Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World's Oil --READ!

[Emillereid]

By Michael Klare

(Foreign Policy In Focus - PetroPolitics Special Report , January 2004)

Professor Michael Klare is the author of Resource Wars: The new Landscape of Global Conflict and the forthcoming Petropolitics. This article is reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus .

Friday, January 16, 2004 Posted: 1:23 AM EST (0623 GMT)

When first assuming office in early 2001, President George W. Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction—or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's “energy crisis” was his most important task as president.



He and his advisers considered the oil supply essential to the health and profitability of leading U.S. industries. They reasoned that any energy shortages could have severe and pervasive economic repercussions on businesses in automobiles, airlines, construction, petrochemicals, trucking, and agriculture. They deemed petroleum especially critical to the economy because it is the source of two-fifths' of the total U.S. energy supply—more than any other source -— and because it provides most of the nation's transportation fuel. They also were cognizant of petroleum's crucial national security role as the power for the vast array of tanks, planes, helicopters, and ships that constitute the backbone of the U.S. war machine.



“America faces a major energy supply crisis over the next two decades,” Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham told a National Energy Summit on March 19, 2001. “The failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nation's economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives.”



The energy turmoil of 2000-2001 prompted Bush to establish the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), a task force of senior government representatives charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy requirements. To head this group, Bush picked his closest political adviser, Vice President Dick Cheney. A Republican Party stalwart and a former secretary of Defense, Cheney had served as chairman and chief executive officer of the Halliburton Co., an oilfield services firm, before joining the Bush campaign in 2000. As such, Cheney availed himself of top executives of energy firms, such as Enron Corp., for advice on major issues. ...more....


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bin/MasterPFP.cgi?doc=http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012104_klare.html

Web location: http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/politics.html

Excellent analysis. Details the real reasons we've launched a perpetual war with the rest of globe. I really wonder how much will change even if 'we' dems win next year. Obviously the strategic thinking regarding oil and domination have been in the works for a while. It's easy to see why Dean has to be taken out -- he's just the kind of independent, feisty, straight shooting, New Englander who might not go along with the real powers behind the throne. Wonder if historians far in the future will be able to figure out just when the US stopped all pretense of being a republic and became an empire.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Remember the Oil crunch of the late 70s?

Carter tried to educate us then that oil was a finite resource and we had to develop alternative energy technologies. Bute Regan (mainly Bush) changed all that. Too much money to be made hangin' with the Sauds. They gave us "Morning in America".......now we're living with "Evening in America".

Seems to me that the Democrats have to annuciate a new vision that totally repudiates the current oil energy Republican strategy. We'll be shedding more blood as the spigot slowly drys up.

A new Democratic vision to gain oil independency should be a national reinvestment in decentralized energy sources that create jobs (so what if it's inefficient). It is a winning strategy and offers a brighter future than the current Oil for Blood agenda that Dick and Dimson are pursuing.

[Wells]

6. Carter's Successes and the Automobile's demise

President Carter succeeded in his efforts to educate the public on energy efficiency. The CAFE automobile average mileage standard, initiated in the Carter era, was increased from 20.7 to 27.5 MPG.

Carter's bigger achievement was the Weatherization Act, Home Insulation Tax Credit Program, cancelled by Raygun in 1982. By that time it had already initiated a popular revolution in housing construction codes and standards.

Today's homes more energy efficient in heating, air conditioning and all other appliances. "Tighter" home insulation exposed toxic-laden construction materials, soon banned, (formaldehyde glue, particle board, some carpeting). Today's homes are healthier, more comfortable as well as more energy efficient.

The automobile CANNOT be made energy efficient; not with hydrogen, biodiesel, chemical battery, etc. Transportation efficiency can only be achieved by broadening 'modality' to incorporate walking, mass transit and bicycling infrastructure as intregal to urban/suburban development patterns; so that travel distances are reduced to the point where non-car modes of travel can function.

DUHbya supports the development of hydrogen fuel cell cars only because this technology is a total ruse. GM's fuel cell prototypes are patent "Lemons" and will never go into mass production. Hybrids will always be technologically superior to hydrogen fuel cell drive systems. The problem for automakers is hybrid longevity.

More important, DUHbya AND Company derive control over our economy and our lives, by controlling the transportation sector, no matter what fuel is used. The US economy is determined by home and car sales; car sales predominent because most housing is suburban and generates more profit from car sales than from home sales.

[teryang]

2. Actually, an older school of analysis

...would say that the purpose of the war was to interfere with and control the source rather than secure it. Blocking the source raises prices and promotes the possibility of interfering with market mechanisms in the future. The failure of market mechanisms is what is at stake not the failure of supply. America lost its grip on Saudi Arabia when Aramco was bought out by the Saudis. The balance of economic power shifted as Americans would have to pay for energy like everyone else instead of having a proprietary interest. The truth is that the Europeans and Japanese are better able to do this because they are more competitive.

America is not economically competitive any longer with Europe and Asia. Now instead of competing for resources we must seize them. Resources are always in scarce supply, the issue is whether you can pay the price. Since we cannot compete in free markets we must now seize resources as we resort to the colonial and ultimately fascist economic model which arises from the barrel of the gun.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy, as one of the reasons we cannot compete is because we devote the lion share of discretionary government dollars to manufacturing, stockpiling and exporting weapons. This is a leadership direction that the current dynasty has chosen to preserve itself becuase it is not otherwise economically competitive as it is overly reliant on the aging energy and defense infrastructure. A perfect example is Boeings inability to compete with Aerospatiale. It was rewarded with tens of billions in defense contracts to prevent its economic collapse. 911 and its sequelae was a bailout of the bankrupt aerospace industry as well as a desparate bid to retain our advantage imposed by force in energy markets. Anyone who thinks that energy is the key to this doesn't have the entire picture. It is our lack of competititiveness, not just energy dependence.

[Emillereid]

4. I think you're right to emphasize the multi-factorial reasons

behind our 'forward', preemptive strategy. I think we want both to secure resources for ourselves as well as have control over the spigot to put the squeeze on anyone who dares challenge our supremacy. The strategy is obviously alpha male. However, as you point out our alpha has lost real competitive strength in the one arena that ultimately matters and that's economic. Emmanuel Todd is on to something.

The real prize is probably going to go to the economies that come up with real alternative energy sources to oil -- imagine if Europe should come up with the wherewithal to cut it's addiction to oil. What leverage would we have then?

A side note: I watched some House subcommittee meeting on trade issues on CSPAN a while back and the republicans were extraordinarily forthright in their view that the only industries that mattered had to do with aerospace and armaments. I was blown away at how cavalier they were in dismissing concerns about the loss of jobs in textiles, furniture and other such industries to the Chinese. They said those workers should look to the big ticket industries and retool to become sales reps and the like for aerospace, etc.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Well stated.

Democrats would be well advised to make this campaign a referendum on the contrasting visions.

Republican Roilists Oil Energy Policy = Dead End for the US
Democratic Energy Policy = A rebirth and opportunity to remake this country.

It's about which vision of the future America wants to follow.

[Ilsa]

3. Remember the speech at the end of Three Days of the Condor?

The CIA op tells the R.Redford character about the possiblity of oil being in short supply, then food, and the public won't care how the govt gets it for them, just that they get it. I wonder if Bushco bought into that attitude.