The Arab oil embargo we really needed

Earlier this month I was in Israel moderating a panel on the myths and realities of alternative energy. The good news to report is that technologists are making steady headway in so-called green alternatives like solar and wind. The bad news is that governments aren't yet providing enough investment support for their ideas.

(Credit: CNET News)

So it's been more than slightly amusing to watch the media circus around the discovery by the United States Geological Survey that the Arctic may hold around one fifth of the planet's future oil and natural gas reserves. Since that Wednesday announcement, every talking head worth his or her salt has been paraded (in some cases multiple times) on Fox, MSNBC and CNN.

But beyond the predictable polemics, is it such a grand idea? Alternative energy technologies represent the future, and drilling in the Arctic constitutes yet another (temporary) diversion. Others have pointed out that we're talking about only three years' worth of oil (at current consumption rates), though the natural gas reserves in the region are gauged to be three times as large. Texas oilman-turned-wind power enthusiast T. Boone Pickens, hardly a garden variety Berkeley leftist, is hitting the stumps making the case that "this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of."

All of which left me wondering what it's going to take to force public opinion to dispense with the fiction that cheap oil is only one or two big drilling projects away. With Ford and General Motors now anxious to get rid of truck and large-vehicle divisions as fast as they can, clearly, change is in the air.

My former CNET colleague, Michael Kanellos, now working for GreenTech Media, offers a fascinating what-might-have-been had the Arabs followed through with an oil embargo if the United States recognized Israel in 1948. Kanellos argues that a strict embargo would have forced the U.S. auto industry to move to 4-cylinder cars and fostered a more conservation-conscious approach.

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.

History worked out differently. The Arabs didn't impose an oil embargo until 1973. The resulting gasoline shortage forced a shift in consumer preferences for smaller, more efficient vehicles. Temporarily, that is. Then Detroit went back to its business as usual. We know the rest of the story.

[polarfrz]

And thank God that we still live in a country free enough that we can even make bad decisions. As to not drilling for oil and turning to alternative energy; we keep hearing that drilling will take ten years, but how long will the alternatives take?

[Renegade Knight]

You can go solar now. You can go wind power now. Electric cars exist now. The question on alternates isn't when we can bring them out, it's when do they become economical.

[Penguinisto]

Yes and no. Electric cars exist now, but a power grid infrastructure big enough to sustain a nation of plug-and-go vehicles - does not. We have Solar now, but it would take (as average) an acre of panels to power a typical 4-person family home on a permanent off-grid basis (and even more if you want to feed that electric car).

The Big Three are already in full panic mode, and are burning midnight oil (s'cuse the pun) to get fuel cell and ultra-efficient hybrids to market as soon as practical.

[c|net Reader]

Gore'd thinks it will take ten years for the alternatives. Oil won't take nearly ten years if we can reduce the opportunities for frivolous lawsuits and the ridiculous bureaucratic stumbling blocks.

The answer is to do both. There is a limited supply of oil. We know it. What we can't do is abruptly switch from oil to the alternatives. We need time to do it. What's more, most today can't afford to make the switch. My vehicles are in great shape. I can't afford to junk them or sell them for a pittance and then buy green vehicles to replace them. What's more, there aren't any big enough for my family. We have to transition to the alternatives. We might even decide that oil can be an acceptable choice for decades because of increased conservation, efficiency, and reduced demand due to many switching to alternatives.

The point is that the usual discussion presents a false dichotomy. The decision isn't oil or the alternatives. It is get both as soon as possible.

[jag0]

"this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of." <-- that is true BUT if we are able to at least lessen our dependence on FOREIGN oil then it is a step in the right direction. NO ONE can possibly argue that getting our oil from outside (and sometimes hostile) countries is a good idea when there is oil here right in our back yard.

The only problem is that there are extremist left wing nuts in power that oppose any form of opportunity of getting us off the dependence of foreign oil.

[Dalkorian]

Here we go again, yet another right wing nazi pointing to the left and crying "it's their fault!". Unfortunately, the rest of us aren't stupid enough to buy that tripe, especially after seeing what the nazi side of the isle has done over the last decade or so. YOU put us in this mess, on purpose, to fleece as much as you can from us. That's a FACT.

