The US and Canada have plenty of untapped oil reserves, but Biden and Trudeau keep blocking projects. The Willow oil
Project in Alaska has been approved, but protestors are still trying to shut it down and Biden appears fine with that. Shutting down the Keystone pipeline from Alberta to Texas was one of his first executive orders two years ago. The World Bank won’t approve funding for projects in Africa. Ideology has long trumped energy security in the west and consumers will pay for it.
“Climate Variation Over Time” should be analyzed and engaged as a very long-term strategy to diversify viable sources of energy (both renewable and semi-renewable).
Fundamental tenants of this strategy:
– it is “party agnostic”
– it spans multiple administrations
– it is codified in a publicly accessible “Energy Constitution”
Last point is essential. The “Constitution” contains goals, objectives, milestones, and retrospectives. It is measurable. It is both “doctrine “ and “scorecard.”
Most important: Each successive administration is accountable for its logical, sustainable management, execution, and reporting (PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY).
“We” must — as a matter of sanity and survival — discard the myopic, ideologically driven, fruitless posturing and reckless management of Climate Fringe Madness (“THE WORLD WILL END IN 12 YEARS!!!”) vis-à-vis Greta, AOC, et al.
This is achievable.
Ironic reading today about how US military misadventure prompted the China-Russia oil pipeline. Following the China / Saudi / Iran agreement brokered recently, somebody has decided to wake the US president and tell him about it. Biden admin has now (reportedly) approved Alaska oil drilling project. Quite a turnaround.
All this is secondary to the canonisation of St Crispsalesman in the UK press of course.
I read about the willow approval. I’m stunned actually. He did the right thing.
For the wrong reason. Ie: re-election hopes.
Indeed. When the author states that US domestic production can’t increase quickly enough, it’s a self-inflicted problem courtesy of the current Biden regime. The USA and Canada could be both energy self-sufficient and exporters. Ask Trudeau and Biden why not.
Under Trump the US did become energy self sufficient.
Yes, of course the Iraq war was all about oil. Ever since Winston Churchill converted the Royal Navy from coal to oil, Middle Eastern oil has been a strategic problem.
But frack, baby frack changed all that. Except that now our exalted rulers are capping oil wells so we can enjoy the moral preening of NetZero, baby.
If we went back to frack, baby frack — even in Britland: imagine that! — all our problems would disappear.
If we went back to frack, baby frack — even in Britland: imagine that! — all our problems would disappear.
Our immediate problems perhaps, but it will only compound future ones, baby.
It’s only a matter of time before fracking becomes a reality, the temptation will be too great. Economic protectionism will always win over climate change policy.
‘…but it will only compound future ones, baby’.
Yet under fracking Trump, the US first met its Kyoto commitments. Unless you believe that fracked fuel is somewhat oilier and gasier than what is taken out in more conventional methods.
You’re not a businessman. UK fracking is a busted flush.
In 2035 Europe and the US will phase out the internal combustion engine for new cars (ie 12 years time) which will reduce the demand for oil in the West. Oil producing countries are unlikely to stop production. Instead they’ll look for new markets, most likely Asia and Africa. Since the phase out will be on regulatory, rather than economic grounds, it’s entirely probable that continued access to ICE and fossil fuels will give an economic advantage to any countries with lower restrictions on the use of oil. Large companies will move to low cost production countries, and it makes sense for any vehicle manufacturer to move their ICE production or production skill to Asia or Africa where sales are still possible. Add to this the fracturing of the dollar hegemony and China’s emergence as a superpower, and Europe, and possibly the US, become less economically attractive or competitive.
Your logic is correct. Net zero will be the final nail in the coffin of western industrialization. You can already see it; manufacturers that need natural gas are leaving Germany.
The real twist will be the stark reality that no one is phasing out ICE cars anytime soon. Dimwitted politicians can pass all the laws they want today, but reality will kick them in the teeth. There simply won’t be enough electricity available in 10 years to power a fleet of EVs.
The really intriguing insanity will be the wasted billions car manufacturers are spending on EV production today. Ford has committed $50 billion and GM another $35 billion to build EVs. They are shutting down ICE lines to build EVs that no one will buy.
