Coal

9/27/13

While oil is our main energy source, coal is still a very important and relevant energy source in today's economy and industry. Most, if not all of our electricity comes from coal powered power plants instead of being powered by oil. Just like most things in life, there are both positives and negatives when it comes to coal powered power plants. The benefits for these coal power plants are most related to oil and the U.S. economy. By using coal for electricity, this helps the U.S. by not contributing to our ever increasing dependence on oil, but instead provides us with energy form another source.

Unfortunately, they have immense environmental implications from these coal power plants. First off, just the top fifty (50) dirtiest  coal power plants are responsible for 30% of the energy industry's carbon emissions. Not only is that contribution staggering by itself, but if we think about it a different way, we see that these fifty (50) power plants actually contribute to climate change more than just six (6) countries in the world, (Light, John; 2013). Further focusing on coal power plants, ninety-eight (98) of the top one hundred (100) dirtiest power plants are from coal.

Hopefully this enormous amount of pollution will soon be at least tapered down. With regulations in the works to control the amount of emissions new power plants are allowed to emit, the future looks at least a little less dim than it did last year, (Banerjee, Neela; 2013). Alas, with seemingly any environmental pollution regulation, there is always a twist. The new regulations don't target the older power plants which are the real culprits for carbon emissions. This is a constant problem with passing any sort of environmentally friendly legislature - They are fought throughout the entire process, eventually the opposition gets a minor victory, causing various loopholes like this one. So while the new regulations will help with new plants that are being built, the plants that are producing 30% of the carbon emissions are completely ignored and allowed to keep spewing out pollution.

Other regulations have also been put in place to potentially help reduce the carbon emissions from these coal plants. The EPA has announced that coal powered plants will have to "capture and store a portion of the carbon dioxide they produce," (Drajem, Mark; 2013). This sounds great, right? Wrong. This new rule only applies to new coal powered plants just like the other ones. While this is a step in the right direction for new power plants, this does diddly-squat in terms of our already constructed CO2 spewing power plants. It is not easy to successfully get any regulations on energy company emissions, but if the EPA or another organization can push one regulation through successfully, then we will be heading in the right direction. It's not always about just reducing how newer power plants or cars, or what ever it is, produce CO2, but it's about fixing the already constructed pollution machines.

Overall, it seems that there isn't a real solution yet available that is environmentally friendly and still effective. There are nonstop obstacles that we must overcome to regulate CO2 emissions from our current power plants, as well as a whole other set of obstacles to overcome in order to being and improve "green" energy. The potential for clean energy is there, there is just a lot of opposition to it - Like the oil and coal companies, as well as politicians and other government officials who are making loads of money from these industries. Even though coal energy isn't good for the environment, the silver lining of it all is that it does allow the U.S. to have one source of energy that they rely on that is not oil.

"Diversity is important not only for energy security, but also for national security. Over-dependence on any one source of energy, especially a foreign source, leaves us vulnerable to price shocks, supply interruptions, and, in the worst case, blackmail," (George W. Bush)

Banerjee, Neela  September. "Proposed Power Plant Restrictions Raise Questions on More Limits." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Sept. 2013. <http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-epa-coal-20130921,0,2976466.story>.

Drajem, Mark. "New Coal Plants Must Capture Carbon Dioxide Output: EPA." Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg News, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 2013. <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-20/new-coal-plants-must-limit-carbon-pollution-under-epa-regulation>.

Light, John. "How Close Do You Live to America’s Dirtiest Power Plants?" Bill Moyers. N.p., 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Sept. 2013. <http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/18/are-the-dirtiest-polluters-near-you/?utm_source=EANY+Media+Digest&utm_campaign=73d8f6700d-Media_Digest3_1_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2b837a6864-73d8f6700d-52072261>.

The News Media

9/24/13

As it stands, most if not all people get their news from some sort of newspaper or news source online. Whether it be the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or some other newspaper or news company, we all get our information from these organizations. Most of them are privately owned for profit enterprises which have a variety of writers to continuously churn out the news. As consumers, we are at the mercy of these news companies in order to stay informed with everything going on around the world.

