Terry Tamminen: Iraq and energy security

It's all about oil, baby

Posted by David Roberts at 12:08 PM on 13 Jan 2007

Read more about: Iraq | oil | energy | interview | Terry Tamminen

DR: You say pretty openly that Iraq and a good chunk of our defense spending -- about half total federal expenditures now -- is about oil. Not very long ago that was written off as a hysterical lefty conspiracy theory.

TT: Certainly with respect to Iraq, as the excuses get peeled away one by one, even people who wanted to give the president the benefit of the doubt have got to say, either the guy's an incompetent moron, which may be true, or he's been lying, which is probably true.

DR: Those are not mutually exclusive.

TT: It turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction, and [Saddam] certainly didn't present any clear and present danger to us. Yeah, he's a bad guy, but this notion that we're going to give them democracy and the country will be Kansas overnight -- that certainly hasn't been true. The notion that we're fighting Al Queda terrorists -- well, gee, they're not there. We're so preoccupied with Iraq we're not securing any kind of democracy or stable government in Afghanistan, and the Taliban are making a comeback there. The more these excuses peel away, the more you find the only difference between Iraq and North Korea -- which actually has and says they use nuclear weapons, in the hands of a madman who's doing a lot of nasty things to his people -- is oil.

Interview with Terry Tamminen

Abridged version

1. Democratic Congress and Republican sincerity
2. Prop 87, AB32, and RGGI (oh my!)
3. Green progress and state climate plans
4. Hydrogen, batteries, and electric cars
5. Ethanol
6. Iraq and energy security
7. Nuclear energy and China's development
8. Leading by example
9. Public transit
10. Legal strategies to address climate change

Lives Per Gallon, by Terry Tamminen.

DR: North Korea has a very large army.

TT: But it wouldn't withstand American technology. The bottom line is, there's lots of other bad people in this world doing bad things to their citizens -- look at Darfur. It's just fascinating that the only places where we decide to bully the world and unilaterally send our troops are the places with oil.

DR: Oil is a fungible commodity sold on the world market -- there's no way Iraq or any other single actor could deny us access to oil -- so why spend all the money to put troops there when we could just buy the oil?

TT: It is a zero sum game. China's going around buying up oil for itself -- they're not sitting by. India is securing more of the world's supply for itself. The United States, with 60 percent of our oil imported, we can't just go buy it from someone else. Where are we going to buy it from? Venezuela? Nigeria, where they've shut down a third of oil production because of civil unrest? Russia, who's using it for politics and selling it to the Chinese?

Yes, it's a fungible commodity, but it's been our foreign policy since World War II to use the Army to secure our sources of oil. This is not just a Republican issue. It's gone through lots of different hands.

We're spending $96 million a year in military subsidies and military training for our personnel in Colombia to secure one pipeline. There's lots of other places where there's just no dispute: the military or the money is being sent to secure access to oil.

You can argue about Iraq. In order to give current policymakers the benefit of the doubt, when I estimate we're spending well over $800 billion a year in subsidies for oil, and I include the defense costs, I do not include Iraq.

DR: That would tack on two trillion dollars.

TT: The jury's still out. I don't know anyone who would deny that at least some of that was related to oil. The president himself said, as he was planning the invasion, the first concern was securing the oil. The second concern was securing food for potential refugees. About two months ago, I'm trying to remember the exact quote ...

DR: Arguing against withdrawal on the basis that terrorists would control over oil.

TT: He said we'd be giving the terrorists the oil. So I'm not making this up. I'm not seeing conspiracies behind every bush, pardon the pun. It's fairly open public policy and it costs.

DR: There's lots of talk these days about a new green coalition. But it seems to me that there are a number of points of tension between the national security or energy independence line and the global warming line. The two pursuits are not entirely parallel. We could become energy independent without slowing down global warming -- we could shift to coal, or even to renewables, but it doesn't help get India or China on board.

TT: Or Texas. Texas is now in the same league as India or China.

DR: How do you see those tensions playing out?

TT: I think you're smart to see that -- there are some fissures. But there are also opportunities.

The religious groups are not only responding to a patriotic call to action, but the notion that we're destroying what they see as God's creation. Global warming has spurred the religious community to start taking action, and to think about joining environmentalists.

The unions don't see a lot of union jobs in most states digging coal out of the ground and turning it into electricity, but they do see a lot of jobs building windmills and installing solar panels -- high-paying, sustainable jobs. You're turning agricultural waste in your community into energy, rather than a coal mine 500 or 1,000 miles away putting electrons on the electrical grid.

There are ways to leverage that positive momentum, even from groups who may not put the environmental concern first.

For story: Terry Tamminen: Iraq and energy security
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Nice analysis

If only the people at the top would be satisfied with millions, instead even a trillion is not enough.

You can not spread the money around evenly, it must remain in gigantic piles.

Ironic isn't it, it is a bit like protecting the psychopath that is about to kill you!!

by Zarkov at 1:43 PM on 13 Jan 2007

Excuses

The "it doesn't help get China and India aboard" argument is just an excuse.

The United States needs to get the United States on board FIRST. After that, it can talk to other countries about what they are doing. Sigh.

It is important to note that securing energy independence and security and stopping global warming are not the same thing.

There is a good chance the struggle against global warming will get hijacked by the first two, and end up going nowhere, while all the emphasis is put on the first two issues (independence and security).

After all, killing Iraqis is all about security, isn't it?

As for Texas, it is a developed state, not a developing country. It often seems to me that even Americans who should no better don't "get" the difference.

Funny sort of greens.....

patrick

by bookerly at 1:58 AM on 14 Jan 2007

"you're smart to see that"

I am delighted that David finally got a nice pat on the head, from someone whom he clearly set out to respect and admire, but who earlier in the conversation was delivering stinging, tear-prompting answers like, "That is the wrong question to ask," and, "That way of understanding the alternatives is wrong."

