The looming oil crisis...from 1948
Editor's note: What with the price of gasoline near record highs, attention increasingly focuses on the race to deliver battery-driven automobiles. But even with advances in this and other alternative technology areas, this remains a work in progress. As they say, we're likely going to remain dependent on oil for the foreseeable future. Apropos, I recently came across a provocative column by Greentech Media's Michael Kanellos, which I'm reposting as a guest column. Might his look-back scenario have worked out? We'll never know. Still, it's a good read. What's your take? Leave your comments in the TalkBack section below.
Michael Kanellos, Greentech Media
(Credit: CNET Networks)U.S. Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal was terrified. The year was 1948 and diplomats worldwide contemplated what might occur if various nations recognized Israel as a separate state.
If the United States had decided to recognize the soon-to-be nation, Arab nations might cut off oil shipments, which in turn could imperil the Marshall Plan, which in turn could provide momentum to the communist juggernaut.
In a decade, "the nation could be forced to convert to four cylinder cars," he confidentially predicted. (The quote has been cited in several books, including O Jerusalem by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.)
The oppressive boot heel of socialism and wimpy cars! Men surely didn't lay their lives on the line at the beaches of Anzio for that. In the end, the U.S. recognized Israel, the oil embargo of 1948 didn't occur, and Detroit didn't have to emphasize economy cars for three more decades.
But it makes me wonder. What would have happened if Forrestal's fears had come true? What if the Gulf nations had imposed a strict embargo and the United States was forced to go four-cylinder and cut down on gas starting in 1948?
For one thing, U.S. auto companies likely wouldn't be the bumbling boneheads of the industrial world. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler would have had to retool quickly. But turning on a dime was something they learned to do thanks to the wartime experience, when the federal government ordered these automakers to start building planes. Germany and Japan were still in shambles at the time so U.S. automakers could have eked out an early, sustainable lead.
In turn, that might have meant softening, or even avoiding, the blight that hit Detroit in the 1970s. And the focus on efficiency could have bled into the steel industry. Who knows? The U.S. could have become an early leader in solar manufacturing with all the intellectual capital focused on efficiency and energy.
OK, a vibrant economy in the Great Lakes would likely have doomed the musical careers of Grand Funk Railroad and Bob Seger--the beer rock movement just wouldn't have the same oomph without mass unemployment. But it's a small price to pay.
Alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol? A thriving industry would have probably emerged. The lack of cheap oil would have put farmers and chemists on the hunt for substitutes. (Biofuels work, but they just cost more than gas. Less gas would have opened an opportunity.) The wealth generated would have made Kansas look like Palo Alto.
Iran? Wouldn't be a problem. Britain and the United States organized a coup in 1953 against Mossadegh, the then-prime minister who wanted to nationalize Iranian oil assets. The coup led to the Shah on the throne. Better efficiency and alternative oils would have meant no coup, no Shah, no 1979 Iranian Revolution, and no Great Satan Bookstore in the old CIA headquarters in Tehran.
Jimmy Carter might have served two terms (or, more toward the wishes of you conservatives, never been elected at all). The Ayatollah Khomeini, meanwhile, likely would have been a guy on a park bench. As a country with a fairly well-developed middle class and educational system, Iran would likely have emerged as a shining star in globalism.
Terrorism? It would have occurred--the cultural, political, and religious issues of the Mideast made war inevitable. But the oil-rich nations of the Gulf wouldn't have had as much money. In turn, that would have meant less of the "affluent poverty" of those nations. Instead of relying on family wealth and government-made jobs, more kids in those nations would have attended college. Which in turn would have meant more "normal" nations and likely less radical political fringes.
Global warming? Still a problem, but it would have come on more slowly and might have been easier to ameliorate. Then again, people could have reacted to it slower. But even as global warming began to appear, we'd have had more experience to combat it. So chalk that up as a positive, too.
Muscle cars? Well, you can't have it all. NASCAR fans would be cheering on drivers from the Opal team. Mattel would have likely have scuttled Hot Wheels too.
Offshore oil drilling? Wouldn't be needed. In fact, when you think about it, there wouldn't be much to debate in the 2008 presidential election.
That's a problem I could live with.
The views in this opinion piece are not connected with Greentech Media news.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
Except that then Germany and Japan would have come out with muscle cars to counter our puny econo-cars and we would be right back where we are now!
Then all of sudden gas was at $3 and climbing like a tree monkey and all of sudden we care.
Now before electric cars really invade we will see hundreds of oil rigs in Alaska and anywhere else we can find oil. Yes, we will do this before we will succumb to a electric car. Look at out past. Has Americans ever gave up on big vehicles very long?
There is no such thing as "could of", "should of" and "would of" in the English language. There is also no such thing as "Americans are crisis manager's." nor "SUV's and trucks" in the English language either. Furthermore, proper English would have been "all of *a* sudden". "Look at out past" is not English and "Has Americans ever gave up" is not English either. Absolutely horrible.
Why did we impose gasoline rationing in WW II? (I do remember the little stamps.) Not much to save oil (we had enough); we did it to save rubber, which became critical very quickly.
I believe Energy is a problem because we let it get to be a problem by letting people living in tents tell us how to live and people educated by teachers unions think that was a good thing to do! Boy, ain't we green!!
the oil shock needed $4/gal to galvanize North America
now there is talk that oil prices will be falling back to pre-run up levels
and increasingly more fingers are pointing at the paper barrel traders as the culprits.
see:
"Supply and demand of the physical product, by and large, has remained fairly stable. In 2005, global oil production was 84.6 million barrels per day, and consumption was 83.6 million. Today, those numbers are 86.5 million and 86.4 million. That slight tightening hardly justifies the tripled price. So what does? OPEC? The falling dollar? A conspiracy to manipulate the market by speculators?" Oil speculation: Why we don't have answers http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/07/news/economy/oil_prins.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008070811
"Still, the correlation of a four-fold increase of investment money into oil futures and a four-fold increase in oil prices since 2004 has not gone unnoticed. Many lawmakers, consumer rights advocates and even some oil industry analysts say speculation is at least partly to blame." Traders manipulated oil prices - U.S." http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/markets/cftc/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories
however the genie is now out of the bottle. Industrialized countries and their citizens might be breathing a little easier - but there is a palpable "never again' sentiment that is simmering underneath.
Was all of this a requisite set of circumstances to deal with GHG? Maybe? Probably? Who knows?
Hopefully the momentum will continue to build. Is there any reason white collar workers need to commute to work - 5 days a week? Telecommute? Condensed work weeks? Do we need urban assault vehicles? Do I trade my gas for my Starbucks? My gas for.......
Those important and less important questions are being asked, but perhaps most encouraging are the new questions as to why we need to use oil.
Questions about alternatives. That is where the spark of hope lies.
cheers
Miro
Did you forget this Country was built spread out? People need to drive, some people need to drive more people and for God's sake, some people need to tow their Boat! Doesn't mean we can't have reasonable gas prices, ask Venezuelans. The answer isn't always *just* smaller cars or electric, sometimes it IS the politics of the *game*. The only reason we don't just invade Saudi Arabia and get it over with is because THEY reinvest most of their $ here in the US. So it comes back fully swing. Guess that explains why we don't buy that very same Venezuelan oil, Chavez already said that not $1 is coming back to the US infrastructure.
- by Vailhem July 30, 2008 12:37 AM PDT
- if china buys oil from canada, and they pay for it with money that we give them when we buy products from us, and we can only afford to buy products because of loans that they give us, and they no longer give us loans, thus we no longer buy products, how will they afford to buy oil from canada?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)