[Peace-discuss] Energy and War (fwd)

Wed Nov 20 09:45:22 CST 2002

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 20 Nov 2002 09:21:58 -0000
From: MoveOn Bulletin <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Dr. Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Energy and War

ENERGY AND WAR

<font=2> MoveOn Bulletin
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Editor: Susan Thompson
susan.thompson at moveon.org
Editorial Assistant: Leah Appet
leah at moveon.org

Subscribe online at: http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

Contents:

 1. Introduction: Energy Policy=Foreign Policy?
 2. One Link: Axis of Oil
 3. Consumption and Production
 4. The Bush Administration and Energy Policy
 5. The "War on Terrorism"
 6. Iraq
 7. Alternatives
 8. Credits
 9. About the MoveOn bulletin and MoveOn.org

INTRODUCTION: ENERGY POLICY=FOREIGN POLICY?
-------------------------------------------
"Together, oil and coal constitute the biggest single industry in
history."
- Ross Gelbspan, in his book, The Heat is On

Energy is the keystone of the quality of life characteristic of much of
the modern industrialized world. It makes our technology possible. It
touches our lives in thousands of ways each day--from the heat we use in
our homes, to the materials that make up the many products we use, to the
types of medical services we enjoy, to the ways we communicate and travel.

Yet we take energy largely for granted. We treat it as though it will
always be available. And we underestimate its importance in our everyday
lives.

Most of our energy comes from oil, gas, and petroleum products. These
non-renewable resources not only fuel our cars, but they are also used in
literally thousands of ways to support our industrialized lifestyle. They
are the key to the current world economy. But they will not last forever.
By some estimates, oil production may reach its peak as soon as 2003; by
other estimates, 2010. Either way, oil production will most certainly peak
within the lifetimes of most people around today. Meanwhile, we have done
little to reduce our dependence on this source of energy, thereby assuring
that the demand will remain. Once the oil resources of the world begin to
diminish, the price of oil will inevitably rise quite high.

This may explain why oil is important enough to fight over.

Oil may not be the only reason for a new Gulf War, but there is little
doubt a successful military seizure of Iraq would have the end result of
giving the US control over Iraq's oil reserves. Not only would this
immediately put money into the pockets of US oil companies, it would also
ensure that Iraq's oil reserves don't fall into the hands of a US
competitor such as China.

Still, at best, this type of power-grab will only be beneficial to some,
and only in the short-term. Burning oil and gas pollutes our collective
environment, no matter who controls the oil reserves. Once oil reserves
begin to decline, competition for them will become even more intense, and
may result in conflicts that we can't yet foresee, all with their
attendant environmental and humanitarian consequences. After that, even
those oil reserves that we have today will dwindle and go dry, and the
cost of finding more oil and extracting it will continue to rise, until it
outweighs potential profits, and the amount of energy needed to recover
the oil is equal to or exceeds the energy in the recovered oil. In the
meantime, unless the population has found some more sustainable way to
produce energy, our quality of life will deteriorate. Experts worry that
the lack of availability of oil could cause the global human population to
actually decline.

If the experts are right, we need more of a solution than squabbling over
whatever oil is left. And we need more of a solution than reducing our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We need to start reducing our dependence
on oil, period. We may even need a radical change, a new revolution on the
scale of the industrial revolution, in order to completely end our use of
oil.

It isn't really that controversial of an idea, after all, that the oil
will eventually run out. The controversial part comes when deciding what
to do with that knowledge. The Bush administration's ties to the oil
industry will likely mean that new policies aimed at ending dependence on
oil won't be coming from the government. So new ideas and environmentally
concerned action will have to come from the grassroots level. It will take
a lot of effort, but it could help ensure a much better future for many
generations to come.

If the experts are right, the sooner we start, the better.

