I wrote this article awhile ago. I still am very concerned about our
environment and the changes that humanity is making to this planet.
Energy Parity
Published by: daedeluslanthanien, on 2005-08-25 15:45:53
"Energy Parity" >daed
So lets get right to the point. Energy Parity? I believe it is going to be
one of the hardest hitting social issues globally in our new century. The
U.S. and the E.U. governments are managing to ensure their long-standing
oil contracts and new aquisitions in a effort to keep up to the standard
of living. In addition to this the United states alone posseses 104 known
nuclear reactors at 65 sites (#1), from 1945 - 1999 the U.S. produced
over 70,000 known warheads and bombs, of 65 known different types. (#2) It
consumed an average of 10.4 million gallons of foriegn oil imports a day
in 2002. (#3) In contrast to this is China and its stunning growth.(#4)
China is on its way to achieving super-power status, it posseses a nuclear
deterrent (#5). The Chinese government is scouring the globe for energy
contracts to fuel its new growth, and it is developing its known reserves
readily. India and Pakistan are competing for parity and territory armed
with nuclear weapons.(#6) The U.S. once had oil parity all to itself and
is upset about the sliding standard of parity. The Chinese wonder how the
West survives culturally and is up for a game of parity. Both countries
achieve perfect parity for creating ecological disasters.
#1 www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html
#2
http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
#3
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con
#4
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/06/content_448816.htm
#5
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/nuke/index.html
#6
http://www.historyteacher.net/indiapakistan_crisis.htm
The West's "victory" over the Warsaw Pact, in hindsight, is a fallacy. The
Cold War simply moved into the economic arena of third world countries.
Before the U.S.S.R. fell economically their war-making technology simply
copied itself south to China, albiet without the same brinksmanship scheme
or overtly aggressive signature. This should not be seen as a weakness
though. The Korean war gives us further perspective for setting a profound
precedent concerning Asian communist resolve to face the U.S. military
conventionally when it is on Asian turf. Soviet weapons proliferation and
their involvement in China at the time provided a deterrent against
escalation and technology that China has steadily improved. I doubt that
the old ways of doing business with ideological off-shoots has changed
much. Both sides can be counted on to make the same types of decisions
economically as they did in war. Communist and Democratic systems may
achieve parity together, both regimes are flawed but they are a perfect
match for compromise. The only reason I have for feeling this way is the
fact that we are not all dead.
The Post Cold War Russian "Open Market Capitolist" oil ventures have been
shown to be solidly beholden to the Kremlin as shown by Putkin having
Khodorkovsky arrested at Lukos oil a few years ago. Putin's opinions of
western venture capitolists schemes for controlling Russian government and
Russian oil resources resulted in numerous actions. The Russian courts
serve to further highlight Russias protective energy policy by showing
little action regarding international law, and shelving unsavory venture
capitol disputes involving foreign interest. The Russians, by exploiting
their vast natural resources, will eventually gain enough export strength
to react effectively in the world market as their infrastructure improves.
Since the Cold War has ended they have already been able to glut the steel
market with scrap forcing some Western steel companies to rely on
government subsidies or shut their doors. The Russians will pursue
emerging Asian and Middle Eastern market sectors and compete with Western
interest anywhere it can. The U.S. uses this same tactic in return. The
U.S. invasion of Iraq recently curtailed 900 lucrative Russian oil
contracts worth an estimated 1bil EUR that I know of.(#1) Russia seeks to
regain parity.
#1
http://english.pravda.ru/economics/2003/01/20/42250.html
North Korea is definitely the poster child for new global energy policies.