One big deal with news companies is that they essentially construct our reality by reporting on the news of every day. The problem with this relies on the human aspect of news writing and sourcing. Most, if not all humans have some sort of bias one way or another on most topics. In the case of news companies, many writers have their own biases about the news they are reporting on. This can cause some half-truths or mislead readers into not knowing the complete truth. These biased news reports are clearly seen in mainstream versus alternative news sources (Like NYTimes versus Truth-out.org).

With news organizations, there are three (3) main criticisms that these companies must deal with. First off, there is the lack of balance or a phony balance between sources and coverage. For example, with climate change, many news companies have tried to show both sides of climate change (People who agree that it is happening, and people who don't) to provide a balance between two sides, when in reality there is no real dispute whether or not it is happening. This is necessary and provides the public with faulty knowledge of a topic. The second criticism comes from a news company either having a liberal or conservative bias. This can alienate a specific viewing audience, because people have different opinions. The final major criticism is from holes in coverage where some news companies will not discuss a certain topic either because it is controversial, or because of the bias from the second criticism.

Another problem from the consumer side of the news comes from if news companies don't report on something, then the public will probably be ignorant of it ever happening. This is important to note because it brings up the clear idea or notion that these news companies need to be held to high standards and are constantly demanding scrutiny in order to continue to provide the news.

Recently, the newspaper industry has been suffering greatly in terms of sales. Not only are less people buying newspapers, but more and more news websites are sprouting up allowing free access to the same news that they would otherwise have to pay for. This has caused many people to stop paying for the newspaper, and has also reduced the amount of advertisers who are buying ads in the newspapers. This is a huge problem because newspapers get roughly seventy-five (75) percent of their revenue from ads.

While there are downsides to having news companies constructing the reality around us, they are also an integral part of our society. Without them, we would not have any constant and mostly reliable news sources to learn about and discuss. If news traveled slower (We didn't have newspapers, or television stations or websites) and instead it was more like Game of Thrones, with carrier crows sending messages back and forth, we would not be nearly as educated as we are today about what is going on in the world. Most people have access to some form of news or another which helps keep everyone in the know about a wide variety of topics and countries. Being in a country obsessed with news about anything and everything, we have the luxury of choosing our favorite news provider or having a wide range of providers in order to keep ourselves in the know at all times. With this being the case, we must still be weary of human bias because it is still in most articles, even if it isn't apparent.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." (Edward R. Murrow)

Climate Change

9/20/13

Climate Change has been a polarizing topic around the world for some time now. The first biggest advocate that I can remember who openly believed climate change and the negatives that follow it was Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth was ripped apart by climate change denialists who have no evidence to back up their egregious claims, and yet people still believed these denialists. Luckily, today it seems as though ninety-nine (99) percent or so of people realize that climate change is both real, and happening right now. This however was not always the case.

The eventual acceptance of climate change globally has sparked a large movement in "green" living. From eating organic or local, to only buying certain brands because they supposedly have more sustainable techniques in their work, sustainable living has become a big deal. While this seems to be having a positive effect on local populations, the population as a whole doesn't seem to be moving in the right direction for a greener world. A big reason for this is, you guessed it, oil companies. Obviously they are a huge advocate for the continued use of petroleum as our main source of fuel and industry, and who's to blame them? They are constantly making tons of money, with no real sign of profits dropping in the near future. Oil companies are one of the main hindrances for effective environmental advancements to cleaner, more environmentally friendly fuel and energy sources.

As we can see from this graph from the EPA (Carbon Pollution Standards, EPA 2013), eighty-four (84) percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas pollution comes from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and roughly sixty-six (66) percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from a petroleum based economic sector - Transportation, industry and agriculture. Three of the most important economic sectors are dominated mainly by oil as an energy source. This has caused a large increase in oil production and infrastructure, which in turn leads to a variety of hazards that can come from drilling for oil. Some of the obvious include the BP oil spill as well as a variety in the Middle East. Not only are these spills negative for the the oil company profit margins, but it also extremely negative on the environment. The Denver Post recently posted an article about Colorado tracking ten (10) oil spills in the flood zones due to damaged oil and gas pipes and tanks, (Jaffe, M., 2013). This can not only kill many of the wildlife in the area, but can also pollute drinking water causing it to be undrinkable.

