Friday, October 9, 2009

There will be blood....


Someone reminded me recently that Jared Diamond, famed ecologist, historian, and author of Guns, Germs, and Steel, calls the development of agriculture the greatest environmental disaster in the history of the earth. I tend to agree with him, for reasons we can debate in class, but I'd also argue that the discovery of fossil fuels comes in a close second, and in many parts of the world has brought more than just environmental degradation. Friedman investigates some of the sociopolitical impacts arising from the interaction between our dependence on fossil fuels and the geographical distribution of those fuels.

While this chapter might not at first seem to relate to this class, I think that Friedman does bring up some issues that are relevant to our interests. Comment on how you think this chapter relates to things we've discussed in class, or that seem fodder for our future discussions. What did you find new or interesting in the reading?

10 comments:

  1. Kevin

    I agree with Friedman for much of his main idea on how America's thirst for oil extracted in the Middle East is a cause of much of the instability in that region. The Saudis are using much of the profits gained from selling the oil to further their fundamentalist ideology everywhere in the Muslim world. Yet, I found the graph he drew correlating freedom and price of oil as a bit sketchy, since it is hard to quantify "freedom." I did get the overall point that fluctuations in the price of oil could have such reaching impacts as to accelerate the pace of political strife. Now, the "Tragedy of the Commons" has a large political element in it, with the slow depletion of resources on the commons accompanied by an increasing number of conflicts. Less resources, less land for productive activities, more people, and more conflicts is a vile concoction to be avoided. Even if APES is supposed to contain as little politics as possible, then this is something that cannot be ignored as it is just part of the overall problem of the Tragedy of the Commons.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What I got out of this chapter of Hot, Flat, and Crowded is similar to what Kevin has already summarized - our unhealthy dependence on foreign oil is weakening the Middle Eastern view of democracy and has created a prime example of the Tragedy of the Commons. By stealing all of the oil in the commons for ourselves, we are bringing about international distress and conflict that could be avoided with a more civilized strategy and, if we play our cards right, a decreased dependence on oil altogether. On a larger scale, our dependence on foreign oil is minimizing the available resources for other countries that deserve it all just as much as we do (if not more). Kevin worded it nicely - we cannot ignore the tragedy that we are putting on the commons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess I think that one of the most important points of this chapter is that the widespread trend of adopting more and more conservative forms of Islam is becoming dangerous. The Islam that is becoming more common seems to be more sexist, more closed to other religions and cultures, and more against modernization than ever before. And yet it is a system that thrives off of the international fuel economy. Friedman argues that finding renewable energy alternatives is no longer a hobby of tree-hugging crusaders, and has actually become a “national security imperative.” As long as we rely on foreign oil, we will continue to feed the reversal of democratic trends. I definitely agree with Friedman, and I think that his argument really ties into things that we’ve been studying all year long: education of women, global education in general, escaping the “commons” problems, and an understanding of the environment and our eco-footprints in general. The concept of “Petropolitics” is an application of what we’ve been learning on an even more complicated global scale.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I found this last chapter of HFAC very interesting for a number of reasons. As we all have learned the use and extraction of fossil fuel carries with it a number of unfortunate environmental ramifications. However Freidman illustrates that oil is not only jeopardizing our ecosystems, it is also posing a threat to our national security. Friedman explains that much of the money sent of to the middle east to buy our oil winds up financing the propagation of radical Islam. These radical Islamic beliefs support attacks against Americans and other counties as well as more closed minded and illogical principles, including the suppression of women’s rights, and general freedom of all people. If these political impacts coupled with what we already know to be the devastating impacts of global warming should be more than enough of a compelling reason to wean our selves from our oil dependence. As several people have all ready stated it is interesting how this also ties into the tragedy of the commons. Oil is a common resource, and regardless of who is purchasing it, the money is going to fund the same radical Islamic groups who pose an international threat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. OPEC made close to 550 billion dollars from oil exports in 2007. The main consumer of that oil was the US. We are partly responsible for the overuse of one of earths resources which is defiantly a tragedy of the commons. Another problem that comes with buying oil from middle eastern countries is the increase in the practice of islam. Islam has a strong belief that women shouldn't be educated , and we talked in class about how educated women could be the deciding factor in controlling population growth. I think that Freedman is 100% right when he talked about the importance of finding and using reusable sources of energy. When we a going through as much gas as we are new solutions need to come quickly because we are running out of oil fast.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We've talked in class about how women's education is one of the most effective ways to lower birth rates, which is a very important issue since I, and many other people, hate crowds. (I'm trying to make this light and not be overwhelmed...) According to Friedman, oil prices are inversely related to freedom in "petrolist" states, which rely heavily on oil money -- the higher oil prices rise, the less freedom these countries have. Since their governments don't have to tax people, they don't have to give them representation and they can buy off opposition. Instead of concentrating on educating the country's people and developing new, innovative businesses, the government focuses on cementing itself in power domestically and abroad. The lack of freedom caused by oil money impacts women especially : since most of the jobs available in such states consist of traditionally-male manual labor (construction, for example) and not innovation or education (starting new businesses, teaching, agriculture), most women are forced to stay home, and therefore have little opportunity to gain economic or political power. And as the repressive Saudi version of Islam spreads due to Saudi Arabia's enormous oil wealth and therefore influence, women are consistently denied rights and opportunities to education and empowerment. Which leads to... OVERPOPULATION. Bad.

