Fight terrorism with efficiency
This entry is posted with Bill’s permission. It was written in 2002 but still applies.
When I was visiting a web site today, I hit one of those “pop-up” ads. This one reminded me that sales of illegal drugs help fund terrorism. Of course, they are also beginning once more to help bolster the real economy of the now-friendly Afghanistan, but we’ll pretend that doesn’t matter for the moment. Let’s just agree that a portion of the proceeds from the huge international drug trade does wind up in the hands of terrorists. That’s bad, right?
What no one, especially no one in our oil- industry- friendly Administration or Congress, is saying is that terrorists get a lot more money from oil. Isn’t that bad, too? I may be wrong, but I don’t think Osama bin Laden’s wealth is rooted in the drug trade.
During the recent hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein offered $25,000 each to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers. That’s a nice hunk of change. But Iraq has been under all sorts of embargoes and restrictions since the Gulf War. Their domestic economy is in ruins; many Iraqis are living under terrible hardships and the death rate among Iraqi children is skyrocketing. So where is Hussein getting the money?
A lot of it is coming from us.
The CIA World Factbook says Iraq’s exports include oil, oil products, fertilizer and sulfur. Oil accounts for 95% of the export total. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, Iraq’s current output is somewhere between 1.5 million and 2.3 million barrels a day. We take about a third of that. Last year, 8% of our total oil imports came from Iraq.
Yesterday, crude oil for June Delivery closed at $26.12 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That’s down fifty cents from the previous day and the price is likely to decline further, now that Iraq has announced resumption of oil deliveries. If we multiply the lower production figure by 33%, the government’s own figures show we are consume about 495,000 barrels of oil daily from Iraq. Based on the May 7 closing price, that works out to $12,929,400 each day. We pay over $4.7 billion per year for Iraqi oil. Remember, that’s using the administration’s lower production figures.
Of course, because of the UN sanctions, Iraqi oil is exported in exchange for food and humanitarian supplies. But it has also been used to pay for things like the more than $73 million in drilling equipment purchased from the U.S. (Note: when those sales were made, Vice President Cheney owned stakes in the two companies that made them.) The sanctions haven’t stopped Saddam Hussein from accumulating cash do things like build new palaces, fund weapons development and give big bucks to suicide bombers and those who train and equip them.
As with many in the current administration, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice misses the connection. When she spoke about Iraq’s 30-day oil embargo at Texas A&M University in April, Ms. Rice said, “We ought to remind them that they’re going to have a hard time eating their oil.” While it’s a cute quip, she overlooks, or ignores, the problem that Americans have no trouble whatsoever “eating their oil.”
Our appetite for oil is higher than it was in the 1970s. That is not an opinion: it’s a fact. It is also a fact that a large percentage of the oil we import goes to fuel our vehicles, whose overall average fuel economy is lower than it was in the 1980s. Despite decades of lip service to decreasing American independence on foreign oil, we now consume far more oil from the Middle East than in the days of the Arab oil embargo.
Much of our increased appetite can be traced to the growing popularity of light trucks and sport-utility vehicles. Especially sport-utility vehicles. The majority of passenger cars sold in America today are smaller than the cars sold in the 1970s. While sales of “econo-boxes” make up only a small percentage of automobile sales, the best-selling models still have 6-cylinder engines and get reasonable mileage while serving the transportation needs of their owners.
It has been estimated that a five-percent improvement in the average fuel economy of American vehicles would reduce our imports of foreign oil to the point we could cut Iraq off completely.
Five percent? I have a way we can do that now. There is no need for a mass switch to Toyota Priuses or Honda Insights. Or abandoning SUVs. There is no need for government mandates, new gas taxes or increases in the CAFE standards. Detroit does not have to come up with any new technology and nobody is laid off. Moreover, almost everyone would be happy because there is no need to fight over drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve. We can save that oil for when we might really need it. Oh yeah, air quality would improve, too.
And, get this: It saves money - your money.
What is this miracle? How will it work?
It’s simple: all that is needed is for all of us to make a better buying decision when it’s new vehicle time. There are more than fifty different sport utility vehicles on the market. A number of them perform just fine with a 6-cylinder engine. There are even some that can get by with a 4-cylinder engine. Buy one of those instead of a giant barge that is neither sporty nor particularly utilitarian. If you are one of the many pickup owners whose trucks never actually carry a load anywhere near their capacities, perhaps you could get a smaller truck or even a big truck with a smaller engine. If you really need the torque because you carry loads of sheetrock or tow a trailer, why not buy a diesel? If you carry lots of people frequently, buy a minivan. If enough people start to involve their heads in their personal vehicle decisions, we could chop our oil imports dramatically in five years without a major lifestyle change.
Think about it. You win because you are avoiding the vehicles with the huge profit margins, getting more value for your money. You win again by not paying extra for a bigger engine. You continue to win because you don’t have to fill the tank as often. On top of everything else, you help your country by keeping your money out of Saddam Hussein’s pockets.
