In these days when powerless to rise in price of petrol and diesel, I think it is a useful exercise to read a chart on oil exports in the world.
There is a figure that jumps immediately to the eyes. Among the countries that export more than one million barrels only two per day, Norway (1.8 million) and Canada (1.5) have been a mature democratic system. One can perhaps add to these two Mexico (1.3), but its structure is very fragile, as evidenced by the inability of the institutions of that country to fight the big drug traffickers. Taken from these three countries the largest producers and exporters of oil have been with more or less authoritarian governments, however, far from the canons of Western democracies: Saudi Arabia (6.4), Russia (5.4), Iran (2.2), Nigeria (2.1), UAE (2.0), Iraq (1.9), Angola (1.8), Kuwait (1.4), Kazakhstan (1.4), Algeria (1.3) , Venezuela (1.3), Libya (1.2).
Faced with this data surprising to a certain point, the crisis of recent weeks, linked to the riots taking place in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and those dreaded in other countries, perhaps the same as Saudi Arabia. Compared to the first great oil crisis, the embargo of 1973 - which forced the Italians to give up the car on Sunday of 'austerity - the so-called black gold market is much more globalized and has not been concentrated only in Arab countries, gathered in the OPEC cartel. But that crisis and the subsequent ones that have occurred with increasing frequency, there have served to use less oil, have only led international investors to buy into more number of countries. According to data from International Energy Agency in 2010, oil demand increased by 2.7 million barrels per day in 2011 and is expected to grow to 1.7 million others. Market globalization has not brought greater security because on the one hand, the sellers, as I said before, they are still countries without democratic control and with a high level of corruption and other large multinational buyers are increasingly disconnected from the interests of governments that only theoretically should respond. To put it another way: on the one hand, the corrupt and the other those willing to be bribed.
then I try to make a purely and strictly utilitarian, from an expert of realpolitik, as were a sergioromano any, do not want anyone to accuse me of being a visionary - has happened and probably will again - and I want to avoid that kind of view it is immoral to fund regimes that deny human rights of their citizens. These speeches are "beautiful souls" by people who understand nothing of politics. Leaving aside the moral, I would like some of those clever and intelligent, those who understand everything in short, to tell us that convenience is to continue to depend for our energy from people misunderstanding - and maybe the Communists - like Chavez, as a former -KGB agent Putin, from folk tribal leaders like Gaddafi or an old satrap as King Abdullah. E ' very convenient to continue to invest in oil as this resource is not only destined to end, but between now and when the last drop is extracted and global stocks are depleted, is run by such governments, perhaps with the risk that they are even upset by young revolutionaries, despite the unconditional support of Western corporations and governments as their coachman flies? Would not it be more useful - I repeat it more useful, more just do not - try to invest on a different model of development based on renewable energy sources? Waiting for some answers, although I suppose that none of those who understand to read my little blog. Personally, I think we begin to think in a world that makes less oil would be more useful, more cost-effective, and would be even more fair, but do not tell too much.
0 comments:
Post a Comment