What will be their reaction when legislatures say oops we screwed up and roll back their EV laws? These companies are wasting billions to become regulatory compliant, for regulations that can’t possibly be implemented.
Nothing illustrates the collective madness that has gripped the west more than net zero. It will literally lead to the downfall of the west – or more optimistically – the death of progressiveness that fuels this self-destructive ideology.
Very good points on both comments. The ideological element in the push for EVs is surprisingly powerful that it can bend the Western world against use of cheap energy. This is especially surprising given what gave the Western world global dominance was making use of better energy sources: first the steam engine with coal, and then Middle Eastern oil. As the “global south” block gains access to cheaper energy in relative terms, it’ll give them a strategic advantage. The only thing left to counter that in the West will be AI – enter the chip wars. AI itself will be transformative like the nuclear weapons if not even more significantly: how do you control something that’s more intelligent than yourself?
”The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It’s not the oil that is the issue — it is the weapons,”
No, do not really fallow the article….. and I know a bit about the region. The A leads to B which leads to C, and then to D, and so to E, the writer tells is pure fiction………
The writer either cannot explain the story, or it is just chaos, which I think may closer fit chaos. I think Bush was hoist by his own petard ….
To do the oil thing he invented the story of how America Morally, for Democracy and Decency, Must invade to crush the tyrant, and then when there must help the poor people of Iraq ‘Build Back Better’.
But then he had sold this idiocy to the Americans – and so turned it all over to pre-woke Liberal Left MSM – and it all fell apart. He sold the thing as Freedom and Safety – and the war and sanction machine he loosened meant he had to appear doing this…
But Bush is remarkably stupid and culturally arrogant, and he put the worst man in all the West – Paul Bremmer, in charge of the rebuilding – and Lost the Peace. And let in every crazy Camp-fallower in…and disbanded their Police and defeated Army, and fired all the Bathist who were the Technocrats who made things work….
How did we lose Iran in 79? The Iranians Likes us – sheer cultural arrogance did it. Same in Iraq, amazing the same did not happen in KSA, but there they left the King. And Afghanistan? They had nothing to do with anything.
I think that there was no actual cold calculating Goal of Oil, it was just a sort of ‘Why Not’. And wile we are there…..
They wanted oil, and also to being American values to Iraq, and Syria, and Iran, and so on, like Afghanistan, as a sop to the voters and Lefties.
And they wanted to go tyrant hunting in the Levant….. and all kinds of things – they wanted to teach the Sunnis to not be Salafist, and the Shia to be more inclusive….They wanted Women to be Western Women and Muslims to be Protestant acting…but the Muslims like being Muslim…
The idiot Bush – instead of saying – ”see that black goose? Grab that one, it is the oil, it is the good one’. Instead He set every weird NGO- NSA- CIA- DOD- UN- UK – Petro Lobby,- Lefty MSM, – radical Fem Congress Women – University Prof, loose to all grab their goose – and the melee resulted in utter Chaos – and so it went, and still goes.
it was just a SNAFU because it was not just ‘For the Oil‘ It was Mission Creep beyond all understanding of mission creeping…..
And P.S. this strategy is being adopted all over again in Ukraine, but the harms will be a thousand times worse. Bush was stupid beyond belief – till Biden came along to set the bar so low it is a negative height..haha. and the cynical Bush Admin are Nothing to the cynical Biden admin…..
I think you touch on an important point here – it wasn’t just a resource war. Bush and especially Blair were driven by a powerful ideology that told them that Western values had prevailed post 1989 and that the tide of history was on their side.
The reason Blair in particular ignored the overwhelming majority of the British public who were against UK involvement was because he felt sure the unfolding of events would vindicate him.
Indeed – and this critical point was, in my view, seriously under-appreciated at the time by those that opposed the war. The arguments at the time against the war seemed to rest on accusations of ‘lies’ or on quaint legal nicety. There was a near-total failure to realise the liberal interventionist ideological drivers.
Indeed arguably if there had been an open acknowledgement that Iraq was a resource war I suspect that some people would somehow have actually been able to more easily reconcile that in their heads than the idea of a war of liberal ideology that was supposedly waged in their name.
