Five Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit
By Robert Bryce, in the WaPo. Here are a couple of them:
1 Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.In a speech last year, former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. had some advice for American motorists: "The next time you pull into a gas station to fill your car with gas, bend down a little and take a glance in the side-door mirror. . . . What you will see is a contributor to terrorism against the United States." Woolsey is known as a conservative, but plenty of liberals have also eagerly adopted the mantra that America's foreign oil purchases are funding terrorism.
But the hype doesn't match reality. Remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico -- neither exactly known as a belligerent terrorist haven.
Moreover, terrorism is an ancient tactic that predates the oil era. It does not depend on petrodollars. And even small amounts of money can underwrite spectacular plots; as the 9/11 Commission Report noted, "The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack." G.I. Wilson, a retired Marine Corps colonel who has fought in Iraq and written extensively on terrorism and asymmetric warfare, calls the conflation of oil and terrorism a "contrivance." Support for terrorism "doesn't come from oil," he says. "It comes from drugs, crime, human trafficking and the weapons trade."
5 Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.
To see why this is a myth, think back to 2005. After hurricanes ravaged the Gulf Coast, chewing up refineries as they went, several cities in the southeastern United States were hit with gasoline shortages. Thankfully, they were short-lived. The reason? Imported gasoline, from refineries in Venezuela, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Throughout the first nine months of 2005, the United States imported about 1 million barrels of gasoline per day. By mid-October 2005, just six weeks after Hurricane Katrina, those imports soared to 1.5 million barrels per day.
So we're woven in with the rest of the world -- and going to stay that way. Today, in addition to gasoline imports, the United States is buying crude oil from Angola, jet fuel from South Korea, natural gas from Trinidad, coal from Colombia and uranium from Australia. Those imports show that the global energy market is just that: global. Anyone who argues that the United States will be more secure by going it alone on energy hasn't done the homework.
Robert Bryce is a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research. He is the author of the forthcoming Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence.
via Todd Fletcher
Huh? Bryce's 1 & 5 is really stupid. The point is not to buy only our own oil, but to get off our dependency on oil period.
Whether that's nuclear reactors, geothermal, hydro, wind, or solar is a different subject.
Since oil is a commodity and since Canada and Mexico sell on a world market, saying we buy mostly from Canada and Mexico does not mean we don't care about what happens in the Persian Gulf. If Persian Gulf oil disappeared due to terrorism or state activities, what would happen to the price of Canadian or Mexican oil when Japan went looking for a new source?
(And who did I see George Bush kissing last week on his trip to Saudi Arabia?)
We want and need stable middle east oil even if we buy primarily from Canada. Because we don't want Japan et. al., increasing their Canadian purchases and because Canadian oil is still priced on the same world market.
So our reliance on any foreign oil means that our governments are still likely to make dubious deals with dubious leaders causing other people enough upset that they think that terrorism is a useful tool to stop us.
And look how 5 contradicts 1. 1. It's not foreign oil, after all we buy most of our oil from Canada and Mexico. 5. Today we buy petroleum products from: a, b, c, d, ... the world!
jerry at January 17, 2008 6:20 AM
I think we've been done some serious damage by the activists who've prevented nuclear power plants from being built.
Amy Alkon at January 17, 2008 6:29 AM
Well, when I visit the wikipedia and do some research into how many serious accidents there were that were covered up, I am relatively okay with what the activists have done to date.
Going forward, if the industry pledged and actually implemented far more open policies of disclosure and working with concerned citizens I would be happy to take a look at it.
You're in Santa Monica, I grew up in the Valley. In the hills to the west of the valley, where there are now lots of very expensive homes being built, was one of the world's first nuclear meltdowns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory
The meltdown occurred in July of 59, and the contaminants were released to the open air over a period of many months and undisclosed to anyone of course.
I was born about 18 months later, and if it weren't for my mutant X powers, I would still probably be upset that my nickname is Jerry Nine Eyes.
jerry at January 17, 2008 6:48 AM
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities.
The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
Take this FWIW; it's from a wiki, Sourcewatch and could very well have been written solely to slime the IER. But it rings true.
Energy independence won't stop terrorism. But it can't help but be a positive force in the Middle East if the Saudis are less wealthy. And it can't help but be a good thing for our economy if we are spending our energy dollars on U.S.-based businesses.
Jerry, do you really think a 50-year old accident, at a time when scientists had very little understanding of the breadth of radiation dispersal (really, they were terribly wrong about this stuff during the early cold war years when they were testing atomic bombs in the deserts) is very relevant now? The French power most of their country on nuclear power. The French! Are you saying the French can do stuff Americans can't? (sorry, couldn't resist) Right now nuclear is the only power source that can replace the greenhouse gas emitting power plants without asking that we utterly revamp our lifestyles. (and that ain't happening).
justin case at January 17, 2008 7:29 AM
there is the part where less dependence on foreign oil means less playing nice with some of the people who with their other hand fund terrorists. Like the Saudis for ex. Right now they have the attitude where the Americans can't touch us because of the oil. If the technologies become available to avoid oil... Those too will go global.
