Groups such as the Chamber of Commerce support the pipeline because it would create a lot of jobs, thus stimulating the economy. According to TransCanada, a minimum of 20,000 jobs would be created through the building of the pipeline. These are jobs you can’t just bring out from behind your garage door. And there are a number of unions that are currently advocating the project such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the International Union of Operating Engineers.

However, you would be hard-pressed to find an environmentalist who supports the pipeline project. The environmental concerns involve greenhouse gas emissions, damage to Alberta’s forests, the possibility of oil spills, and more.

Tiernan Sittenfeld is an important official in the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). According to Sittenfeld, the pipeline issue is a pivotal concern in the upcoming presidential election.

“This is not just about what LCV, which spent nearly $1 million to help elect Obama in 2008, or any other group that engages in electoral politics do in the upcoming election,” explained Sittenfeld. “It’s about people out there who care deeply about the environment, how much they volunteer, how many doors they knock on, how much money they contribute directly. We have LCV supporters who maxed out to the Obama campaign in 2008 who have told us they are not going to give this time around if the president approves this pipeline.”

Environmentalist Bill McKennan agrees with Sittenfeld and was among Friday’s crowd of pipe protestors. He declared, “I suppose you could look at our circle around the president as a kind of … symbolic house arrest.” McKennan continued, “We are very hopeful, indeed confident, that the president will do the right thing here.”

Recipe for an oil war

Heritage Oil and Tullow Oil are guessing the 2.5 billion barrel or larger field is the largest onshore field found in sub-saharan Africa in more than two decades. Production of 150,000 barrels of oil per day by 2015 place Uganda among top 50 oil producing nations is planned. The latter company, Irish Tullow Oil, is now accused of having bribed three Ugandan ministers with 100 million USD in July 2010 in return for concessions. The ministers resigned October 2011. Tullow denies allegations, maintain an anti-bribe image and have funded a lake rescue station which they claim have already saved the lives of more than 70 local fishermen. Also in the deal are French Total and Chinese Cnooc. Those corporations are expected to claim 2/3 of the 3-4 billion USD hoped to be made annually.

A leaked US embassy cable (Wikileaks, #08KAMPALA393) reveals Uganda have been asking for help stepping up security in and around the oil rich area. John Morley of Tullow Oil is quoted for saying that as oil activity on Lake Albert increase a security presence would be vital. The cable mention “several clashes on Lake Albert between oil companies and entities from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) demonstrate that oil production has increased local tensions and exacerbated cross-border hostilities”. In 2007 a British drilling platform worker was killed by Congolese soldiers who claimed the barge had strayed into Congolese waters. Although the Ugandan and Congolese governments are talking and are in agreement concerning the precise geography of the border the armed forces on the Congolese side of the border are not always government-related.

An intervention overdue?

Several militias fight in the area and in just recent months thousands have had to fled their homes, hundreds have been kidnapped. Adding to the Congolese militias the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels as well as the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony add to the insecurity. FDLR is a Hutu group whose two top leaders are held in France and Germany on charges of crimes against humanity yet whose troops raped at least 154 civilians from July 30 to August 3, 2010, in the town of Luvungi. LRA is the Ugandan theocratic militia of self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Kony, who claims to be acting on orders from spirits sent by God, and whose ranks have been inflated by an estimated 66,000 children abducted for soldiering. October 2005 the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on Kony and four other leading members of LRA; the 33 charges include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and pillaging.

Recently, the Ugandan presiden spent US$780 million on six Russian jet fighters. A decision that raises eyebrows in a country with a GDP of less than 500USD per capita.

“We don’t live in an enemy-free neighbourhood. So, don’t look at the purchase in terms of cost. The Great Lakes region is one of the most unsafe regions.”
- Ugandan presiden Yoweri Museveni

Since 2008 the US have donated more than 40 million USD on supporting the Local counter-militia efforts. And now 100 Green Berets have been sent as military advisers for the governments of the region. They are receiving a warm welcome.

“For 20 years, the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem, because these are international terrorists. We wanted our friends to help in providing technical support — such as intelligence — because they have the best.”
- Uganda’s acting foreign minister Henry Okello Oryem

“Any support to tackle the LRA is a good move [...] South Sudan is already working with Uganda’s army in operations against the LRA, and we will be pleased to work with anyone who can help us combat the threat [...] We have large communities whose lives are ruined by these rebels, so the sooner we can end this once and for all will be something we will look forward to.”
- South Sudan army spokesman Philip Aguer

“The Central African Republic today more than needs external assistance like that of United States [...] Many hundreds of our people have been killed, others kidnapped or displaced, their homes ransacked, destroyed, their possessions looted. It is unbearable.”
- CAR Deputy defence minister Jean-Francis Bozize

Thus, the link between the US troops and the oil is still a “conspiracy theory”. Obama and the US is simply making friends while helping the world get rid of monsters. Human Rights Watch has advocated for intervention for years.

Yet at home knee-jerk reactions are dominated by right-wing isolationism/grudges and left-wing anti-war sentiments.

The enemy within

A recent report, “Oil Extraction and the Potential for Domestic Instability in Uganda”, warns about other dangers than cross-border guerrilla warfare: the possible side-effects of a sudden large scale resource industry entering a developing economy. President Museveni, who first seems to have orchestrated the addition of a third presidential term to the constitution then won a low turnout election disputed by international observers, is already speaking of “his” oil.

“If Museveni gains access to substantial oil revenue, the combination of considerable oil funds and strong presidential powers could increase the ability of his government to remain in power indefinitely. [...] Increases in corrupt behavior would essentially require secrecy in government dealings. A reduction in government transparency in oil and tax revenue management would then incentivize Museveni’s government to become increasingly autocratic in its relationship with the public and political opponents, as has so often been the pattern in other oil producing states.”

Also, susceptibility to the Dutch Disease should be considered:

“If the government does not reinvest revenues into public works to soften the blow of economic change, domestic instability may ensue [...] The poor and disaffected youths are the most likely to turn to violence in order to redress socio-political grievances. A young, growing, and increasingly urban population indicates the potential for civil strife in Uganda. The added stress of urban migration associated with oil production may only exacerbate the dynamics behind civil strife. [...] If Museveni’s government makes its decisions public and is held accountable, it is more likely to choose anti-corruption policies that are favorable to the public interest.”

The report estimate the risk of civil war in Uganda as 1.96% if the new found resource wealth is handled wisely, 14.05% if not. Dutch Disease effects could be both mitigated and worsened by the fact that multiple industries are likely to boom: in 2010 firms from Russia, China, India, Australia and South Africa started operating in Uganda after finds of copper, iron ore, cobalt, tin, gold and platinum.

“We must be Africa’s Norway. We must manage our oil resources in the stellar manner in which Botswana has managed its wealth from diamonds.”
- Bank of Uganda Governor, Emmanuel Mutebile

We haven’t heard much from the hopeful Iraqi politicians who once voiced similar intentions with their oil. However, it does seem Obama is at least trying to do better than his predecessor(s). And if a US president can’t even go to war against someone as evil as Joseph Kony he truly can do nothing at all – yet, who knows if the Tea Party will side with Kony and his lunatic army?

Learn more: The Independent (Uganda) / Oil could cause war, Capital News (Kenya) / Uganda welcomes US troops to hunt rebel leaders, Sunday Monitor (Uganda) / Here is what is at stake with Uganda’s oil, The Atlantic / Why Is Obama Sending Troops Against the Lord’s Resistance Army?, allafrica.com / Uganda: Scramble for Minerals Begins.

The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system that will transport oil from Canada to refineries in the United States and then expand to the U.S Gulf Coast. The U.S Department of State has extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest. The Obama administration has the final say in approving the pipeline. A final environmental review of the prospective project is expected from the State Department in August.

The Partnership to Fuel America campaign is the first time the U.S Chamber has overtly aligned with the Canadian company’s project. According to the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, it will be “comprised of American businesses and industries that understand the need for more energy in the United States and believe that Canada’s significant resources can help achieve that goal.” When visiting The Partnership to Fuel America’s website, the only source of energy listed at Canada’s tar sands, and most listed are directly related to the Keystone XL project.

This particular pipeline is controversial because it is a tar sands pipeline, it’s different than those that carry conventional crude oil. These lines are much more prone to leaks and spills, and spills are bad for the environment. Because this is a tar sands pipeline, the oil that is extracted is different. Tar sands can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. The bitumen in tar sands cannot be pumped from the ground in its natural state; instead tar sand deposits are mined, usually using strip mining or open pit techniques, or the oil is extracted by underground heating with additional upgrading.

This type of oil is more acidic, thick and sulfuric than conventional crude oil. It is up to sevety times more viscous than conventional crude oil. It also contains fifteen to twenty times higher acid concentration, and five to ten times as much sulfur as conventional crude oil. The additional sulfur can lead to the weakening of pipelines. Imagine having to transport a glass of water in a paper cup by driving out of your garage door to the other side of the country without even a spill. The chemical composition also makes it much more difficult for monitors to detect a crack in the pipeline.

The Keystone I pipeline has infamously spilled twelve times in under a year of operation. The company had initially claimed that the pipeline would leak only once every seven years. Finally, after the tar sands oil does spill, cleanup is harder than normal crude spills. A year after a spill in Western Michigan, one reporter stated that surface skimmers and vacuums were no help, and a full year later, EPA officials and scientists were still working on a plan to remove submerged oil from about 200 acres of river and lake bottom. They now believe a full clean up could take years.

Oil exploration and production has been conducted in the Niger Delta since the 1950s but many of the operations have been suspended since the early 1990s because of local unrest, and “the oil fields and installations of the region known as Ogoniland have been dormant,” the United Nations reports.

“In that period there has been only partial efforts to remedy the contamination from oil production, and further spills as a result of a lack of maintenance, oil tapping and damage to infrastructure have occurred in the past 15 years.”

The World’s Most Wide-Ranging Oil Clean-UP Exercise

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) launched on the end of November 2009, an assessment of the impact of contamination from oil across the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta in Nigeria.

Now the UN concludes that the environmental restoration of Ogoniland oil region “could prove to be the world’s most wide-ranging and long-term oil clean-up exercise ever, if contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and other ecosystems are to be brought back to full health.”

“It could take 25 to 30 years, with an initial investment of 1 billion dollars just for the first five years, to clean up pollution from more than 50 years of oil operations in the Niger Delta, ranging from the “disastrous” impact on mangrove vegetation to the contamination of wells with potentially cancer- causing chemicals in a region that is home to some 1 million people,” informed the UN on August 6th, 2011.

Contamination Greater Than Thought

The UNEP scientific assessment showed “greater and deeper pollution than previously thought after an agency team examined more than 200 locations, surveyed 122 kilometres of pipeline rights of way, analysed 4,000 soil and water samples, reviewed more than 5,000 medical records and engaged over 23,000 people at local community meetings.”

“It is UNEP’s hope that the findings can break the decades of deadlock in the region and provide the foundation upon which trust can be built and action undertaken to remedy the multiple health and sustainable development issues facing people in Ogoniland,” UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner said of the report, which was presented to Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja.

“In addition it offers a blueprint for how the oil industry, and public regulatory authorities, might operate more responsibly in Africa and beyond at a time of increasing production and exploration across many parts of the continent.”

Oil Industry And Government, To Pay One Billion Dollars

The report, Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland, proposed the establishment of an Ogoniland Environmental Restoration Authority as soon as possible, with an initial capital injection of 1 billion dollars “from the oil industry and the government to cover the first five years of the clean-up project;” and a soil management centre with hundreds of mini-centres to treat contaminated soil and provide hundreds of job opportunities.

It also recommended setting up a centre to promote learning and benefit other communities impacted by oil contamination in the Niger Delta and elsewhere in the world.

Areas Severely Contaminated Underground

The study found that some areas, which appear unaffected at the surface, are in reality severely contaminated underground, and action to protect human health and reduce should be taken without delay. In at least 10 communities where drinking water is contaminated with high levels of hydrocarbons, public health is seriously threatened.

Disastrous Impact On Nature

The report noted that the impact of oil on mangrove vegetation had been “disastrous”, with many inter-tidal creeks where mangroves that serve as nurseries for fish and natural pollution filters denuded of leaves and stems, the roots coated in layers of a bitumen-type substance.

Meanwhile, Ogoni communities are exposed to hydrocarbons every day through multiple routes.

While the impact of individual contaminated land sites tends to be localised, air pollution related to oil industry operations is pervasive and affecting the quality of life of close to 1 million people.

UNEP has emphasised that the study, which began in late 2009, is independent and its funding by the Shell Petroleum Development Company is in keeping with the polluter-pays principle.

But some writers identify a different cause. Bonus-seeking executives, corrupt politicians and oil-hungry generals all played a role, but they were only front men for the real villains – consumers.

“Who’s Really to Blame for the BP Oil Spill? We Are,” by U.S. green activist Dave Chameides, is typical:

“The bottom line is, no matter who did their work poorly, or who shirked their responsibilities, at the end of the day, we are the ones who are responsible for the disaster at hand.

“That’s right, we are the ones responsible.

“BP, like any other oil company, is in the petroleum game for one reason and one reason only: money. And where does that money come from? It comes from us.” [1]

Similarly, a Guardian article by British academic Mark Coeckelbergh was headlined, “We’re all to blame for the oil spill.”

“Moreover, and perhaps most important, we should not only consider responsibility for oil production but also for oil consumption. Business and finance are not isolated from our own choices. Companies such as BP can only do what they do because we want what they sell. We’re all too happy with cheap oil. …

“As consumers, we continue to depend on oil in various ways and therefore maintain the oil-hungry system that makes oil companies drill in deep water and undertake other risky activities. “[2]

These are just two of many such articles. [3] All promote a simple lesson: If only “we” would wean ourselves of our oil addiction, then “they” would stop destroying the environment. If “we” would just use less oil, then “they” wouldn’t have to drill in environmentally sensitive areas like the Gulf of Mexico.

As Al Gore wrote a few years ago: “All of us contribute to climate change through the daily choices we make … you can begin to take action and work toward living a carbon-neutral life.” [4]

Buy green products, drive less and save the world.

Such views rest on the implicit assumption that corporations – indeed the capitalist economy as a whole – are driven by consumers’ desires and choices, as displayed in the market. Economist Mark Perry of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, explains:

“Consumers are the kings and queens of the market economy, and ultimately they reign supreme over corporations and their employees. … In a market economy, it is consumers, not businesses, who ultimately make all of the decisions. When they vote in the marketplace with their dollars, consumers decide which products, businesses, and industries survive — and which ones fail. ”[5]

Perry is echoing the opinions of the influential libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises:

“When we call a capitalist society a consumers’ democracy we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers’ ballot, held daily in the marketplace.” [6]

This view, usually called consumer sovereignty, is widely held, not just by conservative economists but by commentators of many political stripes. It is conventional wisdom in the worst sense of the term, a dominant superstition that is assumed to be obviously true and so is never questioned.

But there are many reasons to believe that the conventional wisdom is wrong. The following are just four of them.

The market is manipulated

Fifty-three of the one hundred largest economies in the world are corporations. Exxon Mobil alone is larger than 180 countries. [7] In 2000, Fortune magazine reported that the 500 largest industrial corporations had revenues equal to two-thirds of all U.S. production. [8]

Those corporate behemoths constantly use their immense economic power to influence consumers’ choices. As a result, the balance of information and persuasion in the consumer goods marketplace is overwhelmingly weighted in favor of sellers and against buyers, for corporations and against consumers.

Michael Löwy writes:

“Contrary to the claim of free-market ideology, supply is not a response to demand. Capitalist firms usually create the demand for their products by various marketing techniques, advertising tricks, and planned obsolescence. Advertising plays an essential role in the production of consumerist demand by inventing false “needs” and by stimulating the formation of compulsive consumption habits.”[9]

Michael Dawson argues convincingly that advertising has to be understood as part of a much larger marketing process that aims “to make commoners’ off-the-job habits better serve corporate bottom lines.”

“Big businesses in the United States now spend well over a trillion dollars a year on marketing. This is double Americans’ combined annual spending on all public and private education, from kindergartens through graduate schools. It also works out to around four thousand dollars a year for each man, woman, and child in the country. …”

Dawson calls this process a form of “class struggle from above.”

“On our side of such struggles, within broad limits – for example, we must eat, drink, and sleep – we have the power to choose what we do with our free time, and we fight to make that time as fulfilling as possible. Meanwhile, big businesses have the power to implant objects, images, messages, and material infrastructures in our off-the-job behaviour settings, and, thereby, to influence the choices we make in our personal lives. …”[10]

As liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith insisted, the immense sums spent on advertising “must be integrated with the theory of consumer demand. They are too big to be ignored.” This, he said, “means recognizing that wants are dependent on production…. [which] actively through advertising and related activities, creates the wants it seeks to satisfy.”[11]

This is not to suggest that consumers are helpless victims of all-powerful marketing monsters. Consumers frequently resist being manipulated, and specific advertising campaigns often fail. But by spending a trillion dollars a year on marketing, corporations don’t just promote individual products: they set the terms under which the market operates, define the range of permissible choices, and promote the constant expansion of needs and purchases that their profits depend on. They wouldn’t spend the money if it wasn’t working.

Consumers aren’t equal

Competition among consumers is also grossly unequal. “Consumer democracy” is rendered meaningless by the fact that a few consumers have most of the votes, because they have most of the money.

It’s sometimes argued that inequality of wealth doesn’t matter, because the rich are vastly outnumbered – our combined wealth lets the rest of us outvote the rich in the market. That sounds good, but it just isn’t true. The rich don’t just have more money than us as individuals, they have more than us collectively.

A recent study of the global distribution of household wealth, published by the prestigious World Institute for Development Economics Research, revealed just how much more the rich own than the rest of us.

“The richest 2 per cent of adult individuals own more than half of all global wealth, with the richest 1 per cent alone accounting for 40 per cent of global assets.

“The corresponding figures for the top 5 per cent and the top 10 per cent are 71 per cent and 85 per cent, respectively.

“In contrast, the bottom half of wealth holders together hold barely 1 per cent of global wealth.

“Members of the top decile are almost 400 times richer, on average, than the bottom 50 per cent, and members of the top percentile are almost 2,000 times richer.”[12]

Study after study leads to similar conclusions.

• In Australia, eleven very rich individuals own more than the country’s 800,000 poorest households combined. [13]
• The richest 5% of Americans own more than everyone else in the U.S. combined. [14]
• The 147 individuals who topped the 2002 Forbes “World’s Richest People” list had total wealth equal to the total annual income of three billion people, half the world’s population. [15]

Such gross inequality exposes the term “consumer democracy” for the fraud that it is. The capitalist market is a plutocracy: we all participate, but a tiny minority of very rich people has decisive influence.

Market choice is restricted

While consumers have some ability to choose among a variety of products, they can’t choose products that capitalists choose not to offer. Buyers face a “proffered world of micro-choices, where Ford versus Chevy is a live issue, but cars versus trains is most certainly not.” [16]

The market is also restricted by political, social and economic decisions – past and present – that few consumers have any ability to influence.

North America’s automobile-intensive culture, for example, is the product of a multi-pronged, multi-year campaign by the oil and automobile industries, beginning in the 1930s, to limit public transit, pour billions of public dollars into building roads, enforce zoning restrictions and building programs that encouraged urban sprawl – and at the same to promote the car as the quintessential symbol of success, freedom and modernity.

“Journalists never tire of pointing to the love of the automobile in the United States. But such ‘love’ is more often than not a kind of desperation in the face of extremely narrow options. The ways in which cars, roads, public transports systems (often notable by their absence), unban centers, suburbs, and malls have been constructed mean that people often have virtually no choice but to drive if they are to work and live.”[17]

There is even less choice when it comes to oil – it is so pervasive in every aspect of production and distribution that one analyst has justly called it “the stuff without which nothing else happens.” [18]

Indeed, it’s nearly impossible to buy a household product that isn’t partially or completely made from oil-derived chemicals. These are just a few examples:

Ammonia, Anesthetics, Antifreeze, Antihistamines, Antiseptics, Artificial limbs, Artificial Turf, Aspirin, Awnings, Balloons, Ballpoint Pens, Bandages, Basketballs, Bearing Grease, Boats, Cameras, Candles, Car Enamel, Cassettes, Caulking, CDs & DVDs, Clothes, Cold cream, Combs, Cortisone, Crayons, Curtains, Dashboards, Denture Adhesive, Dentures, Deodorant, Detergents, Dice, Diesel fuel, Dishes, Dresses, Drinking Cups, Dyes, Electric Blankets, Electrician’s Tape, Enamel, Epoxy, Eyeglasses, Fan Belts, Faucet Washers, Fertilizers, Fishing Boots, Fishing lures, Fishing Rods, Floor Wax, Folding Doors, Food Preservatives, Footballs, Glycerin, Golf Bags, Golf Balls, Guitar Strings, Hair Coloring, Hair Curlers, Hand Lotion, Heart Valves, House Paint, Ice Chests, Ice Cube Trays, Ink, Insect Repellent, Insecticides, Life Jackets, Linings, Linoleum, Lipstick, Luggage, Model Cars, Mops, Motor Oil, Nail Polish, Nylon Rope, Oil Filters, Paint, Paint Brushes, Paint Rollers, Panty Hose, Parachutes, Percolators, Perfumes, Petroleum Jelly, Pillows, Plastic Wood, Purses, Putty, Refrigerant, Roller Skates, Roofing, Rubber Cement, Rubbing Alcohol, Safety Glasses, Shag Rugs, Shampoo, Shaving Cream, Shoe Polish, Shoes, Shower Curtains, Skis, Soap, Solvents, Speakers, Sports Car Bodies, Sun Glasses, Surf Boards, Sweaters, Synthetic Rubber, Telephones, Tennis Rackets, Tents, Tires, Toilet Seats, Tool Boxes, Tool Racks, Toothbrushes, Toothpaste, Transparent Tape, Trash Bags, TV Cabinets, Umbrellas, Upholstery, Vaporizers, Vitamin Capsules, Water Pipes, Wheels, Yarn [19]

That’s not to say that people shouldn’t conserve, shouldn’t try to be as green as possible. Of course we should. But only radical social and economic change can possibly free us from dependence on oil. That choice isn’t available in the market.

Consumers don’t control production

In his article blaming consumers for the BP oil spill, Dave Chameides (who calls himself “Sustainable Dave”) recommends remedial action: “Stop driving your car one day a week … Ride your bike.”

That’s a good idea … but bear in mind that your bicycle’s tires, brake pads, handle grips, cable sheaths, lubricant, paint and other components are all made from oil. The metal was smelted, and the frame was formed and assembled, in factories that depend on oil. The finished bike was delivered to the shop in a diesel-powered truck driving on asphalt (oil again) roads.

The point, as environmental sociologist Alan Schnaiberg and his colleagues point out, is that even though consumers may decide what to buy from among the products that capitalists put on offer, they don’t get to choose how those products are made.

“While individual consumers may be the ultimate purchasers of some of the products of the new technologies, decisions about the allocation of technologies is the realm of production managers and owners. … [I]t is within the production process where the initial interaction of social systems with ecosystems occurs and where the key decisions about the nature of social system-ecosystem relationships are made…..

“The decision of which alternative forms of production will be offered consumers is not in their hands. It remains in the hands of a small minority of powerful individuals … who are empowered by their access to production capital. It is in those decisions where social systems (the producers’ access to capital and labor, and their assessment of potential liability, profitability, and marketability) and ecosystems (the producers’ access to natural resource inputs and ecosystem waste sinks) first interact.” [20]

Michael Dawson makes a similar point:

“Ordinary product users remain shut out of major economic decisions. Corporations plan, design, and sell goods and services according to their own profit requirements, without providing any means of subjecting basic productive priorities to popular debate and vote.” [21]

Even if we accept the farfetched idea that oil companies drill new wells only to please consumers, no one can reasonably suggest that consumers somehow forced BP to cut every possible corner, suborn regulators, violate safety guidelines, and worse. Those decisions were made in BP’s executive offices, and consumers had no say.

“In the end,” writes environmental policy professor Thomas Princen, “the idea of consumer sovereignty doesn’t add up. It is a myth convenient for those who would locate responsibility for social and environmental problems on the backs of consumers, absolving those who truly have market power and who write the rules of the game and who benefit the most.”[22]

Blaming Individuals for Capitalist Destruction

If the idea that consumers are in charge makes little sense for the capitalist economy as a whole, it is completely absurd for the oil industry. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert points out, working people simply don’t count in this system:

“The fact that 11 human beings were killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion (their bodies never found) has become, at best, an afterthought. BP counts its profits in the billions, and, therefore, it’s important. The 11 men working on the rig were no more important in the current American scheme of things than the oystermen losing their livelihoods along the gulf, or the wildlife doomed to die in an environment fouled by BP’s oil, or the waters that will be left unfit for ordinary families to swim and boat in.

“This is the bitter reality of the American present, a period in which big business has cemented an unholy alliance with big government against the interests of ordinary Americans, who, of course, are the great majority of Americans. The great majority of Americans no longer matter.”[23]

Nevertheless, as Michael Dawson writes, whenever mainstream thinkers comment on today’s social ills, they always “blame the little folk”

“Ordinary product users, who, because their purchases can be used to accuse them of choosing what they get, usually take all the transferred blame for capitalists’ costly, socially irrational actions.” [24]

t’s true that producers must sell their products, but the idea that consumers therefore control corporate behaviour is ideology, not fact. Immensely wealthy corporations decide what to produce and how to produce it. They spend billions to promote specific products and to protect their power. They allow us to choose – but only among the narrow range of options that they believe will be profitable.

In the Gulf, BP did what every capitalist corporation does – it kept costs down to keep profits up. Its irresponsible actions were bound to cause a disaster eventually – but if the company had lucked out this time, if the explosion hadn’t happened, BP’s executives and shareholders would have been rewarded for producing offshore oil more cheaply than more cautious competitors. That’s the way capitalism works.

The immediate cause of this particular disaster was BP’s greed for short-term profits. The long-term cause, of this and many other disasters, is an irrational grow-or-die economic system that is totally dependent on oil, on “the stuff without which nothing else happens.” A system in which private profit always takes precedence over the environment and human lives.

The journalists, pale greens and others who blame individual consumers are trivializing the problem and distracting attention from the social roots of environmental destruction. No matter how sincere they may be, they are making it harder to achieve real solutions.

During the end of September the “Arctic nations” – Canada, Russia, Norway, the United States and Denmark – met in Moscow to agree on territorial claims. (Strangely, I didn’t notice any coverage at all in Danish media – while even Al-Jazeera warmed up for it.)

“Serious political and economic interests are indeed crossing over in the Arctic. But I have no doubt that problems, including the continental shelf problem, can be solved in the spirit of partnership. It is well known that it is difficult to survive in the Arctic on your own. Nature itself makes people, nations and states help each other there. Unfortunately we are faced with alarmist predictions of a looming battle for the Arctic. We are monitoring the situation and making responsible forecasts.”
- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin

“No one problem of contemporary Arctic can be resolved by one country alone. So that’s why I think that we are doomed to co-operate in the Arctic. And military confrontation especially is completely counterproductive.” – Russian Arctic expert Lev Voronkov

Russia plans to invest 312.8 billion US dollars on exploration and promise extra tax breaks for oil corporations wanting to do business in the Arctic. They have sent a submarine to plant the Russian flag on the sea bed but complain about NATO’s presence.

The Arctic is thought to contain 25% of the planet’s undiscovered oil and gas, about 200 billion barrels of oil.

“The industry has been around the world discovering easy oil and gas there are only the more difficult and riskier regions left – and the Arctic is one of them”
- Manouchehr Takin, Centre For Global Energy Studies

“It is a reckless prospecting endeavour, trying to find new oil reserves in this fragile and pristine environment” – Greenpeace protestor

I am reminded of George Monbiot’s speech at Klimaforum09 (alternative COP15):

“If governments were serious about climate change [...] they would be putting proposals here at Copenhagen this week to determine which parts of carbon reserves would be left in the ground. [...] they would also be proposing a total global moratorium on all prospecting for new reserves of coal, oil and gas.”

We have already found more than enough fossil fuel reserves to cause extreme climate change. We don’t need the Arctic reserves to do that. A fact so blindingly obvious since they are only becoming accessible because of the melting ice caps.

Sources include: Reuters / Russia’s Putin urges Arctic resources deal, BBC / Arctic summit in Moscow hears rival claims and BBC / Melting ice opens up potential for Arctic exploitation.

"Further, we must learn that with any risky technology, whether it is offshore oil drilling or nuclear power, it is not good enough to be 99% safe. One event can have a calamitous and irreversible impact. We need a major investigation to understand how this accident occurred. We must make certain that precautions are put in place so nothing like it ever happens again.

This crisis occurred at a time when the United States was considering opening new areas to offshore oil drilling. If there is a lesson to be learned from this disaster, it is that Congress must end that policy. There must be no new offshore drilling. Not now, not ever.

Offshore drilling simply does not achieve the goals that its advocates claim, and it is not worth the risk. If we are serious about wanting to break our dependence on foreign oil and move to energy independence; if we want to lower the cost of energy; if we want to combat climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions; if we want to create millions of new jobs – then more offshore drilling is not the way to go."

In light of the BP oil disaster Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promptly withdrew his plans on lifting a 40-year moratorium on drilling off the California coast. Earlier Greenpeace have called for an offshore moratorium in the USA and have asked President Barack Obama to cancel Arctic drilling plans. Schwarzenegger should of course be complimented for taking back his support for any new offshore oil drilling plans. But isn’t it a bit sad that an “unprecedented environmental disaster” has to take place before anyone cares to realize the dangers of offshore oil drilling (or nuclear energy)?

But then again this might just all be nice talk from politicians and legislators. It will be interesting to see if they will continue to talk about ending offshore drilling and transforming the nation’s energy system even after the media storm have calmed. Somehow I doubt it. After all, the current oil spill is nothing new. And we shouldn’t forget that the Gulf disaster is only unusual for being so near the US. Elsewhere in the world Big Oil rarely cleans up its dirty mess. And the Western media rarely cares about it.

But one might say that Barack Obama have called for the transformation of the US energy system long before the oil disaster in the Gulf. And yes this is true. In late 2008 when the failing auto industry was the hot topic of the day Obama said that this is "our pattern" and it has to be broken:

"We go from shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it’s not important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.

And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it."

But then again, this is also nothing new. As Jon Stewart shows the last eight presidents in the USA have all gone on television and promised to move America towards an energy-independent future.

The Deepwater Horizon accident has resulted in eleven lives lost, countless of animal lives affected and an oil spill that is growing in size every day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that around 5000 barrels of oil is leaking every day from the destroyed oil rig managed by BP. According to reports the oil spill has tripled in size during these past days.

While touring the area at risk from the oil spill Obama blamed the “unprecedented environmental disaster” on BP while saying they “will be paying the bill”:

“Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill,” said Obama as he visited the area and pledged a “fully coordinated, relentless relief effort” in the region where the coastlines of four Gulf states are being menaced. [...]“We a dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster,” Obama said.

And why shouldn’t they? After all BP is the third largest global energy company and the 4th largest company in the world. Reuters also reports that:

“The spill has also forced Obama to suspend politically sensitive plans to expand offshore oil drilling, unveiled last month partly to woo Republican support for climate legislation, one of the U.S. leader’s priorities.”

And following this suspension on offshore oil drilling Greenpeace Executive Director, Philip Radford said that while Obama’s announcement was “a welcome first step” it isn’t enough:

“The President’s announcement today, while a welcome first step, does not go nearly far enough. The only way to prevent human, economic and environmental tragedies like the BP Deepwater Disaster is to re-enact the moratorium on offshore drilling and to replace dirty dangerous fuels with clean energy.”

“If we cannot handle a spill in the Gulf of Mexico, imagine the impact even a small spill could have in the remote, pristine waters of the Arctic”, Radford said in a statement.

Greenpeace also notes that on April 2nd, just days before the BP Deepwater Spill began, President Obama said:

“It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.”

Maybe this time BP really should go “beyond petroleum“?

Related reading:
- Documents Show BP Opposed New, Stricter Safety Rules
- Rig explosion dirties BP’s green image
- BP Deepwater Disaster and Gulf Oil Spill (Greenpeace)
- Dick Cheney and the oil spill
- BP warned of rig fault ten years ago
- BP accused as size of oil slick triples in a day
- Oil Spill Vs. Wind Spill Vs. Sun Spill.

Ecological unequal exchange, or the zero-sum model, can help us understand many things about the world’s international trade, political order and environmental degradation. It can help put out the air on a few misleading claims about our so-called postmodern western societies and help people understand that Europe is at the top because of ecological imperialism and an ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system.

To fully understand the idea of ecological unequal exchange one must first understand how the stratification system in the world works. This global stratification system, which can also be known as the division of labor, ranks nations into three different categories:

1. The top category is called the core. The world’s wealthiest nations who have enjoyed centuries of social and economic progress at the expense of poorer nations are placed here. Examples of nations placed in the core could be USA, England, Japan and the EU.
2. The second category is called the semi-periphery. Nations placed here mostly acts as a “middleman” to the bigger and wealthier nations in the core. Semi-periphery nations could for example be China, India, Russia and Brazil.
3. The last category is called the periphery. Poor third-world countries, most of who are from Africa and Latin America are placed in this category. These nations are characterized by their enormous exports of cheap labor and natural resources to the core.