There are other negative affects from the abundance of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses being emitted on a daily basis. Another major impact from climate change is ocean acidification. This is a two-pronged problem starting with the acidity in oceans increased causing a large amount of dead zones around the world. This is causing fish to die out around the world, reducing the amount for human consumption as well as greatly impacting the rest of the marine food chain. The second prong of ocean acidification comes from the eventual inability by the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. This will increase the atmospheric CO2 because the ocean will be unable to help mitigate some of the extreme production of CO2. The obvious negatives from this would be global warming from the extra greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, exacerbating the already warming climate. There are a slew of other climate change problems that can't be covered in one blog post, but do still exist.

Overall, it seems like the obvious way to go in terms of the future of energy is to more environmentally friendly ones. Unfortunately, there is great opposition from many companies who are making billions a year on oil. Whether you're just an average citizen of the world or a sustainability studies major or minor, it is our duty, or mission to advocate as much as possible for the advancement of environmentally friendly energy sources. As we head into the future of uncertainty, we must take whatever precautions we can to ensure that Earth will be a habitable place for a long time to come.

"Climate change is happening, humans are causing it, and I think this is perhaps the most serious environmental issue facing us." (Bill Nye)

"Carbon Pollution Standards." EPA.gov. EPA, July-Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards>.
Jaffe, Mark, and Bruce Finley. "State Now Tracking 10 Oil and Gas Spills in Colorado Flood Zones." The Denver Post. N.p., 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_24132296/oil-spill-along-st-vrain-river-near-platteville>.

Chemical Weapons

9/17/13

Why are chemical weapons looked down upon around the world, while other forms of weapons are accepted? In the end, the final objective when using these weapons, chemical or not, is killing people. When it comes to war; is one way of killing someone somehow more humane than another? There seem to be a couple of factors that go into determining how people perceive fighting as humane versus inhumane. There is a clear disconnect between killing people using conventional accepted methods, like guns and bombs, as opposed to chemical weapons. Either way, people are being killed, but somehow, one way is frowned upon more so than the other. But because we have become for the most part, extremely accurate at using guns and bombs to kill people, it is accepted in society. On the other hand, chemical weapons are a lot harder to aim due to the wind carrying the chemicals wherever it is blowing. This can cause serious civilization casualties which is greatly looked down upon.

First off, the people being killed normally have to be some sort of soldier themselves. Soldiers fighting soldiers seems to be fair game in terms of what is viewed as humane killing. The unspoken notion that if you're willing to fight for your country, you must be willing to die for your country. While I understand where that thought comes from, to me, there is a lapse of judgement of sorts. Instead of looking down on people being killed no matter what, as a society we allow the killing of our own people as well as of other nations if they are willing to fight for our country or theirs. What about in draft situations where the soldiers don't necessarily choose to be in the army, are they still "fair game" to being killed by war?

In the same vain, soldiers killing civilians is never humane, and is always looked down upon. Obviously, if someone is just a regular everyday citizen of the world and their country, killing them is immoral. Not only because they aren't fighting in the war, but also because they can't defend themselves. This is a major factor as to why chemical weapons are so looked down upon around the world. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate - They don't care who they hit, the chemicals just flow with the wind, harming anything and everything they come in contact with.

