Since this is my first post, I figured that a subject directly relating to the class may be an appropriate start. Why is it that oil has become such an integral part of political proceedings? I suppose I'd be inclined to say that it did during the course of WWII, when it's strategic importance was fully tested. It was a source of fuel that could drive multi-ton vehicles in just about any situation, even in colder climates where other fuel sources might have become too viscous to flow through the engine. It was easy to transport, and as long as certain basic safety measures were in place, it was relatively safe and stable. I am inclined to believe one of the major points here is the matter of how much horsepower could be produced with a good engine. Being able to keep aircraft aloft, even with heavy loads, became a major selling point for the fuel source during the cold war era, when there were 24-7 flights of bombers prepared to divert their holding pattern to hit the heart of the Soviet Union. But since then, a few alternative sources of transportable energy have been researched and produced, including better electric motors and batteries, biofuels, and to a lesser extent, hydrogen based power. While they each have their own sets of advantages and drawbacks, there has not been enough research into most of them to improve their viability and effectiveness. Is this due to oil's dominance, in minds and established infrastructure, or perhaps there are individuals who try to halt development to maintain oil's dominance? I suppose it will only be a question that can be properly answered in hindsight, when all the factors can be analyzed together. In the meantime, oil still holds the primary role as the worlds energy source, even as it is known to be running out.
A significant factor to consider in this situation is political corruption. It has long been known that various groups will somehow try to buy politicians in one way or another- whether it be with gifts, bribes, or campaign funding. While there are laws in place against such activities, they certainly occur anyway, often leading to a politician acting on their part in future lawmaking or other political maneuvers. Oil companies have the distinction of being pandered to by the government, even before they start buying individuals. Since they provide the lifeblood for the armed forces, as well as the primary convenience of the everyday individual, they are the controllers of one of the greatest strategic factors for a modern armed conflict. The government, being unable to take control of the companies, even through modern capitalistic methods, instead simply gives them what they want to make sure that they keep the oil flowing. Unfortunately, since the primary sources of oil are in foreign countries, that also means the government has to pander to them to allow American companies to drill in areas outside of their direct control. As elaborated in Blood and Oil, this means a lot of concessions and gifts to groups that are not particularly friendly or well-meaning. However, since they are limiting their options by not researching alternatives, the US government is in a way forcing itself to continue these practices.
To take a slight conspiracy take on it, perhaps one of the reasons that the government does what it can to keep up oil production is so that they can get it relatively cheap. Following with the law of supply and demand, when more people want something, the cheaper it can be to get, hence why buying in bulk is a popular economic choice. However, since the government subsidizes oil production, that take on the situation doesn't really hold water. For more on this, I would suggest looking here.
So, while it's easy to comment and complain, what is there to actually do about the situation?
Well, I'm not really sure. It's easy to say that we need to work more on alternative energy sources, it's a group decision. There are more ways to make the transition than there are ways to continue as we are, and some prefer not having to make hard decisions, much less putting work into them. I suppose the best we can do is put the best and brightest on the job, try to turnover the current political stagnancy with new members, and try to minimize our personal reliance on oil. While that last one is hardly a drop in the bucket, if enough people try to do the same, it will reduce the rate at which the bucket fills, if nothing else.
No comments:
Post a Comment