World War III is here, but it's not what we expected

Movies and books have often portrayed World War III as either the final chapter of the human epoch or as a new but primitive restart for those who survive the nuclear conflagration. We cannot know if such prophesies will ultimately come true. For now World War III appears to have started with Russia's attack on Ukraine, but without nuclear missiles so far.

Make no mistake. The battlefield for this war is worldwide; it's just that it is primarily an economic battlefield. When Russia attacked Ukraine, the other great powers did not send soldiers and tanks. Instead, they orchestrated one of the most comprehensive economic warfare schemes ever devised.

Measures included cutting Russia out of the international payments system called SWIFT, blocking Russian exports (except most commodities) and discouraging commerce of many kinds with Russia. Many countries froze accounts owned by Russia's central bank and also accounts owned by prominent wealthy Russians. Wealthy Russians targeted by sanctions also saw yachts moored outside Russian territory seized. The value of the yachts runs into the billions of dollars.

In the wake of these unprecedented sanctions, many non-Russian companies have reduced, suspended or eliminated operations in Russia. Here is a list of over 400. Not all were forced to take action because of the sanctions. But companies expected that doing business inside Russia would become extraordinarily difficult and also did not want to get on the bad side of governments around the world participating in the sanctions.

'Rogue states' and the necessity of oil

There is nothing like a sudden decline in available oil supplies to bring out forgiveness in what is dubbed in and around Washington, D.C. as "The Blob." This term refers to an amorphous, but powerful group of think-alike U.S. foreign policy actors both inside and outside of government who have influenced every U.S. administration since the end of World War II. The main tenet of The Blob is that America knows best how to lead the world and it must do so.

The Blob seriously penalizes those whom it regards as a threat to American power and security. The Blob likes to use words such as "rogue" and "pariah" to describe those countries which get on its wrong side. (Many are admittedly run by truly odious regimes.) To get a sense of who has violated The Blob's sensibilities, one needs only to glance at the U.S. Department of Treasury website page entitled "Sanctions Programs and Country Information." On it you will find The Blob's who's who of rogue and pariah states.

With the abrupt drop in oil supplies from Russia in the wake of the Ukraine/Russia conflict, the list of rogue and pariah states is about to get shorter as the necessity of obtaining ready oil supplies trumps any concern about previous challenges to The Blob's narrative.

Ukraine conflict may portend end to current world trading system

At the beginning of nearly every war including the current one in Ukraine, there are those who loudly declare that it will be over shortly and then business-as-usual can resume. They are rarely right. While no one can say for certain what the trajectory of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will be, the economic warfare that is going on alongside it is very likely to destroy the current global trading system.

The last time a worldwide trading system was destroyed was just over a century ago. From the late 1800s up to the eve of World War I the dominance of the British fleet on the high seas and the reach of the British Empire created an era of stability and interconnection highly favorable to worldwide trade.

Then, World War I blew that stability and interconnection apart. Later, the Great Depression led to a global trade war that finished off the remnants of the international trading system. The world did not achieve a trading system that spanned the globe unhampered again until the end of the Cold War—which had split the world into two trading blocks for nearly 50 years.

It is unlikely that Russia will simply back down even in the face of crippling economic sanctions. Things have gone too far and the Russian leadership has staked too much on its position that Russia must have its own sphere of influence free from NATO soldiers and rockets. What the Russians have historically called "the near abroad" must not harbor threats to Russian security, they say. Think of this as Russia's Monroe Doctrine.

The Mars obsession: Are two planets better than one to ensure human survival?

One of the rationales suggested for going to Mars is that given all the vagaries of the universe, human culture would have a better chance of surviving far into the future if humans settled on two (or more) planets. In the abstract, this statement seems axiomatic.

Before accepting this proposal, however, it might be worthwhile to ask where else we might use resources devoted to establishing a permanent human colony on Mars. First, let's examine the logic behind the "two planets" idea.

The logic is simple. If humans have established cultures on two planets, the separation between the planets will generally keep a major catastrophe including an extinction event on Earth—say, a highly lethal pandemic or the eruption of several supervolcanoes—from affecting the other planet. In the case of Mars the separation at its closest is about 34 million miles. At its farthest, the separation is 250 million miles. It is this isolation which offers protection.

So, the question arises then whether something approximating this isolation might be achieved right here on Earth. The answer is that it has already been tried, and it works. The isolation of peoples across the globe was a longstanding fact in prehistory and even in historical times until relatively recently.

Avocado interrupted: Why having enough isn't always enough

The news that the Biden administration shut down imports of avocados from Mexico in response to threats made against U.S. safety inspectors had restaurants and consumers contemplating both higher prices and possibly no avocados at all sporadically.

By the end of the week, Mexico and the United States had resolved the situation to the delight of avocado lovers in the United States and elsewhere. But, the incident illustrates why having enough of something doesn't always translate into ready availability. One incident involving threats to inspectors brought an entire supply line to a halt.

