[sebastiennight]

> it would take all the trucks in the middle east to move a tiny portion of the export that typically goes via ship

May I suggest an alternative mode of freight that pre-dates trucks and can move much larger volumes at a much lower CO2 cost, namely... a transcontinental train line?

(obviously not going to happen, and might even trigger a few PR cycles about a "hyperloop", but if you were going to try to build large-volume freight, that's where I'd start)

[BurningFrog]

Pipelines are by far the best option for large-volume oil freight on land!

Note that it takes about 10000 trucks to carry the 2 million barrels of oil in one typical oil tanker.

[sebastiennight]

I can't believe that I didn't think of a pipeline first. So... yes.

Also another argument against trucks: they consume fuel to carry fuel.

[beAbU]

> I can't believe that I didn't think of a pipeline first.

Don't feel bad, a pipeline is just a different type of train. The tracks are hollow and the cars are molecular in size.

[cjrp]

I guess a train line has a similar risk of security concerns/disruption, vs. trucks which can be re-routed.

[sourcecodeplz]

that railway can be bombed too

[sebastiennight]

I'd say there are orders of magnitude of difference between attacking a narrow passage of water that borders your very large country (here the narrower the area you want to block, the better), versus a few-meters-wide railway that starts in another country and goes thousands of kilometers in a direction pointing away from you (and in the second case, the narrower the target, the more difficult to hit).

[kipchak]

I'm reminded of the pre ww1 Berlin–Baghdad railway.

[sebastiennight]

Well see? Problem solved!