More Water in the Aquifers (Without More Rain)

What happens to the water when it rains? If the land doesn't have a lot of plants growing on it, the water either runs off or evaporates. Not much soaks in, so not much makes it to the underground aquifers.

But if there is rich vegetation, that rain will soak in. The life in the soil will hold a lot of the water near the surface where the plant life can utilize it. And a lot of it will soak down and refill the aquifers.

Allan Savory has developed a way for vast stretches of land to be converted from barren desert to lush grasslands, creating an enormous increase in water going into aquifers, and it doesn't require government spending. In fact, the ranchers who do it will profit. And it will produce food.

It's called Holistic Planned Grazing. Here's how it works: Holistic Planned Grazing Has a Huge Impact on Water.

Oil's Strategic Status

In their book, Turning Oil Into Salt, Anne Korin and Gal Luft define the problem of the world's dependence on oil in a way that opens the possibility of a solution. People have identified the problem in different ways, and the way a problem is defined influences how you solve it. Defining a problem incorrectly can produce pointless or even counterproductive "solutions."

For example, do we use too much oil? Is that the problem? Is that what leaves us economically vulnerable to OPEC? Or do we import too much oil? Is that the problem?

Our attempts to solve those problems have led nowhere because the problem we need to solve is oil's strategic status. What does that mean? In the introduction to their book, Luft and Korin write:

Oil's strategic status stems from its virtual monopoly over fuel for transportation, which underlies the global economy and our entire way of life. Without oil, food cannot travel from farm to plate, mail cannot reach its destination, raw materials cannot reach their factories and children cannot attend their schools.

They use salt as an analogy. Salt was once a strategic commodity because it was the primary way to preserve food. It was very important to every country to have enough salt. Without a steady and secure supply of salt, food could not be preserved and widespread starvation became a real possibility. So wars were fought over the possession of salt sources, wars were lost because of a lack of salt, and colonies were established because of salt. Salt was a strategic commodity.

In 1800, Napoleon Bonaparte offered a large reward to anyone who could find another way of preserving food for armies on the march. He defined the problem correctly. He didn't call for a different form of salt or ask how we could do it with less salt or how to make our own salt from something we possess in abundance. He asked for an alternative way of preserving food. The way he defined the problem changed the world.

Within a very short time Nicholas Appert came up a solution — he invented the first canning process, originally using a glass container. Eventually there were many innovations in food preservation including tin cans, refrigeration, freeze-drying, and so on. There are so many different ways to preserve food now that nobody even thinks about it. Nobody worries about salt. Nobody cares where it comes from or whether they'll have enough of it.

Salt lost its strategic status. No wars will be fought over salt any more. No economies will crash because of it.

The problem we now need to solve is oil's strategic status. Right now, 97 percent of our transportation vehicles run on nothing but oil. And since transportation is the foundation of the world's economy, oil has an extremely high strategic status. It is the most important commodity in the world.

But if there were many viable and available fuels our vehicles could use, nobody would even think about oil or would care where it comes from or whether there will be enough. Nobody would worry about it because we would have an abundance of other forms of fuel, and an abundance of other forms of transportation that might not even require fuel.

The quickest way to reach this state is to use technologies already available to us — to use vehicles and facilities we already have, to use car manufacturing techniques we already use, to use liquid fuel delivery systems we already have (but to increase the number of different fuels) — and to have fuels that come from different sources. That's what fuel competition will achieve.

We can make this happen. We don't need every person in the country to convert their cars to flex-fuel vehicles. We don't even need a majority. We just need to convert our own cars, and then encourage our friends to do the same. There are a growing number of people burning ethanol in their cars. Let's keep up the momentum and get it done. The fastest and easiest way to make it happen is an open fuel standard.



Adam Khan is the co-author with Klassy Evans of Fill Your Tank With Freedom and the author of Slotralogy and Self-Reliance, Translated. Follow his podcast, The Adam Bomb. You can email him here.

What Fuel Competition Has to do With Economic and National Security

OPEC is a powerful cartel. The member nations gather together and essentially decide among themselves what the global price of oil will be. They can do this because they control the production levels of by far the largest block of oil producers in the world.

So they decide how much they will produce, and how much they produce determines the worldwide price of oil. What they're doing is against international law, but nobody can do anything about it because a retaliation by OPEC could literally crash the world's economy. They've got us all over a barrel.

The country with the most influence within OPEC is Saudi Arabia because their oil is the cheapest of any of them. Saudi Arabia can produce a barrel of oil for $1.50. That is not a typo. Not only is their oil the cheapest to produce, but they have the largest known reserves.

So if the cartel decides on a particular production quota for the member nations of OPEC, and one of the members decides to get greedy and exceeds their quota to take advantage of high oil prices, Saudi Arabia can raise their own oil production so dramatically that they crash world oil prices by glutting the market with excess oil. This doesn't hurt Saudi Arabia very much — they still make money because their oil is so cheap to produce. But it hurts all the rest of the member nations of OPEC.

So Saudi Arabia controls what OPEC does. And OPEC controls the global price of oil. And the price of oil controls the world's economy because 95% of all transportation in the world — planes, trains, ships, trucks, and cars — can run on nothing but oil. And transportation underlies the world's economy. If goods can't move around, the economy comes to a halt.

That means Saudi Arabia controls the world's economy. And they manipulate oil prices in a way that gives them the maximum amount of income, like a parasite that drains as much blood from its victim as it can, short of killing the host. Saudi Arabia has been reaping one bonanza after another for a long time. They are overflowing with money.

In Fiscal Year 2008, "Americans paid $900 billion for their oil supply," writes Robert Zubrin, "and the world as a whole paid $3.6 trillion. These petroleum costs were up by a factor of ten from what they were in FY 1999, and they represent a huge, highly regressive tax on the world economy."

And it continues to increase. Americans paid $80 billion for oil in 1999 and they paid $900 billion ten years later. This is equivalent to a "33 percent increase in income taxes across the board." And 60 percent of that money was handed over to foreign governments. The reason for this increase is OPEC's deliberate hiking of world oil prices.

"The resulting transfer of wealth," writes Gal Luft, "is already creating a structural shift in the global economy, causing oil importers economic dislocations such as swollen trade deficits, loss of jobs, sluggish economic growth, inflation and, if prices continue to soar, inevitable recessions. The impact on developing countries, many of which still carry debts from the previous oil shocks of the 1970's, is much more severe."

Adding to this transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to OPEC nations is terrorism. Al Qaeda has explicitly made attacking oil supplies their goal, calling oil "the provision line and the feeding to the artery of the life of the crusader's nation." From 2004 to 2008, attacks on oil fields in Iraq alone prevented one to two million barrels of oil from entering the world market, which kept the oil market $20-25 per barrel higher than it would have been otherwise.

This extra "tax" on the economies of Europe and the United States from terrorist attacks on oil facilities added up to an additional $65 to $85 billion dollars a year leaving Western economies. Terrorists have attempted to disable Abqaiq (in Saudi Arabia), the largest oil processing facility in the world. Several attempts to drive explosive-filled trucks and planes into Abqaiq were luckily thwarted. Had they been successful, they could have easily "sent oil to above $200 a barrel for an extended period of time," wrote Luft, "causing incalculable economic losses and a far greater transfer of wealth to Middle Eastern governments."

So OPEC's price-fixing manipulations and terrorists' attacks have given Saudi Arabia a rapidly increasing windfall. How has it used the money? And why should we care?

Saudi Arabia is home to Wahhabism, a strict, fundamentalist version of Islam that is hateful toward non-Muslims and seeks to dominate the West. Saudi Arabia spends its wealth on promoting Wahhabism around the world.

"Until the Saudis started racking up billions in inflated oil revenues in the 1970s," wrote Robert Zubrin, "the Wahhabi movement was regarded by Muslims the world over as little more than primitive insanity. Without rivers of treasure to feed its roots, this horrific movement could neither grow nor thrive." He writes,

It is the Saudis’ unlimited funds...that have allowed them to buy up the faculties of the Islamic world’s leading intellectual centers; to build or take over thousands of mosques; to establish thousands of radical madrassas, pay their instructors, and provide the free daily meals necessary to entice legions of poor village boys to attend. Those boys are indoctrinated with the idea that the way to get into paradise is to murder Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, and Hindus (not to mention moderate Muslims). Graduates of these academies are today killing American soldiers in Iraq. Meanwhile, Arab oil revenues have underwritten news outlets that propagandize hatefully against the United States and the West, supported training centers for terrorists, paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers, and funded the purchase of weapons and explosives. We have been subsidizing a war against ourselves.

Saudi Arabia comprises only one percent of the Muslim world, and yet they are financially responsible for an unbelievable 90 percent of all Islamic organizations in the world! Stuart Levey, the U.S. Undersecretary of the Treasury, in charge of combating terrorist financing, said, "If I could snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia."

And there's more. "Iran is now using its petroleum lucre to fund its nuclear program and to insulate itself from economic sanctions imposed on it," wrote Zubrin. "Once produced, Iranian nuclear weapons could be used by the Iranian regime itself or be made available to terrorists to attack U.S., European, Russian, or Israeli targets. This is one of the gravest threats to international peace and stability — and, again, we are paying for it ourselves with oil revenue.

