Are EVs the Ultimate Weapon Against Terrorism?
By Forbes Bagatelle-Black, EV World
We live in a polarized nation.
Millions of people passionately believe that our current military action in Iraq is absolutely necessary to preserve our national security. Millions of other people believe, with equal passion, that the situation in Iraq threatens not only our national security but the political stability of the entire globe.
Many feel that the money we are spending on our current military actions is a small amount compared to what we would be spending if we allowed the situation to go out of control. Others feel that the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending are only making the situation worse by allowing us to remain entrenched in a conflict we cannot win.
But there is one idea that is garnering increasing support from hawks and doves alike; our nation will be safer when everyone starts driving electric vehicles. EVs will increase our self-sufficiency by allowing us to use domestically-produced energy to fuel our automobiles. A dramatic decrease in our demand for foreign oil would cut off the cash flow to terrorist organizations bent on the destruction of our society. Since EVs can run on renewable power sources, widespread use of them could eliminate the threat of global warming, which would eliminate the associated threats of natural disasters and the political upheaval such disasters would create.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
This is a fantastic article that makes the connection between technology, environment and politics. It should be an excellent kick off for disucussion in the new year.
I’ve started a parallel discussion in our new forum section as well:
http://www.greenerpolitics.com/?page_id=384&forumaction=showposts&forum=1&thread=97&start=0
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
It’s an okay article that simply reiterates a point already known - that, namely, the over-dependence on foreign, especially Middle Eastern oil, is what has contributed to America being so vulnerable…and also, ironically, so invested in the political affairs of that region. Basically, the greed for more oil has led the US policies into deeper and deeper conflict with many people, including with the religious fanatics of the Arab/Islamic variety.
But this is not a new chapter, nor a new development. The confrontation started building 30, 40, 50 years ago.
I actually have a feeling that half of these problems don’t have anything to do, at least not directly, with oil. They have to do with a huge strategic miscalculation on behalf of the US government. As this article states, the nation is divided over Iraq, over the American intervention and armed takeover of Iraq. But Iraq is not where these self-styled Islamic terrorists are…they are mostly in Afghanistan and in tribal areas of Pakistan. Instead of bombing the daylights out of Iraq and then ‘putting the boots on the ground’ in that country, the US army should have pulverized the terrorists and their hosts in Afghanistan and then struck a deal with Musharraf to allow them to go after their cousins in the NE Pakistan.
It’s very simple, Mark. The Americans have been largely misled on Iraq whereas Iraq, so often in the news, has almost nothing to do with the whole war on terror and efforts for global security. By invading Iraq, the US has added a new enemy to its list, instead of efficiently focussing on known enemies.
And that is what infuriates me about a lot of US press, even the progressive side of their press. They act like goldfish, as though nothing real happened prior to 2001, as though the memory in certain places like Iran or elsewhere, needn’t concern Americans. It’s all about “how do we get out of this mess?” when it should have been “how do we avoid getting into a mess in the first place and how do we keep on being #1″.
And then you’ve got the idea of a proxy war. US flexing its military muscle since the Panama invasion in 89′. Always trying to show the rest of the world who is the big kahuna…show the Russians, Chinese, even the French and other Europeans, that there is only one superpower on the block. Kicking ass in Iraq is supposed to be part of that lesson, not so much for the Arabs as for the rest of the global audience.
I should stop there.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:37 am
This simplistic article avoids the fundamental question of how all the additional electricity would be generated. Coal? Natural gas? Nuclear? Electric cars require electricity; large-scale generation inevitably creates pollution.
I’d like to think that a massive commitment to ecologically-sustainable, non-polluting technologies could counter the political power of the fossil-energy lobby. But I doubt it.
As well, many touted non-polluting, ’sustainable’ technologies have ecological consequences.
The bottom line is that there is no magical solution that is going to allow humanity to continue to maintain the present excessive ‘western’ lifestyle without radically directing the planetary ecosystem towards human monoculture.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Well, I think your are hitting the nail fairly closely on the head, Stuart.
A leaner and greener economy, with not as many fossil-fuel based inputs is going to be a big challenge. We are always hearing the David Suzuki -style “10 commandments” type proclamations and ‘easy steps to save the planet’ but it is, in fact, very difficult to do all of them.
For starters, we’d all have to start driving electric cars, or walk everywhere, take the occassional train or energy-efficient bus, and fly as little as possible.
Next, we’d all have to start living in a much more centralized, European fashion (I like that, but our cities are not built European style), adding much more density to our downtown cores and having mixed zoning. Try bending the ear of the planning bureaucracy on that one…
Then comes the whole notion of how far our food has travelled before reaching the plate. I am not a supporter of the ‘100 mile diet’ idea, but I do admit that I no longer buy veggies from California or pears from Argentina (even though they are yummy). Again, the fossil fuel inputs and other energy inputs into our agriculture are tremendous.
And I could go on and on.
One thing is clear - and this is where I agree with you - there is no magical solution, no proverbial silver bullet. My intuition tells me there are places on Earth where people will be able to adapt to climate change more easily rather than engage in mitigation of the emissions, and then there are going to be places where mitigation will be an easier sell than adaptation. Canada, I feel, is equipped to do a lot of adaptation to the effects of climate change while there is only so much we will be able to redesign our cities and how we get around.
good discussion…