[Peace] mother jones article
Robert Dunn
prorobert8 at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 12 11:04:15 CDT 2001
The Real Price of Oil Congressional
Republicans are using terrorism fears to advance
the administration's energy policy -- including oil
drilling in Alaska -- while ignoring the plan's
enormous long-term cost.
by Mark Hertsgaard October 5, 2001
Perhaps it's a sign of
politics inching back
toward business as
usual: Congressional
Republicans are
exploiting the Sept. 11
terror attacks to push
the Bush
administration's plan for
an all-out increase in
energy production.
Lawmakers have
proposed making the
administration's controversial plan -- which includes drilling
in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- part of a federal
anti-terrorism bill being debated in the Senate this week. And
even if that amendment fails, as Senate Democrats predict,
drilling advocates are likely to continue invoking terrorism
fears as they argue for more oil development.
Bush, of course, has long maintained that his energy plan will
increase America's "energy security" -- meaning the nation's
access to relatively inexpensive electricity and fuel. To that
end, he has proposed a package of measures intended to
encourage greater production of oil, along with other fossil
fuels and nuclear power. In a victory that surprised even
Republicans, the House of Representatives in August
endorsed much of Bush's approach, including $33 billion
worth of tax incentives for oil companies.
It's questionable,
however, whether these
steps will in fact
guarantee stable energy
prices. Given the power
that OPEC and the
international oil
companies have to
manipulate production,
the usual rules of supply
and demand don't apply
to the oil business. And
even if Bush's approach
works, it will affect the
price of oil only in a
narrow sense: what a
barrel of light crude fetches on the London spot market, what
a gallon of gasoline for the family automobile costs at the
pump.
What matters more is what should be called the real price of
oil. This is comprised of two elements: petroleum's market
price, plus the many indirect costs that its production and
consumption impose on nature, public health, and future
generations.
Under Bush's plan, for example, the real price of oil will soon
include not only those $33 billion in subsidies, but the
potential destruction of Alaskan caribou calving grounds.
Increased production also means a growing possibility of
more oil spills like the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, as well
as continuation of the less-publicized release of an average of
10 million gallons of petroleum into the oceans every year
from tanker accidents.
Further raising oil's real price will increased air pollution
made
possible by Bush's relaxation of environmental regulations.
Already, diseases stemming from car exhaust kill some
30,000 Americans each year, according to a 1995 Harvard
University study. And back in 1993, the Worldwatch Institute
estimated the damage to human and environmental health
from vehicle emissions at $93 billion a year.
For the world at large, the most serious consequence of
continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels will be
accelerating climate change in the 21st century. Though a
number of factors contribute to the greenhouse effect, oil
remains a major culprit. Some 40 percent of America's
greenhouse gas emissions stem from automobiles.
Scientists have noted that already -- after a mere one-degree
increase in temperatures over the past century -- glaciers are
melting and catastrophic storms becoming more severe and
frequent. They expect the planet to warm an additional 4 to 11
degrees Fahrenheit in the 21st century, bringing yet more
violent weather, flooded coastlines, killer droughts and social
havoc. One insurance industry study projects that climate
change will impose $304 billion of additional direct costs on
the global economy every year.
Bush has rightly been criticized for rejecting the Kyoto accord
on global warming. But the truth is, America has never been
shy about expecting the rest of the world to support its oil
habit. Presidents and Congresses of both US political parties
have for decades affirmed military and diplomatic policies
aimed at guaranteeing American access to overseas oil; the
CIA-assisted overthrow in 1953 of Iran's prime minister
Mohammed Mossadegh -- who had advocated nationalizing
the country's oil supplies -- is but one example.
According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, an eco-think tank
that analyzed Pentagon and Department of Energy spending
data for the mid-1990s, federally funded research and
development provided at least $300 million annually in
subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry. And at least $50 billion
of
the US annual military budget during those years paid for
forces whose primary purpose is to safeguard Middle Eastern
oil fields and shipping lanes -- and whose presence,
especially in the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia, provokes
bitter resentment in much of the Muslim world.
Economists use the term "externalities" to refer to costs that
are not included in a commodity's market price, but are borne
by society as a whole. Society, of course, also has benefited
from the past century's increase in oil consumption: The US
economy underwent an extraordinary expansion during the
20th century, when cheap oil fostered first the
automobilization of the nation and, after World War II, its
suburbanization. Oil also made possible a transportation
system built around individual mobility and personal
convenience that in many respects remains the envy of the
world.
But the impending threat of climate change suggests that our
reliance on oil has reached a point of diminishing returns. It's
time for a new strategy -- a shift to energy efficiency in the
short term and to solar and other renewable energy forms in
the long term. Such a Global Green Deal would not only
reduce ecological damage, but yield substantially more jobs,
profits and economic prosperity than today's system does.
Investments in energy efficiency create two to ten times more
jobs per dollar than investments in oil and nuclear power -- a
crucial concern as the economy slides into recession.
Bush is betting that the nation is willing to pay whatever it
takes to keep oil flowing, and he may be right. In the House of
Representatives, the president's plan was supported by
Democrats and Republicans, labor and corporate interests. In
the Senate, much will depend on what kind of pressure is
brought to bear on its members.
Americans may ultimately agree with Bush that maintaining
their oil habit is worth any price. But we should at least
acknowledge the full cost of such a decision -- not only for
Americans, but for the six billion people we share the planet
with. What do you think?
Mark Hertsgaard, author of Earth Odyssey: Around the World
In Search of Our Environmental Future, is at work on a book
about America and why it fascinates, infuriates, and bewilders
the rest of the world.
RELATED STORIES
A New Green Deal
Nuking the
Atmosphere
Counting Caribou
Mother Jones 400:
Energy
Reader
Discussions
- Guns and butter
- The enemies of
our
enemies
- If I had $20
billion...
- Afghanistan's
future
- Other
discussions
Context
- Central Asia's
powderkeg
- Nuclear
Terrorism
- Afghanistan up
close
- Why we were in
Afghanistan
- More...
Resources
- Rumor control
- The official
word on
terrorism
- Who's who, and
where, in
Afghanistan
- All things
Afghan
- More...
LETTERS
Email the editors
Your letters
RECENT
COMMENTARIES
OPINION
Speak No Evil
The War Dividend
Beware the
Backlash
Burning Questions
Reservations on
the
Nuclear Train
ESSAYS
Globalization's
Upside
Voter Traitor
Bully for Them
Padlock the
Revolving
Door!
Violence Pays
HUMOR
Hard Targeting
See No Evil
George W., Man of
Science
Friendly Firearms
Faith-Based
Discrimination
RECENT FEATURES
NEWS
Sioux vs. DEA,
Round
Two
Power Shift
Green Cities
Coors Courts Gays
SPECIAL
REPORTS
In-depth,
interactive
coverage of the
issues
The Price of
Prisons
Campaign Finance
Globalization
Coral Reefs in
Peril
US Arms Trade
Atlas
Sign up for the
MoJournal, your
free
weekly Mother
Jones
newsletter.
Support Mother
Jones'
independent,
uncompromising
journalism.
ACTIONS
What's the hidden cost of
oil?
Support us
Visit the Mother Jones
Market
Email this article to a friend
Buy the current issue
Subscribe to the magazine
SUPPORT US
Make an online
donation today to
keep your MoJo
working!
All letters to the editor are for publication and may be edited
for length
© FOUNDATION FOR NATION
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
More information about the Peace
mailing list