I'm still working my way through The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power and I wanted to type some things out in order to gain clarity and insight.
It's still a pretty good book, and certain things are beginning to fall into place for me. It's like I knew part of the story, but I didn't know how all they connected until it was laid out for me like this.
And that is...odd.
I'm not quite sure how to explain it. I grew up with what I assume most people my age did. There's a sense that big oil is evil (and how can they claim they're suffering, and then post record profits during one of the worst years of the recession?). There's a sense that we're ruining our environment, and the big oil companies are not willing to admit it or change anything because they'll lose money. There's a sense that our foreign policy is dictated by moneyed interests. That our values and morals as a nation are compromised by the dirty realities of oil, and money.
And there's a lot of resentment over that.
Growing up with all these competing ideas (I just laid one of the competing viewpoints, but there are others I didn't list) requires putting on some filters and finding a way to make sense of it all. I am not so naive as to think we, as a nation, always do what is morally right. Or that realpolitik doesn't affect our thinking.
Yet I disagree, on principle, with analysis that paints it black or white. That says the rich are automatically greedy and self-serving. One of my personal rules of thumb is that it's almost always more complicated than you think, with grey areas and ambiguities. So (to go to more recent times) when I heard people claim our involvement in Iraq was all about oil I was somewhat skeptical.
I have seen what happens when large groups of people buy into conspiracy theories, and it isn't pretty. You have to use critical thinking to sort through what is and isn't so, and that's hard.
But to bring this back to the book I'm reading - I haven't got to recent events yet. I'm still reading about the post-World War II era. There are odd parallels between what happened back then and the world of today. Rising oil prices. The sudden drop in oil prices as the markets are glutted. Refusing to lower production in order to maintain market share. The death of the Saudi Arabian king.
Yet from what I have read so far I've noticed two or three things.
Most importantly - Why is so much of this new to me? This is our history we're talking about. Great events of our time. Things I knew about actually make more sense, appear to have a logic behind it that I can even, sometimes, agree with. I mentioned that I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories, but it seems hard to believe that so much of our history is glossed over and overlooked. Hard not to feel like it's somewhat deliberate, even. In this case, btw, I'm not just talking about the history of oil. I got a similar feeling when a friend loaned me a book on the history of labor in the US.
Secondly - the oil industry reminds me of research into social dilemmas. The strive to make the market more predictable, to prevent over-production. The pressure to get what you can while the getting is good. The resistance to controls and attempts to work as a group to manage the industry. (Except where I thought of these efforts as wholly good when it comes to conservation of water, or fishing industries, it's strange to apply to oil...especially since, as a consumer, I absolutely love it when oil prices drop.)
Third - and perhaps I should list this as 'most importantly', except the first point was the greater shock to me personally - if using oil gave us considerable war time advantages, i.e. ships could go faster and maneuver more quickly, etc...
Then why is getting OFF oil not considered a matter of national security? Imagine if you had tanks that could go twice as long before refueling? Isn't that a considerable battlefield advantage? Imagine that you could fly a plane without refueling at all? Again - considerable battlefield advantage.
I know there have been moves in that direction. I vaguely remember hearing discussion on hybrid tanks. I know that is getting ready to fly a solar powered plane around the world. (Not a military plane, but the technology is being developed).
There's been all sorts of developments in solar power and biofuels. Batteries, wind power, and more. The technology is getting there.
So what better time to make a real, sincere, concerted effort to convert our military to a more sustainable energy source? Purely because of the considerable military advantage it could bring us? Edited to add: I am clearly not the only one who sees this. So the question is are we doing everything we can to make the conversion?
Edited again: the last paragraph of this article mentioned the trouble with bringing renewable energy to Afghanistan. From personal experience, one of the challenges is that the local people may steal solar power resources in order to use them for something else.
It's still a pretty good book, and certain things are beginning to fall into place for me. It's like I knew part of the story, but I didn't know how all they connected until it was laid out for me like this.
And that is...odd.
I'm not quite sure how to explain it. I grew up with what I assume most people my age did. There's a sense that big oil is evil (and how can they claim they're suffering, and then post record profits during one of the worst years of the recession?). There's a sense that we're ruining our environment, and the big oil companies are not willing to admit it or change anything because they'll lose money. There's a sense that our foreign policy is dictated by moneyed interests. That our values and morals as a nation are compromised by the dirty realities of oil, and money.
And there's a lot of resentment over that.
Growing up with all these competing ideas (I just laid one of the competing viewpoints, but there are others I didn't list) requires putting on some filters and finding a way to make sense of it all. I am not so naive as to think we, as a nation, always do what is morally right. Or that realpolitik doesn't affect our thinking.
Yet I disagree, on principle, with analysis that paints it black or white. That says the rich are automatically greedy and self-serving. One of my personal rules of thumb is that it's almost always more complicated than you think, with grey areas and ambiguities. So (to go to more recent times) when I heard people claim our involvement in Iraq was all about oil I was somewhat skeptical.
I have seen what happens when large groups of people buy into conspiracy theories, and it isn't pretty. You have to use critical thinking to sort through what is and isn't so, and that's hard.
But to bring this back to the book I'm reading - I haven't got to recent events yet. I'm still reading about the post-World War II era. There are odd parallels between what happened back then and the world of today. Rising oil prices. The sudden drop in oil prices as the markets are glutted. Refusing to lower production in order to maintain market share. The death of the Saudi Arabian king.
Yet from what I have read so far I've noticed two or three things.
Most importantly - Why is so much of this new to me? This is our history we're talking about. Great events of our time. Things I knew about actually make more sense, appear to have a logic behind it that I can even, sometimes, agree with. I mentioned that I tend to dismiss conspiracy theories, but it seems hard to believe that so much of our history is glossed over and overlooked. Hard not to feel like it's somewhat deliberate, even. In this case, btw, I'm not just talking about the history of oil. I got a similar feeling when a friend loaned me a book on the history of labor in the US.
Secondly - the oil industry reminds me of research into social dilemmas. The strive to make the market more predictable, to prevent over-production. The pressure to get what you can while the getting is good. The resistance to controls and attempts to work as a group to manage the industry. (Except where I thought of these efforts as wholly good when it comes to conservation of water, or fishing industries, it's strange to apply to oil...especially since, as a consumer, I absolutely love it when oil prices drop.)
Third - and perhaps I should list this as 'most importantly', except the first point was the greater shock to me personally - if using oil gave us considerable war time advantages, i.e. ships could go faster and maneuver more quickly, etc...
Then why is getting OFF oil not considered a matter of national security? Imagine if you had tanks that could go twice as long before refueling? Isn't that a considerable battlefield advantage? Imagine that you could fly a plane without refueling at all? Again - considerable battlefield advantage.
I know there have been moves in that direction. I vaguely remember hearing discussion on hybrid tanks. I know that is getting ready to fly a solar powered plane around the world. (Not a military plane, but the technology is being developed).
There's been all sorts of developments in solar power and biofuels. Batteries, wind power, and more. The technology is getting there.
So what better time to make a real, sincere, concerted effort to convert our military to a more sustainable energy source? Purely because of the considerable military advantage it could bring us? Edited to add: I am clearly not the only one who sees this. So the question is are we doing everything we can to make the conversion?
Edited again: the last paragraph of this article mentioned the trouble with bringing renewable energy to Afghanistan. From personal experience, one of the challenges is that the local people may steal solar power resources in order to use them for something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment