Off to See the Wizard

There was much hullaballoo when George Bush popped up in Saudi last week, palm out, hoping for a free pass to the end of his presidency. In other words, for a promise to pump more oil. The Saudis, conventional in their capriciousness, turned him down.

But let's not forget the ridiculousness of this situation. The United States is first in the world for oil consumption, with about 25.2% of world demand originating between sea and shining sea. We're headed, according to all predictions, for a serious crisis, considering as this pit is hardly bottomless. Meanwhile, our President is playing the mendicant in a country famous for its oppressive and unpredictable politics, and incidentally, one whose extreme Wahhabi sect has known connections to many of the world's deadliest terrorists (the rest, of course, were once the toast of Reagan's Rose Garden). Sometimes, there is no difference between sleeping with the enemy and being the enemy. Or, in the case of the Saudi royal family, failing to control the enemy and being the enemy.

Nonetheless, assuming that all the reports are true, and we are facing the so-called "end of oil," and that future predictions by IEA and EIA continue to be gloomy (and how exactly is it that in the case of a commodity with a fixed supply we have up until now only modeled based on demand?) In the words of the Godfather, "'What can I do?' What is that nonsense?"

Hence all the hand-wringing. If production peaks before demand, we are in for a serious catastrophe, the proportions of which will dwarf the economic credit crunch and the physical water shortage.

Let me be blunt: my grandparents live in a prosperous suburb of Mumbai, where for the past several months now they get two hours of water a day. Note I did not say clean water, note I did not say drinkable. I said, Two hours of water a day.

Meanwhile, I use more water in two hours than they use in two weeks. To return to the Godfather, an epic that for some reason seems so applicable to the oil crunch, "That is not justice." In another ten years, assuming demand has outstripped production, it will be my grandparents who get two gallons of gas a week, whereas I'll still be eating food that has a negative energy output ratio.

A utilitarian might wash his hands of the whole affair on the grounds that it's working out for the best. Assuming Americans are the most efficient people on earth (a faulty assumption to begin with, for reasons of energy usage and, on a financial level, market failures) then who cares about global access? I, for one, have trouble accepting that one life is worth more than another, but I admit that's how the world works.

Nonetheless, people talk about energy efficiency as if it's a jaunt, or a philanthropy, but Al Gore (not the Godfather) may be right that there is a moral dimension to this whole situation. It is not just a matter of dollars and cents and futures traded on commodities exchanges the world over.

When one person uses a lot of oil, someone else has to go without. That someone else has a face and a name and a life. What does he deserve? It is interesting that Americans, not God, will be deciding the answer to this very difficult question.