ONE LINK: THE AXIS OF OIL
-------------------------
Cheney, Bush, and the industry form a kind of "axis of oil" which serves
US corporate interests. In fact, based on consultations with energy
industry leaders such as the CEO of Enron, the Bush administration has
determined that the basis of the US national security is access to oil.
Not surprising then that Iraq is the new target in the "war on terrorism."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1113-08.htm

CONSUMPTION
-----------
On a table showing world petroleum consumption from 1991-2000, the US is
the highest consumer of petroleum by far.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table12.html

Dependence on foreign oil is a result of this high rate of consumption. In
June 2002, Under Secretary of State Alan Larson testified before the House
of Representatives International Relations Committee that US dependency on
foreign sources of oil will be an "unavoidable component of the energy
supply mix." According to Larson, "We are virtually self-sufficient in all
energy resources except oil, of which we import 52 percent of our needs.
Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will
increase by 33 percent or more than 6 million barrels a day. Depending on
many factors, including the policies we adopt, the Energy Information
Administration estimates that imported oil could grow to 62 percent of our
total oil consumption by 2020." Thus the energy security policy of the US
must "ensure that our economy has access to energy on terms and conditions
that support economic growth and prosperity" and "ensure that the United
States and its foreign policy can never be held hostage by foreign oil
suppliers."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_06/alia/a2062007.htm

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND ENERGY POLICY
-----------------------------------------
The Bush administration is as oil-drenched as they come, as this article
takes care to demonstrate. But what does this mean? According to the
article, "George W.'s ties to oil don't prove that the industry decides
our every foreign policy move. But they do just about guarantee, for all
practical purposes, that nothing significant will change in American
energy policy. With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CAV111A.html

For in-depth information about Dick Cheney and his ties to the energy
industry, see our previous bulletin, "Who is Dick Cheney?"
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin1.html

This is an excellent overview of a report on the campaign contributions
made by various energy companies to Democratic and Republican candidates
over the past ten years. Not surprisingly, President Bush was the number
one recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry in
the last election. Enron was the number one campaign contributor in this
industry, while Exxon Mobil came in second. Bush also received a large
amount of money from the utilities industry. In fact, his two-year
fund-raising total was more than any other federal candidate has received
from electric utilities in the past decade. There is lots of detailed
information here, especially if you have a little time to explore the
charts.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/energybriefing.htm

Confused by all of the information out there about Enron? Never
fear--here, in point form, is "Enron at a Glance." Along with other useful
information, this list notes that Enron CEO Kenneth Lay "was appointed to
the Bush transition team where he worked directly with Vice President
Cheney to develop the administration's national energy policies," and that
"no fewer than 52 former Enron executives, lobbyists, lawyers or
significant shareholders ended up working for the Bush administration."
http://www.thedailyenron.com/enron101/glance.asp

Now that the Republicans have won full control of both Congress and the
Senate, it is far more likely that they will pass a controversial energy
bill which includes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.adn.com/front/story/2095762p-2192708c.html

MSNBC takes a look at the Republicans who will be taking over the
environment and energy committees, and how this is likely to affect policy
in 2003, including the energy bill.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/831973.asp

This website offers a critical analysis of the energy bill, breaking it up
section by section with links and pro/con summaries provided for the
various topics covered. A very useful resource if you have a little time
to browse.
http://www.energyjustice.net/energybill/

THE "WAR ON TERRORISM"
----------------------
Why do so many people outside of the US seem to think that the war on
Afghanistan is related to oil? This article gives an overview of a number
of sources that examine the many links between oil policy and events in
Afghanistan, and gives the gist of their arguments on subjects such as the
rise and fall of the Taliban.
http://www.moveon.org/r?19

Appointments to the region since the war are also indicative of an oil
connection. For example, Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed as envoy to
Afghanistan in January of 2002. Khalilzad is a former aide to the
Texas-based oil company Unocal. He drew up Unocal's risk analysis on its
proposed trans-Afghan gas pipeline. Hamed Karzai, the president of
Afghanistan, is also a former consultant for Unocal.
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=1149

