Just let me note that I'm an environment freak, so I was very interested to read the article in the NYT Magazine on Sunday about oil (linked below).
The Breaking Point [NYT Magazine,
8.28.2005]
The United States and China are counting on the Saudis to satisfy our growing thirst for oil. The Saudis say they can supply all our needs. Critics say that that is becoming impossible. They just might turn out to
be right.
I have always found the U.S. arguments on oil to be specious. Americans seems to have a feeling that they deserve to be able to drive whatever kind of car they want whenever they want to. And I have been shocked that conservatives -- where oh where have the conservatives gone? -- have not been pushing this country to become energy independent. The best way to institute regime change in the Middle East is to stop buying their oil.
From the American standpoint, one argument in favor of conservation and
a switch to alternative fuels is that by limiting oil imports, the
United States and its Western allies would reduce their dependence on a
potentially unstable region. (In fact, in an effort to offset the risks
of relying on the Saudis, America's top oil suppliers are Canada and
Mexico.) In addition, sending less money to Saudi Arabia would mean
less money in the hands of a regime that has spent the past few decades
doling out huge amounts of its oil revenue to mosques, madrassas and
other institutions that have fanned the fires of Islamic radicalism.
The oil money has been dispensed not just by the Saudi royal family but
by private individuals who benefited from the oil boom -- like Osama
bin Laden, whose ample funds, probably eroded now, came from his
father, a construction magnate. Without its oil windfall, Saudi Arabia
would have had a hard time financing radical Islamists across the
globe.
For the Saudis, the political ramifications of reduced demand
for its oil would not be negligible. The royal family has amassed vast
personal wealth from the country's oil revenues. If, suddenly, Saudis
became aware that the royal family had also failed to protect the value
of the country's treasured resource, the response could be severe. The
mere admission that Saudi reserves are not as impressively
inexhaustible as the royal family has claimed could lead to hard
questions about why the country, and the world, had been misled. With
the death earlier this month of the long-ailing King Fahd, the royal
family is undergoing another period of scrutiny; the new king,
Abdullah, is in his 80's, and the crown prince, his half-brother
Sultan, is in his 70's, so the issue of generational change remains to
be settled. As long as the country is swimming in petro-dollars -- even
as it is paying off debt accrued during its lean years -- everyone is
relatively happy, but that can change. One diplomat I spoke to recalled
a comment from Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the larger-than-life Saudi oil
minister during the 1970's: ''The Stone Age didn't end for lack of
stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of
oil.''
The article notes that today, demand is catching up with the supply -- and that the end of the oil era does not necessarily mean that there is no more oil.
NYT columnist Thomas Friedman has chided the Bush administration for not using the political capital it gained as a result of the September 11, 2001, to launch a campaign to become energy sufficient. That would mean reducing imports, tapping home grown reserves, and reducing consumption. To be honest, if we had a plan to dramatically reduce consumption, I would not oppose dilling in Alaska, but without such acknowledgment that we are using more than we should, tapping those reserves is just wrong.
I am repeatedly shocked at the people who drive Hummers or huge SUVs professing to love America. But it seems to me that by living beyond our means actually show disdain for this country -- not only environmentally but also socially and and politically. Our gluttonous consumption of oil funds corrupt regimes, allowing them to continue in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.
Furthermore, cheap oil has altered our perceptions of what is right or feasible. It has disseminated our downtown and cities and caused the horrible sprawl, which further destroys our environment. And it has prevented us from making even basic alternative plans. Here in the Washington region, there are numerous examples. Ty sons Corner, it is a picture of failed planning. Pedestrians take their lives into their own hands when then try to walk through the area. And the new Wilson Bridge will not have a way to walk or bike across the bridge. And it is shocking to me that we cannot demand even modest increases in average care mileage requirements.
As you can tell, I would highly recommend the story.
The Economist magazine's cover, which hits the streets officially tomorrow, is on oil... and it gets it right. "The oiloholics"
Recent Comments