It's true, we need answers. Answers that involve looking past the next year's profits for Exxon/Mobil and Shell. It's true that we simply can't drill our way out of this. What's really funny is this isn't the first time this administration has pushed to drill in ANWAR. They got turned down last time and what happened? Oil speculators drove prices through the roof again and again, raping us for thinking about something other than their nazi agenda. We remember that it wasn't but a year ago when $70/barrel seemed "record setting", today oil goes for far closer to $140/barrel (it has been coming down a little the last week or so). Now you want to drill in ANWAR again.

Nice try. Send all repukes to the Hague along with fuhrer bushit for crimes against humanity. Raping the public via price fixing and market manipulation was a crime last time I checked. You make me sick.

[kieranmullen]

I can! Use up the natural resources of other countries while holding onto your own! When other countries dry up. Then you can use your own supply.

KieranMullen
http://360oregon.com

[Kwasiowusu]

@ Dalkorian , groan!
Yet another loony left crazy spews out mindless communist propaganda and hate. ?The rest of you aren?t stupid enough? to buy the drill here, drill now demands huh? I have news for you pal. Overwhelmingly, the American people are demanding that Queen Pelosi and her Democratic party gang of thieves, in the Congress, immediately STOP blocking all efforts to allow drilling off the oil rich shores of this country,
and at ANWR.
Every single poll that has come out , has the vast majority of Americans being strongly in favor of drilling off our shores. The only ?rest of you that are not stupid enough? top buy that, are your hard line Stalinist mad men at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. The rest of America, who leave in the real world, and don?t find anything funny about record gas prices, even as we send hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemies in Iran to pay for oil, want is to drill right in this country, RIGHT NOW.
Hey, why don?t you try going to live in the communist paradise of your pals in North Korea and Cuba while you are about it:?

[c|net Reader]

There is no one group or person that caused this. We all benefited from cheap oil. Unfortunately, that meant that the alternatives were too costly by comparison, so too little was done to develop them. The real problem is that our Government -- both sides of the aisle -- ignored the increasing percentage of GDP going to nations that hate us. They should have been aware of that and realized that they needed to do more to encourage alternative energy sources *and* to find more of our own oil.

Regardless of how we got to where we are, we're faced with the sudden surge in prices which make everything more expensive and for which few could adequately prepare. Ad hominem attacks don't solve the problem. Instead of posturing, let's develop *all* reasonable sources of energy. By reasonable, I mean those that don't require more energy input than they produce and that don't cause undue harm.

That means we drill for our own oil as quickly as possible -- fast track the process -- *and* we work to provide good alternatives as soon as possible.

We can't transition instantly. We must buy time. That means drill for our own oil while we develop the alternatives. If nothing else, drilling for our own oil will reduce prices for oil in the world market and that means those that hate our country will get less of everyone's money.

[Gronar Snaggletooth]

Uh, exactly how much oil did we import from the Arabs in 1948, if any?

[Gronar Snaggletooth]

I just looked it up, the United States did not start importing any oil until 1970.

[Joe Nova]

Hi Charles,
Its unfortunate that the United States is learning a very hard lesson oil, global warming, and the need to find alternatives and fast. The biggest problem is that profit comes before anything else. The big oil companies know that the oil WILL run out. They are aware of it and they know that there's no way getting around it. Unfortunately, they like any other greedy corporation will plunder the ends of the earth to keep their bottom line. I worked in the automotive repair industry for almost 17 years, and the biggest question that always bothered me was this:

Why is it that we can have several different vehicles of different sizes, engine configurations, and different applications but they ALL managed to stay at the 20 to 25 mpg? I've always found that to be suspect and I'm not an engineer. It makes you wonder if the automotive industry knows full and always knew that they could build and design a better fuel efficient vehicle, but the oil companies DON'T want to see that happen. Not to mention the fact that both these industries NEED each other. Look at what the average car needs for maintanance. And look at how many jobs would be lost IF we got rid of the petroleum-powered vehicle replacing it with a quick and reliable electric one.

