Classified: Sticky fingers in the Whitehouse
Summary
Control over oil is a central motivation for the Bush
administration's military confrontation with Iraq. The
unilateralist nature of the US's new security stance in a
post-September 11th world has become inexorably linked with the
importance of controlling oil.
The dependence of the economy on oil forces US foreign policy to
equate control of oil with its "vital interest". Two thirds of the
world's oil supplies are in the Persian Gulf, making control and
influence in this region crucial.
The fight to control oil has increased global conflict. The
production and use of oil has destabilized governments and had an
anti-democratic influence in oil producing countries. The use of
oil is causing climate change, which poses the greatest
environmental threat to our planet.
Oil companies such as ExxonMobil have used their political
influence to undermine attempts to tackle climate change, and
encouraged US dependence. ExxonMobil's contributions in the 2002
election cycle totaled more than US$1 million with 91 percent of it
going to the Republicans.
Greenpeace believes that real security will only come about when
we stop our global addiction to oil and transfer our resources to
producing clean renewable energy.
Driven by oil
The global economy is underpinned by the use of fossil fuels
such as coal, gas and oil. Securing control of this valuable
resource has become a major driver for American foreign policy.
The US is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign supplies of
oil. In 2001 the US imported 54 percent of its oil, compared with 2
percent in 1950. The US accounts for about 25 percent of global oil
consumption but has only 3 percent of the proven oil reserves. In
2002 around twenty percent of all oil imported into the US comes
from the Persian Gulf region with, for example, 52 percent of
Exxon's total oil imports for the first six months of the year
coming from the region.
Since becoming president George W. Bush has continually stated
that the US faces an energy crisis. Although there is little proof,
he has based many of his policies on this false understanding.
The Bush Administration's response to the "energy crisis" has
concentrated on the supply side, with no attempt to reduce an
ever-increasing domestic demand for oil.
The "dig, drill and destroy" approach to energy policy threatens
some of the US's most pristine areas and will increase air
pollution. And to little effect. The entire output from drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge only yields about six months'
worth of oil for the US.
Apart from its consequences in the US, the emphasis on supply
naturally leads to an aggressive foreign policy. The National
Energy Policy Group chaired by Vice President Cheney concluded that
energy security should be a priority of trade and foreign policy.
In a recent statement 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
third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada). It has
more than the combined proved reserves of the Caspian Basin,
Siberia, Alaska, the North Sea and West Shetland.
Oil runs deep in the Bush Administration. Apart from President
Bush himself, Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of
oil-services giant Halliburton Co. Donald Evans, the Secretary of
Commerce, and Secretary of Energy Stanley Abraham both previously
worked for oil giant Tom Brown. Condoleezza Rice, the President's
national security advisor, is a former member of the board of
directors of Chevron. Rice even had a Chevron oil tanker named
after her.
Corporate polluters in the driving seat
Given many of its members' natural affinity with oil companies
it is not surprising that Bush Administration policies on energy
seem to have created an open door for corporate polluters.
Companies like ExxonMobil have worked hard to protect their core
business. ExxonMobil has for the last ten years undermined every
effort to reduce the world's reliance on oil by pressuring the US
government into abandoning its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol on
global warming.
During the 2002 election cycle, ExxonMobil gave US$1,306,581 to
political campaigns - the third largest contributor among oil and
gas company campaign contributions. Of this total, 91 percent went
to Republican candidates . By undermining efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, ExxonMobil prolongs US oil dependence and
prolongs its entanglements with often politically unstable oil
producing countries.
In 2000 ExxonMobil spent over US$7 million on lobbying the US
legislative, ranking it number one spender in the oil and gas
industry. The result of ExxonMobil's influence is that Exxon's
words come out of Bush's mouth. After intensely lobbying Bush to
ditch the treaty, which he did in March 2001, Exxon took out
advertisements describing the Kyoto Protocol as "fundamentally
flawed" and "fatally politicized". Two months later Bush described
the Kyoto treaty as "fatally flawed in fundamental ways".
"If you try talking about Iraq and if you were not encumbered by
the fear that your actions would be linked to ExxonMobil or the oil
industry, you'd be talking about oil issues," according to a Bush
energy 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.
Changing the climate will affect everyone and everything on Earth,
as acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Established by the World Meteorological Organization and
the United Nations Environment Programme, the IPCC is a group of
more than 2000 of the world's top scientists.
The people of the US and other oil dependent economies will only
gain real security when they achieve energy independence. A
combination of energy efficiency and the transition to an economy
based on clean renewable 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 typically
between US$90 billion and US$250 billion. Many commentators quote
US$200 billion. By comparison the 1991 Persian Gulf War cost the US
an estimated US$61 billion.
US$90 billion could provide clean renewable energy to the 1.6
billion people, a quarter of the world's population, who have no
access to electricity. As well as helping to bring about
sustainable development, it would prevent the deaths of the two and
half million women and children who die each year from the indoor
pollution caused by 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 20
miles per gallon. Transportation currently accounts for over 30
percent of the US's annual C02 emissions. The fuel saved by
switching would be approximately 3.75 billion gallons or 14.2
billion liters of gas.
· 330,000 wind turbines. Based on the 1998 cost of a
600-kilowatt wind turbine (US$500-650,000) and not assuming any
scale of production cost savings6.
Why stop with energy?
· US $13 billion a year would feed all of the 30,000 children a
day who die from hunger. · US $10 billion would curb the spread of
AIDS in Africa where 6,000 people a day die from the disease.