That war was wrong politically. The morals and the law are beside the point. It was wrong because it is not for liberals to spread their thinking at the point of a gun in league with intergovernmentals. It was not wrong because of , ‘lies.’ If they had looked up and said, ‘OK, fair dos – we are spreading liberal democracy by military means because we think it is a good idea,’ that would not have made what followed right.
Similarly, the arguments about a ‘legal war’ are to my mind bunk. That war would not have been made somehow better or more legitimate if the people doing the shooting had been wearing blue helmets. Indeed I would suggest that just about the only thing worse than the war we had would have been a war given the veneer of faux-acceptability by the legal profession’s finest. There was something very unsettling about the view of some lawyers at the time, arguing that the war was wrong because the lawyers said so. Tacit in that of course is the ideas that lawyers can therefore legitimately decide on matters of war and peace. The lawyers should absolutely have stuck their noses out of business that is 100% for voters and those they elect.
That war was wrong politically – as a matter of power and interests of the demos. It was wrong politically because it was ideological.
That war would not have been made better by , ‘truth.’ It would not have been made better because lawyers and the UN said so. And that war would have been wrong even if there had been WMD.
What was left in Iraq (and the wider region) was beyond words. What was left in the UK is a festering sore where there is just zero trust in anything. It’s hard to imagine how Blair could have been any worse.
“It’s hard to imagine how Blair could have been any worse.”
Not forgetting Campbell and the dodgy dossier and all of that nauseating ‘f**k Gilligan’ machismo that ultimately led to David Kelly’s suicide. A really sordid affair.
I can’t stand Campbell’s attempts to rehabilitate himself with the British public – the droning on about his depression, the craven behaviour of the Beeb in giving him airtime. If he had any decency or conscience he’d keep himself behind closed doors.
No! He would have ‘done the decent thing’, and good riddance to him!
Thank you. I don’t agree with everything you say but you have a very unique, compelling way of putting across your points. One small request, the accepted format for writing an unfinished or open sentence is by three dots(…) as far as I know, not 2 or 5. I sthat clear?
Liberal Imperialism was Clinton’s legacy. He just carried it out on a smaller scale.
It would have been much cheaper for America simply to buy oil off Iraq than to invade it and try to remake it in America’s image. Unless you believe that the Bush administration was too stupid to make that calculation, I don’t know why this theory is still doing the rounds.
“Black gold fuelled the Iraq War”.
Complete nonsense Ms Thompson as you very well know!
The defence of Israel has always been the paramount aim of US Foreign Policy. Israel felt rightly (or perhaps wrongly) that Iraq and Saddam ‘Insane’ represented an existential threat to their very existence and HAD to be removed, by “hook or by crook”.
Once you understand that very simple fact, the whole of Middle Eastern politics become ‘as clear as mud’.
Well I think you have a good point.
As I understand it the majors were not supporters of the invasion. They saw little opportunity in Iraq and a great deal of harm being done to their wider interest in the Middle-East as, indeed, turned out to be the case.
She seems to have conveniently forgotten the Scud missles that Saddam targeted Israel with.
Refreshingly clear. A cat is a cat, and a conspiracy is a conspiracy.For a long time “white man speak with forked tongue” and may I add, a cloven foot. The Yanks have pushed the art of hypocrisy and double speak to its asymptotic and infantile limit, which makes it all the more so easy to decipher: asymmetric lies boomerang every time following the iron law of unintended consequences. Would be hilarious, were it not for the sordid body count.
Sick(!) transit gloria mudi…
The “war for oil” rationale needs work. Why? Because, no one would have had to go to war to get Iraqi oil on the market.
The essay seems to point out that commercializing Iraqi oil resources would have required nothing more than getting some competent people in there to do it.
Those people may been Chinese or French or Russian or American or whatever. Either way, getting Iraqi oil into global markets would have been the ultimate result. No one had to go to war to get Iraqi oil on the market.
The essay does point out that the Chinese may have been worried about being cut off. The Japanese were cut off in 1941. It’s no accident that they seized oil fields in the Dutch East Indies. The Germans anticipated being cut off and made a point of figuring out how to synthesize oil from coal. Is the suggestion that one motivation for the war was to put the squeeze on China?
I elaborate on some these points here, for folks who may be interested:
Who’s Afraid of Oil and Wheat Prices?
