This question naturally begs the question --- who are the leading actors? Well, the great nations of the world. Currently, Europe, the US and other developed countries. But also, and increasingly so recently, China, Brazil, India, and other developing countries. Indeed many forsee China, with its immense population and rapidly growing economy, as a if not the leading force in years to come. Of course the interstate organizations that play a large part in IPE will also be important. The IMF, Worldbank, and others will continue to exert influence. International corporations, already strong, may very well grow in power and reach. OPEC will continue to grow in power. Other bodies, as yet weak or perhaps un-thought of may also very well rise to prominence in the IPE.
What seems to be a key feature of all these “leading actors” is their dependence or relation to one thing: energy. Our world runs on energy. More particularly at this time, it runs on oil. Look around you. The room you are in, the plastic cup you drink out of the, the iPhone by your side, the shirt you are wearing, all would be impossible without oil. Plastics come from oil. Oil is used to manufacture machine parts. Oil transports these things to you. Oil is everywhere. Well, at least for now. Oil is a non-renewable resource. We use it at a rate 10,000 times faster than it can be made. The earth is only so big. Eventually, we will run out of oil. This is simply a fact.
I believe energy will be the biggest challenge facing the leading actors in IPE in the 21st century. There is simply no other way to think about it. Oil cannot last forever. It affects all parts of the economy, both internationally and domestically. Also, it is not distributed equally.
Certain parts of the world contain vastly more oil than other parts (and some parts none at all). The Middle East has gigantic conventional reserves. (Conventional, meaning that it is easy to get from the ground. Not to be confused with unconventional oil, such as tar sands or shale.) Canada has large amounts, although much of this is in tar sand and so relatively hard to get out and use. Mexico has some, but a dwindling amount. Europe has very little. Russia has large amounts. Parts of South America, especially Venezuela, have large amounts (mostly unconventional). A few African countries have a good amount. The United States still has some, and a good deal of shale still to mine, but it is still a huge importer, mostly because it uses so much (as much as a third of all oil produced every year). The Middle East is certainly the winner, however, both in volume and accessibility of getting it’s oil from the ground.
What is the issue with this? Why does it matter that these resources are distributed unevenly? Well, being human beings we have a tendency to fight when we do not get what we want. Oil will become scarcer and scarcer. The amount left will become more precious. Let’s look at the example of Iran. Iran has large amounts of oil. Iran is also a semi-nuclear dictatorship state with a long history of radical Islam. It recently stopped shipments of oil to several countries in retaliation against an embargo. Iran is an example of the dangers and potential conflicts and wars that may arise out of oil. Will the US, with its size and might, continue to allow states such as Iran to do what they wish with their resources when these wishes so go against theirs? Only the future will tell. Things will most certainly get heated.
Not that the US will be the only nation coveting oil. China has a booming economy, as well as India, Brazil, and others. As these nations get more affluent they will want to claim more of a share of the limited energy resources (oil and others). Will this put them in conflict with the traditional power-users, the US, Europe, and others? It is certainly a possibility.
Yet even with all these potential dangers and wars, oil cannot last forever. It must give out sometime. What will the world do then? Are there alternatives to oil? In fact, there are. But are they good, viable alternatives? That is another question. Wind, solar, fuel cells, hydro, nuclear, all these are ways to get energy from sources other than non-renewable resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and the like. But what these resources are not is economically viable (at least not for now). In general, they are too expensive and too “spotty” to be well relied upon. The wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine, etc. They are simply not as easy to use as pulling up to a gas station and filling up your car. But when this is not an option, we will have to find another way.
I imagine it coming to be the “billion dollar question.” As oil reserves dwindle and an alternative becomes more necessary, it will become more and more worth people’s time to develop these “other” forms for getting energy. Eventually, it will become so worth people’s time that, well, a discovery will be made. With all the most brilliant minds at work on it, and so much money at stake, I imagine we will find viable alternatives. If not, our world will not be able to continue functioning as it does.
Our world will also not be able to continue functioning as it does if it is completely polluted. The forms of energy that we are currently using are incredibly polluting. While global warming is a very hotly debated topic, it does appear that it must have some validity. It claims that as CO(2) is released into the atmosphere in large amounts (from our cars, anything that runs on oil) it is creating holes in the ozone layer that allows more sunlight in and so heats up our world. The world has purportedly gotten one degree hotter because of this, and will continue to heat up as we burn more fossil fuels. This will start melting glaciers in the arctic and so start flooding our world. While others say this is not based on fact, it is at least an issue to think about. What is not contested is the other effects of pollution. Pollution creates the smog that hangs over many cities, choking both plants and animals. Toxic waste is created from nuclear reactors. More recently, huge amounts of polluted water is being created from the new methods for mining the “shale gas” that is the last large repository of oil. Will our world be worth living in when we finally run out of oil? Or will it be a barren landscape devoid of life as Al Gore and Wale would have us believe? There cannot be any international political economy if there is not inhabitable world.
It will be up to the leading actors in IPE to do something about this, if something needs to be done. Me using a recyclable cup instead of a normal paper one will not do much. If we want to limit pollution, etc., we must use large-scale measures. Most importantly, we would have to get China and other developing nations on board. There are very few pollution laws in many of these countries. When you only have two dollars a day to spend on food the pollution you are creating is probably the last thing on your mind.
The problem of energy is one that may very well tear the world apart. It is also one that can, in a way must, bring us together. We may fight over oil but to save ourselves from the effects of burning this oil we must work together. There is only one world afterall.
International political economy, well, the economy of the entire world really, is dependant on energy. The vast majority of this energy comes from non-renewable resources, many of which are polluting. These resources are also becoming scarcer and scarcer. This will create many conflict and problems in the world in the 21st century. For these reasons, I think energy, its availability and use, will be the greatest challenge facing the leading actors in the international political economy in the 21st century.
No comments:
Post a Comment