Let me begin by saying there are lots of good reasons for conserving energy. It saves money, it’s good for the planet, and that’s good enough for me. I drive a small car.
But I keep hearing the argument that we can combat terrorism by using less energy. I can’t quite grasp how that chain of logic works. I suppose I can understand how there would be less terrorism if the entire world used no oil at all. Then the bad guys would have bigger problems to deal with, such as cannibalism. But how does reducing oil consumption by say 20% (a gigantic leap) in developed countries make a difference to the war on terror? Especially since China and other developing countries will quickly make up the difference.
If someone is fanatical enough to fund terrorism, do you think THAT’S the part of his budget he cuts first? What part of “living in caves in the mountains of Pakistan” is compatible with “we’ll only do this as long as the money comes easily”?
And how expensive is terrorism anyway? Their last attack could have been accomplished with Bonus Miles and a few box cutters. Is there somewhere a would-be terrorist on a tight budget who is thinking “As soon as I save enough money for a box of nails, I will complete my exploding belt”?
Your challenge for today is to leave a comment that doesn’t rant about the good reasons for energy conservation or U.S. support for Israel.