Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Alternative energy and the reasons why pipelines and more oil won't lower gas prices.


            In the last couple of years, there has been a lot of talk about how to reduce energy prices in The United States.  Proposals for a solution have usually centered around working to make the U.S. more energy independent, yet, it seems that many are unable to agree as to how this should best be carried out.  Ideas have ranged from producing more alternative energy to building additional pipelines and drilling for more oil in the U.S.  However, the people who support these latter arguments, those who supported the formerly proposed Keystone XL Pipeline and say that we should merely try and produce more oil, appear to be ignoring some basic economic principles.

           Firstly, fuel prices, as will be explained, have little to do with domestic production and more to do with world oil prices.  It doesn’t mater how many pipelines we build or how much oil we produce, in either case, there will be little effect on our own gasoline prices.  The primary reason that our own gasoline prices are so high has to do with international uncertainty and turmoil in the Middle east.

Secondly, oil is, after all, a finite resource.  Like it or not, no matter what side of the political fence you are on, we will eventually run out of it.  Even if you don’t care about the environment and you believe that we still have quite a bit left, shouldn’t we still be looking ahead and investing resources into alternatives energies for that time when we do ultimately run out?  Surely, that is what a sensible person would do, right?

            However, citing the fact that oil is a limited resource and that using it is harmful to the environment will hardly turn heads.  Most people, even if they are unwilling to do anything about it, already know this.  If someone is still insisting that the answer to all our problems is more domestic oil production, you will likely get nowhere repeating these facts to them.  So, in order to formulate a more contextually relevant argument, let us focus on the purely economic side.  Why wouldn’t producing more oil here in the United States, or building a pipeline to the Gulf Coast, reduce prices at the pump?

            Well, first off, let us look at a bit of history.  Back in the 1970’s, when Richard Nixon was in office, the government tried to lower domestic gas prices.  They did this by creating a price ceiling, meaning that they legally set a maximum price at which gasoline could be sold.  The results, as you may well know, were disastrous.  OPEC and other oil producers diverted shipments elsewhere to where prices were higher, and America faced a severe fuel shortage.

            Now, the point to be made is that it is virtually impossible for one country to enjoy substantially lower fuel prices without severe government intervention and powerful domestic production.  Imagine, if the rest of the world were paying $100 per barrel of oil, but Americans were only paying $50 per barrel, no one would sell their oil to us.  They would divert it to places like China and Europe, where they would be paid more.  Additionally, why would American producers sell oil to other Americans at such a low price?  They would similarly ship it overseas.

            The only way that America could enjoy such a disparity in prices would be if we had the ability to produce all of our own fuel, at a lower price then that set by the world market, and if it were made it illegal to export oil.  However, here too, there are problems.

            Right now, we purchase oil from such a diverse group of producers for national security reasons.  Think of the saying “Don’t keep all of your eggs in one basket”.  We do not want to be reliant on one single source for all of our oil, and this includes American producers.

What if our own oil wells eventually run dry?  After that, we would have absolutely no choice but to rely on others.  To think of it from a cold, purely analytical point of view, you might say that we should conserve our own natural oil reserves so that if, and when, the world’s oil supply is consumed, America could continue to sustain herself, unthreatened.  If we use up all of our own resources now, what will we do when the rest of the world runs out and we have nothing left?  A realist might say that it would be in America’s interest to use everyone else’s oil first, before we use much of our own.

            Now, as for the supposed economic benefits of building yet another pipeline, some of the same false assumptions exist here too.  As with increasing domestic production, simply channeling a larger amount of oil through the U.S. will not reduce prices.  How could it?  The more oil that is pumped into the U.S. from one source, the less we will purchase from another.

Really, it does not matter where a raw material comes from.  The world market distributes resources to the highest bidders.  If, somehow, America had so much oil that it allowed for lower prices, we would no longer be one of the highest bidders and the market would stop distributing to us.

