The Silver Lining Inside the Islamic Cloud

[August1991]

Ignatieff's proposals are no different then what believe it or not some Republicans are also talking about when they propose the US find an alternative to dependence on Middle East oil. Even Bush has made some speeches going in this direction.

One of the most disturbing features of the world oil market is that Iran and other Middle Eastern countries are major oil suppliers. Western countries are handing over billions of dollars to regimes that then use the money to finance activities threatening to western liberal democracy.

It is unthinkable that in 1962 or 1942, the West would have paid the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany billions in exchange for any resource. Then, we imposed strict trade embargoes or sharply limited trade and used trade as a political tool.

At the same time, scientists are now more or less convinced that burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor to man-made greenhouse gases and global warming. We must reduce our use of gasoline.

This suggests an idea which solves two very different problems. Western governments (Japan, the US, Europe, Canada) must impose carbon taxes on gasoline consumption. Such carbon taxes would have for effect to diminish revenues to Middle Eastern oil producing countries and simultaneously reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, these carbon taxes would generate revenues for governments allowing them to cut, for example, income taxes or other taxes.

Kyoto is too complex an agreement and it unfortunately tried to solve too many problems at once. National carbon taxes applied in rich countries - preferably implemented over time and strictly revenue neutral - would do far more to reduce greenhouse gases. They would also be a significant step in providing world security.

[Liam]

In the wake of 9/11, I saw the west's (the US's, in particular) dependence on oil as a national security issue. Heck, during the first Gulf War when Saddam rolled over Kuwait it was obvious that the west was overly-dependent on that region of the world. Unfortunately, no one (politicians, business leaders, but mostly consumers) heeded the call.

We absolutely MUST not only ween ourselves off Middle Eastern oil, but all oil. Nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal are our best bets for future security. The good thing is that as two huge countries, China and India, begin to consume more oil, it makes alternative fuels an easier "sell" in the west. Additionally, both countries provide enormous testing grounds for alternative energy sources which can spur more R&D spending and, eventually, reduced costs for more efficient systems for everyone.

[Figleaf]

... Western countries are handing over billions of dollars to regimes that then use the money to finance activities threatening to western liberal democracy.

You mean the Bush-Oil regime, naturally?

[cybercoma]

I'm still not convinced that we can change the climate, be it for better or worse. Computer models still cannot accurately predict weather patterns that have already occurred, there are simply too many variables. So, I find it difficult to believe the doomsayers when they say we're destroying the environment by driving cars to work. This was a problem in need of immediate attention in 1971 and it's still in need of immediate attention 35 years and a generation later.

I just don't think THAT particular part of this "silver lining" is as important as some peopel would have you believe.

Getting off the dependancy on fossil fuels would be great since it stops funding islamofascists in the middle east. Of course, destroying those regimes would be just as effective and better for everyone.

[Black Dog]

Of course, destroying those regimes would be just as effective and better for everyone.

Iraq.