{"id":9940,"date":"2011-12-06T22:16:07","date_gmt":"2011-12-07T06:46:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/?p=9940"},"modified":"2011-12-06T22:16:07","modified_gmt":"2011-12-07T06:46:07","slug":"michael-klare-playing-with-fire-obama%e2%80%99s-risky-oil-threat-to-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/?p=9940","title":{"rendered":"Michael Klare: Playing With Fire – Obama\u2019s Risky Oil Threat to China"},"content":{"rendered":"

When President Obama announced his strategic ‘pivot’ to the Asia Pacific region, most understood that it was primarily aimed at bolstering the U.S. economy and containing China. However, in Playing with Fire: Obama’s Risky Oil Threat to China<\/em><\/a>, Michael Klare provides crucial analysis of the shifting “energy equation” for China and the U.S. It explains much about the political, economic and military calculus behind this move.\u00a0\u00a0 He writes:<\/p>\n

The U.S. military buildup and the potential for a powerful Chinese counter-thrust have already been the subject of discussion in the American and Asian press.\u00a0 But one crucial dimension of this incipient struggle has received no attention at all: the degree to which Washington\u2019s sudden moves have been dictated by a fresh analysis of the global energy equation, revealing (as the Obama administration sees it) increased vulnerabilities for the Chinese side and new advantages for Washington.<\/p>\n

The New Energy Equation<\/strong><\/p>\n

For decades, the United States has been heavily dependent on imported oil, much of it obtained from the Middle East and Africa, while China was largely self-sufficient in oil output.\u00a0 In <\/strong>2001, the United States consumed 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, while producing only nine million barrels itself.\u00a0 The dependency on foreign suppliers for that 10.6 million-barrel shortfall proved a source of enormous concern for Washington policymakers.\u00a0 They responded by forging ever closer, more militarized ties with Middle Eastern oil producers and going to war on occasion to ensure the safety of U.S. supply lines.<\/p>\n

In 2001, China, on the other hand, consumed only five million barrels per day and so, with a domestic output of 3.3 million barrels, needed to import only 1.7 million barrels.\u00a0 Those cold, hard numbers made its leadership far less concerned about the reliability of the country\u2019s major overseas providers — and so it did not need to duplicate the same sort of foreign policy entanglements that Washington had long been involved in.<\/p>\n

Now, so the Obama administration has concluded, the tables are beginning to turn.\u00a0 As a result of China\u2019s booming economy and the emergence of a sizeable and growing middle class (many of whom have already bought their first cars), the country\u2019s oil consumption is exploding.\u00a0 Running at about 7.8 million barrels per day in 2008, it will, according to recent projections<\/a> by the U.S. Department of Energy, reach 13.6 million barrels in 2020, and 16.9 million in 2035.\u00a0 Domestic oil production, on the other hand, is expected to grow from 4.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.3 million in 2035.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, then, Chinese imports are expected to skyrocket from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2008 to a projected 11.6 million in 2035 — at which time they will exceed those of the United States.<\/p>\n

The U.S., meanwhile, can look forward to an improved energy situation.\u00a0 Thanks to increased production in \u201ctough oil\u201d areas<\/a> of the United States, including the Arctic seas off Alaska, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and shale formations in Montana, North Dakota, and Texas, future imports are expected to decline, even as energy consumption rises.\u00a0 In addition, more oil is likely to be available from the Western Hemisphere<\/a> rather than the Middle East or Africa.\u00a0 Again, this will be thanks to the exploitation of yet more \u201ctough oil\u201d areas, including the Athabasca tar sands of Canada, Brazilian oil fields in the deep Atlantic, and increasingly pacified energy-rich regions of previously war-torn Colombia. \u00a0According to the Department of Energy, combined production in the United States, Canada, and Brazil is expected to climb by 10.6 million barrels per day between 2009 and 2035 — an enormous jump, considering that most areas of the world are expecting declining output.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What does this all mean?<\/p>\n

All of this ensures that, environmentally, militarily, and economically, we will find ourselves in a more, not less, perilous world.\u00a0 The desire to turn away from disastrous land wars in the Greater Middle East to deal with key issues now simmering in Asia is understandable, but choosing a strategy that puts such an emphasis on military dominance and provocation is bound to provoke a response in kind.\u00a0 It is hardly a prudent path to head down, nor will it, in the long run, advance America\u2019s interests at a time when global economic cooperation is crucial.\u00a0 Sacrificing the environment to achieve greater energy independence makes no more sense.<\/p>\n

A new Cold War in Asia and a hemispheric energy policy that could endanger the planet: it\u2019s a fatal brew that should be reconsidered before the slide toward confrontation and environmental disaster becomes irreversible.\u00a0 You don\u2019t have to be a seer to know that this is not the definition of good statesmanship, but of the march of folly.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

READ THE FULL ARTICLE<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When President Obama announced his strategic ‘pivot’ to the Asia Pacific region, most understood that it was primarily aimed at bolstering the U.S. economy and containing China. However, in Playing with Fire: Obama’s Risky Oil Threat to China, Michael Klare provides crucial analysis of the shifting “energy equation” for China and the U.S. It explains … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Michael Klare: Playing With Fire – Obama\u2019s Risky Oil Threat to China”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2409],"class_list":["post-9940","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-movements-resistance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9940"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9940"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9940\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9944,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9940\/revisions\/9944"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmzhawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}