Protecting North American Oil and Gas production and how to do it: The pros and cons.

Before I begin my argument here I would like to make clear that it's important for the world to continue to move towards as many alternative energy sources as possible including solar, wind, tidal and nuclear. This is an argument made in acceptance of the fact that our economies are dependent on fossil fuels to sustain themselves and simply will not be able to function without them at the present time.

There is no question that military interventionism in the Middle East has been dictated by the need for oil to fuel our economies and, in turn, this is providing part of a narrative to fuel resentment towards countries like the US, Canada, Europe and Australia that is fuelling terrorism against these countries.

In Europe, the dependence on Russia to provide us with fossil fuels has influenced the attitude towards Russia and a certain timidity in discussing Russia's approach to silencing political opponents of the government there internally and influencing former Soviet States such as Ukraine into submission through cutting off energy supplies.

Similarly we are guilty of abandoning principle entirely in our support of countries like Saudi Arabia in supporting them with arms in exchange for them trading oil in dollars, but also ultimately because while we are dependent on them for oil, our primary concern is the governments there are able to maintain control and stability to allow oil to keep being produced reliably and export it to meet our needs,

The dynamics of global diplomacy have shifted somewhat this year. The boom of shale oil in North America has relieved dependency on both the Middle East and Russia, which is a state of affairs that can allow countries that would otherwise might take a more principled approach to these things, such as more forthright diplomacy and carefully targeted sanctions on Russia to influence the thinking of Putin's government. OPEC has upped production and while this is also impacting Russia, and some argue that this is a Saudi driven move at the behest of the US to impact Russia, some are convinced that it's a move to drive North American offshore production and shale oil and gas out of business by making them uneconomic, in order to reestablish the control of the market by OPEC countries.

It should be observed that if OPEC succeeds in this and production outside of OPEC and Russia is driven out of business then we are back to where we were: Dependent on countries like Russia, Saudi and so on to meet the energy requirements of our nations.

As such, I think countries like the US and Canada, and to a much smaller extent countries like the UK, need to reflect on whether it would be a good idea to actually support shale oil and gas as a necessary evil to make sure that dependence on OPEC and Russia is neutralised to allow us to assert a more passive foreign policy as opposed to the more interventionist one where Western nations are the focus of anger in the Middle East rather than the governments in the Middle East.

As such, I would propose the following: That a minimum price be agreed with the industry in countries like the US and Canada per barrel to allow production there to be economic, and the difference between the global price and the minimum economic production price is paid by government to the producers in order to keep it in business and to avoid returning to the previous status quo. In turn, this could be financed by increased fuel duty at the pumps.

I appreciate that an increase in fuel duty is a very unattractive thing, but I suspect that once the maths was done, it would still be cheaper than what we had before the price plummeted last year. It's also important to note that OPEC cannot possibly sustain this overproduction indefinitely, which will mean they will have to give up their strategy of driving production by more expensive methods out of business. Once they admit defeat, prices production will have to return to more normal levels, the price will rise and production from deep sea platforms and shale oil and gas will be economic again, thus without any need of support.

This also has the added benefit of protecting jobs in the industry.

So there are a few factors to weigh up:
Benefits:

• Protecting domestic production keeps people in work, helping our economies.
• Maintaining domestic production allows our governments to adopt a more passive foreign policy.
• Less of our soldiers get killed
• Adopting a more passive foreign policy reduces the focus on us for terrorists.
• Our societies will be more peaceful internally as a result of being less of a target for terrorists.
• International oil prices will not be entirely out of our control.

Disadvantages:

• Negative environmental impact.

Ultimately though, it's a decision for Canadians and Americans to make as well as the countries that produce oil or gas to a smaller extent: Which is the lesser of the evils? It's up to you to decide. In deciding, don't forget that we're all trying to move away from fossil fuels anyway and I've no doubt you'll all keep pressuring your governments in the right direction anyway.

Cartoons of Muhammad v Burning Poppies

Following on from my argument in defence of freedom of expression, whether or not the expression might offend or not, it got me to thinking about a attitudes to attacking symbols across the board.

On the one hand, we've just seen the murder of some cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo by a handful of extremists for some offensive cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. The attitude of France and the world leaders that joined in the 'Je Suis Charlie' rallies was that Charlie Hebdo had a right to offend anyone it pleased.

There have been a mix of responses from within Islam to this idea. Some have argued that the cartoons don't bother them. Some have argued that they dislike the cartoons, but respect the right of the cartoonists to draw them. Some have used it as a platform to argue for further limits on freedom of expression that would make offensive images of the prophet Muhammad illegal. In response to the last opinion, it's very easy to point at cartoons ridiculing and attacking other faiths, but it occurs to me that there are blind spots in this argument.

In Britain, we have seen small handfuls of angry Muslims burning poppies. This is something I dislike as I have massive respect for the risks our servicemen take serving our nation, whether or not I think our government sending those servicemen into that conflict is a good idea or not. Then again, that doesn't mean to say I think someone should be arrested for burning a poppy, just because the majority, me among them, dislike poppies being burned.

There needs to be a shifting in attitudes away from curtailing everybody from being able to say something for risk of causing offence and moving towards the listener arguing with it or just ignoring it if they don't like it.

There's a nice little quote from the Quran that supports this idea.

And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend. 
But none is granted it (the above quality) except those who are patient, and none is granted it except the owner of the great portion (of the happiness in the Hereafter i.e. Paradise and in this world of a high moral character). 

There's also another popular quote from Christianity that supports the idea: 'Turn the other cheek'. There may well be other quotes from other religions and ideologies that support this idea. Basically, the idea is a very good one.

People finding it within themselves not to mindlessly lash out if they are offended is the way to approach these questions, not to prevent things being said in the first place through threat of punishment or murder. To do that completely undermines the principle that was being violated by murdering the Charlie Hebdo staff.

French and British Multiculturalism and why Britain's Future may be a Silent One

The difference between the way that France and Britain have responded to the questions raised over the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists as a result of the, admittedly vulgar, cartoons directed at the prophet Muhammad, is that France's media has taken the view that because a murder has been committed trying to curtail Charlie Hebdo's freedom of expression by insulting anyone it chooses (and it has been shown that it has drawn no less derogatory cartoons about other faiths or ideas), that the response has been 'someone has tried to force us to stop this, which means that we must keep doing it'. In contrast, in the UK press, the attitude has been very different, with the BBC preventing its journalists from showing the offending cartoons, because of a wish not to offend the Muslim community. The reaction has been similar in the rest of the UK Press.

One reaction from some Muslims has been that they are offensive, so they must be banned. On the other hand, the reaction of some Muslims has been that it's a cartoon, however vulgar, and does nothing to actually tarnish the prophet Muhammad's reputation, thus ignore it. However, the approach taken by the BBC has been, well, it's offensive to some Muslims so it should be banned.

There are multiple flaws in this logic. Firstly, banning it because some Muslims may be offended fails to deal with Muslims as individuals. It doesn't allow for the opinion of the Muslims that are willing to just ignore it as something of no consequence. Some Muslims are angry about it, so you mustn't be allowed to say or do anything that could be considered offensive.

In another area, golliwogs are largely considered off limits because there is a view that they are offensive to black people. That all starts to fall down when Chaka Artwell, who is black, comes along and insists on wearing a golliwog around his neck for a BBC interview because 'this was a popular little guy when he was young' and 'white, middle-class liberal types' had decided his doll was racist and offensive. The BBC didn't interview him because his way of expressing himself didn't fit a presumption of how a black man or woman would react to a golliwog.


The most concerning element in all of this is where it could potentially lead: What if atheists become a 'community', with more extreme elements taking objection to any utterance that forwards the idea that there might be a God, even if more easy-going atheists might not have any issue? Are we then to take the view that some atheists may be offended by anything to do with religion so we should prevent any religious utterances in the media in order not to offend atheists?

This is why responding to anything offensive by demanding a ban is fundamentally flawed. You have to allow for it to be said, even if you don't like it, or the end result will be that nobody can say anything.