Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Behold the Rise of Energy-Based Fascism

By Michael T. Klare, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 20, 2007.


The Pentagon is helping to create a grim future for all of us: a struggle for energy primacy abroad and Big Brother at home.
11202007story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Michael T. Klare

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It has once again become fashionable for the dwindling supporters of President Bush's futile war in Iraq to stress the danger of "Islamo-fascism" and the supposed drive by followers of Osama bin Laden to establish a monolithic, Taliban-like regime -- a "Caliphate" -- stretching from Gibraltar to Indonesia. The President himself has employed this term on occasion over the years, using it to describe efforts by Muslim extremists to create "a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom." While there may indeed be hundreds, even thousands, of disturbed and suicidal individuals who share this delusional vision, the world actually faces a far more substantial and universal threat, which might be dubbed: Energo-fascism, or the militarization of the global struggle over ever-diminishing supplies of energy.

Unlike Islamo-fascism, Energo-fascism will, in time, affect nearly every person on the planet. Either we will be compelled to participate in or finance foreign wars to secure vital supplies of energy, such as the current conflict in Iraq; or we will be at the mercy of those who control the energy spigot, like the customers of the Russian energy juggernaut Gazprom in Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; or sooner or later we may find ourselves under constant state surveillance, lest we consume more than our allotted share of fuel or engage in illicit energy transactions. This is not simply some future dystopian nightmare, but a potentially all-encompassing reality whose basic features, largely unnoticed, are developing today.

These include:

  • The transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil protection service whose primary mission is to defend America's overseas sources of oil and natural gas, while patrolling the world's major pipelines and supply routes.
  • The transformation of Russia into an energy superpower with control over Eurasia's largest supplies of oil and natural gas and the resolve to convert these assets into ever increasing political influence over neighboring states.
  • A ruthless scramble among the great powers for the remaining oil, natural gas, and uranium reserves of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, accompanied by recurring military interventions, the constant installation and replacement of client regimes, systemic corruption and repression, and the continued impoverishment of the great majority of those who have the misfortune to inhabit such energy-rich regions.
  • Increased state intrusion into, and surveillance of, public and private life as reliance on nuclear power grows, bringing with it an increased threat of sabotage, accident, and the diversion of fissionable materials into the hands of illicit nuclear proliferators.

Together, these and related phenomena constitute the basic characteristics of an emerging global Energo-fascism. Disparate as they may seem, they all share a common feature: increasing state involvement in the procurement, transportation, and allocation of energy supplies, accompanied by a greater inclination to employ force against those who resist the state's priorities in these areas. As in classical twentieth century fascism, the state will assume ever greater control over all aspects of public and private life in pursuit of what is said to be an essential national interest: the acquisition of sufficient energy to keep the economy functioning and public services (including the military) running.

The Demand/Supply Conundrum

Powerful, potentially planet-altering trends like this do not occur in a vacuum. The rise of Energo-fascism can be traced to two overarching phenomena: an imminent collision between energy demand and energy supplies, and the historic migration of the center of gravity of planetary energy output from the global north to the global south.

For the past 60 years, the international energy industry has largely succeeded in satisfying the world's ever-growing thirst for energy in all its forms. When it comes to oil alone, global demand jumped from 15 to 82 million barrels per day between 1955 and 2005, an increase of 450%. Global output rose by a like amount in those years. Worldwide demand is expected to keep growing at this rate, if not faster, for years to come -- propelled in large part by rising affluence in China, India, and other developing nations. There is, however, no expectation that global output can continue to keep pace.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fascism, energy, oil

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Only Solution
Posted by: aussidawg on Jan 20, 2007 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only one solution to this emerging problem, and that is to tax the crap out of petroleum products, and use the money derived from those taxes to fund a project similar to the Manhatten Project of WWII to come up with a renewable or self generating, nonpolluting energy source. Any legitimate leader of this country would be able to see that the nation that succeeds in this goal will become not only self sufficient with abundant energy, but the world's economic leader. This won't happen, here in the US at least for one simple reason. Short term greed. As our current decider has repeatedly demonstrated, he has no long term interests in the future of this country. It is far more important for members of our current government to cater to oil company cronies and line their own pockets with money, at any expense including jeopardizing the safety of our military members, destroying the global atmosphere, and trashing other nations than insure the future of our country by taking the plunge and investing into the research needed to develope renewable, inexpensive, and nonpolluting energy sources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: richholland
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: richholland
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: cherrymapin
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Not a Solution at all. Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Not a Solution at all. Posted by: nickptar
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: nickptar
» RE: The Only Solution Posted by: fifthworld
fascism and energie
Posted by: richholland on Jan 20, 2007 2:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in 1925 some germans (hess/Haushofer/Hitler) wrote a book called Mein Kampf in this bestseller the greed for raw material and the murder on millions of Jewish people were predicted.

A young dutchman Van der Lubbe made a fire in the German Parliament to warn the world about the coming disaster.
England, Japan, Germany, Russia and probably America all wanted WAR.

Be aware Europe will not follow the USA on a third World war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: fascism and energie Posted by: babs
» RE: fascism and energie Posted by: nickptar
fuel economy standards
Posted by: khence on Jan 20, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there really was energo-fascism wouldn't there be laws being passed raising fuel economy standards forcing corporations in Detroit to re-tool and re-design and stop squelching technologies that increase efficiency?

I think Klare makes some compelling points but really grossly misses the mark when it comes to defining the nature of the problem. Detroit has not been forced to up efficiency of their cars because of their corporate power. It's corporate power over the state that prevents this common sense move. Real fascism is the take over of the State by the largest of corporate cartels.

What Klare predicts may well come to pass but given the competing interests of corporate cartels it's likely be marked with chaos and the need for people to take over the levers of control to force the needed changes in certain areas, like Detroit for example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imagine
Posted by: socialpsych on Jan 20, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine that if the billions of dollars spent by the Bush administration each week on death, destruction, corruption, and the subversion of democracy were instead invested in US education and business to develop a sane, energy-sustainable future. The planet would have half a chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep! Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Imagine Posted by: aussidawg
» hit the nail on the head Posted by: nor cal surfer
» RE: hit the nail on the head Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: Imagine Posted by: babs
All Too True and Very Sad
Posted by: bttl on Jan 20, 2007 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes- I do believe that this article addresses many of the issues and where we are heading at present. I was suprised at how long it took the US population to recognize why we were in Iraq- but as long as we are complacent and ignorant of the truth, our government will continue on this path.

To choose to venture down a different path would require much change. It would require an active imagination able to "think outside of the box" and to reject the dominant paradigms operating in this country, such as our ecconomic system. It would require a wholesale acceptance of the reality of the energy and climate change situation. It would mean that corporations and wealthy people who have risen to the top and profited by our current system would need to accept change that would potentially, and likely, not continue to feed their wealth. It would also require that the US accept the fact that continued domination of the world is unacceptable and that we need to turn our attention to the homefront.

The saddest thing about this is that it is not that people in the US are happy while engaged in using 25% of the world energy and emitting a proportionate amount of GHG. But for the most part, people are so caught up in their lives, stuff, more stuff and plans for even more stuff that they have a collective failure of the imagination in being able to envision a different sort of life.

I for one don't want to participate in dominating the world's energy supplies and thus other counties. It is very hard however to remove oneself from the situation- there is only so far one can go at present without becoming so marginalized that existing in our current society is impossible. And thus even with my off-grid existence, fuel-efficient car, and ongoing attempts to decrease my use of fossil-fuels, already well below that of the average American, I am an unwitting participant in our attempts to dominate and control the world energy markets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Too True and Very Sad Posted by: WhatNow?
FantasticoFasciosickoFasciothrowupo
Posted by: gazooks on Jan 20, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Spam, spam, spam, spam,"...... puleeeeeze may we find another word to pulverize into meaninglessness?

Or maybe this piece was satire and I'm just too hung over from drowning my fear of looking silly in a SS uniform to recognize it.

It's over the top friends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And now... this breaking news:
Posted by: greentime on Jan 20, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The planet is dying.

Do we have time to do anything but turn our attention to creating a sustainable society that lives in balance and peace? The age of Empire has passed. Get busy doing what has to be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Klare knows nothing about fascism!
Posted by: citizenjoe on Jan 20, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Russian Fascism?
Klare knows a great deal about energy politics, but almost nothing about fascism. He is correct to call the US policy of pirating the world's energy resources on behalf of great cartels and oligopolies a fascist policy. Indeed, it was the core of the Nazi policy of "lebensraum". When it comes to Putin's policies of Russian state ownership of energy, Klare completely misunderstands it; this is ANTI-fascist. The fascist governments did not own major capital resources. In fact, essential support of fascist governments came from business interests that opposed all such nationalization and socialism. Klare gets this completely wrong.-- Joe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Putin is not much of a socialist, Posted by: citizenjoe
» Land is a natural resource! Posted by: citizenjoe
» Wrong Posted by: citizenjoe
» Pretty piss-poor Posted by: citizenjoe
» lets give Brunowe some credit Posted by: citizenjoe
New York Times covers up real agenda in Iraq - again
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 20, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrast Michael Klare's well-researched piece on the current role of the Pentagon as an oilfield services protection service with this puff piece on the front page of the New York Times.

Draft Law Keeps Central Control Over Oil in Iraq, by Jamie Glanz

There's not a word in the article about the lucrative payoff for western oil companies; Halliburtons oilfield services contract in Iraq is not mentioned, nor is Exxon, Shell, BP or Chevron; not are the terms of the contracts discussed, other then that there is a provision that may allow for future privatization of Iraqi oil.

Nor is there discussion of the number of US troops and private mercenary forces whose primary job is guarding pipelines and oilfields, or what kind of lucrative payoffs tthe military services contractors are enjoying as a result of all this.

This is being done primarily for the benefit of a cartel of international investment banks, international oil corporations, tinpot dictators and monarchs from oil-rich countries, and for Bush's cronies at Halliburton, Fluor, Bechtel, etc. These are the same groups that control the US corporate media - so it's no surprise that the media refuses to discuss what Michael Klare is telling us. The NYT has a Carlyle Group member, William Kennard on it's board -Carlyle has holdings in oil, military, pharma and media corporations.

Dan Briody's Iron Triangle and the Halliburton Agenda tell the whole story in grim detail of how the Carlyle-Halliburton power structure rose; the inside details are also described in John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" - the modern version of Perkin's old NSA-managed "consulting firm", Chas T. Main, is called "BearingPoint" - currently 'advising' the puppet Iraqi government on their oil laws...

There's only one thing to do: end all foreign oil imports into the US, end all tax subsidies and kickbacks for the oil, coal, and nuclear companies, and put all the money into support for renewable energy companies and initiatives. This also relates to the problem of global warming, and the fact is there is a large segment of the business community that supports this approach:Big business joins greens to pressure Bush on climate.

Better start soon; CO2 levels are rising faster then ever:Surge in Carbon Levels Raises Fears of Runaway Warming by David Adam

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» On manipulation of corn prices by Big Ag Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» The real culprit: animal feed Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Plant trees people
Posted by: Wood1 on Jan 20, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. The obvious solution is to plant trees and harvest bio-fuel from them. This prevents the disruption of the worlds food supply via ethanol conversion from wheat, etc, and also allows us to create a viable carbon sink and water purifier from the trees we plant. With the UNEP Billion tree campaign, the Plant for the Planet campaign and Trees 4 Free these things are already being put in motion, but mostly it remains up to the population to start being involved and help make these things happen if we are really going to start affecting mass change. Link Get off crude oil. Its a waste of resources and human lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plant trees people Posted by: anthroman
» RE: Plant trees people Posted by: Logic's Edge
» Question about electric cars. Posted by: maxpayne
» Brazil is cut'm down faster than we can plant! Posted by: common intelligence
» RE: Plant trees people Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Bogus Propaganda
Posted by: rwa on Jan 20, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If this proves to be the case, no amount of inputs from Canadian tar sands, shale oil, or other "unconventional" sources will prevent a catastrophic liquid-fuel shortage in a decade or so, producing widespread economic trauma."

Entirely false assumption.
1) nonconventional oil sources dwarf total consumed and known light oil by several multiples.
2) We already pay much more for oil than the cost of producing nonconventional oil. There simply is no basis for saying that there will be "economic trauma". Our economic problems stem from militarism, not our current high oil prices.

This WSJ article puts the lie to the peak oil hoax. Another perspective is given by Hugo Chavez and the U.S. Dept of Energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone truely interested in this issue should read.......
Posted by: anthroman on Jan 20, 2007 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts. Unlike this article, which seems like another scare tactic, Roberts indepthly and fully researches the history and present of our fossil fuel economy. He also offers actual solutions and real steps we can take to change our current reality.
We've have and continue to hold the cultural belief that energy is an infinite and if we need more energy we just add more fuel. Efficiency is ignored and any advances in efficiency are offset by our desires for bigger houses, bigger and faster cars, and more things. When efficiency is taken seriously, like the oil embargo of the 70s, we can make huge savings in the amount of fuel used, thus dramatically reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
The solutions, at least any real ones, are going to be in the choices we make and the culture we live in. Dreaming of some magic new energy technology will only make our current reality more dire and only prolonging the changes in our culture that will be necessary to address the energy crisis. Faith in some future technology to save us is just as illogical as having faith in some supernatural being to save us. The choice is ours.

