyway, you guys commenting above me, I hope you’re also pissed off with the state governors that scuttled federal funding for light rail. Just because they’re GOP, party solidarity is no reason to defend stupidity, right? Right?
You are certainly right about nuclear power; it is the only source of energy capable of providing for the needs of a world with an ever-increasing demand for energy. It is also the cheapest source of energy; in fact, in 1970, it was considerably cheaper than coal. The main reason it has increased in price by more than 10 times is that regulation has dramatically increased the cost of building a nuclear plant, mostly by causing licensing delays during which the interest cost rapidly adds up while no electricity is being produced. Of course safety is important, but much of the regulatory action seems to increase costs dramatically without increasing safety.
Here is a link to an excellent article on nuclear power. It is extremely long, but still worth reading. Although it was published in 1990, it is still quite relevant although it doesn’t mention using thorium instead of uranium. Chapter 9 is especially important; it deals with cost.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html
We should migrate to a better nuclear technology to eliminate the nuclear waste problem and use reactors which are inherently safer without depending on multiple safety features. The liquid fluoride thorium reactor is promising, but unfortunately, that technology has been largely forgotten until recently.
Bio-fuels don’t seem at all promising. The land area to produce them seems totally impractical. However, with inexpensive nuclear power available, it may be possible to make artificial liquid fuels which would work well for transportation. Battery electric vehicles will probably become more economical and should be practical for traveling moderate distances. For longer distances, a battery exchange system could be worked out. Better city planning would greatly reduce the need for daily traveling, and public transportation running on electricity would reduce the need for private cars.
It’s been known for decades that our increasing dependence on imported oil was a dangerous risk to both our economy and security, but the dangers have been foolishly ignored. Instability in the near-east could have serious global impacts because that is the area from which much of our oil comes.
Actually bio-fuels have already contributed to price hikes and starvation.
I guess we just need the magic universe of Star Trek.
Let’s drill our own oil. Ask Obama if he’ll let us in the name of security.
That would be a very temporary solution. We need a permanent solution, not something that will make adequate oil available for only 10 or so years.
All solutions are temporary.
And nobody’s saying we shouldn’t be looking for alternatives. The implication that we aren’t looking for alternatives is false.
“I hope you’re also pissed off with the state governors that scuttled federal funding for light rail. Just because they’re GOP, party solidarity is no reason to defend stupidity, right? Right?”
Wrong, wrong. Putting aside your presumption about party unity, the federal government can’t run the railroad it has now. AmTrak is a mess and a waste of money. Government’s only role in a rail system is to provide the rights-of-way, etc. that will enable businesses willing to invest THEIR OWN money into such projects. Rail projects depend on many factors to make them successful, population density being one of the more critical ones. Wishing will not make it so.
Even putting aside the questionable value of rail systems, why should money travel to Washington before it gets spent on rail in Florida, California, or wherever? Why should the people of Maine or Idaho pay for rail projects in wealthier states? Those who benefit should pay for these systems themselves.
Mike, typing this on my phone. Wrote a 3 paragraph reply to Asur on my laptop but I can’t seem to post from there. Have I been banned?
No, I don’t ban people. I’ll check the spam catcher.
I checked and WordPress tagged two of your comments as Spam. No idea why. I just released them into the wild.
Well, apparently my reply to Asur still didn’t make it through. I will try to recall some of it…
“Anyway, you guys commenting above me, I hope you’re also pissed off with the state governors that scuttled federal funding for light rail. Just because they’re GOP, party solidarity is no reason to defend stupidity, right? Right?”
Wrong, wrong. Opposition to various rail projects is based several reasons but two principles stand out:
1) Government should not be in the train business. They can’t even run Amtrak. Government’s role in this is to provide access/rights-of-way and such. Not to build, fund, and/or run a railroad. If it’s a viable idea, private enterprise can take the risk and reward.
2) Even with the assumption that rail plans are viable, it is absurd that money should flow through Washington to fund them. People in Maine and Idaho should not be funding things that are to the benefit of people in California and Florida.
Found it in the pending folder and released it into the wild.
The progressives running WordPress probably just hate types like WTP and me.
People could also use their own power to move around. That would help with two problems at one time.
But at least it’s not oil….
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece