great article.
Culture Change e-Letter
#32
Ration oil during war
— Or is this a War on Conservation?
by Jan Lundberg
If the U.S. is waging a "War on
Terrorism," federal energy policy would reflect that the war is
not a "war for oil." Even if what we've had is a war of terror
(nothing new, if you ask Indo-Chinese victims of U.S. shock-n-awe),
that's not exactly a war for oil.
As oil is a strategic commodity essential to the
present economy and military, then policies should be geared toward conserving
oil. Everyone knows they are not; little conservation has happened since
Jimmy Carter's tentative efforts. A national paving moratorium was
proposed in 1990 in part to stop the lengthening of the nation's (oil) supply
lines in time of war (Operation Desert Storm).
If the U.S. is truly not in Iraq and Afghanistan
mainly for petroleum, and petroleum in that part of the world is meant for those
countries and the whole world, then Gosh, the U.S. has to start rationing oil
now. (Forget for a moment the main reason to cut back: global
warming is caused in large part from petroleum emissions.) One
could point out that U.S. trade partners need oil too, or else the U.S. goes
down the tubes economically. But the U.S. felt a domestic and world
crisis, to insist on war on Iraq. Some say it was to keep Iraq from
accepting Euros instead of dollars for oil.
and refined products are being sucked unsustainably from the finite Earth just
for the USA's burning and spilling the stuff. Neither the oil industry nor
its White House acknowledges the impossibility of maintaining this rate.
Because of free-market economists' ideology about the "creation" of
supply, the future is never more than ten years off in their practical
planning. As for an oil crisis hitting hard in the first decade of this
century, this is not real to the oil fraternity because (1) it implies great
change in an industry that's not generally about energy; petroleum is unique and
specialized, and (2) it's the next quarterly report that really counts in big
business.
measure, considering Axis and Allied aims and strategies. And the Axis -
which happened to ultimately lose the war - was finally cut off from sufficient
supplies of oil. But the U.S. had to ration oil and other products so that
it would not run out during war. What have we learned from our history?
Add
the maximum available crude and refined products together, and you have a little over
two months of
oil supply for driving, some heating, and a few lesser energy uses in the U.S., if we assume
the crude is refined into fuels (over half of it is).
The bigger
assumption is that domestic pumping and especially importing will keep going "forever."
Fifty-eight percent is the level of oil importation today - another reason for
the attack on Iraq?
U.S. gasoline consumption is well over 9 million
barrels (or over 400 million gallons) per day in summer. Almost nothing is
currently being done to decrease this. To the contrary, conservation is
anathema to the "conservatives" in control of the government. (See San
Francisco Chronicle op-ed "And
when cheap oil runs out... Enter the Age of Conservation" by
Jan Lundberg, May 6, 2001.)
Vice President Cheney's and George
Bush's opposition to the environmental form of conservation is the key to
understanding why rationing is unthinkable to them today. But if
conservation were
thought of as war-oriented, it might have a chance to
fly. This way the White House could also meet popular goals such as
cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing smog. They can save face by
saying the rationing is just because of the never-ending war "on
terrorism." Emergencies are also attractive to besieged rulers.
Not primarily because of petty politics, Nixon put in oil price controls, and
Bush could respond that way to today's record gasoline prices. Voila,
never-ending rationing?
WWII rationing
The rationing system that worked in
World War II was sensible: an "A" sticker on most cars allowed only
three or four gallons to the driver per week. Privileged and critically needed drivers
such as doctors got other stickers and more gasoline coupons. Feds busted people wasting
fuel, such as nailing them at concerts or night clubs. There was black
market abuse of
the system, but rationing worked to a large degree. Speed limits were
lowered to 30 miles per hour on highways. Rubber was suddenly unavailable from
plantations in Southeast Asia, so the U.S. was rushing to refine petroleum into
synthetic rubber before completely running out; hence, make those tires last.
The nation during World War II had some sensible
leadership in regard to oil policy, assuming the whole system of government and
industry was legitimate and
evolving to something sustainable and compassionate. (That assumption runs
up against realities such as the oil-facilitated U.S. killing of 5 million
Indo-Chinese.) How does
WWII policy compare with today? The
flag waving leaders today certainly have the flag - and the weapons of mass
destruction, the big money, and all the oil they want (us) to guzzle.
What else was a hallmark of successful,
patriotic conservation in WWII? Victory Gardens and recycling! New
urban
gardens enabled depaved and ex-lawn spaces to become food production
zones. Waste reduction featured reusing materials and parts instead of
trashing them. Things could be fixed more easily than today, due to
encroaching computerization in cars, for example.
stuck for the duration of the war because of the threat to the nation.
Well, supposedly we are threatened now! So where's the conservation?
If there's no conservation, what does that imply?
