Why hasn’t the Deepwater Horizon spill, one of the worst ecological disasters in US history, led to a storming of the Bastille of Big Oil? Why aren’t the most urgent problems of our time — environmental crises and climate change — being confronted with the same energy, idealism and optimism as past tragedies of poverty, tyranny and war? The current state of the oil industry is reminiscent of the ancien regime on the eve of the revolution.
The Gulf of Mexico disaster has many faces. BP’s incompetence is one. But there is also the failure of legislative oversight. What until recently was praised as an economic stimulus policy is now being criticized as “collusion with scoundrels.” BP chief executive Tony Hayward dons sackcloth and ashes and speaks of an “unprecedented series of mishaps.” At a hearing in the US House of Representatives, a Democrat congressman confronted him with the list of BP accidents and revealed another truth: There are still hundreds, indeed thousands of oil platforms in this region alone, but also throughout the world, for which the other oil majors are responsible. To beat up on BP alone is shabby. Deepwater Horizon is the symbol of the demise of a global experiment: a model of progress and development based on exploiting fossil fuels.
No one can claim they didn’t see it coming. For two centuries machines and engines have been driven by combustion and steam. Nonetheless, a generation has grown up knowing that the fossil fuel industry is burning up its own foundations. More than a century ago, Max Weber foresaw the end of oil-based capitalism when he spoke of a time when “the last hundredweight of fossil fuel is burnt up.”
Yet why should a world that every day receives many times its energy needs from the sun, a free and inexhaustible source of energy, look on impassively as clouds of oil spew into the deep sea? Right now, we need the celebrated innovative power of capital and the utopian enthusiasm of engineers. “Swords into ploughshares” was the motto of the peace movement. “Deserts into solar power” should be our slogan now.
As the oil gushes forth, the truth is coming to light.
“We underestimated the complications involved in drilling for oil at a depth of 1,500m,” Hayward confessed.
Nobody possesses the necessary safety technology to prevent or respond to such a scenario. Engineers have bored to ever greater depths on the assumption that the risks could be controlled. The depressing truth is that the “residual risk” of deep-sea drilling rests on ignorance. BP estimated that, in the event the safety technology should fail, it would take two to four years for the oil to discharge completely into the sea.
Faced with this long-term catastrophe, US President Barack Obama has declared “war” on the dark enemy from the deep. But military thinking is no help, because the greatest dangers do not come from enemy states, but from the side-effects of economic, scientific and political decisions.
What is the commander-in-chief supposed to do? Send out his fleet of submarines to torpedo the oil leak? Launch a military strike against the management of BP and its sponsors? In the war against terror, former US president George W. Bush held Afghanistan and Iraq responsible for al-Qaeda. Should Obama follow his example in this Gulf war by making Britain, as BP’s assumed country of origin, responsible for the catastrophic attack on the US coast? Obama stresses the adjective “British” when speaking of the energy company, as though this were 1814 and British troops were again besieging Washington.
BP itself has long since been engulfed by globalization. British Petroleum is not British. In 1998 the company merged with US oil giant Amoco and took the opportunity to abandon the adjective “British” and replace it with “Beyond.” BP, we were invited to think, was the beginning of the future without oil. And the globalized BP cannot be pinned down: It is jointly owned by Americans, its drilling rig was built by South Koreans and it pays corporation tax in Bern.
Yet just as Chernobyl was dismissed as a failure of a “communist” reactor, Deepwater Horizon is now being blamed on the country with which the US used to enjoy a “special relationship.” Obama needs, in his own words, “an ass to kick.”
Postwar prosperity in the West laid the foundation for environmental awareness. Now environmental awareness must provide the basis for prosperity in developing countries. These countries will adopt sustainable policies to the extent that the affluent countries invest in their development and adopt a new vision of prosperity and growth. China, India, Brazil and African countries will not agree to any approach that tries to limit their efforts to achieve economic parity — and rightly so.
But does the future lie with a global environmental policy based on carbon trading, which amounts to the global sale of indulgences for carbon dioxide sins? Or will we have the courage to invent and realize a new age of solar energy in which prosperity is not an environmental sin, and when everything from cows to electric toothbrushes is blamed for contributing to carbon dioxide emissions?
“It is time to introduce clean forms of energy,” Obama said.
If he can ring in an era that is truly Beyond Petroleum, Big Oil’s Bastille will be doomed.
Ulrich Beck is a professor of sociology at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich and the London School of Economics.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry