Alternative Energy May Lead to Nuclear War

Yes, I love to environment. Yes, I would like to move to clean energy, yet considering the unrest in the Middle East I don’t think that reducing the need for their number one export is such a great idea.

It is scary to think of America being “energy dependent” on unstable countries, but are those same countries dependent on American

Traditional definition of the Middle East G8 d...

consumers. A typical environmentalist will warn of the massive amount of oil that the U.S. uses everyday, but I may be more concerned about the Middle East falling into more chaos than it is already present.

As a former Libertarian, I still have much faith in the free market, but reducing the demand in America for such an important part of these countries’ economies harms international trade considerably.

Please comment if this theory is misguided in any way, or if  you have any additional information to add to this scenario.




13 Responses to Alternative Energy May Lead to Nuclear War

  1. Greg Barnes says:

    I agree with you 100% on both your points. We should move towards cleaner energy sources (nuclear for power grids, hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles). Primarily, because of fuel cell technology, this will reduce our need for oil. It will hurt the economies of the countries we buy oil from…. but which of those countries doesn’t despise the USA anyway?

    • Ethan Hill says:

      Thank you for agreeing! The problem would not necessarily result in aggression towards the US, instead it could result in wars between Middle Eastern countries. It is a bit of a long shot, but I think it could be a problem the World will have to face in the future.

  2. roblorinov says:

    Ethan you have some great thoughts on this blog. Myself, I love the environment too and love to hike and experience nature. I support alternative energy as well and we need to really get off of our addiction for Arab oil. Clean energy, I believe, is the way of the future. As for the unrest in the Middle East and America being energy dependent on the M.E. unstable nations it’s a bad scenario. When the Arabs cut off US oil in the 1970’s it proved how vulnerable we are and we should have started to get off Arab oil back then but we didn’t. We are still in the same old situation today. Are those Arab countries dependent on the American consumer? No they are not. At least not as much as they used to be because now they have China which is growing and developing greatly. In fact, China and North Korea has told Iran that they will buy Iranian oil when the sanctions kick in in June in Europe.

    Further, the chaos we see in the Mid East is the result of decades of rule by tyrants. I’ve been saying for a long time now that these tyrants need to go but what is replacing them is no better (ie: radical Islam). The governments in the M.E. make sure that the oil money does NOT trickle down to the average Arab Muslim. Our not buying Arab oil will hurt the powers that be more than the common people over there. The bottomline is this. America needs to become energy independent for our own national security.

    Great post/thoughts Ethan! BTW I’ll add you to my blogroll so you’ll get some more traffic on your blog. 🙂

    • Ethan Hill says:

      Thanks for commenting and adding me to your blogroll! You are right about China and Korea, so it would have less of an effect than I had thought at first. The problem with the tyrants is that when they are hurt they like to take their aggression out on whoever they can gain power from. I will add you to my blogroll as well!

      Best of luck,
      Ethan Hill

      • roblorinov says:

        You’re absolutely right Ethan. That’s the way tyrants operate. They don’t care who hurt them so they just strike out at anyone in response even if those they attack are not the guilty party. You are not completely wrong about the impact sanctions would have on Mid East oil nations. Our not buying oil from them would have an impact on their economies but not as much as before China started growing economically. So there would be some impact but it would be blunted by their selling their oil to North Korea and China which would soften the blow.

  3. The Griper says:

    Remember, international trade is nothing but the application of economics on an international level. and economics is nothing but the application of the law of “supply and demand”.

    when demand for a commodity goes down it will only be as a result of some other commodity replacing the original commodity. thus trade is not effected.

    the horse and buggy was replaced by the automobile. in today’s society the computer is replacing the television as the center of entertainment.

    when addressing the ideas of economics don’t paint yourself into a corner with absolutes as you are doing here. allow for the concept of “innovation.”

    • Ethan Hill says:

      Very true, I did not allow much room for innovation. I guess the reason I didn’t is that I don’t think that the unstable economies of the Mid East can innovate as fast as it is necessary to keep up with other nations.

  4. Doug says:

    Commodity wars the coming thing …unfortunately.

    You’re on target.


  5. willradik says:

    I think it’s definitely a bit of a slippery slope fallacy to say that the reduction of US business for oil companies in the Middle East will lead directly to nuclear war. There are a lot of “if”s and other factors in between. Not to mention the fact that most of those countries aren’t very stable lately to begin with. In fact, many of them have gone through major regime changes and civil wars, which is about as unstable as you can get, recently.

  6. The Griper says:

    don’t confuse stability of governments with economics. economics by its very nature is unstable. economics is always going from a bear market to a bull market and visa versa.

    innovation is not dependent upon stability of governments. it is dependent upon the imagination of the individual to adapt to a situation.

    and innovation has nothing to do with the economy of one nation keeping up with the economy of another nation.

    innovation is a trait of individuals not a trait of collectives.

    • MattyP! says:

      There are several schools of thought that would disagree with this. As a general rule, as stability in a country or region increases, as does innovation.

      Simply put, stability enables businesses and individuals to fully implement existing technologies in their daily lives. Economic growth, at low levels of GDP, is primarily generated by the country’s businesses and individuals utilizing existing technology, because it less costly that creating new tech (innovation). However, in stable (and more economically prosperous) countries, individuals have already, for the most part, implemented existing tech, and economic growth (of the nation) depends on innovation. This is known as the Steady State in neoclassical growth theory.

      Yes, innovation does depend on the actions of individuals, but individuals will only take those actions if the institutions where they live allow for it.

  7. The Griper says:

    well said, tho i would argue that it doesn’t disagree with what i said but adds to it.

    and to add to what you say, your last sentence indicates the importance of “individualism” as opposed to “collectivism” as a political concept. innovation is greatest where the freedom of the individual is greatest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: