Que, that's silly. <This time we have no way out other than fighting. in the 1970's we still had Alaska and the North Sea.
The military can be much bigger, after a large strike on oil supplies the people of many countries will be more than adequately motivated to do what is needed to protect oil supplies. >
The better way out is to raise prices, share SUVs, buy little cars, insulation, move closer to work, wear some wool.
I know it's a novel concept, but in some free countries we have what is called a market, where people set prices according to supply and demand. When things are in short supply, the prices are bid up. When there's lots of something and production cost is low, the price is lower.
We don't go and shoot the tomato farmer and steal his tomatoes because there is a poor season and prices go up, or somebody carelessly sprayed a large area with a herbicide instead of a pesticide. What we do is bid for the available tomatoes and the highest bidder gets the fruit.
The same novel principle can be applied to crude oil. In the event that Saudi Arabian oil is stopped, the remaining supplies from around the world would be bid for and the highest bidders would get the oil.
The rest of us would ride a bicycle, catch a bus, buy a Segway, walk, do the job in cyberspace, turn down the thermostat and put on some insulation, turn off the air-conditioner, share a lift to work, buy a small car, buy a wind turbine or photovoltaic panels, grow ethanol crops and so on.
No problem. There is no need to go shooting and bombing another swarm of people and still get nowhere. Having a lot of dead people and no oil is even worse than just adjusting to the shortage of supply.
I should patent that supply/demand/price auction idea.
Mqurice |