The downside is: how many countries would destabilize without petrodollars to prop up their governments?
For the nukes... law of unintended consequence rules. They haven't brought any online for a long time, probably with the idea that eventually they would be exponentially safer. Once they are that safe then the regulatory nightmare can be lowered... Except for the part where not that much R&D has been done because there was no profit in it going forward. Who would invest in such a thing when there is a garundamnteed cadre of individuals who will oppose you in every way possible? I have talked to more than a few eco-militants who know everything they are against, but cannot think of anything to be For.
There is no free lunch, and all alternative energy schemes come at a high enviromental price. You should see the toxic waste from making solar panels...
The problem is, if you do nothing...
nothing happens.
I think as a country, it would be well worth our while to get a proven Nuclear design on the books, publicly funded. Then to force the requirement to use that design going foreward when utilities build one, but make it otherwise easy to build. Seems like a reasonable way to do it.
Right now there is just no commecial incentive to build them.
SwissArmyD at January 17, 2008 7:46 AM
My point is this is just one accident of many, many accidents, and almost none of these accidents were ever disclosed. The San Fernando cleanup involved dumping the waste at sea in the Los Angeles fisheries.
My hesitation going forward is that we'll be handing it to the same industry as we did before that would never do anything wrong. As we've seen in the past eight years, the current administration and supreme court are big defenders of cover ups.
As I said, if the industry could convince me they really would work in an open manner, acknowledge the risks and work with concerned citizen groups, I would be happy to reconsider.
jerry at January 17, 2008 7:52 AM
Amy -
As I am about to go into a big meeting I did not have time to read this post thoroughly, but one thing that caught my eye and is definitely worth commenting on is the assertion that breaking our dependence on foriegn oil won't end terrorism. This is absolutely true and is worth commenting on.
In fact, not only will ending the importation of foreign oil not end terrorism, but it will probably inaugurate a period of massive upheavel and conflict that will create more terrorism.
For an idea why, take the example of Venezuela. Prior to the rise of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela had one of the most stable representative democracies in Latin America, established in 1958. Yet a few decades later, the whole thing unraveled to the point that the entire society was plunged into chaos, and a bombastic populist buffoon, and FORMER COUP PLOTTER himself could get elected president, replace the old centralized constitutional order with AN EVEN MORE CENTRALIZED one, and set the country on the road to Socialism.
What caused the sudden collapse of Venezuela's democracy, the longest standing in Latin America?
One word - OIL!
Venezuela's whole economy was based upon oil. The government of Venezuela used the oil revenues to fund all sorts of benefits to the citizens at no cost to themselves in terms of taxes. The people of Venezuela became accustomed to this, and felt entitled to it.
All this was to the good, until oil prices fell in the years prior to Chavez coming to power, leading to massive economic problems, social unrest, and complete collapse in the confidence of the public in their political institutions.
If this can happen in a well-established democratic regime like Venezuela, what is going to happen in places like Saudi Arabia, where no effort is made to prepare for a future without oil revenue, or Mexico, a corrupt polity propped up by oil?
When the oil money stops flowing, there is going to be a serious cataclysm. Saudia Arabia is going to go off like a powder keg and take the world with it. Mexico will collapse and try to export its problems to us.
All of this is going to be aggravated by the fact that the only thing that is going to force us off oil, political platitudes notwithstanding, is the market. We'll find an alternative to oil when the price of oil gets to high to bare. Which means, perversely, that Saudi Arabia and the other oil-money junkies are going to stop getting their money fix at the very moment when they are most dependant upon it.
We need to find an alternative to oil for lots of reasons, but we can't kid ourselves. Ending oil imports isn't going to end conflict in the world. Rather, it will just be the beginning of the struggle.
Buckle up and get ready for a wild ride folks!
Dennis at January 17, 2008 11:00 AM
Lets look at dennis' argument from another oint of view
Its like going to the doctor with a broken leg.
"Well now Mr Johnson, you have a fairly serious compound fracure, a dislocated ankle, and your continuing to lose blood thru that hole in your leg where the bone is sticking out. Now we can set the bone stich your wound and put you in a cast temporarilly, but I got to say its a lot of hassle and to be perfectly honest sir, it will hurt alot. Now, what I'd like to do is sit back and simply moniter your condition, keep an eye on you. We'd like to do this until we're able to simply replace your leg entirely.
What do you say??"
lujlp at January 17, 2008 11:48 AM
Guys, if you're hunting for nuclear, you should look for INPO - the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.
Unfortunately for the public - never thought of as deep thinkers - there is more to any aspect of the energy issue than they are willing to investigate. Put a green leaf on your hybrid or alcohol-fueled car, and you'll sell it; Joe Sixpack won't notice the awesome environmental hit of the propulsion battery, or the fuel economy hit, while sitting in new leather upholstery.
And when anyone mentions "nuclear", all the public can think of is the unmentionable horror of TMI (where no one died) or Chernobyl (where thousands died) - but they can't tell you why there was a difference. To the public, all nuclear plants are the same.
They're not.
