Does Boycotting an Oil Exporter Bring Peace?
|July 28, 2014||Posted by Staff under Editorials|
This 2014 excerpt of EcoWatch, Jly 24, is by Brandon Baker.
Hours after a jet flying over Ukraine was shot down, Congress members from both sides of the aisle presented cases to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports. The oil would cut Europe’s oil dependence on Russia and provide an economic boost to the U.S., they say [at least for those whose money comes from oil], ignoring the cost of further damaging our environment and collective health by drilling.
Ed. Notes: Since the only winner from this tragedy would be oil companies, and since there was no lag time whatsoever in politicians jumping to do what oil companies want, does that cast suspicion on the US Government as culpable of instigating another false flag? (like the Gulf of Tonkin, the Maine in Havana, perhaps even 9/11?)
Politicians and business people do conspire, meaning, their private discussions and plans are not part of the public record. But conspiracies aside, is isolating all the Russian people the best way to bring about peace with the Russian government? German leader Bismarck noted that when goods can not cross borders, armies will. But if Russia and Europe were to become more dependent upon each other, not less, then that scenario would be the likeliest path to peace. So on this score, US politicans are wrong again and just serving the “oiligarchy” again.
They are also wrong to allow more destruction of the natural world. More drilling in more places ruins ecosystems. So does extracting, transporting, refining, storing, and burning oil. Giving up the burning of fossil fuels would be altogether a good idea. And there are other power sources, such as solar and fuel cells, to turn to. They are probably even cheaper than oil — especially if polluters had to pay damages — but how can we know with politics hiding the truth?