Question 2: Energy and Risks
Energy is fundamental to life. Without the resource, billions of individuals would remain hungry and cold. The prominent source of energy emanates from fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, and oil in the developing and industrialized nations. Despite providing numerous benefits that sustain human, plant, and animal life, the fossil fuels also present disadvantages that have resulted in ecological damage, political disruption, and production failures. This paper attempts to compare the political and environmental challenges introduced by natural gasses, coal, and oil as well as possible remedies that can alleviate the problems.
The greenhouse emissions that arise from the international and national energy supply sector continue to rise yearly. The combustion of fossil fuels creates the ecological menace in a bid to meet the increasing demand for transport, electricity, and heat requirements. According to Ramanathan et.al (2), climate scientists started to reveal the dimming impacts of aerosols as early as the 1970s with many studies focusing on their effects on the temperature. The darker aerosols like the black carbon and diesel soot accelerate warming and absorb sunlight. The lighter aerosols such as nitrates and sulfates from the fuel emissions, gasoline, and coal cool the earth surface and reflect the light from the sun back to space.
The attention given to the temperature and aerosols has prevented the lawmakers from viewing the effects that the aerosols direct to the water cycle. The implications are evident in the Northern Hemisphere that suffers from the dimming of the pollutants since it is the largest source of the fossil fuels. The air currents carry water droplets, vapor, and pollutants that affect the rainfall in the area. Since the 20th century, global temperatures have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius. The warming of the planet has resulted in increased rainfall and disruptions of patterns leading to reduced rainfall in certain regions (Ramanathan, Seddon, and Victor, 2).
The first surge of fossil fuels emissions took over North America and Europe in the middle of the 20th century because of the rapid industrial growth that occurred after the First World War. The pollutants disrupted rainfall in the continents. Fortunately, the governments in Europe and North America took measures to curb the pollution by enforcing stringent laws in the 1970s. From 1980, the layer of aerosols emissions has been thinning throughout the two continents. The second wave of fuel pollution is currently taking place in South and East Asia due to the rapid industrialization witnessed in the last four decades (Ramanathan, Seddon, and Victor, 3).
The dimming effect is spread out across the Indian Ocean and the monsoons have weakened in the South and East Asia. The desiccation of the environment has affected water dependent functions and agriculture. Fossil fuels pollutions continue to alarm governments in various regions in the globe with most leaders opting to formulate repressive rules to prevent citizens and companies from misusing the energy resources. The governments in the developed countries have had more luck in curbing the gas and water emissions because of their adequate financial means and capacities. However, things are quite different in the developing and underdeveloped areas where state capacity and infrastructure is limited (Ramanathan, Seddon, and Victor, 3).
Most underdeveloped and developing nations depend on agriculture which is slowly being affected by fossil fuel pollution. Hence, future projections point out that more than 40 percent of the people on the planet will live under chronic water stress if nothing is done to control energy emissions by 2050. Although the expenses of dimming aerosols are high and might impact the production sector adversely, the world realizes that there is a need to create strict policies to regulation the utilization of fossil fuels. Cutting the supply and use of aerosol will affect the industries that depend on the resources as well as the political powers that have risen due to the availability of the energy elements (Ramanathan, Seddon, and Victor, 4).
The remedies to control the environment risks and challenges of oil, coal, and natural gas emissions are categorized into three groups: household, transportation, and electric power energy services. The electric generation of power is mostly concerned with burning coal releasing aerosols that account for more that 70 percent of the fossil fuel pollution. The power plants that rely on coal will have to install technologies and machines that are very expensive to trap and store the emissions. The companies and governments will also be forced to invest more in other energy alternatives such as natural gas that emits fewer pollutants as well as water and wind power (Ramanathan, Seddon, and Victor, 4).
Energy plants can also make the pollutants friendlier to the surrounding by constructing plug leaks in the transmission and gas supply systems. The best measure of eliminating emissions from the transport sector is emphasizing the utilization of electric cars that prevent the combustion of dirty fuels. Vehicle buyers should also shift from the use of diesel engines to gasoline. Most of the aerosol emissions are released by poor households who do not have the means of purchasing suitable energy tools and machines. Over one billion individuals rely on solid fuels and kerosene to light their homes, heating, and cooking. The traditional means can damage lungs as well as the environment. Hence, governments and NGOs should develop awareness for people to use cleaner technologies such as solar lanterns and energy-efficient stoves that have ecological and health benefits to the disadvantaged persons. The remedies require leaders and the society to act fast to prevent climate depletion (Ramanathan, Seddon, and Victor, 5).
Question 3: Energy and Global Business
Coal is available and abundant in the nations that have the natural resource. Hence, it can be mined easily at a cheap price to generate more than half of the regions’ electricity. The fossil fuels are sold by both national and investor-owned corporations. The state-owned companies account for more than half of the international production of energy holding the lion’s share of the natural reserves of fossil fuels. However, in the developing countries that cannot afford technologies and infrastructure to mine or retrieve coal and oil, foreign firms from the developed areas such as the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia take over the energy production. According to Chen and Jaffe (1), the developing nations have begun to decree nationalization in a bid to drive the revolutionary vision and economy of their regions.
Chen and Jaffe (9) focus on Venezuela that is currently being led by Hugo Chavez. The leader has set sights on the oil manufacturing sector in the country and provided a notice to the foreign industries to reduce their control and ownership of oil projects. Chavez aims to establish a balance where the states will possess more than 60 percent of the energy production. The control inflicted by international oil companies on the underdeveloped and developing nations creates a tradition that circumspect the reactions or moves of the state-owned or national energy companies. One country in particular, that is, the United States has exhibited excessive control in the power plants in the developing areas.
Chen and Jaffe (9) provide the example of Mexico that was also in a similar situation as Venezuela under the control of the U.S. in the 1930s. America had priorities in foreign policy formation over the national energy corporations in Mexico. The U.S. went forth to control the production domain using the efforts of striking out communism and Nazism in Mexico. Hence, America adopted diplomatic protests to rebuke Mexico with financial penalties that would give the U.S. strategic control of national resources. State-owned firms should be accorded control over energy production to prevent the interference of foreign countries into personal matters and to enrich their own economies.
Greater emphasis is thus provided to state-owned oil industries to own almost 80 percent of the remaining reserves of the fossil fuels in the planet. By doing so, the regions can control the pricing of the natural resources as well as boost their financial sector. However, in the underdeveloped nations that cannot tap the full extent of the fossil fuel production, foreign intervention is necessary to assist in the production of energy. The developing countries can damage the future in the fossil fuel business by kicking out foreign investors because the state-owned industries do not have expertise and funds like the international firms. Private power plants also have adequate resources compared to the public oil factories. Private investors have funds that can boost the output of oil, expand, and repair the fossil fuel fields (Chen and Jaffe, 10).
National or public oil companies have fewer incentives for sustained production, exploration, reserve placement, and reinvestment. They limit the timely progress of the vast minerals due to constraints arising from geopolitical and domestic political influences. The public firms threaten future oil supplies from materializing the required volume and depriving the dependent consumer nations of the natural asset. However, the national oil corporations have significant financial and diplomatic support that gives them leverage in global commerce and trade that the international firms do not possess. The state-owned companies have been accused of offering soft debts and overbidding resources that negate the measures of accountability in the IMF and World Bank lowering the standards of global investments and transparency (Chen and Jaffe, 17).
Private investors always have an upper hand in the national oil firms no matter how much the governments attempt to separate themselves from the shareholders. Since they need the funds of the private investors, state-owned energy plants end up serving the interests of the primary shareholders geopolitically. The rise of the national fossil fuel companies poses a tremendous threat to the economic power and strategic interests of the developed nations such as America. The state-owned firms will also lower the efficiency of the global standards regarding the appropriate corporate governance and human rights. Therefore, national and international, public and private firms should develop a framework where they can co-exist and keep each other in check to prevent the disadvantages that arise from the excessive control in each sector (Chen and Jaffe, 14).
Given the overwhelming complexity of international energy markets, no particular remedy is adequate to govern the task of management. Only cooperation and responsible lobbying can establish an economic architecture and foreign trade rules that will limit the freedoms of the global and national oil firms. The best practices of the private and public corporations can be promoted by mechanisms such as the Free Trade, Energy Charters, and the World Trade Organization. The interventions will create solutions for international conflicts that arise in the investments and accessibility of energy (Chen and Jaffe, 18).
The oil-rich regions that are plagued by violence, poverty, and corruption such as the Niger Delta stand to benefit from foreign trade remedies that provide dispute solutions and better governance (Chen and Jaffe, 19). None of the players in the energy market should have the monopoly over the fossil minerals to prevent overuse and the deprivation of citizens. Also, since the natural resources have proven to have adverse ecological implications, the international and national oil corporations should focus on suitable machines and technologies to limit pollution as well as investing in other energy alternatives.
Works Cited
Chen, Mathew and Jaffe, Amy. Energy Security: Meeting the Growing Challenge of National Oil Companies. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. Print. 2007.
Ramanathan, Veerabhadran; Seddon, Jessica, and Victor, David. The Next Front on Climate Change. Foreign Affairs, p. 135-142. Print. 2016.
