Submitted by Anonymous on February 26, 2008 - 1:34pm.
First, I think a good, better alternative to going to E/M headquarters is to have people visit the offices of Hutchison, Cronyn and Sessions to raise their E/M and other oil connections. They are strong supporters of the Iraq War and they have strong self-interest in getting E/M, Shell and BP planted for a long time in Iraq. This can draw attention also to war profiteering, the need to channel war profits to the victims; Texas has many war dead and wounded.
Second, a good argument can be made that a major reason, if not the main reason, we have a system that uses so much oil is because our government decided after WW II to use military force and military “aid” to ensure that huge supplies of relatively cheap oil would continue to flow out of the Middle East. This was to replace dwindling oil supplies from Texas and elsewhere within the country.
The decision after World War II to use military power to secure oil was arguably not only immoral and unethical, it was a disasterous choice that led to a failure to apply our imaginations to developing our cities, suburbs, transportation and food systems, indeed our entire economy, in a sustainable way, an environmentally kinder way. The level of oil consumption that we “need” and demand can be traced to the decision to kill for oil if necessary.
A key, possibly the most important, point that the U.S. public can make to government and to the oil companies in order to get on with creating a minimal-oil-use society is that WE WILL NO LONGER GO TO WAR FOR OIL. Regardless of the chant “No Blood for Oil,” the peace movement can usefully frame this as a policy goal within the historic context of our development of oil use. This is a message that the government and the oil companies must hear. This is not only about ending the Iraq occupation; this is something that politicians and oil executives must understand about their futures as they relate to rest of the world.
To make this policy change, we must end the occupation, and in doing this we need to understand that our politicians have taken the military route in dealing with our energy needs in consultation with and at the behest of major oil companies. “The Prize”, an outstanding Pulitizer Prize-winning history of Big Oil, makes this very clear, as does recent history of the involvement of E/M, Shell, BP and others in Iraq policy.
U.S. energy policy extending back to the early 1900s has been a formed by a two-headed team of politicians and oil executives. There has been virtually no public involvement because the oil has largely kept flowing and because the oil system is a bit complex. Robert Caro, in his biography of Lyndon Johnson, describes how Johnson introduced oil money into the U.S. political system in a major way for the first time. Since then one can argue that big money from big oil has been an extremely powerful force in the development of U.S. energy policy and U.S. foreign/military policy as it relates to oil.
The situation we find ourselves in working for peace in Iraq is that we have attempted in a series of elections, to move the politicians to vote to end the war and to pass key legislation to dramatically reduce our oil consumption. The political system has failed, much as the political system in South Africa failed to end apartheid. Therefore, we come to addressing big oil directly with a boycott, focusing on the three largest, most politically influential oil companies. This is bringing the largest, most politically influential oil companies to account for their role not only in Iraq but in the formation of our military-based energy policy.
We are also calling attention to their financial influence in politics and the failure of politicians to capture the wind-fall war profits of the oil companies related to the war. War-profiteering was politically unacceptable during W.W. II.
Michael Klare argues in “Blood and Oil” that the first step in developing an alternative less oil-dependent society, “is to detach our pursuit of energy from any commitments to foreign governments for military protection and security assistance.” The next step, he says, is “to practice energy-self restraint.”
I think that peace organizations can advance ideas and take action in both changing US foreign/military energy policy and in domestic consumption policy and that doing this together makes a coherent, powerful argument to the public. The oil boycott is a powerful tool for education, not only about politics. It has raised already more discussion about the need to cut consumption.
The boycott does have adverse economic effects for gasoline retailers, and this is very hard. But these retailers can influence their suppliers and will.
"End the Occupation Of Iraq"
First, I think a good, better alternative to going to E/M headquarters is to have people visit the offices of Hutchison, Cronyn and Sessions to raise their E/M and other oil connections. They are strong supporters of the Iraq War and they have strong self-interest in getting E/M, Shell and BP planted for a long time in Iraq. This can draw attention also to war profiteering, the need to channel war profits to the victims; Texas has many war dead and wounded.
Second, a good argument can be made that a major reason, if not the main reason, we have a system that uses so much oil is because our government decided after WW II to use military force and military “aid” to ensure that huge supplies of relatively cheap oil would continue to flow out of the Middle East. This was to replace dwindling oil supplies from Texas and elsewhere within the country.
The decision after World War II to use military power to secure oil was arguably not only immoral and unethical, it was a disasterous choice that led to a failure to apply our imaginations to developing our cities, suburbs, transportation and food systems, indeed our entire economy, in a sustainable way, an environmentally kinder way. The level of oil consumption that we “need” and demand can be traced to the decision to kill for oil if necessary.
A key, possibly the most important, point that the U.S. public can make to government and to the oil companies in order to get on with creating a minimal-oil-use society is that WE WILL NO LONGER GO TO WAR FOR OIL. Regardless of the chant “No Blood for Oil,” the peace movement can usefully frame this as a policy goal within the historic context of our development of oil use. This is a message that the government and the oil companies must hear. This is not only about ending the Iraq occupation; this is something that politicians and oil executives must understand about their futures as they relate to rest of the world.
To make this policy change, we must end the occupation, and in doing this we need to understand that our politicians have taken the military route in dealing with our energy needs in consultation with and at the behest of major oil companies. “The Prize”, an outstanding Pulitizer Prize-winning history of Big Oil, makes this very clear, as does recent history of the involvement of E/M, Shell, BP and others in Iraq policy.
U.S. energy policy extending back to the early 1900s has been a formed by a two-headed team of politicians and oil executives. There has been virtually no public involvement because the oil has largely kept flowing and because the oil system is a bit complex. Robert Caro, in his biography of Lyndon Johnson, describes how Johnson introduced oil money into the U.S. political system in a major way for the first time. Since then one can argue that big money from big oil has been an extremely powerful force in the development of U.S. energy policy and U.S. foreign/military policy as it relates to oil.
The situation we find ourselves in working for peace in Iraq is that we have attempted in a series of elections, to move the politicians to vote to end the war and to pass key legislation to dramatically reduce our oil consumption. The political system has failed, much as the political system in South Africa failed to end apartheid. Therefore, we come to addressing big oil directly with a boycott, focusing on the three largest, most politically influential oil companies. This is bringing the largest, most politically influential oil companies to account for their role not only in Iraq but in the formation of our military-based energy policy.
We are also calling attention to their financial influence in politics and the failure of politicians to capture the wind-fall war profits of the oil companies related to the war. War-profiteering was politically unacceptable during W.W. II.
Michael Klare argues in “Blood and Oil” that the first step in developing an alternative less oil-dependent society, “is to detach our pursuit of energy from any commitments to foreign governments for military protection and security assistance.” The next step, he says, is “to practice energy-self restraint.”
I think that peace organizations can advance ideas and take action in both changing US foreign/military energy policy and in domestic consumption policy and that doing this together makes a coherent, powerful argument to the public. The oil boycott is a powerful tool for education, not only about politics. It has raised already more discussion about the need to cut consumption.
The boycott does have adverse economic effects for gasoline retailers, and this is very hard. But these retailers can influence their suppliers and will.
Nick Mottren
Director
Consumers For Peace