Please read "The End of Oil."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

energy fascism? no it started earlier
Posted by: wleming on Jan 20, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do read the Kennan doctrine, proposed in the 1950's-for the direction the US has taken much prior to energy driven fascism. The 1948 attacks on Hiss et. al. signal the beginning of a long march toward totalitarianism. The current crisis comes out of whats been shaped over the decades...by the State Dept; CIA, and the other reactionary forces at work here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is all about value.
Posted by: craigandrew on Jan 20, 2007 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be impossible for these robber-barons to be so devious if we did not place as much value on energy resources as they do. We are the only ones who give them power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about China?
Posted by: SteveB on Jan 20, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not that I'm holding them up as some sort of model, but how does China plan to get the energy it needs to fuel its growing economy?

Does China have 160,000 troops in the Middle East to "safeguard" its oil supplies?

As far as I can tell, the Chinese "strategy" is to produce goods and services that others want to buy, and use the resulting income to buy oil on the international market.

Sounds crazy, but it might just work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about China? Posted by: rwa
» Exactly my point! Posted by: SteveB
» RE:Exactly my point! Posted by: rwa
People's interests or corporate interests? Take your pick!
Posted by: IanA on Jan 20, 2007 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The country is fascist when those who govern it do so primarily at the beck and call of corporations. The power of global corporate capitalists derives from the artifice and management of problems. Corporations profit from the control of the problem. That is not to say “eliminating” problems with the application of solutions, but controlling them. Providing solutions would be relatively easy. Part of the function of bureaucracy is to insure that the process is complicated. Oligopolies and monopolies are best placed to limit solutions which otherwise might benefit "people". That which benefits people reduces corporate power or profit. Ask yourself, “Who needs problems?”

War, hunger, debt and fear are the pillars of misery on which the system is built. Take them away and you’ll have a new system….

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uh, Mr. Klare, Energy-Fascism has already been in place for 70 years.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 20, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The banning of hemp and government cutting off subsidization of alternative renewables such as solar and wind have been going on for 70 years ! Why should you be "surprised" all of a sudden? If you cared to study the history of DuPont and Randolph Hearst along with the history of politicians in the 20th century silently stifling growth for renewable alternatives such as solar and wind, you would have been more eager to get people to stand up to this sham rather than act like another elitist posting more doom and gloom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't look ahead – you won't like what you see.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 20, 2007 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What does anyone think the chances are, given that enormous corporations base their profit margins on obtaining and refining oil, and with a military sufficient to secure oil supplies, that businesses are going to voluntarily give up profit to invest in efficiency and alternative energy? Not much, until the current source of their profits dries up. "Market forces" not only aren't able to control energy distribution, they are actually standing in the way of a sustainable future.

We refuse to change, or even examine, the socio-economic model we are slavishly indebted to. Thus, the race now is between depletion of resources and the poisoning of own own nest. My bet? Poison will win. Either way, though, while we pay only lip-service and put miniscule resources toward a sustainable future, we are ensuring our own demise – sooner, not later.

Is anybody completely frightened – or outraged – that we are now "rationally" discussing the possibility of not being able to live on this planet within our children's lifetime?! Good God, this is not just another special on television; all of us should be scared SH*TLESS by the mere prospect!! We are a chaotic herd of lemmings rushing toward nothing in particular, and the abyss now looms in sight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what a bargain......
Posted by: Greg on Jan 20, 2007 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember when Reagan slashed funds for research into alternative energy development in order to "help balance the budget." How much money are we spending on a resource and its attendant technologies? How long will these technologies be viable? What are the prices we're going to pay for postponing a conversion to alternative energies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Behold the rise of whatever blah blah blah
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 20, 2007 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Behold the rise of energy fascism... or is it Christian fascism... or is it Islamofascism... or is it just another day at Alternet: why discuss an issue in a measured and holistic way, and explore the many possible outcomes, and strategize for alternatives, when you can make a blazing three alarm fear-mongering headline out of it, and get all the progressives sitting on their asses at home into a state of pleasurable terror, kind of like watching the remake of Hitcher, only so much more intellectual and sophisticated.

Alternet is to real politics as a late night dorm room bullshit session is to real social science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil's well that ends well?
Posted by: willymack on Jan 20, 2007 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does our cleptocracy have its head up its ass over oil and coal? Don't they want us to get out of the fossil fuel rut? I think they probably do-eventually-when the cheap stuff is all gone. The only problem here, is that they seem to have no post coal/oil plan. Oh, well, by then they'll be so rich, they'll just pass the problem to someone else, just like bush and the Iraq tragedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oil's well that ends well? Posted by: Lincoln fan
Big surprise...
Posted by: eyespy on Jan 21, 2007 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like industry is ever absent from the rise of fascism. Mussolini himself said fascism should rightly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. Who do you think were the hardest cheerleaders for the Nazi government? The corporate boards of Krupp, IG Farben, Messerschmidt and the Reichsbank. Ours are now L