Victor Davis Hanson has a great piece today about the connection between petrodollars and terrorism around the world. He also notes how the need for oil in industrial nations distorts interstate relations.
Could a coalition be built in Washington today to ”Ëœstarve the beast' by moving America and the world off of Middle East oil dependence? Conservatives could ask for greater exploration and drilling in America, more nuclear plants and maybe even large cash prizes for the accomplishment of some technological breakthrough in alternative energy. Liberals could request greater conservation mandates and more funding, tax credits or mandates for alternative energy.  Even a higher gas tax, or gas mileage luxury tax on vehicles would be open for discussion. When any of the above expenditures are compared to the amount of money spent fighting in Iraq, they sound like a pretty good deal.
Move away from an oil-based economy and give Americans a chance to ”Ëœshare some sacrifice' in the War on Terror ”“ could the time be right for such a compromise?
Personally, conservation mandates offend my sensibilities, but in the name of draining the Iranian bank accounts I could probably be convinced.
Wow.That is so incredibly naive it defies reason.
Sure. Make my car run on soybeans.
Tell China to quit using so much oil.
Build more nu-clu-er powerplants. See ya in 20 years.
Cash prizes for technology. "Set your phasers on stun. ENERGIZE, Scotty!"
Yeah, right.
We have to start somewhere. We are funding our own demise.
Our dependence on oil is and has seriously compromised our national security. We will not be able to achieve energy independence without conservation and use of all energy production options including wind, solar, biomass, etc. Even George Bush the oilman seems to be realizing we have a problem.
Part of the problem with this suggestion is that the vast majority of oil consumed in the United States does not come from the Middle East. The oil we use here largely comes from domestic sources, Canada, and Venezuela. Middle Eastern oil goes to places like Japan, China and Europe. Moving the United States off an oil-based economy might reduce the overall demand for oil a little - since oil is all part of the same market - but it wouldn't affect the market for Middle Eastern oil that much. Besides, with demand for oil exploding in places like Africa and south Asia, I'm afraid the Middle East is going to see a very large market for its products for a long time to come, regardless of what we choose to do here domestically.
Everything you've written is good suggestions, but for different reasons than "starving the beast". Additionally, Polly Anna is at least partially right - it would take at least 20 years to move the U.S. off an oil-based economy and would be incredibly expensive. Since the "War on Terror" as we know it will probably be over by then, trying to starve the beast in such an expensive way would probably be counterproductive in the long run.
Apparently time is not currently right for a compromise.
While Expatriate is correct most of our oil does not come from the middle east, as I have said before OIL is an international commodity so we are not immune to price increases. Yes, it will take time to get of the current "Oil dependency" and maybe 20 years is a good predicition. Time does not favor good political decisions unless they are pay increases for themselves. Time for a politician is measured in re-election increments. This federal administration/congress even more than previous has done just about everything wrong to reduce oil consumption. Most of the recent political policies and laws are clearly based on one theme 'Spend/use now-ignore future generations'. In addition, they have an active "head in the sand approach" to global warming.
If it takes a "Staving the beast" justification to change people, lke RSW, from a 'Spend/use now" attitude, go for it.
And, really, LV, that is what caught my attention in the VDH article. It was written for an audience full of conservatives like me.
I hate CAFE standards. I think we should let the markets work instead of providing a bunch of handouts for hybrid cars, windfarms, ethanol, and solar panels. Raising the gas tax would be terribly regressive and not popular. But when you look at each of these things as part of the war effort, well, I could consider them.
The idea that moving the US off the world oil market wouldn't affect prices for middle east oil is flat out wrong. Oil is fungible, and the only serious reason to pick one source over another is distance. The more local the oil, generally, the cheaper it will be. On the other hand, if we quit buying Venezualian oil, our biggest supplier, you can bet that oil will find its way to the next closest buyer, and you can bet it will seriously depress the price of oil in that market.
Unless we get serious about alternatives, and I don't mean biofuels, all this is so much talk. Hydrogen and electric cars are going to require some serious increases in electric generation. And you better believe the electricity will be coming from nukes. Even liberals are likely to learn that nuclear is better than coal, especially if they plan to continue their jihad against carbon dioxide.
John Bramfeld
"The idea that moving the US off the world oil market wouldn't affect prices for middle east oil is flat out wrong."
I think technology advances could also be quickly exported, allowing other nations to reduce oil usage. If some MIT genius comes up with some super battery for electric cars, other nations wouldn't ignore that knowledge.
Here is a different approach with the same goal - Diana West at Townhall wrote today about a Saudi advisor, Nawaf Obaid:
Obaid continues: King Abdullah might also "decide to strangle Iranian funding of the (Shiite) militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties .... The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."
So, instead of moving our economy off of oil, we could just encourage our friends to ramp up oil production, and work hard to do the same in America. Environmentalists get nothing, but Iran still gets a whack to the pocketbook. (and US citizens get cheap gas again)
Bramfeld says; "...the only serious reason to pick one source over another is distance. The more local the oil, generally, the cheaper it will be."
WRONG: Oil is not a uniform commodity. Nor is it cost the same to obtain in different locations.
RIGHT: We do need to get serious about oil alternatives but Nuclear is at best a stop gap measure despite the bilions of Federal dollars poured into it for decades. It is clearly being marketed to the public without the "cradle to grave costs".