To the West, North Koreans represent a rude reminder of a war gone stale
that continues to this day. Nuclear brinksmanship remains the Wests answer
to world stability in this region. It is a failed nation-building attempt
gone awfully wrong, time on the battle-line, and a wavering South Korea is
all that Western global domination has to show for it. The time for
decisions is approaching closer now. China is waiting in the shadows
hoping to claim Korea and Taiwan to achieve the full territorial
reintegration of China. Diplomatic style like North Korea presents in Asia
is forcing the West towards parity because of the United States uneasiness
to project force or deal at the level which would be required to reach
agreements. This Western catch 22 is due in part to lack of trust, lack of
all around accountability, political fratricide, arrogant
over-consumerism, and the fear sowed at home and abroad by new technology
that is becoming readily available. I would not expect Asian - Western
relations to be more than facile for some time, there is to much rampant
racism, and social prejudice entrenched in Korea, China, Japan, and the
wealthy Caucasian ruled countries in the West. The U.S. is making this
situation worse by allowing the re-armament of Japan which includes a
nuclear capability. (#1) It is much like we have seen happen in Germany
with the reformed Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. (#2) The U.S. has recently
showed signs of backing off its demands in this hot-to-handle nuclear
issue in Korea. The U.S. seems to be conceding to allowing commercial
nuclear power in this case, I doubt the U.S. will consider to do so in
regards to oil beyond token amounts. North Korea seeks to define the Wests
intentions once again regarding developing Asian parity. Korea may even
represent a Chinese wildcard that China is not overtly responsible for.
#1
http://www.rense.com/general67/stc.htm
#2
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC19Ad05.html
Iran is also a raw point for the U.S. This raw point includes a Heniously
flawed rescue mission and the fall of the U.S. backed Shah of Iran in
favor of the cleric Ayatollah Khomeini. (#1) Once bitten twice shy is
starting to be a Western reaction, due to Iranian reaction to
unappreciated meddling. I highly doubt that Iran will be invaded by the
U.S. Irans ties to Pakistan and Mr. Khan have become more clear recently
involving their nuclear program, which is show stopping as far as the West
is concerned. The international inspectors have verified that the weapons
grade contamination on some of Irans equipment actually originated from
Pakistans now legitimate proliferation. Iran and Pakistans relationship,
much like that seen in North Korea and China, showcases the human nature
of holding up racial and religious ties. Pakistans involvement with Iran
presents a new stage in a ideological conflict that has raged between
Muslims and Christians for centuries. A good image to try to "see" the
current feelings would probally be a picture of Beirut or a picture of a
Palestinian street. An Iranian super-power in the Middle East would
seriously threaten the Wests involvement with Saudi Arabia. The West knows
that Saudi Arabia and Pakistans stance at this time teeters on a fine
scale. The Saudis and Pakistanis will only do enough for the West, as they
deem reasonable, to retain legitimacy in Western eyes. When legitimacy is
a concern in this area the West is as weak as its thirst for oil makes it.
The Iranian population has faith in its racial purity and religion. They
have historically resisted non-muslim immigration as other muslim
countries have, for a reason. When the Iranian scale tips, so shall the
Sauds, so shall the Iraqis, and so shall the Pakistanis, along with the
rest of the Middle East and possibly other ideologically similar countries
of the Asian sub-continent. It has been done in Europe with the formation
of the E.U., a M.E.U. could develop. Iran's dream of hope for the Muslim
world since the Shah was deposed may be more than parity with the West.
This is a dream that is achievable if it is coupled with a nuclear
deterrent, the Saudis blessing, and a quick stealthy subjugation of
Israel. The prospect of defeating Israel would sit well with Iraqi
interest and would also serve to heal most of the scars these countries
gave each other in the Iran/Iraq war.
#1
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml (nice link
eh?)
