Laissez-"unfair"

The following is a short essay I wrote for an environmental studies class. With oil now spilling into the gulf and people are actually starting to notice I thought this would be a fitting thing to post.


Author G.K. Chesterton once said, “The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly. But the rich have always objected to being governed at all.” This sentiment rings true when examining international relations and energy. The current state of international politics is one with little accountability and governance in the favor of rich nations paired with injustice and criticism at the disadvantage of poor nations. The developed world consumes 32 times the amount of resources as the developing world does per capita.(Diamond) This disparity is central to the energy crisis with one out of every four humans lacking regular access to electricity.(Friedman)

Judging by the allocation of resources, terrorism is the central challenge and focus of American policy. The largest sector of the 2009 fiscal year federal budget was defense spending, accounting for 28% of the total budget while discretionary spending only accounted for 12%.(whitehouse.gov) These dollars are being allocated to fight a war on terrorism. Ted Koppel argues that the current state of this war on terror would be better termed a war for the protection of American energy supplies in the form of oil. Koppel argues that defense spending is really defending America’s oil dependent economy. This active investment keeps our nation energy rich and dependent on unsustainable fossil fuel energy and unlikely to quickly convert to a more sustainable energy supply.

While terrorism is a buzz word in both politics and the media, we rarely ever discuss why developing nations are frustrated and angry with American culture. The closest society comes to this discussion is hidden deep with patriotic rhetoric. Speeches, bumper stickers, country songs, and other forms of communication giving their due respect to our troops often make mention of fighting for the American way of life. This slogan may hold more answers than first glance would provide. The American way of life, that is to say American consumption, is what we are fighting for. As Jared Diamond explains, terrorism against western nations may be rooted in the frustration of individuals in developing nations who are very aware of the disparities in resources between the two worlds, and understand the institutional oppression leaving little hope to ever achieve “the American Dream” on a global scale. The current climate of global economic governance perpetuates the inequality that frustrates developing nations and sparks international conflict.

While the poor are being governed badly by this economic system, rich nations are fighting being governed at all. As Thomas Friedman explains, population is only an issue if people continue to consume resources in an unsustainable way. The lifestyles of developed nations are unsustainable. The true tragedy lies in the fact that converting to a sustainable way of consumption would be less painful than any individual would expect. Sustainability is not tied to comfort. We currently have the technology to live sustainably without seeing a major shift in any individual’s actual life style. The change though does come at a price to big business. Change requires new capital investments, which intern costs money. Corporate America spent 3.47 billion dollars on lobbying in 2009. The corporate voice now drives American policy. This voice stands in opposition to change and stands stronger against regulation. This refusal to be governed not only maintains the status quo in environmental degradation and international inequality, but hurts the American economy by withholding jobs that would be required to transition current infrastructure to be sustainable. In order to obtain both political and environmental sustainability equity must be emphasized while the rich submit to governance and the poor are governed more fairly.