"Inherently safe" nuclear plant designs exist already. These depend on gravity and fundamental material properties for the activation of backup systems and risk management. Yes, there is an encyclopedia of explanation behind those few short words.
These designs have not been pursued simply because they are not profitable. Whatever you think of the word, "profit", it remains that there must be a reward for anything you do, and energy interests have this in common with you.
Imagine for a moment that you wanted to start a business, with a process that you actually have in production for the military (with an exemplary safety record), but the moment you apply for a permit you are sued to prohibit you from doing so?
It's a lot easier to wait for the public to get itself in a big-enough jam that they start bawling about being inconvenienced.
-----
Don't forget that there are two totally seperate energy questions in the US, either. One is vehicular, feeding an apparent American need to be somewhere else far away from their current location. The other one is of power generation. Both are obscure topics for the layman.
Radwaste at January 17, 2008 2:23 PM
Dear ljlp:
What the hell are you talking about?!?!? You refer to my "argument" but I can't figure out what the heck your point is.
I'm not sure what you think I was trying to say, but I wasn't making an "argument" for anything - I was making an observation about what I think the future holds for the day when we no longer depend upon oil as our primary source of energy.
Obviously I wasn't clear enough for you, so I'll restate: Ending our dependence upon foreign oil will not inaugurate a period of peace and stability on Earth. Rather, it will further destabilize the Middle East and undermine what stability exists in some other countries, notably our neighbor to the south. That is a prediction not an "argument." And frankly, it isn't even a difficult prediction to make - in fact, it's kind of a no-brainer for anyone paying attention to the broader sweep of history. It's the Hegelian dialect at work: A crisis emergences, a response to the crisis develops, and the collision of the two produces a new reality. The peace following World War I sowed the seeds for World War II; World War II gave way to the Cold War; the end of the Cold War led to the challenges we face today. And so on and so far forth for all time.
There is nothing unusual or profound about this. This is realism. Victory over our dependence on foreign energy will produce a whole new clutch of challenges, as has every other major milestone in history.
Again, I am not really sure exactly what your point is, but I guess you think I am in favor of sitting back and doing nothing about dependence on foreign oil, for fear of making things worse. If indeed that is what you thought - and again, I can only surmise given the bizarre comparison you chose to make - then you are incorrect.
There is nothing in either my previous post or this one upon which you could reasonably conclude that I advocate doing nothing - if that is the point of your post. In fact, the opposite is the case, as I clearly stated the following toward the end of my post:
"We need to find an alternative to oil for lots of reasons."
So, while I agree with everyone that we need a new energy source, I am not willing to poke my head in sand and pretend that the end of foreign oil will mean that the millennium will be at hand. We'll be better off in some ways of course, but in other ways it'll feel more like the apocalypse than the millennium.
So, bottom line: Let's get kick the oil habit. Let's kick it now. However, let's also try and look more than two steps ahead. Let's start thinking NOW about how we're going to cope with the unintended consequences of that will accompany that monumental achievement.
Dennis at January 17, 2008 3:32 PM
Excellent post, Rad. NIMBYism is going to be a problem w/r/t nuclear power until we are suffering mghtily.
justin case at January 17, 2008 3:34 PM
Fair enough dennis, I would like to point out though that in your post while you did say we needed to find alternitives your pot focused on the drawbacks to doing so. Also you werent expressing yourself that well - if your point was indeed to kick oil now, you didnt say so in the first post.
However you said you were about to run off and perhaps you didnt type all you meant to
Surely you can see how I misinterperated your point
lujlp at January 17, 2008 8:03 PM
i guess what bothers me about that guy's article (you know, the original one) is the fact that he offers no solutions whatsoever. i don't know if any of his points are true or not, but i would say that fine, if you're going to criticize the current efforts at fixing things, give me something better.
i did not know, however, that making solar panels made a lot of toxic waste. interesting.
kt at January 18, 2008 1:06 AM
Ya know we have a fairly handy garbage disosale system sitting in the middle of our solar system
lujlp at January 18, 2008 10:59 AM
"Ya know we have a fairly handy garbage disosale system sitting in the middle of our solar system"
Yes, and it costs thousands of dollars a pound to lift anything. Try again. The first principle of conservation is to use less of a thing to start with.
Radwaste at January 18, 2008 8:41 PM
Acctually they just drew up plans for a mangnetic ring launching system to install out here in AZ somewhere.
Facinating technology. You place the payload in a metal box and a series of electromagnets, similar to the ones used for japans rail sysytem, causes the box to spin around the track faster and faster. Once it reaches a certian velocity part of the track falls outwards into the wall and the payload is fired out of a chute and into orbit
lujlp at January 18, 2008 10:21 PM
Acctually they just drew up plans for a mangnetic ring launching system to install out here in AZ somewhere.
Yes, and those things have been a sci-fi staple since the 1930's. Do be sure to look up a) the construction costs, b) the energy cost per launch, c) the maintenance costs per annum. While you're at it, try to figure out how to shield any electronics from the impeller field.
By the way, it doesn't have to go in a circle. It's just a big, slow railgun.
Radwaste at January 24, 2008 3:05 PM
Leave a comment