Speculation: Inflating the Resource Crisis?

One of the most urgent issues in American politics is the price of gasoline. For a nation so addicted to frequent automobile use, promising to lower gas prices is now virtually a political necessity. While there are many different explanations of why gas prices have risen in recent years, one is often left out of mainstream political conversations in America. Besides the obvious factors of rising demand and slowing oil production, gas prices are also affected by financial speculation. Oil futures allow investors to bet on future rises in the price of oil. Speculation is normally justified as a means of stabilizing a market, raising the price in times of excess and lowering it in times of scarcity. But when speculation makes up too large a share of the market, the market becomes dysfunctional. Excess speculation causes the price of oil to be artificially high, increasing the profits of oil production beyond what would be justified by the traditional conception of a market.

Gas prices vs. oil speculation, 2000-2011

Speculators now account for more than 65% of the oil market, far more than what would be justified by market stabilization. The majority of these speculators are in Wall Street, New York, the financial capital (or in other words, the capital capital) of the world. Just like unrestricted Wall Street investments caused a bubble in US housing prices, they are now creating a bubble in oil prices. It is difficult to know to what extent the rising price of oil is due to speculation rather than actual changes in supply and demand, but the fact that speculation is rarely if ever discussed is a troubling sign. Although environmentalists often accuse the oil industry of downplaying the urgency of peak oil, it would seem that alarmist sentiments about oil scarcity would actually benefit oil corporations, as well as oil speculators. In any case, a more honest discussion of the causes of rising oil prices is essential to finding solutions to our energy challenges.

Commodity index investment vs. commodity prices, 1970-2008

Speculation is not limited to the oil market, of course. Perhaps most troubling is the speculation in the commodities market, which determines the price of food and other necessities around the world. Investment in commodity futures has increased rapidly since 2000, causing global food prices to rise accordingly. The effect of speculation in this market is not simply a drag on the economies of developed nations, it is the starvation and death of millions of the world's poorest people. If there is any market that should be protected from the manipulation of speculators, it is the one on which all humans depend for their very survival. Left unchecked, speculation on this scale could lead us to a dystopian nightmare of wealthy elites and starving plebeians. As former New York Times writer Chris Hedges eloquently said: "In the 17th century speculators were hung... and now they run the government".

Money in Politics: Legalized Corruption

Like all forms of government, democracy is always susceptible to corruption. There is always the risk that politicians, despite being elected to serve the public, will instead govern in the interests of elites and institutions of power. Whether it's money, promises of future privileges, or the threat of support to an opponent, politicians are constantly being pressured to betray their commitment to the public, and the pressure is growing. The amount of money being spent on US elections has been increasing at an alarming pace, causing the cost of running for office to increase beyond the means of all but the rich and well-connected. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which opened the flood gates to unlimited anonymous political spending, our democracy is now effectively up for sale to the highest bidder.

Average cost of US Representative's campaign, 1990-2010

This increase in political spending has coincided with a dramatic increase in economic inequality, which means that this increased influence is going exclusively to the richest Americans. Multi-billionares like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson now personally wield the power to make or break political careers and steer the direction of national politics. Super PACs (political action committees), a new legal concoction that came out of the Citizens United ruling, is simply a way for corporations and wealthy individuals to anonymously donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. Officially, Super PACs are not allowed to "coordinate" with political candidates, but this is an irrelevant caveat. Even if they never talk to each other directly, Super PACs know the positions of their candidates and can therefore use their money as if it was part of the candidate's campaign fund.

Percentage of 2012 congressional races won by the biggest spender

The results of the 2012 election showed that political spending had a significant effect on the outcomes of elections, especially in the House of Representatives. Candidates who spent more money won 93-94% of House races, although these numbers were less severe in the Senate at 64-79% (depending on what measure of spending is used). Conservatives will often dismiss criticisms of political spending by comparing it to the annual revenue of a certain product or industry. They will say something like "It's not really that much money compared to industry X, so we shouldn't be concerned". But this comparison should be turned on its head and used to argue the exact opposite: "So much money is being spent on elections, it's comparable to the entire X industry!". In other words, the fact that we can even compare political spending to a real industry, which is (usually) based on the production of actual goods or services, shows how bad the situation is. Another way of dismissing such criticisms is to deny that political spending has any effect. If data like that presented in the above chart isn't enough to contradict this, there is another argument that makes the point clearly: Why would they spend all that money on elections if it didn't have an effect? That would be a bad investment, something any good capitalist would avoid. Sooner or later, we will have to accept that our democracy has been hijacked by the corrupting influence of money. Until then, we will have to make do with what we have: the best government money can buy.

Think Tanks: Churning Out Propoganda Since 1831

The foundation of any healthy democracy is the availability of accurate and unbiased information. In order to make an informed decision about government representatives and policies, voters must be well-educated on important political issues. The quality of this political education is determined not only by childhood schooling, but also (and perhaps more importantly) by popular media and news sources. If citizens are presented with information that is inaccurate, out of context, or disproportionately focused, they cannot make informed voting decisions. This is, of course, uncontroversial. But institutions that claim to be working to make the public more informed are often doing the opposite. Such is the case with most of the so-called "think tanks", which have become increasingly influential over the past few decades.

Number of US think tanks, 1905-1995

Although the term "think tank" is relatively new, such privately-funded policy research centers date back to the 19th century. The first ones were created in Britain, including the Institute for Defence and Security Studies (1831) and the Fabian Society (1884). The first American think tank was the Brookings Institution, which was created in 1916. The growth of think tanks increased dramatically after 1971, when Associate Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote the Powell Memorandum. This document called for American corporations to invest massive amounts of money into research institutions that support the politics of free-market capitalism. Powell's motives may have been pure, if he truly believed that the findings of such research would be beneficial to the public if put into practice. But the reality is that most of these think tanks simply serve the interests of their corporate funders.

Citations of Think Tanks in Media (FAIR and IRmep, 2003)

Perhaps the main reason that privately-funded policy research is so anti-democratic is simply the inequality of wealth in America. Because the richest individuals and corporations have so much more money than the vast majority, they can fund more research and thus have a louder voice in the think tank media circus. If the wealth was more evenly distributed, perhaps the findings of their research would be more in line with the public interest. Until then, we will have to learn to ignore the endless panels of "experts" that fill our airwaves with corporate propaganda.

War on Drugs: The Prohibition-Industrial Complex

America has always been a militaristic nation, and this is reflected in our use of the word "war" to describe any large-scale national efforts. Whether it's Johnson's "War on Poverty", the conservative accusations of a "War on Christmas", or the liberal accusations of a "War on Women", it seems that war is the only conceptual framework that we have to explain systemic change in our society. When Nixon announced his policy of strict prohibition, he bought into this language by calling it the "War on Drugs". By portraying drug users as outsiders that threaten society, the new era of prohibition played to the fears that middle-class Americans have of the lower-class and the poor. Images of inner-city communities where hard narcotics are widespread were used to portray drug use as an "epidemic" that threatens to corrupt the entire country. The result was an unprecedented crackdown on nonviolent drug users, usually disproportionately targeted at racial minorities and the poor.

US prisoners, 1920-2006

Unsurprisingly, the increase in prohibition enforcement caused a dramatic increase in the number of incarcerated citizens. The number of prisoners in America quadrupled from 500,000 to 2,000,000 in just 20 years, from 1980 to 2000. We now have even more prisoners than China, both in absolute terms and relative to our population. As a nation that prides itself as freedom-loving, it is shameful that we have resorted to the incarceration of nonviolent "criminals" on such a massive scale. The long-term costs of this imprisonment far exceed any harm they could have done to society by using drugs. Not only are they prevented from being productive members of society, we are forced to pay for their upkeep and the staff that runs the prison. Furthermore, it is widely known that prisons are breeding grounds of future criminals, allowing inmates to network with members of serious criminal organizations. After their release, with little to no job prospects available through legal means, former prison inmates are often forced to choose between a life of crime and abject poverty. In this way, incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders is a counterproductive way of reducing crime.

 

The irrational policies of drug prohibition are made even more destructive by the financial incentives that drive them. American prisons are no longer run exclusively by the state; they are increasingly becoming privatized. The US has at least 264 privately-run correctional facilities, housing almost 99,000 inmates. Proponents of privatization will argue, as usual, that private prisons are more efficient and cheaper to maintain than government-run prisons. This is an unfair comparison, however, for the same reason that it is unfair to compare public and private schools. Private prisons, unlike state prisons, have the right to select which inmates they accept and which they reject. So all of the dangerous, unruly, or otherwise more expensive prisoners get sent to the public prisons, which naturally increases their operation costs. But beyond this argument is the perverse incentives that the private prison industry exerts on the legal system. Insofar as private enterprises can use their wealth to influence government policies, private prisons incentivize politicians to enact stricter drug laws that will increase demand for prison space. This is perhaps the best explanation of why our irrational policies of drug prohibition have lasted so long. Prohibition has become a self-perpetuating system of incarcerating entire sections of our society.

On the bright side, public opinion is becoming increasingly favorable to drug legalization. In the 2012 election, Washington and Colorado both voted for complete legalization of recreational cannabis use for adults, the first two states to do so. This is still in contradiction with the federal ban on cannabis use, but enforcement of this federal law is unlikely. Many other states have already legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, so it is only a matter of time before full legalization spreads to other parts of the country. In time, the results of these changes could lead to a wider discussion of drug policies in general, and the end of the failed "War on Drugs" that is long overdue.

Public Infrastructure: Not a Socialist Conspiracy

Collapse of I-35W bridge, Minneapolis, MN, 2007

It is becoming increasingly apparent that America's infrastructure is in a dangerous state of disrepair. In 2007, a highway bridge near Minneapolis collapsed into the Minneapolis river, killing 13. This is just one example of the dire need for investments in our infrastructure, and incidents like this are bound to become more frequent in the coming years. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave America's infrastructure the shameful rating of "D" in their 2009 report card. Among the lowest rated categories were drinking water, inland waterways, levees, roads, and wastewater, all of which received a grade of "D-". One would think that a nation which so casually refers to itself as "the greatest country in the world" would be able to maintain the quality of its public infrastructure. But this is not the case in America. The cost of repairing and modernizing our infrastructure was estimated to be $2.2 trillion, a sum that makes such investments politically impossible, despite being within the means of the nation.

American Society of Civil Engineers report on US infrastructure, 2009

The 2009 "American Recover and Reinvestment Act" was Obama's big stimulus, investing roughly $831 billion with $105.3 billion going to infrastructure. The President made a big deal out of this, as if it was going to solve all of our economic problems. It falls far short of the ASCE estimate, of course, by an order of magnitude. At the same time, Obama was criticized by conservatives for spending exorbitant amounts of money on stimulus. The stimulus may have helped the economy to some degree, but it was ultimately a political failure because it was too big for Republicans and too small to solve our economic problems. As the deficit crisis continues, the infrastructure crisis has become a back-burner issue (if an issue at all) and is unlikely to be addressed in the near future.

Projected US investments in infrastructure, November 2010

Just as troubling as the health and safety hazards of our collapsing infrastructure are its implications on our economy. Private investors will be increasingly hesitant to invest their money in the United States when there is no indication that we will maintain the infrastructure that is necesary for businesses to operate. Lower quality infrastructure means slower transportation, higher shipping costs, higher utility costs, less energy efficiency, and less desirable living environments, all of which are detrimental to the long-term health of the economy. Even if we are to overlook the immediate dangers, even if we are to look at the world in purely economic terms, it is irrational not to make the necessary investments into our infrastructure.

Nuclear Power: An Imperfect Solution

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Dauphin county, PA

Nuclear power has always been a controversial source of electricity. Whether it's the radioactive waste that they generate or the possibility of a catastrophic meltdown, public opinion has never been very favorable to building nuclear power plants. Opposition to nuclear power has increased in recent years, mainly due to the Fukushima disaster that occurred in Japan after a tsunami flooded multiple nuclear power plants. German chancellor Angela Merkel responded to changing public opinion by promising to phase out all nuclear power generation in the country by 2022. This decision is just a sign of increasing concern about nuclear power around the world.

Distribution of electricity sources, 2006

This increasing opposition to nuclear power comes at a time when we need sustainable sources of energy more than ever. Although nuclear power is usually not classified as a "renewable" source of electricity, it is far more sustainable than coal, natural gas, oil, or other fossil fuels. While some point out that global reserves of uranium are relatively limited, there are ways of producing new nuclear fuel sources with "breeder reactors". Using a different nuclear process, these reactors can actually generate more fissile material than they consume. However, until the scarcity of uranium causes its price to rise, such breeder reactors will not be put into wide use. Nonetheless, the existence of breeder reactors means that nuclear power generation can be sustained much longer than the hydrocarbon-based methods that are dominant today.

US electricity production costs, 1995-2008

The main concerns about nuclear power are its safety and environmental impact, rather than its sustainability. The radioactive waste that is generated by nuclear power plants is an obvious disadvantage, as it cannot be easily disposed of in a safe way. Storing the waste in underground chambers is expensive, and there is always a risk of leaks. Adding to the fear associated with nuclear power is the risk of a meltdown, a disastrous failure of the cooling system that prevents the plant from overheating and literally melting. The most well known examples of nuclear meltdowns are the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 (PA, United States) and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 (Ukraine, former USSR). These two disasters had a significant effect on public opinion, and the construction of nuclear power plants declined as a result. Although the dangers of nuclear power are very real, they need to be viewed in perspective. Compared to the deaths and environmental destruction caused by pollution from fossil fuels, nuclear power seems to be a relatively safe alternative. The negative view of nuclear may be due to the dramatic visibility of its rare failures, similar to the unjustified fear of airplanes compared to automobiles. While some dream of a world powered by neither fossil fuels nor nuclear energy, those who want to find realistic solutions to the global energy crisis should recognize the necessary role of nuclear.

Nuclear power plants, 1955-2005

Extreme Weather: The End is Near?

Hurricane Sandy, October 2012

Climate change, usually thought of as a long-term challenge, is already beginning to have an effect on global weather patterns. Over the past few years, extreme weather events have become much more frequent, so much so that it is clear that global warming is having an effect. The best example of this is Hurricane Sandy, which made headlines around the world as an extreme weather even on an unprecedented scale. Besides the sheer size of the storm, Sandy was a wake-up call about climate change because it hit hardest in the heart of the United States. The densely populated cities on the northeast coast of America seemed completely unprepared, with power loss and lack of supplies widespread in the days and weeks after the storm. The total cost of the storm was estimated to be $65.6 billion, far more than what adequate preparation measures (power grid protection, supply trucks, etc.) would have cost. Whether this says more about the effects of climate change or the incompetency of local governments is unclear, but what is certain is that the destruction of extreme weather is far from over.

Tsunami hitting coast of Japan, March 2011

Another extreme weather event that gained worldwide attention was the tsunami that hit Japan in March of 2011. After being generated by an offshore earthquake, the tsunami flooded the Japanese coast and caused a major disaster when multiple nuclear power plants lost power. Large and densely populated areas had to be evacuated, and the environmental effects are still being dealt with today. Like Hurricane Sandy, the Fukushima disaster revealed not only the increasing danger posed by extreme weather but also the frailty of modern infrastructure. Ironically, it had more of an effect on anti-nuclear public opinion than it did on anti-hydrocarbon opinions, even though the former is a potential solution to climate change and the latter its principal cause.

