Apart from completing some personal matters offline, I have just the revisions for one of the seven Entries in Section Six as of this Blog post. The Entry in question is related to the details surrounding the Work-Standard’s Real Trade Agreement (RTA). If all goes well, I should be able to get the rest of Section Six done by tomorrow.
In the meantime, I should mention that I have been thinking about how best to go about finishing the seventh and final Entry in Section Six, which is related to “World Reserve Currencies.” One topic which I feel deserves mention in the Second Edition concerns the “Petrodollar Recycling,” which is the idea that nations driven on Petroleum exportation are dependent on the US Dollar for much of their economic livelihoods. Since the world is officially planning to abandon Petroleum over the long term, can we really be convinced that the Fractional-Reserve Banking System behind Petrodollar Recycling will also be phased out as well? Is it possible for us to envisage, so long as the US Dollar remains the World Reserve Currency, the Liberal Capitalists repurposing Petrodollar Recycling toward the two leading alternative fuels poised to replace Petroleum, “Electricity” and “Biofuels?”
Of course, we should be concerned about Climate Change, but we should also be realistic about those alternatives being proposed to phase out Petroleum.
My criticism of Electric Vehicles (EVs) is similar to the same problem that I have with Cryptocurrencies. They are only practical whenever and wherever there is a stable source of electrical power available. If a large majority of a given country’s motorists are all driving EVs, there is always the risk of overburdening the national electrical power grid, which will become problematic if that same power grid suffers from poor funding, is not sufficiently advanced enough or is never given enough repairs to facilitate the influxes of people recharging their EV. And let’s not forget about the potential vulnerabilities to cybercrime and cyberterrorism: a well-placed Logic Bomb from a disciplined computer hacker is bound to ruin somebody’s commute.
As for Biofuels, it relies on converting a portion of agricultural production to into an alternative fuel source. The problem with that approach is related to the issue of Synthetic Fertilizers, which are manufactured from Petrochemicals and are essential to maintaining the necessary crop yields to sustain a large nation. It is also impractical in a world already fighting Climate Change due to the increased risks of droughts and extreme weather patterns. Besides, how many forests are going to be destroyed to facilitate this route?
Notice that I am not citing “cost” as part of my criticisms against them. The same can also be said for the Work-Standard’s advocacy of “Carbon-Neutral Synthetic Fuels,” which is really the biggest objection to its implementation. To be fair, the “cost” is an excuse to avoid innovating toward this direction because it has the potential of allowing any country to truly break free from the Petrodollar. Entire industries and enterprises have the potential within their own economic activities to become actual fuel sources, which is very similar to what the Work-Standard is advocating in the realm of Financial Technology! Can “Electricity” and “Biofuels” claim the potential of taking Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide emissions from our atmosphere and turn them into plastics? Have we forgotten that we depend on plastics that are even created from Petroleum products?
Leave a Reply