Unocal formed the CentGas consortium in the mid-90s with the intent of
building the trans-Afghan pipeline. Unocal then withdrew from the pipeline
project in 1998, after the US bombed Afghanistan. At the time, the
statement issued by the company said that "Unocal will only participate in
construction of the proposed Central Asia Gas Pipeline when and if
Afghanistan achieves the peace and stability necessary to obtain financing
from international lending agencies for this project and an established
government is recognized by the United Nations and the United States."
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm

The conditions Unocal wanted currently exist. So is the trans-Afghan
pipeline project going through? You bet--it is the major Afghan
"reconstruction" project. Other sources estimate that building could begin
in mid-2003.
http://www.moveon.org/r?20

Although earlier reports suggested that Unocal was the top company being
considered to build the pipeline, currently it appears that Unocal will
not have any direct involvement. In fact, thus far the company has made a
point of distancing itself from the project, especially in response to
reports that have highlighted Unocal's former attempts to court the
Taliban in order to pave the way for the pipeline.
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/centgas.htm

The war on Afghanistan allowed the US to place military bases in the nine
surrounding countries, all rich in oil and natural gas. In fact, oil can
be linked to any number of US policies around the world that are being
pursued under the guise of the "war on terrorism."
http://www.moveon.org/r?21

A number of countries with interests in oil have reason to worry about
what a new US presence in Central Asia and possibly the Persian Gulf could
mean for them. This US presence could also trigger more terrorist attacks
aimed at disrupting the world economic system.
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=853

US dependence on Saudi oil has forced te Bush administration to maintain
an alliance with the country that may be interfering with the goals of the
"war on terrorism." This article quotes Edward L. Morse, former deputy
assistant secretary of state for international energy policy under
President Ronald Reagan, who has said, "The stark truth is that we're
dependent on this country that directly or indirectly finances people who
are a direct threat to you and me as individuals." This is apparently why
the US government has remained fairly silent about the obvious Saudi
connection to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn14772.htm

IRAQ
"Oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the
Arabs."
- Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford

Whether or not the key members of the Bush administration would personally
profit from the spoils of a war on Iraq, their ties to the industry are
still a conflict of interest. This is an excellent overview of Dick
Cheney's http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-04.htm

"Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century" is a report that
was given to Dick Cheney in spring of 2001. It highlights how likely an
energy crisis is, and the fact that the US will need to create a long-term
plan for maintaining access to energy. According to the report, "As the
21st century opens, the energy sector is in critical condition. A crisis
could erupt at any time from any number of factors and would inevitably
affect every country in today's globalized world. While the origins of a
crisis are hard to pinpoint, it is clear that energy disruptions could
have a potentially enormous impact on the U.S. and the world economy, and
would affect U.S. national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways."

The basic conclusions of the report are that the US must develop a
comprehensive and long-term energy policy aimed at dealing with the energy
crisis, and that this must be done immediately.

Progressives may not always agree with exactly how the report recommends
doing this (for example, the report cites environmental policies as
restrictions on the market and is positive about the effects of drilling
in the Arctic National Refuge, but also lists ensuring the protection of
the eco-system as a priority). Yet it certainly makes it clear that
addressing the complex topic of energy is one that needs to be given top
priority. It's a long report, but if you have the time to read it, it's
very worthwhile.
http://www.moveon.org/r?22

According to this article in the Sunday Herald, "Strategic Energy Policy
Challenges For The 21st Century" could be read as a call for war against
Iraq. This article may not be exactly fair to the authors of the report,
who seem to be open to more possibilities than simply direct military
intervention, but it is probably at least accurate in that the emphasis
the report places on Iraq could easily be used as justification for war.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28224

The Global Policy Forum (GPF) is a New York-based NGO (non-governmental
organization) that has consultative status at the UN. This excellent short
article by GPF's executive director clearly demonstrates the connection
between the vast oil reserves of Iraq and US policies in the region.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm

In this more detailed article, which has been published in a number of
places including Alternet and Zmag, Rahul Mahajan examines each publicized
reason for a new war on Iraq and explains why they don't "hold water."
Mahajan argues that the only reasonable explanation for a new war is oil;
US desire for oil also explains why the sanctions against Iraq have
remained in place for so long, despite the tragic effect these sanctions
have had on Iraq's civilian population. According to Mahajan, "The
sanctions have turned the Iraqi regime permanently against the United
States. If they were lifted, the government would make oil exploration
deals with French and Russian companies, not American ones. Continuation
of the sanctions is a constant political burden for the United States. The
Bush administration wants a war to extricate itself from this stalemate,
by replacing Saddam with a U.S.-friendly dictator who will make deals with
American companies and follow American dictates."
http://www.rahulmahajan.com/iraqoil.htm

ALTERNATIVES
------------
This article by a controversial geologist lists the pros and cons of
various alternative energy sources. As he sees it, the reality is that the
many options we are currently exploring are not enough to replace our
dependence on oil. The author concludes that a revolution on the scale of
the industrial revolution will be needed to reduce our dependence on oil.
The tone of the article is not exactly optimistic, and not everyone may
agree with its conclusions, but it's included here so you can decide for
yourself.
http://www.oilcrisis.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm

We don't have the space here to cover all of the various alternative forms
of energy and methods of conservation. So we are providing the following
websites as a kind of introductory resource.

The GrassRoots Recycling Network provides analyses of alternative sources
of energy. It also provides many link to organizations that already
practice alternative forms of energy consumption, as well as reducing
landfill waste. http://www.grrn.org

The Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives (aka Global
Anti-Incineration Alliance) provides links and examples from around the
world to alternatives to incineration as a means of ridding the planet of
waste. It has an active email list that provides volumes of information
about laws, companies, activist strategies, standards, country
requirements, alternatives, etc.
http://www.noburn.org

These sites from the US and New Zealand stress the necessity of ending the
production of waste, rather than simply managing waste. They provide many
governmental and private reviews of cities, counties and businesses that
have found alternative means to prevent waste and to encourage
environmentally sound methods of alternative energy production.
http://www.zerowasteamerica.org
http://www.zerowaste.co.nz

EnergyJustice has an entire section of its website dedicated to
alternative energy. It provides statistics, examples, and methods for
implementing solar and wind energy in a profitable way.
http://www.energyjustice.net

New Urbanism is a website about automobiles, the negative impact of their
use, and some possible transit alternatives.
http://www.NewUrbanism.org/pages/496683/index.htm

CREDITS
-------
Research team:
Susan Bunyan, Lita Epstein, Terry Hackett, Sharon Hametz, Matthew Jones,
Linda Langness, Cameron McLaughlin, Janelle Miau, Vicki Nikolaidis, Sarah
Jane Parady, Kim Plofker, Jesse Rhodes, Ora Szekely, Bland Whitley, and
Mary Williams.

Proofreading team:
Madlyn Bynum, Eileen Gillan, Mary Anne Henry, Kendra Lanning, Mercedes
Newman, Dawn Phelps, Rebecca M. Sulock and Rita Weinstein.

ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
----------------------------------------
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free, biweekly email bulletin providing
information, resources, and news related to important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse all of the views espoused on the
pages that we link to, nor do we vouch for their accuracy. Read them at
your own risk.

The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org is an
issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that gives people a
voice in shaping the laws that affect our lives. MoveOn.org engages people
in the civic process, using the Internet to democratically determine a
non-partisan agenda, raising public awareness of pressing issues, and
coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to encourage sound public
policies.

You can help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223

To be kept informed about actions and campaigns, many of which are related
to bulletin topics, you can sign up for MoveOn's action updates, at:
http://www.moveon.org/keepmeposted/

To remove yourself from this list, please visit our subscription

management page at: http://www.moveon.org/subscrip/i.html?id=913-483317-cILH7BVELASNUU0RuYSopw