Overall, I think that the main factor for how society views killing and wars has to do with the ability to defend oneself. If a soldier kills a civilian, there is an outrage because the civilian probably doesn't have the means to defend against the attack. Another reason could also be because the civilian isn't even fighting in the war at all, they are normally just an innocent bystander of that country. Obviously they probably support their country winning the war, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be killed while they are still defenseless. This brings us to World War II, a perfect example of civilians being killed. One of the biggest reasons Hitler was looked down upon so much was because he was targeting, for the most part, a group of civilians who could not defend themselves. Most of the people Hitler targeted (gays, Jews, etc.) were just regular citizens of a variety of countries with no means to fight or defend themselves, while Germany had a very strong, capable army. This is viewed as inhumane, or immoral and will cause an uproar in society if it were to happen today, just like it eventually did during World War II. Due to this idea that defenseless people are not fair game for killing in war, chemical weapons are viewed in the same way because they are not reliably able to target only a specific area, and hit only their target, they are "banned' from combat.

"War... War never changes." (Fallout 3)

Iraq

9/13/13

While Saudi Arabia is an important asset to the United States, Iraq could have been in Saudi Arabia's shoes if the U.S. reacted differently to the 9/11 attacks. Even though the U.S. focuses so heavily on having a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia, Iraq is just as useful when it comes to the U.S.'s energy needs. First off, Iraq has roughly 140 billion barrels of proven reserves, or in other words has one of the top 5 largest amounts in the world.

When the attacks of 9/11 happened, the U.S. made the choice to attack Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. If instead, we attacked Saudi Arabia (the majority of the people responsible for the hijacking were from Saudi Arabia), then the U.S. could have had a friendlier relationship with Iraq, getting their oil from them as well. To me there seems to be a disconnect in the American government related to Saudi Arabia and our relations with them. Somehow, they can do no wrong and we will just continue paying them for their oil.When in reality, we are supplying the terrorist we say we are fighting against in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously it's not as simple as imagining the U.S. attacking Saudi Arabia and nurturing friendly relations with Iraq, but I still feel that it should be discussed. From a perspective 12 years in the future, it seems obvious to me that the U.S. needed to get away from their mindset that relations with Saudi Arabia were of vital importance, and instead focus on their own nation security unrelated to energy suppliers. Iraq is just as capable as Saudi Arabia for supplying oil with some initial start up help to increase the amount of oil wells. But because the U.S. was so focused on Saudi oil, they were unable to see that by supporting Saudi oil, they were supplying the terrorists they were trying to fight.

In this scenario, not only is the U.S. supplying the terrorists they are trying to fight, but they also created a rift in relations between themselves and both Iraq and Afghanistan - two countries with high potential to supply oil. The decision to stay friendly with Saudi Arabia and attack Iraq and Afghanistan have dug a hole for the U.S. in regards to energy suppliers. The American government is too stubborn to admit they made a mistake, meaning they must now continue to lean on Saudi Arabia for oil instead of a country that might not be supplying terrorists.

Iraq is also an important player in the Middle East due to an infamous dictator,  Saddam Hussein. This greatly complicates the previously discussed potential partnership between Iraq and the U.S.. If the U.S. were to have attacked Saudi Arabia, and tried improve their relationship with Iraq after 9/11, instead of supporting the terrorists in Saudi Arabia, America would be supporting Saddam Hussein. It seems the U.S. government weighed both options and decided that the lesser of two evils was sticking with Saudi Arabia.

With this dictator in power in Iraq, who can the U.S. safely rely on for their oil needs? Overall, it seems like there is no perfect candidate for who the U.S. should rely on for oil. While some countries are capable of doing so due to their oil reserves (Iraq and Saudi Arabia), they don't have America's best interests in mind. This real life relationship between oil-dependent America and Saudi Arabia is a dangerous and slippery slope with mainly negative consequences in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, as discussed, the entire situation in the Middle East is as complicated as can be. There doesn't seem to be a "perfect" or "correct" way of dealing with both the U.S.'s oil dependency as well as the conflicting leading parties in the Middle East. Some strategies just have less negative consequences than other strategies. Hopefully in the near future, the countries of the Middle East will repair relations with both the U.S. and the world, however, this does seem extremely unlikely.

"Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat." (Ron Paul)

Peak Oil

9/10/13

While the U.S.'s increase in dependency on petroleum for energy is troubling and harmful by itself, it is exacerbated even further by an idea termed Peak Oil. Peak oil is the name used to describe the notion that there is a limited amount of oil on Earth. Because oil is a limited resource, at some point, we will have used up more total oil than will be left in the Earth's reserves. This point is the literal peak of our oil supply. As we continue to rely on oil as our major fuel source, peak oil will become extremely important, not only for the U.S, but for the entire world. Due to America's intense dependence on oil, future negotiations and sales of oil will be heavily in the seller's favor. Whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or another, America will be at the mercy of their selling price or fear economic collapse. This will have many ramifications for both the U.S. and the global economy.

As peak oil starts to become an issue around the world, oil prices will start to rise even more so than they have been due to the realization that we have a finite amount of oil. From this, many oil dependent countries like the U.S. will have two main options; Either be forced to pay more for oil or find another energy source. Both of which seem to be completely against what American politicians and government officials have on their minds. These officials have two main objectives or goals in relation to how they deal with oil. 1. They want oil to be cheap and plentiful. And 2. They want oil to be the main energy source for many years to come. The former because it will allow the American public to buy oil for relatively cheap, which in turn helps their second goal. Since oil will be cheap, Americans will support it as their main energy source, so long as it stays a cheap price. The latter comes into play for a couple of reasons. These politicians and oil companies are making tons of money off of how prevalent oil is as a fuel source in the U.S. and around the world. If America started to shift towards greener, more environmentally friendly energy sources these politicians and oil companies would see large declines in profits, which they can't let happen. In my opinion, greed is a major component to what is stopping the world from advancing environmentally friendly and cleaner energy sources.

American foreign policy focuses largely on making sure oil is easily accessible and readily available from other countries. This can become endangered through a variety of reasons normally occurring in the Middle East. Most oil that comes from the Middle East goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which is surrounded by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Iran. It is also in close proximity to Iraq, which is a center focal point for violence in the area. Saudi Arabia is America's biggest oil supplier in the Middle East as well as the focal point for American relations in the area. Other countries in the area like Iraq and Iran pose potential threats to the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz which the U.S. must deal with. It is this that poses a large threat to American economic prosperity and well being. If a war breaks out in the area, and the Strait of Hormuz becomes blockaded, military action will have to be taken in order to remedy the situation. However, this will come at a cost to both American lives as well as any other country involved. In the end, no matter what happens in the area, the U.S. will continue to focus its efforts on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open as well as the constant supply of oil flowing.

"The American military can help deter attacks on vital oil facilities and ensure the continuing flow of petroleum, but it can never guarantee that our rising demand for imported oil will be satisfied. all that is certain is that we will pay for it with an increasing sacrifice of blood." (73)

Terrorism

9/06/13

An ever increasing trend among extremists in the Middle East has been the desire and eventual action of committing some form of terrorism. Whether it be the attacks on the World Trade Centers or Pentagon, or the many attacks in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, there has been an increase in hostile and deadly attacks around the world stemming from these extremists. This increase in hostility stems from a variety of reasons form both the people committing these egregious acts, as well as from the people that are targeting.

One major reason for this increase in terrorist attacks is from these extremists' willingness to die. Not only do they have strong enough beliefs to warrant (in their mind), the killing of anyone who does not believe what they do, but they are also willing to kill themselves in order to carry out the act. This by itself is rather terrifying, but becomes even more so when we understand that not only are they willing to die, but they are hopeless, lost or crazed human beings, and almost unfix-able. That is to say, these suicide bombers can't and won't be stopped unless they either blow themselves up or die from some other way. They are sort of dehumanized in that sense, to the point where they have no regard for other people's lives and well being if they don't share the same beliefs.

