Tim,
re: You present a false dilemma. Do we do A (remove Saddam from Iraq and otherwise involve ourselves in the ME) or B. (use resources to develop the technology and infrastructure to use alternatives to oil) You could do A, B, both, or neither. I would think the best choice is both, with the understanding that not every program or idea to do either is a good idea. In fact we are doing both, and we will do more of B as a natural response to the climbing price of oil. No national industrial or energy policy is needed for B to happen.
Yes, it is. Just in the recent news, SA has said it's ability to increase production is below reports. Shell has admitted it reserves are well below those they have reported.
All the ME countries, especially Saudi Arabia, have strong political reasons to over report their reserves. There was a good article in today's WSJ; oil reserves are at best an over-optimistic estimate.
When we pass the peak, it won't be a gradual cost increase, it will be a dramatic spike. Oil is a commodity, and commodities anticipate supply/demand wrt price. As demand continues to increase at an accelerating rate, and supply growth decreases, oil will become very precious.
It's not a Dem/Rep or L/C issue. It's a survival issue. More than any other country, we depend on oil for the health of our economy, for our individual wealth. And the experts think we are on a course towards a dead end. The only disagreement is when, not if. You want to gamble on the "when"?
We need to start to solve the problem. Now.
John |