Periphery nations are exporting large quantities of low-value products, such as metals and timber, to core nations for consumption. But the core nations are on the other hand not exporting these low-value goods. Instead they are exporting more high-value products such as cars and other technological goods. Simply put, the raw commodities are exported from poor nations to the core market in the rich world where the final product can be worth many times more when it’s been refined. The exported goods from the periphery also involve bigger ecological degradation than exports from the core. This degradation can for example be soil erosion, deforestation, polluted air and the loss of nutrients but also in a higher intensity of energy wasted and CO2 produced. Exports from periphery nations also involve a much higher intensity in underpaid human labor. So besides an unequal ecological exchange there is also an unequal exchange of embodied labor.

The European Union is a large importer of oil, coal, gas, minerals, metals, biomass etc. If you add the weight of all the goods together the EU imports four times more than it actually exports. Compare that to Latin America which exports about six times more than it imports and you can clearly see the difference. Colombia in Latin America imports every year around 10 million tons but their exports are about 70 million tons. Research has also shown that the EU-15 region exports are valued, in terms of money, at 4 times more than its imports. For periphery nations in Africa and Latin America one ton of import from the EU-15 region is worth 10 times more than one ton of export from these periphery nations to the EU-15 core.

You can see this stratification system in a more local environment as well. Consider for example a city and the countryside or even more local: the downtown of the city and its surrounding suburbs. Here the core is the city and the downtown. The countryside and the suburbs are the periphery. This global stratification system is dynamic. Good examples of this are Australia and Ireland who both have been former British colonies but now have advanced into core nations. But the system is still very much static and the unequal structure is kept intact mostly because of domestic political unrest and high levels of social inequality in the periphery nations, worsening terms of trade and unstable product prices on the global market. Many periphery nations also struggle with the legacy of imperialism and its postcolonial political institutions.

The rich nations are maintaining this unequal world system with the help from political and market-based ways. And what might be more shocking, or not, is that they sometimes even do this with sponsored or direct military power from the core nation itself. For example: The core nations are enforcing strong patent and intellectual property right laws and agreements that give a disadvantage to the periphery nations development. Worsening terms of trade, which I mentioned before, are also keeping the prices down on natural resources making it easier and easier for the core nations to keep importing and consuming. This means that periphery nations need to export more and more of their low-value goods to be able to pay for the high-value imports from the core. The USA is now importing more than half of the oil it consumes from nations outside its borders. Most of those imports come from Latin America. Venezuela and Bolivia who are both oil rich nations have lately tried to stand up against the energy and political influence from the core nations. The democratically elected Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has increased his nation’s control of major oil and energy projects from 40% to 60% in recent years. Chavez has used this extra income to raise his people’s living standards. Similar things are happening in Bolivia where the President Evo Morales have nationalized the countries energy industry. This has helped give Morales an approval rating of 80% back home. But core nations such as the USA are not happy over this as it might threaten their increasing oil imports. So both Morales and Chavez have been criticized by the core for their “weak commitment to democracy”. To secure future oil imports USA is now using “force to reassert dominance” via “state terror and coercion” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The nations in the core are, because of their overconsumption and production scale, the main greenhouse gas polluters. Nations in the periphery are also big polluters but they are, according to researchers, hindered to pursue a more efficient and environmental friendly approach. The reason for this is that they are strained by economic debts, lack of technological knowledge and an export dependency which is based on a limited range of production.

You often hear claims by people that the developed nations are moving into a more dematerializing, postconsumerist, postmodern or service-focused economy where they consume more services than actual materialistic products. Many people state that this is a “great environmental victory”. World Bank and WTO analysts claims that exports from developing nations are “continually being upgraded” and that these exports to the core nations are improving developing nations own economic growth and development. But research has shown that developed nations who have moved into this postmodern service-focused economy has not yet lowered emissions in any significant way. Models have also shown that developing countries that take part in the international trade emits more than other periphery nations that are not as actively involved in the trade. The developed world has basically been able to outsource its dirty industries and the worst ecological impacts of production to nations in the periphery.

References:

• Roberts, J.T. & Parks, B.C. (2006). “A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy”
• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Tabb, William K. (2007). “Resource Wars”
• Davis, Mike (2004). “The View from Hubbert’s Peak”

Humble Oil, who is today more known as Exxon, pretty much nailed it back in the 60′s with this advertisement from a 1962 edition of Life Magazine. Oh, the grim irony. It’s also available in full view on Google Books.

A Picture is Worth…
- Car, bus or bicycle?
- Albatross Carcass
- The Global Distribution of Water
- Gasoline Consumption Per Day
- Why Offshore Drilling Won’t Help