for $3.12/gallon? That's why we're not building the new technologies yet. You have to consume the available oil first. Then you go to coal and nuclear technologies. That resource will last 200 to 350 years. Then when the uranium runs out and the coal runs out (and the oil has been long gone for 200 years), then you go to geothermal. You see, we're all sitting on an ocean of lava, white-hot magma. It's 11 miles deep under your sneakers, but consider it an inexhaustible amount of power. That and solar together will be the power sources of the Year of Our Lord 2357. So there's no conspiracy or black helicopters. It's just the money talking, so listen to it.

But after I sent my reply, I kept thinking. As far as Iraq and Iran go, the idea of developing new technologies that will eliminate the need to safeguard America's energy interests with armed force is a few decades away, even with a crash program. And crash programs are generally against the laws of economics.

But isn't it worth the national expenditure if it saves lives? What's a life worth? Priceless, right?

If you were to ask a personal injury trial attorney that question, assuming he's had three or four pops of scotch to ensure his candor, he'd tell you a human life is worth between $1 million to $3 million, depending on fault and the level of insurance coverage. How does the Pentagon view the cost of a soldier? Based on recruitment of scarce personnel resources and the levels of investment per soldier for training, equipment, and support, you would arrive at the same approximate figure, and whenever two different means of finding a number converge on the same answer, it has to be right, doesn't it? (Not really, but let's keep going for a while.) A loss of 5,000 troops in Iraq would equate to roughly $10 billion. Then add in the estimated cost of the war by adding up Congressional appropriations bills. The total “War on Terror” estimated cost through 2007 is $487 billion (Congressional Research Service). Interesting to note that the loss of human life at $10 billion is a small fraction of the almost $500 billion we're spending on the war. For Iraq alone, the bill is only $315 billion, but add on that $10 billion in human life and you get a nice round $325 billion.

Now let's compare the cost of that to the implementation of the new oil-free technologies. They would cost, with an accelerated construction program, about $2,000 per kilowatt capacity for replacing oil technology with oil-free technology (cheap natural gas power plant project costs are about $1000/kilowatt, synthetic combined cycle power would cost $1500 to $2000/kilowatt depending on the technology eventually used and the construction schedule). The number of megawatts used in America today is 605,000 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States, 2000”). That means it would cost about $1.2 trillion to implement a nationwide conversion to oil-free technology. As we know, all back-of-the-envelope estimates can only come up with, at best, half of the cost to do a project (and with some, perhaps only a tenth, as the moon landing program cost reviews showed). So let's be safe and multiply by three. That's $3.6 trillion.

So, new technology: $3,600 billion. War in Iraq: only $325 billion. That's a bargain by the standards of any economist. It means we could be in Iraq for THREE DECADES and still have a cheaper endeavor than turning away from oil.

I continue to press the point that politics is an extension of economics. Economics is as strong a force as physics. So long as oil is still (relatively) cheap, we will continue to do what we must to keep our hands on it.

But that still leaves one last nagging doubt in my mind. About my son, strapping on Nomex gloves and firing up the jet of his Cobra helicopter? I'd still feel better about him doing that if he were protecting the existence of America from the threat of invasion rather than to protect oil assets or economic scenarios. In the Cold War, it was worth risking my own life to go toe-to-toe with the Russkies in order to defeat the sweeping octopus of World Communism and make the world safe for democracy. But to have my son risk his life to keep gasoline from reaching $5 a gallon?

Maybe Left Wing Mom had a point after all. But please, don't tell her I said so.