Short of nationalizing the oil industry, there really is not much that the U.S. government could do to significantly change gas prices (if they could, don’t you think that they would?  It would certainly get votes…).  In the end, it all boils down to the world market.  As long as our economy is dependent on oil, not just foreign oil, but any source of oil, we will remain under the thumb of market whims and groups like OPEC.

So, on the one hand, America could greatly increase domestic production and make it illegal to export oil.  However, our own reserves are painfully limited with respect to demand and we would be in a very nasty situation a few years down the road.  Yet, on the other hand, where we go about things as they now are, we will remain at the mercy of OPEC and the world market.  Do either of these routs seem appealing?  Although the latter option will likely lead to a more gradual transition within our own country, both alternatives will eventually end with our running out of oil.  Neither approach suits itself to the long run.

We could continue to play this crippling and sometimes bloody game, or we could begin to seriously look for a way out of it.  Oil is a nasty, risky business, and as long as we continue to rely on it, we will be in danger.  This is not where we want to be, especially if you wish for America to remain the leader of the world.

A person with a severe drug addiction can hardly be expected to be as prosperous as one who can remain above such influences.  The same dynamic exists among states. If a person could produce their own drugs, would they really be that much better off? They might be able to avoid the financial costs, but they would still have to tolerate the ill-effects of the drug.  Is sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that the addiction can be made not to harm us really the answer?

To go anywhere, we have to put this country through rehab.  There are almost innumerable options available for us to choose from, and I will not attempt to list or explain them all.  However, it remains that we must find and use alternatives now, while we still have the chance and the ability.  We do not want to wait until gasoline is at $10 a gallon, and when our economy is ailing, to then look up and try to find some substitute.

So, you be the one to decide.  Looking past rhetoric and party lines, which path do we ultimately want to travel down?  Which alternative seems the best to you?

Friday, March 23, 2012

Limbaugh’s Comeuppance; How the Tower Crumbles


            What goes around comes around, or so the old saying goes…

After years of spewing hatred and hostility, there are few who could honestly say that Rush Limbaugh does not deserve such a requital for his years of work.  Whether this upheaval is no more than a temporary speed bump, or whether it is a lasting condition, I, for one, will be enjoying every minute of it.  There are few so worthy of a good slap in the face as Mr. Limbaugh, and I do not say that lightly.

            Now, it is very true that there are others who have spouted similarly offensive characterizations.  Those who criticize the heavily Conservative Rush Limbaugh can hardly claim that Liberals such as Bill Maher are immaculate in comparison- let’s face it, Maher can be just as bad.

            However, what puts Limbaugh past simple forgiveness has to do with both the manner of  his recent insults, and the hate-filled context of his career.  While I do not agree with the machismo culture of American politics, and the American media, there is a difference between saying something nasty about a politician who knows the game, and a woman like Sandra Fluke.

Fluke is a soft-spoken, 30 year-old law student at Georgetown University who was insulted for testifying before Congress on the NON-contraceptive benefits of hormonal birth control pills.  This is who Limbaugh repeatedly insulted.  Any other person who used such a nasty slur against a woman (an athlete, a news reporter, etc) would have been immediately fired, or at least put on probation.

            Now, concerning Limbaugh’s apology, many, including even Bill Maher, have said that we should accept it.  “He said sorry, that’s enough” they say.  However, in my opinion, just as Limbaugh has made a name for himself by exuding an exceptional level of hate and anger, only an exceptional “I’m sorry” can really suffice.  After years of Limbaugh’s ill-tempered ravings, many people want more than a begrudgingly given, two-bit apology.

The man spent days mocking the general public and the media over their attempts to get him to apologize.  If you notice, he only came out and formally said that he was sorry once important Conservatives started criticizing him and the advertisers began to bail.  Also, where was his sympathy when others committed similar offenses?  He is hardly rosy and accepting of other’s “mistakes”.  Moreover, this is far from the first time that he has made a nasty or incendiary statement.  If Limbaugh were asking forgiveness for one lone remark, that might be one thing.  However, people are tired of his nastiness and this was simply the spark that set the crumbling tower ablaze.  It should take more than one reluctant bucket of water to put such a fire out.

