Energy Needs of the US Policy in the Gulf Region - Dissertation Example

?Blumberg, B., Cooper, R., & Schindler, P. 2005. Business research methods. Berkshire: McGraw Hill. Graziano, A., & Raulin, M. 2009. Research methods: A process of inquiry (7th ed.). Boston, MS: Allyn & Bacon. Lee, D. 2005. Selling Out American Public Interest to Oil Industry. UNIORB. Retrieved from, http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/oil.htm Mariampolski, H. 2001. Qualitative Market Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Sarantakos, S. 2005. Social Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Schirach, P. January 2011. Old lobbies prevent new energy policies. Retrieved from, http://schirachreport.com/index.php/2011/01/21/old-lobbies-prevent-new-energy-policies/ Teixeira, R, 2010. Public Opinion Snapshot: Public turns against offshore drilling. Centre for American progress, retrieved from, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/snapshot062810.html The Progress Report, 2010. Big giveaways to big Oil. Retrieved from, http://www.barbrastreisand.com/us/article/big-giveaways-big-oil Weiss, D. September 2010. GOP “Pledge to America” is an oath to Big Oil- written by a former EXXon lobbysist. ClimateProgress. Retrieved from, http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/23/gop-pledge-to-america-big-oil-exxon-lobbyist-brian-wild/ Literature review summary: With approximately 70 % of the global oil reserves located in the Middle Eastern regions, which includes Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq, these group of countries have formed the group of leading exporters of oil, especially in the post WWII era. Sampson, (1975) and Tanzer (1974), into their books gives us detailed insight into the pre WWII era when the oilfields were in the hands of the colonels British empire, and how slowly US took over after emerging as the chief power during the WWII. Tanzer in his book especially traces the rise of US as the main global power, the rise of strong oil companies and the formation of the famous US oil lobby, and it’s taking control over the European oil trade market. Kinzer, (2008) in his book traces the interference of US oil lobby in Iran internal politics during the 1950s to bring in the Shah of Iran (pro-US) as the head of the country, so that the oil fields would be effectively under the control of the US oil firms. Klare 2001, in his book traces the rise in strength of the US oil firms and the beginning of USA’s relentless drive to gain global energy supremacy. Cordesman (1999) gives us detailed insight into US’s ever-increasing oil consumption rate, and the government’s unceasing drive to gain energy security, which drove the US oil companies and the government to attempt to bring all the oil rich countries under their control. These books show us how US created Saudi Arabia and established its control over the oilfields, while Iraq managed to give the western countries the slip by nationalising their oil fields, which finally led to the 2003 war with Iraq. Bennett, et al. (2007), Sepehri (2002), Kay (2001) in their articles give us an insight into the true nature of the 1991 and 2003 Iraq war and the actual reason behind this war. They show very clearly, as what were conditions that ultimately led to the 2003 war, and established clear links oil firms and the Bush regime. Phillip, 2003, very categorically shows in his paper the actual nature of the war and how the oil lobbyists stood to gain from the2003 war, while various news articles in BBC, Times, and CNN also shows strong link between US oil firms, US government, US foreign polices and the US-Iraq war in 2003. Articles by Lee (2005); Weiss (2010) and Paolo Schirach (2011) show the strong link that exists between US’s ineffective energy saving policies and the connection between government officials. These articles put up figures that reveal the huge donations made by the oil firms to the Republican party, and consequent failure on the part of the US government to draw up strong energy saving policies in the last 5 decades, after the end of the WWII, when the consumption of oil suddenly became high owing to the arrival of automobiles in the US market. Oil lobbyists and US energy policies: US started its drive for oil mainly during 1960s and 1970s when it tried to secure its energy security by forcing the oil rich countries to be subservient to its demands. This drive, as we have already seen, had primarily arisen after the US domestic oil output started declining, during the 1970s. after that more than three decades have passed yet, except for creating foreign policies that aim at securing foreign oil fields, US has failed in its efforts to create an effective domestic energy policy that would help to cut down the significantly domestic consumption rate of petroleum. Concentrating only on foreign polices and trying to aim at energy security, under strong lobbying from the US oil lobbies, all concerns for the environment protection and lowering domestic consumption were not taken into