We should be more concerned with finding alternatives to fossil fuels like coal and oil, instead of the war and spending billions in the Middle East, amirite?
Oil is a beautiful commodity, it has endless usefulness, its very cost effective to ship around the world, and the end result, petrol is one of the cheapest, and most dense fuel sources we know. Obviously its also a pollutant, but economics rules our world, and as it happens, economics doesn't give a damn about pollution.
The oil lobby is immensely powerful in US politics, and it will be as long as oil is profitable (which it will be for another 60 years).
While oil may be useful and extremely relied upon, it's not going to last longer than 50 years at the most, and we need to start investing in alternative energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind energy. It's not right to constantly use our earth's valuable nonrenewable fossil fuels. I'm only 16 but I have enough common sense to know that if we stopped spending billions monthly in the Middle East, we would have more money and we would not be forced to lay off teachers, and create unnecessary pollution because we are too ignorant to switch over to more abundant energy resources, like Europe. I believe that if we just spent less money trying to spread democracy in other countries, we could spend more trying to save our environment.
For a start, I completely agree with you. But what I believe is that the USA won't do this until the last minute, which is unfortunate. I once spoke to a British economist about this very subject (Madsen Pirie), and he said that oil would increase in price as it grows more scarce, and that this would bring alternatives into profitability naturally, at that point, reliance would go.
Unfortunately, the USA has become an economic empire, and the rulers are not your congressmen, but the lobbies. War makes the companies behind the lobbies very rich, whilst you pay the bill. This is not overly exaggerated, the Military Industrial Complex is an accepted phenomenon in the most part.
War is also immensely profitable for certain groups within society. Weapons companies, such as Lockheed Martin, BAE systems, Boeing etc, pressure the government into buying their weapons, and some have suggested even engaging in conflicts. War obviously carries a human cost, which economics doesn't tend to have any consideration for either. War also makes the government some money, currently the US government is being paid by the Afghan and Iraqi governments (to name but two) to train up their soldiers and police forces.
So, as long as war is profitable (forever?), it will always occur.
Oil is a beautiful commodity, it has endless usefulness, its very cost effective to ship around the world, and the end result, petrol is one of the cheapest, and most dense fuel sources we know. Obviously its also a pollutant, but economics rules our world, and as it happens, economics doesn't give a damn about pollution.
The oil lobby is immensely powerful in US politics, and it will be as long as oil is profitable (which it will be for another 60 years).
While oil may be useful and extremely relied upon, it's not going to last longer than 50 years at the most, and we need to start investing in alternative energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind energy. It's not right to constantly use our earth's valuable nonrenewable fossil fuels. I'm only 16 but I have enough common sense to know that if we stopped spending billions monthly in the Middle East, we would have more money and we would not be forced to lay off teachers, and create unnecessary pollution because we are too ignorant to switch over to more abundant energy resources, like Europe. I believe that if we just spent less money trying to spread democracy in other countries, we could spend more trying to save our environment.
For a start, I completely agree with you. But what I believe is that the USA won't do this until the last minute, which is unfortunate. I once spoke to a British economist about this very subject (Madsen Pirie), and he said that oil would increase in price as it grows more scarce, and that this would bring alternatives into profitability naturally, at that point, reliance would go.
Unfortunately, the USA has become an economic empire, and the rulers are not your congressmen, but the lobbies. War makes the companies behind the lobbies very rich, whilst you pay the bill. This is not overly exaggerated, the Military Industrial Complex is an accepted phenomenon in the most part.
War is also immensely profitable for certain groups within society. Weapons companies, such as Lockheed Martin, BAE systems, Boeing etc, pressure the government into buying their weapons, and some have suggested even engaging in conflicts. War obviously carries a human cost, which economics doesn't tend to have any consideration for either. War also makes the government some money, currently the US government is being paid by the Afghan and Iraqi governments (to name but two) to train up their soldiers and police forces.
So, as long as war is profitable (forever?), it will always occur.
ummm... the cost of the war is much more than the money generated for the government... and they aren't actually getting any oil out of it...
cheers