Tuesday, July 27, 2004
So I Saw Fahrenheit 9/11 Today...
And I gotta say Moore knows what he's doing, even if it can't be considered a documentary in the strictest sense of the genre. certainly at the least it'll shift a few Americans to get around to voting, and mobilise some real action against Bush, like a good propaganda peice should. though somehow i don't see Kerry installing a compulsory voting system, such as that which exists in my own little puddle of a deputy nation, (and they still end up plonking a conservative in the rotating throne), I gotta admit America is real messed up.So what really got me was the Oil, which I used some of to drive to the cinema, and on the was back i was enveloped in a cloud of pollution emnating from a Pick-Up Truck, one of those rare beasts on the road, compared to the utterly pointless City four-wheel drive... and it struck me that i'd read somewhere that if the US required car manufacturers to increase their MPG by 25%, then they would cover their fuel needs from entirely domestic sources. I'll track that one down if anyone comments on it, and probably fix the figure while I'm at it. Thinking Monbiot at the moment though.
Maybe I'd ride my bike if my apathy wouldn't get the better of me. After all, I'd only cancel out half of a 4wd with my own fuel use...
posted by Keegan at 5:35 pm
----------------
2 Comments:
The figure you're looking for is probably Monbiot's comment, "As the former environment minister Michael Meacher pointed out in the Guardian on Saturday, the US could do without its oil imports from the Persian Gulf if the fuel efficiency of its cars was improved by an average of 2.7 miles per gallon" (War x4, 6/7/04). Just a point of clarification this wouldn't allow them to use entirely domestic sources, but would allow them to avoid sources in the Persian Gulf.
Now that all sounds very nice. To stop the war just get everybody to buy smaller cars and drive less. Problem is, it misses the point. The US already imports the vast majority of its oil from sources outside the Middle East. Much of it comes from Venezuela, for instance, which explains the US's interest in the country and support for "opposition" groups opposed to President Chavez, but I digress.
There are also questions about how long sources outside the Middle East will continue to be viable. Just about everwhere else has "peaked" and is now going into "decline", which means the output is decreasing year on year. Only the Middle East has so far avoided this problem (although there are rumours that Saudia Arabia may be peaking) and Iraq sits on the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, much of it untapped.
The key issue regarding the oil motive for the Iraq war was, in my opinion at least, control over the world's key oil reserves. This gives them a huge amount of influence over other countries, particularly China (recall all the talk about China's increasing oil needs, resulting from its massive economic growth, during the concerns about oil prices a while back).
Went on a bit there. Sorry. Apart from that, it's good to see you back blogging.
Now normally, before going on about this, I'd try and back it up with at least a little bit of research, but I'm a little tipsy, so please forgive the lack of a solid base...
Oil is a finite resource, no? so I'll agree with you that is makes a very critical strategic move for the next 20 years at least, to the point where China will equal the US in GDP (if not Gross Earnings per Capita). however, as a finite resource, this means that it'll run out, rough estimates place the drought to hit in around 50 years. so in the long term view, holding Iraq (if this proves possible), will only give the US an edge for roughly 30 years.
now consider if the massive spending to take control of this scarce resource in Iraq, which is only a necessity because of the 4WD culture in the US, had instead been spent on R&D on alternative energy. Over $119bn as of June 3rd [http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/02/1086058917562.html].
While it is clear that not all of this would have been spent on something so boring as research, just $1bn on R&D would be well above worldwide annual spending on Alternative Energy R&D.
The strategic benifits of the Iraq war, if held, can only last 50 years or so. allowing china to become dependent on a limited resource, which'll cut out, and then having to buy American technology to survive, would quite possibly give the PNAC their American Century.
thanks for commenting...
Post a Comment
<< Home