Why is the modern "conservative"
- and even the liberal - usually against conservation? The main factor is individual "need,"
for not just consuming all the oil that's convenient, but for profiteering on
oil-related, oil-fueled business. Somebody wants a big motor vehicle
regardless of fuel economy, and the powers-that-be want that car-buyer to
succeed in that want! The world almost has a gun to its head to buy new motor vehicles. In the U.S., this has by now translated to
more operable vehicles than drivers - a ratio of 1.9 personal cars in the
average household of 1.75 drivers. Most consumers will not face the fact that
propaganda, brainwashing and employment policies do much to rob us of free will
and independent thinking.
On the other hand, if the Iraq War is
really for oil and the "right" to guzzle oil to no end, then it makes
sense that the proponents of today's war for oil would be in denial over any need for
conservation. With no conservation or rationing, even though the White
House and "intelligence community" know the global peak in oil
production is upon us, we can with certainty say we are in a war for oil
gluttony. What a noble purpose! But lest we be too hard on them,
these folk - counting any of your neighbors too - can't imagine living simply
and creating love and peace, in their fearful and aggressive mind-set in the
dominant materialist culture.
When WWII rationing and speed reduction
kicked in, highway
crash deaths dropped by about two-thirds! This kind of
life-saving opportunity, that President Bush doesn't yet seem to be aware of, could save 25,000
lives a year on U.S. roads today. Does this not compare favorably with the 3,000
American citizens killed on Sept. 11, 2001. Hello? Are we
about reducing casualties of the oil war or not? Iraqi civilians
deaths this year have hit just over 37,000 (Village Voice Sept. 3-9,
2003). That's almost as many U.S. citizens who die in highway crashes
every year. Those Iraqis can't be brought back, but future U.S. and other
peoples' deaths can be avoided.
With some significant energy conservation in the
U.S., many people around the world wouldn't hate the U.S. and its citizens so much. Oil use is
equated to wealth. The more oil we use the more the impoverished of the world
have violent feelings for U.S. citizens and targets of U.S.
corporate and military property. These feelings are strongest among those deprived of their ancestral lands in part because of U.S. interventions.
But the response by a George Bush (either one)
and his supporters is, in effect, "Never! Gimme more oil!"
With this kind of honesty (unlike the Democrats), and such absence of sense and
equity, shall we try something else than muttering intellectual logic that calls
for peace and driving higher-tech cars (the sell-out enviros' big solution)? Talk is cheap.
It is time for grassroots action to
conserve. Almost as much as advocating car-free or minimized-car living,
rationing would not be popular. But a one-term or lame-duck president could
try rationing as an Emergency measure. At the rate George Bush is going,
he could be on his way to becoming a lame duck. Despite his Enron scandal-taint, he got a
boost in popularity after 9-11 and attacked two countries with devastating
force which included depleted uranium. However, what with the
growing backlash against the White House's/EPA's suppressing toxic exposure-risk data in the Twin Towers' debris;
what with the Iraq guerrilla war; the record budget
deficit of half a trillion dollars next year; mistreatment of soldiers regarding their pay and occupation conditions,
constitutional rights being infringed, etc., Bush could lose the 2004 election, assuming he is not impeached first.
If President Bush and his executive colleagues can
keep being as audacious and brazen as they have been - and they have gotten pretty far with
it - rationing of
oil is on the same order of audacity and extreme action. Yet, saving lives
and the atmosphere is admittedly a bit radical to come of out Washington
D.C. - DC stands for District of Crooks, but anything's possible. Only
a lame duck or one-termer would try serious conservation in times of plenty - plenty of oil,
for now, and plenty of oil-related death in both hemispheres. Will oil
profligacy only
stop when oil gets really tight in supply? Judge for yourself as to
timing:
It is a world on the dawn of an historic oil
crisis, perhaps the greatest and final one. The oil industry's M. King
Hubbert bequeathed to us all the oilfield extraction curve named after
him. We're at the global peak, and the downhill slide will not be like the
easy climb: when the market reacts and goes berserk, not even radical rationing will
work. So, let's slash petroleum dependence beginning now, if the modern
world is to transition to the future of a lot
less energy.
Energy alternatives are not ready and won't be, as long as oil is
still quite subsidized to
be priced low. Also, alternatives don't compare to petroleum's energy punch
and molecular flexibility. (To understand peak oil and how new oil
discoveries and improved renewable energy technology won't change basic trends
that these conclusions are based on, see Sustainable Energy Institute's webpages
such as The Fall
of Petroleum Civilization and alternative
energy.)
It's unlikely that the average north
American, here in oil pig-out heaven, will realize on his or her own that the oil war has been
taking place in our own homeland. But, a few more of us can heed the call
to Can the car. Let's also unplug our energy-wasting luxuries
and go outside into the natural world. If it's not there, take the asphalt
up and plant some fruit trees. And please watch the cat population which
is decimating the vanishing songbirds. Peace!
The author formerly provided the U.S. Defense Fuel Supply
Center, the biggest oil consumer in the world, price information for its purchasing. Jan Lundberg formerly
ran Lundberg Survey Incorporated which once published "the bible of the oil
industry." He has run the Sustainable Energy Institute since 1988.
It can use your assistance and generous help.
No comments:
Post a Comment