The Iraq war is about oil, muslims, and business, it always has been and
it will continue to be for now. It is not about human rights, it is not
about terrorism, it is not about the Kurds getting gassed. These are
Saddam's "Happy Mistakes" being used as a diversion for the U.S. and
British publics moral needs. The U.S. and British population is being
presented with a "moral" fraction of a dispute in an effort of public
diversion, it makes me sick and angry. The U.S. government makes little
mention of Russian oil contracts that were waylaid during the current U.S.
invasion of Iraq. The U.S. resents France, Germany, and Russia courting
Iraqi business and gaining lucrative contracts. The U.S. resents bans that
were placed against U.S. oil companies by Iraq preventing them from
operating in Iraq. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq it still recieved the bulk
of Iraqi output even though it was forced by its energy consumption to
procure it through French, German, or Russian suppliers at a mark-up.(#1)
The Kurdish people had almost been thrown to the Turkish for U.S. airbase
use. The Turkish had enough sense, or at least greed, to have avoided this
ugly U.S. energy tantrum. The Turkish border is somewhat close to the
Caucasus oil fields, the Turkish have been forging a stronger alliance
with Russia in a effort to stabalise the Caucasus region. This Turkish
resolve to help stabalise the Caucasus and Turkeys common border with Iraq
sits quite well with the Russians and their plans for energy
infrastructure in this key region. The Turkish are lobbying for inclusion
into the E.U. as well, soon the East and West may literally meet in
Ankara. The Iraqi conflict has shown deep divisions in N.A.T.O. which has
become extremely embarrassing to the U.S. military. This will become more
dire for the U.S. as the global community adjusts its view of the
capability of the U.S. to influence foreign affairs, and project force
globally. Iraq wishes it had parity. Saddam is gone, he is indeed deposed,
but the legacy and ill devised borders of British colonialist government
still stunt Iraq socially. The damage to the Iraqi people seems to come
continuously from within and abroad. I believe this current war with the
U.S. will ultimately help to bond the Iraqis to a common anti-Western
cause. The anti-Western sentiment in the region may possibly re-align
Iraqi and Iranian populations in the future. This may ring true especially
if Iran becomes a nuclear power, and attempts to defeat Israel. The hatred
of the 1980 - 1988 Iran/Iraq war of attrition in this setting could be
eclipsed by the potential to create a strong multi-lateral Muslim movement
aimed at sweeping the house of Islam of infidels.
#1
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm
The European Union was created to level the playing field with the U.S.
and emerging Asian powers. The E.U. is having growing pains but it has
been able to start integrating its economies successfully and has ratified
collective legislation. The E.U. is building its own military
collectively, its collective nuclear capability is unclear(#1). Britian
and France are both nuclear countries, the potential assets already exist.
The U.S. through N.A.T.O. programs has left known nuclear assets in
several current E.U. countries declared non-nuclear. There is a possibilty
that the U.S. broke the Nonproliferation Treaty in regards to weapons
transfers in these cases. The potential stockpiles of Soviet era weapons
in Ex-Warsaw pact countries joining the E.U. remains unclear.(#2) The
French have called for the deployment of a collective E.U. nuclear
deterrent. The U.S. continued involvement in N.A.T.O. is being stressed by
these new dynamics.(#3) French and German business ventures abroad are
also adding to U.S. rumblings. Europe is changing to maintain parity and
is distancing itself from American influence. The E.U. wishes to be a
super-power in its own right, finally shedding the damage of WWI and WWII
once and for all.
#1
http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Gibbs/html/contents/chapter5.html<BR>
#2
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/vo961030/text/61030w02.htm
#3
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=3Dcache:c4gQhAUg5cQJ:www.csulb.edu/centers
senior-university/International/SUW2003LectureSeries4.pdf+ex-warsaw+pact+nuclear+weapons&hl=3Den
If the U.S. does not take enormous steps to achieve energy parity with
these countries it may wind up having very little. The growth for the U.S.
will be negative if it continues on this present course. Many people will
suffer and die for relying and growing on unsustainable energy usage. The
U.S. population is very soft from this lifestyle, I am assuming that the
chances for civil war will go up as the energy stress peaks. As it stands
the U.S. is very divided, the apparent nationalism is actually quite
shallow, and wavering. I see little genuine patriotism beyond commercially
available "Support our Troops" stickers and magnets on automobiles. The
back-slapping over current troop recruitment is also suspect when one
views the current "feel good" advertising being produced by the military
for U.S. media that focuses on recruitment. This psychological operation
is flawed and it will be proven when these guys make it back home and let
it be known how the average soldier feels about what they witnessed.
We may not go the way of parity voluntarily one by one. 6 billion
have-nots voices may fall on the deaf ears of the lucky few possesing
enough resources to trade in the way they feel is fair. The very tough
moral of this paper should be the recognition of finite global resources.
Eventually even the winners will become big losers when the crunch comes.
Alot of the world population assumes that it has went past discrimination,
but it has not. The U.S. may have made the street a little more sociable
in Chicago but it has not applied this ethic roundly to its foreign
policies, nor have other governments. Some of you may not like the
connection I have made in between trade policies and discrimination. You
will see it easily if you look, it is in the U.S., it is everywhere
globally, and it is pervasive. We need to act as a one world people, we
need to arrest our governments actions now before we find ourselves
evading the grips of a militant, completely secular, G-8 style global
government filled with elites that even our athiests would hate. War is a
unefficient waste of global resources. It is a tough task, and it is one
fought with the mind, not the rifle. We all need to remember that man is
inherantly good and a bit of power is in all of our hands. Upon these
hands rest everything we have been or ever will be.
I have a link here for "The Chinese Car Bomb" By Andrew McKillop below
(#1) and a couple of recent news clippings that fit into this paper. I
appreciate Andrews views regarding global energy consumption. His paper
basically states that if everyone who wants to drive cars globally does,
it will be impossible to fuel them at the current average usage, with the
current known petroleum reserves. It is a pragmatic paper, it is a realist
paper, it is well done, and it includes some serious conversation data.
#1 Andrew McKillop @
http://www.serendipity.li/fe/ch_car_bomb.htm
daedeluslanthanien - golden fox network. 9:54 = a.m. 8.24.05
"I always assume that what one man can do, so can another." Herbert O
Yardley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AFP 4:22pm 8.23.05 - "A group of US government experts and other
international scientists has determined that traces of bomb-grade uranium
found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and
are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the Washington
Post reported Tuesday.
"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with
these conclusions," the Post quoted a senior official, who discussed the
still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
Iran has long contended that the uranium traces were the result of
contaminated equipment bought years ago from Pakistan. But the Bush
administration had pointed to the material as evidence that Iran was
making bomb-grade ingredients" END - AFP 4:22pm 8.23.05
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Saul Hudson 1:33pm 8.23.05 - "The United States
predicted on Tuesday it could break an impasse over North Korea's demand
that it has the right to develop peaceful atomic energy in a sign of a
softening U.S. stance ahead of the resumption of six-party talks.
"I think we can come up with something," the chief U.S. negotiator,
Christopher Hill, told reporters. "But I cannot be more specific than that
because we are in the middle of a negotiation."
The United States has differed with South Korea and Russia at the
negotiations, which also include Japan and China, over North Korea's
demand that it must have the right to eventually develop civilian nuclear
programs for power generation.
But in what could be a crucial move to forge an agreement when talks are
due to resume next week, Hill suggested the United States could be
flexible on what was "not a major stumbling block. In the past, Washington
has insisted that even if North Korea scraps its military programs it must
give up the right to develop peaceful nuclear power because of fears it
could use those programs for building atomic weapons.
But Hill played down North Korea's demand, which had been the main reason
the talks broke down earlier this month after 13 days.
It was a "theoretical, downstream" issue and it would be difficult for
North Korea to restart any nuclear development after it scraps its
programs under a negotiated deal, he said.
"The issue for some of the partners is whether ... North Korea could then
reclaim a right to nuclear energy," Hill said. "If you ask me, it's not
exactly a showstopper issue -- the real issue is getting rid of all their
nuclear programs."" END - WASHINGTON (Reuters) Saul Hudson 1:33pm 8.23.05
