| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| We canât fight terrorism without energy security |
| 2006-01-20 |
We pay thrice for our oil dependency, once on exorbitant prices for fuels, again in military expenditures to keep the oil flowing worldwide and in insecurity and dead from those who use those windfall profits to kill and enslave us. But the US has the world's largest known carbon reserves, much of it in 300 billion tons of coal (1 ton = 5 barrels oil). We have the resources and technology to ensure our security and cut our enemies off at the knees. Americans just need the clear vision and will to utilize what we (and Canadians too) already have in abundance. That means nuclear power for electricity and for industrial steam to power coal, shale, tar sands conversion to liquid and gaseous fuels, moving away from the internal combustion engine to electric and plug in hybrids that can meet most consumers travel needs on electricity alone. Even solar and wind because every little bit helps. Each dayâs headlines underscore a central reality of our time: The United States has no choice but to make real progress on energy security â specifically by reducing the exclusive reliance of Americaâs transportation sector on gasoline and diesel fuels, most of which are derived from oil imported from overseas. Consider a sampler of recent developments in nations from which we obtain such oil: Saudi Arabia: Sundayâs Los Angeles Times gave prominent treatment to expressions of growing frustration by U.S. officials about the lack of Saudi cooperation in countering terrorism. The bottom line is that, while the Saudis may be trying to crack down on terrorist operations within the Kingdom, they continue to support the Islamofascists, the terror they wield as a weapon elsewhere around the world and the large and growing global infrastructure that enables them to be so dangerous. We are funding both sides in this war for the free world, as our petrodollars are enabling much of the threat we most immediately confront. This is an intolerable â and unsustainable â situation. Russia: Vladimir Putinâs increasingly authoritarian regime has demonstrated anew the Kremlinâs traditional willingness to use energy exports as an instrument of economic and political warfare. While the immediate target of the most recent such warfare was Ukraine, every other nation â including the United States â that contemplates reliance on Russian natural gas and oil supplies is on notice: Russia cannot be viewed as reliable source. Mexico: The Washington Times reported earlier this week that armed units, at least some of whom are believed to be members of the Mexican army, have made over 200 incursions inside the United States over the past nine years. Some have included firefights with U.S. border-patrol officers. With the likely election of a radical anti-American leftist, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, as the next president of Mexico, relations between the two nations are sure to become even more strained â with potentially significant repercussions for Mexican oil imports to this country. Nigeria: Islamists are increasingly destabilizing Africaâs most productive oil-exporting nation, with attacks on the industryâs infrastructure and personnel a tool in their campaign to establish control over the main source of the countryâs wealth and to impose sharia in Muslim areas â and beyond. Such attacks have recently taken off line one-tenth of the countryâs output. The threat to foreign investment in the country and the reliability of its supply of oil is only likely to increase. Venezuela: The ever-more-despotic and -ambitious president, Hugo Chavez, is seeking to consolidate his rule at home and facilitate his destabilizing and aggressive designs elsewhere in the hemisphere. Among other techniques being used for these purposes is Chavezâs ludicrous declaration that the United States is preparing to invade his country. He has threatened in the past to interrupt oil supplies to the U.S. It is entirely possible that, at some point, he may decide to do so. Iran: While the United States does not buy oil directly from Iran, the availability of Iranian crude in the international market â or, more precisely, the lack thereof â can have a significant impact on prices American consumers pay for gasoline and other petroleum-based products. The escalating crisis precipitated by an Iranian regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening the destruction of Israel and âa world without Americaâ could well translate into possibly lengthy disruptions in the availability of Iranian (and perhaps other Persian Gulf-originated) oil exports. Sudan: As with Iranian oil, U.S. sanctions on the terrorist-sponsoring, slave-trading, weapons-of-mass-destruction-proliferating and genocidal regime in Khartoum means that Sudanese oil supplies are not directly available to the American market. The ongoing, horrific state-sponsored assaults on the people of Darfur, however, raises the possibility that the so-called âinternational communityâ may finally be shamed into taking action to punish the Islamosfascist government of Sudan, with repercussions for its oil exports and global markets. Virtually alone among major oil-exporting nations, Canadaâs capacity and willingness to provide its energy resources to America remains steady and strong. There, as elsewhere, however, the ability of Communist China to recycle its immense trade surpluses by buying up oil, coal, natural gas, and other energy assets raises questions about the future availability of Canadian petroleum exports, to say nothing of their ability to offset shortfalls that might be associated with one or the other of the foregoing problems. There is simply no way Americaâs leaders can responsibly further defer concrete actions needed to reduce the amount of oil we use in that part of our society and economy where most of it is consumed: the transportation sector. In a new book, War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World, I'm among those who describe these actions â which comprise the âSet America Freeâ Blueprint and which will, if implemented, provide the United States with fuel choice. The time has come to make far more widely available supplies of alternative fuels (ethanol, methanol and electricity); to ensure that every car sold in America is flexible-fuel compatible and that as many as possible are plug-in hybrids; and to ensure that the necessary, relatively modest adjustments are made to our transportation infrastructure. This agenda should be a top priority in President Bushâs upcoming State of the Union address and at the top of the legislative program for the new session of Congress. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #9 The US already subsidizes the world's energy consumption though our extensive military, diplomatic and foreign aid expenditures to keep the the oil flowing. Even before 2001, it was adding up to $50 billion per year (a 50% premium 12 millin barrels/day oil imports or 200% premium if only mideast imports are considered). Now that figure has at least tripled and oil prices have tripled. My first preference is to apply sharia on the muslims, take their land and assets, and treat them as they treat infidels and Jews. But since the American public is not there yet, I would settle for energy self sufficiency with nuclear power at 4 cents/kilowatt, $40 barrel synfuels and zero contact with muslims. Let the former free riders shoulder the burden or fight it out to keep their energy lines open. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-01-20 23:12 |
