Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil

Steve Ruskin, Special to the Rocky

Published February 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Books

More stories »

* Nonfiction. By Robert Zubrin. Prometheus, $25.95. Grade: B+

Book in a nutshell: Zubrin is a Colorado-based engineer with universal ambitions. In previous books he demonstrated how to put humans on Mars. Now he lays out his plan to get the U.S. off foreign oil. His concern is not the environment but rather our national security; Zubrin is vehemently anti-OPEC. The money we spend on foreign oil fuels terrorism, he writes. So we're essentially funding a war against ourselves.

So, what can we do? His solution is simple: cars that run on alcohol and gas. "Congress needs to pass a law mandating that all new cars sold in America be flex-fueled, . . . thereby creating a huge global market for alcohol fuels." Unlike hybrid or fuel-cell options, flex-fuel technology is advanced enough to be immediately implemented with dramatic effect.

Flex-fuel vehicles will, in Zubrin's strategy, rapidly bring about the following benefits: oil dollars won't fund terrorism; the biomass needed for alcohol- based fuels can be grown by farmers around the world, breaking OPEC's fuel monopoly; the U.S. can provide most of its own fuel; and (a nod to the environment) the plants grown to produce alco- hol fuels will remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. It's win-win-win-win.

Zubrin ends with an analysis of oil and war, suggesting that victory goes to the side that strategically manages its oil. "In WWII, we controlled the oil. In this war (on terror), the enemy does."

Best tidbit: How to choose? Zubrin's zesty rhetoric ranges from the suggestive ("Terrorism: your gas dollars at work") to the inflammatory ("OPEC is an open conspiracy . . . of eleven kleptocracies") to the downright conspiratorial ("Saudi investors have bought enormous blocks of shares in organizations like AOL-Time Warner and News Corp. . . . to substantially influence domestic public opinion").

Pros: Clarity and urgency of writing combined with an engineer's attention to detail make a compelling case for use of more flex-fuel vehicles now.

Cons: The anti-Middle East rhetoric may come across as insensitive, even insulting. Zubrin doesn't care.

Final word: This is as strong a case for the necessity of flex-fuel vehicles as we're likely to get. Detroit and D.C., pay attention.

Comments

  • February 23, 2008

    10:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bill_in_Chicago writes:

    Those Saudi investors buying up U.S. mass media are no joke. And they have plenty reason for doing so:

    http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

  • February 25, 2008

    2:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gwats writes:

    We could achieve the same result more quickly by offering incentives to Americans to get out of those gas guzzlers and buy one or more fuel efficient vehicles for daily use. We did this @ our house and it was one of the best money saving moves we've ever made. Keep your big rig for casual use, save thousands in gas and fight terrorism @ home. Small move, big results.