Purely by chance and following a query by a friend I typed ‘Synthetic Oil' into my browser and discovered not that during World War 2 the Germans produced vast quantities of this oil, which I already knew, but that it was done by combining carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane to produce liquid hydrocarbon. These, of course, are the notorious greenhouse gases which allegedly are causing so many problems - dangerous unwanted waste products. I also discovered that today (2008) South Africa is producing most of its diesel in this way.

Heavy transport - lorries, coaches and buses as well as trains, run on diesel. Significant advances have been made in the design of light, flexible and quieter diesel engines for cars. If it were possible to produce fuel for all combustion engines (which of necessity would use diesel) from indigenous material, thus avoiding dependence on dodgy supplies from the Middle East and elsewhere, would it not make sense? Might it not also go some way to solve the problem of clean coal burn to which there are foolish political objections irrespective of market considerations. There would inevitably be emissions from the consumption even of synthetic oil but would they be the same? Really clean coal burning would be a godsend to those developing countries like China which are so dependent for their energy needs on this fuel.

Efficient coal burning power stations like DRAX in East Yorkshire could solve their remaining emission problem (CO2) by using it as the raw material for the production of diesel. They already produce gypsum  as a saleable by-product of their emissions cleaning programme. Power stations throughout Britain and the world could be converted to the DRAX system which, unlike possible carbon capture systems, is up and running. As a result their harmfull emissions would be virtually nil.

The vested interests of the massively wealthy oil industry might well be opposed to such a development although they would be the obvious people to embark upon such large scale production and distribution.

Frivolous persons might amuse themselves and seek to divert others by consideration of ways in which the methane emissions of our bovine populations might be captured, or less frivolously, those of our landfill sites. It is however too serious a matter to be sidelined in this way. Joking apart it is the case that the vast majority of naturally produced methane comes from wetlands, then from landfill, and then bovine digestive systems. Other sources such as mining contribute relatively minute quantities. All this however must be part of a natural balance.

Such oil production is obviously possible. It is for others to calculate money costs although I would point out that in the long run energy is beyond price. Modern society cannot exist without abundant supplies of energy. In South Africa prices are slightly lower than the petroleum based product. This may not accurately reflect production cost because it would obviously be sold for what it commands. The significant fact is that it is not higher.

There is a common assumption, which is almost certainly a delusion, that peace is permanent and that war between major players is unthinkable. The old struggles involving France and Germany, in which Britain inevitably became involved, are for the time being unlikely. However once the new EU structure is complete, which will have concentrated political power in Europe, there will be a conflict as to who controls it and guess who will be involved.

Of more immediate concern are the activities of the major powers with much larger populations the USA, China, India and Russia. It only needs an issue to emerge of sufficient importance for some or all of these forces to become embroiled.

Britain is an island and the less it is dependent on supplies from outside, essentially food and energy, the better will governments have discharged their first duty which is to provide for the security of their people.
At present their performance does not look good.

Supplies of liquid gas come by sea into Milford Haven from North Africa. Some of our oil comes from our own wells in the North Sea, some from Norway, a large part from Russia via Germany (a double hazard) some from the Middle East. We even have a standby electricity link cross the Channel to France which cannot be secure in the light of Channel Ports experience. Most of these supplies could be cut off in the case of military upheaval or even for purposes of international blackmail.

Between China and the USA there exists the problem of Taiwan's status. China considers it to be part of its sovereign territory whilst the US supports Taiwan's desire to be independent. Between the USA and Russia there is already a disagreement about the sites of anti-missile defences in Eastern Europe. Also on the horizon is the problem which would arise over a desire on the part of the Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, which is in the US sphere of influence. In the same region there is also the question of EU expansionist aims eastwards which could lead to conflict with Russia. In the past wars have been fought over issues no greater.

The existence of nuclear weapons is no guarantee of peace. I think it unlikely that any of the major powers would consider initiating mutual annihilation. It is only so called rogue states which might consider nuclear attack hence the desire to prevent Iran from joining a club which is already too extensive.

Nor is it is the case that the UN has or can prevent war. There is constant conflict in the world which that organisation can do nothing about. At the moment the USA and Britain are involved in the aftermath of a war in Iraq which was most certainly ‘illegal'. In the earliest days there was war in Korea between China and the USA in which Britain was involved almost as a rescue operation. The UN could do nothing about the Vietnam War or war in the Balkans although, in the latter case, it was involved in futile diplomacy. In Africa there are conflicts which have been going on for decades as in Sri Lanka.

War seems to be an activity which organised humanity is unable to avoid. Nor is it only conducted by states. Throughout the world there are insurgent movements, sometimes armed with the most sophisticated weapons and sometimes acting as surrogates for powers behind the scenes, which are waging war on states.

The idea of permanent peace is therefore a delusion and policies based on that assumption are at best unwise. Energy itself is an issue over which large scale conflict could arise. We can already see the USA foraging around the world for mineral and energy supplies. As supply runs low competition will intensify.

For Britain, an island, the only sound policy on all fronts is the nearest approximation to self sufficiency. So far as I am aware carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane do not have as their source some geographical area which can be quarrelled over. Synthetic oil may well be the way forward.

NOTE. From the Internet I learn that exhaust emissions from diesel engines are not greenhouse gases so-called. They are however damaging to human health in concentration or in the case of prolonged exposure.
For the record the chief components are soot, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide.

Addendum
It is only fair to report that at 12 06 2009 my internet source for the use of greenhouse gases in the production of synthetic oil has disappeared. However I have verified from an authoritative source that the process is feasible.