:: Some thoughts... ::

:: Friday, September 27, 2002 ::

Running out? Or foolish science?

UPI in it’s “Blue Planet” Column today prints a very alarmist article on oil. Unfortunately, it’s the same refrain we have heard for the last 100+ years. The oil is running out, the oil is running out. Get over it already, the oil is not running out. “Eminent” scientist like Paul Ehrlich at Stanford have predicted that we will run out of oil in 1980, 2000 and various dates in between. Unfortunately for their pet theories, reserves today are greater than they were then. But, wait a second… I thought the oil was running out. That can’t be true. The UPI article does not take such an extreme alarmist tack. It does mention that oil production in the US peaked in the 1970’s. Is it coincidence that this phenomenon has coincided with the rise of environmentalism in the US? I highly doubt it. I don’t have the statistics to back up my assertions in a statistically significant way, but I can argue via example. Three examples come to mind: Alaska, Florida, and California. In all three, in recent years further drilling for oil and natural gas been blocked. All three areas are thought to contain significant finds of oil. Of course, all three have been blocked by environmentalists who consider it evil when any place is altered beyond its natural state. In addition with the exception of Alaska where residents support drilling (as they should they got roughly $1500 this year because of it), they have been blocked by NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. NIMBY syndrome is particulary prevalent in my home state of California. Residents here, do not understand that power has to come from somewhere (it’s not magic, like dot com shares) or that environmental regulations should be subject to popular will. (see CARB-California Air Resources Board) I digress, though. Let us get the facts straight, the world is not and will not run out of oil or other fossil fuels. Of course, the higher hanging fruit so to speak will be harder to pick, (ie. more expensive). For instance, oil shale, which is only exploitable at prices above $35 dollars a barrel (we are currently at $30 thanks to OPEC) or for that matter known reserves would increase because known reserves are based on what is currently economically exploitable, so as the price rises so does our level of reserves. Over the past few months I have delved into the science and actual nitty gritty of oil exploration and exploitation. Here are a few of the key points I have discovered. When an oil well is tapped, roughly 50-60% of the oil remains in the oil basin but it is impossible technically or expensive financially to retrieve it. Secondly, as the author seems to discount, technology does matter. Look at the oil rigs off Nigeria, and a few other places. Deep sea oil drilling will open up vast patches of the earth currently not even considered to oil exploration. Also, there is an interesting theory that I can only relate in part, (link ) as I don’t have the scientific background to comment on it’s validity, but if the reader does, feel free to comment. The basic theory on oil formation says that oil originated from dead organic matter. Over time according my understanding this organic matter broke down into vast oil deposits. An astronomer, Thomas Gold of Cornell, says that oil doesn’t originate from dead dinosaurs but actually from methane. If this is the case and it seems more likely as time goes on, then the amount of oil we have tapped so far is nothing close to our total reserves. In short, the idea that we are running out of oil anytime soon, is a matter of price, technology, and if Mr. Gold’s theory is correct, wishful thinking on behalf of environmentalists.

:: Nathan 3:06 PM [+] ::
...

Pathways to War

“A religion of peace,” is the words echoed out of the mouths of many commentators in reference to Islam. Certainly this is what one would hope. Islam, though judged by its commandments is not a religion of peace. It is separated into the house of submission (Dar al-Islam) and the house of war (Dar al-Harb). To argue that all Muslims are militants waiting to grab their scimitars or AK’s to attack everyone else is also a laughable suggestion. Islam is not a monolithic entity but the point is that as a religion it provides a foundation for conflict based on religious beliefs, otherwise know as “Holy War.” In fact, the Arabs when they swept out of Arabia in the 7th century AD, were fueled by this notion. John Keegan, the famous military historian in fact attributes their success to this concept. Certainly as he says their weapons were not better, their tactics were not superior, but their men, their warriors were fuelled by an unshakeable sense of divine righteousness in combat. Others may disagree that that is why they were successful but it was Islamic warriors that introduced this concept of “Holy War.” As their initial advances were against Christians primarily, Christianity soon adopted this concept of Holy War. The crusades were a reflection of this idea. The crusaders were fuelled by intense religious ideals, but that does not mean their idealism was not used for other purposes by their political masters. In the broad sweep of history we see Islam advancing forward for almost a thousands years from its founding. The high point of Islamic dominance came with the siege of Vienna, which ended in disaster for the Ottoman Turks. Slowly but surely Christianity pushed back, reclaiming the lands that had been taken. Now, nearly 350 years after the defeat of the Turks, Islam has struck back. It has claimed the lives of 3,000 on a single day. The question is, are we heading toward a clash of civilizations like existed many hundreds of years ago? And if so what will be the outcome?

Osama bin Laden certainly hoped so. (I say hoped because the bastard is dead, the myth that he is alive keeps up the spirit of the jihadists) It seems in the end bin laden will get his wish. The end result will not be what he hoped for though. Let me explain why I believe this is the case. First and foremost, the Arab states are secular (this does not include Iran which is not Arab). Militant Islam is a spent force contrary, which seems at first inane because of September 11th but it was dying long before then. That is by no means to say it is to be ignored but it is dead. Militant Islam boosted itself onto the world stage in 1979 in Iran. It increased its prestige and influence with the war against the Soviets, which combined the three potent forces of nationalism, Holy War, and anti-Communism. It peaked when the Soviets walked away from Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. Militant Islam reared its head in Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Syria, and various other assorted locales. In Algeria, the regime fought a brutal war, and won. In Syria, Hafez al-Assad brought tanks and bulldozers and flattened the city of Hama. Sudan’s government is still rather fundamentalist but can’t seem to win a war against the Christians in the south and is certainly amenable to western pressure. Egypt faced down its own militants and won with brutal tactics. Saudi Arabia, the so-called “kernel of the axis of evil” is largely two faced. The militants don’t run the country nor do they inspire it’s armies to go on the offensive, but Saudi Arabia in can what only be termed as a pact with the devil, finances the armies of militant Islam. Other uprisings like Chechnaya and Kosovo have degenerated into banditry. In the southern rim of Russia, militant Islam has been turned back for the most part. Much is made of the Philippines and Indonesia. Indonesia is largely secular in its outlook courtesy of Suharto and Sukarno, indeed there are problems in the Moluccas, but it is a power struggle cloaked in religion. There are two different communities and it can be likened unto Lebanon rather than scenes of struggle. One thing, to recognize is that the jihadists have not won, ever, except for Iran. They were never popularly supported in Iran to begin with and now, a generation later, the Iranian people are yearning for the freedom to dance and sing. Regardless of the above, the Arab and Muslim world has remained outside the modernizing forces of the past few centuries or more. Rule is still the rule of the gun and even the “republics” are having hereditary succession, meaning they are monarchies by a different name. This sets the stage for what comes next.

To dig back to a comparable political and historical context we must go back to France of Napoleon’s time. Europe was a mixture of kingdoms and autocracies, not bound by blood but by fealty to various rulers. Revolutionary France swept through like a tidal wave, and changed forever the face of Europe. The same is what the Bush administration is proposing today. They want to change the map of the Middle East, of the Arab world forever. I don’t think that many people in the United States or elsewhere have begun to absorb or contemplate exactly what has been proposed. The US government is proposing to fundamentally change concept of why we wage war. For time immemorial, for the most part war has been waged for the purpose of communal or national interest. I don’t propose that democratizing the Arab world is not in America’s interest, for it most definitely is. The reason this is revolutionary is not because of the hoped for outcome. It is that, the this war will seek to change to liberate the people of the Arab world to offer them a way of life that has demonstrably proven to be superior. In the Bible, there is a story by Gamaliel the Jewish rabbi. He mentions that if this way is of God, then there is nothing the Jews could do to stop it, if it was of man it would fail of its own accord. I bring this up not to test the divine origination of Islam (as a Christian, I believe it a bastard child of true religion) but merely to say that with freedom, religion will be tested on the grounds of its goodness not by means of coercion. This is precisely the choice that God (the Christian God) gave the world from the beginning. The question remains whether Islam will adapt to this thought process that separates mosque from state without resorting to force. Ultimately, that will be the test of the revolution that is coming. Make no mistake, the Bush administration is far better organized and far more ambitious than it is reckoned to be. The real question is how can its opponents argue against freedom? Pres. Bush has shown masterfully time and again in his speeches to be able to put his opponents in a box from which they can’t escape. He emasculated the defenders of Yasser Arafat’s terror regime by plainly saying, lets have democracy, freedom and accountable government. The left of course, revolted out of instinct, but what exactly is objectionable about any of those three principles? The appeasers were left flat footed. At the UN, in the Iraq situation what happened? Pres. Bush said, ok, it is not the US that is being defied or being the aggressor, the UN is being defied by an belligerent Iraqi regime. It was akin to saying to his opponents, look your arguments are flat. It was brilliant. Like I said, the Bush administration is more organized and coherent than it is given credit for. War is coming, and it is a war that will shape the world for decades to come. It reminds me of the words on the statue of Liberty, give me your masses, yearning to breathe free.

:: Nathan 1:11 PM [+] ::
...