account. Environmental concerns came into the limelight only during the 1980's when Enon Valdez accident in Alaska resulted in oil Spills, the growing dissent on the deteriorating North American forests from acid rain, and fears were expressed about the ''Greenhouse Effect." Despite these environmental warning the rising prices of petroleum did not lead to the formation of any effective energy policies from the US government quarters. There are clear links between this apparent ineffectuality of the US government’s interest in creating strong energy policies, aimed at using alternative energy resources, or cutting down on the domestic oil consumption rate. Diana Lee in her article in 2005 writes, “One notorious example of selling out public interest to the oil industry, the Senate has passed the Energy Bill that favors corporate interests by increasing gas prices and enacting toothless policies on oil demand, production, and imports. At the heart of the fight in this bill is to allow oil drilling in the Alaskan sanctuary, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)” (Lee, 2005). Eisenhower had declared ANWR as a ‘pristine zone’ in the United States, while Jimmy Carter had enforced the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) into a law in 1980, protecting more than 100 million acres containing rich flora and fauna. however, since 2001, the Bush administration that has known to have strong links with the oil lobbyists (Kay, 2001) has been trying to tap this protected area of ANWR that is believed to have nearly 10 billion barrels of oil (Lee, 2005). There are evidences that the US public has turned against projects for offshore oil drilling (Teixeira, Public Opinion Snapshot: Public turns against offshore drilling, 2010), yet the government “rather than listening to the American people...listens to polluter lobbyists. The GOP leaders want to expand offshore oil drilling rather than reduce greenhouse gas pollution...and The pledge [“A Pledge to America” by the Republicans] is nothing more than an oath of allegiance to big oil, dirty coal, and other special interests” (Weiss, 2010). Lee further contends in her article that as the oil prices skyrocket, and price of daily commodities rise owing to failing US domestic policies, on the other hand, “24 major U.S. energy companies reported overall net income of $16.7 billion on revenues of $213 billion during the second quarter of 2004 (67 percent increase compared to 2003)” (Lee, 2005). Such high profits primarily from the oil offshore drilling projects, and this clearly indicates the nexus between oil firms and US government policies. According to reports by the Center for Public Integrity, the US oil corporate group have donated more than $440 million over in the 2002 and 2004 elections on election campaigns, political leaders and their parties, and the lobbyists to protect their own stakes (ibid). The oil firms since 1998 have donated more than $381 million on “lobbying activities and more than $67 million in campaign contributions. Evidently, about 73 percent of the industry's campaign donations have ended up in the pockets of Republican candidates and organizations” (ibid). Lee even gives the names of the different companies that form a part of this lobby, Chevron Texaco ($32 million), ExxonMobil(donated $55 million), British oil giant BP ($28 million), Marathon Oil ($29 million); and British/Dutch behemoth Royal Dutch/Shell Group ($27 million) ( ibid). Therefore, the author feels that the failure behind the ineffectual energy saving policies by the US government, finds an answer in this strong oil-government nexus. In another instance, in 2010 we find that efforts by Sen. Sanders to pass a proposal to cut down on $35billion subsidies from the taxpayers’ funds for the Big Oil companies were defeated by the Parliament by a resounding victory, showing the strong links between oil firms and US government (The Progress Report, 2010). In another article by Paolo Schirach on January 2011, there are against allegations of this link, “A while ago, a former high ranking Republican technocrat, senior staff member in many administrations, almost casually indicated that the root cause of America’s inability to extricate itself from its total dependence on oil and consequent paralysis in charting a new energy future was and is the extraordinary power in Washington of the oil and automobile lobbies. We do have new energy technologies –he said. We do have alternatives to oil and to the old gasoline powered internal combustion engine. We do have workable, cost effective solutions. But these lobbies have been and are so strong that they managed to suffocate any policy alternatives that would threaten their historic primacy” (Schirach, Old lobbies prevent new energy policies, 2011). Thus, we find that the oil companies have a strong hold not only on the US foreign policies but also take care to impose their own will and block the US domestic policies that aim at saving energy, using renewable or other alternative oil resources. Read More