From oil to development

A friend of mine is flying all the way from Geneva to Miami (correction: he said it's Daytona Beach) to take his pilot courses. Reasons: return trip ticket, visas, course fee, etc., everything taken into account, it is still cheaper to do the course there. Hourly rental including gasoline is about USD 90 .

How wonderful, that is the United States . My high school economics told me about supply and demand - no wonder the U.S. is the world leading consumer of oil: one fourth of the total global oil consumption, or a per capita consumption of 28 barrels a year ( as compared to two barrels a year for each Chinese citizen).

But where does this abundant supply comes from? 60% of the oil consumed in the U.S. are imported in 2002, doubled from the 30% in 1973. Yes, their local stock is running out, and they are keeping it for strategic purposes. So they are increasingly relying on imported oil.

Also no wonder so the "rumour" goes that the real intention of the U.S. in invading Iraq is for its black gold. See Dr. Abdul Hay-Zallom gave an interview to Aljazeera.net in 2003 about U.S. oil interests in Iraq.

Ironically, oil production in Iraq has dropped since the U.S. invasion because local resistance makes production in certain oil fields impossible, and some of the infrastructure is simply destroyed; while world oil prices have gone up. We may have reached the Peak Oil phase. And if we see only increasing conflicts over energy resources, we should not be surprised.

Sebastian Mallaby wrote earlier this week on the Washington Times "The Next Chinese Threat"

Last week congressional bullying drove China to abandon its bid for Unocal... China will redouble its efforts to buy energy and other resources in shaky developing countries. This will undermine Western efforts to promote transparency and fight corruption there, damaging U.S. interests and values far more than a Unocal takeover.

Omitting the usual demonisation of China (We're so used to this already... but maybe one day we can come back to this topic) and the democracy rhectoric (which anyone who has a brain would do anyway), there is probably some truth in this. The congressional bullying and ultimate selling of Unocal to Chevron is definitely against economic liberalistion the U.S. trompeted about. And China's growing demand for energies is not going to be tempered.

It is true that the "development" we seek for developing countries - the lifestyle and consumption pattern of what we see in Europe or North America, through industrialisation and economic growth - is simply impossible given the fossil fuels available on earth. (Remember the U.S. : China - 28 : 2 comparison above?) ; and we are not anywhere near to discovering alternative energies to substitute fossil fuels; and redistribution of resources smells too revolutionary...

That is why we problematise the "growing demand" from developing countries, especially the big ones like China and India - oh, by the way, oil is one thing, don't forget to control your population growth too, otherwise there would not be enough food for everyone! ( look also at how many people on earth are overweight and on regime).

And that is also probably why we keep paying lip-service to the whole array of development discourses.

Categories: China, Development, Economy, Empire, Imperialism, Iraq, United-States