Terry's not especially original argument, about how the presence of petroleum made all the difference in why the Bush administration charged into Iraq against Saddam but now finds itself at a feeble stand-still in the face of the equally evil and much more dangerous Kim Jong Il, is well put.

Terry said, "this notion that we're going to give them [the Iraqis] democracy and the country will be Kansas overnight -- that certainly hasn't been true." Amen. (And if we are going to make a major point of foreign policy the reduplication of American states abroad, I am not sure I would pick Kansas. How about Maine?! Just imagine: lobster traps in the Persian Gulf! Twilight sightings of moose, along the Euphrates!)

"The notion that we're fighting Al Queda [sic!] terrorists -- well, gee, they're not there." Supporters of W.'s administration may be reading this, so let us dot our eyes and cross our tees. There were no friendly relations between Al Qaeda and Saddam before 9/11, contrary to Dick Cheney's repeated suggestions, and the ignorant assumptions of many Americans. But after April, 2003, a number of non-Iraqi Arabs, strict Wahhabi Sunnis, with connexions of some sort to Osama bin Laden's inner circle, entered the country in order to stir up trouble. But they are not to be confused at all with the home-grown Iraqi insurgencies, of whom the Shiites did not welcome them, and the Sunnis only did so half-heartedly. The Bushies are now trying to blame them for the bombing of the Shiites' Golden Mosque in Samarra, last February; and so the reason 2006 was a disaster, characterized by escalating sectarian strife, not to say civil war, has to do with the actions of Al Qaeda's friends, not with the actions of W. and company, including his willful, assertive semi-puppet Nuri al-Maliki.

In Terry's last comments, "the religious community" is patheticly simplistic, and I have no idea what "leveraging the momentum" from David's evangelicals is supposed to mean. And Terry does not know either, he is just talking.

On the other hand, his comment about labor unions is fascinating. I have not read his promising suggestion anywhere else.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 6:28 AM on 14 Jan 2007

Unions

The sheet metals union has been a strong supporter of solar energy for a couple decades, nothing new there.

I had a fascinating blog exchange on al Jazeera with what looked like educated al Qaida a few days before the bombing of Samarra's Askariya shrine. I asked about bin Laden being in the US and the response was Feb.20.2006, "the cia only recruited one ossama, thanks to gwb there are many ossama now in many countries, i am glad to know that our over confident american friend are all eager to test them, can wait to see the civilised civil war or the immigrants sons fighting the new comers "

by sunflower at 7:36 AM on 14 Jan 2007

Arsenio Hall Moment - hmmmmmmm

Vietnam was a geo-political war to attempt to stop Communism. Iraq was and is all about oil. The so-called "neocons" figured they could finance a war in Iraq and have an immediate cash pay back. It would take four or five days and then the oil & gas booty would start rolling in. Having a democratic wedge (in a troubled Mid-East) and a country with oodles of oil certainly seemed inviting.

You know the rest of the story. Halliburton started hauling finished petroleum goods from Kuwait because the Iraqi refineries were no longer operating very well, if at all. The failure of fighting the "war" was evident by not sending in enough troops to defend all the power plants, pipelines, and refineries. Everything was looted and headed over to Syria for a fire sale.

They don't talk about this much, but every so often there's enough crude to load onto super-tankers at the Port of Basra, under intense Navy and Coast Guard protection (the Brits are there too). I have no idea about the absolute numbers in terms of millions of barrels or tons, but Iraqi export crude oil is still very small in terms of the international energy market.

So much for funding a war on the petroleum hedge market.

Next time, maybe pick some folks who know how to use the word "fungible" in this context since there are different price markets for crude oil as to its origination and sulfur content. Finished and pipelined petroleum goods such as gasoline, diesel, and residual fuel can be considered "fungible," however, as long as they are substantially similar, or "sub sim." Examples would be IFO 380 marine ship fuel or JP-8 and Jet-A for aviation. /Sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 5:56 PM on 14 Jan 2007

Excellent oil war analysis!

But once again, 800 billion in oil subsidies per year without Iraq?

Just doesn't seem like that could be true. It would be good for our cause, but.

It's like the claim that water dumped from LA sewers could power all uS transportation. Maybe not intentionally deceptive, but still not a good idea.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:02 AM on 15 Jan 2007

Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

"Vietnam was a geo-political war to attempt to stop Communism"

I believe it was initiated in order to keep commies from getting oil supposedly under the Tonkin Gulf.

Afghanistan, the Russian Vietnam, was joined by Reagan on Bin Laden's side to keep the commies from getting a pipeline route. UNOCAL made "an offer they couldn't refuse" to Taliban leaders through Pakistani representatives in the summer of 2000. "A carpet of bombs (if they opposed the pipeline of the texas cowboy oil Bush connected company)or a carpet of gold".

The Saudis wanted control of that pipeline, they figure bin laden beat the Russians with their money, so it was theirs. Right wing extremist (neocons?) Saudis the gave the greenlight to 911 in order to teach the cowboys a lesson.

A short oily conspiracy theory all about oil and 911 that can't be proven. David corn argues it is not true and he's the guy who first reported rumors about it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:12 AM on 15 Jan 2007

Do not touch poison toads

Amazing --

Jimmy Cater and Zbigniew Brzezinski imported Osama bin Laden to destabilize a secular government in Afghanistan.

911 has been called "blow back" by the CIA.

Project for the New American Century (PNAC) called for seizing the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, adopted by Bush early 2001, and likely precipitated 911 (an ancient strategy of the Hashassins).

by sunflower at 4:15 PM on 15 Jan 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.