Logistics put the “Global” in “Global Markets.”
Having worked in Washington prior to the invasion, I was then in Baghdad from Apr 2003 until the summer working in the post-war US ‘HQ’. In all my time in both places no-one mentioned oil. Major General (Retd) Tim Cross.
Yes, yes, oil was a justification, along with WMD, spreading democracy to the benighted Middle East, and several other reasons. But the prime mover, the deep emotional driver, was that post 9/11 the Arab world had not yet paid the blood-price for what they did to New York.
The invasion of Afghanistan was too easy. The entire Taliban army was destroyed within a few minutes by B-52 bombers, and al Queda dispersed into the mountains. Our hackles were high (at least in the U.S.) and there was a craving for vengeance. Iraq was a prime target for the military we had spent so many $trillions to make the world’s most lethal.
Really, how many wars are begun or waged for rational, strategic or carefully planned reasons? I love hearing all this post-orgy analysis.
So odd. Iraq was a secular state and nothing to do with 9/11 or the Saudi backed terrorists.
The article asserts that the purpose of the war was to secure oil supply. But the only evidence provided to support this is that people were likely to be interested in the effect of the war on oil supply. That is a very different thing. I don’t see that it is necessary to suppose any other motivation than to get rid of Hussein. It may have been foolish, it may have been disastrous in other ways, but that does not mean it was about something else.
Suppose the war had been entirely successful, the WMD had been found, and post-war Iraq entirely peaceful. Would we then say that the purpose was to secure the oil supply? I doubt very much that the US went to war knowing that the WMD did not exist but thinking they made a good excuse.
I think Blair’s speech at the time was a justification – the corruption of the oil for peace sanction evasion. The wrong folk were getting richer. The WMD was only used because the public needed to get properly afraid. And Iraq was trying to reassemble its nuclear program, or creating the appearance of that. And of course the backdrop of the “nasty” French and Germans and their commercial interests in Iraq who wanted those sanctions gone.
Sadly, the WMD became a millstone around the war justification that doomed the planners when little was discovered. Seems Iraq did a good job of deception on the CIA types. But the sanction evasion could have been resolved exposing the corruption that might have revealed important players.
It wasn’t really about oil. The neocons wanted to destroy Iraq, so they did. The neocons wanted to destroy Syria, so they did. The neocons wanted to destroy Lybia, so they did, the neocons want to destroy Russia, but I think they will fail
Next up war with Iran
The neocon thirst for blood is unquenchable
Makes no sense. You have not explained why they picked on Iraq, Syria or Libya. Why not 3 other random countries ?
It’s not random. If you understand the neocons
Check the early life section
I haven’t got a clue what the “early life section” is. So I think I’ll give that a pass.
Or you could just answer the question. It should only need one or two sentences.
What D Walsh wants you to do is to check the ‘early life section’ of Wikipedia for prominent US neoconservatives. You will find that many of them are Jewish. D Walsh doesn’t want to state that openly. Once you have discovered this, you will immediately put 2 and 2 together to make 5, and blame the Jews for everything. Hope this helps!
American Presidents need the backing of rich and influential companies and individuals in order to get elected and so find themselves in the pocket of those with personal and questionable aims. It is not surprising, therefore, that they prove to be corrupt in office, as described in this article.
Iraq without oil, is Ethiopia. Few care. But the Iraq War was not about oil supply from Iraq, it was about the false belief Saddam would use oil for a “nuclear” gun in order to extort and control supply from the region, possibly ruining some fields.
I doubt oil was the deciding factor. If Iraq had left Kuwait alone, if Iraq had not threatened Israel with Scuds…
I asked an Egyptian ‘in the know’ at the time. He thought Saddam Hussein’s thuggish existence had a silver lining, that Iraq was a result of British machinations after WW1 and only a dictator could keep Sunni, Shia, Kurds and Turkmen from each other’s throats. Iraq was a west supported buffer against Iran’s fundamental Islam. It was never a happy democracy but I doubt it’s any happier now. I’m sure the huge powerful US military was running out of justification for its existence after the Soviet Wall came down and the attendant damage to employment and influence back home was a factor. No surprise that 9/11 conspiracies abound.