Map of droughts in the US, July 2012

Despite being less dramatic than a hurricane or a tsunami, the drought that hit the US in the summer of 2012 is perhaps the most troubling weather event in recent years. With moisture levels lower than they have been in decades, this drought caused 1,692 countries across 36 states to be declared natural disaster areas and affected an estimated 80% of US farmland. We often think of the Great Plains as the "bread basket" of America, providing us with all the food we could ever eat. But if global warming continues to produce record-breaking summers like that of 2012, these plains may soon turn to deserts. Combined with farming practices that rely on fossil-fuel powered machines and a wide array of synthetic chemicals, this has serious implications on our future food production capacity. On the bright side, future droughts could prove to be a final solution to a widespread American health problem: obesity.

Kingdoms in Crisis: The Hidden Arab Spring

Anti-monarchy protests in Qatif, Saudi Arabia, July 2012

The Middle East is one of the few parts of the world where feudalism is still in existence. While authoritarian regimes are common throughout the world, they typically do not use the language of feudalism to describe their power structures. Many states in the Middle East, however, are officially governed by a monarchy headed by a king. Some kings at least have the appearance of being liberal, with the monarchy being limited by a constitution (Bahrain) or a parliament (Jordan), while others assume absolute power (Saudi Arabia) like the medieval kings of legend.

Anti-monarchy protests in Budaiya, Bahrain, April 2012

Part of the reason these monarchies have remained in power is the support they receive from Western nations, especially the United States. Saudi Arabia is perhaps our most important ally in the region, no doubt due to their vast reserves of oil. This relationship dates back to an agreement made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the Saudi king, in which the US would promise to protect the monarchy in exchange for exclusive access to oil. Bahrain is also an important US ally, as a strategically located island in the Persian Gulf and home to the US Navy's Fifth Fleet. Jordan maintains the appearance of being a liberal monarchy, but their close relations with the West are likely also the result of their border with Israel. All three monarchies are thus given diplomatic legitimacy because they serve Western interests.

Protests against economic policies in Jordan, November 2012

One would think that countries governed under feudal regimes would be ripe for the recent wave of popular unrest known as the Arab Spring. While there have been large protests in all three of these monarchies, none have been successful in toppling the government. This can be explained, at least in part, by the support the regimes enjoy from Western governments and media. Far from being supported by US officials, these protests went virtually undetected by major news networks. Even AlJazeera, a reputable source of news in the Arab world, was criticized for unequal coverage of the protests in these countries. The fact that the network is owned by the Emir of Qatar, another Middle Eastern monarch, likely has something to do with this apparent bias. For now, the dream of a free and democratic Middle East remains a distant goal, but the progress made in the past few years is no small achievement and may yet keep Arab hopes alive.

Palestine: A State Without Sovereignty

Israeli air strike hits a media center in Gaza City, November 2012

The decades-long conflict between Israel and Palestine has escalated in recent weeks. While both sides blame each other for the violence, the recent period of escalation began when Israel assassinated the top military commander in Gaza, Ahmed al-Jabari. Labeling him a "terrorist", Israel asserted that this action was a self-defense measure in response to Palestinian rockets in the past. Hamas, the militant political organization in Gaza, responded by resuming rocket fire into Israel. What followed was an unrelenting assault by Israeli air forces on targets in Gaza deemed to be associated with the "terrorists". Israeli air strikes, despite being praised as highly precise by Israeli spokesmen, killed many Palestinian civilians and caused widespread destruction of property unconnected with Hamas. After eight days of fighting, a the two sides agreed on a cease-fire. Over 100 Palestinian civilians had been killed, while there were only 4 deaths on the Israeli side. Both sides celebrated the result of the conflict as a victory.

