Classified: Sticky fingers in the Whitehouse
Summary
Control over oil is a central motivation for the
Bushadministration's military confrontation with Iraq. The
unilateralistnature of the US's new security stance in a
post-September 11th worldhas become inexorably linked with the
importance of controlling oil.
The dependence of the economy on oil forces US foreign policy
toequate control of oil with its "vital interest". Two thirds of
theworld's oil supplies are in the Persian Gulf, making control
andinfluence in this region crucial.
The fight to control oil has increased global conflict.
Theproduction and use of oil has destabilized governments and had
ananti-democratic influence in oil producing countries. The use of
oil iscausing climate change, which poses the greatest
environmental threatto our planet.
Oil companies such as ExxonMobil have used their political
influenceto undermine attempts to tackle climate change, and
encouraged USdependence. ExxonMobil's contributions in the 2002
election cycletotaled more than US$1 million with 91 percent of it
going to theRepublicans.
Greenpeace believes that real security will only come about when
westop our global addiction to oil and transfer our resources
toproducing clean renewable energy.
Driven by oil
The global economy is underpinned by the use of fossil fuels
such ascoal, gas and oil. Securing control of this valuable
resource hasbecome a major driver for American foreign policy.
The US is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign supplies
ofoil. In 2001 the US imported 54 percent of its oil, compared with
2percent in 1950. The US accounts for about 25 percent of global
oilconsumption but has only 3 percent of the proven oil reserves.
In 2002around twenty percent of all oil imported into the US comes
from thePersian Gulf region with, for example, 52 percent of
Exxon's total oilimports for the first six months of the year
coming from the region.
Since becoming president George W. Bush has continually stated
thatthe US faces an energy crisis. Although there is little proof,
he hasbased many of his policies on this false understanding.
The Bush Administration's response to the "energy crisis"
hasconcentrated on the supply side, with no attempt to reduce
anever-increasing domestic demand for oil.
The "dig, drill and destroy" approach to energy policy
threatenssome of the US's most pristine areas and will increase air
pollution.And to little effect. The entire output from drilling in
the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge only yields about six months'
worth of oil forthe US.
Apart from its consequences in the US, the emphasis on
supplynaturally leads to an aggressive foreign policy. The National
EnergyPolicy Group chaired by Vice President Cheney concluded that
energysecurity should be a priority of trade and foreign policy. In
a recentstatement to Congress, General Anthony Zinni testified that
the US"must have free access to the region's [Persian Gulf]
resources".
Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the
thirdlargest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada). It has
more thanthe combined proved reserves of the Caspian Basin,
Siberia, Alaska, theNorth Sea and West Shetland.
Oil runs deep in the Bush Administration. Apart from President
Bushhimself, Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of
oil-services giantHalliburton Co. Donald Evans, the Secretary of
Commerce, and Secretaryof Energy Stanley Abraham both previously
worked for oil giant TomBrown. Condoleezza Rice, the President's
national security advisor, isa former member of the board of
directors of Chevron. Rice even had aChevron oil tanker named after
her.
Corporate polluters in the driving seat
Given many of its members' natural affinity with oil companies
it isnot surprising that Bush Administration policies on energy
seem to havecreated an open door for corporate polluters.
Companies like ExxonMobil have worked hard to protect their
corebusiness. ExxonMobil has for the last ten years undermined
every effortto reduce the world's reliance on oil by pressuring the
US governmentinto abandoning its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol
on global warming.
During the 2002 election cycle, ExxonMobil gave US$1,306,581
topolitical campaigns - the third largest contributor among oil and
gascompany campaign contributions. Of this total, 91 percent went
toRepublican candidates . By undermining efforts to reduce
greenhouse gasemissions, ExxonMobil prolongs US oil dependence and
prolongs itsentanglements with often politically unstable oil
producing countries.
In 2000 ExxonMobil spent over US$7 million on lobbying the
USlegislative, ranking it number one spender in the oil and gas
industry.The result of ExxonMobil's influence is that Exxon's words
come out ofBush's mouth. After intensely lobbying Bush to ditch the
treaty, whichhe did in March 2001, Exxon took out advertisements
describing theKyoto Protocol as "fundamentally flawed" and "fatally
politicized". Twomonths later Bush described the Kyoto treaty as
"fatally flawed infundamental ways".
"If you try talking about Iraq and if you were not encumbered by
thefear that your actions would be linked to ExxonMobil or the
oilindustry, you'd be talking about oil issues," according to a
Bushenergy advisor quoted anonymously in the Wall Street
Journal.
Real security
The burning of oil and other fossil fuels causes climate
change,which has the potential to radically damage entire
ecosystems. Changingthe climate will affect everyone and everything
on Earth, asacknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).Established by the World Meteorological Organization
and the UnitedNations Environment Programme, the IPCC is a group of
more than 2000 ofthe world's top scientists.
The people of the US and other oil dependent economies will
onlygain real security when they achieve energy independence. A
combinationof energy efficiency and the transition to an economy
based on cleanrenewable energy is the quickest way to achieve that
goal. Even better,it's the cheapest way to do it.
A comparison of the projected costs of the war with the price of
energy security is sobering.
White House projections for the costs of the war are
typicallybetween US$90 billion and US$250 billion. Many
commentators quoteUS$200 billion. By comparison the 1991 Persian
Gulf War cost the US anestimated US$61 billion.
US$90 billion could provide clean renewable energy to the
1.6billion people, a quarter of the world's population, who have no
accessto electricity. As well as helping to bring about
sustainabledevelopment, it would prevent the deaths of the two and
half millionwomen and children who die each year from the indoor
pollution causedby cooking fires.
In the US$200 billion dollars could buy:
· US$2,000 solar system for each of the 100 million households
in America.
· 10 million Honda or Toyota hybrid cars, which have a fuel
efficiency of 40 miles per gallon.
They could replace the 10 million vehicles that get less than
20miles per gallon. Transportation currently accounts for over 30
percentof the US's annual C02 emissions. The fuel saved by
switching would beapproximately 3.75 billion gallons or 14.2
billion liters of gas.
· 330,000 wind turbines. Based on the 1998 cost of a
600-kilowatt windturbine (US$500-650,000) and not assuming any
scale of production costsavings6.
Why stop with energy?
· US $13 billion a year would feed
allof the 30,000 children a day who die from hunger. · US $10
billionwould curb the spread of AIDS in Africa where 6,000 people a
day diefrom the disease.