Got oil?
01.24.2003We're going to war w/ Iraq. I think most people realize that. But before we jump on the "just for oil" bandwagon, let's carefully reconsider.
Let's suppose Hussein isn't a brutal tyrant who uses terror to rule his people. Let's suppose that Iraq's regime doesn't have ties to terrorist networks. Let's also suppose their military doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (in violation of the cease-fire agreement they signed after the Gulf War). Let's further suppose that Iraq isn't working on developing nuclear weapons. Finally, let's suppose that Iraq isn't a threat to its neighbors (such as Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or even Israel). Supposing all that, and that the war really is just about oil. What then?
I think a war just for oil might be justifiable. After all, we depend on oil (and the stability of world oil prices) for our entire way of life. We often focus too much on cars. And, granted, Americans drive fuel inefficient vehicles (like the SUVs popular among suburban liberals). We should start driving electric vehicles and save on fuel consumption. Or could we?
Unfortunately, electricity has to come from somewhere. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that more than 71 percent of our energy consumption comes from combustible energy sources (oil, natural gas, and coal). Of the remainder, just over 20 percent comes from nuclear power and less than 6 percent comes from hydroelectric facilities. Only about 3 percent currently comes from other sources (such as wind or solar electricity). Here's a more detailed breakdown from the US Energy Information Administration.
What does that mean? Our oil consumption isn't just in cars. It's also in home electric lights, computers, home heating, telephones, factories, and even electric cars. We could reduce our oil consumption, of course. But right now the main alternatives are: nuclear power (unpopular to many people), coal (high pollution), natural gas (also a non-renewable resource), and hydroelectricity (but most of our major rivers are already damed up, not to mention the damage produced to fragile river ecosystems). Solar and wind alternatives aren't yet able to provide all the millions and million of kilowatt hours we need.
Right now, we don't really import much oil at all. Most of our energy is produced domestically. Still, if Middle East oil production were disturbed, the international price of oil would increase. The slow rise in oil prices is partially responsible (along w/ problems of deregulation) for the recent California energy crisis. And since population and energy demand has increased, much of the Western US may soon join California.
One major problem w/ international oil production is that most of the developing world gets its energy from combustible fuels (certainly not nuclear power). A few countries have built hydroelectric plants. But these require high levels of investment, large natural rivers, and have often been condemned for their damage to ecosystems and indigenous populations. Destabilization of oil prices would destroy most of these countries' economies, which in turn would hurt the US economically.
Finally, let's not forget petrochemicals. Oil isn't just used for electricity, it's also the main component in plastics. From tupperware to plastic forks to plastic car bodies. Sure, we could use metal and steel ... but forging metals requires massive amount of energy, not to mention mining costs.
Whether we like it or not, oil is a major backbone of our entire civilization. Our industry requires it. We need it to power our coffee makers and toaster ovens. We can't escape that reality. So, even if the war w/ Iraq is just to lower the international price of oil, it might not be so bad.
Then again, there'd be all the added benefits of overthrowing a totalitarian regime and perhaps helping to establish a government that has at least somewhat fair elections, respect for women and minorities, and the rule of law. We might end up doing some good in a troubled region ... even if it was just for some cheap oil.
Posted by Miguel at 02:18 PM
Comments
"I think a war just for oil might be justifiable."
How exactly would it be justifiable? You've explained that it might make the oil we need cheaper, but you've in no way justified it.
Posted by: Simon King at January 24, 2003 03:36 PM
First, I don't think the war is just about oil. But ... I guess I did sort of promise to make an argument for it just based on that. Well, I think the fact that we need oil (or at least low, stable oil prices) is, in my opinion, the justification. It's in our national (and civilizational) interest to keep the world's supply of oil safe.
A lot of people criticize us when we follow our national self-interest. But if we don't, aren't we acknowledging another country's or group's interests? I figure, if we have to act on someone's interests, it might as well be our own.
Posted by: Miguel at January 24, 2003 03:41 PM
So, If any or all of the remainer of the OPEC nations choose to give us the collective finger in the future... we should attack them too, right? I mean, none of them are the bright shinning beacon of "good" either? They're all terrorists over there, right? All to keep those oil prices stabilized, so rich, fat, lazy Americans can continue in their ways...
Damn it, if only Manifest Destiny's definiton included the prospect of global dominence. Hmmm... definitions are always up for revision, right?
We don't NEED low oil prices. We WANT low oil prices.
We want business as usual. We don't want to have to change our lifestyles, or adapt to the fact that hmmm... maybe we should ween ourselves from these fossil fuels that, while probably not in our lifetimes, are going to eventually run out.
Why bother when we can have a war that will stabilize oil prices, stimulate our economy, and defeat a long standing personal enemy?
You're right Miguel, it certainly isn't ONLY about oil.
Posted by: Eric at January 24, 2003 10:17 PM
Good point, we should wean ourselves from oil-dependence. But it's not just us. Like I said, the developing world depends on oil much more than we do. Especially since most of the oil we use is domestic production.
But imagine if the price for the crude barrel were to go up by 10 percent. Let's say Iraq does something like burn Kuwait's oil fields again or something. I don't think 10 percent would do justice to the change in the world price of oil.
So say the cost of fuel goes up that ten percent. How would that affect the lives of people in developing countries? What would it do to their economies? Their industries? And the subsequent effect on the price for their food? Can we say "world economic depression"?
Bottom line: I don't think the war w/ Iraq is just about oil. And I've stated before that I find very good reasons to not go to war. I wish people who disagree would take time to consider whether there are any reasons to go to war. Then, and only then, after you've matched up the "pro" vs. "con" columns can we make a decision. For my part, I think the "pro" (war) column wins (even if by a very slim margin).
Posted by: Miguel at January 24, 2003 10:28 PM
Worth reading is this article noting how the US wouldn't get much oil out of Iraq anyway.
Posted by: Simon King at January 26, 2003 04:09 PM
Good article, Simon. But the article states early on that Bush has been pushing the war for oil. I don't actually remember anyone in his administration making the case that this is a war for oil. I've only heard that from detractors. Here's a press release from the White House on the issue; it never mentions oil as a rationale.
I think the war is justifiable simply on the basis of disarmament alone. But if it where a war "just for oil" (which I don't think it is), I think an argument can be made for war. But I'm very conscious that this is not the best argument, just one of several that can be used.
Finally, I think The Nation is a fine news source. But keep in mind that it leans heavily to the left. If you read The Nation you should also read The New Republic, which leans heavily to the right. Otherwise the political debate remains unbalanced. Here's a recent article from The New Republic on Iraq.
Posted by: Miguel at January 26, 2003 04:19 PM
I'm not sure where you are getting this information, but 'The New Republic' is a liberal, fairly leftist publication.
Posted by: em at January 28, 2003 09:12 AM
Actually, you're right Em. The New Republic has begun moving to the left, especially during the Gore v. Bush campaign. It's still more to the right than The Nation (which is unabashedly leftist), but it doesn't "lean heavily towards to the right" as I previously stated. It probably stands closer to The Christian Science Monitor right now. I probably confused The New Republic w/ National Review, which leans unabashedly to the right.
Posted by: Miguel at January 28, 2003 09:28 AM