Palestinians launch rockets at Israel from Gaza

After the cease-fire, Palestinians took the initiative by proposing a UN resolution on their statehood. Mahmoud Abbas, the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and President of the Palestinian Authority, traveled to the UN in New York to ask the international community for recognition of Palestinian statehood. In his speech, he called for the UN to issue a "birth certificate" of the Palestinian state, just as it had done for Israel in 1947. In 2011, the Palestinians had made a failed bid for full UN membership as a state. This time, they asked for non-member observer state status, the same category as the Vatican in Rome. Non-member statehood recognition is mostly symbolic and does not grant the right to propose resolutions in the UN General Assembly. However, it does allow complaints to be filed in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international institutions. But perhaps most importantly, the recognition of Palestinian statehood would mean a huge boost to the morale and unity of the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty.

Palestinian delegates celebrate UN resolution granting non-member statehood

The result of the UN vote was an overwhelming victory for Palestine. The international community voted 138 to 9 to grant Palestine non-member statehood, with 41 abstentions. Predictably, Israel and the United States were leading the "no" votes. Unlike past votes on the Palestinian issue, however, the majority of voting nations did not fall in line behind the two powers who claim to be fighting for peace and human rights. The clear majority of this resolution shows that the US and Israel are increasingly diplomatically isolated, and can no longer dictate the decisions of the UN. Even our once-dependable European allies did not fall in line, with Britain abstaining and France voting "yes". The implications of this vote are wider than the Israel-Palestine issue, because it shows that the US has lost its role as the unquestioned leader of Western nations.

Vote count for UN  resolution on Palestinian non-member statehood

The argument given for US opposition was that the resolution would be counterproductive to the "peace process", because Palestinians should be negotiating directly with Israel. The Palestinian response is that they cannot negotiate when their land is constantly being taken away by Israeli settlements. This fact was reconfirmed immediately after the UN resolution, when Israel announced a new controversial settlement. The planned settlement, which is called E1, is highly controversial because it separate the West Bank from East Jerusalem, the potential future capitol of a Palestinian state. It is clear from this announcement that the UN resolution has done little to change the situation on the ground. Only time will tell whether Palestinians can achieve true sovereignty, despite Israeli efforts to take control of what they see as ancestral Jewish land.

Planned Israeli settlement east of Jerusalem

Drone Strikes: Turning Civilians into Militants

In recent years, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) has increased dramatically. These autonomous aircraft, often called drones, are now capable of carrying powerful armaments that can be used to attack military targets without risking the safety of any pilots. While many praise the use of drones as a way of carrying out military operations without putting "boots on the ground", the ethics of drone warfare are questionable at best. It is not the lack of pilots that makes drones immoral, but rather the manner in which we use them. Drone strikes have become a routine way of eliminating so-called terrorists, in a practice called "targeted killings". A more appropriate term would be "assassinations", because these strikes are carried out against targets who have not been convicted by any court in countries against which we are not at war. The "War on Terror" has become an excuse for the United States to eliminate any political enemies that it deems a threat to "national security", which means anyone who opposes American global dominance.

Map of US drone bases, 2011

A map of US drone bases makes it clear that drones are used to protect American strategic interests, which include above all the control of the Middle East. Besides Afghanistan and Iraq, our drone strikes have spread to Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. These countries, which are already being torn apart by internal conflicts, are now suffering even greater destruction due to our drone strikes. Although the military will claim that drone strikes are highly accurate, civilians are often killed. This fact is often hidden by an incredibly authoritarian policy used by the US government: that all able-bodied males killed in drone strikes are labeled "militants", unless later proven to be civilians. In other words, the executive branch has assumed the power to be judge, jury, and executor of the world, where everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

Even if the threat of terrorism justified these unconstitutional attacks, they are counterproductive in winning the "hearts and minds" of potential future terrorists. What better way is there to realize radical Islam's vision of America as a militaristic empire than to use flying robots that shoot missiles at innocent civilians. Besides breaking every American tradition of democracy and the rule of law, these drone strikes are playing into the hands of the so-called terrorists. As long as we try to use fear to promote our interests, it will be us who are the real terrorists.

