To Peak or Not to Peak?
Putting it simply, Mike Ruppert believes in Peak Oil, a theory at its extreme that says that in the near future, global oil supplies will plummet, wreaking a global catastrophe as humanity won't have enough energy to supply its basic needs. Ruppert postulates that Dick Cheney, aware of upcoming declining oil supplies, and determined to keep the US "lifestyle" intact, maunfactures the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which provide a Pearl Harbor type of catalyst that allows the US to attack oil-rich middle east nations-- particularly Iraq and Iran.
The problem is-- even by the relative irratonality of the Bush administration, does it truly make much sense to spend vast amounts of capital to hoard the last remaining bits of a resource you are going to have to wean yourself off of in the next ten to twenty years?
It doesn't to me.
On the other end of the spectrum is Dave McGowan, who thinks the idea of Peak Oil is basically a scam, and that there is plenty of oil and gas to last for a long time. He puts out the idea that oil and gas actually are not fixed entities but have abiotic origins, meaning that they are natural products of the earth. McGowan then turns around the Bush administration's motives in invading the middle east-- NOT as an attempt to grab the last remaining drops of oil by invading middle east countries-- but as a massive and cynical battle for the capitalist control of oil deposits so as to ensure high oil prices.
But this doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. First off, the evidence for Peak Oil is pretty strong. Second, the idea that we are grabbing oil-producing countries merely in order to CONTROL the prices of an unlimited resource seems a little silly-- since if oil is unlimited, it should be unlimited everywhere, so why do we need to take over the middle east?
But-- the US clearly IS trying to take over the middle east.
The question is WHY? What is our motivation? It's certainly not terrorism. It's by now a sick joke that the US invaded Iraq becuase they wanted to control terrorism. So WHY did we go into Iraq?
There is the issue of Israel-- taking away Saddam Hussein did help Israel. But as powerful as the Israeli lobby may be, I don't think they were the only reason we went to war. We had to have another reason.
The answer, I think, is sort of a compromise between Ruppert's and McGowan's theses. That is-- Peak Oil is real. Oil supplies will decline dramatically over the next twenty years. But I suggest that the US invaded Iraq NOT to be able to take their oil, but to stabilize oil prices.
That is, as we start going down the curve of Peak Oil, economic stability is extremely important. A drastic change in oil prices could easily lead to a world recession-- and even global catastrophe. For modern economies not to collapse, the price of oil has to be controlled very carefully over the next twenty years. Thus, the key for this is that the political situation in the middle east be stable as we start down the downward Peak Oil slope. The stable control of oil prices over the next twenty years was seriously threatened by the "instability" posed by Saddam Hussein and his sons, who were poised to take over. Simply put, Saddam and his regime were "bad actors" who the west could not control or not be trusted.
Iran seems to be in that same catagory. But I just can't see how the US is going to topple Iran in the next few years. We have way too many problems as it is right now. But I guess it depends on how desperate the Bush administration is. I hope mostly they are bluffing right now. The only way we could go after Iran is if there was a draft, and the Bush administration, for political reasons, won't start a draft unless there is some severe emergency such as a major terrorist attack. So either they are bluffing, or they ARE really desperate and there is another major terror attack in the works.
It would be a great show to watch if this wasn't so deadly serious.
The problem is-- even by the relative irratonality of the Bush administration, does it truly make much sense to spend vast amounts of capital to hoard the last remaining bits of a resource you are going to have to wean yourself off of in the next ten to twenty years?
It doesn't to me.
On the other end of the spectrum is Dave McGowan, who thinks the idea of Peak Oil is basically a scam, and that there is plenty of oil and gas to last for a long time. He puts out the idea that oil and gas actually are not fixed entities but have abiotic origins, meaning that they are natural products of the earth. McGowan then turns around the Bush administration's motives in invading the middle east-- NOT as an attempt to grab the last remaining drops of oil by invading middle east countries-- but as a massive and cynical battle for the capitalist control of oil deposits so as to ensure high oil prices.
But this doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. First off, the evidence for Peak Oil is pretty strong. Second, the idea that we are grabbing oil-producing countries merely in order to CONTROL the prices of an unlimited resource seems a little silly-- since if oil is unlimited, it should be unlimited everywhere, so why do we need to take over the middle east?
But-- the US clearly IS trying to take over the middle east.
The question is WHY? What is our motivation? It's certainly not terrorism. It's by now a sick joke that the US invaded Iraq becuase they wanted to control terrorism. So WHY did we go into Iraq?
There is the issue of Israel-- taking away Saddam Hussein did help Israel. But as powerful as the Israeli lobby may be, I don't think they were the only reason we went to war. We had to have another reason.
The answer, I think, is sort of a compromise between Ruppert's and McGowan's theses. That is-- Peak Oil is real. Oil supplies will decline dramatically over the next twenty years. But I suggest that the US invaded Iraq NOT to be able to take their oil, but to stabilize oil prices.
That is, as we start going down the curve of Peak Oil, economic stability is extremely important. A drastic change in oil prices could easily lead to a world recession-- and even global catastrophe. For modern economies not to collapse, the price of oil has to be controlled very carefully over the next twenty years. Thus, the key for this is that the political situation in the middle east be stable as we start down the downward Peak Oil slope. The stable control of oil prices over the next twenty years was seriously threatened by the "instability" posed by Saddam Hussein and his sons, who were poised to take over. Simply put, Saddam and his regime were "bad actors" who the west could not control or not be trusted.
Iran seems to be in that same catagory. But I just can't see how the US is going to topple Iran in the next few years. We have way too many problems as it is right now. But I guess it depends on how desperate the Bush administration is. I hope mostly they are bluffing right now. The only way we could go after Iran is if there was a draft, and the Bush administration, for political reasons, won't start a draft unless there is some severe emergency such as a major terrorist attack. So either they are bluffing, or they ARE really desperate and there is another major terror attack in the works.
It would be a great show to watch if this wasn't so deadly serious.
posted by spooked at 5:28 PM
1 Comments:
To assume that oil is the only motive that drives the current crimininal administration is probably oversimplified. But I think there are indeed many indiactors that oil is a scarce and extremely important resource, so it is reasonable to assume that it plays an important role.
gandalf
Post a Comment
<< Home