So one industry washes the hand of the other. When the oil does officially run out, the world will be in chaos. This is what the oil companies and the automobile manufacturers have done to lead us to this future. I am glad that I live close to public transportation where a car is not needed.

[Renegade Knight]

The industries don't need each other. If GM goes electric and it sells they don't need Chevron. Diesels were intended to run on Peanut oil when first invented. Model A's on Gas, Alcahol or whatever was handy.

You have an interesting point on the MPG. I don't think that's a conspiracy so much as bumbling policy.
In the 80's cars did excellent for MPG. Much better than 20-25 for the econoboxes. Now the Econoboxes get about the same as the 80's...if you work hard to find the right one. But they are no longer as light, small, or sparing in their amenities. Stick a modern fuel injected econobox motor in an 80's car and I'd bet you would see 25% better MPG in that same with no other changes than the motor. It's other things that get in the way of fuel economy on the newer cars.

[k2dave]

I don't think it's so much a conspiracy as consumer demand for bigger, better, faster. When fuel was cheap it really didn't bother most that a car got 20-25mpg, bringing that up to 30 would mean less power, room, etc. The extra cost for fuel was really a non-issue for many. Car manufactures went to provide more power and for that matter more (massive) cars, which lead to more money for them. So you see no conspiracy between big oil and the auto industry is needed.

As for the drilling issue, I think we are long overdue for drilling and should start ASAP. This will not stop alternative fuels, but will ease the transition. As we drill in more remote places the cost of recovering oil will increase, so the cost of oil on the open market will gradually go upward, making alternative fuels more attractive and have them filter in.

The issue with many biofuels however is pretty obvious, we will, in one form or another, be burning someone's food in our cars/suv's. For a farmer to produce food he will demand the same price as if that land went to produce fuel.

[MadLyb]

So, you are saying we shouldn't drill for oil, so it will force people to go green?

That's like saying we should stop treating the uninsured that show up in emergency rooms, so that it will force the Universal Health Care discussion.

Nothing is ever that simplistic.

Show me 1, 2 or even 3 current alternative energy solutions that have a prayer of eliminating even 50% of our energy needs in the next decade. There aren't any. Biofuels are a joke, they compete for the same land as foodstuffs and still require large amounts of other energy to process. Solar and wind, in even the best plans, will not even provide as much energy as hydro already does and it is a small percentage of our consumption. The only, currently viable, solutions are coal and nuclear. Coal is nasty upfront, and nuclear is nasty at the end of the process. Considering the huge environmental impact of mining for coal, I'll go with nuclear.

We need to drill for every drop of oil, and build nuclear plants alongside large investments in long term alternative energy solutions is the only way this will work.

[Renegade Knight]

As a nation. You have a point.
As an individual you can meet that 50% mark in spades today.

[Joe Nova]

Hold on one second. I did not say that we shouldn't drill for oil. LISTEN TO WHAT I AM SAYING. I am saying that the OIL WILL RUN OUT. There's a big difference. We NEED to find OTHER solutions.

[sportsmaster68]

I only thank God you are not in charge of any policy making organization in our government. The private sector can handle finding the "next" source of energy whatever that is if the government just gets out of the way. Just like our oil companies could handle easing the supply if the government hadn't made it nearly impossible to explore, extract and refine crude oil into gasoline for the last 30 years. "Alternative energy" is an absolute myth. The gas-powered internal combustion engine was the alternative to the horse and buggy. Drill now for our own oil to ease, not solve, supply issues while continuing to find that next big thing.

[charlie cooper]

Huh?

[hardedge]

Wait, Charlie, let me get my violin! Oh, that's right, I don't have one...
We can't solve anything solely through conservation and still evolve as a society. The two concepts are antithetical.
Alternative fuels are at least a decade away, if not more. (Just where do you get power when the wind stops blowing? If it's your primary energy source you need a gas or gasoline powered generator to compensate --many fold. You could always sit in the dark, right?)
Drilling now will produce gas and some oil within 2 - 4 years. More over time.
Congress, in its continued infinite wisdom, wants to scold speculators who deal in future oil prices. Congress (in its etc., etc., etc.) won't permit drilling for oil because we won't see results until the future. HMMM....

