Yes

by Walter Onubogu

Created on: March 05, 2009

Yes. The US should pursue energy independence and make it integral to US foreign policy.

We have seen what energy dependence has done and still does to the US. Back in the 1960's, 1970's and until recently the US was very keen on establishing control over vital energy sources such as oil and to that end it was willing to support undemocratic and autocratic regimes in a volatile region like the Middle East ( Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Gulf States and Iraq hold most reserves).

This has come at a great cost, politically-diplomatically, economically and in enviromental terms. With America's industry ever so hungry for oil to produce more and more and domestic consumption increasing this has become a highly unsustainable process with many pitfalls ahead.

In 1973 and 1979 we already witnessed what it meant to be "dependent" on oil and saw the negative geopolitical ramifcations of it. We economically and politically supported the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Palavi) but didn't anticipate that the "emporer of oil ( as Time Magazine at the time dubbed him) was becoming too independent for our own liking. He would use his oil as a leverage point against us to hike up the price 4 fold, and as a result we had the 1st OPEC Crises of 1973/1974 (remember those long queques at gas stations or even rationing of oil). Knowing what we know now, it is clear that this empowered him tremendously while Western producers as well the US government felt tormented and angry and dreaded the possibility of this happening in the future again. Consequently with the knowledge of the Carter and Callaghan admistrations in the US and UK, both CIA and MI6 ( secret services in the US and UK) colluded with big American and international oil companies (i.e. BP, Shell, Chevron, Elf Total, etc) to stirr up trouble and destabilize the Shah regime , thus aiming to overthrow it and replace it with a more controllable friendly government.

This was a huge miscalculation on their part, with disasterous geopolitical consequences. Our "oil dependence" blinded us from the realties. While leading to short term financial gain for US and international oil companies, the 2nd OPEC crises in 1979 proved a turning point. It ultimately helped bring to power a very hostile, anti-Western and anti American clerical islamic regime in Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. From thereon after Islamic terrorism thrived nicely thanks to such a misguided energy policy. Was our dependence on oil worth damaging Iran (robbing it of a chance to chart its own future as a constitutional monarchy or democratic republic) for years to come as well as was it worth sowing hate and distrust of America worldwide ?

I say no. US energy policy makers already knew some of the writings on the wall but refused to accept reality, rather focusing on short term in stead of long term gain. Environmentalists and Green Peace lobbied US government hard for substantial changes in policy since the 1970's, but it mainly fell on deaf ears in the White House. Since then enviromental awareness has become much more maintream and acceptable (politically expedient) to the American public, and thats why being "green" is en vogue these days.

Against the background of the war in Iraq which seemed a bit like a re-run of Iran, I think it is clear that fellow Americans need to wake up to the fact that our country shouldn't be the private preserve of corporations and their short term financial gain philosophy. As part of restoring confidence in America and its national renewal in the long run (after 8 long years of national decay under Bush reactionaries), it is highly preferable to pursue energy independence. We don't need oil drilling and more oil spills a la Exxon Valdez in Alaska !

President Obama's plans albeit not being flawless, are somewhat more progressive and point in the direction of ensuring the US government creates a conducive enviroment for stimulating a significant shift towards renewable sources of energy generation (green energies, i.e Biomass, wind, tidal hydo solar etc). California already leads the way (with a considerable amount of energy being renewable) and many more states in the US could lead the way. In order for this energy shift to happen, it is not enough to rely on the benevolence of the captains of industry (bear in mind they are mostly bossom buddies with Republicans because they love the voluntary nature of compliance they offer, regulations , what regulations , regulations ? never heard it, it sounds so exotic so mystical...) much more is needed, and folks you need not fear we are not edging towards or on the frightening verge of Socialism, yes that bogeyman Republicans love to conjure up whenever a Democratic government in the US aims to do something progressive.

We shoud reinstate the Kyoto Protocol and also get emissions trading going domestically (and with other countries) and penalize domestic polluters. Our energy dependent industries cannot continue to waste our resources and argue that any organizational - technological changes or adjustments will cost them too much and drtive them out of business, that is very untrue. It is tantamount to scare mongering. If the Obama government cuts into areas like defense spending (that has really become excessive under Bush and his wark hawks), funds can become available for and can be re-allocated and invested into research and into helping US industries restructure and produce in a more green way. How do you think some other countries have done it ? Well its all about incentives and choices and a willingness to promote energy innovation in spite of corporate opposition public fear of change that may affec their own jobs, their tax levels, their lifestyles etc. In spite of opposition, I think it will be a win win situation because as a transformative process "energy independence" will ensure that we utilise and manage our renewable energy resources to the greater benefit of the nation's development and future.

In geopolitical terms, we wont earn the scorn of the world for propping up undemocratic regimes for our own short term gain (taking their oil) anymore, that is already a key benefit (nor will we have to worry about the potential of hostile rogue regimes and islamic terrorists securing control over vital oil resources in the future). America should pursue a foreign policy that makes use of our "soft power" much much more! We have great diplomatic skills, great ideas and values that we can harness to persuade others to join us in our quest for prosperity, progress and freedom. Relying heavily on military force (as the Bush administration did) is very narrow minded and very damaging to America's prestige.

Overall, I think a shift towards energy independence must also mean that Americans change their patterns and habits of consumption. We consume way too much and use too much electricity. We use cars for everything (how many people would willingly give up their car to use public transport?) and most people in a household have their own. I have lived and worked in Europe for a while and noticed how much more progressive people are in places like Scandinavia, Switzerland or Germany when it comes to producing and consuming things. Quantities are smaller, cars aren't as pervasive, alternative energies are encouraged with incentives. Generally you get the feeling they are not under the strangehold of big corpoarations who only want to control people and maintain the status quo for making handsome profits.
Energy independence is the ONLY way, if America wants to meet the challenges in the 21st century.

Learn more about this author, Walter Onubogu.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.