It’s a winning situation for everyone except Iraq. And the terrorists. And the arms merchants. And Dick Cheney. But Cheney’s happiness is a small sacrifice; one I’m sure we’re all willing to make to win the war on terrorism.
But, I can hear you saying, what about the safety of that three-ton steel cocoon? Well, unless you can guarantee that all you’ll ever hit is a Honda, the truth is they’re not all that safe. In rollovers and collisions involving things like trees, Peterbilts and other three-ton cocoons, it seems your chances of injury or death may actually be higher.
Gee, getting the facts and using your head when selecting your next vehicle might not only be patriotic, it might even help you live longer. This program looks better and better all the time.
In a recent interview, Harry Longwell, executive vice president of ExxonMobil, said OPEC’s influence on the world’s oil supply is going to grow in the coming years. Oil production from non-member countries is expected to decline. This means we need to move quickly to safeguard our national interests. Iraq may not currently be an active participant in OPEC, but it is a member. And don’t forget about Libya. Qaddafi has provided a safe haven for terrorism for years. Remember Lockerbie? Osama bin Laden isn’t the only one with a fondness for doing bad things with airplanes.
It is time to start making public service ads linking Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades to the Al-Qaida. That guy sitting in his Chevrolet Avalanche needs to be reminded that it’s time for a real change: instead of just folding down the back seat, he should do his part to cut off the means for nutball tyrants to fund ruthless killers. Paint a 4-cylinder Jeep Liberty red, white and blue and make it a symbol of freedom from the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. And, we should slap bumper stickers that say “I Help Support Worldwide Terrorism” on gas guzzlers, whether they are cars, trucks or SUVs.
We don’t need to spend billions invading Iraq. Let’s face it: Saddam Hussein doesn’t have that many friends. We have a chance, as individuals, to put a real crimp in his ability to buy more.
And save millions of dollars while we do it.
Can’t get much more All- American than that.
I am disturbed by this sort of rhetoric because it is self serving in content disguised as a call for “patriotism.” All-American? Labeling people because of the car they drive? Called them “terrorists” that support Al-Qaida? Calling for expenditure of public funds to publicly excoriate people in TV ads for buying products that suit them? How is this All-American? Real Americans mind their own P & Qs and buy what they want and spend what they afford. Some of my relatives have been very fortunate and they drive Jaguars, Land Rovers, and even (horrors) a Chrysler 300 C 5.7 litre V-8 or two. They also can afford them, and the price of fuel. They also provide employment for about 100 people with LIVING wages in their associated business. So, I should place bumper stickers on their vehicles calling them terrorists? I should provide their names to a public service agency to call them “terrorists” on TV for the country to vilify them? I can drive a Jeep Liberty with a 6 cylinder engine and get MISERABLE mileage out it by revving the engine excessively, jack rabbit starts at stop lights, constant idling, and running with all the accessories on including the air. So, then I should get a “terrorist” label because I AM a gas guzzler? First Qadaffi in Libya got bombed and lost a son in that raid. He also gave up the agents of his own government for trial. Saddam Hussein is dead. Where Iraq oil is going seems to have gotten lost in this useless war. Gasoline is NOT in short supply, even if the price is above $4.00 a gallon, and I suspect that crude oil availability is manipulated to drive up the price especially when it is big capital funding outfits like Lehman Brothers, Goldman-Sachs and such that are pouring millions onto the oil futures markets. Label those guys. Miserable capitalists that they are.
No, the average consumer shouldn’t be labeled a terrorist. When gas was 1.50 or 2.00 no one really paid attention to this problem. But today, with gas at 4.00 I think patriots should consider whether we want to keep enriching countries like Saudi Arabia, and keep running these trade deficits, and keep diluting the value of our currency. We have to consider, more than blaming consumers or the auto industry, why are the oil companies and our government sitting on the oil in Iraq? If we got production up and runnning there, gas would fall to 2.00 a gallon again. Are there people in business or government that don’t want that? I’m inclined to believe so.
It is not in our interest to allow other nations the ability to hold us hostage. As it stands, an enemy can cut the sea lanes in the straits of Malaccca and disrupt or cut off oil to Japan or the US. Europe’s access to oil is similarly tenuous. A 70’s style OPEC emabrgo could put our slow economy over the edge.
