This a very interesting article that says among other things that if China doesn't develop alternative technologies, China will import as much oil as the US does now by 2030. It suggests that the US should help China avoid dependence on the old tech oil economy. Of course this begs the question as to why the US hasn't done this for itself. How many reasons do we need before we go on a crash course to get rid of our oil addiction? ************* By Gal Luft, Gal Luft is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and publisher of the online publication Energy Security. Sixty-seven years ago, oil-starved Japan embarked on an aggressive expansionary policy designed to secure its growing energy needs, which eventually led the nation into a world war. Today, another Asian power thirsts for oil: China. While the U.S. is absorbed in fighting the war on terror, the seeds of what could be the next world war are quietly germinating. With 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at a phenomenal 8% to 10% a year, China, already a net oil importer, is growing increasingly dependent on imported oil. Last year, its auto sales grew 70% and its oil imports were up 30% from the previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user after the U.S. By 2030, China is expected to have more cars than the U.S. and import as much oil as the U.S. does today. Dependence on oil means dependence on the Middle East, home to 70% of the world's proven reserves. With 60% of its oil imports coming from the Middle East, China can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines of the tumultuous region. Its way of forming a footprint in the Middle East has been through providing technology and components for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to unsavory regimes in places such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. A report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group created by Congress to monitor U.S.-China relations, warned in 2002 that "this arms trafficking to these regimes presents an increasing threat to U.S. security interests in the Middle East." The report concludes: "A key driver in China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade." Optimists claim that the world oil market will be able to accommodate China and that, instead of conflict, China's thirst could create mutual desire for stability in the Middle East and thus actually bring Beijing closer to the U.S. History shows the opposite: Superpowers find it difficult to coexist while competing over scarce resources. The main bone of contention probably will revolve around China's relations with Saudi Arabia, home to a quarter of the world's oil. The Chinese have already supplied the Saudis with intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and they played a major role 20 years ago in a Saudi-financed Pakistani nuclear effort that may one day leave a nuclear weapon in the hands of a Taliban-type regime in Riyadh or Islamabad. Since 9/11, a deep tension in U.S.-Saudi relations has provided the Chinese with an opportunity to win the heart of the House of Saud. The Saudis hear the voices in the U.S. denouncing Saudi Arabia as a "kernel of evil" and proposing that the U.S. seize and occupy the kingdom's oil fields. The Saudis especially fear that if their citizens again perpetrate a terror attack in the U.S., there would be no alternative for the U.S. but to terminate its long-standing commitment to the monarchy — and perhaps even use military force against it. The Saudis realize that to forestall such a scenario they can no longer rely solely on the U.S. to defend the regime and must diversify their security portfolio. In their search for a new patron, they might find China the most fitting and willing candidate. The risk of Beijing's emerging as a competitor for influence in the Middle East and a Saudi shift of allegiance are things Washington should consider as it defines its objectives and priorities in the 21st century. Without a comprehensive strategy designed to prevent China from becoming an oil consumer on a par with the U.S., a superpower collision is in the cards. The good news is that we are still in a position to halt China's slide into total dependency. Unlike the U.S., China's energy infrastructure is largely underdeveloped and primarily coal-based. It has not yet invested in a multibillion-dollar oil infrastructure. China is therefore in a better position than the U.S. to bypass oil in favor of next-generation fuels. The U.S. should embark on a frank dialogue with China, conveying to the Chinese the mutual benefits of circumventing oil and offering any assistance required to curb China's growing appetite for it. A shift from oil into other sources of transportation energy — such as bio-fuels or coal-based fuels, hydrogen and natural gas — could prevent future conflict and foster unprecedented Sino-American cooperation with significant economic benefits for both countries. The Chinese would probably leapfrog oil if they could. Dependency of any kind is foreign to their culture. But without substantial American technological support, China is likely to follow the path of least resistance and become a full-fledged oil economy. Failure to address the issue with the utmost care would undercut all of today's costly efforts by the U.S. to reform and stabilize the Middle East. This explosive, complex region cannot accommodate two major powers competing not only over a barrel but also over the hearts, minds and allegiance of its people. link
i'm thinking there will be enough technological advancement in the next 25 years to reduce the dependence of the developed world on oil. or maybe i'm just hoping that!
No, simply it's oil that can affordably be recovered by todays standards. By 2050, our definition of affordably recovered will have changed from both ends - the sources(new innovations in old fields, new fields) and the sinks(higher price may be acceptable).
