|
JV wrote: Some speculation that I'm sure
can be easily dumped in the conspiracy bin. I've come to realize that there
is no one agenda that explains the lie that lead to the Iraq invasion. But if
there were some thinkers thinking in broad terms, then perhaps the following is
a possible 'value-added'. It could be argued that the
invasion of Iraq would have the benefit of disrupting oil supplies (or had the
express aim of such) and therefore causing a substantial increase in the cost
of oil. This could be founded on the real intelligence that oil companies had
regarding the eminence of peak oil. If peak oil was widely known, yes
oil prices would go up, but likely not as much as they have now, also as it was
being acknowledged then governments (and the companies themselves) would be
pressured to invest in alternatives - minimally standards that ensured greater
fuel efficiencies in consumption which would lower consumption and mitigate
more gently rising oil prices. By creating the disruption, they
also create a distraction. Oil prices climb rapidly and the public awareness of
peak oil can delayed. In this brief time - profits can (and have) increased
threefold. In a sense this puts exorbitant amounts of money into the hands of a
few, and in addition 'free' money to invest (buy/own) in alternatives energy
sources. In this way the existing energy hegemony morphs into a new world
without the normal effect that disruptive technology generally has on
corporate/capitalist entities. (for instance the rise of Microsoft and the
total disappearance of Underwood, Olivetti, etc). Perhaps the above speculation is
just the result of 'unintended consequences'. Still an interesting pattern from
connecting some dots. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John, you’re
correct that we should be skeptical about Big Oil’s motives, especially given the
reputation for manipulation of energy markets, such as the fraud Enron
perpetrated on the West Coast.
Before Enron’s collapse and the faux energy crises it created for
Californians, with some deadly consequences, BP fabricated a shortage for the
Pacific NW and raised prices accordingly. It was later uncovered via a FOIA
(Freedom of Information Act) joint investigation between the Oregonian and Sen. Wyden that they
were simply shipping oil designated for the PNW to the Far East for higher
prices. That is a likely scenario once production declines further, and was the
plot line of a US docudrama that depicted US oil tankers moving like pawns on a
chess board over the ocean while the oil majors received competitive bids from
the Chinese and Russians, leaving domestic business and consumers high and dry. However, the
geological evidence only disputes when, not if, there will be production
decline. Hubbert’s Peak is accepted globally. The geopolitical and economic
consequences remain to be seen, but they are perilous, especially if we ignore
the problem now. Although I do not have knowledge of the thinking that produced
the Carter Doctrine in the 70s after the last global energy crises, I believe
it was more a precautionary backup. Unfortunately, neither the politicians nor
the oil majors were inclined to do the heavy lifting required to produce a
comprehensive energy policy that concentrated on conservation when it could
have made a difference and been less painful. Now we won’t have much choice,
especially with the weak energy bill that this Congress finally managed to pass
after four years. We also have an aggressive group in power who have taken the
Carter Doctrine to a literalist conclusion without trying to keep the peace that
good energy policy could. Energy is
arguably the primary area where corporation-dominated politics is exposed most
clearly. Iraq is not the last
resource war we will suffer, though I agree with you there is more than one
ulterior motive for the Bush Doctrine, which was drafted more than a decade
earlier by those patient neocons of Reagan/Bush who founded Project for a New
American Century (PNAC), whose imperial ambitions for the US were not limited to
oil security in the Middle East, and who certainly did not want to do Carter
any favors for the greater common good.
PNAC Statement of Principles. Note signatories http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Letter to Pres. Clinton on Iraq Jan 1998. Note signatories http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq May 1998. Note signatories http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm Etc. By the way,
Wednesday a moderate bipartisan group launched to counter the PNAC/Christian
Zionist right-tilt in American foreign policy. Partnership for a Secure America
has some prominent Republican names, and its speculated that
Baker/Powell/Scowcroft are silent assenters who can’t publicly break with the
Bush regime. See Advisory Board
here http://www.psaonline.org/ kwc |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
