The United States’ Oil Addiction
It is common sense that if the United States wishes to reduce their oil dependency, they should use fewer vehicles than they do. Today, nearly every American licensed to drive has a car. Of each 1,000 potential drivers, 981 have a car. It is by far the highest percentage in the world.
Currently, the U.S. imports the majority of the crude oil that they consume. This generates notable energy insecurity, since they depend on oil-producing countries that in some cases are hostile to the U.S. or are in unstable zones. This reality has not escaped the White House, where its occupant proclaimed the “Independence Project,” designed to guarantee oil self-sufficiency in the U.S. A proposal by President Barack Obama? No. A very old promise by former President Richard Nixon, who in 1973 assured Americans that resources intended to liberate them from dependency would be as substantial as those invested in the “Manhattan Project,” which in a few years permitted Washington to have the atomic bomb at their disposal. The Independence Project was formulated after a tax embargo by OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies), which was brought on by the Israeli-Arabic war of the same year. As a result of the embargo, crude oil prices quadrupled, with a devastating effect on the economic principals of the world. But the crisis passed, and everything returned to normal.
Since then, each U.S. president has reiterated the same good intentions of ending the oil consumption vice. But one by one, they have given over to a need for crude oil superior to their predecessors. After Nixon came Ronald Reagan, who proposed the necessity of the “development of new technologies and more independence from imported oil.” Later, George H. W. Bush signaled that, “there is no security for the United States in further dependence on foreign oil.” Bill Clinton, for his part, said, we “need a long-term energy strategy in order to maximize conservation and maximize the development of alternative sources of energy.” The circle closed itself today when Obama, in his latest speech on the theme from the Oval Office, signaled we should “move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”*
Throughout three and a half decades, the United States leaders have made it clear that they know what they should do. The problem with addictions is that they are ingrained in minds and bodies that require the substances to which they are accustomed.
The society and economy generate dynamic contradictions. It is common sense that if the U.S. seeks to reduce its dependence on oil, they should use fewer vehicles than they do. In spite of this, on account of the economic crisis triggered in 2008, one of Obama’s first moves was to rescue General Motors and offer a stimulus so that Americans could exchange older cars for new machines. These transactions were subsidized by the U.S. Treasury with thousands of dollars. In order to stimulate public works, he assigned funds for highway construction. It was an opportunity to direct major investments to railroads, in order to decrease the generalized use of airplanes and cars and stimulate public transportation.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is already the biggest ecological disaster in the history of the U.S. Public opinion blames, with good reason, BP. But in terms of addressing oil consumption as an addiction, society as a group should assume their share of responsibility. For example, in the case of drugs, the producing countries and the drug traffickers should answer for their actions. But consumers are also guilty for creating a demand that, if it did not exist, would not give rise to the supply. In the same way, excessive consumption of oil pushes businesses to look for it in the depths of oceans, each time with more difficulty than the last. As a consequence, the possibility of a leak or spill is great and the methods of containing it are more problematic.
In the words of Obama, we are reaching the end of the era of “cheap and accessible oil.” However, it is one thing to say it and another for the collection of government and society to fully understand what this means. The United States’ heads of state know that their country reached its oil production peak at the start of the 1970s. Since then, they have repeated the mantra of the necessity of abandoning dependence on imported oil. But before cutting down consumption, they have looked to secure their fountains of supply. And, of course, it’s no good remembering that Chile lives in a much more precarious situation in terms of hydrocarbon supply than the United States.
* Editor’s note: This quote, incorrectly attributed to Obama in the original text, was actually from George W. Bush’s Jan. 31, 2006, State of the Union address.
Currently, the U.S. imports the majority of the crude oil that they consume. This generates notable energy insecurity, since they depend on oil-producing countries that in some cases are hostile to the U.S. or are in unstable zones. This reality has not escaped the White House, where its occupant proclaimed the “Independence Project,” designed to guarantee oil self-sufficiency in the U.S. A proposal by President Barack Obama? No. A very old promise by former President Richard Nixon, who in 1973 assured Americans that resources intended to liberate them from dependency would be as substantial as those invested in the “Manhattan Project,” which in a few years permitted Washington to have the atomic bomb at their disposal. The Independence Project was formulated after a tax embargo by OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies), which was brought on by the Israeli-Arabic war of the same year. As a result of the embargo, crude oil prices quadrupled, with a devastating effect on the economic principals of the world. But the crisis passed, and everything returned to normal.
Since then, each U.S. president has reiterated the same good intentions of ending the oil consumption vice. But one by one, they have given over to a need for crude oil superior to their predecessors. After Nixon came Ronald Reagan, who proposed the necessity of the “development of new technologies and more independence from imported oil.” Later, George H. W. Bush signaled that, “there is no security for the United States in further dependence on foreign oil.” Bill Clinton, for his part, said, we “need a long-term energy strategy in order to maximize conservation and maximize the development of alternative sources of energy.” The circle closed itself today when Obama, in his latest speech on the theme from the Oval Office, signaled we should “move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”*
Throughout three and a half decades, the United States leaders have made it clear that they know what they should do. The problem with addictions is that they are ingrained in minds and bodies that require the substances to which they are accustomed.
The society and economy generate dynamic contradictions. It is common sense that if the U.S. seeks to reduce its dependence on oil, they should use fewer vehicles than they do. In spite of this, on account of the economic crisis triggered in 2008, one of Obama’s first moves was to rescue General Motors and offer a stimulus so that Americans could exchange older cars for new machines. These transactions were subsidized by the U.S. Treasury with thousands of dollars. In order to stimulate public works, he assigned funds for highway construction. It was an opportunity to direct major investments to railroads, in order to decrease the generalized use of airplanes and cars and stimulate public transportation.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is already the biggest ecological disaster in the history of the U.S. Public opinion blames, with good reason, BP. But in terms of addressing oil consumption as an addiction, society as a group should assume their share of responsibility. For example, in the case of drugs, the producing countries and the drug traffickers should answer for their actions. But consumers are also guilty for creating a demand that, if it did not exist, would not give rise to the supply. In the same way, excessive consumption of oil pushes businesses to look for it in the depths of oceans, each time with more difficulty than the last. As a consequence, the possibility of a leak or spill is great and the methods of containing it are more problematic.
In the words of Obama, we are reaching the end of the era of “cheap and accessible oil.” However, it is one thing to say it and another for the collection of government and society to fully understand what this means. The United States’ heads of state know that their country reached its oil production peak at the start of the 1970s. Since then, they have repeated the mantra of the necessity of abandoning dependence on imported oil. But before cutting down consumption, they have looked to secure their fountains of supply. And, of course, it’s no good remembering that Chile lives in a much more precarious situation in terms of hydrocarbon supply than the United States.
* Editor’s note: This quote, incorrectly attributed to Obama in the original text, was actually from George W. Bush’s Jan. 31, 2006, State of the Union address.
Next article![]( "Obama and Netanyahu")
