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
#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