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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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
http://360oregon.com
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:?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As an individual you can meet that 50% mark in spades today.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We need alternatives, but alternatives that don't involve selling our souls to the oil companies.
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.
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.
How's that Kool Aid tasting?
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.
How can people be this short sighted and still make it to work safely?
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.
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.
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.
They will have to walk, and wear shoes made of braided plant fiber (non-edible, of course).
- by dcase99 July 25, 2008 3:19 PM PDT
- 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.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Kwasiowusu July 25, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
- 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.
- Like this
-
- by dcase99 July 25, 2008 4:20 PM PDT
- Simple, conserve and push harder for the alternatives.
- Like this
-
- by Kwasiowusu July 25, 2008 5:50 PM PDT
- 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?
- Like this
-
(46 Comments)