I agree with this:
GABRIOLA ISLAND, BC, Canada, December 15, 2005 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, William R. Clark's new book, Petrodollar Warfare Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar, argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.
But I don't agree with this statement in the article:
He recommends the multilateral pursuit of both energy and monetary reforms within a United Nations framework to create a more balanced global energy and monetary system - thereby reducing the possibility of future oil depletion and oil currency-related warfare.
Now I'll interject some of my religious beliefs into the peak oil story. I don't want a global monetary system. I would rather have smaller, more locally controlled economies. I'm one of those one world order nuts who doesn't like the idea of a global monetary system. That leads into the possibility of having to exchange or trade with this currency only. I don't like that idea. This is probably why I like the ideas coming from the left libertarians and anarchists. What good will a global monetary system be if it will be more difficult to transport goods and services from afar? I just don't see the reasoning between having a lower energy world and a global monetary system. No way.
I love Richard Heinberg in all aspects, however, I don't totally agree with his idea of maintaining this particular globalist point of view.