The Arctic: The Final Frontier of Oil

Environmentalists have been warning us about the risks posed by global warming for decades. Perhaps the most common risk associated with a warming climate is the melting of the arctic, which would subsequently cause a rise in sea levels around the world. Often dismissed as an alarmist exaggeration or a liberal hoax, the melting of the arctic is now a reality on a large scale. While skeptics shift their denial from the existence of climate change to its cause, the vast majority of climatologists agree that global warming is the result of human activity. With the political situation showing no signs of change, the melting of the arctic will only accelerate in the coming decades.

The more cynical environmentalists argue that there are ulterior motives preventing action to counter global warming, rather than just a lack of political will. It is now known that the arctic contains vast reserves of oil and other natural resources, still untapped due to the difficulty of drilling operations in arctic conditions. However, as the arctic ice recedes, these oil reserves are becoming increasingly accessible. Plans are already being made to exploit the natural resources of the arctic, and those who would benefit from this exploitation are, undoubtedly, uninterested in or opposed to the prevention of global warming.

If the environmental cost of melting arctic ice isn't enough to cause concern, the geopolitical implications certainly are. As northern nations scramble to prepare for the newly available resources in the arctic, a legal battle is being waged for control of the Arctic Ocean. Russia was widely criticized in 2007 when they symbolically planted a Russian flag on the arctic sea floor. Many arctic nations are trying to claim ownership over the arctic through a legal technicality. International treaties define the coastal ocean territory  of a nation based on the extent of its continental shelf. If any nation is able to prove that their continental shelf extends into the center of the arctic, they could gain legal control over the vast oil reserves that everyone wants. It remains to be seen whether the United States would allow another nation, especially one like Russia, to have exclusive control over the arctic. Based on the amount of conflict there has been in other oil-rich regions, the possibility of war breaking out over the arctic is very real.

Mountaintop Removal: Wilderness to Wasteland

Coal has always been considered a dirty source of energy, and it remains the dirtiest fossil fuel in terms of carbon emissions. The production of coal has also long been associated with images of soot-covered miners suffering from terrible consequences to their health. But a new method of coal production is proving even more destructive to their environment and human communities. The practice of mountaintop removal, which is exactly what it sounds like, is a reckless way to get coal.

 

The environmental impact of mountaintop removal is obvious from any photo of its aftermath. Mountainous wilderness areas, once lush ecosystems full of trees and animals, are turned into brown wastelands. After the tops of the mountains are removed, the barren area is smoothed out to supposedly allow nature to "reclaim" the land. However, the land left behind is highly infertile and inhospitable. Even after years, the land is suitable only for grass and insects. Some estimate it could take as long as 100 years for the land to fully regenerate.

Perhaps the greatest victims of mountaintop removal are the mining communities nestled in valleys between the coal mountains that are being destroyed. The waste material that comes from the mountains is simply dumped into the surrounding valleys, often causing streams to flood into surrounding communities. The waste is also filled with pollutants, which can contaminate the nearby water supplies. After the generations of hard work that these mining communities have given to the coal industry, their land is being stripped of all value for short-term profits. But that's not an argument the coal companies can here. Anything besides the bottom-line, as any good capitalist would say, is simply an externality.

Fracking: Your Water is Safe, Unless...

The frenzy to find new sources of fossil fuels has led to a new method of natural gas production: hydraulic fracturing (also called hydro-fracking or just fracking). This method is highly controversial, and has been blamed for numerous instances of water contamination. There have even been documented cases of flammable water, apparently caused by nearby fracking operations. While the gas companies deny any harmful effects of fracking, environmentalists claim that the drilling method has serious health risks. The chemical mixture that is pumped into the ground during fracking is highly toxic. After fracking, if it does not leech into nearby water supplies, the mixture gets dumped in a water containment pit where it sits as a lasting source of contamination.