Their willingness to die is then exacerbated by a variety of complaints that Middle Eastern countries have on U.S. Foreign Policy and U.S. actions. There are two major complaints at work in this regard; Americans being a holy place, specifically Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.'s support for Israel. The former is a strong motivator for violence due to Americans being infidels, and Saudi Arabia being the home to holy places. An already tense relationship between the U.S. and these extremists is tested and intensified by this disregard for these holy sanctuaries. Due to their beliefs of killing people who don't share the same belief as them, coupled with the fact that Americans are infidels, a word used with disdain, creates a highly pressurized situation. The latter further increases this intense hatred of Americans due to the extremely volatile relationship and situation between Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Israel has been a major target for terrorist attacks since its inception in 1948.

Unfortunately, I don't see the U.S. leaving Saudi Arabia or stop meddling in the Middle East in the near future due to the natural resource that is been discussed throughout these blogs - Petroleum. The main reason the U.S. has any stake in the Middle East is due to the major dependency on petroleum and the Middle East's supply of this resource. Most recent conflicts can be attributed to natural resources in general and petroleum in particular. This need for oil goes back my other posts about the U.S.'s ever increasing need and dependency on oil for industry, travel, agriculture and more. One way of potentially defusing the situation in the Middle east is for the U.S. to drastically change what kind of energy it uses to supply it's infrastructure. If we can become more reliant on solar, wind and other energies, we can wean off of oil and our presence in the Middle East. While not in any way a fool proof plan, it is one to at least discuss and think about.
As oil continues to be a major resource in energy use around the world, peak oil will start to become an issue. This will be discussed in my next blog.

A quick aside: In my opinion, there is something inherently wrong with any belief that supports the killing of non-believers because they are non-believers. Not only is this a flawed approach to religion and belief, but it is also one that is extremely dangerous for everyone involved. These acts of hatred and violence will lead to more hatred and violence spiraling down into a never ending circle of hostility and violence.

"We will not wave; we will not tire; we will not falter, and we will not fault. Peace and Freedom will prevail." (George W. Bush)

Identity

9/03/13

A big topic discussed both in class, and in Michael Klare's Blood and Oil, is the idea of identity. This can be broken down into many parts: Nationality, religion, sect, tribe, class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. All of these help influence global affairs and relations. Religion is one of the more potent motivators for wars around the world. One prime example of this is Osama Bin laden becoming infuriated with the U.S.'s presence in Saudi Arabia. Because Saudi Arabia is a holy place, and Americans are infidels, he began to despise the U.S. and its allies and has caused massive bloodshed in the 2000's. Religious intolerance has been the root of many wars both in the recent history as well as throughout history.

The bloodshed can stop if people around the world learn tolerance. Unfortunately, people around the world feel a strong need to kill people with different views instead of just tolerate, or ignore them. One of the biggest cases of tolerance comes from accepting people who are gay. This ties back to religious influences as well - Many religions don't tolerate gays. If people around the world could learn to follow their own set of rules without interfering with other people's lives (Like being gay, or not following Islam, etc.) then there would be a lot less conflicts. In the gay example, there are many people who oppose gay marriage. To me this is absurd because legalizing gay marriage would in no way force people who are against gay marriage to partake in it themselves. Te legalization would in no way affect these people who are against it, but they are still adamantly against it because they would not do it themselves.
Before there were social movements pushing for gay marriage there were movements for women's rights and black rights. Once fighting for gay rights are a thing of the past, a new rights movement will rise up to take a stand for their own rights. There is a never ending cycle between people wanting rights, and people opposing them for as long as human society has been around.

Another big factor in international relations is petroleum. The U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship specifically. The U.S has been becoming increasingly more reliant on Saudi oil. This has caused the U.S. to do whatever it can to stay friendly with Saudi Arabia. This has put the U.S. in a strange position where the government almost has no choice but to accept any offer Saudi Arabia makes in order to maintain the constant influx of Saudi oil. Without this oil, the U.S. economy could collapse which is something the government does not want to risk. In order to keep their relations strong, the U.S. must continue to adhere to most, if not all Saudi deal offers as well as provide military support in case of an attack. This is harmful towards the U.S. because they are becoming more and more dependent on this oil, and in turn, becoming easier to manipulate. There is a clear disadvantage to being dependent on another country's exports.

