Tom Friedman had an interesting column in today’s New York Times. He urges Bush to set a goal of energy independence in ten years. Not an earth-shattering idea, I know, but he links it to regime change or at least regime softening by recounting the dramatic changes that occurred around the world in the late ‘80s and ‘90s.
In that period Russia gave up the ghost, Israel and Palestine seemed to be talking to each other at Oslo, Iran began its reform, economic reform was bruited about in the Arab world. And why? Oil prices collapsed. In November 1985 the price was $30 a barrel; nine months later it was down to $10. In the face of this declining oil revenue many nasty regimes started to actually relax their grip on their people. Would Saudi Arabia become a gentler, kinder nation if oil were $25, and not $50, a barrel? Would they and other nations still be able to finance the terrorists? Would Iran be less obstreperous? Would Russia let the Ukraine decide its own fate completely? If “money makes the world go round”, there is a possibility that Friedman could be right.
But, Friedman paraphrases Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins, if we became truly energy independent, there would be other significant benefits: a stronger dollar, perhaps reduced global warming and a higher regard around the world for Bush and us.
It’s important to note that Friedman is not talking only of conservation. He’s also plumping for alternative energy sources. It’s not an easy task, especially when we have heard word zero about conservation in the past four years. But, if Nixon, the a nti-communist, went to China, maybe Bush, the former oilman, can be the president known for reducing our dependence on oil.
No comments:
Post a Comment