Me personally, I am sick of so many people being hateful and insulting of one another.  As such, I have found the response to the Limbaugh controversy to be highly gratifying.  It seems that every day more and more advertisers drop him, and the more he tries at damage control, the worse it gets.  Early in, he had on-air silence because there were not enough advertisements, or free public service announcements, to fill in the gaps.  However, Limbaugh still can’t seem to pick up many new ones.  Some 58 of them have even specifically asked not to be included on his show.  Additionally, the trend has also spread to other extremist personalities, as advertisers drop shows by people like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.  So far, 98 of them have asked not to be hosted on any radio-shows with “controversial” or “derogatory” content.

Now, unfortunately, Limbaugh will most likely recover.  It is even quite likely that he could benefit from this.  There is a possibility that he might be able to use the controversy as a rallying point for his supporters.  However, even as Right-wing radio tries to recoup, all of those who, for years, have pledged allegiance to Limbaugh will likely take a tumble.  Many in the Republican Party have been influenced by, or have given praise to, Rush Limbaugh.  Even as these people try and distance themselves from him, they may find it very hard to do so.

Either way, it should be interesting to see what happens.  Media Maters has just reportedly launched a $100,000 advertising campaign against Limbaugh, using his very own words.  Who knows, maybe he will continue to have trouble attracting new advertisers, and maybe he won’t recover as gracefully as he would like to.  Also, if Limbaugh falls, perhaps he will take some of this country’s more hateful personalities down with him.

People like me can only hope. 

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Iranian Question: what is the correct course of action concerning Iran, and to what capacity should America be involved?



          If you have been following the news lately, you are probably well aware of the dilemma we face concerning Iran.  In addition to the possibility of an Israeli strike, many ideas have also been circulating around as to what to do.  However, too many of them appear to ignore crucial details.  On one end, you have people, like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney, who say that the best solution would be immediate military action, yet, on the other end, you have people like Ron Paul who say that we should stay uninvolved.  However, in analyzing the situation, it seems that neither side is completely correct.  So, where does the situation stand and what should be done?

            Obviously, this is not an easy question to answer.  In order to fully understand the current state of affairs, it would first be necessary to go back and take a look at some of the history surrounding the present-day situation with Iran.

            In 1925, Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar Dynasty to become the Iranian Shah.  However, in 1941, Reza Khan was forced to abdicate leadership to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, after Iran was invaded by Britain and the USSR in order to secure Iranian railroad capability during World War Two.

In 1951, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister of Iran.  Mosaddegh, after taking office, took state ownership of the Iranian oil industry, thus gaining him immense popularity with the Iranian public, but angering the British because it violated an oil contract with British Petroleum.

In response, Britain set up oil embargos against Iran and blocked the Strait of Hormuz, thus shutting down much of Iran’s economy.  Britain then recruited The United States (who were concerned about USSR involvement) in a plot to overthrow Mosaddegh and return the Shah to power.  The coup, known as “Operation Ajax”, was successful and in 1953, power was given back to pro-Western Reza Pahlavi. [1]

Pahlavi (who was backed by strong American support), did much to help bring Iran through an industrial revolution, but his regime began using increasingly brutal measures to suppress political opposition.  Pahlavi was subsequently overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution.

After the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had been a strong critic of both the West and of Pahlavi, returned from exile and was declared supreme ruler of Iran under a new constitutional theocracy.  Khomeini still rules today and is in large part responsible for many of Iran’s actions.

