The right way to think about oil
The problem is not that there is too little oil, but that it is in the wrong place
By Joseph Nye
Tuesday, Feb 21, 2006,Page 9
In his recent State of the Union address, US President George W. Bush declared, "America is addicted to oil." He announced a program of energy research that would reduce US oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent over the next two decades. But even if his program succeeds, it will not do much to increase the US’ energy security. The US gets only a fifth of its oil from the Persian Gulf.
The US is not alone in worrying about oil as a security problem. China and India, the two largest countries in the world, realize that their high rates of economic growth also depend upon foreign oil. While the two countries together consume slightly less than half as much oil as the US, their consumption is increasing faster. When poor countries consume as much per capita as rich countries, will there be enough oil to go around?
China and India have been crisscrossing the globe making financially and politically costly deals to try to lock up the output of new oil-producing countries. For example, when Western countries discouraged their oil companies from dealing with Sudan’s government because of its inadequate response to the genocide in Darfur, China was quick to buy up the country’s oil.
Some petroleum experts argue that world oil production will peak in a decade or so. Others reply that new discoveries and improved technologies for extracting oil from existing fields make such projections too alarmist. Because accurate statistics about reserves in countries like Saudi Arabia are not available, it is impossible to settle the dispute definitively.
`Oil supply is likely to be vulnerable to political disruptions long before issues arise from overall scarcity of supply.’
But the majority of experts agree that the world will not run out of oil anytime soon — even with growing Chinese and Indian demand. Over a trillion barrels of reserves have been proven and more are likely to be found.
In any case, arguments about the size of world oil reserves and when global production will peak misses the key security issue. The heart of the problem is not the overall quantity of oil, but its location. Two-thirds of proven reserves are in the Persian Gulf, one of the world’s most volatile regions.
Oil supply is likely to be vulnerable to political disruptions long before issues arise from overall scarcity of supply. For China and India, that just reinforces their desire to lock up oil supplies from countries outside the Persian Gulf. Similarly, it led Bush to his declared objective of cutting imports from the region by 75 percent over the next two decades.
At first glance, Bush’s task looks easy. The US uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day, and imports about 2.5 million of it from the Persian Gulf. Even before new technologies produce that amount of fuel, the US could switch to imports from Nigeria, Venezuela and other countries. But even if those countries remain stable, the US will not be safe. What matters is the total amount of oil a country imports, not where it comes from.
Suppose there is a crisis in the Persian Gulf over Iran’s efforts to get nuclear weapons. Iran has threatened to cut oil exports if the UN Security Council imposes sanctions against it for violating its nuclear pledges. Most experts predict that such a move would drive the price of oil — including the Venezuelan, Nigerian, and other oil that the US, China, and India consume — above US$100 per barrel. The rapid spike in prices would harm all economies that import oil, regardless of where it comes from.
The world learned that lesson following the 1973 Arab-Israel war. Arab oil-exporting countries embargoed oil sales to the US and the Netherlands to punish them for their support of Israel. But the oil destined for the US and the Netherlands was shifted to other countries like Japan, while oil destined for other countries found its way to the US and the Netherlands. Oil is a fungible commodity, and markets clear at a common price. When the dust settled, it turned out that US, Dutch, and other importers all suffered roughly the same degree of shortfall and paid the same damaging high price.
This means that China and India are deluding themselves if they think that preferential deals for Sudanese or Iranian oil will provide them with security. When a disruption occurs, China, India, and the US will all find that they face equal prices — and thus equal pain. In the meantime, China’s mercantilist misunderstanding of markets means that it often overpays for what it mistakenly thinks is energy security.
Bush is similarly mistaken. Even if he cuts imports from the Middle East, the US will not enjoy energy security unless it curbs its overall thirst for oil. In the past, rising prices helped slow oil consumption in the US. The US uses only half as much oil per dollar of production as it did before the price spikes of the 1970s. But over half the oil Americans use goes for driving cars and trucks. The US will not solve its energy security problem until it gets better at fuel economy, possibly by a combination of technology, gasoline taxes, and regulations.
Oil was not the cause of the Iraq War in the simplistic sense that US control of Iraqi oil would make it more secure. The world’s dependence on Persian Gulf oil means that all countries have an interest in maintaining stability in that region, while improving energy efficiency and increasing the diversity of their overall energy supplies.
Joseph Nye, a former assistant US secretary of defense, is a professor at Harvard University.
Is handwriting a dying art?
With Computers, e-mails, text message and chip-and-pin technology taking over, the days of handwriting appear to be numbered
By Stuart Jeffries
THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
Sunday, Feb 19, 2006,Page 9
Actor Patrick McGoohan’s words are becoming less and less true as technology extends its cheerless remit.
"I am not a number," he declared in the cult TV series The Prisoner, "I am a free man."
But increasingly we are numbers — digitized and quantified, rewritten as algorithms and asked for our personal codes to confirm who we are before call center workers will deign to bandy words with us. As if to prove the point, from last Tuesday morning in the UK anyone with a chip and pin card will be obliged to use their pin number and not their signature when making a purchase.
It seems odd that the powers-that-be have used Valentine’s Day as the deadline for their unromantic automatization project. Who, after all, writes poetry about pin cards? Let’s have a go. "Roses are red, violets are blue, my pin number is 3, 5, 4, 2." (It isn’t, incidentally. I’m not that daft.)
Rather than sinuous penmanship, our identities are increasingly confirmed by numbered sequences that have been imposed on us. And, if signatures are becoming increasingly irrelevant, what then is the future for handwriting in a world when (according to a new Lloyds TSB Insurance survey) one in three children has a computer in the bedroom, many more are accustomed to writing on them at home and school and, if I had a penny for every time I have heard or read parents and teachers bemoaning the poor state of pupil’s handwriting, I would have enough for a ?335 Mont Blanc Meisterstuck fountain pen in precious resin with a gold-plated finish?
Last Monday afternoon I received a lovely letter from a correspondent that began: "Please forgive scribbled note. I can no longer type." But why, with all due respect, should anyone ask forgiveness when favoring me with the personal touch of their penmanship? When did typing become better than handwriting? (To which question an irritatingly good reply is: If you’re so clever, why didn’t you write this article by hand?)
Our very personalities seem to be slipping away when it comes to determining our identities. True, even signatures can be hellishly commodified (think of how Picasso’s signature became the imprimatur of the boring Citroen people carrier), but they do at least remain distinctive to each of us, and an expression, whether we understand it or not, of some aspect of our character. As the Web site for the British Institute of Graphology says on its home page: "As a child you were taught to write. Why don’t you continue to write the way you were taught?"
The fact that you don’t, it postulates, is the reason graphology exists.
Elaine Quigley, psychologist and chairwoman of the institute, says: "Pen and paper will always be necessary. Everything changes but I think writing will survive."
She would say that, wouldn’t she? Her discipline depends on people disclosing their personalities via handwriting.
The death of handwriting has been greatly exaggerated, says Patricia Lovett, fellow of the Calligraphy and Lettering Arts Society.
"When the telephone was invented, for example, it was thought that there would be no need for writing, then this was repeated with the invention of the typewriter, again with the computer, fax machine, e-mails and, recently, texting. At each stage some have suggested that this would result in the demise of the need to write by hand. Yet so far, this has not been the case. Even though some people may find typing easier than handwriting, putting pen to paper is something that children need to learn to do," she says.
But why, when we have so many other means of communicating? Lovett imagines a time when the electricity is down, your palm-held is on the blink, there is no sun to recharge the batteries and something essential needs to be written down. What is to be done — employ a scribe? I don’t think so.
Sumerian merchants were the first to codify their transactions in a recognizable script more than 5,000 years ago. They were alone in this discovery, archaeologists have long claimed, though some new evidence suggests the Egyptians were developing pictorial hieroglyphics independently at the same time.
The less prosaic version is to be found in Plato’s Phaedrus, where Socrates tells the story of a god who offers an Egyptian king a miraculous aid to frail human memory. The king is skeptical, as is Socrates who warns that writing will replace memory and argues that the truth that lives in the human soul will be dissolved in its translation into ambiguous inscription. (Ironically, as Jacques Derrida pointed out, we only know of Socrates’ skeptical thoughts about writing because Plato wrote them down.)
The Sumerians used a stylus and wet clay to record the ingredients for beer. The endlessly inventive outpouring of human writing thus grew out of commercial necessity. Since then, the history of writing is one of a virulent spread of the written word, such as India’s 200 different scripts, or Japanese which has three scripts and thousands of characters. But the story also cannot miss the wholesale erasure of written cultures. The Spanish destruction of Mayan civilization meant the loss of thousands of documents; only four codices survive.
According to Steven Roger Fischer, author of A History of Writing, Hitler decreed that the Latin script should replace the Gothic, which had hitherto been a symbol of Germanic identity. Gothic was described by the Nazis as a "Jewish script," but quite possibly, behind this racist rhetoric were practical considerations: Latin script was easier to write.
In Britain, Latin handwriting styles were popularized in the first writing manual in the 1570s. Early Victorians used a copperplate style with thick and thin strokes, but later in the 19th century, the "Vere Foster civil service" hand was most frequently taught in schools. Only in the 1930s was the semi-cursive or joined-up style known as round hand developed. Most schools now teach a variant of this.
But there are other national handwriting cultures. Different national forms of handwriting are distinctive — British, French and American schoolchildren, for instance, write in entirely distinct ways. In France an ideological row over handwriting erupted in 2002 when the education minister, Jack Lang, decided to stop teaching French children the traditional baroque handwriting because he claimed it had resulted in loss of legibility at speed and the failure of some disadvantaged secondary students to write at all.
Today, Latin script’s global dominance is intensified not just by the global stranglehold of English but because of computers. Times New Roman is everywhere because it is Microsoft’s default typeface.
Writing and handwriting have grown apart. Brian Dillon, lecturer in English at the University of Kent, England, writes in his review of Fischer’s book: "In a world in which most of our handwriting is as unreadable as ancient Sudanese, writing dominates as never before in the form of a technological specter: Plato’s `dream-image.’"
If that is the case, what is the future for handwriting? What, really, is the point of teaching our children to write, when most writing can be word processed and voice recognition technology can turn speech into text? There is a very interesting discussion of just this at the Basic Skills Agency Web site (www.basic-skills.co.uk/site/page.php?cms=2&p=1687), a discussion whose chosen medium, one might think, proves the skeptic’s point.
One correspondent, Alan Wells, bemoans his own handwriting, before writing: "My point is, does it matter? I’ve had two chairman [sic] who were major industrialists, neither of whom had handwriting better than mine. It didn’t seem to stop them rising to the top in business even though much of their rise must have been before the introduction of the word processor. So is it worth schools spending endless time on handwriting when it seems to matter less and less? Could the time not be spent better? And so long as we have access to word processors why bother?"
Quigley, though, is convinced that writing is a skill we will always need, saying," There are lots of reasons to write. If you have a shopping list to write for example, or a note for a milkman."
Personally, I don’t know when I last had a milkman, still less when I last left him a billet-doux. A more persuasive argument for the maintenance of handwriting is surely that, as students learn this skill, they are building other developmental skills such as sequential memory and fine motor ability. These fundamental skills assist students in other essential academic areas such as maths.
There is also a strong aesthetic argument: We shouldn’t neglect the sheer beauty of which handwriting is capable.
As Rosemary Sassoon, author of Handwriting: The Way to Teach It, says: "Handwriting is an imprint of the self on the page."
The national curriculum, in any event, now stresses handwriting skills. The four criteria of the Statutory Assessment Tests’ (SATs) level two handwriting test are legibility, consistency in size and spacing of letters, flow and movement and a confident personal style. But there is a problem.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that young children have fewer opportunities for developing pre-writing skills, such as balance, hand-eye coordination and muscle control, which can themselves be critical in developing good handwriting ability as the child grows.
"Doing jigsaws, modeling clay or stacking saucepans inside one another helps to develop these skills, but time spent on such activities is decreasing in favor of more passive pursuits such as watching TV," contends Beverly Scheib of the Institute of Education, a special-needs consultant and handwriting specialist.
It is not only later in life, it seems, that technology is a threat to writing development. Indeed, as reading levels have improved in recent years, writing skills have not. The UK’s Department for Education and Skills, which set up a National Literacy strategy in 1998, has noted that even though reading skills rose subsequently, writing did not until a concerted program was subsequently devoted to it.
Thus, even as some disparage handwriting, the British government is refusing to let it become a minority interest along with other skills such as scrimshaw or horse riding. And not only the government.
In May, for instance, a UK National Handwriting Competition will take place and thousands of children’s handwriting skills will be judged for legibility, flow, consistency, individuality, layout and tidiness.
Perhaps this is one of those competitions for children that does not require rote performances. Perhaps handwriting’s obituary has been typed too soon. We may not be numbers after all.