Customer Reviews

Over a Barrel: The Costs of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence (Stanford Law Books)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was in a political science class when I first heard of the proposition that people go to war over oil. I thought, you don't risk your life for oil --- people go to war to keep from being killed. This analysis of the economic and political aspects of oil use reveals the truth. Having a car comes with costs and consequences that are far reaching. The number one lesson from this story is that we are unnecessarily exposing ourselves and others to war and killing. Advocating for legislation that brings better gas mileage, alternative fuels, and mass transit is a moral must. The book's graphs display the nature and growth of our oil use, the tables sum up the costs of storing oil and protecting it, and the last chapter charts the way out.

If gasoline pump prices approaching $4 per gallon are not enough to convince Americans that U.S. energy policies have been (are currently) ineffective, perhaps reading this book will help us better appreciate the effects of importing over 12 million barrels per day of oil. By expanding his analysis beyond the direct economic costs (wealth transfer abroad, reduction in GDP), to include the policy implications (foreign and military, as well as, domestic economic policies), Political Science Professor Duffield makes the case that the U.S. may well be better served by foreign and military policy decisions to "de-securitize" oil, while implementing domestic policies to reduce the oil intensity of the economy.

The Professor's analysis goes something like this: Oil is a fungible commodity with its price set on world markets. The U.S. is by far the world's largest oil consumer with the most "oil intense" economy - its transportation sector being the most demanding. Oil Imports are a direct wealth transfer, primarily to the Persian Gulf region. Domestic economic policies rely primarily on 'market forces', with a strategic petroleum reserve maintained to mitigate future oil shocks. Foreign policy with its overall goal to make sure that oil will be reliably available, and the supporting U.S. military responses have both direct and indirect costs, not the least of which is the creation of political instability and the empowering of actors hostile to the U.S. In summary the burden of these policies threaten the very economy they report to support; and a total rethink is required.

Now, this is not a new argument, but Professor Duffield does an admirable job of summarizing and sorting the elements, before he spends the better part of the concluding chapter suggesting how to reduce the costs of oil dependence through changes in both domestic and foreign policy.

This book is not a quick or easy read, nor is it a pure academic summary of facts - the complexity of the topic does not allow that, and Duffield is a political science professor whose views do seep thru his compilation of facts and figures. But, this is a subject that is becoming more critical by the month for America, and this book has the potential to inform a very important conversation; a conversation with obvious economic and political consequences.

Dennis DeWilde, author of "The Performance Connection"

This ambitious, scholarly book, complete with statistics and charts on all things oil, undertakes the difficult task of measuring the price of U.S. dependence on this energy source. A comprehensive political and military history, it explains the geopolitics behind U.S. energy policy and analyzes its intended and unintended consequences, especially during today's period of scarce energy. Duffield proposes solutions to the strategic problems U.S. policy creates, even though some of his suggestions are not quantifiable or easily achieved. getAbstract recommends this book to energy and utility company executives, government officials and other serious readers who want to understand the numbers and history behind this international dilemma.

Growing up I vaguely remember having an unlit Christmas during the first oil embargo. My memory works a little better regarding the late `70s gas lines and trying to feed my '77 Trans-Am at $1 / gal. Ahh, those were the days...

So history once again repeats itself - we live in a time of expensive fuel and lots of gas guzzling vehicles. And like those salad days in the Era of Disco, we find ourselves floating in a sea of complaints, shrill demands for action, and many snake-oil solutions.

Into this murky body steps Dr. Duffield. To his credit, he presents an appropriately comprehensive statement of the current situation and recent history. The section in Chapter 5 about our dealings with the shah of Iran I found particularly enlightening. Not that it was much different from how we now deal with Saudi Arabia, but I think most of us living at the time believed our support for the shah had more to do with fighting the Cold War than keeping the oil cheap and flowing.

He is also quick to say that his book possesses neither a deep economic analysis nor a complete solution space, so those who expect a comparison table of optimal vs. actual outcomes or a neat list of possible alternatives should look elsewhere. In hindsight, it's not reasonable to expect prescription from a descriptive field such as political science.

And though it's unfair to criticize a book for lacking qualities it never aspired to having, I would have liked more imagination in addressing possible solutions. The ones presented by Dr. Duffield sound suspiciously like those parroted by our presidential candidates. I presume they got their ideas from Dr. Duffield.

So if a poor layman may be granted the indulgence of presenting his own critique and solutions for the current situation, I'd be forever grateful.

The primary problem with substitute fuels lies in their inevitable production elsewhere. Our wealth makes the development of substitute fuel production such as ethanol more expensive here than in countries such as China. So in essence, we'd switch suppliers from nations with grudges against the West to other nations with grudges against the West. But because alcohol still represents the least painful transition off gasoline, our energy Methadone if you will, why is there no discussion of methanol? Granted, current methods of production use natural gas, but older technology used wood. Wouldn't it be cheaper to make methanol from cellulose, using established technology, than to use special enzymes to break cellulose down to ethanol? Is someone's sacred cow is danger?

And speaking of sacred cows, maybe we should consider four-day workweeks or telecommuting. As with most of Dr. Duffield's solutions, not a perfect solution in which everyone can participate. But my experience driving in Atlanta says the best days for commuting are "bank holidays" such as MLK Day and Columbus Day, which means we have many desk jockeys employed by various levels of government whose services are not needed five days a week. Add to them the desk jockeys employed by the private sector and the theoretical 20% reduction in rush-hour traffic days seems realizable. Drivers would spend some of those miles elsewhere, but probably not stuck idling in traffic.

That said, Dr. Duffield's assertion that our current methods of ensuring energy supplies presents problems both obvious and subtle really needs no amplification. Rather, our leadership and imagination need a boost. If Over a Barrel succeeds in doing that, then job well done.