Month: June 2017

In his recent visit to Alaska, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke began laying the groundwork development.   He ordered a new assessment of the area’s potential oil reserves.to open the 3% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contained in Area 1002 to oil

The most recent comprehensive study by the United States Geological Survey was completed in 1998, and its mean estimate of recoverable reserves in Area 1002 was 7.7 BBO (billion barrels of oil).  At $45 a barrel, that’s $346 billion.  Most of this oil lies in the western portion, near the terminus of the Trans Alaska Pipeline at Prudhoe Bay.

Development of Area 1002, alone, would fill the Alaska pipeline, currently running at 25% of capacity,  for a minimum of 10-15 years.  Additional development of the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska could add as much or more.  And recall that this USGS survey is 19 years old.  The new, revised numbers could be eye popping.

The impact of this development on the state of Alaska would rival that of Prudhoe Bay itself.  Revenue to the state would soar.  Instead of raiding its Permanent Fund, it could add billions to its principal.  Employment would rise, and property values recover.  It would be a boon to Alaska and its people.

But isn’t the world awash in crude?   The shale revolution shows no sign of slowing down, and Russia and Saudi Arabia are cutting production in a bid to stabilize prices.  Who needs Alaska oil?

As Secretary Zinke said in Anchorage, the United States seeks not energy independence, but energy dominance.  This can be achieved by using American oil as a tool of foreign policy, as it has been for a hundred years.

Our most important ally in the Pacific is Japan, with a navy inferior only to our own.  We have a strategic interest in ensuring it a stable and secure energy supply.  This can be accomplished by selling it the oil from ANWR Area 1002, and NPR-A.

It’s 3600 miles from the Alaska pipeline’s terminus at Valdez to Yokohama, a bit more than the trip to Los Angeles.  More important than distance is security of passage.  The seas between Alaska and Japan are under the total control of the United States Navy and its allies.

The rest of the article is at American Thinker,

 

Students of American history appreciate the importance of the numerous Colonial Conventions of the 18th Century.  Colonies back then had shared interests and concerns,  but had no central or federal government where they could meet and come up with solutions.  These colonial Conventions were the precedent for the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, the First Continental Congress of 1774, and, eventually, to American independence.

Most of us have heard of the Annapolis Convention of States held in 1786, and are aware that it directly led to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  We also know about the Hartford Convention held in 1814, held to marshal opposition to the War of 1812.

The Nashville Convention of 1850 was called by the Tennessee Legislature to discuss the terms and conditions of statehood for territory won in the war with Mexico.  It led to the Missouri Compromise, and ended talk of secession for a decade.

The Dred Scott decision upset this balanced compromise, and as the Civil War loomed the Convention of States known as the “Washington Peace Conference” was held in 1861 to avoid it.  South Carolina, acting unilaterally, put an end to that at Fort Sumter.

In the late 19th century the cattlemen of the Midwest felt they were being cheated by the four big Chicago meatpackers.   Kansas State Senator Frank E. Gillette sponsored a Resolution calling for a Convention of States to address the problem.  Nine states sent a total of 62 Commissioners to the St. Louis Convention.  These deliberations led directly to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

In 1920 six Colorado River states met to try to equitably divide the waters of the river.  At this and subsequent meetings the terms of the Colorado River Compact of 1922 were agreed to.

This is the history of American Conventions of States.  The Phoenix Balanced Budget Planning Convention on September 12th of this year is but the latest in a long and honorable line of such assemblies.  It meets to prepare and provide precedents for a subsequent Article V Convention.

When this business is done it will adjourn.  Will we have to wait 156 years for another national Convention of States?  I doubt it.

Any state legislature can issue a call for a Convention of States, for any purpose.  It’s how they come into being.

Before long I expect to see another Convention to be called by a western state on the subject of the Transfer of Public Lands.  That Convention, like all Conventions of States, will have no legal authority.  But the more states that attend, the more influential its recommendations will be.

Since I believe the Commissioners to the Phoenix Convention will thoroughly enjoy the experience, the next call for a Convention of States will have a good chance of succeeding.  The more, the merrier.

I’m a huge fan of geopolitical writer Peter Zeihan.  His most recent book, from the end of last year, is The Absent Superpower, The Shale Revolution and a World Without America. He’s a very unusually smart guy, and also writes  well.

Completed just after the 2016 election, it’s a handy guide to the chaos that awaits the world, now that we’re withdrawing from it.  I think Zeihan is far too pessimistic, but the nightmare he imagines is at least plausible.

What should have happened in 1989 is at last taking place.  From now on, it’s America First.  The rest of the world, with a few exceptions,  will have to figure out how to get along without us.  We’ve got the western hemisphere.  That’s all we need, or want.

