Bet You Thought Chutzpah Was A Yiddish Word

Pity the poor Saudis. Please, citizens of the world, take pity on Saudi Arabia and the other oil producing sheikdoms of the Mideast. Think of the wretched fate that awaits them if the nations of the globe actually cut oil usage in order to prevent further anthropogenic climate change.

That's right. Consider how the Saudis will no longer be able to support the march of Wahhibism, the growth of Islam, the life styles of the rich and (in)famous princes of the House of Sand. And, while you are at it, consider the dire straits in which Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, even Iraq, and--gasp--Iran will be in if the West, or, perish the thought, China, decreases dependency on Mideast oil.

Bad news confronts the Saudis all around. It was bad enough when Russian production figures showed that the Land of Putin had surpassed the Kingdom as the number one oil exporter in the world. True the numbers are for one month--September--but the handwriting is on the sand. Then there is the possibility that the Russians have continued the old Soviet practice of juggling numbers to inflate the results.

Worse news came from the preliminary climate change talks in Bangkok. The Saudi delegation came to believe that possibly, just maybe, well, there is a chance, that the developed and largest developing economies would actually agree to cut carbon dioxide emissions. This sort of horrid possibility might, just might, mean a lowering of oil use.

Hybrid cars are bad enough. Saudis gnash their teeth over the increasing popularity and decreasing cost of these gas saving abominations. Along with gnashing their teeth, the Saudis muttered threats against the US dollar, hinting for a few days that they would seek another currency on which to base oil prices. That particular bit of coercion did not last long.

As the Bangkok talk fest came to an end, the Saudis shifted from waving the metaphorical scimitar to begging for alms. Blowing off a report by the International Energy Agency which concluded the Saudis along with the other oil principalities would still make out like narco-traffickers despite demand contraction, the capo of the Saudi delegation, Mohammad al-Sabban, averred the Kingdom would need foreign aid.

That's right, bucko, the Saudi had the unmitigated gall to demand a gratuity from all of us to offset the presumed loss of nineteen billion bucks a year starting in 2012. Mr al-Sabban allowed as how the Saudis were beavering away trying to diversify their economy, but, he commented ruefully, "We don't have many resources."

It's enough to make a fellow cry. Thinking about all those poor sheiks, importunate imams, impoverished princes, starving camels. What about all those fine Islamist outreach programs around the world which have been generously funded by Saudi origin petrodollars? What about the assorted Warriors of Wahhibism around the world? Who will keep up the maintenance of the mosques of Mecca if the bucks slow from the current torrent to a mere trickle?

It is a bit difficult to work up sympathy for the Saudis--or any of the oil producing states of the Mideast, or, to be honest, Latin America or Africa. When the amount of money which has flowed into these places is considered, one question follows automatically: What has happened to all the loot?

Rather than address this sort of inquiry, the Mr Sabban instead alleged that the West was pursing a hostile agenda, attacking the oil producing states under the cover of protecting the planet. He accused the political leadership of the West (presumably including the US) of "reducing their dependence on foreign oil."

Fair so far, Mr Sabban.

Not content at belaboring the self-evident, the shrewd Saudi added, "That means you will transfer the burden to developing countries, especially those highly dependent upon the exploitation of oil."

Well, isn't that just a bloody shame, Mr Sabban.

One might be excused for wondering whether or not the Saudis (and the other oil powered autocracies) have any memory whatsoever, or simply a highly selective one. As a good, down home Saudi Mr Sabban should remember how his country ramrodded the twin oil embargoes of the Seventies. At the time, assorted Saudis and other Arabs invoked the name of Allah and the bounty of his blessings as they employed what was called, "the oil weapon."

While the "oil weapon" did not bring the anticipated political victory over the US, the West, and Israel, it did have two results. One was a new emphasis on conservation, which proved astonishingly successful. The other was the creation of enormous sovereign wealth funds, which, in the fullness of time, scarfed up vast holdings of real estate, stock and bond portfolios, and other forms of investment in the US and the rest of the West.

The conservation measures undertaken in the US and Europe as well as the development of better techniques of oil and natural gas recovery which provided alternatives to the Mideast sources should have alerted the Saudis and their Arab brethren that the day would come when the oil no longer flowed--or was no longer needed. Awash in money, neck deep in investments, the oligarchies of the several oil sheikdoms ignored both the future and the needs of the less well positioned in their own countries.

Perhaps it is the insulated luxury in which the Saudi and other aristocrats live, perhaps it is the nature of Islam with its "if Allah wills" component, perhaps it is simply the expectable short-sighted nature of humans generally, but whatever the reason, the Mideast oildoms made no plans for the future, for the day when either the oil itself or the demand for oil slowed and halted. The Bangkok conference must have rung a loud alarm in the heads of the Saudis.

The future has arrived. And, the Saudis among others don't like it. They don't like it because they have made no preparations for the emerging reality.

Too bad. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

The strongest single reason to support carbon reduction measures has nothing to do with the somewhat questionable science of anthropogenic climate change. Rather it has everything to do with restoring American diplomatic autonomy. Every reduction in the need for oil from the Mideast, or Africa, or Latin America provides an incremental increase in our freedom to act in the world.

Additionally, every dollar that does not go to the oildoms of the Mideast is a dollar which will not be spent in support of Islamism or jihadism. It is a dollar which will not be spent to counter the national and strategic interests of either the US or any close ally. It is a dollar which will not, perhaps quite literally, blow up in our faces.

If the House of Saud or any of the other oil oligarchies are fearful now that the future is upon them and they are quite unprepared for that brutal fact, well, it is not that warning was not given. The demand for "compensation" is not only outrageous in nature, it is unsupportable in fact.

The Saudi king who announced thirty-six years ago that Allah had given the Arabs a sovereign weapon when oil was bestowed upon the Mideast should have known that all weapons can be turned against those who first wield them. This is happening right now with the consequences of the global Great Recession. It will happen to an even greater extent if and when the developed and major developing economies decide to shift from hydrocarbon prime movers to alternatives.

One can be forgiven for looking forward with a fair measure of schadenfreuden to the future when the Saudis can look on as the pumps fall silent and the paint once again peels from the walls of the Great Mosque.

It is, after all, the Will of Allah.

Anybody Got A Glass Of Water?

According to a collection of Deep Thinkers, High Minded sorts and sundry politicos currently assembled in Istanbul we have another crises looming in the very near future. As if global climate change (that's the new approved phrase apparently with global warming having been consigned to the graveyard of yesterday's rhetoric) were not enough, the world's population now has to worry about where its next glass of water is coming from.

The Geek is sensitive about water since he lives in an area which is (at best) semi-arid. Not surprisingly he resonates with the problems surrounding acquiring sufficient clean water to meet basic requirements.

While the globe is mainly water, most of it is either (a)salty or (b) too concentrated in too few places. There are beaucoup losers in the water sweepstakes as a result of the inherent maldistribution of aquatic wealth.

Compounding the problem is the expense involved with capturing, purifying and distributing water to an increasingly urbanised world population. From the earliest days of urbanization down to the present time the provision of adequate water to a city's population has been a major financial challenge.

Of course one person's financial challenge is another person's financial opportunity. This brings into sharp focus the basic dilemma facing the crowd assembled in Istanbul for the Fifth World Water Forum.

The question at hand whether phrased this explicitly or not is this: Is access to water a basic human right akin to access to oxygen or is water a commodity access to which is predicated upon the user's capacity to pay?

In the US as in Europe and portions of Asia, Latin America, the Mideast and Africa, people are accustomed to the idea that the provision of water is a normal part of local government services. Water is or has been seen as readily available and modestly priced. Hardly anyone gives thought to the vast, complex and expensive infrastructure required to make sure that when the faucet is opened drinkable water flows out.

Only after a prolonged drought, the kind that ultimately results in restrictions on lawn watering or washing cars, does the average American think at all about water. Then it is usually with resentment toward those who seek to limit the right to green grass or shiny cars or sparkling pools in the backyard.

We forget (if we ever even knew) that water is required not only for mixing drinks, making coffee, or washing. It is the essential without which plants won't grow, cattle won't fatten and chickens won't lay. The wheels of industry (to use an old cliche) are lubricated with water not oil.

It is the agricultural and industrial usages of water which push the per capita consumption of the wet stuff to multiple hundreds of gallons throughout the developed countries. The centrality of water to economic well being even more than the cleanliness fetishes of the US and other countries constitutes the reason that our usage of water is so much greater than that of people in the lesser developed nations.

The commercial employment of water resources serves to further sharpen the basic question regarding the status of water: Is it a right or a commodity?

For the past two or three centuries the model of water as basic, cheap government service has performed very well in Europe and the US. Overall the US experience of the past 125 years has been exceptionally positive. Public health and economic well being alike have been enhanced enormously.

Our water supply in common with that of most of Europe reached such a level that we have been both worry free and wealthy enough to buy bottled water in oceanic quantities.

As we Americans surfed our way along the never ending wave of fresh, safe, (usually) good tasting water we have been willing to overlook some unpleasant realities. Water shortages are not limited to remote sections of the Sahel or desert metropoli such as Los Angles or Phoenix.

The great aquifers which run as slow moving vast rivers under the American Midwest are running dry. From the northern great plains to Texas the wells must go ever deeper and are ever more expensive. While not yet upon us, the potential of severe agricultural shortfalls and price increases is no longer lost in some far distant future.