Anti-Western sentiment was high after the revolution and diplomatic relations between Iran and America broke down quickly, resulting in such matters as the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Later, Saddam Hussein (then president of Iraq), sensing weakness and disorganization, invaded Iran, resulting in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.  Ultimately, the war ended in a stalemate, with an estimated 500,000, or many more, dead.  With Iran afraid of Iraqi WMD capability, and Iraq afraid of further Iranian attacks, neither power could venture forth to become a regional hegemon.

However, we see an interesting development occurring in recent times.  When Saddam Hussein was in power, he made sure that Iraq and Iran were enemies.  However, now that he has been removed from power, and Iraq has been proven not to possess WMDs, Iran has lost one of its major enemies and enduring sources of fear.  In some ways, you could say that Iran was the one who won the war in Iraq.

            We see this now as the balance of power changes in the Middle East.  Iran no longer has the same set of inhibitions that they did before, and now this has emboldened them in their defiance of the West.  In addition, now that they are not pre-occupied with Iraq, they can turn their attention to other nearby powers that they believe might compete with them (such as nuclear-armed, American-backed, Israel).
           
At the same time, now that we have left Iraq and given them autonomy, yet another change has, and is, taking place.  Just as our invasion of Iraq neutralized one of Iran’s biggest enemies, our withdrawal from Iraq may have potentially paved the way for a new alliance.  Without Saddam Hussein in power to insure enmity between these two states, some of their cultural similarities may bring them closer together.

            Additionally, since we are no longer in Iraq, it would be much easier for Israel to potentially bomb Iran (Israel would have to fly over Iraq in order to bomb targets in Iran because none of their bombers have the range to fly all the way around Iraq, deliver their payload, and then make it back again).  Before we left, America had expressly forbid Israeli forces to fly bombers over Iraq in order to bomb targets in Iran because of two reasons.

Firstly, if they did, the international community would likely blame the U.S. for allowing the attack to happen (because it would have been technically possible for us to intercept their bombers, even though we probably would not have).  This would have put America in a very tricky place indeed, especially if the attack resulted in a high number of deaths or if Iran retaliated violently.

The second reason not to allow Israel to bomb Iran would be for fear that, since we had troops and bases within firing range of Iranian forces, Iran might decide to retaliate, possibly resulting in hundreds, if not thousands, of American deaths.

            So, in invading Iraq, we removed one of Iran’s worst enemies, but in withdrawing from Iraq, we left Israel the possibility to now bomb Iran.  The question you may ask, however, is what would happen if Israel did decide to bomb Iran?  They’d take most of the heat from the international community and we’d have one less enemy to worry about, right?  It’d be all good, wouldn’t it?

            Well, probably not because this is a complicated issue.  For one thing, whatever Israel does, America is seen as right behind them, so we would get much of the blame, even if we were uninvolved.  Keeping this in mind, there are two distinct possibilities that could arise should Israel bomb Iran.
           
The first possibility following an Israeli attack on Iran would be total and complete retaliation, as Iran has threatened to do.  This would likely entail Iran launching as many missiles as they could at countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, and then shelling almost everything within range, including targets in Iraq and Afghanistan (particularly nearby American bases).

Of course, after this, Israel (and possibly America, depending on the situation) would then follow up with an all out counter strike, destroying anything of strategic value: bases, bridges, power stations, factories, etc.  We could be looking at a very nasty back and forth bombing campaign between Israel and Iran.  Naturally, the aftermath of such an exchange could be catastrophic.  Israel would win without sustaining major losses, but the international political fallout would be nasty, especially if America got involved in any way. 

            The second possibility, following an Israeli strike, could be non-retaliation from Iran.  Although this would at first seem to be the ideal outcome, there are some hidden catches.

            Although they have been making threats, if Israel carries out a technically unprovoked strike against Iran without sufficient evidence, and Iran does not retaliate, they could very well petition for the U.N. to punish Israel for starting an illegal war.  Needless to say, if Iran tried this, America would argue against and veto any measures potentially levied against Israel.  However, such actions would prove detrimental for America because it would cause the international community to view us as enablers of violent action, so long as the perpetrators are our allies.