Our navy will still, with its partners, rule the waves.  Our carriers, special forces, drones, and long distance bombers will make us the most lethal military in the world.  But we’re a threat to no other great power, and all the world will want to be our friend.  Ugly Americans no more, virtually every other country on the planet will want our presence, private or governmental.

Zeihan foresees three wars in the coming Great Disorder.  The first is a Russian invasion of the Baltic States and Poland, which he calls the Twilight War.  Here, I think, Zeihan is flat out wrong.  That ain’t going to happen.

As Zeihan admits himself, a Russian victory in such a war would be Punic.  The ethnic Russian population, the only one Putin cares about, is in a demographic death spiral, and conquering eastern Europe won’t solve this, most basic, existential question.  It would just get a lot of young Russians killed.  Putin has other fish to fry.

The second war of the Disorder is a Gulf War between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and this one may, indeed, be in the cards.  We’re allied with Saudi Arabia, now more than ever under Trump, so this would be suicidal for the Iranians.  Are they that crazy?  For their sake, let’s hope not.

The third war is the Tanker War, between China and its neighbors.  The Gulf War will cause an enormous disruption in the oil markets, and shortages will result in military conflict between China and its neighbors.  This is, I think, highly unlikely.  The United States does not want to see this war happen, and will use its oil, and its navy, to make sure it doesn’t happen.  It’s in our national interest.

Active American diplomacy could avert all of these potential wars.  As no one’s enemy, and the one country everyone in their right mind wants to be friends with, we have a lot of flexibility.  We could become the peace makers of the world.

A new world order, based on American neutrality, power and oil. Serving the best interests of the people of the United States.  That’s the 21st century I want.

 

 

 

I think the time is ripe for a revival of the 1960’s in German foreign policy.  Willy Brandt was Chancellor of Germany from 1969 to 1974, and implemented a new policy toward Eastern Europe, which was dubbed Ostpolitik.  This was simply a rapprochement, or reestablishment of cordial relations, with the Warsaw Pact.

In 1970 Brandt signed the Treaty of Moscow, which renounced the use of force, and recognized as permanent the current European borders.  In doing so Brandt gave up any German claim to the vast swathes of land in formerly eastern Germany that were now Polish.

It would certainly seem to me that the time is ripe for a reestablishment of cordial relations between Russia and Germany.  This was Bismarck’s great achievement, which was squandered by the fools who followed him in power.

Bismarck was as smart as statesmen get, and he knew that if Russia and Germany had cordial relations, there would be no major war in Europe.  But, in my understanding of history, the German Army felt threatened by Russia’s growing power, and wanted a war to stop it.  Thus, World War One.

The Stalin-Hitler pact of 1940 would have kept the “peace” in Europe if Hitler had abided by it.  But he, too, was afraid of the Russians, and made the exact same mistake the Germans made in 1914.  Let’s fight the Russians now, before they become too strong for us.

I don’t think the Germans would make the same bone headed decision three times in a row.  So, do the Russians want war with the Germans, or do they want their help in developing their ramshackle economy?

It is in Russia’s and Germany’s interest to get along with each other.  Together, Putin and Merkel could come to an understanding about the future of eastern Europe.  Then there would be another era of peace in Europe.

Whatever were Trump’s precise words, Merkel got the message.  Don’t count on the Americans much longer.  We now have an America First foreign policy, and the Germans’ problems are not ours.  This, perhaps, will convince Frau Merkel to adopt a more conciliatory tone with her Russian counterpart.

Writing in the Washington Times,  Robert W. Merry has pretty much the same read on foreign policy as I put out on this blog.  I don’t think it’s that complicated.  All this heavy breathing and pearl clutching won’t change the facts.

The main fact is that America First is not Trump’s foreign policy, but America’s foreign policy.  It’s what the American people want, and the politicians have to listen.  Trump did, and it got him elected.

Some Inconvenient Truths   U.S. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the 2016 Paris Climate Accord June 1. In the past 24 hours the media has been, in a word, lively. Trump’s decision was an appeal to a base that has hungered for these kinds of dramatic, headline grabbing actions – and the media has not failed in providing the “liberal clamoring” that so energizes Trump’s supporters. Let’s get my personal politics out of the way. I’m a Green. I’ve got solar panels on my house. I recycle. I drive a Prius. I backpack the Rockies in the summer. I would have handled the Paris Agreement differently, but I certainly agreed with its tenor and thrust. I’m part of the whole “Science is Real” movement because of, you know, the Enlightenment. I’m not a normal Green, however, because of, you know, the Enlightenment. I can do math. And that means that I’m pretty good at looking into the guts of a topic and sussing out facts and trends that supporters of this or that movement or ideology often find unsettling. Climate change in general and the Paris Agreement in specific are no exception. As a Green, it might be uncomfortable to admit but the reality is that the market is driving green technology development and application in most economies, especially the United States. If you agree with former President Obama’s statement that cities, states and businesses (i.e. the engines of the US economy) are picking up the mantle of leading on responsible climate action, then the market will ultimately decide how well and how long countries adhere to “green” behaviors.     The real inconvenient truth for those condemning Trump for the Paris withdrawal revolves around fossil fuels. They certainly have problems, but fossil fuels don’t all pollute equally. The new combined cycle natural gas burning power plants that have been going up in recent years have but half of the emissions of coal, and because natural gas is either a waste product out of the shale fields or can now be produced at roughly $2 per 1000 cubic feet (less than half the forty-year average), it is wiping coal from the board. Most Greens hate natural gas because it is cost-competitive with pretty much everything – especially alternatives – but the bottom line is because of shale natural gas the United States is going to meet its Paris commitments regardless of what happens to the agreement itself. With or without Obama, with or without Trump, with or without the EPA, and largely with or without alternative energy sources. Alternatives just are not ready to take over baseload capacity, and until that happens we are stuck with fossil fuels. Despite the rise in effectiveness in and demand for solar and wind technologies, another inconvenient truth is that peak daily demand for power in most places is just after sunset, while peak seasonal demand in most places is after sunset in the winter. That desperately degrades the solar argument anywhere that has high solar variation between summer and winter (like most developed countries). I, however, live in Texas – a sunny location where peak supply and demand line up almost perfectly.     Between cost and recharge cycle restrictions and safety, battery technology needs at least another decade to work out the kinks before it can really start to square the supply/demand circle. In the meantime, it isn’t as if lithium extraction is the most environmentally sound practice; if you like lithium batteries and electric cars in their current incarnation, you have to love strip mining. And always keep in mind that many of the components of your standard cars are recyclable or reusable, but your Tesla’s fuel cells – or at present any lithium car battery – are definitely not. Which brings us back to the Paris deal. It’s unclear what Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accords will have on climate change, because it’s unclear what a non-binding agreement like Paris could do in the first place. Critics of the U.S. withdrawal who note the U.S. is joining the ranks of Syria and Nicaragua are inadvertently making the point for me: there’s no way a non-binding deal that has members as diverse as Vanuatu, Germany, Brazil, India and Congo is going to be entered into and applied equally across the board. That even the big oil companies – the traditional bugbears of environmentalist nightmares – are on board with the Paris deal shows both how toothless it is but also how much industry has already shifted toward reaching the emissions aims it sets out. And to do so with or without a deal. I’ve found it particularly entertaining that many seem to be cozying up to China. CNN went so far to publish a story titled “Has Donald Trump Given the World to China on a Silver Platter?” China being the country that has added more soft coal burning capacity than the rest of the world combined during the past decade. Germany is also often feted as the future of Green politics – despite continually moving away from cleaner fuels like natural gas and nuclear in favor of lignite coal. Yes, Germany has installed loads of solar power capacity, but because the sun does not actually shine in Germany all those panels are in essence giant paperweights. U.S. per capita emissions have been collapsing since shale kicked in; China’s have tripled since 1990. Despite Germany’s PR sparkle, their emissions reductions have far more to do with demographic decline than alternative energy. In fact, German emissions reductions have actually slowed since they started their solar buildout. The booming noise of 10,000 pundits and analysts in what has become standard media covfefe misses the forest for the trees. Trump isn’t just the poster child for an obnoxious new form of politics, but also for a far deeper geopolitical shift that is already past the point of no return. The question is not if China will lead on climate change, or whether France or Germany will pick up the mantle of Leader of the Free World, but the most critical inconvenient truth is that the era of unipolar global leadership is slipping away from us. Love or hate the United States, love or hate the global order, the United States created and maintained that order to serve its Cold War interests. The Cold War is long gone, and now the U.S. – quite belatedly I might add – is letting the order go. We are no longer living in an age where the U.S. has the will or ability to continue being the lead on everything, everywhere, all the time. We’re all gaining insight and empathy into the minds of carriage makers in the face of rising automobile production, or whale oil traders at the dawn of the kerosene era. Everything we know for the past 70 years is predicated upon American-instilled international stability. That’s the European Union. That’s the Communist Party of China. That’s Brazilian soy production. That’s Toyota. That’s the iPhone supply chain. That’s even the Paris Accord. None of them can function without the American-maintained Order. We don’t know how to function during such a fundamental paradigm shift. The end of the Paris Agreement has triggered the ultimate in rear-view-mirror longing. It’s a waste of time to mourn a nostalgic view of what America’s role in the world once was. Our effort would be far better spent preparing for the Disorder to come.     BOOK PETER FOR YOUR NEXT EVENT   BUY A SIGNED COPY OF ABSENT SUPERPOWER   Twitter Website