The US is not alone in this situation. Consider China. The Chinese government undertook a large program of expanding cultivation in semi-arid lands in the north and west of the country. The idea was to tap underground water. This was done. As was predictable the demands to meet production quotas resulted in over pumping of the aquifers. These have been running dry for the past several years.

As a result China has had to go on the international market for basic commodities such as rice, wheat and corn. The "law" of supply and demand was invoked with the result that the prices paid by Americans for these commodities increased slightly but measurably.

The water-agriculture linkage is even more clearly seen in the Mideast. The assorted oil states cannot raise more than a small fraction of the food required to feed their population. The introduction of vastly expensive desalinization plants has in no way changed this fact.

The majority of Mideastern and Persian Gulf states have no choice but to import the majority, the overwhelming majority, of their food needs. Even Israel, which is a world leader in water conserving agricultural techniques, must either import food or water.

Turkey has put forward a scheme to export water to Israel. Turkey has an abundance of water, far more than its domestic requirements for all categories of use. From the perspective of Ankara it makes good sense to treat water as a commodity and sell it to any and all comers.

Dogan Altinbilek, the former head of the Turkey's General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, is one of the developers of the sell-water-to-Israel plan. He sees it as a vital measure in the prevention of war. He has a point. A very good point. Israel's appetite for water has turned the Jordan River into a muddy ditch and dropped the level of the Dead Sea.

Buying water from Turkey is better than fighting for it with either or both Syria and Jordan. While the Turkish idea may have merit, would it not establish a potentially bad precedent?

The more water is treated as a commodity the more it will be a commodity. The slippery slope starts with the industrial and agricultural use of water. In these sectors the cost of the water can be factored into the final price of whatever is produced by its usage.

Historically water for agricultural and industrial use has been provided by either governmental owned and operated utilities or cooperatives. The costs have been low, often subsidised as is typically the case with American irrigation projects.

Introducing private sector vendors changes the nature as well as the scale of the game. It also greatly increases the risks to those dependent upon the private sector operator.

A fine example of the risk-enhancing nature of private operation of large scale water projects comes from the early experience in California's Imperial Valley. The irrigation which made agricultural prosperity possible in that region started as a private sector operation. The risks and costs grew too great. The private sector investors took their money elsewhere. The government, both state and federal, had to take over the system, improve it at general taxpayer expense and run it with tax payer subsidies for the benefit of the agricultural users.

Private corporations have no responsibilities other than providing a profit to stockholders. That's it. Period. There ain't no such critter as a "good corporate citizen." To assure a profit, corporations will cut services, raise prices, abandon projects.

Put together, these attributes of normal corporate behaviour assure that depending on the private sector for a constant supply of low cost water for either industrial or agricultural employment is a very risky affair--for the customers as well as anyone who relies on these customers for employment or products.

Experience in South America over the past decade shows that privatization of water utilities is a poor bet for residential or personal usage as well. Regardless of commitments, private owners of formerly governmental run water utilities have raised prices, cut quality, failed to improve infrastructure and generally behaved as if they had the people of the area by the short hairs. They did.

Once one leaves the rarefied realm of expensive bottled and specialty water or the narrow field of private, personal wells, the facts militate against the idea of water-as-commodity. This would seem to leave the field exclusively to the water-as-governmental-guaranteed-right alternative.

For the High Minded this seems self-evident. Other than oxygen, they argue, nothing is more essential to life itself than water. True. In principle.

But, there are a lot of places on the planet where there is no water. None falls from the sky. At least not dependably. Not predictably. Not enough in relation to the population. No water sits around in convenient rivers or lakes. Not even in ponds.

If there is water underground, it is deep. Expensive to tap. Expensive to pump. Even with the best of wills, a government cannot manufacture water.

Who is going to force a government to provide water? Who is going to provide the money and technical resources necessary to tap any (presumed) sub-surface water deposits?

Is some overarching body going to force a "water-rich" country such as Finland to provide low cost water to a "water-poor" country such as Mali? The UN? Some new entity--a Global Water Authority perhaps?

Right. Fer sure, dudes.

There are no easy, viable solutions for a very real problem. The problem is simple to state: There are too many people competing for too little water in much of the world.

The solution is not to be found in either the "market" or in some new global mechanism of coercion and control. The solution will require that one of two dynamics occur.

The first choice is that governments take their responsibilities for the well being of their citizens seriously, placing that above matters of personal ego, national ambition or ideological dictates.

The second option is a dramatic reduction in the number of people inhabiting the globe.

Either of these alternatives would require a miracle at least an order of magnitude greater than a mere Second Coming.