WRONG: "jihad" is an Islamic term for the expansion of the religion not applicable to CO2.
RSW---Nice try for a quick fix but you are avoiding some things, like 1) we need to reduce our need for oil a finite resource, 2) not all terrorists are being sponsored by Iran, 3) American environmentalists make better friends than Saudi Arabian Shieks.
Using oil, or the threat of not purchasing oil, as a political tool. GW using iPods as a political tool to bring North Korea, Kim Il Jung anyway, to its knees.
Whatever happened to America being such a shining example for the world that everyone will want to be just like America?
I guess it's not working out too well.
Do you think for a second that the foreign policy of the Bush administration is so flawed that the whole world is turning its back on what America really should stand or, really should be?
I guess being reduced to threatening to not buy oil is all we have left, and that idea is so unworkable as to be laughable.
We should reduce our oil consumption. We should build more nuclear power plants. We should explore alternative transportation fuels. We should preserve a resource (domestic oil) which is not unlimited.
But to use it as a foreign policy tool, especially when the whole world is thirsty for oil, is a joke. America is losing its status as the biggest player, it's becoming China. China makes more steel, and uses more steel, than the US. Same with concrete. Tell China to quit buying Middle East crude, China listens to America.
Kind of a "Nixon goes to China" idea. If George W. Bush were a real president, he would've gotten to work on this five years ago.
you guys are just wet blankets today :-) I reach across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship, with a compromise proposal that has some things for both sides, and I get shot down from every direction.
It is much easier to stick with "elections matter" and ram thru everything you can get when you have a majority.
And Polly, it was a Saudi advisor that said they could consider using oil price as a tool against Iran - they do have a lot of oil over there. And I am not worried about China - gov't control will do them in. Free markets allocate resources better than bureaucrats.
Dear Oil Man,
If you look carefully, you will see I was talking about the price of oil, not the cost. Because oil is "generally" the same, the buyer doesn't care what it cost you to get. I said it is generally the same because it is. There are small differences, including sulfur content, but "generally" it is the same. Thus, no matter what it cost you to dig it up as shale in Canada, or scoop it up with a bucket in Saudia Arabia, you get the same price for it.
All energy sources are "stop gap." Name me one that has already been invented that is not "stop gap." Nuclear is no more stop gap than coal, our most abundant fossil fuel.
I apoligize for calling carbon dioxide panic people jihadists. I meant to say, of course, crusaders.
John (Wrong, wrong, right) Bramfeld
WRONG John---Crude Oil has many prices dependent upon location not just quoted on the NYMEX within the same sulfur content range. For example U.K. Brent and Forties, and Norwegian Oseberg Blend, the seller shall receive a 30¢-per-barrel discount below the final settlement price; Nigerian Bonny Light and Colombian Cusiana are delivered at 15¢ premiums; and Nigerian Qua Iboe is delivered at a 5¢ premium.
WRONG John---There is not one but three energy sources that are not "stop gap"--water, wind & solar.
WRONG John---"crusaders" is an old Christian term for the people who sought to gain control of land governed by Non-Christian rulers not applicable to CO2.
During Bush's second week in office of his first term, he commisioned the National Energy Policy Development Group. Remember when the Administration was harassed for Cheney's private meetings with top energy execs? Anyway, all of the issues discussed above are there except for the most important - National Security (because it was released in May 2001, pre-9/11).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
Then there is the Advanced Energy Initiative discussed by Bush which addresses more energy issues.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/
I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for Bush here. Just pointing out the fact that these issues have been presented. It's the incredible partisanship of our government that has prevented the kind of advancements that would help us be more energy independent, and therefore, more secure.
Hey handymom--"incredible partisanship of our government that has prevented the kind of advancements that would help us be more energy independent, and therefore, more secure."
WHAT PARTISANSHIP? THE CONGRESS AND THE WHITEHOUSE WERE CONTROL BY ONE PARTY----REPUBLICANS
LV,
Are you saying you believe the Republican controlled congress was able to push through everything that Bush proposed? LOL!
Partisanship means that Republicans aren't rolling over and letting Democrats turn the US into a failing and bankrupt socialist state.
Oilman,
You have proved my point. The largest difference in price you can come up with is $.30 a barrel. If that 1/2% difference isn't enough to make oil generally the same, I'll eat my hat. Check the price differences on corn if you don't believe me.
So you think solar, wind and water are not stopgap? I would say you are right in the sense that they don't even rise to that level. Whatever environmentalists say, we are never going to actually reduce our energy needs. It is perfectly clear that our usage will continue to increase for at least a century; and wind, water and solar (and I'll throw in hot air from this site) will not even provide for the increase, much less take care of the base need.
We will need all of the oil we can get for many years. The increase in crude price continues to make it feasible to use oil that would have been too expensive to get to or to process just a few years ago. The only alternative that will not add to greenhouse gases is nuclear. And to further irritate environmentalists, let me state the obvious. To the extent we shift to other sources, we depress the price of oil and coal, which are already cheaper than nuclear. I gather environmentalists believe that the Chinese, or the Indians or whoever, will resist the temptation to lower their energy costs by using oil just because it is the "right thing to do." They won't resist, especially since it will give them a double trade advantage: Cheaper energy, and cheaper products to export. Windmills seems like the appropriate metaphor here.
John (wrong, wrong, wrong, always so wrong) Bramfeld