A strict embargo in 1948 would have sent our troops, tanks, planes, and boats into oil producing countries and we would probably control the bulk of the world's oil supply today. Maybe Mike is right.

[charlie cooper]

conservation won't achieve anything? yeah, suuuure. but the future is in new technology - and existing, such as nuclear. oil is not going to be long-term answer to the energy crunch. listen to pickens. he knows a thing or two about the industry

[nachurboy]

"We can't solve anything solely through conservation"
I don't see anyone advocating conservation "solely" anywhere.
Alternative energy is only as far away as money. If the government isn't willing to invest in its infrastructure, the private sector won't either since the return on investment is too long. This requires government subsidies for private sector to go headlong, which would bring the technology very quickly.
Power generation isn't only wind or solar. You've got geothermal, nuclear, ocean wave, even algae. Plenty of other sources of power that is not dependent on wind or solar, and especially oil.
What you fail to see regarding oil is that it's not an infinite renewable source. Do you really want to wait until oil is gone to make a switch? Do you really think we have the domestic capacity to avoid importing oil forever? If not forever, how long? 10 years? 20 years? So in 20 years, you're going to say, "Hey, let's invest in alternative fuel!"? By then, oil will probably cost $500/barrel or more!
It's the lack of forward thinking that has caused America to sell itself to everyone else. Our lack of savings and over consumption puts us in a debtor position. We need to get back on the leading edge by developing the next generation energy technology to sell, not follow everyone else by sucking oil.

[cozappz]

All the North-American car manufacturers sell good products in Europe for years. But they didn't bring those products to U.S. untill now. Why?

[gerrrg]

That's easy.

In Europe and elsewhere in the world, fuels carry a hefty tax that, in some cases, doubles the price of filling up, compared to the US.

In the US, American car manufacturers are merely responding to the demand of the public. Until gas prices shot up over $3/gallon, no one here really cared about buying fuel efficient cars. When it shot up to $4, SUVs became liabilities against your bottom line. Up until the $3 gallon, Americans were more than thrilled to be able to finally have the room to fit their 2 children into their 7 passenger SUVs.

[punterjoe]

I find the "alternative history" genre to be a fascinating fiction subcategory, but I'm not so sure about it's analytical value. Given the way Detroit reacted to competitive stirrings from would-be game changers like Tucker Motors, it seems big industry's reaction is at least as likely to be resistance and obfuscation than reactionary innovation. One need look no further than RCA's battles to stall & suppress FM, or GM's self-sabotage of the Saturn EV-1, to make an argument than - even when the company will gain in long term - inertia & dogged devotion to the existing (outmoded) business model will usually trump innovation.
At least the tech industry seems to understand the value of disruptive new models from upstart outsiders. Too bad that models hasn't translated very well to other business realms.

[teachtopia]

If we are going to continue to use fossil fuels it is selfish for anyone to think that it is simply ok to drill elsewhere. The global warming effects will still occur and their local environments are suffering as a result. I want alternative energy sources now, but for as long as I still use fossil fuels it might as well be the result of drilling here.

[Joe Nova]

THANK YOU.

[Dalkorian]

Fine, sounds good. Answer me this though - why can't we drill in EXISTING leases? Why do we need to open up our coastlines and wilderness to the oil companies when they refuse to tap into the leases they're now sitting on? Finally, why has this had such a sudden effect on fuel prices? It's not like there are suddenly a billion new cars in China or anything like that.

We need alternatives, but alternatives that don't involve selling our souls to the oil companies.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ Dalkori why can't we drill in EXISTING leases?, .....Now why don't you show me any existing leases that actually have easily extractable oil, that is not being drilled? The fact that a lease is given to explore a piece of land, doesn't mean that piece of land has oil, nor does it mean that if there is any oil at all, it's in economically exploitable quantities, or makes economic sense to exploit. We know for a fact that, 2000 acres(out of a total of 20 million acres) art ANWR, has huge reserves of exploitable oil. Only thing is, the Democrats keep stopping us from exploiting the oil at ANWR(because s0ome caribou might not like it), even as the price of gas keeps soaring, and American families keep suffering. Would you rather we spend hundreds of billions of dollars importing oil from evil genocidal regimes like Iran and Venezuela, so they can use the money ti build nuclear weapons, and back al Quaeda, or much rather we spend those hundreds of billions of dollars in this country, and use the money to create jobs, build hospitals and schools and build roads in this country ?

