Before Sept. 11, aside from reinstating the military draft, nothing could have been considered more suicidal for a politician than an attempt to raise the price of gas or to get Americans to conserve energy.
However, that fateful day in September made many Americans reexamine United States energy policy. People began to ask: Did our insatiable appetite for oil prevent us from taking certain steps that could have prevented the attacks? Did it in fact lead to it? Should we continue to keep sending large amounts of money to the region?
With the political climate finally right for long-overdue energy conservation, President Bush focused elsewhere, solely asking the American people to return to the shopping malls after Sept. 11.
It is obvious to most everyone that if not for the black gold that sits under their sands, the nations of the Middle East would be of minor strategic importance. However, due to the vital role petroleum plays in our economy, the U.S. has devoted much effort to the region: In 1953, the CIA, acting with the British, overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq as he led the nationalist bloc in his country's parliament that sought to nationalize Iranian oil.
Denounced in the U.S. and British press as an autocrat, and eventually, as a communist, many contend that his portrayal in the media was inaccurate, although Mossadeq did institute some anti-democratic measures. His removal from power preserved the reign of the Shah, who was installed by the British in 1941 and was much more autocratic than Mossadeq ever was
After Britain decided in 1968 to remove all its troops from the region by 1971, the U.S. sought to maintain stability in the region by arming Saudi Arabia and Iran. Following the 1979 Revolution in Iran, however, the U.S. began arming states such as Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, since Iran was no longer a friendly power. This was coupled with the arming of Iraq, including chemical and biological weaponry (either directly from the U.S. or through allies) to try to contain the "threat" of Iran.
Also important to note is the history of constructing both permanent and temporary military bases in the region to facilitate an American ground invasion to protect access to oil if the need arises.
If oil consumption were to be drastically reduced, the national security implications would be overwhelmingly positive. American military presence in the Gulf is one of the main complaints of al Qaeda and other like-minded groups. By continuing our gluttonous use of petroleum, we force ourselves to continue to be involved with the politics of the region, periodically preserving the balance of power in the area or protecting friendly regimes from domestic political unrest.
This in turn necessitates troop buildups in the region, something many point to as a possible impetus for the recent invasion of Iraq; it has already been reported by numerous sources that the United States has constructed, and is constructing, military bases in the country. While our government claims these are temporary, many observers note that the nature of the buildings are quite permanent and question the government's repeated assertions otherwise. This should not be surprising; such bases would provide a much-needed location to station troops in the region.
Saudi Arabia is becoming increasingly unstable (not only does the stationing of troops in the nation breed much resentment, but the Saudi Royal family, which has strong ties to the West, is at a rising risk of being overthrown) and Donald Rumsfeld has already begun moving troops off of Saudi soil. Moreover, U.S. military bases in Iraq would help America secure access to oil in another region that is quickly gaining importance; the Caspian. With instability in the Middle East, many see the Caspian as a potential alternative to Middle Eastern oil. Already, the U.S. government has done much in the Caspian region that it has done in the Middle East: building military bases, selling weaponry, and training "friendly" forces.
Instead of seeking stability in the region through the installation of a U.S.-friendly government by force, the administration could have taken steps to reduce U.S. energy consumption. As New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman suggested, the Bush administration might have imposed a so-called "Patriot Tax" of 50 cents a gallon on gas to create the incentive for conservation. Or, less drastically, the administration might have put forth legislation to gradually impose a smaller tax year by year on gas, as was proposed in the 1970s. Or, the President might have advocated an increase in CAF... (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, those regulations that place restrictions on the fuel economy of vehicles sold in this country (fuel economy in America has actually decreased since the late 1970s).
Even the Bush administration has noted the need for "energy independence." Yet, their plan argued for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska.
Excluding the environmental arguments against it, drilling in the reserve would have only provided a negligible amount of oil to America and was nothing short of sheer folly; that is, except for the oil companies, Bush is perpetually catering to. While relatively unknown, even the Pentagon recently released a report that stated that Global Warming was as great a threat to world peace as terrorism, and that actions needed to be implemented to combat it. Unfortunately, the administration ignored such warnings, as its members seem to have a penchant for ignoring information or intelligence that contradicts their plans.
The president's defenders will surely rush to proclaim how the administration put forth an unprecedented amount of funding for hydrogen fuel cells, engines (already in production on a small scale) that burn hydrogen and whose only emission is water. However, such an argument is misleading. First, previous administrations did not put forth funding for such technology because it had not yet been invented. Second, unsurprisingly, the President's plan advocates deriving hydrogen from petroleum, thus standing in stark contrast to the vision of the scientists involved with hydrogen technology who envisioned deriving hydrogen from water.
Philip Martin is a junior majoring in Political Science. He is currently studying abroad in Spain