| #8 maybe that depends on how threatened the rest of the world feels. But I see your point and regrettably concur |
| Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-01-20 21:29 |
| #7 If we achieved "energy independence" it would only act as a subsidy to every one else in the world who would continue to buy their oil from the low cost provider, the Mohammedan Middle East. The wacko Mos would continue to get beaucoup bucks for oil and would still hate us, until we convert. Energy security would achieve nothing except to accustom us to higher prices and freedom to conduct war without an interruption of some of our energy supply. How much would this be worth if we weren't willing to go to war until being attacked? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-20 21:21 |
| #6 Well, might want to wait for spring.. But what would an organized, one-week, worldwide boycott cause in impact? Enough to show it could be done? |
| Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-01-20 19:09 |
| #5 That faint rumbling I hear, is it a paradigm shift? It's all doable - not without hardship and a complete change in attitude and priorities - but doable. Average America needs to understand the Shell dollar goes directly from their hands to the Osamas of the east and points else. Needs to "get" that imported oil purchased here funds the terror side of this war on terror. I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been a peep that I've heard about "boycott" or voluntarily and very abruptly reducing and/or eliminating use of oil products. Just say no. And see what happens. |
| Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-01-20 19:04 |
| #4 That means nuclear power for electricity and for industrial steam to.. Not going to happen anytime soon. Watch a fed official mention this method of generating power as an option and you'll understand why. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-20 18:35 |
| #3 FS6789 - speak it! |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-01-20 17:36 |
| #2 Perhaps what follows may sound like heresy and unpatriotic? What is said is said out of a sense of frustration. Many other ordinary Americans have realized the need to address the issues outlined in the article for a long time. Too bad we donât have politicians that are worthy of Americans. Instead we have sniping, bickering, wasted time and wasted money in Washington. The wasted money comes off the backs of working Americans. Those ruling in Washington have jobs that pay well and benefits that are the envy of other Americans. Hell, most politicians that have been in Congress for any time retire millionaires. 1. A coherent energy policy in the best interest of the US has been non-existent for during my adult life (nearly 70 years). Our lack of energy policy has kept us tied to the mid-east for too long. As long as we are tied to the oil countries of the mid-east we will be at their whim. There is a need to move towards US energy self-sufficiency. Otherwise we will continue to experience high energy prices and the threat of constant war in the mid-east. I say, letâs move as rapidly as possible towards self-sufficiency. Let the mid-east go begging for markets in which to sell their oil. Saudi Arabia will come around quickly and quit funding our opposition. Iran will start having difficulty funding a nuclear program that they donât need. They are sitting on energy reserves that would satisfy their energy needs for a long, long time. Their statements about the need for the development of a domestic nuclear energy program are bogus. We have nearly lost our ability to do anything about the growing nuclear threat from Iran. 2. As the article said, energy is becoming a weapon of a global war. Both China and Russia are using it to jockey for power in the world. 3. Our border policies are like are energy policies; feckless. We basically talk a good fight and little else. As the result, the American people suffer from incursions by illegals. The illegals most likely include terrorists. Moreover, the flow of drugs into American is a growing problem. These drugs result in a decay in our culture. 4. There is little Congressional leadership that is evident. The Democrats would be laughable if they were funny. They come across as silly. They embrace political correctness as the flag of their party. The Republicans arenât much better. They have lost the clear direction they had when they took over Congress in 1994. They had a plan and a program to which Americans responded. The direction and compass seems to be missing today. |
| Posted by: Flenter Slairong6789 2006-01-20 12:24 |
| #1 Great articles this morning, rantburg. âWe are funding both sides in this war for the free world, as our petrodollars are enabling much of the threat we most immediately confront.â Says so much. âPresident Ronald Reagan engaged in a consummate act of political warfare at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany on June 12, 1987. He called on the then-leader of the Kremlin, Michael Gorbachev, to tear down the wall that had long divided the Free World's city of West Berlin from the surrounding, Soviet-controlled East Germany. The US State Department tried repeatedly to remove that line from the president's speech.â I thought this from www.warfooting.com, juxtiposed against another article you are running on State taking over USAID, made for interesting consideration this morning. The effect that former President Reaganâs statement had on eastern European people was deeply meaningful and inspiring. Hope State yields to use of this kind of âpolitical warfareâ ( I think itâs more an artistic upper hook--imagery and words in magnificent union. Course, it will require some artfulness...) |
| Posted by: Jules 2 2006-01-20 10:36 |