Michael T. Klare, author of the books Blood and Oil and Resource Wars, writes frequently about the geopolitical aspects of oil, and he has a particularly good piece in the Los Angeles Times, The U.S. and China are over a barrel, which concludes:
A far wiser course, I believe, would be to promote energy cooperation with China, rather than competition. Given that the United States and China are the world’s two biggest users of petroleum — a fuel whose worldwide availability is likely to peak at 100 million barrels or so per day in the next five years or so and then commence an irreversible decline — it makes great sense for us to collaborate in the development of oil alternatives and energy-saving technologies.
Such collaboration could take the form of joint ventures to develop advanced biofuels (not derived from food crops) and transportation fuels extracted from coal (without releasing heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere). It could also include the development of super-light vehicles, advanced hybrid engines and other energy-saving systems. Such endeavors have been discussed on a preliminary basis by U.S. and Chinese officials, so it is hardly utopian to envision a more elaborate and constructive undertaking of this sort.
Make no mistake: Intensified competition between the United States and China for access to the world’s remaining supplies of oil (and other sources of energy) will inevitably add to the forces pushing gasoline prices skyward and will generate an increased risk of regional instability. Trying to fight China over oil is the wrong approach; we’d both be better off by cooperating in the search for petroleum alternatives.
Please go read the whole thing, as Klare provides a concise and accurate summary of the US vs. China oil situation.
We should never forget that we can divide all contests into finite and infinite games. A finite game is one that reaches a definitive conclusion and ends–you beat your brother-in-law at chess, the game is over, and then you site around and talk about politics. An infinite game has no clear cut ending, which has sweeping implications for one’s strategy and tactics. (Many people take the view that fighting a “war on terrorism” primarily through shooting and blowing up things–which tends to create many more terrorists–amounts to fighting an infinite game by finite rules. I agree wholeheartedly.)
The US and China (and every other country on the planet) should focus on peaceful co-existence, to resurrect a term from the cold war era, and energy and environmental cooperation would be a perfect way to achieve and maintain that peace. If either side views this competition as a zero-sum, finite game, then we’re all in for a rude shock when we “discover” that the game doesn’t end; oil becomes too rare and expensive to be a mainstream energy source, and we’re still here and still living with the people we fought with and antagonized for decades over those dwindling supplies.
Years ago I read a too-cute-by-half description of three of the “great -isms” humanity has created:
This was meant to be humorous, of course, but I think it does accurately characterize capitalism and international relations, at least as some “play it”. As humanity continues to both fill the earth with more human beings and our waste and simultaneously empty it of certain critical resources, we need a much more worldly view, one based on enlightened self-interest and compassion and not petty myopia. First, we must cooperate with as many countries as possible to our mutual long-term benefit, and second, we must define “winning” as maximizing the welfare of humanity while minimizing the environmental impact we have on nature, and therefore, ourselves.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