Avocados, of course, have a limited shelf life and so must move quickly from field to consumer. It doesn't make sense to stockpile avocados as they will simply ripen and then rot if unused. And yet, the supply lines for most other things—including ones that have a long shelf life such as computer chips—have become increasingly fragile as manufacturers and retailers have practiced what is known as just-in-time (JIT) delivery. JIT means arranging delivery of what one needs just in time to use it, say, in an assembly process or to restock shelves. Essentially, it eliminates or at least dramatically reduces inventories.

Taking a short break - no post this week

I'm taking a short break this week and expect to post again on Sunday, February 20.

Increased U.S. natural gas exports = higher U.S. prices: Who knew?

Few people noticed when energy reporters wrote in early January that the United States had become the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Now, a group of U.S. senators has noticed and say those exports may be driving up heating and electricity costs for their constituents. In a letter to the secretary of energy, they are asking the secretary "to conduct a review of LNG exports and their impact on domestic prices and the public interest, and develop a plan to ensure natural gas remains affordable for American households."

Who knew that exporting natural gas from American gas fields would raise natural gas prices at home? Well, the natural gas industry certainly knew. In the last decade, the industry was smarting under persistent low prices as it continually overproduced gas into a flooded domestic market.

It pushed for and succeeded in relaxing rules for exports in general and for expedited approvals of new export cargoes and facilities. The U.S. Department of Energy still has de facto control over most natural gas exports. But policy in the last five years has been to assist and encourage expansion of those exports.

Fossil fuels vs climate action: A not-so-hidden dilemma

When crossing the ocean by sea or by air, small differences in the direction you take will result in huge differences in your ultimate destination. Back in the middle of the last century, human society might have made relatively minor adjustments in its trajectory, say, in the growth of consumption of resources including energy, even perhaps deciding that these must level off at some point in the future.

We humans made no such adjustments and so we now find ourselves faced with only draconian choices. But we do not seem to understand that we've arrived at a destination far from the one we imagined in 1950. An example is the celebration in the environmental community of a recent federal court decision to invalidate oil and gas leases offered by the U.S. government on 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico. (It turns out that oil and gas companies only bid on 1.7 million of those acres.)

The ostensible reason for invalidating the leases was that the government did not adequately consider the effect of the leases on climate change. The government could do another evaluation and try selling the leases again. But environmental organizations would likely challenge the leases in court again.

While the effects of climate change are already severe and likely to become even more so, global human society is utterly dependent on uninterrupted flows of fossil fuels to function. And, while climate change activists continue to champion a so-called energy transition to green energy sources such as solar and wind, what they might not understand is that so far, these alternatives have been used to augment human energy consumption. They have not displaced fossil fuels at all. Nor are they likely to in any time frame that matters.

The 'parliament of things': Redefining human

French philosopher of science Bruno Latour coined the phrase "parliament of things" in the early 1990s. He imagined the social democratic order gradually embracing the need to represent in its political deliberations the interests of the entire nonhuman world—animals and plants, rivers and oceans, mountains and deserts, in fact, the entire universe outside the human sphere.

After all, it is that world upon which we humans depend for our very existence. And, that nonhuman realm was showing signs of change even then that could threaten the continuity of human culture in the form of climate change, soil erosion, toxic pollution, species loss and myriad other challenges to the stability of the environment in which humans were enmeshed.

Fast forward 30 years and Latour explains in a 2020 lecture why the parliament of things as he originally conceived it is no longer possible. There is no longer a political space where humans can "agree to disagree," that is, where they can deliberate to find common ground and a consensus.

Techno-utopia unravelling: Why complexity is no longer solving our problems

When we think of technology, we generally think of machines and gadgets that populate our life. For those in industry, the word may mean a process with many steps for the manufacture of a product—products that include things as complex as a computer and as simple as a potato chip.

For the ancient Greeks the word techne—from which we get technology—referred to what they called the mechanical arts—which in our day would be all of industry and commerce geared toward the practical ends of survival and for the support of other pursuits such as sports and entertainment.

While we watch our technically advanced global society founder as its denizens are once again brought low by another wave of COVID-19, we find ourselves stuck in a loop that tells us we simply need more technology. In this case, we say we need continuous vaccine booster shots. And, of course, we need everyone who hasn't already done so to receive a vaccine of some sort. While there is considerable evidence that vaccines lessen the severity of an infection and therefore reduce the likelihood of hospitalization and death, they neither prevent COVID nor prevent its transmission.

What we cannot fathom is that technology is just as often the source of problems as solutions, and that more technology often creates more problems. The technology that allows anyone with the money to fly across the ocean in less than a day is a pandemic-promoting technology. The technologies that enable transoceanic and transcontinental shipping are pandemic-promoting technologies. Even long-distance car rides allow us to spread infectious diseases to a frightening extent.