"Our responses to these provocations have been muted and hapless because any forceful action on our part against nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran could result in the disruption of oil supplies that the world economy is utterly dependent upon. We cannot stand up to our enemies because we rely upon them for the fuel that is our economic lifeblood. We pay them for their oil and they make war on us."

Former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice said, "We do have to do something about the energy problem. I can tell you that nothing has really taken me aback more, as Secretary of State, than the way that the politics of energy is...warping diplomacy around the world. It has given extraordinary power to some states that are using that power in not very good ways for the international system — states that would otherwise have very little power."

The United States relies on oil for transportation. A whopping 97 percent of our transportation vehicles can run on nothing but oil. Therefore our entire economic health is inextricably tied to the world price of a barrel of oil. So OPEC has de facto control over the American economy. This is a perfect formula for national insecurity.

But we can free our economy from OPEC's control with fuel competition. The almost total reliance of our transportation vehicles on oil alone will begin to diminish, and as it does, our economy's vulnerability to OPEC's price manipulations will diminish right along with it. Alcohol fuels will begin competing with gasoline, and the production of these fuels will be within our own control, not subject to OPEC's price manipulations.

It would actually be quick and easy with an open fuel standard. Find out here what true robust fuel competition could accomplish.

Adam Khan is the co-author with Klassy Evans of Fill Your Tank With Freedom and the author of Slotralogy and Self-Reliance, Translated. Follow his podcast, The Adam Bomb. You can email him here.

How Does OPEC Control the Price of Oil?

 In the article, Achieving Energy Victory, Robert Zubrin writes:

To understand how we can break away from oil, we must first understand the workings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the cartel arrangement that has fabulously multiplied the Saudis’ petroleum revenue stream and the power that goes along with it. 
Founded in 1960, OPEC is an open conspiracy in which representatives of the rulers of a dozen kleptocracies (Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela) get together at periodic meetings and decide what the world price for oil should be, and then assign production quotas to each so as to force the price to that level. This is very different from the way business is conducted in a free market, and it produces very different results.
Read more:

Which Countries are Members of the OPEC Cartel?

OPEC stands for "Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries." It was founded in 1960. OPEC members collectively hold 79% of world crude oil reserves and 44% of the world’s crude oil production, giving them considerable control over the global market. The next largest group of producers (members of the OECD and the Post-Soviet states) produced only 23.8% and 14.8%, respectively, of the world's total oil production.

Here are the member countries of OPEC as of June, 2011:

1. Iran
2. Iraq
3. Kuwait
4. Saudi Arabia
5. Venezuela
6. Qatar
7. Indonesia (currently suspended)
8. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
9. United Arab Emirates
10. Algeria
11. Nigeria
12. Ecuador

Saudi Arabia has traditionally had the most influence on the cartel because it has the largest export capacity and the cheapest oil. It only costs $1.50 to produce a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia. So when another member country doesn't keep to the quotas everyone has agreed to (as sometimes happens when one of the countries gets greedy) Saudi Arabia will punish them by overproducing oil and thus crashing the world price of oil. Saudi Arabia will still make money because its oil is so cheap to produce, and it has plenty of reserves, but for all other oil producing nations, the low price of oil costs them dearly.

What OPEC does to control the world price of oil is illegal. They all agree to raise or lower their oil production for the purpose of keeping the price of oil high. As Robert Zubrin notes in Energy Victory, "Collusion by suppliers to fix prices is not only a crime under US law, it is banned by international law as well. The rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) contain antitrust provisions that prohibit member nations from setting quota restrictions on import and exports."

Anne Korin Answers Questions at ACE Conference

This video is thirteen minutes and forty-five seconds long. But Anne Korin answers a lot of good questions. about fuel competition and an open fuel standard.

Check it out on YouTube here.

Are All Cars Secretly Flex Fuel Cars?

When Robert Zubrin did his methanol experiment, he said he discovered that his non-flex-fuel car was already capable of burning methanol except for one part that cost him 41 cents. Other than having their onboard computers' flex-fuel program disabled, Zubrin claims that most or all cars coming off the assembly lines have flex-fuel compatible parts. He had to replace the 41-cent part because methanol is slightly more corrosive than ethanol.

When I first read about his claim, I thought it was outrageous. But we have since tried it ourselves. You can read about it here.

On Jonny Energy's site, they made a similar claim (that car manufacturers use the same parts whether they're flex fuel cars or gas-only) and they base their claim on an investigation by Ohio Biosystems. It makes sense. Why would a car maker use a different part for flex-fuel cars than gasoline-only cars if the difference is less than 41 cents?

Why would you want to burn E85? Find out here.