The real villains are the West’s so-called “leaders.” There is no leadership in America or Europe. For national security reasons, we do need to eliminate dependence on foregin energy. But that can’t be left totally to industry or consumers when we are competing against countries that subsidize their industry and infrastructure. We need leaders to make the hard decisions: for example: if we had the nuclear power and electric trains that France has, plus require all buses and city delivery vehciles be electric, tax incentives for all private cars that get 50 mpg or higher, that would save a great deal of oil, wouldn’t it? Many won’t like that solution, but it is a solution nonetheless. It’s more than you’ll get from McCain or Obama. What we really need is a new Manhattan project: to develop the energy sources and technology of the future; otherwise the next century of American and European history will be one of rolling browouts, gas lines and poverty, as China becomes the technology leader, and controls most of the energy resources on earth. Japan, China, all responsbile nations invest in industry and technology. They have a strategy. They either bolster their industries or buy up ours. Look how far Toyota has got with hybrids, with the backing of the Japanes government. We are going to lose our auto industry, adhering to Bush’s “if they can’t make relevant products they deserve to go under” mentality. A sane government protects vital, national industry, and fosters high technology. A sane govenment says no–we don’t have a price tag on everything. Look at the sale of the Chrysler building. If we keep drinking this free-trade, anything is permissible if it’s a result of the “free market” kool aid, religiously holding to a logic that our competitors trample on and we will wake up one day completely owned by China and rich middle eastern kingdoms.
“No, the average consumer shouldn’t be labeled a terrorist. When gas was 1.50 or 2.00 no one really paid attention to this problem. But today, with gas at 4.00 I think patriots should consider whether we want to keep enriching countries like Saudi Arabia, and keep running these trade deficits, and keep diluting the value of our currency. ”
Actually, Bill C. and I both paid attention, but nobody wanted to listen. Had the White House, on 9/12, proclaimed that America would starve out terrorism by refusing to buy from terrorist supporting nations, people would have slashed their fuel usage. However, the White House instead said the most important thing for us to do was not give up any of our little luxuries or, as some put it, “our way of life.”
Leadership is important. It’s one of the things that made the difference between the hoarding and profiteering of World War I and the shared sacrifice of World War II.
Perhaps for the sake of discussion, I would agree with you that we did have a great opportunity to stifle the flow of foreign oil, and put more of our control over it. However, again, for discussion, is it not feasible that the Bush Administration already had Iraq on the mind. As I recall, one of the talking points advanced by Cheney was that when we “freed” Iraq, we would take over their oil production, using that to pay expenses we incurred for sending in our troops to make them “free”. But hindsight is wonderful and fully 20/20. Where IS the Iraq oil BTW? Is it in production or being subverted elsewhere. Real leadership was lost a long time ago. In my estimation this country took a big turn for the worse on November 22, 1963. The level of mistrust, has only continually increased since then.
Real leadership would have focused upon the foreign oil imports ages ago. I suggest that the Shuttle Diplomacy of Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger lead to a lot of the oil importation, seeking to mollify the Saudis and other Arabs. Oil prices began a steady incline around 1972, along with the formation of OPEC that seems comprised of countries NOT operating with our best interests in any way. Back then perhaps a little sacrifice would have resolved things in a way that would have prevented the current situation.
“However, again, for discussion, is it not feasible that the Bush Administration already had Iraq on the mind.”
Since we know that they were discussing how to invade Iraq long before September 11, the answer to that is very definitely — otherwise, why attack a country with absolutely no ties to Al-Quaeda instead of, say, Saudi Arabia, which produced nearly all the hijackers?
I agree with you completely, though I will make one exception - Jimmy Carter tried very hard to lead us to adult behavior with regard to energy. Unfortunately, faced with making responsible choices and living within our means, we, led by our irresponsible Congress (both Democrats and Republicans, though at that point mostly Democrats) fought and rebelled, and when simple, unworkable solutions (cut taxes while increasing spending) were proposed, we snapped at them and laughed Carter into history.
Carter’s impossible faith in his fellow man certainly didn’t help. He was not much of a politician, and I mean that partly as a compliment, but I wish he’d had more of Truman’s “faith after proven innocent” in his fellow man.
Carter had no means to provide definitive leadership. He was even mocked by people in his own administration. Most remember the near comic antics of his brother, Billy, than can recall what his administration accomplished, other than the failed Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt. He continues to reinforce his “non” image by being a “non” ex President, including breaking laws with his visits to terrorist implicated nations that have accomplished nothing except giving publicity to those that seek to destroy western civilization.
Agree entirely about Iraq. Saudi Arabia still remains as the leading supporter of terror by paying them off and paying for them, period. Have to thank the Bush family going back to the 1920s when they began to pay them for oil and oil exploration. Which leads to the ultimate oil President, the one we have now, and his equally important oil administration. With near criminal acts, they have said to big oil, which unfortunately remains as the 800 pound gorilla in the room, go for it! Blow the tops off those barrels of oil! Soak the poor, more, more, more! The excess is staggering, with no control or let up in sight. It has been so good, that the leader of the band, ExxonMobil is selling off it’s gasoline outlets, being NON profitable to them. Which just means that the so called “meager” earnings for selling gasoline is going to (and already has) be coming from elsewhere. More investment in oil futures, keeping the barrel price UP and UP!