Either way, although Iran would be temporarily neutralized, future diplomatic relations would be even more strained than they are now, and we, as well as Israel, would be at odds with the international community.  Although the former option would likely be the worst, the latter one, in which we vetoed any measures taken against Israel, would damage relations with a number of countries, such as China, Russia, Pakistan and India (who’s economy, by the way, is threatening to overtake China’s).

            Many of these same dangers also exist if America were to try and attack Iran either before, or with, Israel.  In addition to the possibility of an Iranian counter strike, we would alienate or anger many of the countries which we must keep good relations with.  Most of the world doesn’t want to see America take the leading role in another war (which is why we took a supporting role instead of a leading role in the bombing of Libya).

            However, if we do not do something about Iran, as some would have us do, we will have a serious problem a little ways down the road.  Let me just remind you how horrible a nuclear strike, anywhere in the world, would be.  This earth already has too many unstable, or semi-stable, nuclear armed states.  We do not need another fanatical regime to possess the power to instantly kill millions.  Just look at how difficult of a situation the world has had concerning North Korea.  With the ability to destroy cities like Seoul or Tokyo, this tiny state can influence the entire world with its rhetoric.  All of East Asia has had to live under the potential threat of attack and this state of affairs has seriously hampered economic and diplomatic relations in the area.

            Iran already has the ability to seriously influence the region around it.  However, they can only go so far.  If you let them become a nuclear-armed state, this ability to cause commotion in the world is only increased.  Right now, Iran has but to mention shutting down the Strait of Hormuz to cause a global spike in oil prices.  In reality, they could never actually close the strait.  They know that our navy would blow them out of the water without even trying.  However, even so, they also know that if they threaten to close the strait, it will have a serious economic effect, thus legitimizing their power and potentially causing their export profits to increase.

But make Iran a nuclear-armed state and the game changes substantially.  If they had nuclear weapons, and they did decided to close the strait, would we be so likely to intervene?  What if they threatened to launch a bomb at Israel if we tried to breakup the blockade?  They, and the world, would know that there would be a lot less that anyone could do to influence their actions.  With this knowledge, how much more influence could they exert over oil prices? Ultimately, having nuclear weapons will only amplify Iran’s existing power.  Notice how much North Korea has been able to get away with without serious consequences, for example: the sinking of a South Korean naval ship.

Additionally, and maybe even more importantly, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons technology could spark a regional arms race.  Just look at Pakistan and India.  Both are enemies, yet as soon as India gained nuclear capabilities, Pakistan followed suit less than a year later.  If Iran gets a bomb, how many others are then going to want one?  What if other Middle Eastern countries started trying to develop nuclear bombs?  What if it even spread to some African, East Asian, or South American countries?  What if Iran decided to share their technology with their allies, such as Venezuela?  There really are no good alternatives here.

            So in conclusion, if we intervene militarily, the global political ramifications could be highly detrimental.  However, if we put our heads in the sand and allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons technology, we will have stood by as yet one more state gains the power to kill millions and to wield significant influence over the world.  What is the answer?  Both alternatives seem disastrous.

It does appear that we need to take a more pragmatic, all options on the table, approach.  Obviously, given the situation, there is no simple or eloquent answer.  We cannot bullheadedly attack them without first considering the international community, yet we cannot play blind and ignore them.

            Ultimately, if all other measures fail and the time comes, we, or someone else, will most likely have to intervene militarily.  A nuclear-armed Iran poses too great a threat to the world for us not to do something.  However, until that time comes, if it comes, we need to hold fast and use our every diplomatic resource to try and deter them from this path.  We cannot pretend that they are not there, yet we cannot launch an attack until the time is right and every other alternative has been used.

For now, let’s just hope that a peaceful resolution can be reached.






(1)       Stephen, Kinzer, All The Shah’s Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, John Wiley and Sons, 2003.  Print.