[charlie cooper]

nuclear makes sense. oil does not. i think pickens is spot on: you simply cannot drill your way out of this mess. if you think it makes sense to continue to rely on oil imports from hostile regimes in the mideast & venezuela, make your case

[Penguinisto]

Devil's Advocate: Burn theirs first. ;)

[Lerianis]

Frankly, the big problem with the oil price increases is oil speculation and the fact that our government has made it almost IMPOSSIBLE to drill on American soil. We also have to realize that solar, wind, water.... all of these power supplies are, at best, EXTREME future things. They are not reliable at the moment today, and we have to acknowledge that.

The ONLY source of power besides oil that is a 'right this moment' thing: nuclear power. But of course, the enviro-loonies want you to believe that 'we are only a second away from a Three-mile island type thing on a massive scale (whiny voice here)' when we aren't.

Frankly, nuclear power is safe, economical, and CLEAN. The 'nuclear waste' we are putting out could and should be used in newer nuclear reactors. In fact, it could be used over and over and over and over, ad infiinitum, until it is SOOOOOOOOOO depleted...... you could bathe in the **** and not get a lethal dose of radiation.

[Joe Nova]

To answer Renegade Knight,
Yes the industries DO need each other OR are in cahoots working together to keep the status quo. When it comes to the internal combustion engine? Of course they do! Engine Coolant is made of ethylene glycol a petroleum based product. So is lithium grease for the brakes, brake fluid, joint grease, axle grease, the shock absorbers are filled with petroleum oil, the same with the de-greasers to clean the vehicle parts. Transmission fluid is also made of oil but it's more of a solvent than engine oil.

Also, I do believe that MPG standards that were released by the automakers is purposely engineered that way. Vehicles of different designs and they all stay at around 20 to 25 mpg doesn't bug you? I find that suspect. We're in IRAQ because of oil, not the liberation of the people from Saddam Hussein. US government is responsible for putting him in power to begin with.

[Joe Nova]

Remember Charles, big oil is responsible for keeping us in the dark. That's why we're hated around the world and why we're in countries like Iraq.

[jag0]

Yea because there can;t POSSIBLY be any other reason why we are in Iraq right? /rolls eyes

How's that Kool Aid tasting?

[Dalkorian]

by jag0 July 25, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
Yea because there can;t POSSIBLY be any other reason why we are in Iraq right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name one Jag. One. Careful now, the repuke excuses involving terrorists and WMD's have both been proven to be outright LIES. Terrorists arrived after we did, in fact we made it possible for "al-qaida in Iraq" to exist. Show us one WMD. Even fuhrer bushit has been shown to be joking about that LIE, looking around his office like a retard saying "gee, no WMD's in here!"

Or do you have some other reason that no one else has been told about? Or was that a very nasty wake up call? Sorry, but you need to be brought from your slumber.

[Neo Con]

Just out of curiosity, can someone tell me what alternative energy option we can turn to to power airplanes? I haven't seen the hybrid jet engine in the news yet, so is someone on that? Or can we just dispense with the nonsense and get back to DRILLING already?

[Dalkorian]

Good one. Must be an unsolvable problem. I guess when the oil runs out (you don't think the supply worldwide is limitless, do you?), we just won't fly anymore.

How can people be this short sighted and still make it to work safely?

[jbosx]

"The bad news is that governments aren't yet providing enough investment support for their ideas." Sorry but it is not the Governments responsibility to provide investment for ideas. High gas prices however, will provide incentives for the markets to come up with solutions. When there is big money to be made, companies will find a solution to make that profit.

Gas prices have not been high for very long, relax. Let the market work out a solution. Don't whine because the government has not stepped into an area that it should stay out of.

