oil. When one considers * thrashing of foreign policy to obtain this goal, it might rise to much higher levels when considering the costs analysis. *’s need to keep the US addicted to oil is a major corner stone for this mis-administration wouldn’t you think?
http://www.padrigu.gu.se/EDCNews/Reviews/Renner0302.htmlRenner, Michael, 2003, "The Road from Kyoto to Baghdad" (submitted to EDC News, also available from UPI.)
-
Summary: There is a clear link between US inability to address its oil addiction - as witnessed by its denounciation of the Kyoto Protocol - and present preparations for war in Iraq, writes Michael Renner, Senior Researcher at Worldwatch Institute, in this column, submitted in response to a previous EDC News call for urgent research on the issue.
The struggle over climate policy, pitting the United States primarily against Europe, is in large measure on over the nature of the economy of the future. While a both desirable and necessary shift from fossil fuels to renewables now is entirely feasible (see the column by Lester Brown, published concomitantly with this piece), the US under the Bush administration has chosen to expand its dependence on fossil fuels.
Replacing the present regime in Iraq by means of war would serve multifold aims of such a strategy. War reparations would force a new regime to flood the world market with cheap oil, under US aegis. Not only would OPEC be entirely side-stepped, but so would the burgeoning industry now developing promising renewables.
(snip)