That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever read. To encourage the Chinese to skip to the next generation of fuel while entrenching our own dependency on oil? This guy must be CHINESE! Besides, China is much more likely to go to war with Russia (Siberia) or the rest of Southeast Asia (Spratley's) for oil than with us over the US. They don't even have the capability to engage in the ME.
"If there was a war, the US would destroy China. We should just annex the entire Middle East." That has to be the dumbest thing I have heard in a while.
In thirty years, fusion will become the main energy source. Right now, China can have controlled fusion for 4 and half minutes. In Europe, they just claimed a 6 minute long controlled fusion. It is under discussion where to build a new fusion facility, either in Japan or in France.
US has been fighting international law to the rights to manganese nodules (energy rich rocks at the bottom of the sea) but other countries want to make it a world resource for poorer nations. US says, screw it, i'll just invade a few nations every few years, that'll feed my H2 (and my ego). at least china has taken steps to force fuel restrictions, their current regime is more environmentally conscious than ours at the moment. never in a hundred years will you see congress approve a bill that forces fuel restrictions on our big cars. edit-oh yeah, i think its a little premature, too speculative and unscholarly to say that a war will break out over energy problems in thirty years. from a guy who doesn't know how wars start, I'm going to take his speculation with a grain of salt.
Even been to China? I would say it was one of the most polluted countries around. Fuel restrictions only force people to buy ****box deathtraps that people obviously do not want. Let the marketplace decide. As for the thing about the nodules, if we have the means that the world lacks to go get them, more power to us. As for China, they are steadily catching up to us in terms of both their abilities to wage a conventional war. Their nukes (thanks to secrets stolen from our labs during the Clinton admin) are much more potent and now more accurate (thanks to the Clinton's allowance of the export of sensitive rocketry and satellite technology to the Chicoms for campaign donations). Their navy is steadily on its way to going from a littoral (coastal) to a blue-water (global) power, lacking only an aircraft carrier or two. Their air force now has leapfrogged years of R & D to field aircraft of rough quality to ours (that's why we need the F-22 Raptor). Their army has shrunk, but has increased the quality of its equipment and troops and now possesses tanks and APC's equivalent to ours. So we should continue modernizing our aging forces in preparation for the unfortunate day the Chicoms decide to rumble, starting in Taiwan. I'm not going to say we'll clean their clocks, but I think that our training and technology will carry the day.
Wouldn't make more sense to invest more in Hydrogen and Fussion energy than fight a global war over a finite resource? The costs are probably comprable and in one case millions of people die and in the other you provide future generations. Side note: It seems like developing fussion and Hydrogen should be a lot higher prority than going to Mars or even going back to the moon. I'm all for completeing the space station mission, there are any myriad of benefits it can provide in the near future but we still have a couple of billion years before leaving Earth become a compelling need.
yes, ive been to China, lived there for two years, in fact. yes its polluted, but if youve been there 7 years before and checked it out again, you can tell its been getting cleaner, both shanghai and beijing had LA weather a while back, now its a little better, at least they are improving their environment. you have to keep in mind that the last 20 years have been their industrial revolution. as far as cars, i did a study on their consumer market, and generally, excluding businesses, their isnt a market for big SUVS. its pretty naive to believe that any car that is fuel efficient is a ****box deathtrap. their nukes, which were sold by our own scientists, are ok but they dont have the accuracy that you claim, their land force cant hold a stick to ours. their navy and airforce is getting better, and when europe drops the arms embargo, it will improve more, but they dont plan to get an aircraft carrier in the future, and they have no bombers. they have fighters and subs and a few old destroyers, that makes them at the moment, primarily defensive. now, if you also look at the changes in their policy, they are trying to avoid a confronation with the US, they dont criticize the US nearly as much as before because of a policy change to improve relations with the US and to prevent any type of confrontations because they know that their military is not even close. so i wouldnt even think of a war happening, unless we plan to start one, because they dont want to fight (unless taiwan is involved).
Actually this is a perfect scenario... By <i>encouraging</i> China to be dependant on Middle Eastern oil, the GOVERNMENT can ensure that the Oil Companies (who we all know <i>really</i> run the country) can still satiate their greed by selling to the Chinese. In the meantime the GOVERNMENT can trade their plans for cars that run on water (that we all know they've been keeping secret to make their oil buddies rich) to the Automobile industry in return for large campaign contributions. Everyone wins! The oil companies stay rich by selling to China and GOVERNMENT can come across as environmentally sensitive by releasing their well kept water-as-fuel technology to the grateful masses.