The accusations against the hydro-fracking industry might not be so alarming if the industry was properly regulated. Incredibly, Congress voted in 2005 to excempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. This loophole was proposed by none other than Dick Cheney, then the Vice president and former CEO of Halliburton. It's no coincidence, undoubtedly, that Halliburton is involved in the natural gas drilling industry. Just like the two wars started in the Bush era, this excemption was a way for Cheney to boost the bottom line of his corporation.

Public anger against the growth of hydro-fracking operations has been widespread. At the same time, the marketing departments of the fracking companies are blasting the airwaves with ads that praise fracking as the solution to our energy problems. Politicians refer to fracking as a green way of achieving energy independence, with less carbon emissions than coal or oil and a large supply of domestic reserves. With mounting economic and political pressure for increased energy production, it seems likely that the health and safety concerns about fracking will swept under the rug for now. Time will tell whether or not the benefits of this practice are worth the risks.

Syria: Nightmare of the Arab Spring

Syrian protest, April 2011

The wave of protests and revolutions now called the Arab Spring, which achieved remarkable success in Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Tunisia, has had a profoundly devastating effect on Syria. Instead of toppling the current regime, the protests in Syria have led to a brutal civil war, with no end to the violence in sight. With deaths numbering in the tens of thousands, many being innocent civilians including women and children, it seems the dream of the Syrian revolution has turned into a nightmarish situation of unchecked oppression and insurrection. The rebels, comprised of several independent military organizations, claim to be fighting to topple a corrupt regime and bring freedom to Syria. The government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, claims that the nation is under attack by terrorists and armed gangs funded by regional rivals like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Both sides view each other as existential threats, making a political solution all but impossible.

Pro-Assad rally, October 2011

The failure of the Syrian protesters can be explained in part by the political strength of the Assad regime. Unlike the Mubarak regime in Egypt, Assad enjoyed support from large sections of the population as well as the complete loyalty of the military. The Alawites, the ethnic minority that makes up most of the ruling class (including Assad himself), have largely remained faithful to the regime. Many speculate that the fall of the regime would result in a state led by the Sunni majority, potentially leading to a massacre of the Alawites by Sunnis seeking revenge for the victims of the regime. The Syrian government tried to maintain an image of multiculturalism by giving positions to Christians and other ethnic minorities in Syria. This is another way to instill fear in the population in order to maintain the stability of the regime. Syria is also a much smaller and more densely populated territory than Egypt or Libya, making it easier for the military to stop the protests by force.

Destroyed buildings in Syrian city Aleppo, October 2012

The survival of the Assad regime can also be explained from a geopolitical perspective. Syria is a close ally of Iran, perhaps the greatest rival to the United States and the West in the region. It is also a major importer of Russian arms, making the Assad regime a strategic ally of Russia. Mutual distrust between the US and Russia (along with China) prevented a UN resolution that would have allowed a military intervention. It seems the UN, which has never been a hindrance to American military adventures before, was used as an excuse to avoid blame for the lack of a military intervention. This is just one of many examples of how the US uses its military dominance to promote its interests rather than its values. We intervened in Libya because the West had much to gain from Libyan oil fields, despite the official reason of preventing a massacre. Meanwhile, when massacres happen repeatedly in Syria, we do nothing because there are no major resources to be gained. Although the Obama administration has denounced Assad and encouraged the rebels, the conflict in Syria has not been a priority in the drawn-out presidential campaign that has been dominating American news. The US military strategists may even think that it is in our interest to let Syria collapse into civil war, to deny the support they give to Iran and Russia. If this is the case, the Syrian people are in for continued violence and instability for years to come.