The vulnerability of the United States to oil supply disruption
”Linking Al-Qaeda to this issue is ridiculous on its surface. It's the tactic of someone without much else to go on.” – Tom Chandler, comment on “Dam and more dam” blog by Greenhawk on 07/05/07.
Is it a ridiculous linkage? If you ask people in London, who are observing the second anniversary of the subway bombings in London, and who were, in recent days, once again targets, along with the people of Glasgow, you might find many would understand well this linkage. So too the people of Madrid and New York City.
The United States consumes approximately one quarter of the world’s oil
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
According to April 2007 US Government statistics, the top 5 countries from which we import oil were Canada (1.909 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.460 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.458 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.182 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (0.891 million barrels per day).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Certainly, there is a possibility of disruption of oil supplies from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. Even as I write this, three year old Margaret Hill, daughter of a British oil worker in Nigeria, has been the latest kidnap victim of groups targeting Nigerian oil production.
In 2002, 62% of the oil used in the United States was imported. The vulnerability of the United States to oil supply disruption is recognized by the US Department of Energy http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/printable_versions/national_energy_security.html#supply.
Al Qaeda is at war with America, and indeed the entire Western World. Their ranks include people who are as educated and intelligent as we are. We are a nation that is dependent on imported oil. It makes us vulnerable to economic disruption. They are as aware of our vulnerability as anyone else, and they will certainly try to exploit our vulnerability.
Bringing on line, as rapidly as possible, clean, renewable domestic energy, including hydroelectric power, should be a national priority from the standpoint of national security, and it makes great environmental sense too. It would substantially reduce our national carbon footprint. Based on the above, it would be unwise to decommission any dam which is currently generating electric power. Indeed, we should build more.
1 comment:
What's ridiculous is not bothering to reply to my comment, but instead excerpting a tiny portion out of context, and then misrepresenting the statement in a whole new blog post.
This, apparently, is what passes for intellectual rigor on this blog: ignore what you don't want to believe, and twist what you can't avoid.
My comment was clear; the Klamath River dams are failures from an economic and environmental standpoint (I supplied actual figures).
This remains true no matter how many terrorist boogeymen you throw at the argument, or how many innocent victims of terror attacks you impress into your cause.
The economic costs far outweigh any benefits from these aging dams (perhaps $100 million in the last year alone), and your response is to try and link them to terrorist attacks in other countries.
Pretending to speak for those who have not spoken about the Klamath Dam situation (do you have any statements from the people of Glasgow or London) is worse than intellectually dishonest; it's despicable.
The Klamath dams are old, generate little power, and wreak environmental havoc. Worse, it's clear they cost us more than they generate, and that problem will only get worse.
Where are those free market ethics now?
You would trade a large, sustainable supply of food for our nation (salmon) for a few megawatts of power -- without ever mentioning the obvious alternative of conservation -- and to do so, you drag victims of terror into the conversation.
If that's not a sign of a bankrupt argument, nothing is. I expect this will be my last post on this blog.
Post a Comment