    But this isn't just about women's rights. Stifling innovation and entrenching your country in tradition and repression makes new ideas and more efficient technologies impossible. I did research this summer about the possibility of expanding PV (solar energy) distribution in countries around the world, and guess what's happening with solar energy in the Middle East? Nothing. No subsidies, no government support for alternative energy (even though desert areas are perfect for solar power) -- some empty promises, and then nothing. And of course, in countries that stifle innovation and openness, new technology has no support.

    And this relates to us because our oil consumption gives money to "petrolist" states and fuels these consequences. And then since these countries have our money, they don't need to listen to our demands if we aren't willing to stop buying their oil. So it's not just a matter of 'Is it moral for us to tell other countries to build themselves more efficiently than we did;' it's that they won't listen to us if we tell them to.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I found most interesting about this chapter is sort of what JCP already summarized. I found it interesting how Friedman discussed the correlation between radical funding and oil. In a way the United States is actually paying to support the very thing we are scared of. I found this most interesting because it ties back into the “commons” problem we have been discussing in class. Because the United States doesn’t think on a global scale, we are unable to see the connection between our oil money, and radical Islam. They are displayed as two separate entities, when in fact they are very directly linked. The problem appears that the United States, once again, needs to start seeing the effects of our actions as well as the benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's going to be hard to write something completely original since most of the main points have been discussed already, but I think that the most important point that Friedman makes is that America, as an oil consumer/buyer is encouraging the increasingly radical groups that we are also fighting. Like someone else said, we are not (in our execution) recognizing the "correlations" (noticed Zoe used the same wording...) between our spending in oil and the financial support for these radical groups. If we (The U.S.) keep demanding and buying oil from the countries where these groups are based, we will continue to 'support' them. This may seem like an all around political argument, and it kinda is, but it is also an environmental problem because by continuing to buy oil from these countries we are also committing to
    keeping up our pollution producing ways. However, there is one solution that may prove to be an answer to both problems. That is finding alternative (renewable) energy to take the place (for the most part) of oil. By doing this we would cut most of our funding to the radical groups, and hopefully greatly decrease our environmental footprint. Kill two birds with one stone...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I had never truly considered the idea of petropolitics. How our addiction to oil could be funding the undemocratic world the United States is so strongly against. By funding the oil giants of these petropoltical countries, not only are we funding our declared "enemies", but we are also encouraging the polarization of Islam. The more secular, modern versions of Islam are no longer in control of the countries they once represented. Now countries like Saudi Arabia especially, are controlled by much more strict and religiously dedicated forms of Islam. The oil and gas giants have used their money and power to manipulate the governments to suit their needs and interests. In the case of the Middle East, their interests have been to increase the strength of a strict religious sect of Islam. That type of power coming from one source of industry is dangerous as Freidman points out because it reduces the creativity and innovation that comes from entrepreneurship in other industries. The governments and economies come to depend on the wealth of that industry just as we depend on the oil they provide for us. Much like a positive feedback, our input of money is only causing bad in the overall picture. To create any change in petropolitics or the dependence on oil, we must reevaluate our strategy and our dependence first, before we can critique others.

    ReplyDelete