Book cover.Used only with express written permission

Hard Cover Edition of "Blood and Oil"

Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Michael Klare, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2004.

Klare’s latest book joins his earlier Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict and illustrates the global strain on natural resources; water, timber, minerals, and in the current instance oil and the dilemmas of security and energy policy that it poses for the United States. It is a clear example of “intermestic” policy, issues that are simultaneously international and domestic. It also exemplifies that in today’s global economy, geopolitics and geoeconomics interact in myriad and unexpected ways.

Oil, as Klare points out, is safer to use than coal (carbon dioxide byproducts) or nuclear power (radioactive wastes). Oil in the Middle East is cheap, close to the surface, and entails low production costs. This makes it both alluring and dangerous because of the unstable situation in most Middle Eastern countries. Oil both fuels and drives American industry and the economy making the U.S. strong while increasing dependency and potential vulnerability make it weak. This weakness is the result of an increased need for imported oil (Klare visualizes greater dependence on Middle Eastern oil over time), an increasing rise of anti American civil violence, and increased competition for supplies from China and India. (This may well be the case whatever the outcome in Iraq, a major oil producer.

Book cover.Used only with express written permission

Paperback Edition of "Blood and Oil"

Increasing U.S. demands for oil resulted in a net importation of it after 1972. (The U.S. had been largely self sufficient before that). President Franklyn Roosevelt had made an alliance with the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia in the 1940s.Plentiful and cheap oil drove the U.S. economy in the post World War 11 era. This is shown in sharp relief by the fact that it is the basis of plastics, pharmaceuticals, and textile fibers. It is so vital to American security and economic health and prosperity that Klare contends that the U.S. military has become a “global protection service.”

As an example of the latter Klare argues that the first and second Gulf Wars, the invasion of Iraq in the latter and the subsequent overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government was waged to

1. Bring to power a stable government in Baghdad that would guarantee a free flow of oil.
2. Restore stability in Saudi Arabia (there would be no further need for a domestically destabilizing American presence there which had been containing Saddam) and
3. Put pressure on Iran to bring to power a government friendly to the United States.

DVD cover.Used only with express written permission

Video Adaption of "Blood and Oil"

I disagree in part but agree on Saudi Arabia. There were many reasons for invading Iraq. Can it be proven conclusively that the U.S. did not import any oil from Saddam’s Iraq? There are also indications that American oil companies are negotiating with Iran to develop its oil supplies even as with its European allies it increasingly confronts Tehran over the extent and scope of its nuclear programs. As noted the intermingling of politics and economics on a global scale tends to create unlikely bedfellows of the moment.

President Bush has suggested “diversification” of oil suppliers to reduce dependence on the Middle East. But this, too, is fraught with danger and uncertainty. For example, Venezuela under the unpredictable Hugo Chavez is trying to involve Iran to increase oil exports to China and reduce dependence on the U.S. as a major customer. Recall again that Middle Eastern oil is relatively cheap and easy to produce. By contrast the Atabasca tar sands are in Alberta, Canada, a friendly state and likely to remain so but the oil extracted is quite expensive to produce. The current political-economic situation in Russia is highly problematical both in terms of the supply and availability of Russian oil, the oil policies of the Putin government, and competing customers like China.

Klare’s final chapter,” Escaping the Dilemma: A Strategy for Energy Autonomy and Integrity” makes the case for a move to greater energy independence. He supports “protected” oil, (although as an environmentalist he is dubious about Alaskan oil exploration) and development of alternatives like wind and solar energy, too expensive or unavailable widely in the past. We must seek not cheap energy that has to be protected by our soldiers but a policy more in accord with American values and long term interests.

In transportation, he argues we must place less reliance on high gas consuming automobiles and light trucks. This among other steps he recommends would constitute a “paradigm shift” in our outlook. We should proscribe nay contract based solely on a country’s energy deposits. We must agree not to defend and foreign state or entity on condition of access to oil.(I would support a tax on gasoline per gallon at the pump with some kind of tax break for lower income people and for those who need to drive longer distances with larger loads, often rural drivers.).

He suggests improving oil efficiency, use of nonpolluting fuels like ethanol, greater use of “hybrid” (gas-electric) automobiles, development of hydrogen cell technology, and greater utilization of mass transit as I saw in Portland, Oregon. He would like to see more stringent and less uneven enforcement of CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) standards. These regulations tend to be more acceptable as gas prices rise quickly only to become unpopular, especially with the auto industry when people become accustomed to the higher prices over time. It was said, for example that people bought SUVs in expectation of gas at $1.50 a gallon and were surprised when it rose to about $2.00 a gallon (still a global bargain) but it does not appear that SUV sales have dropped off very much and “hybrids” at present only constitute 3 % of the automobile market. The automobile companies and dealers find “gas guzzlers” more profitable cutting the American standard of living even minimally is not something that many people would accept, except under very dire circumstances.

In time the “free market” will function and President Bush has called for more energy independence as outlined above. But the U.S. military is overextended and the supply of “cheap” global oil is becoming more problematical by the day. Klare’s clarion call and note of urgency is most appropriate and timely.