What you should pray for is gas prices of $4-$5 for a few years. Then you will see some really creative ideas come to market. Why? Because they will be feasible. When gas is only $2 a gallon, it doesn't make sense to pursue alternate technologies.

[Kwasiowusu]

@ Cooper, ?. Texas oilman-turned-wind power enthusiast T. Boone Pickens, hardly a garden variety Berkeley leftist, is hitting the stumps making the case that "this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of."?
Typical liberal. You take one quotation out of context, and try to pass ot off as smething that it never was. T Boone Pickens is investing billions in wind power, and wants a good return on his investments, and all the best to him. But the same T Bone Pickens was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer, and this is what he had to say:

BLITZER: What about drilling offshore? There's a debate. As you know, McCain says, yes, go ahead and drill off the coasts of Florida and California. Obama says, no.
You're an oilman. What do you say?
PICKENS: OK. McCain says, OK off the East and West Coasts. I say East, West Coast and ANWR. Get it all. I mean, to get off of foreign oil, that is the enemy. Get everything you can get. You cannot drill your way out of it. But you're drilling, and whatever you are able to find and put into the domestic system will help us. But you -- you aren't going to be able to find enough to take care of all the imports that we have.
BLITZER: What about nuclear?
PICKENS: Nuclear, fine, do it. Anything in America, do it, and get off of foreign oil.

I will re-emphasize what T Boone Pickens said about drilling here, and drilling now : ?OK off the East and West Coasts. I say East, West Coast and ANWR. Get it all. I mean, to get off of foreign oil, that is the enemy. ?
T Boone Pickens wants America to drill for every barrel of oil e can get in this country, as well as search for alternatives like wind power. The 2 options are not mutually excessive. We can do both at the same time.

BTW, how do you propose to fuel the over 120 million cars that Americans own right now without oil? How do you propose to get those folks that live in rural America and farmlands, and get their children to school and parents to shops TODAY, without fossil fuels?
Show me any alternative power that can power our vehicles today in an economic manner or even in the next 20 years? And don?t talk to me about those funny electric cars. They are expensive, outside the price range of most Americans and they use electricity which is mostly still produced using fossil fuels. Electric cars are a joke.

[thirdpipe]

What is it going to take to get carbonphobes like you to admit that the "alternative technologies" that have already received trillions in public and private R&D are not on the near horizon not matter how much you want them to be.

This is supposed to be a FREE country. You and your elite friends are very welcome to bicycle to work, eat raw food, and live in a dark cave. How about getting out of the way and letting the rest of us live the way we want to.

We have enough untapped oil deposits in America that we can begin to produce and maybe keep the economy healthy enough to fund alternative research you prize so highly. If the cost of energy continues to rise, there will be no money for anything, including long term research to develop alternatives that actually work and are affodable. If you'll let your logic take a look at the problem, even you will understand that.

[amadensor]

Sorry, they cannot ride bicycles. The metals to make them require fossil fuels to forge.

They will have to walk, and wear shoes made of braided plant fiber (non-edible, of course).

[dcase99]

Does it really matter? Fossil fuels are a finite resource, we have no choice but to go to the alternative renewable fuels and the sooner the better. The more effort that is put into going away from fossil fuels towards alternatives/renewables the sooner we will get there.

[Kwasiowusu]

No one is against alternate, renewable energy sources. The American government has already given out hundreds of billions in subsidies and outright free cash to all kinds of outfits out there to carry out research on alternate fuels. The question is, what do we do about the huge amounts of oil we need to use every day TODAY, and the very high prices of gas, and the hundreds of billions of dollars we are sending out every year to terrorist regimes like Iran, in the form of the billions we give them to buy oil from them? We gotta drill here and drill now. Together with alternate energy research, and nuclear energy of course.

[dcase99]

Simple, conserve and push harder for the alternatives.

[Kwasiowusu]

No amount of conservation is going to stop america from importing 70% of our oil needs today. So far as you continue to drive your car, or ride in a bus or use fossil l fuels in any shape or form today, then we have to drill here, and drill now. If you are aginst driling here, how on earth can you use fossil fuels drilled in other countries without being hypocratical?