As Michael Klare talks about in Oil and Blood, "[The U.S.'s] biggest problem, of course, is our growing reliance on the oil kingdoms of the Persian Gulf. No matter how hard the United States tries to diversify its energy imports by turning to producers in other regions, it will still need to acquire more and more oil from the Gulf, the only region whose reserves are large enough to satisfy the rising U.S. and international demand," (20). This increasing demand for oil combined with our limited amount of oil in the U.S. is contributing greatly to the increase in foreign oil being used to supply American industry, specifically from places like Saudi Arabia and others in the Middle East. Our reliance on the Middle East for oil is a treacherous one that the government must walk very gingerly. There is constant fighting in the Middle East between countries over resources, religious differences and other reasons. Adding the U.S. into the mix can cause the area to become more volatile. This combination of an already volatile area, mixed with an increasing American presence can, and probably will cause the Middle East to erupt into an even more dangerous area than it has been in the past.

"What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature." (Voltaire)

Cold War

8/30/13

Throughout the last seventy years or so (1940's-present), there has been a multitude of themes surrounding the U.S and world politics. As World War II was coming to a close, a new "war" (The Cold War) arose between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. This divided the world once again between supporters of the Soviet Union, and supporters of the U.S. The Cold War was influenced by many factors including an indirect superpower competition between the U.S and the Soviet Union and conflict in regards to atomic bombs, as well as the division of support for both sides from a number of places including Germany and Korea. These divisions created hostile environments which helped fuel this feud between the superpowers. Mutually assured destruction was put into action where both factions gathered enough firepower to guarantee the destruction of the other. This was able to ensure that if neither party would attack due to the enormous consequences.

Conflicts nowadays seem to be almost exclusively over limited resources. During the Cold War era, one of these natural resources, arguably the most important one still today, was petroleum. Petroleum reserves in the Middle East have been coveted by U.S foreign policy. Both parties have been transparent with their desire for Middle eastern oil which has caused a rift in relations between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. The U.S. desires Middle Eastern oil so much that the government has made it a national security issue. As we continue to rely on oil for energy, the U.S. will continue to have a  "More and more aggressive foreign oil policy aimed at assuring access to petroleum overseas," (30). This was apparent during the Truman presidency when the Soviets were attempting to get an in with Turkey and Greece. Truman stated in a speech, which later becomes referred to as the Truman Doctrine, that the U.S. would support Turkey and Greece financially and militarily in an effort to keep them out of the Soviet sphere of influence. This was a smart move because not only did it protect against Soviet advances, but it also portrayed America as the "good guy" in the eye of the rest of the world.

The Truman Doctrine was followed by the Eisenhower Doctrine where Eisenhower felt the need to bolster the armed forces of friendly regimes in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia. This came from Egypt buying arms from the USSR following their diminishing view on Western powers. Again, this seems to put America in a positive light because it looks like they are just protecting any nation that needs help. When in reality, America is only doing this with their own benefits in mind - The continued availability of Saudi oil.
The final doctrine comes from the Nixon administration, where Nixon wanted to alleviate the American burden of defending its allies. Instead of being the dominant protector of its allies, America would "furnish military and economic assistance when requested," (43) in order to reduce the amount that America would have to intervene in international affairs. This was a smart move for Nixon because it helped to relieve some pressure that the U.S. was facing trying to be the main defender of its allies, becomes a lot more bearable.

Overall, petroleum has been a constant source for aggression in my lifetime, and I imagine will continue to be one for some time. As countries like the U.S. continue to rely so heavily on oil for everything from travel, industry, and agriculture, the larger the consequences will be when the oil runs out, is refused to them or becomes too expensive. Massive economic and industrial collapses can occur if the U.S. - Saudi Arabia relationship becomes toxic. This dependence on oil is continuing to become more and more intense which is putting the U.S. in a vulnerable position. As we get further into our class, this dependency on oil will become more and more important and frightening.

"Oil makes this country strong; dependency makes us weak." (11)