1

Global Energy Crisis:

A Capitalist Crisis

Legitimation and a Path towards Sustainability

Jordan Marks

Global Studies Department St. Lawrence University

Advisor: Dr. Jayantha Jayman

Reader: Dr. Grace Huang Reader: Dr. Madeleine Wong

2

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Global Studies department at St. Lawrence University for giving me the

tools and knowledge necessary for completing this project. Without their insight and assistance, I would not have been able to produce this work. I would like to also specifically thank my advisor Professor Jayantha Jayman for all the time and effort he has put into ensuring that I stayed on

track and managed to produce the quality of work required of an honors SYE within the Global Studies department at St. Lawrence University, as well as my readers Professor Madeline Wong

of the Global Studies department and Professor Grace Huang of the Government Department. I know that I was not the easiest student to work with at times, but their dedication and flexibility allowed me to work to my full potential. Without their time and dedication, this work could not

have been brought to completion. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my friends and fellow students at St. Lawrence University, for many of the arguments I make in this

paper were refined in philosophical and ideological discussions with them. Much of the insight I gained for this project was generated in discussions with friends and colleagues. Their contributions are difficult to measure in tangible terms, but the effect they had on my ideas and

writing was invaluable.

3

Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................2

I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................5

1. Reflexivity: Crisis of Legitimation and Firms ..................................................................................6

2. The Political Economics of Energy in the US, and the challenge of Germany and China ....................6

3. Research Question ......................................................................................................................8

4. Organization of the Thesis ...........................................................................................................8

II. Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 10

1. Identifying Sound Energy Policy ................................................................................................. 10

2. A Brief History of Energy ............................................................................................................ 14

3. Domination by States or Firms?.................................................................................................. 19

III. Smith, List, and Marx: Domination by the Bourgeoisie.................................................................... 20

1. Market Imperatives of a Liberal Lens .......................................................................................... 20

2. Relative Power in a Statist Lens .................................................................................................. 22

3. Bourgeois Power and a Marxist Lens .......................................................................................... 24

4. Habermas and Legitimation Crisis in the Epoch of Global Capitalism............................................. 27

IV. Method ....................................................................................................................................... 30

1. Positionality and Reflexivity ....................................................................................................... 31

2. Interpretive Critique .................................................................................................................. 33

3. Strange and Framework............................................................................................................. 34

4. Descriptive Statistics, Government Documents, New Papers........................................................ 39

VI. Three Models and One Lesson: Domination by Firms ..................................................................... 39

The American Model: Domination by Oil TNCs................................................................................ 40

The German Model: Domination by Manufacturing Industry and Green Energy................................ 46

The China Model: Shift to Domination of Production and the Need for Energy ................................. 49

VII. Achieving Sustainable Energy: Legitimation .................................................................................. 51

1. Two Policies, One Solution ......................................................................................................... 53

2. Energy Crisis as Capitalist Crisis .................................................................................................. 56

VII. Sustainable Energy and Legitimation: Avoiding Energy Crisis ......................................................... 58

1. Four Pillars of Energy Sustainability in a Modern Society: ............................................................ 59

2. The Old…............................................................................................................................... 63

3. …and the New........................................................................................................................... 64

4

VIII. Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 65

1. Brief Summary .......................................................................................................................... 65

2. Contributions to Literature ........................................................................................................ 67

3. Implications .............................................................................................................................. 67

IX. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 69

5

I. Introduction

There are, it would seem, few individuals who understand and appreciate the complexity

of energy in our world. Energy in its various forms governs the existence of all things. It makes life itself possible. We absorb it into our bodies through eating and drinking, and incorporate it into our very being. It powers our cars, heats our homes, and through harnessing it in its many

forms, makes modern life possible. Without the ability to utilize energy for the benefit of human society, growth, development, and modernization would be impossible. Energy cannot be created

or destroyed, only converted. It encompasses all things, and is everywhere at once. There was a time when I was younger when I even entertained the notion that energy may be the elusive and omnipresent entity that is worshiped as God. I suppose on some level I still may.

Still, the enormity of the concept of energy escapes many people. I’ve asked many individuals what they think of when they hear the word “energy”. The responses varied wildly,

eliciting imagery ranging from windmills to solar panels, from oil to electricity, even from life to death. The importance of energy is not lost on individuals, but still we see in contemporary society conflicting discourses on the nature of the entity. Narratives almost universally frame the

ability of mankind to harness natural energy from the world around him as an imperative for furthering the advancement of the human race, yet they differ drastically in how they

conceptualize the means through which the benefits of harnessing energy may be maximized. There are those who would frame energy production though a lens which interprets energy as a good which can and should be sold or exchanged on the global market. Others see energy as a

means to an end, a tool which can be used to consolidate power. Still more interpret the production of energy in a more holistic manner and are primarily concerned with balance in the

production of energy so as to allow for the sustainability of human society and the world in which we live.

Today, we see many energy related issues at the forefront of the public discourse. This

highlights its perennial importance as a component necessary for the replication of society. Energy scarcity remains one of the greatest impediments human society must overcome in order

to resolve problems related to social equity, justice, and development. The world now is standing on the precipice of energy crisis. Rising oil prices globally have placed undue strain on global economies and the societies in which they are embedded. Expensive energy costs have

negatively impacted nearly every aspect of modern society. In the face of economic stagnation, individuals are often forced to make choices between necessities. How does one choose between

food and heat, or between mortgage payments and medicine? Each of these goods, critical to both our individual and collective survival, are directly impacted by the cost of energy. We have come to rely on forces far beyond our individual control to provide us with affordable necessities.

These forces can be readily identified in society. The firms that control the means of production of energy and the politicians that determine their regulation are among the most

visible actors in the public discourse on energy. The news agencies report daily on the rising cost of oil and its exorbitant profitability. Oil companies in particular have come under increased scrutiny for their consistent ability to reap record profits as society roils in turmoil from the

effects of the rising cost of energy. The American energy system, as any system that fails to provide for benefit to the majority in favor of a small elite, is inherently broken. Currently, many

would argue that the state of energy production in modern global society is also such a system. The inability of existing social and economic systems to meet the needs of people demands that dominant ideas, ideologies, and discourses be challenged. Questions on the nature of energy and

6

its production must be asked if we are to objectively determine how society can maximize its benefit from the production and distribution of energy.

1. Reflexivity: Crisis of Legitimation and Firms

This necessity for new discourses intrinsically challenges existing and well established ideologies. It requires that new ideas be considered in order to open up a new path forward for

humanity. We must not allow for our understanding of the world to be subjected to our observations of the world around us, nor the discourse we are fed by popular culture and the mass media limelight. Instead, it is imperative that we analyze the world around us critically, by

constantly questioning the efficacy of established norms and customs. My American education preached of the wonders of capitalism and the immeasurable benefits it has bestowed upon

society. Now, in the spirit of staunch commitment to critical inquiry, I must ask; is there nothing we can learn beyond this discourse? Have we become so intently fixated on the present that we have lost sight of improving for posterity’s sake? Has human society, as Francis Fukuyama

famously proclaimed in 1991, reached the end of history? Societies do not exist as perpetually immutable entities once they achieve the economic status of “developed”. As such, I cannot

believe that the ideas that govern its existence can exist within this static ideological framework. What we are seeing in the form of a global energy crisis is the onset of the

delegitimization popular notions of energy production that continue to cling to an ideological

discourse that has outlived its usefulness. Individuals and the greater societies they construct are now questioning the principles of organization that dictate the distribution of goods. The

production of energy should not and cannot remain a tool that firms can exploit as a means of amassing wealth. Instead, a new discourse must be formed in the idealist mindset of Adam Smith that the greatest benefit be brought to the greatest number of individuals. This mindset must be

accompanied by a theoretical consideration of all possibilities, one which does not preemptively exclude competing perspectives and ideologies.

We must acknowledge energy as a component of our society with which we cannot do without. The focus of its production must be the continued sustainability of human society, not the potential to control its production to leverage power and control its distribution as a means of

procuring profit. The discourse which we must create is one that best allows for society to grow and prosper, and an objective consideration of all possibilities to achieve this noble end requires

us to challenge existing dominant narratives and focus on the future. The shortsightedness of our generation cannot compromise the future of the next. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the political economic forces of our world, for if we cannot identify the factors

that hinder the development of global society, it is impossible to determine the best path forward towards a better future.

2. The Political Economics of Energy in the United States, and the challenge of Germany and China Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the production of energy from fossil fuels has proven to be a great boon to the development of society. States and firms have raced to

establish control over reserves in an effort to profit from the extraction and sale of this new fuel to other actors in society. In the United States, titanic oil firms dominate the energy sector. They

have a powerful influence in the public energy discourse, and through their access into the inner chambers of the American government are able to affect their influence over policy so that they

7

have greater freedom in operating and maximize their profit from the production of energy. The narrative that dominates the American discourse on energy production is one that aligns itself

closely with the central tenets of capitalism. Firms exist to make profit, and their profitability is something that is desirable because of its association with wealth. Greater wealth is unarguably a

goal of any society that seeks to grow and improve the welfare of its people. The system in America has enabled large energy firms to become wildly profitable. The most profitable company in the United States is the oil titan Exxon-Mobil, with other oil giants including

Chevron and Conoco-Phillips also among the most profitable businesses in the country. These firms use their incredible wealth to influence public opinion and policy in order to

strengthen profit narrative. As ordinary Americans struggle under the yoke of rising energy prices, these companies have been able to amass ever more wealth. While all individuals have a vested interest in keeping energy cheap, energy firms are the sole actors that inherently benefit

from high prices. Oil companies can only continue to increase their profit margin as oil becomes increasingly scarce and more expensive. Market economics would suggest that as oil becomes

scarce and more expensive, alternative sources of energy should begin to become increasingly exploited as they become relatively cheaper. However, the rapid rise in the price of oil has proven insufficient to trigger significant investment and production of sustainable energy

technologies in the United States. This energy crisis in America has undeniably caused economic turmoil across the human spectrum in American. As individuals within the system begin to feel

the pain affected upon them by its very organization, they have begun to question this model. Outside of the United States, societies in Germany and China have had much greater

success in increasing their production of energy from alternative sources. In Germany,

government policies have empowered individuals with the means to produce their own energy through small scale solar projects. The effect on energy production in Germany has been

profound. A rapid increase in the installation of solar panels by individuals has propelled society within the confines of the German state to become a world leader in solar energy production. The success of this system has served to solidify a narrative of sustainability championed by the

German Green Party. German policy reflects a commitment to long term sustainability of social and economic systems through the production of energy in a manner that is safe, secure, and

boasts lower costs in the long term. This is only highlighted by a number of progressive policies on renewable energy and the phasing out of its nuclear program. Unlike in America, the wealthiest and most powerful firms in Germany are not oil giants. The largest and most

influential firms in Germany are the manufacturing firms that drive the powerhouse export-oriented economy. These companies have a vested interest in keeping costs low in order to

remain profitable. As such, they compel German society to drive down energy costs, in order to gain a competitive edge against other firms in the global market.

The Chinese also have had incredible success relative to their American counterparts in

increasing their production of renewable energy within their country. Unable to secure sufficient supplies of energy from fossil fuels, from either domestic sources or imports, China has been

required to move into alternative sources of energy to meet their demand. Massive infrastructure projects are the face of renewable energy in China. Chinese renewable energy is perhaps exemplified by the construction of the Three Gorges Dam in Hubei province, the largest dam in

the world. The CCP has poured billions of dollars into the construction of the infrastructure needed to produce energy. Incredible rates of economic growth in China drive the green energy

revolution in Chinese society, as ever increasing supplies of energy are required to meet the growing demand of their dynamic economy. China is similar to Germany in that it too has a

8

powerhouse export-oriented economy, with powerful domestic manufacturing firms with a strong vested interest in producing energy as cheap as possible.

3. Research Question

These three systems represent three fundamentally different models of energy production. The American system of energy production is one that emphasizes profitability. It purports that

market forces can best distribute energy, and that the profitability of the fuel only serves to benefit society. Small scale renewable energy is the trademark of the German model. This model incentivizes individual citizens to produce clean and renewable energy by making it cheaper to

acquire the means of production, and also through facilitating the acquisition of these means by the individual. The Chinese model utilizes the vast resources of the state to provide for the

investment of cleaner and more secure forms of energy. Through massive government sponsored infrastructure projects, Chinese society seeks to develop new sources of domestic energy and grow. If we are to objectively determine the best means of energy production that leads to the

greatest benefit for society, we must have an open mind and interpret the information available to us critically. Only then can we answer the fundamental problem facing global society in the face

of an energy crisis. Which model of energy production allows for the greatest gains?

4. Organization of the Thesis

These reflections led me to a critical question that would serve as the basis for the foundation of this paper. Why is it that American society, despite all of the incentives in the

United States, is not investing or producing sustainable energy as vigorously as their German or Chinese counterparts? Solving this question required nothing less than the questioning of my

own beliefs about how society can achieve sustainability. My preexisting framework could not explain why society was not adequately addressing issues of sustainability. My notions of utilizing market forces to maximize growth and of the agency of states to enact policies from

which they could maximize their benefit had to be broken before I could explain how society might best achieve sustainability.

A quick review of the literature serves to generate a better understanding of the nature of energy production and its effects on society. There are many potential paths forward on which progress forward, yet we cannot know which to choose without clearly identifying the future we

desire. I will develop an outline of energy sustainability using the work of existing political-economic literature, and use this to identify energy policies that provide the greatest benefits to

society. The terms growth and sustainability in this section will be developed to clearly delineate between sound and detrimental energy policy. This will serve as the foundation on which I will construct a theoretical interpretation of the relationship between society and energy, allowing for

an identification of policies that augment and mitigate the effects of economic crisis in society. This requires a theoretical interpretation of social organization. Competing ideologies

explain the nature of social sustainability and growth in different ways. The one that determines the basis of social organization within a society therefore affects the manner in which that society organizes to produce and distribute goods with their social system. It is this difference in

organization, production, and distribution that determines the ability of that system to self-replicate. Three bases of thought will be covered in order to critically analyze how contemporary

discourse has evolved to explain how to best achieve growth while maintaining sustainability from multiple theoretical perspectives; liberal, statist, and Marxist. Each will allow for a greater

9

understanding of establishing sustainable practices in energy production, and explain how actors within various systems exert their influence in the system in order to maximize their gains. This

will help establish an abstract understanding of the institutional power which actors employ, and how through this power they develop the capacity of steering power over the entire system, in

turn allowing them to enact policy most favorable to realizing their goals. The relative strength of various actors within the system, and the motives that determine their actions, can then explain how certain societies have failed to pursue policies that best allow for sustainability and

growth. This critical comparison of three influential theoretical foundations grants greater freedom in determining which ideological basis serves as the model which best addresses

concerns of both growth and sustainability. The lens which best is able to universally explain contemporary trends in energy policy

will them be selected and operationalized by employing a proper political economic

methodological approach. This will connect the theoretical to the concrete and create a paradigm through which we can explain the relative power of competing actors within the system as they

interact while trying to best meet their needs and goals. Of specific importance is determining a method which allows for the identification of actors that support policy which emphasizes energy production in a manner that does not allow for the continuation of a healthy functioning

society. Once this has been accomplished, we can apply the theory to real world case studies so as to gain a better understanding of the workings of various systems and measure their success in

producing energy in an efficient manner. Relevant statistics on energy, government policy, and public opinion will be utilized in order to gauge the utility of various energy policies.

Three models have been chosen for this analysis in social organization and energy

production. American society provides an excellent example of a system organized on capitalist market principles. My concerns of the ability of the American system to pass the sustainability

stress test required to allow for continued social and economic growth will be scrutinized. The American model will be compared side by side with two disparate models organized upon fundamentally different principles, which currently boast much higher levels of sustainable

energy production, that of Chinese and German society. The policies enacted and their effect on society will be analyzed theoretically based on the methodological approach developed in this

thesis. In this manner, a greater understanding of the consequences of poor policy and their repercussions can be conceived. This allows not only for a clarification of how energy should be produced for the benefit of all, but also an explanation of what happens if it is not.

In instances of a failure to produce energy in a manner that allows for the sustainability of a community, crisis occurs. Crisis places undue strain on all actors in the system, as goods

necessary for their continued survival cannot be distributed to them. When a society fails to provide enough energy to its people and economy, that society loses its ability to replicate and enters into crisis. Authority in a system generated based on the ability of authoritative actors in

the system to distribute goods so as to meet the needs of other individuals. The ability of a system to allow for self-legitimation requires that non-excludable goods be produced and

distributed so as to continuously meet society’s needs. The breakdown of these existing processes leads to a decrease in standard of living, and begins the process of the delegitimization of systemic authority and disillusionment with dominant social discourses. Models of

organization that cannot provide for this are inherently bound to crisis tendencies. By drawing on the experiences of American, German, and Chinese society, it becomes possible to assess the

potential for sustainability and legitimation, as opposed to crisis, in societies organized under various ideological principles. This finally allows us to once and for all outline central principles

10

in energy production that stave off the burdens of crisis through the legitimation of the system. The manner in which we can produce energy can lead us in two directions. We can proceed

along a path of crisis and social chaos, or a path of legitimation and social cohesion. Different means of producing energy will be compared and contrasted in this section in order to determine

their relative cost to society, and to determine from which sources of energy we find the ability to provide the greatest benefits to society as a whole.

By recognizing the factors that contribute to crisis and legitimation, we can then

determine a means of moving forward by producing energy in a manner that allows for not just social stability, but also growth. The challenges of overcoming structurally embedded policies

and norms that hinder the development of energy resources in a manner that allows for the continued replication of society is by no means simple. However, through a clear identification of the means of energy production that are unsustainable and lead to social crisis and the

breakdown of the system, we can focus on encouraging the production of energy in a manner consistent with social sustainability and growth by forwarding policies that best serve the

interests of humanity.

II. Literature Review The stars in the sky could hardly be more numerous than the voices seeking to affect the

popular discourse on energy. Every actor in the system has a vested interest in energy. The varied nature of that interest is what provides for the multiplicity of information available on energy and the relative popularity of competing narratives and discourses. It has become

somewhat difficult in this day and age to go long without seeing an advertisement for clean coal, hear a debate on one oil project or another, or witness individuals campaigning for more

environmentally friendly means of energy production. It would seem as though every side has experts affirming that their discourse is indeed the most theoretically sound, and that their ideas hold the key to bringing out economic and social prosperity. In order to truly understand the

nature of the production of energy and its place in society, we have to sift through all of this information. What place does energy truly have in this modern world?

1. Identifying Sound Energy Policy

Identifying the need for sound energy policy is reflective of the fact that energy is a vital component of our social, political, and economic systems. Energy powers our cars, heats our homes, and fuels our economy. It forwards our communities and drives our world. Modern

capitalist society in particular relies heavily on fossil fuels to produce energy for their economies and maintain social reproduction for generations. With the intensity of its use rising coupled with

its spread globally, stores of fossil energy are slowly running out. Increasing demand from industrialized and developing countries alike has pushed us to the brink of a new era of energy. Around the world, societies are struggling to find sufficient alternatives to fossil fuels in order to

ensure their own future success. Oil and gas prices continue to rise, yet many societies find themselves unable to shake their addiction to fossil fuels. The extent to which various societies

have been able to begin a larger shift into more sustainable means of producing energy has varied significantly. Certain societies, including within Germany and China, have seen very high levels of investment in and development of renewable energy technologies. Other societies with

11

similar needs and imperatives, such as in the United States, have been far less adept at prompting this shift.

The factors that have affected this relative gap in this fundamental shift towards sustainable energy production are not readily apparent. Each of these countries is reliant on the

importation of fuels from abroad to augment their own energy production. Each requires a constant supply of energy to meet their social and economic needs, and in each there exists a rising demand for cheap and reliable energy. The simple fact that we have seen greater

sustainable energy production in Germany and China than the United States begs an equally simple question. What about these societies and their circumstances have allowed for an increase

in the research and production of environmentally sustainable fuels, and what can be changed in America that could lead to an increase in the production of clean domestic energy?

This fundamental question can by no means be answered simply. It requires a rigorous

analysis of the varied means of energy production. The means through which this energy has been produced is critical to understanding issues of stability. Germany and China have both seen

massive increases in production of renewable energy, yet the manner in which this energy is produced varies drastically. Nearly all of the capital used in the development of renewable energies in China has come from the government. Massive government infrastructure projects

are the hallmark of green energy in China. The Germans in contrast has seen the majority of their increase in the production of sustainable fuels to come from growing small distributed capacity.

The implications of large and small scale development of renewable forms of energy will have to be understood in order to determine which method provides for greater sustainability of society.

Energy sustainability wasn’t center stage on the global agenda until the 1970’s, when

access to sufficient supplies of oil imports to the developed nations of the West. The Brundtland Report in 1987 popularized the notion of sustainable development, which it defined as “meeting

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”1 It is important to first elaborate on the goals of sustainability before we consider the ramifications of failing to develop sustainably. The Brundtland Report was significant because

its definition of sustainability did not identify the slowing of economic growth as being a necessary prerequisite of achieving sustainability or slow the process of globalization. Growth

and sustainability cannot be portrayed as contradictory if we are to allow for improving the social and economic standing of the poor and disenfranchised while also ensuring the ability of future generations to live better than the current. Achieving social sustainability is pertinent for

both allowing social, economic, and environmental stability and maintaining constant growth. There is little debate between scholars and politicians of the important role energy plays

in modern society. We can all agree, negative externalities from their theoretical production nonwithstanding, that more energy is better. Energy surplus fuels growth. The contention in the discourse is on the nature of energy production and sustainability, as different groups believe that

different methods of producing this surplus are inherently superior to options. Especially in the American discourse, there is significant resistance to the idea of energy conservation and

sustainability because of a narrative which has developed over time in that society which discounts the importance of the environment and equates energy consumption with economic

1 United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. "Framing Sustainable Development: The Brundtland

Report- 20 Years On." Sustainable Development in Action.

www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/media/backgrounder_brundtland.pdf (accessed May 4, 2012), 1.

12

success.2 This discourse, based on principles of market liberalism, supports the extraction of fossil fuels, as it highlights the historic ability of this fuel to meet the needs of the economy

without excessive intervention in the market. Politicians and scholars that adhere to this ideology see energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies as a threat to this traditional means of

energy production.3 In the global discourse, conservation is often equated with a conservative philosophy. The two words even use the same etymological root. Yet in the present day, the American Republican Party, self-stylized defenders of conservative ideology, continue to support

energy production that degrades the environment and wastes energy.4 Vice President Dick Cheney was quoted in 2001 as saying that conservation was only “a sign of personal virtue… not

a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”5 Instead, they argue that the forces of energy production should be left to the markets because markets inherently produce growth. Firms will meet the demands of the market and keep the energy flowing. If energy firms find that

the burning of oil is the best means of producing energy, we must defend their interests. This discourse emphasizes the need to protect strategic energy resources abroad, by force if

necessary.6 Social greens stand in opposition to the liberal discourse through their adherence to

principles of conservation, energy efficiency, and social sustainability.7 They emphasize the

waste of the current system, and highlight that increased efficiency provides the same economic benefit as increasing energy supply. The current global energy production system, in their eyes,

leads to excessive accumulation in the hands of oil firms and their executives. They see market liberalism as a problem, as those who adhere to that ideology believe that globalization and development inherently bring about environmental and social benefits.8 In fact, they argue that

globalization has only served to increase the rate of global environmental degradation, due in large part because of the increase in the carbon emissions associated with the burning of fossil

fuels that comes with industrialization. Instead of fossil fuels, social greens support harnessing the power of nature to produce energy. They claim that the sun, as the producer of the majority of energy in our world, provides society with the means of achieving energy and social

sustainability.9 Beyond the war of narratives and ideology, there has been substantial literature on the

goals of energy policy. Ensuring that sufficient energy so as to sustain society is produced, sustainable energy must focus on mitigating the harmful externalities associated with the production of energy from fossil fuels while also encouraging growth. The ideal means of energy

production is one which produces energy at the lowest cost with no negative externalities of any

2 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith,

Publisher, 2007, 96. 3 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith,

Publisher, 2007, 97. 4 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith,

Publisher, 2007, 96. 5 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith,

Publisher, 2007, 96. 6 Spretnak, Charlene, and Fritjof Capra. Green politics. Rev. ed. Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear, 1986, 209. 7 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 12. 8 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 13. 9 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith,

Publisher, 2007, 4.

13

type, including pollution and security concerns.10 Free locally produced clean energy can then be identified as the goal towards which society must endeavor. If actors in society were able to gain

access to energy without cost, they would have more resources to spend on other goods. This would free up a substantial amount of capital for demanding other goods and services. Locally

produced energy from renewable sources decreases the security threat, as it insulates the community from the wildly fluctuating supply of oil on world markets and forcibly keeping foreign resource markets open if necessary.11 The only relatively infinite sources of energy

available to society are those which harness the natural power of the environment. The limits on the capacity to produce energy from solar and wind are only our ability to tap into those

resources. Technology promises to increase the efficiency with which we harness these energies.12 Fossil fuels have additional tangible limits; global reserves of fossil fuels and therefore supplies available to us are limited. Declining global reserves only serve to highlight

their inability to provide for cheap energy. They are additionally unsustainable because of the negative impact they have on the environment. Renewable energy can be identified as the only

source of energy that holds the potential to be produced free of cost and can be produced cleanly. Constructing a path towards the goal of providing free energy in order to maximize

growth requires outlining policy that meets the goals of sustainable production. This requires

comparing and contrasting the relative experiences of various societies in energy production. Their relative success in achieving sustainability can be understood in more concrete terms from

a comprehensive elucidation of the very nature of energy production and social replication. This will allow for a more inclusive understanding of the distribution of power in society, and serve to identify the actors that wield the power and influence necessary set energy policy. These

processes and developments are historically embedded within society, and can only be understood from a perspective that acknowledges and understands these historical patterns and

the contemporary processes that stem from them. In analyzing the history of energy usage current energy practices and production strategies become clarified, and it becomes possible to understand the workings of the system and the actors that influence it.

Explaining the localized growth of green energy globally first requires an understanding of the historical importance of energy to the replication of societies. It is undeniable that the

acquisition of energy is vital for the continued success of any actor or community. Energy is a necessary component of modern societies. It’s needed to power our cars, light our homes, and grow our businesses, etc. In this section, I will first explain how the development of new

methods and technologies that have increased our capacity to harness energy from the world around them has historically fueled the growth of human social and economic processes.

Understanding how surplus energy supplies fuel the growth of economies and societies makes it easier to conceptualize the complex nature of the relationship between society and energy, and can provide for greater insight into imperatives in sustainability in the modern world.

Sustainability itself cannot be clearly enough defined in the context of this paper, as it has lost much of its meaning and depth in the popular discourse. It is incorrect to label it as an

antonym of growth. Decline exists in opposition to growth. Sustainability is not a state of being, it is a threshold; the state of being beyond the point delineating growth and decline. When we

10 Stagliano, Vito. A Policy of Discontent: the Making of a National Energy Strategy. Tulsa, OK: Pennwell Corp.,

2001, 308. 11 Spretnak, Charlene, and Fritjof Capra. Green politics. Rev. ed. Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear, 1986, 209. 12 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs

Smith, Publisher, 2007, 4.

14

speak of achieving sustainability, we are speaking of nothing short of preventing the fall of our civilization. Advances in producing a surplus of energy available to human society for

consumption has always fueled economic and population growth. The surplus of food energy can be credited as the first major development in human society that provided for a sufficie nt surplus

in energy that it allowed for the first time large scale population growth, which led to the rise of cities and enabled the genesis of civilization. An inability by these primitive societies to provide enough food resources to meet the needs of their populations produced the opposite effect. It led

to systemic crisis wherein starvation occurred, and existing social and economic systems broke down.

In returning to the history of the production and distribution of goods needed for the production of energy, it allows for a historically situated analysis of social systems. This analysis facilitates the identification of actors within society that possess adequate agency in the system to

effectively steer public discourse and policy, and have an incentive to deviate from the production of energy in a sustainable manner. Through singling out these actors and vested

interests that hinder the development of a stable means of energy production, it becomes possible to prescribe changes necessary to fix the system.

2. A Brief History of Energy

Historically, the energy harnessed by humans was organic in nature. Fittingly, many

primitive peoples worshipped the sun. Even without the ability to scientifically and logically conceptualize its importance, these peoples recognized it as a supreme power in their world. The

energy of the sun was harvested by plants through the process of photosynthesis, and this energy was in turn consumed by other organisms, working its way up the food chain to larger species such as humans. In early human society, this food energy was the primary need for their

sustainable replication. Unsustainable policy and procedures in procuring energy from food led to crisis in the system in the form of starvation. In these systems, individuals relied on their own

power to transport them from place to place in search of food. As society developed, so too did society develop more efficient means of using the energy available to them, crafting tools and weapons to more easily hunt game and prepare food for consumption. In this time period,

humans had not yet learned how to tap into the power of nature to produce energy for their societies. They had to constantly move in order to secure more food energy, and maintain the

existence of their community. This early stage in human development ended when societies began to first understand

the nature of the production of energy, and more efficiently manage its use. Through the

development of farming, mankind first harnessed the power of nature for his own devices. Through the organized production of energy by farming, mankind no longer relied on nomadic

excursions to find sufficient food resources to sustain their society. Farming in a single location allowed mankind to finally began to create a sufficient surplus of food so that human society had sufficient energy resources so as to expand. Human societies adapted accordingly to these new

technologies, settling down in fertile river valleys wherein crops could easily be planted and animals easily be raised. The most fertile lands gave rise to powerful early civilizations. Egypt,

Babylon, and all the worlds other first great civilizations emerged on the banks of the world’s great rivers. With prosperity came conflict. Many wars have been fought over fertile terrain, as various groups entered into conflict for sufficient energy resources to ensure their continued

existence.

15

At this stage, humanity relied primarily on the energy generated within their own bodies through the consumption of food to acquire more resources and produce goods. Farming allowed

for control over the production of food stores which allowed for greater food security and a generation of surplus food, allowing for the expansion in terms of population. However, this

alone cannot explain the continued development of society. Ancient Egypt may have built the pyramids, but their construction took decades and required the lifelong dedication of thousands of men. Advances in harnessing energy over time made it easier for mankind to build and

produce without such reliance on their own bodies as a source of power. Domestication provided a great step forward in human development, as the powers of animals with strength far superior

to humans was harnessed to revolutionize processes of transportation and farming. The sail harnessed the energy of the wind to propel humans much further than they could under their own strength. Kilns harnessed the power of fire to facilitate the production of pottery and metal

working. Advancements in the distribution of goods necessary for the replication of societies helped spur growth even without new means of harnessing energy. The advent of the wheel

greatly reduced the amount of energy a human needed to expend in his labors and in the transportation of goods. The advent of the plow greatly increased the productivity of a farmer, increasing the amount of surplus food. The construction of road networks meant that less energy

was expended through the processes of distributing goods. Aqueducts helped move water into large cities, ensuring the distribution of a good so basic to the survival of a society.

Society saw another leap forward with the discovery of the burning of coal as a means of harnessing vast quantities of energy. Before the Industrial Revolution, 85 percent of energy used across the entirety of the world came from human muscles or their pack animals used for

transportation and agriculture13. The boost gained by the use of fossil fuels, namely coal, increased productivity to allow for rapid urbanization and industrialization. Coal became the

primary source of energy for Europe and became a coveted resource. States with ample access to coal flourished. Those without it floundered. Italy, which had been the wealthiest and most prosperous area of Europe in the 15th century, lacked coal and failed to rapidly industrialize.14

Even within the confines of state boundaries, regions with local sources of coal industrialized while regions lacking coal did not.15 Not since the advent of farming had society changed so

drastically due to an increased capacity to control energy. Before the industrial revolution, population levels across the world had held more or less stable. However, industrialization spurred on by production of energy from sources of fossil fuels generated a massive spike in

population growth across the world. The wealth of nations began to accumulate on an unprecedented scale. Technology advanced rapidly, and societies were forever altered. Social

organization shifted drastically at this time, leading to the wholesale collapse of feudal forms of organization in favor of a capitalistic class based model. Agriculture was revolutionized, increasing the productivity of a single individual to such an extent that millions of rural workers

became surplus labor, fueling industrialization. Firms became primary actors in the oil industry around the time of the First World War.16

With the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the wake of the conflict, the oil rich territories of their former domain became mandates which fell under the jurisdiction of the victors of the war, the Western powers and Russia. The British and French divided Ottoman possessions themselves in

13 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 190. 14 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 191. 15 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 191. 16 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 198.

16

the Middle East, purposefully partitioning them so as to create artificially weak states and divided societies. For example, three separate provinces of the Ottoman Empire; Mosul,

Baghdad, and Basra, were combined into a single Iraq. To keep this new state artificially weak, its coastline was nearly entirely stripped away as the British formed their new protectorate of

Kuwait out of the coastal region of Basra province. Iraq was left without a deep water harbor, leaving the country reliant on the British to sell their wares on global markets.17 Germany’s primary vested financial interest in the region was taken from her possession in the wake of the

War. As part of the reparations agreement, Germany’s Deutsche Bank’s 25% stake in the Turkish Petroleum Company was stripped and the company collapsed. It was quickly reformed

as the Iraq Petroleum Company, a company in which American companies gained control of the majority of Deutsche Bank’s former possessions.18

In the pre-WWI period, American policy makers feared the growing strength of foreign

oil companies and their expansive domination across markets in developing economies around the world. The strategic importance of controlling oil cannot be overlooked in the historical

context of the time period. Before the widespread use of oil to power the economies of the world, coal was of central importance. Wars were fought between competing nations over access to coal fields, and the promise of access to ample sources of energy to power their growing economies.

The victors stripped coal rich territories from the control of the losers. Coal was seen as so important to the economies of the time that in the wake of WWI, France and Britain saw

stripping Germany of the rich coal fields in the Saarland’s as a means of preventing that nation from rising to power and challenging her neighbors again through war.

However, coal was far from the perfect fuel. The transportation of coal was a difficult

obstacle to overcome. Certainly it could be shipped by rail, but the prohibitively high costs in terms both monetary and in energy required to transport the fuel to cities and towns far from coal

fields limited the utility of coal as a fuel for societies and industries which did not exist near a coal field. As a result, nations without access to ample supplies of coal saw their economic growth dwarfed by their neighbors with sufficient supplies. Oil had the advantage over coal in

that it is easily transported over long distances at a fraction of the cost. This is important because other factors of production were far less mobile.19 Land is immobile, and labor was largely

immobile as well.2021 Tankers can easily ship the fuel across the world, and pipelines can be constructed over incredibly long distances between energy starved cities and oil fields, creating the potential for a reliable and constant production of energy almost anywhere in the world there

was a demand. In this time period, oil also became an important consideration for states due to the critical need to power a modern army. The 20th century saw the use of horses in militaries for

carrying supplies and troops be rendered obsolete. Tanks, planes, and troop vehicles required oil to defend the country and to attack her enemies. A state without the ability to maintain an adequate supply of oil to her military would invariably be in a weaker position politically and

militarily relative to their neighbors. Before the end of WWI, several prominent politicians in the United States were already

voicing their concern about the inability of America to produce sufficient supplies of oil to sustain itself. It was widely believed in 1920’s America that domestic reserves would soon be

17 Zalloum, Abdulhay Y.. Oil Crusades: America through Arab Eyes. London: Pluto Press, 2007, 30. 18 Zalloum, Abdulhay Y.. Oil Crusades: America through Arab Eyes. London: Pluto Press, 2007, 32. 19 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 193. 20 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 193. 21 With the exceptions being slavery, cheap indentured servitude, and immigration

17

depleted. This fear was compounded by the expansion of British oil companies into foreign markets. Royal Dutch Shell and the Anglo-Persian oil company (today BP) were believed to be

attempting to bring the entirety of important foreign oil reserves under their control.22 In the wake of WWI, Britain and France attempted divided up the rights to the extraction of oil in the

former Ottoman Empire on the terms the Turkish Petroleum Company had accepted, without parliamentary approval. The Dutch worked to block the expansion of American oil companies in the Dutch East Indies, the location of the most important operations of Shell.23 Firms began

gather concessions on the part of weak local governments which lacked the means to extract the resources themselves for a paltry sum. Large western firms, especially those seven which came

to be known as the “Seven Sisters” controlled the majority of the world’s oil sources.24 Persistence by American politicians to make available oil fields to exploration and

extraction paid off in the end. While Britain remained the global hegemonic power in the

aftermath of WWI, the country was unable to dictate global affairs without the aid of American capital. They needed American money to rebuild from the destruction of the First World War,

and eventually they relented to American pressure. In addition, Britain politically supported an Open Door policy, in that Britain supported the freedom of investment globally. As the global hegemonic power, Britain had long ago dropped her protectionist trade policies in favor of

supporting global free trade, allowing her native industries with advantages in production and trade dominate foreign firms and industry that could not compete with their level of development.

American politicians were socio-politically aligned similarly with British politicians at this time, and used ideological arguments to convince the British to allow for the investment by American companies in lands the British controlled special trade and resource extraction rights. The Dutch

government was less susceptible to the ideological argument of free investment put forth by the United States, and the government of the United States had to apply pressure in a different

manner to gain access to markets dominated by the Dutch. The American march into global energy markets was not forwarded simply by the

American state alone. Domestic oil companies and their investors were keen on expanding the

reach of their firms. American oil companies and political interests formed the American Petroleum Institute in 1919 to call support for the investment in the extraction of oil from foreign

countries. Krasner points out that in this instance, the joint actions of the oil industry in the United States and the government of the United States of America converged to create a united front in establishing a foreign policy in energy that allowed for the expansion of US oil

companies abroad.25 It was in this context that American politicians saw the need to empower domestic oil companies. America has a long history of oil giants, starting with the rise of several

rich and powerful oil and gas companies in the United States as part of the seven sisters in the 1940’s. Prior to the oil crisis of 1973, the seven sisters controlled roughly 85% of the world’s known petroleum reserves. These seven companies were comprised entirely of Anglo-Saxon

entities, with only the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, a British giant now known by its moniker BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, a company based jointly out of the UK and the Netherlands, not being

22 Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy .

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, 108. 23 Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy .

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, 111. 24 The Seven Sisters included several offshoots of the Standard Oil trust; Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of

New Jersey, and Standard Oil of New York; Texaco; Gulf Oil; Royal Dutch Shell; and Anglo -Persian Oil Company. 25 Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy .

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, 109.

18

based out of the United States.26 These companies grew and developed in the manner they did with the support of the governments of the United States and Great Britain for several preceding

decades. America has a long history of supporting the expansion of the oil industry. Security issues continued to plague the state after the Second World War. The United

States Department of the Interior responded to a ceasing of production in Abadan, Iran through forming the Foreign Petroleum Supply Committee.27 This committee consisted of entirely oil industry representatives, and after being granted anti-trust immunity from Congress assumed

virtual control of international oil markets.28 At this time, foreign and commercial energy policy was set almost entirely by oil companies. By 1950, this committee came under investigation by

the FTC, and slowly saw a decline in their power in the American system.29 However, this did not mark the end of influential oil firms in the United States. It perhaps was more representative of a blip along the spectrum of influence in shaping American energy policy. Oil firms reaped

massive profits at the outset of the 1973 energy crisis in the United States, as an OPEC embargo greatly decreased the amount of oil accessible to America. President Carter attempted to reign in

the profits made by the oil industry through the passage of the Windfall Profits Tax in 1980.30 The tax was largely unsuccessful; post-crisis oil profits by the oil industry were significantly lower than during the years of the embargo, and the government spent almost as much money

collecting the tax as it gained from its issuance. Reagan won the presidency in 1980 campaigning to repeal the tax, and managed to do so during his tenure. Advancements in the generation of

sound energy policy also died with the termination of the discourse established under President Carter. Carter’s call for America to produce 20% of its energy needs with solar power by the year 2000 fell on deaf ears by the year 1980, as no presidential or congressional action was taken

that would have allowed for solar to become a part of American energy production.31 Without a coherent public discourse on energy policy, energy firms regained significant influence in the

system. Lacking enough secure oil to keep us moving forward, societies around the world have

begun moving to alternative sources of energy, increasingly so since the middle of the last

century. At first, light water reactors using uranium to generate energy were considered the energy of the future. Developed countries raced to construct these nuclear reactors. The

technology was billed as safe, clean, and too cheap to meter. Soon the true cost of nuclear energy revealed the severe drawbacks to nuclear energy production. Too cheap to meter nuclear energy in the 60’s became too costly to produce by the 1980’s. The risks associated with the production

of nuclear energy were simply too high to warrant the continued construction of nuclear plants. In the United States, no nuclear plant has been approved for construction since 1973 for this very

reason.32 No private insurance company is able to insure against the potential billions of dollars

26 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 199. 27 Stagliano, Vito. A Policy of Discontent: the Making of a National Energy Strategy . Tulsa, OK: Pennwell Corp.,

2001, 6. 28 Stagliano, Vito. A Policy of Discontent: the Making of a National Energy Strategy . Tulsa, OK: Pennwell Corp.,

2001, 6. 29 Stagliano, Vito. A Policy of Discontent: the Making of a National Energy Strategy . Tulsa, OK: Pennwell Corp.,

2001, 7. 30 Kash, Don E., and Robert W. Rycroft. U.S. Energy Policy: Crisis and Complacency. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1984, 196. 31 Kash, Don E., and Robert W. Rycroft. U.S. Energy Policy: Crisis and Complacency. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1984, 232. 32 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs

Smith, Publisher, 2007, 27.

19

of damage that can come from the failure of a nuclear plant. Without support from the state, the production of nuclear power becomes prohibitively expensive. Even in France, the nuclear nation,

the power of the atom has been unable to meet the growing demand for energy. In 2007, while nuclear fuel accounted for 76.8 percent of French electricity, it only accounted for 17.5 percent

of the total consumer energy consumption in the country, while fossil fuels comprised over 70 percent of the total.33

Many individuals have also voiced concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors and the

byproducts they produce. Nuclear meltdowns such as the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979, the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine in 1986, and at Fukushima Daiichi in 2011, have caused a

public outcry against the dangers of nuclear energy. The most recent disaster in Japan of this year prompted Germany and Switzerland to announce a phasing out of their nuclear programs, and caused China to place a hold on the construction of new reactors within the country. With

nuclear fuel falling into disfavor around the globe, more environmentally friendly and sustainable means of producing energy are gaining traction. As environmentalists are quick to

point out, the production of energy through both the burning of fossil fuels and through nuclear fission produce many negative externalities. Burning fossil fuels leads to high levels of pollution and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a contributing factor to global warming. Nuclear

reactors do not release pollutants into the air, but the risks of the radiation damage from a nuclear meltdown are high, and the production of nuclear energy creates a radioactive byproduct for

which few countries have a safe means of disposal.34 Still, society relies on energy. It demands that it be produced at a constant rate and at an

affordable price. Energy is a vital factor of production. Without a continuous and ample supply

of energy, modern society would grind to a halt. Looking to the future, societies around the world have begun to plan out a means for the production of energy in a post-oil world. Green

technologies are now being considered the fuel of the future, with increased production rates in terms of infrastructure and energy production around the world. With the rising price of oil, these sustainable fuels are now becoming a more economically viable means of producing energy.

3. Domination by States or Firms? The question we are now faced with is who determines what type of energy to produce?

We see clearly that states have fought for control over energy resources throughout history, but who determines the actions of the state? This is a theoretical question that many people answer in a variety of ways based on their own ideological beliefs. What we now need to determine is

which actors have the power to steer society. Power relations in the global system are highly complicated. What we must focus on to true determine power in the global system is a

fundamental question which we must always ask. Who benefits? The history books show us that different states competed for access to energy, but they do not tell us clearly in whose interest they acted. A number of theoretical lenses purport the primary agency of different actors in the

system. Without this analysis, the question of whose interests are being served is difficult to answer. It could be that states are sovereign actors with an objective agenda in self-preservation.

33 Metz, Bert. Controlling climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 118. 34 The United States has spent billions of dollars planning to construct permanent radioactive materials storage

facility, most recently beneath Yucca Mountain, but to this point has still failed to actually construct any such type

of facility. As of today, only Finland has a long term plan for the safe disposal of expended nuclear fuel.

20

States alternatively could be a platform for discourse on determining the best means of development for society. They could still further be an arm of a powerful elite, that dominates

the political machinations of society, and influence the state to protect their own interests. An objective theoretical analysis of the historical situation is required in order to determine the

actors that control the system.

III. Smith, List, and Marx: Domination by the Bourgeoisie

Finding an ideology that best explains the true nature of social organization is a

prerequisite of explaining how sustainability in society is achieved. Society has undergone many major evolutions in determining how goods are produced and distributed as it has grown and developed over time. They reflect the intellectual discourse on the nature of society that has

developed throughout history. Each reflects a different approach for maximizing benefits within the constructs of the system, as actors work within existing frameworks for meeting their goals

and needs. A modern society cannot be described as a simple cultural and political monolith. Within any given modern society, there are a plethora of actors which hold competing values and goals. These competing agendas vie for attention, and the actors pushing them are constantly

attempting to gain enough power within the system to enact policy and establish a public discourse that is favorable to meeting their goals and needs. These actors take advantage of the

structures present in the system to gain relative power vis-à-vis other actors that have structurally incompatible needs or goals. To gain a complete understanding of energy, we must conduct a theoretical analysis of the political organization of society to explain how resources are produced

and distributed in order to meet these goals and needs. The next section will employ the theoretical lenses of Smith and List in providing the basis for a market and state level

explanation for how energy could be provided. The use of Marx and Habermas will provide the critical insight needed on the organization of a society to explain the distribution of power effectively determines the means through which society acts to meet its needs.

1. Market Imperatives of a Liberal Lens

Adam Smith shook the world in 1776 with the publication of An Inquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith showed us a world wherein the best of all things were possible,

through man’s greedy pursuit of his rational self-interest.35 For Smith, it was evident that true power in society resided with the individual. It was the citizen that effectively decided the course of society through the demand of goods and services. If there were a demand for a good or

service, then markets would rise to meet that demand as individuals and organizations stood to profit by meeting that demand.36 This liberal lens is still often deployed today to understand the

forces of the market at work in contemporary society, and can readily identified in the neo-liberal policies of international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.37 On the surface, Smith’s economic theories certainly make sense. The individual is the most basic unit within

35 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers .

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 56. 36 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers.

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 56. 37 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 5.

21

society. Each person is unique, with a set of needs, desires, and skills which is somewhat different from the next. Smith understood the power of the consumer. If a desired good is

demanded, then a producer stands to make a profit by producing that good. If any single producer refrains from the production of that good, another will swoop in, produce the good that

is demanded by an individual, and claim the profits. In Smith’s eyes, it is in this way that the direction of a people is decided. For Smith, it was apparent that people were guided by a rational self-interest. Their actions were predictable, as people sought to maximize their gains in order to

better their lives. Smith further believed that the when individuals acted according to their own rational self-interest society inherently benefited. He explained market processes as being guided

by an “invisible hand” that encouraged men to rationally pursue a course of action which was invariably the most beneficial for themselves and society.

Contemporary scholars that apply a liberal lens to analyze the world believe that free

markets and capitalism provide the answer to solving the world’s energy problems. If left alone, they believe that energy production will extend to more sustainable means when it becomes cost

effective to do so. Declining reserves of fossil fuels can only push the cost of energy higher as fossil fuels become more expensive to extract and scarcity excludes certain actors from access to them. They believe that maximizing the amount of wealth produced is of the greatest benefit to

the greatest number of individuals in that society. The generation of wealth takes on new imperatives for these capitalist societies, and the amassing of wealth by companies becomes seen

as inherently desirable. Capitalism dictates that companies be profitable. Profit is the goal of their existence. Through their materialistic greed, these institutions are believed by liberals to produce goods in a manner that maximizes efficiency and productive capabilities. This is

believed to maximize the productive capacity of a society, generating the highest potential growth. The effects of negative externalities associated with the production of energy from the

burning of fossil fuels will become mitigated as the burdens they cause become amply stressful as to warrant a change.38 Unsustainable practices will be phased out over time as it becomes cost effective to do so. It is believed that so long as market principles are upheld, economic

development will lead to environmentally sound policies.39 The fundamental problem with an analysis of social processes through this lens is the

illusion that the markets are governed simply by the demand of individuals rationally pursuing their interests. An analysis from this theoretical perspective fails to account for the relative power of individuals within a society compared to that of larger vested interests. While we as

humans all have relatively similar basic needs, it cannot be said that we inherently all have the same goals, objectives, or desires. It cannot be said that the political, social, and economic goals

of a rural farmer align themselves closely with that of a wealthy banker. The liberal ideological framework fails to account for instances when actors with the power to steer society in a direction that does not allow for distribution of goods needed to sustain existing social and

economic systems. Powerful vested interests can exert their influence over that system in order to enact policy that maximizes their own benefit without allowing for social and economic

sustainability, leading to economic and social crisis. A poignant example can be found in the global south, where the people produce many of the luxury agricultural products that are a common sight in Western markets. It is not uncommon for these communities that specialize in

38 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 4. 39 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 5.

22

agricultural production to suffer from malnutrition and starvation. The power of the beneficiaries of the cash crop system, wealthy landowners and corrupt politicians, is high enough relative to

other actors in the system to allow for the continuation of the production of profitable goods for export while poor workers cannot afford to feed their families.

These market guided principles alone cannot explain the growth of green energy technologies in various locations around the world. If it were a simple matter of demand by individuals in the society, then one would expect to see a similar growth in sustainable energy

technologies emerge in other countries where the demand is also high. Across the industrialized world there exists a demand for more ecologically sound means of producing energy, because

the traditional means of energy production place undue and unsustainable stress on the environment, in which all of human society is inherently embedded. Clean energy production is beneficial for all individuals. A comparison of Germany and the United Kingdom helps show

flaws in the assumptions Smith makes about the power individuals have in directing a nation. Demographically, Germany and England are very similar. Both the individual in England and

Germany have a similar buying power and similar needs.404142 However, Germany has among the highest investment in green energy in the world, and England lags far behind most other developed countries. A liberal lens might note the high instance of individually installed

production of solar panels in Germany as evidence of the choice of the individual in powering the new German green revolution. In fact, the majority of the solar growth in Germany has come

from individuals installing solar panels on their homes.43 This, they might point to, highlights the power of individuals to guide society through their power of demand. However, there are several flaws with this analysis. It does not show what forces enabled the Germans to have the capacity

to install solar panels on their homes in such high numbers. A closer look at the information will reveal that government subsidies have made it easier and more affordable for German

individuals to produce their own energy. The inability of the capitalist lens to account for powerful actors to steer a system into

crisis renders it inadequate to provide for a solution to the energy crisis. In a free market system,

powerful firms and interest groups can leverage their powerful wealth and influence to enact policies that enrich themselves at the expense of society as a whole. It cannot account for

instances of incompatibility between the needs of firms and greater society. A lens that accounts for powerful actors in the global system to forward agendas that hurt society is necessary to understand how to safeguard social and economic processes from undue strain caused by poor

policy.

2. Relative Power in a Statist Lens It is difficult to understand the nature of the power of a state in the modern era. There are

those who believe in the final authority of the state and believe that an analysis based on the unit

40 CIA Factbook lists Germany with a GDP of 36,081 and the United Kingdom with a GDP of 35,059 41 Central Intelligence Agency. "Germany." The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the -

world-factbook/geos/gm.html (accessed December 13, 2011). 42 Central Intelligence Agency. "United Kingdom." The World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html (accessed December 13, 2011). 43 Whitlock, Craig. "Cloudy Germany a Powerhouse in Solar Energy." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US,

DC News & Analysis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html

(accessed December 13, 2011).

23

of the state is the best means of understanding the global system we live in today would. A state centric lens provides for an interpretation of social organization that accounts for safeguarding

domestic interests from external threat. These theories have given us the ability to analyze social organization from yet another angle. Freidrich List was an individual who believed that the

economy and society should be primarily concerned with the empowerment of the state. It was through a nationalist lens that he viewed the workings of the world economy. List believed that a state needed to safeguard its fledgling industries from domination and destruction from more

powerful foreign entities. In his eyes, the needs of the state were of ultimate importance, and the state controlled the means to direct society for its greatest benefit. Free trade was beneficial to a

society that traded with others which competed on a similar level of development. If two societies on a dissimilar level of development engaged in free trade, the weaker would surely be quashed, and the state invariably weakened.44 His ideas and theories about political economy can

prove more helpful insight into the nature of the political economic and social systems interacting within the confines of a state than those of Smith. List argued for the existence of a

system wherein individuals act accordingly for the benefit of their nation whenever possible.45 According to List, trade should be used to benefit the expansion of the power and influence of the state. A state must protect its fledgling industries from foreign competition through the use of

protectionist policies until domestic industries are strong enough to compete on par with foreign firms. Only then will free trade bring a benefit to the state.

List contrasted the interests of the individual and the state, and realized that the two are not the same. He placed great emphasis on the role of the state in the economy, while being careful to remind us that the state may not regulate the markets too much without causing harm.

List argues that a state must protect its interests, and that its agricultural sector and manufacturing sector must be safeguarded in order to maintain the distribution of goods needed

to strengthen the power of the state. According to him, these are the foundations for the strength of a state, and if a state is to pursue its rational self-interest, it must have this as a secure foundation46. Contemporary scholars have also aligned themselves with a Listian interpretation

of power in the global system. Stephen D. Krasner published a series of influential political texts in the latter half of the 20th century that furthered the claim that the state has sovereignty in the

global system. According to Krasner, the state acts without the interest of any other group in mind, and the benefit of one group from the actions of the state is in fact a coincidental alignment of that groups own interest and that of the state.47 Instead, the state must be conceived

of as a set of rules and institutions that are unique and uncharacteristic of any particular societal group.48 Krasner is quick to point out that the state’s objective is intricately intertwined with that

of society, as the state relies on a satisfied population and functioning economic and social systems as a source of its power.49

44 List, Friedrich. The National System of Political Economy. New York: A.M. Kelley, 1966. 45 This position is less valid today, as states have gradually lost strength to other actors in the global system. Firms

have greatly increased their power relative to states in the centuries since List first wrote. 46 China today has adapted many Listian policies economically, and has been able to use a Listian model to fuse

capitalism and authoritarianism to protect and grow key industries, especially manufacturing and fuel the

development of renewable energy technologies. 47 Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy .

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, 10. 48 Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy .

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, 10. 49 Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy .

24

At a glance, it would seem on the surface that the development of sustainable energies in Germany and China presents a clear and concrete example of state mechanisms and influence

steering society. In Germany, subsidies placed on renewable energy allowed for individuals to increase their production of this energy. In China, the government funds massive renewable

energy projects. A state centric lens on the government’s actions would assert that the state took this action because of the benefits that it gains from having cleaner fuel, a more contented population, and greater energy security. The two states gains immeasurably from being able to

produce energy domestically and both countries strong manufacturing sectors are well suited to produce the necessary components required for green energy production. However, this alone

cannot explain the massive increase in government support of the renewable energy sector. Other states have similar incentives for increasing their capacity of green energy, but have not followed in line with the implementation of similar policies. The United States has a similar need for

energy security and clean, desirable fuel, but has not seen the same sort of government support renewables. The foreign policy of the United States is indisputably restrained by the reliance of

American society on imports of fossil fuels for energy production. If state power was really the motive for Germany and China to enact policies that increased the production of sustainable fuels domestically, then we would expect that other states with a similar demographic and

economic power would seek to enact similar policies to reap the same benefit. A state centric lens thusly also fails to account for the relative strength of actors within

the system to determine policy that negatively weakens or impoverishes society as a whole. If we are to consider states as autonomous actors in the global system that determine their own course of action according to their own rational self-interest, then we cannot explain how some societies

have enacted policies that weaken the power and authority of the state. Yet another lens is needed to account for the ability of powerful actors to steer the system in a direction that leads to

unfavorable conditions of organization and production for society as a whole.

3. Bourgeois Power and a Marxist Lens

The inability of the theoretical perspectives of statism and liberalism to explain the sporadic rise in the production of energy through sustainable means requires the utilization of

another lens to provide a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon. In order to understand power and agency in society from a Marxist perspective, we need to consider yet another

theoretical interpretation of social organization. Marxist ideology purports that the state is not an actor which has true autonomy in the global system, but instead a platform for dialogue and negotiation through which various groups and interests within society compete to define an

optimal social organization as one which aligns well with achieving ones objectives within the system. States do not hold autonomy in the global system. The policies enacted institutional

boundaries of a state are not viewed as a function of the autonomy of the state in Marxist thought, but are instead reflective of goals of various actors within society.50 In recognizing the influence and power of actors within society to control the direction of a society, we can understand more

clearly how certain vested interests from within a society have influenced that society in a manner which has threatened the replication of the community. This view allows us to step back

and calculate the gains and losses caused by state policy of both different vested interests within

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, 11. 50 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers.

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 144.

25

the society and society as a whole. In doing so, it becomes possible to see the influence that various actors have on determining the path on which a society embarks.

Explaining the beneficiaries of a given system in these terms requires the deployment of Marxist theory. Vested interests in oil are the clear primary beneficiaries of the continued

reliance of a society on fossil fuels to produce energy. Through a Marxist ideological framework, the actors which benefit most from maintaining the status quo in terms of energy production can be identified as energy firms, and the political and economic elite which have an investment in

their success, monetary and otherwise. Marx identifies class interests as central to the development of human society. Within society, divergent social interests invariably led to

conflict in Marx’s eyes.51 By his time, capitalism had begun to wreak social havoc where it had taken a firm hold ideologically. Many of Marx’s works were written in England, which was the epicenter of the capitalistic revolution.52 The poor in England had suffered terribly under

capitalist organization for decades. To him, it was clear that such a society could not endure. Marx saw a historical progression of society, from feudalism to capitalism and eventually to

socialism. For Marx, the organization of society depended on the means of production. Those who

control the means of production gain enough power so as to control the system. In capitalism, it

was the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie gained an incredible amount of wealth in the system through the exploitation of the working class, who toiled in the sweat shops and factories of

Marx’s world for an ever smaller wage. To make matters worse, Marx believed that capitalism was not only an unfair system. In his eyes, capitalism was also a dangerously volatile system. He predicted that capitalism was capable of producing a short economic boom, which would be

followed by a sharp decline in economic capabilities.5354 Capitalism relies on the ability of a given society to consume the goods which are produced by the market. If the society cannot

afford to purchase the goods produced by the market, then no profit will be made. As firms are in perpetual competition with each other to cut costs so as to provide their products for the lowest costs possible, companies seek to cut labor costs. This leads to lower wages and unemployment,

leaving less money in the system to produce demand. This cycle is perpetuated by a working class with increasingly less buying power because of decreasing real wages, and an upper class

which is accumulating wealth faster than they can spend it. Without a sufficient consumer market, production crashes. Ironically enough, it is competition between firms to lower costs that becomes the bane of capitalism by weakening demand.

In looking at the world through a Marxist lens, one comes to see firms dominate. Firms control the means of production, and through doing so manage to amass wealth and power in

society.55 This is equally true in the energy sector. Firms control the means of producing energy. They control the wells and refineries that bring us petroleum products. They own the mines full of coal and the plants that burn it. They control the trade of uranium and the nuclear reactors

used to convert that fuel into energy. Through the exploitation of the labor of the working class,

51 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers .

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 146. 52 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers .

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 149. 53 Marx’s hypothesis was in fact proven to a large degree by the Great Depression in the 1930’s. 54 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers .

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 147. 55 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers .

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 158.

26

the bourgeoisie manages to syphon off value, increasingly their wealth without contributing to production in society. This process is exacerbated as firms seek to lower labor costs in order to

gain a competitive edge against competing firms. The actions of the state in a Marxist framework are explained as being an extension of the will and desires of the upper class. They use their

wealth in order to gain government support for their aims. For Marx, power in society came from the ability to produce. Without access to the means of production, the lower classes were unable to improve their economic and societal status. This is equally true to the production of energy.

Capitalists and firms are also interested in the accumulation of wealth in order to out-compete their competitors. The only way they can compete against other firms is by ensuring they have

more wealth, eventually by cutting back on labor costs at the expense of workers.56 A Marxist lens grants us insight into the means by which a group of wealthy individuals

and firms can come to dominate the creation of policy in a society and gain the capacity to steer

the system along a path of development that does not allow for the sustainability of society. In applying this theory, we are able to comprehend the motives of various actors within the system,

and are able to anticipate their actions according to their desire to maximize benefits. Firms inherently seek profit. The accumulation of capital is the primary reason for the existence of these institutions. Oil TNC’s seek to generate profit from their control over the means of

production of energy vital to the replication of societies. It is in there interest for there to exist a popular discourse in energy production that argues that the profits derived from market forces

and trade inherently benefit society through the creation of new wealth, such as one akin to the narrative supported by a liberal interpretation of society. Crisis in energy markets only stands to encourage these companies to maintain a reliance on fossil fuels to meet the energy needs of

society, as it is during times of crisis that firms are able to make the most profit. Economic stress only serves to shift a greater percentage of capital from the hands of workers into the hands of

the ruling capitalist class, the bourgeoisie. Without sufficient access to capital, individuals in German society would have been

unable to afford the means of producing energy. Solar panels are expensive and may take years

to pay back on their investment. In the case of German society, the government has helped cut the costs associated with the production of renewable energies through subsidies. This manner of

support for the sustainable production of energy has not been replicated in many other societies. If Marxist theory is correct about the power of firms, then it would suggest there is a possible incompatibility between the optimal success of domestic firms and broader German society. In

the case of the subdued response to market crisis and unsustainability of the means of energy production in American society, Marx would argue that the optimal outcomes for the most

powerful firms in that system and the needs of broader American society are incompatible. Even as the effects of rising fuel costs hamper economic growth in society as a whole, in

the form of the disruption of economic and social systems within the society that these firms are

inherently embedded, the profits these firms generate in the process outweigh the costs. Firms in society that do not have a vested interest in procuring profit from the energy sector only feel the

brunt of rising energy costs and the many additional costs associated with system crisis and the disruption of existing social and economic processes. It can then be interpreted that the interests of firms without a vested interest in profiting from the sale of energy are incompatible with

energy firms. The large and powerful manufacturing firms in German and Chinese society benefit from cheap energy. A decrease in the costs associated with the manufacturing of goods

56 Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers.

Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, 159.

27

means that these goods will be available to provide to society goods for consumption at a lower cost. These same firms also stand to benefit when consumers face lower energy costs. When

individuals in society spend less money on energy, it frees up capital to be spent on other goods. A Marxist analysis of global energy markets can explain in a theoretical manner how firms are

the dominant actors in determining the energy policy of a society. Oil firms and their vested interest in maintaining reliance on fossil fuels as a primary means of energy production necessary to sustain modern society stand to benefit from the exclusion of alternative means of

energy production from public discourse. Manufacturing firms lack a vested interest in profit driven energy markets, and instead has a strong vested interest in keeping energy costs down in

order to maximize profits in the long term. One would expect that these firms would use the considerable wealth they amass through the control of the means of production to use their massive structural power in society relative to that of other actors in the system to effect a policy

that allows them to increase their profits. Therefore, if the relative power of energy firms is greater than that of actors in the system which have a vested interest in cheap energy, then we

would expect that the primary fuel used in that society will be both the most profitable and one which the means of its production can be controlled by energy firms.

It has been established clearly that TNC’s and powerful firms are the primary

beneficiaries of systemic crisis. The increase in the level of capital flow from greater society to firms during times of crisis further empowers firms in two ways, allowing for them to exert more

control over the system. The first comes from the generation of massive capital reserves, allowing them to exert more structural power over the system. The second is a shift in the relative power between greater society and firms as society loses structural power in the system

due to a relative decline in capital resources. In this manner, firms are able to use their influence to impose a discourse on society that disregards narratives of economic, environmental, and

social sustainability if other narratives and discourses allows for greater profit. The discourse is additionally reinforced in modern capitalist societies by the dominance of the liberal and neoliberal ideologies at in both the public sphere within smaller societies as well as at the global

level. In essence, the process through which firms consolidate their power at the expense of

other actors in society through the intrinsic market forces of accumulation and crisis are initially self-reinforcing. Insofar as firms are able to continue to produce an adequate supply of goods so as to allow for the successful continuation of social and economic processes, they remain able to

allow for stability within the social system. What we then see is a failure by society as a whole to successfully organize according to principles of sustainability because of a deficiency of

economic and social incentives for individuals within society to break down the self-deprecating discourse that allows for the cyclical occurrence of crisis. The eventual breakdown of this process can be understood in terms of the inability of market forces to be able to distribute public

goods to individuals in society. Modernization brought on by the industrial revolution marked a profound shift in the nature of necessity surrounding the distribution of non-excludable goods.

As declining supply on global markets grows more severe, we are able to see observe a process through which crisis tendencies in advanced capitalistic societies render markets unable to produce enough goods to allow for sustainability and growth. These systematic and periodic

capitalist crisis increase in severity as profit motive becomes insufficient alone to provide for enough incentive to ensure the production and distribution of public goods in society.

4. Habermas and Legitimation Crisis in the Epoch of Global Capitalism

28

Marxist theory can be developed to understand systemic crisis in the energy sector as a capitalist crisis. However, its gaps in conceptualization leave it unable to explain the processes

through which society may organize in order to combat the influence of firms over the distribution of public goods within a society. In order to fill this gap, Habermasian theory can be

employed to explain the process through which systemic crisis is generated, and show how the inability of markets to adequately provide for the production and distribution of public goods to individuals in society leads to a delegitimization of authority in the system. In his masterful work

Legitimation Crisis, Jürgen Habermas provides critical insight on the very nature of crisis in market based capitalist societies, and the resulting delegitimization of systemic authority that

results from markets being unable to meet the sustainability needs of a community. One cannot fully grasp Habermasian concepts of legitimation without first clearly

understanding the nature of social crisis. Once this understanding has been established, the

complex nature of power relations and social organization in modern society and the formation of deficiencies in production and distribution can be most clearly conceived. This allows for the

formulation of a course of action that can be utilized to alleviate society from the various stressors which are causing harm to individuals within the system. Crisis can be understood simply as the point at which a system does not possess the capacity to repair itself from the

damage caused by external or internal factors.57 In a medical context, crisis can be identified as the point at which an organ cannot heal itself with its own devices. Unless external forces exert

some manner of force on the organ, it will die. In the context of a human body, crisis indicates that without some form of medical assistance, be it surgical or pharmaceutical, that individual will die. Crisis can exist anywhere a system exists; economic crisis exists where markets fail to

provide necessary goods to a population to ensure the replication of the system, social crisis may result from the inability of a society to pass it’s customs and traditions on to the next generation,

and energy crisis may ensue when insufficient electricity is produced to ensure the production of goods within a society.58

57 Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975, 2. 58 Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975, 3.

29

Habermas explains that crisis results from unresolved steering problems.59 In social systems, crisis is generated through the incompatibility of structural imperatives inherent to the

system threatens social and system integration. A simple example of this could be a political agenda which deprives a population of a necessary good to ensure the reproduction of that

society, such as food. In many parts of the developing world, food crises have led to the starvation of millions. Many of these communities are largely agriculturally based, yet many farmers still find themselves with not enough to eat. The social crisis present in these societies is

one of starvation, even as the society itself holds the capacity to produce enough food to sustain itself. However, political and economic imperatives in developing societies have generated a

profit imperative among the ruling class, those with steering capabilities in those societies, for the production of food and cash crops for export over sustenance. This causes the society to invest too many resources in the production of profitable cash crops instead of food for the

people within that system, and thus people starve. The capacity to which a society can tolerate crisis varies, yet always has a tangible limit. Crossing the crisis threshold creates the potential to

endanger the continuity of the system when the anomie towards normative structures pervades a society to the extent it leads to the delegitimization of structural hierarchies and societal and

cultural norms within that system. When this occurs, there is the potential for dissolution of social institutions and system collapse. This process can only be generated when the policy and

organization of a society is inherently and fundamentally unsustainable. When economic, social, and cultural practices do not produce a negative effect in society, there is not the potential for the

delegitimation of dominant narratives and discourses on societal organization and norms. Isolating the structural imperatives which serve as the generating factors of crisis within a

system requires first identifying the structural hierarchies integral to the system. This allows for the highlighting of the root cause of the problems plaguing the system. We then gain an

improved ability to frame of the issue within the societal context in which they are generated. Once these concepts have been identified and established, a rational assessment of the corrective action needed to fix the system becomes possible. In framing the organization of all

contemporary societies, meaning those which have advanced beyond the scope of primitive organization, within a Marxist framework of classism is an imperative for generating a basic

59 Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975, 4.

30

understanding of the nature of damaging structural imperatives inherent to the system. In societies organized under a liberal-capitalist framework, including that of the United States, the

principle of organization is wage labor and capital. The focus of this model is the generation of wealth. This model of organization breaks from earlier models of social and system integration

in that the economic system of the society begins to take over socially integrative tasks. For example, in primitive and traditional societies, responsibility for the care of elders and children fell within the realm of the family. In societies organized under principles of liberal capitalism,

the market extends its authority over these responsibilities. As such, much of the care required for children and elders no longer falls on the members of the extended family, but instead is

relegated to economic institutions, such as hospice care and daycare. Crisis occurs in these societies when these necessary processes are interrupted by irregular intervals of economic growth.60 Recession in the economy or even simply a decline in growth can yield inadequate

resources within the system to provide for these services which in traditional societies are not relegated to the market, such as healthcare for the elderly or education for the young.61

The need for a conceptual understanding the social workings of the system cannot be understated. If one is to misunderstand the factors which influence the direction of the system, one cannot accurately address the problems the system is facing. In the realm of energy, one has

to address the multitude of factors which demand the production of energy in order to understand the nature of its production. Energy is a vital factor of production, transportation systems, and

social reproduction. Without a viable and sustainable supply of energy, all of the processes dependent on energy for their continued reproduction fall victim to the inadequacies of the dissemination of goods inherent to market systems. A system with a structural adherence to

producing the most profitable forms of energy is subject to rising and falling prices and supplies of energy with the cyclical movement of the market, leading to an inability of the market to

constantly meet the needs of the society and economy. The alternative to allowing market forces to maintain control over energy supply is to treat energy as a public good. If the society as a whole focuses on the types of energy production

that most benefit society, and produce energy in a manner that allows for the successful replication of social and economic processes and produces limited externalities such as pollution

that hinder the functioning of these systems. In this manner, sustainability of energy production may be achieved. The benefits are clear; when the production of energy is removed from the cyclical flows of the market, it allows for a more consistent supply of energy. The production of

energy becomes insulated from the ups and downs of general trends in the market. Treating energy as a public good allows for more sustainability in energy production, and in the long term

produces energy which is cleaner and more affordable.

IV. Method The methodological approach of this paper is heavily influenced by my own positionality

and past experiences. It is important for me to be able to think critically when discerning my own influences and biases when it comes to my work. All of my past experiences, from the teachers I’ve had to the books I’ve read, the places I’ve lived and the people I’ve met, have had a

profound effect on who I am and now I perceive the world. This analysis of society and global

60 Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975, 39. 61 Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975, 39.

31

political-economics requires a critical and objective lens, and I have to be willing to consistently acknowledge my own bias that comes with my own places in this world if I am to critically

consider the ideas of others. To gain better critical insight, I’ve employed a methodological framework developed by Susan Strange and elaborated in her masterful work “States and

Markets.”62 Her framework allows me to critically analyze the ideas of the great political-economic thinkers and determine their applicability to the world in which I live. This analysis will then be supplemented by empirical data from contemporary societies in order to

operationalize the theory and method.

1. Positionality and Reflexivity

The motivation for this paper developed as my observations of the world around me come to question the legitimacy of the system. The Great Recession, propelled by a collapse of the housing market and rising energy costs, hit in 2008. In November 2009, it struck much closer

to home for me personally, as Wyeth Pharmaceuticals announced the closure of their manufacturing facilities and chemical development plant in my hometown of Rouses Point, New

York. The plant at its peak employed thousands of employees in a village of only 2,200 inhabitants. The potential impact to my community was something that was difficult to absorb, and the shock of the incident and the lingering effects it produced in my community were to have

a great influence on the development of my thought and the organization of this paper. My own views on economic and social sustainability were drastically affected as a result. The incident

provided me with critical insight into the tangible stressors present in a society in crisis, as I was able to see the manifestation of the effects of crisis unfold from unfortunately close to the source. I saw how the costs associated with crisis cannot be simply understood as a function of simple

economic strain. The monetary cost was the most visible. The hundreds of out of town workers that go to

local restaurants and stores as they transit to and from work hurt the profits of local businesses. The lost taxes Wyeth once paid to the village of Rouses Point constituted a significant loss of revenue, as would the lost tax revenue from a the loss of hundreds of high paying jobs. It was a

frightening time for me, as my father and many other individuals I knew within the community worked at the Wyeth facilities. Job insecurity has been a matter of family crisis since the

announcement. Two years have passed, and while the plant is now owned by another corporation, my father is still working at the plant. However, he has been unable to find another job and believes he will be laid off before he is old enough to qualify for retirement.

At home, there is a lot of talk about how firms make profits at the expense of everyone else. My father is passionate at times, and has a tendency to rant about the misdeeds of corporate

America. His rants often now center on how greed drives corporations to do things that are a terrible injustice to individuals in society. In one story, he relays a report that Pfizer is refraining to bring a batch of a lifesaving cancer drug in short supply because in doing so they would have

to pay a high tax. However, if the company is to produce the same drug in Ireland, they are subject to a lower rate of taxation, allowing the company to make more profit. Supposedly, so

much more money could be saved by producing the drug in Ireland instead of the United States was so great the completed batch of American made cancer medicine was going to be destroyed,

62 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994.

32

even at a time when supplies of this life saving drug were dwindling and becoming more expensive.

I can’t verify any of the facts of this story. It’s all hearsay from my father, and I’ve never seen any documentation of any of the vague details he’s reported. Whether or not Pfizer has done

these things is not the primary reason for introducing this story. The relevance of this story to this paper is a shift in the perspectives of the individuals within my community from one which viewed the firm as an honest entity whose continued success ensured the growth and prosperity

of the community to one which vilified firms as vile greed driven entities. It supports a notion that the actions firms take in order to benefit their profit margin is does not inherently lead to

social or economic stability and growth. Individuals in society want for their communities to grow and prosper, so that they can provide for their children the opportunity to live in a better world. The purported act of actively preventing sufficiency of supply of cancer drugs in markets,

individuals were faced with rapidly rising cost of drugs necessary to their survival. Such a rise in price would likely make such drugs too expensive for some individuals in society to afford. We

are now seeing the spread of the belief throughout communities like mine across America that many of the actions taken by firms in the pursuit of profit are often detrimental to society. The resentment of the firms has been compounded by the fact that society sees a marked increase in

an inability for the market system to provide for the adequate distribution of goods required to maintain existing social and economic processes at a time firms which control the means of

production of these same non-excludable goods are reaping record profits. This story is one of the delegitimization of a narrative which places too high an emphasis on profit and too little emphasis on ensuring that the needs of individuals in society are met.

This shift in perception in my community stands in stark contrast to common views held there during my childhood. Much has changed in Rouses Point since the onset of the economic

crisis in 2008, a great deal of it not for the better. It’s not the same town I remember from my childhood. My memories of the local Wyeth plant when I was a child are all incredibly positive. The plant provided my father with a job that paid well enough that my mother was able to stay

home and raise the kids, even though he had never attended college. My grandfather was the president of the facilities in Rouses Point and also an avid story teller. He would recount, in a

range of child pleasing voices and accompanied by an endless number of flagrant gesticulations and facial expressions, wild tales of life as a manager of a large pharmaceutical plant. When I was three, my grandfather received a promotion and had to move to the suburbs of Philadelphia.

His stories were told less frequently than when he lived just across town, yet they became even more exciting and exotic as his job demanded he travel around the world on business trips. I was

regaled with tales of him attempting to politely decline eating chicken feet when he was in China, tips on how to learn important cultural etiquette and greetings to avoid being seen as the “ugly American”, and lessons in cross-cultural communication. He made a lot of money working for

that company, and that money has greatly benefited me. Much of the money needed to cover the costs of my education came from my grandfather. That money served to satiate my wanderlust,

as it paid for my high school French club trip to France and Italy in the 11 th grade, and two further trips to Europe as I studied abroad in college.

My family has benefited greatly from the successes of firms, and this was reflected in

how I viewed the world when I was younger. Many of the most important opportunities I have been afforded in terms of my educational and intellectual development were made possible

because of the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry. When I was younger, I believed that large multi-national firms would be a great boon in my life. The continued success of these

33

companies I assumed would ensure that even individuals from rural and poorer backgrounds would be presented with grand opportunities to climb the social ladder and allow for their

children to have a better life than they did. My grandfather’s stories about his life include many about him working on a dairy farm in rural Massachusetts. He was unsatisfied with that life, so

he paid his way through a local community college and received a degree in chemistry. His acceptance of a job at Wyeth gave him the opportunity to work hard and climb the corporate ladder. My grandfather’s successes fueled my faith in the system, and I wanted to work hard so I

would be able to have the same opportunities that he did. I wanted to follow the same path to success.

The effects of the crisis on my local community acted as a challenge to the discourse of my childhood. Seeing the costs to my own community made me increasingly concerned with the ability of markets in capitalistic systems to continue to provide for an adequate distribution of

necessary goods required for the continued functioning of economic and social systems. It made me seek out new sources of information that could help explain the world around me. I began to

ponder on the topic that became the research question that developed into my thesis in my junior year of study at St. Lawrence University, while I was enrolled in the 290 research methods course in Global Studies. Early on in the course, we were told to choose a topic for a project that

we would research for the entire semester. The project was expected to serve as a solid framework that would develop into a senior thesis would be done the following year. By my

third year, the pro-sustainability vibe that pervades St. Lawrence had piqued my interest in sustainability and sustainable development. Many of my friends were enrolled in environmental courses at the university, and discussions we had on the natural environment gradually became

more interesting to me. The St. Lawrence community also served to heighten my interest. Many things were recycled that I didn’t know you could recycle. Students on campus found creative

means to patch their clothing, and found resourceful ways to reuse bottles and bags. It made me more conscious of my own consumption habits, and led me to try to find out more about sustainable living. It was then that I began to learn more information on sustainable energies.

This history is what drives me to conduct this research.

2. Interpretive Critique

While theoretically it is possible to frame the free flow of capital in market systems to maximize gains by flowing to areas of the economy where profits are most lucrative and can create the most wealth, Habermas notes it becomes imperative that an inclusion of the effects of

periodic systemic crisis that threatens to undermine the very legitimacy of the system be calculated in order to understand the entirety of the costs and benefits of capitalism for society.

Capital benefits from the rise in value of goods based on their scarcity, as the competition between actors in the system for access to the goods required to meet their individual needs and desires drives up the prices of scarce commodities. Scarcity of goods that are required for the

continued sustenance of individuals, as well as social and economic systems, invariably leads to an increase in the percentage of capital accessible to that these systems that must be spent on

providing for these necessities. This leads to a habitual decline in the amount of capital in these systems available to individuals and communities to generate demand for other goods and services.

When scarcity in oil markets leads to a rise in price, growth rates fall. The reason for this is that when there is a surplus of supply in energy markets, this leads to a decline in competition

34

between actors within a system for access to energy. Decreased competition for goods leads to lower prices. Energy is a vital component in modern societies for the production of goods and in

the transportation systems that bring these goods to markets. A low price in energy lowers the costs associated with producing goods and bringing them to markets for consumption. This

allows for the actors which purchase these goods to expend a lower percentage of their available capital to obtain the same benefit, leaving more capital in the system to generate demand for other goods and services. Thus, rising energy costs are diametrically opposed to the

sustainability and growth of societies. Historically, ample global supplies of fossil fuels allowed for producers of energy to use their profits gained from the sale of energy to expand exploration

and extraction efforts. This ensured that an energy surplus could be consistently sustained in global energy markets, ensuring consistent levels of economic growth. Declining global reserves of fossil fuels are now beginning to make it impossible for producers of energy to bring enough

energy to market to keep supply above demand. The result is a rise in energy costs, a process which inherently constrains growth as less energy becomes available for use in production and

transportation. Without a marked increase in the production of alternative forms of energy, society will be unable to maintain a high enough level of surplus in energy supply to keep costs sufficiently low as to fuel growth.

3. Strange and Framework

A Marxist discourse holds that the absolute power of firms in society precludes that society from being able to rationally set policy that does not stand to increase the profitability of

the most powerful firms. According to Marx, the profit motive of firms dominates the organization of a society. This can be explained through the inherent structural power of firms have in society and their relative power to other actors. The methodological framework

established by Susan Strange in States and Markets offers more insight into the nature of power and influence within a society.63 Her analysis interprets the path of a society as the end result of

competing interests and imperatives, wherein different interest groups within the society compete for the power and influence to affect a desired consequence. The values of individuals in large part will determine power relations within that system. Different societies will place more

emphasis on certain values vis-à-vis others. In the diagram below, Strange concisely explains the

63 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994.

Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994.

35

different forms of organization and their corresponding social imperatives.64 Societies which vary in alignment along the spectrum between authoritarian organization and market

organization see markedly different social imperatives. In terms of energy policy, different imperatives will affect the means through which energy is produced to meet the needs of the

society depending on the values of a certain society. The three models, predominately authoritarian, predominately market, and balanced, should be considered not so much as three separate models, but points along a continuum. Various societies around the world have

organized themselves in a manner which aligns not with any extreme, but instead find themselves at some point between them on the spectrum. That being said, by elaborating on the

imperatives within each of these three structures will help identify the placement of countries along the spectrum, and help explain the nature of their energy policy through terms which account for their societies inherent structural imperatives.

An authoritarian system inherently focuses on maintaining security.65 Social equity and personal freedoms are in comparison given

little attention or importance. In terms of energy production, security pertains to both that of supply and control over energy. A society which is organized in an authoritarian manner would then likely focus primarily at

ensuring that energy necessary for the replication of local societies would be produced securely and domestically. Issues of social justice and equity are

given little relative attention. Wealth is relegated a secondary importance behind security, as the wealth of a society plays an important role in maintaining its security. One would expect that an authoritarian state would

go to an extreme to endeavor in the production of fuels which are produced domestically. In essence, an authoritarian state without sufficient supplies of

oil and other fossil fuels would be expected to develop heavily in alternative means of producing energy so as to maintain a greater security over supply. Energy security is an imperative for authoritarian regimes because they rely

on the dissemination of public goods for maintaining legitimation in the eyes of the society they are repressing politically and socially. If strain is

placed on domestic economic systems due to energy crisis, authoritarian regimes fear collapse. Without personal freedoms, individuals in an authoritarian society have little left to lose when the society as a whole loses

its ability to produce and distribute the necessary goods required for the replication of that society, and may press for political reforms.

A market system similarly places the utmost importance on a single value.66 Wealth is the imperative of a society organized in a manner where the market is dominant. Issues of justice are given secondary importance, as

certain rights, such as property rights, are a necessary component in maintaining a functional market system. Security and freedom are

considered less important in comparison. One would expect a society organized under a wealth generation imperative to produce energy not in the most efficient or sustainable means, but instead in a manner which

generates the highest profit. This places a unique importance on the use of

64 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994. 65 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 5. 66 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 5.

Authoritarian social imperatives

Market social imperatives

36

fossil fuels as a means of producing energy. The means of production of energy through fossil fuels can be controlled by a number of wealthy and powerful firms, allowing for the generation

of massive profits. The imperative for these firms is the generation of profit for their shareholders. Sustainability and long term efficiency takes a backseat to short term profits.

Secondary costs, such as those to other public goods like the environment and public health, are given little consideration as their costs are not factored into the production of fuel and do not affect the amount of profit these companies can generate. The actors with steering power in the

system are able to afford to offset their own personal cost associated with the degradation of public health infrastructure and the environment with their wealth. Other actors in the system

then suffer disproportionately. The narrative in a society organized in way that primarily concerns itself with producing wealth through energy generation would be organized in a way that makes these forms of energy production more favorable than one would otherwise expect.

Policy would also likely reflect a need to expand production of fossil fuels as a means of abating energy crisis, even in the face of a decline in reserves, in order to meet rising demand. Societies

with a wealth imperative in terms of energy production will likely face issues in the realms of security and freedoms, as neglect of these factors is inherent to market organization.

A balanced system between authoritarian imperatives and

market imperatives places the highest importance on justice and freedoms. Energy is instead treated as a tool of sustainability and

social equity in this system.67 The focus in a system with an organization based on these principles would be to produce energy in a manner which is consistent with the replication of the

system and future sustainability. One would expect to see energy production in these societies as being produced in a manner which

places the least strain on society in order to achieve fairness and equity. This would likely result in the production of an elevated level of sustainable energies such as wind and solar relative to within societies

driven by market imperatives. Policy generated under this model of organization is mindful of the negative externalities in terms of

pollution, climate change, and environmental degradation associated with the production of energy from fossil fuels, and could plan accordingly to try to mitigate the costs to public health and the

environment. Security is given lesser importance in these systems. However, energy security is high in these systems, as energy is more likely to be produced

locally. Societies and states benefit in terms of security from the production of energy locally as they mitigate the risks associated with the transportation of energy and are not reliant on foreign societies to ensure a consistent energy supply. Wealth is unlikely to accumulate in the hands of

an elite in a similar manner to that of a society organized along terms of market based imperatives, leading to increased social equity as that wealth is distributed across society as a

whole. Determining which actors then influence a society’s energy policy then requires a look at social organization, dialectic narratives, and influential groups within society. Strange interprets

power as being both relational and structural. Her emphasis on structural power endorses the notion that states are never unchallenged and completely sovereign entities. The decisions taken

67 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 5.

Balanced social imperatives

Market social imperatives

37

by the state are not done so within the confines of a vacuum; the state is influenced by many internal and external actors, who through their own influence and power over decision making

bodies to affect the course of action and decision making of the state. Strange outlines the dimensions of structural power by breaking it down into four fundamental structures, identified

as production, security, finance, and knowledge. These primary four structures are augmented through power structures including energy and welfare. When analyzing the power structures of a state, one much takes into account which actor or actors control each of these power structures.

It is from these structures that power, both structural and relational, can be exerted to achieve an end. It is important to also note the way in which Strange analyzes and defines power. Power is

not just the ability of a state or actor to bring about a change, to achieve a goal, but also includes the capacity of an actor to define the nature of things, institute frameworks which define how states and other actors within the global system interact, and determines what is the natural

course of things and how actors should behave. Operationalizing the theories of Marx and Habermas along with the methodology of

Strange can explain how powerful firms have come to dominate society, and how they manage to steer it in a direction that does not allow for sustainability. Through Marx we can see how capitalist organization allows for powerful actors to enact policies that maximize the potential for

that society to generate profit while compromising the ability of existing social and economic systems to reproduce. In instances of the incompatibility of the need for firms to profit and the

needs of a society to sustain itself, Habermas explains the means through which authority is delegitimized through crisis. Through an analysis of structural power in market society through a combination of a Marxist and a Habermasian lens, we can generate a better understanding how

firms utilize the inherent structural power of the system to gain more relative power in the system vis-à-vis other actors in society.

Marx identified through his theories that production is the basis of the generation of wealth and power in the system. Strange interprets through her methodology that production is one of the four power structures actors in society utilize to exert their relative power in the

system in order to steer society. They are the undisputed masters of this structure of power in modern capitalist society. Firms control the means of production and distribution of the vast

majority of goods needed to sustain society. Control over the process of bringing the goods demanded by society to market has allowed for firms to accumulate vast amounts of wealth. Society is reliant on these firms to bring goods to market to meet its needs. Firms profit motive

drives them supply these goods to market in order to profit from the transaction. The primary interest of firms is profitability, not sustainability. As such, they are willing to forsake

sustainable practices in order to generate higher profit. Globalization has changed the nature of power of firms relative to that of other actors in

society. Manufacturing firms in particular now have the power to threaten the social and

economic sustainability of a localized society by moving the means of production abroad if their needs are not adequately met by the policy of that society. They have the capacity to move

factories and equipment needed to produce goods from one society and replicate that capacity in another which is more accommodating to allow for the generation of profit for the firm. The ability of these firms to relocate has put pressure on societies to enact policies that have harmful

social and economic consequences for society as a whole in order to grant more concessions for firms and attract investment. This only further serves to enrich firms, which in turn utilize their

newfound wealth to further influence policy and public opinion.

38

The provision of security has traditionally been the responsibility of the state. Society is reliant on the state for its own protection and the protection of its interests from the aggression of

foreign entities. As the democratic state can be interpreted theoretically as a platform through which various actors compete for the ability to enact policy to meet their needs, the nature of the

provision of security is determined by the relative influence of powerful actors within the system. The energy sector has profoundly affected the security structure. The ability of firms to leverage their influence within society is reflected in security policy globally. The opening of new

markets globally to domination of TNC’s by global institutions reflects the benefits of firms to profit from free trade policies. Societies in the global south, eager for investment from TNC’s,

enact policies that allow for firms to generate higher profits. Competition between societies for investment from TNC’s forces these societies competing for relative power in the global system to go to extreme measures to make their society more appealing for investment by profit driven

investors.68 As firms can be identified as the dominant actors in society, the policies enacted within these societies are directed by the bourgeoisie of that society. Profit is given priority over

maintaining existing social and economic systems, allowing for crisis within the system. The finance structure is dominated by large banks, powerful hedge funds, and global investors. They control the massive supplies of capital needed to finance investment. Financial

regulations within a society determine which actors have access to sufficient capital for investments. The financial bourgeoisie seeks to maximize their returns on their investments by

supporting policies that increase potential profits. Their return on investments is dependent on the profitability of the firm in which they invest. They have an inherent vested interest in creating conditions in society that maximizes profit potential. In instances where high profits

coexist with the declining sustainability of society, crisis can occur. The interests that dominate finance coincide with dominant production interests in that they both seek to maximize the

profitability of a society, they form a dominant force in the public discourse and in policy formation. Structural power can be exerted in a fourth manner through the control of knowledge

within a system. By excluding other actors in the system from knowledge, a powerful actor can become the sole beneficiary of its tangible and material applications, and prevent the spread of

ideas that would threaten the legitimacy of their dominance. In terms of technological innovation, firms are able to maintain sole control over the knowledge they generate through patents and copyrights. Competing actors are excluded from utilizing the newly generated and patented

knowledge for a period of time. Firms have the potential to use their wealth in order to buy patents so as to gain access to that knowledge, under the logic that individuals have the right to

sell their intellectual property. Not all applications of this are intrinsically productive. Firms or other powerful actors with the capacity to buy patents do not need to utilize the knowledge in the patent to produce a good. The patent in this way can be used to ensure that certain technologies

do not reach market, so along as a powerful actor with the capacity to obtain this patent would be negatively impacted by the dissemination of this technology. Powerful actors can also limit the

dissemination of knowledge that would serve to threaten their legitimacy. In societies without free education, the bourgeoisie are able to improve their relative structural power against other actors in society as private schools have a great deal more freedom in determining the curriculum

than public institutions. Through promoting the exclusivity of education, the bourgeoisie prevent the flow of knowledge to other classes. This leads to the selective education of individuals in

society, preventing individuals from becoming aware of the true nature of production and the

68 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 208.

39

distribution of goods and indoctrinating individuals into discourses and narratives that better serve the interests of the ruling class. Rich firms take full advantage of a misinformed public by

using their wealth and influence to develop narratives and discourses that emphasize profitability and neglect sustainability.

Through the utilization of structural power inherent to systems of capitalistic organization, firms have come to increase their relative power over other actors and interests in society. They have come to dominate public discourse and gain control over the ability to enact policy. Energy

policy is subject to heavy influence from firms that profit from the existing system of energy production. Vested interests in the energy sector use their power and influence to artificially

maintain the reliance of society on the most profitable means of energy production. The most powerful of these are oil TNC’s, who benefit from the rising cost of fuel as issues of scarcity rile global energy markets. As societies organized according to capitalist principles emphasize

maximizing profitability, the sustainability of social and economic systems is compromised when rising energy costs restrains growth. In instances where profit generating policies lead to

severe economic or social distress, crisis occurs. By incorporating an analysis of Habermasian interpretations of crisis, we can explain how society reacts to crisis and explain the resulting delegitimation of authority that allows for society to reorganize according to new principles to

allow for sustainability.

4. Descriptive Statistics, Government Documents, News Papers

Energy statistics utilized in this paper will come from a variety of governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the CIA, United Nations, and the US State Department. For information on the price of crude oil over time, statistics will be used from the US

Department of Labor. The CIA factbook provided statistics on energy production and relevant socio-economic data to the societies in question. The Pew Research Group provided relevant

opinion polls. Statistics on green energy usage in Germany come from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. News articles, from sources including CNN and the New York Times, were used to provide insight into current

events and trends globally.

VI. Three Models and One Lesson: Domination by Firms

Up to now we have identified energy sustainability and can understand the influence of actors within society to steer society in a direction towards or away from sustainable

development. An analysis of the American, Chinese, and German models will now allow us to examine the efficacy of the ideological frameworks examined in this paper to meet the

sustainability needs of a society. The policies these societies have enacted that determine the organization of their respective energy sectors provide for telling insight into the benefits and detriments of each organizational model. The success or failure of these policies will show us

how in practice each of these models function. Inherent inadequacy and efficiency of the systems will become apparent, and the factors that enable them can be understood.

The three system models of organization can be understood as a reflection of the values and needs of influential actors within each respective system. Market based systems reflect an imperative of wealth, authoritarian systems are primarily concerned with matters of security, and

40

a balanced system inherently places high importance on issues of justice, social equity, and freedom. The success of each system to provide energy in a manner consistent with sustainability

has varied. However, by taking a closer look at three relevant countries adhering each to a different set of values and imperatives, we can see how they have fared in terms of relative

success in providing their societies with sufficient energy to sustain themselves and grow. Within the confines of the global system, we see several actors emerging as actors of critical importance in setting the ideological discourse that serves as the basis for the creation of energy policy.

Societies within the confines of various communities, states, and regions have had varying degrees of success in producing energy in a manner which allows for the sustainability of human

social, economic, and political functions. As these models stand against the test of time, they will be analyzed and critiqued by thinkers who hold a variety of perspectives and ideological beliefs. Their ability to adapt to meet the needs of the individuals and groups within society will help

determine the sustainability of the system. Successful models will pass the test of legitimation and studied in order to understand how their success may be integrated into other societies. Less

successful models will be unable to meet the array of needs required to maintain social sustainability, and will fail the test of legitimation in the process.

In this section, I will analyze the ability of societies within America, Germany, and China

to meet the ever changing needs of their systems through the production of energy. This analysis will focus on understanding the implications of various structura l imperatives embedded within

each of these societies, and their compatibility with the empowerment of that society to remain sustainable. The experiences of these societies under different models of social organization will reflect on the ability of that society to adequately meet its needs. Qualifying the sustainability of

these societies allows for reflection on the ability of their organizing principles, and the ideologies which govern them, to amass or relinquish legitimation in the eyes of society.

The American Model: Domination by Oil TNCs

The American oil giants consolidated in the 1990’s, as the remnants of the seven sisters became finally integrated into the American oil behemoths of Chevron and Exxon-Mobil. Rich oil interests now extend far beyond these companies, with the likes of Koch Industries, Conoco-

Phillips, and others giving hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to politicians in the form of political campaign contributions. Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has combined to give

$238.7 million in campaign contributions, with 75% of that money going to Republican candidates.69 By identifying the beneficiaries of the system in America, it can be observed that firms in American have managed to hijack the political democracy there through their ability to

disproportionately influence elections with their incredible wealth. The political lobbies for companies in the political sector are especially powerful, and have the funds, connections, and

resources to put candidates in office that support legislation and policies friendly to the business interests associated with the production of energy from traditional fossil fuels. This influence has come in large part by the disproportionate influence energy firms are able to exert on the political

process on the country. In the 2008 elections, the candidate that spent the most money won the election more than nine out of ten times.70 The average cost of winning a seat in the House of

69 OpenSecrets. "Oil & Gas." OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01 (accessed March 25, 2012). 70 OpenSecrets.org. "Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever."

OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting.

41

Representatives was $1.1 million dollars. Senate seats come with an even higher price tag, with the average Senate seat costing $6.5 million dollars in campaign costs. The average individual

cannot hope to fund that sort of campaign. The money behind these campaigns comes from firms. TNC’s have the money to fund the campaigns of candidates that support policies that will benefit

them. In financing political campaigns, corporations have essentially bought the representation they need in the government to enact policies that suit their needs to increase their profit margin.

The current crisis benefits firms greatly. Similarly to the 1973 energy crisis caused by the

OPEC embargo, the current state of energy production and distribution in the United States is facing similar problems. A dramatic rise in the real price of oil occurred at the height of the

economic crisis in the United States, showing a similar level of rising energy prices and profits by energy firms. America is not the only country in the world to have its most profitable company an oil giant, yet it perhaps is important to note that Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and

ConocoPhillips are the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest companies in the United States in terms of revenue as of 2011. Exxon Mobil is the most profitable company in the United States and behind only

Nestle and Gazprom in the world.71 Exxon Mobil in 2011 alone raked in a staggering $30 billion dollars in profit, far more than its closest American competitors (AT&T and Chevron each gained over $19 billion in profit in 2011).72

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html (accessed December 13, 2011). 71 Cable News Network. "Global 500 2011: Annual ranking of the world's biggest companies from Fortune

Magazine.." CNNMoney - Business, financial and personal finance news.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/ (accessed December 13, 2011). 72 Cable News Network. "Global 500 2011: Annual ranking of the world's biggest companies from Fortune

Magazine.." CNNMoney - Business, financial and personal finance news.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/ (accessed December 13, 2011).

Forbes. "Crude Oil Prices 1861 - 2009." Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/13/oil-p rices-1861-today-real-vs-

nominal_flash2.html (accessed November 13, 2012).

42

Understanding the nature of structural power of TNC’s helps explain how these entities are able to leverage for influence in society. Firm domination of the knowledge structure is

perhaps exemplified by the killing of the electric car by General Motors and Chevron in 2000. A California law in 1990 mandated that automobile manufactures produce battery electric cars in

order to be able to continue selling gasoline burning cars in the state. GM bought the patent of the EB batteries in 1994 from the inventor, and then refrained from bringing battery powered cars to market. On October 10th 2001, GM agreed to sell the patent for the EV batteries to

Texaco, less than a full week before the announcement that Chevron would purchase Texaco for $100 billion dollars. After acquiring the patent in the merger with Texaco, Chevron shelved it.73

By preventing other actors from gaining access to the knowledge of technological developments, powerful firms have been able to remove threats to their control over the means of production, ensuring that society remains reliant on them for the production of goods. The security structure

is compromised by energy policy as the uncertainty of oil changed the nature of energy insecurity.74 As such, the state was compelled to use its expensive military not just for defense,

but also to protect access to foreign markets and overseas resources.75 Energy insecurity affected both domestic and international defense policy.76 In the financial structure, America’s dollar and its relative value to the dollar had a great influence not just in domestic energy prices, but in

other society’s relative access to energy. Most oil traded in global markets has historically been done in the US dollar; it was possible for societies using different currencies to suffer from the

high cost of energy even as the price of oil fell, if their currency devalued vis-à-vis the United States.77 Only the stability of the dollar could stabilize oil prices. It is also important to note within the financial structure of the ease of wealthy groups and firms to gain access to funding

from banks and global institutions relative to poorer actors in the system. Firms have utilized this to take full advantage of the financial structure to accumulate profit instead of the production

sector.78 Determining the source of power in American society is a complicated matter, and the

understanding of who holds power in the system is often debated. Broader American social

discourse can be identified as one which has been dominated by narratives of wealth and profit. A lack of a comprehensive national policy on energy has relegated the decision making on the

production side of the energy industry to simply “policy by evolution”. In this manner, a lack of political interest in the importance of energy allowed firms to create a great deal of policy by themselves. This allowed for the discourse to become focused on how the oil companies could

generate ever higher profits, based on the belief that more profitable oil meant that companies would be driven to produce more in order to take advantage of the higher price to make even

more profit. It is reflective of the ability of these firms to influence the formation of policy that

reinforces their position as a dominant force in environmental and energy policy in the global

economy.79 Determining how to best measure corporate influence and organization is extremely difficult, and scholars highlight the analysis of global policy outcomes as a means of interpreting

73 Who Killed the Electric Car?. Film. Directed by Chris Paine. New York: Sony Pictures Classics, 2006. 74 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 206. 75 Spretnak, Charlene, and Fritjof Capra. Green politics. Rev. ed. Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear, 1986, 209. 76 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 205. 77 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 207. 78 Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994, 208. 79 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 186.

43

their power.80 The manner in which a group of actors, such as firms, can be understood to act in their collective interest to influence the system can be explained by applying cultural theory

developed by Antonio Gramsci. Global competition between states has created competition between states to attract new investments from abroad and to keep existing investments within

the country. As such, states often include views developed by representatives from major TNC’s in order to ensure that domestic policy remains favorable to keeping the investment of those entities within the country.81 In this way, firms have unrivaled access to the policy making

decisions of a society, and are able to affect their influence internally to steer policy and affect public opinion.

The oil bourgeoisie in America has worked tirelessly to ensure that public opinion on fossil fuels remained favorable. Oil industry representatives claim that any switch from primary reliance on fossil to an alternative would devastate household budgets, despite evidence to the

contrary. They have invested millions of dollars in the campaigns of politicians with sympathies in their interests. Environmental consciousness that pervaded the discourse in the early 1970’s

withered after the 1973 OPEC embargo, which saw the discourse embrace an expansion of domestic drilling to solve the crisis.82 The Republican Party in particular has supported an ideological crusade against sustainable energy, culminating in Ronald Reagan removing the solar

panels Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House roof. TNC’s have an extensive lobby of Congress they use to enact legislation that protects their own interests.83

It has been established that rising energy costs negatively affects growth. Relegating energy policy to market forces inherent leads to issues of scarcity of energy supply, leading to increased economic stress placed on a society. In times of economic stress, individuals in society

place less importance on environmental issues. The oil lobby has worked tirelessly to forward the idea that sustainable energy production places undue strain on the economy, and individuals

are more inclined to be swayed by their arguments in times of hardship. A poll taken by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that public opinion on climate change changed drastically from 2008 to 2009 because of the economic crisis in the United States.

Citizens who identified themselves as Republicans were much more likely to be swayed by the ideological argument supported by the oil lobby than other groups in American society. Only 35%

of Republican voters believed that there was solid evidence of global warming and only 18% believed that it was because of human activity.84 These numbers are down from 62% of Republicans that believed in global warming and 29% that accepted the cause of global warming

being human activity in 2007.85 The number of individuals who reported a belief in global

80 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 186. 81 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 186. 82 Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How . Layton, Utah: Gibbs

Smith, Publisher, 2007, 27. 83 Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the Global

Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, 185. 84 Pew Research Center. "Modest Support for "Cap and Trade" Policy: Fewer Americans see Solid Evidence of

Global Warming." The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf

(accessed May 6, 2012). 85 Pew Research Center. "Modest Support for "Cap and Trade" Policy: Fewer Americans see Solid Evidence of

Global Warming." The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf

(accessed May 6, 2012).

44

warming also dropped in Democrats over the same period of time, from 86% to 75%, and in Independents from 78% to 53%.86

As individuals see increased economic stress, they are more convinced of the efficacy of solutions put forth by the oil industry to solve the crisis. This reflects a general belief in the

ability of markets and forces of capitalism to solve the economic crisis. As firms are the actors most involved in the production of energy, the public believes that they hold the answers to rectify the crisis. As energy costs rise in the United States, we are actually seeing support for

alternative forms of energy decrease. Individuals in society become more concerned with the effect of rising costs of fuel on their household budgets, and place more importance on lowering

energy costs than the environment. Because of the oil lobby generated discourse in American society has been allowed to interpret the nature of energy production and its role in society, this has caused a marked decline in support for renewable energy and an increase in the support for

expanding efforts in oil exploration and production.87 The ramifications of a shift in the perception of the nature of the problem by the

American public are of critical importance to the delegitimation of regimes. Recall the example I gave earlier of the perception of Pfizer by individuals in Rouses Point. The truthfulness of the discourse is not the most important factor in the delegitimation of narratives. It is the perception

of crisis by individuals in society that determines whether authority in a system remains legitimate. Systemic crisis allowed for the delegitimation of dominant narratives in that

community in the form of the rapid delegitimization of market dominated control over the dissemination of non-exclusive goods. The shock my father incurred by having his job outsourced by the company he had worked for the entirety of his adult life proved sufficient to

delegitimize the capitalist domination of the production of non-excludable goods to society. The cause of the crisis could be easily identified as the desire for higher profits by a massive TNC.

The effects of the energy crisis in America by comparison is felt in smaller increments over a

86 Pew Research Center. "Modest Support for "Cap and Trade" Policy: Fewer Americans see Solid Evidence of

Global Warming." The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf

(accessed May 6, 2012). 87 "As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows." Pew Research Center for the People and the

Press. http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-prices-pinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-production-

grows/?src=prc-headline (accessed May 4, 2012).

Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming, Modest Support for ‘Cap and Trade’ Policy,” October 22, 2009, http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf

45

more extended period of time than the societal crisis in Rouses Point, and individuals have difficulty identifying the root causes of the crisis. Debate on the issue has only intensified as

groups with a vested interest in the outcome have put forth different interpretations of the cause. As such, it has allowed for greater influence by vested interests to influence public opinion. The

wealth and prestige of large companies in greater society have allowed for them to delegitimize legitimate narratives of sustainable energy production while reinforcing the legitimation of narratives that emphasize a reliance on oil production.

In a democracy, public opinion plays a pivotal role in the development of policy. The oil lobby’s ability to

influence public opinion with its incredible wealth facilitates the election of politicians who adhere to an ideological perspective that hinders sustainable development. Popular discourse on the nature of energy production has only served to convince a misinformed public to believe in

the illusionary promises that increasing domestic production of oil will serve to lower energy costs, and that increasing production of renewable energy will increase the burden of energy

costs on household budgets already strained by the economic crisis in American society. A rise in domestic supply does not mean an ability to meet domestic demand. An increased supply of oil will go to the highest bidder in the global market; towards rapidly growing markets with the

most capital on hand. What we now see in the United States is a crisis of legitimation based in the poor ability of markets to distribute public goods. This inadequacy has served to inhibit the

continued replication of American society. American society finds itself particularly dependent on high inputs of energy to ensure the successful replication of its social and economic systems. This is perhaps highlighted by the fact that America is the world’s leading consumer of energy,

and has evolved into a car centric culture. However, the effect of the influence of the oil bourgeoisie in controlling public discourse has served to transfer blame for the economic failure

from the excessive control of the production of energy by markets and firms on to sustainable energy production.

Without breaking its dependence on oil, the United States now faces sensitive issues

regarding energy insecurity and rising oil prices. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the oil companies has drained a significant portion of wealth out of the hands of individuals and

"As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows." Pew

Research Center for the People and the Press. http://www.people-

press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-prices-pinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-

production-grows/?src=prc-headline (accessed May 4, 2012).

46

other companies in American society, stifling economic development and pushing the country to the brink of crisis. In relegating energy to the class of a marketable good, market forces have

allowed for oil companies to reap massive profits at the expense of sustainability and the replication of social and economic systems in America. The legitimation crisis is now affecting

the American government to a significant degree; high oil prices, rising poverty rates, and a stagnating middle class all have their roots in the American energy crisis, and contributes to Congress’s approval rating hovering around in the single digits. Many Americans are now

looking for alternative models to the dominant public discourse as a result.

The German Model: Domination by Manufacturing Industry and Green Energy

Analyzing power relations within German society shows a stark contrast to the

overbearing influence of oil companies in shaping American policy. There are several very interesting and important aspects of German firms and the German economy that make them very different from their counterparts in other wealthy developed countries. The failure of that

society in the past to establish an imperialist empire has created a society in Germany that lacks large oil conglomerates like those found in their neighbors who had a hand in dividing the world.

There are not large firms with a vested interest in maintaining the use of oil as the primary fuel in the country. Countries like the United States and Britain have massive oil conglomerates that have had contracts with oil rich countries for well over a hundred years. When their former

colonies rid themselves of colonial domination, these companies managed to retain a similar level of access to and control over these resources. They make a lot of money from selling oil,

and vigorously oppose any government policies that might cut into their profit margin. The development of sustainable energy technologies would give people an alternative means of generating energy, and therefore these corporations seek to prevent governments from generating

policies that would aid in the development of sustainable energy technologies. The resulting effect is that the narrative woven in German society in terms of energy policy is one which

preaches sustainability. With no vested interests in oil, Germans were free to set an energy policy which is largely untainted by profit motive of large companies, and instead focuses on the production of energy which allows for the replication of existing social and economic systems.

However, that does not mean that Germany did once try to gain access to colonial energy markets in the same way the great imperialist powers. They feared their country coming under

the influence and domination of foreign entities. In order to strengthen their countries as a means of warding off foreign influence, Germany sought to strengthen their domestic industries that would make them more formidable militarily. In a very Listian manner, the state developed

heavy industries that could fuel a war machine. Coal mines were exploited, steel mills were built, and automotive factories were constructed. However, Germany was a resource poor country.

They relied on the importation of raw materials from foreign countries in order to fuel their production. They were not afforded the same luxuries as Russia, England, and France, all of which had a vast network of foreign colonies. From these colonies, resources were extracted that

allowed the industry within those states to grow and thrive. The Germany feared the growing influence of the English, and prescribed a means to strengthen the state in order to preserve

German freedom and culture from undue foreign influence. The state had to strengthen even further the industries needed for security. Resources were required to fuel these industries, and for that, colonial empires were required. Germany challenged the imperial powers of Europe in

order to create a colonial empire in order to gain access to the resources their economy required. In 1870, Prussia fought and promptly defeated the French. Up until the First World War,

47

Germany actively acquired colonial possessions overseas. These were stripped from her by the Allies after WWI. Germany’s most important vested interest in overseas oil, Deustche Bank’s 25%

share of the Turkish Petroleum Company, was stripped and given to American companies.88 In the wake of WWII, Germany was further weakened by being split into four zones moderated by

the four major nations of the Allies. In the end, the imperialistic ambitions of the German nation failed. Germany would not have the luxury of having easy access to energy resources89.

The lack of access to energy resources means there is no history of large energy firms in

Germany. Instead, Germany has a number of powerful firms based in production instead of resource extraction. Companies like Daimler, BMW, and Siemens are very influential. They

produce goods which require high inputs of energy. This energy has to come from somewhere, and since German lands are relatively void of energy resources, such as coal or oil, the economy has long relied on the importation of raw materials for production purposes. These companies

rely on a constant, uninterrupted supply of energy. Without it, they would be unable to produce the goods they create, and the economy would collapse. Countries with large oil companies like

Britain (BP, Royal Dutch Shell) and the United States (Exxon-Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Chevron) have extensive access to oil resources in foreign countries, and have the political and military clout to ensure that the shipments of oil keep coming. Germany by contrast does not have any of

these small securities, and relies in heavily on energy imports from Russia in order to power their economy. Germany and Russia have in the past been enemies, and today the countries harbor no

strong love for the other. Russia has in the past cut off energy exports to Europe, leaving countries like Germany that rely on their energy imports with a high level of energy insecurity. Energy crisis set off by lack of supply is damaging to society and firms alike, and German firms

like Daimler and Siemens demand a constant supply of energy in order to maintain production, or the entire society would feel the brunt of economic hardship. It is in their best interest to

increase energy security through the generation of an economic policy which favors sustainability and insulation from global energy markets. Investment in green energy technologies and production has created greater energy security for Germany, and both German

society and German firms have benefited as a result. One simple means for Germany to increase energy security would be to produce it herself.

Green energy technologies enable a country like Germany to produce her own energy without domestic supplies of oil and coal, and without having to rely on the mercy of other states for energy imports. In American society, there is a barrier to converting to more sustainable forms of

energy because of the influence the oil industry has on government policy. Even though it would be beneficial for the power of the state and for individual American, if they had greater energy

security and a cleaner environment, policies are not enacted by the government that would favor increased research and development of green energy because oil interests exert too much control over the government in terms of policy making.90 In Germany, the largest and most dominant

firms need for economic growth and sustainability aligns itself well with that of needs individuals and the state. The most powerful firms demand that the government enact policies

88 Zalloum 89 It’s important to note that List is less relevant today than several hundred years ago. Absolute monarchies in old

Europe could rule in a manner that followed the state’s rational self-interest, but democracies seldom have. 90 This includes funding campaigns of individuals who will support legislation that increases their reach and power, lobbying officials already in Congress to drum up more support for policies that favor them, and publicity campaigns that help convince the public that oil is the best choice for America, ensuring that the candidates that

support oil interests get elected. Conoco-Philips’s “American Comeback” ad might as well have Rick Perry in it.

48

with favor the production of energy domestically so they can ensure a safe and constant supply of energy they need to run their businesses. Instead of a firms acting as a barrier to the

development of green energy, in Germany the interests of firms compel the government to act on behalf of its support. German industrial production is highly concentrated on the production of

technologically advanced goods, which require both large energy inputs and a highly educated workforce. The German economy is very reliant on its powerhouse industria l sector for producing its nation’s wealth. The lands which now make up Germany have long been an

industrial powerhouse, and industry has long been an influential player in German power politics. Production continues to be an important part of the German economy today.

This history of relative cooperation between the state, society, and firms has facilitated the generation of an energy policy for the benefit of society as a whole. The German government classifies the economy of Germany as a “social market economy”91. Germany is a state that

allows for large scale free trade on many frontiers and supports capitalism, yet strives to establish a balance between corporate profits and social welfare. Germany invests strongly in education,

and has one of the most educated and skilled labor forces in the world. Germans work fewer hours and more vacation time than their American counterparts but remain more productive. They have a highly paid workforce, and a far smaller gap between the richest and poorest

segments of society than in the United States. Germany has maintained trade surpluses as most of the rest of the developed world have created trade deficits. The balance between the power of

firms and the power of the state and individuals within German society is less skewed than in other countries. This is a contributing factor in the support for green energy, as firms are more

91 See the German Ministry of Education and Research for more information. http://www.bmbf.de/en/1869.php

Bosman, Rick. "Future of the German Renewable Energy Act." Energy Transition Blog.

http://entran.org/?p=155 (accessed May 8, 2012).

49

likely to work with the other actors in German society to find a fair and equitable solution to social problems in the country, including addressing concerns of pollution and sustainability.

The result is sustainable development and an avoidance of crisis, both which in turn help legitimate authority in the German system. Influence in steering power in government by

individuals in society has yielded high voter participation (consistently around 80%), which in turn has empowered socially conscious political parties to forward progressive energy policy, such as through the iconic rise of the Green Party. While in power throughout at the federal level

in Germany from 1998 to 2005, the German Green Party was able to pass a number of policies and reforms that encouraged the sustainable production of energy. The result was a rapid

increase in the production of sustainable forms of energy in Germany. That trend has continued even after the Green party fell from power in 2005, as they continue to exert significant influence in the system as a whole. In 2009, the Greens managed to receive over 10% of the popular vote.

The energy policy in Germany is one of legitimation through proper dissemination of public goods throughout the system, allowing for successful social reproduction and insulation

from crisis. In the short term, German growth was slowed in the period preceding the economic crisis gripping the Western world. However, German insulation from the turbulence of market forces has allowed the country to continue to grow economically even in the face of a decline in

demand for their powerhouse industry sector, and as much of the rest of the industrialized world suffers. By producing energy through sustainable means, Germany has removed the problem of

accumulation of wealth in the hands of energy firms, allowing for that wealth to remain and flow through German society. In this manner, the legitimation of authority in German is secured, and forces of social and economic reproduction are ensured.

The China Model: Shift to Domination of Production and the Need for Energy

Only within Chinese society are more resources being invested in the production of sustainable energies than in German society. Despite similarly high levels of investment, the

organizational models of these societies are nearly diametrically opposed. The democratic organization of Germany managed to couple with public discourses on sustainability to empower that society to increase their productive capacity for renewable sources of fuel despite the

predominance of global discourses in the inherent good of market functions and capitalism. Chinese society is organized relative to that of German society in a very authoritarian manner.

The Chinese Communist Party has maintained a stranglehold over the political organization of that country, and holds significant steering power over the society. Whereas the German state acted as an open platform for dialogue and social negotiations, the Chinese state acts in a very

totalitarian manner and acts secretly. Many scholars interpret the advancement of sustainable energy production technologies in China today as a function of government action. In terms of

state power, few states wield similar levels of structural and relational to that of the Chinese government.

We must remember that in order to understand the nature of power in society, we have to

acknowledge that the state does not hold true agency. The state does not have the capacity to on its own steer policy to maximize its own benefit. We also must frame Chinese society within its

historical context if we are to understand how power relations within that society have developed over time. The historical experience of Chinese society plays a significant role in the development of structural power and energy policy within that country. On the energy front,

China has long been considered a dead zone for oil and gas exploration. Large oil firms in China are largely controlled by the government, and lack similar interests in passing on profit to

50

shareholders. The lack of a colonial history implies that there also cannot exist Chinese oil TNC’s similar to those which have so much influence in directing policy in the United States.

Chinese energy policy is not steered by actors interested in using the production of energy to generate wealth. Instead, actors that have a vested interest in the continued availability of

affordable energy needed for maintaining social and economic sustainability in the system have strong agency relative to their American counterparts

If we are to examine analytically the relations of power and influence in Chinese society,

we can look beyond the political organization of the country and find a similar economic organization to that of German society. Both countries are exporting powerhouses, boasting

many domestic manufacturing firms with similar goals and objectives. As in Germany, the massive demand for energy that is generated through processes of production in China can explain the growth of sustainable energy production in that country. As an export oriented

market, China requires the additional energy inputs required to produce goods for consumption in other markets. The rapid growth of the Chinese economy has combined with the

predominance of energy intensive processes in production and the high energy demand associated with the transportation of freight to markets across the world has forced Chinese society to develop more sustainable forms of energy. The means through which Chinese energy

is produced are additionally less efficient than methods in more developed societies.92 This has left Chinese society more sensitive to fluctuations in price in global energy markets. It is in the

interest of firms to maintain low energy costs, especially if the goods produced have high energy inputs and must travel long distances to get to markets.

The insatiable demand for more energy in China has made it difficult for the society to

meet its ever growing energy needs through the importation of fuel from other societies. China’s lack of an imperial history means that they lacked access to markets which would enable them

relatively secure over supply. Coal is certainly available, but that society already suffers greatly in terms of pollution from the effects of the burning of fossil fuels, and an increase in the production of energy from coal large enough to meet the constantly growing energy needs of

Chinese society would increase the occurrence of environmental crisis in that system. Fears of producing energy through nuclear has come to be seen as unacceptable, especially in light of last

year’s nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi facility in Japan. In order to generate enough energy surplus in order to keep energy prices low in a growing and dynamic economy, Chinese society is increasingly turning to renewable energy technologies.

The Chinese are forced to invest in unstable markets in order to meet the growing energy demands of their society. They have relied on investments in countries like Angola and Sudan,

two states not likely to be considered the poster child for social or political stability, in order to meet rising domestic demand. Energy security is a pressing issue for firms, the ruling class, and greater Chinese society as a whole. If analyze China through our methodological framework

established by Susan Strange, we see that the values reflective of their authoritarian society favor security. Increasing energy security would demand that Chinese society enhance its ability to

ensure a constant supply of consistently affordable energy. Imported fuel has a low security value. Trade routes could be cut off in time of conflict, and the delivery supply of energy, and by extension the wellbeing of the economy and society, is dependent on global market prices and

the social, economic, and political stability of energy exporting countries. In order to produce a tangible increase in the security of its fuel supply, Chinese society increased their investment and

production of sustainable energies.

92 Shirk, 136

51

VII. Achieving Sustainable Energy: Legitimation

Analyzing power in American society is a complicated matter, and the understanding of who holds power in the system is much debated. Broader American social discourse can be identified as one which has been dominated by narratives of wealth and profit. A lack of a

comprehensive national policy on energy has relegated the decision making on the production side of the energy industry to simply “policy by evolution”. In this manner, a lack of political

interest in the importance of energy allowed firms to create a great deal of policy by themselves. This allowed for the discourse to become focused on how could the oil companies generate ever higher profits, based on the belief that more profitable oil meant that companies would be driven

to produce more in order to take advantage of the higher price to make even more profit. By building on Marxist theory, the operationalization of Habermasian theory takes on

new imperatives in explaining the nature of systemic crisis in advanced capitalistic societies, and is required to develop a baser comprehension as to how the inability of a society to distribute goods to individuals leads to burgeoning crises in rationality, motivation, legitimation, and

economics. Severe and structurally inherent crisis can be understood as being the primary factor in shifting public and ideological discourse on values and social organization required to sustain

society. It is through this process of crisis and social distress that alternative discourses to that of market dominated energy production begin to form in the public sphere. The inability of markets to meet the needs of society leads to a delegitimation of liberal capitalist ideology in the eyes of

the public, allowing for greater inclusion of alternative perspectives on social organization. The discourse that then is able to pervade society is one which promises low cost and sustainability.

In the instance of a prolonged crisis of sufficient severity, the beginning of the delegitimization of authority begins to occur. As the public finds that a necessary component of their lives, essential goods so important to a society that it loses the ability to function and lacks

the necessary tools required for the successful replication of that society, they begin to become disillusioned with the authority within the governing system, and lose the self-imposed illusions

of power that the authority possesses. In this manner, individuals in that society may begin to disobey laws and create general social disorder. They may become disillusioned and refrain from participating in the political process. Each of these events further serves to shift the discourse

away from the cause of the crisis towards other matters, as lower voter participation generates inadequate representation of the needs of a society, and disorder acts as a rallying call for a

restoration of order and a return to the principles that once were a source wealth in the past. In the American energy crisis, this call has been for more support for the oil industry. In modern democracies, society is only able to effect policy change favoring sustainability after sufficient

harm is caused to that society by crisis. If the crisis is sufficiently severe, the system itself will collapse, resulting in a reshaping of the system to reshape the manner in which goods are

distributed within the social system. In the context of energy in the United States, this would amount to a political reordering that resulted in a shift to a political discourse that supported an energy policy that directed that energy be produced primarily in the most efficient and

sustainable manner instead of one defined by market crisis. In short, determining a discourse that demands energy is treated as a public good.

Habermas explains how the dissemination of public goods is necessary for the continued replication of those societies, and how the legitimation of authority is reliant on the ability of the system to distribute goods to those who need them in society. If one is to understand that public

52

goods are to include all necessary components required by a society to maintain the functioning of political, economic, and social systems within that society, then one must consider energy to

be a manner of public good within modern, developed society. To deprive individuals in modern society of energy is to disallow them to continue functioning in the same manner to which they

are accustomed. In essence, energy has become a necessary component of the continued functioning of modern society. Electricity and gasoline have become such staples that we are all directly or indirectly reliant on the production of excessive energy than can be produced within

the confines of the human body for our continued survival. The production of many necessary goods within society, ranging from the food we eat, to the quality of the air we breathe and the

water we drink, to the power to lights our homes and cities, are directly affected by the means through which energy is produced within a society.

To operationalize the theory, we have to examine the externalities associated with the

continued reliance on fossil fuels as a primary means of energy production within a modern society. This first requires establishing several limits that human terrestrial society is bound to.

These are the continued ability of social systems to disperse public goods in a manner that maintains legitimacy of the system. Without the proper dissemination of these public goods, human society would crumble. The quintessential public good is the environment. Society is

reliant on the continued stable replication of the natural environment. Environmental systems must be kept operating at a capacity favorable to the continuation the replication of human

societies. Human society is embedded within the environment, and without the successful replication of natural processes within the environment along standards which are compatible with human survival, human society cannot be sustained. As such, climate change poses a

critical threat to the successful replication of human society. Rising global temperatures can already be attributed to the disruption of social, economic, and political processes around the

world. Many scientists have argued that higher temperatures have accelerated the rates of desertification around the world, a phenomenon that social scientists have attributed a factor in the disruption of social processes in the Sudan that led to the genocide in Darfur. Rising sea

levels have threatened coastal communities around the world. Especially low lying countries are the most vulnerable, exemplified perhaps most critically by the Maldives, a low lying country

that is entirely threatened with submersion due to rising sea levels, and has entered into talks with nearby states such as Australia about the prospect of buying land to relocate the entire country.93 Increased levels of energy in the atmosphere have been thought by scientists to

contribute to the sudden increase in the severity of hurricanes in recent years, leading to widespread devastation on the Gulf coast of the United States.94

The climate can be seen as a public good negatively impacted by the production of energy from fossil fuels. Scientists agree that the burning of fossil fuels has a profound impact on the climate, as this process releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, the primary

component of greenhouse gases that are causing a warming of the planet. As the societies of the world remain ever more dependent on the production of energy from the burning of fossil fuels,

increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to even more greatly elevated levels, further compounding the negative externalities already associated with climate change. Storms will only become more powerful, sea levels will continue to rise, and deserts will

continue to expand. Systems prone to these threats will immediately the first to feel the effects of an unstable environment, but arguably all systems will be affected by these compounding

93 Sinking Maldives 94 Hot Hurricaines

53

negative affects because of the complicated global nature of modern economic, political, and social systems. As civilized individuals, we cannot allow for such a vagrant affront to human

rights when a more efficient and sustainable model is available. Fossil fuels can now be defined as unsustainable because of twin economic reasons.

These factors are the inability of a finite resource to meet the needs of a continually growing society, and the widespread disruption of natural environmental processes that the continued replication of human societal and economic processes embedded within the environment are

dependent on, we must understand that there is a crisis in the global system because of the continued use of fossil fuels. Why then has society continued to produce energy to power their

societies in this manner? This can be explained as a structural imperative to societies organized according to market principles to continue to produce energy as a marketable good in order to produce energy in the most profitable terms, an imperative that has dominated many important

actors within the global system, and the organization of the global system according to neo-liberal principles. Because capitalism sees the generation of wealth as the predominant concern

of society as a means of increasing the standard of living, leaving the energy sector left to control by such an imperative has meant that energy must be produced in the most profitable means, instead of through the production of energy in increasingly efficient and affordable means.

1. Two Policies, One Solution The two paths can most clearly delineated by taking a closer look at the different types of

energy production available to modern societies. The first is one which harnesses the natural crisis cycle of the market to generate massive profits through the generation of energy. This leads to the rapid accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few individuals who control the means of

energy production. What essentially happens in this system is the draining of wealth from the society as a whole and its consolidation within energy firms. During times of crisis, rising prices

force individuals to spend a larger portion of their income on fuel and have less capital to spend on other goods, and this trend is exacerbated. The alternative is an energy policy which accepts energy as a public good, in that the generation and distribution of energy across society is

something of an imperative to the replication of that society. In this system, the focus shifts from generating massive profits to instead ensuring the survival of traditional social and economic

processes, and generating a sufficient excess of supply that economic systems can grow and expand. The public goods system is one which insulates itself from crisis, disallowing market forces to disrupt the affordable distribution of energy to social and economic systems reliant on

the market price of fuel for their continued replication. The two paths represent fundamentally different perspectives on social relations and economic, and lead to wildly divergent paths in

terms of societal sustainability. A closer look at the two paths will show the direction each propels a society as it moves forward, and allow for a greater understanding of how proper energy policy allows for the greatest growth and success of a society.

54

The first path is one which focuses primarily on the generation of wealth through energy markets. It will inherently drive companies with a vested interest in producing profits for their

shareholders to produce energy in a manner which can allow for the greatest accumulation of wealth. Fossil fuels are currently the most profitable means of energy production. Large energy

firms are able to control the means of production of this sort of energy, so any profits generated from this means of energy production invariable return to these companies. Additionally, these fuels are inherently insecure. Their potential supply is limited, as there is only a finite amount

left in the global system. Many already speculate that global oil production is peaked, and any rising demand for energy production cannot be met with an increase in supply. These fuels are

notoriously dirty, causing billions of dollars annually in damages in terms of environmental damage and public health.

The rapid development of the global south in the latter part of the 20th century has led to an inability of global society to produce enough oil for all society. Any increase in the supply of oil produced is instantly offset by near double digit economic growth within many societies in

the global south. The growth is most prevalent in these regions because of the favorably low cost of capital needed to maintain the replication of these societies. Workers may be paid less,

because of existing social and economic processes demand fewer goods to maintain a similar standard of living. The societies have fewer institutions that require a fair and equitable distribution of wealth across society, meaning that wealth is easily centralized within the hands

of those who control the means of production and the political influence to set social policy. This means that production becomes more profitable in these areas as firms are able to collect the

majority of the surplus value added from labor in these societies. As firms expand investment in

55

these societies in order to maximize their potential to generate excess profits with from the surplus generated by cheap labor in these societies, the development and industrialization of

these societies has begun. The highly profitable nature of production in these societies demands ever higher energy inputs in order to maintain increasing the production of profitable marketable

goods requires a that firms are able to spend higher and higher prices for oil, raising the price of oil globally as producers of oil are unable to increase their supply in order to meet market demand.

What we see now is an inability for society to produce enough oil to replicate growing social and economic systems across the globe, and an inability for society to sufficiently regulate

its energy sector so that the environment is protected in a manner that allows for the consistent replication of growing and dynamic economic and social systems. Society wants to grow and develop. Each generation wishes to see that their children live better than they were able.

However, rising energy prices are creating system crisis because of an inability for existing social, political, and economic institutions to public goods necessary for the continued

replication or growth within the system because of rising costs. All firms are negatively affected in some way by the rising cost of fuel and pass along the rising costs in production along to consumers, while continue to accumulate the same level of surplus. Firms still hold the

imperative to produce wealth, and are willing to place excessive strain on society by placing the brunt of the burden of rising energy costs on its back.

In the United States, the discourse is still dominated by calls for a return to market principles; that an increase in support for the producers of fossil fuels domestically will allow for suppliers to bring more supply to market and drive down price. The reality is actually that

demand for more energy is rising so rapidly globally that any increase in supply is immediately consumed by a corresponding spike in growth in developing markets. This only serves to further

the crisis of accumulation, as firms are able to siphon off surplus of cheap wage labor in the global south. Costs continue to rise, and oil companies raise the call for more benefits and greater access to land and capital required to increase access to the worlds dwindling finite oil supply.

Society is not left with sufficient resources to meet shouldering the majority of the burden of rising global energy costs, and is threatened with collapse if supplies of oil continue to fail to

meet growing global energy demand, and the lower and middle classes suffer the most as the goods they need most to continue to maintain their standard of living continue to outpace economic growth or a rise in real wages.

When compared against the four pillars of sound energy policy, production of energy through fossil fuels stacks up poorly. Current global consumption of energy has risen to a level

that cannot be support simply though the generation of energy from traditional fossil fuels. Supply no longer exceeds demand, and as a result systems around the world are suffering the brunt of rising fuel costs in addition to their already high costs in environmental and public

health terms. Rising energy costs are incompatible with social reproduction. Unless a society maintains a corresponding increase in energy efficiency to offset rising energy costs, capital must

be redirected from other potential purchases and investments in order to procure sufficient energy resources to maintain current levels of production and properly disseminate public goods. Fossil fuels cannot promise to decrease in price in the future as the resource is finite. Global

stores will only become increasingly depleted. In terms of security, fossil fuels also stack up poorly. Nearly every industrialized economy is reliant on the importation of petroleum products

to meet their domestic energy needs. As such, there exists a critical lack of security of supply over energy supplies necessary for the replication of social processes. Supply of oil is already so

56

limited that if a foreign entity removed their stores from world markets, it would lead to a rapid rise in energy costs. Similarly we can see that an embargo can bring social and economic

systems crashing to a halt, as they did in the United States during the 1973 oil embargo by OPEC.

2. Energy Crisis as Capitalist Crisis This path is one of capitalist crisis. When the structural imperative of a society is one of

the procuring of wealth over the sustainability of the systems which are required for the continued replication and growth of these societies, crisis will eventually consume the system. Narratives within society reflect the wealth imperative. Without a significant influence from

society in determining the steering of energy production in a sustainable means necessary for social reproduction, policy is formed by evolution; policy is created in physically-bounded and

self-constrained systems away from mass media publicity. 95 Within the context of this system, vested interests such as firms manage to make a great deal of energy policy themselves.96 The imperatives of firms in this manner manage to supersede those of society as a whole, and social

needs cannot be met. As such, the policy generated in these societies allows for the production of energy in a manner which allows for energy firms to accrue massive capital accumulation, in

effect draining in from the rest of society. The second path is instead one which focuses on meeting the needs of greater society required for the replication of social and economic systems. The primary goal of this system is not the generation of profits, but instead the production of

energy in a manner which allows for the sustainability of existing social and economic processes by generating sufficient surpluses in energy to allow for growth and expansion. This encourages

the production of energy from sources not subject to the cyclical flow of markets, such as through the increased production of sustainable energy technologies. Fossil fuels are reliant on consistent extraction and refinement to ensure continued production of fuel. Any interruption in

the extraction, transportation, and refinement of these fuels subjects society to a potential insufficiency in supply.

95 Kash and Rycroft, 25 96 Kash and Rycroft, 25

57

This becomes especially problematic when these fuels are at some stage controlled by foreign actors with the capacity to limit their production. Sustainable energies by contrast are a

constant. So long as rivers flow, winds blow, and the sun shines, renewable energy will be produced in a consistent manner. Foreign actors cannot control the flow of energy to a society if that society produces its own energy domestically thorough renewable energy technologies.

These fuels also have the added benefit of being clean. The billions of dollars in costs to public health, environmental degradation, and climate change are mitigated through the production of

green energy. While reserves of fossil fuels around the world dwindle, the potential for generation of energy from renewable energy sources is nearly infinite. In harnessing the power of the sun, a society is able to tap into the massive power that makes all life possible on this

planet in a manner that is clean, secure, and omnipresent. This path is one of sustainability. When the structural imperatives of a society align in a

manner that is consistent with social and economic replication, the provision of public goods necessary to the replication of that society becomes possible. Narratives in democratic societies reflect a commitment to sustainability, and the public is well informed of policy consequences

and can affect their influence on the system through political coordination and voting in officials who support sustainability. Societies which see a sustainability imperative often have high voter

participation, as groups and individuals within that system corroborate to affect a policy that benefits society as a whole.

58

VII. Sustainable Energy and Legitimation: Avoiding Energy Crisis

Understanding the cause crises is necessary to prevent them. Systemic crisis in energy

production occurs when the nature of energy production in a society prevents distribution of non-exclusive goods necessary by disrupting critical environmental, economic, or social processes on which the production and distribution of these goods are reliant. I will categorize these needs into

four general societal requirements, rooted in the analysis of sustainable energy policy as identified by Kash and Rycroft. Without adequate attention to each of these criteria, the

continued reproduction of society may be threatened. These four criteria of successful energy sustainability; abundance, cleanliness, cheapness, and security, each represent a social imperative necessary for the continuation of the complex processes established within contemporary society.

A successful energy policy will be organized around these four principles, emphasizing the importance of the production of energy in a manner which serves to benefit society the most as a

whole. There exist varying degrees of success in the establishment of sound energy policy, with the unachievable ideal means of energy policy being one that allows for the unlimited access to free and clean energy. The next best thing is for society to produce energy in a manner that

lowest possible cost to society as a whole in the long term. The failure of a society to organize in a manner that produces enough abundant and cheap fuel to allow for the unhampered continuity

of existing economic and social processes will inherently result lead to crisis. Stress is placed on society when the ideological discourse in that society allows for actors within the system who

59

have objectives which are inherently opposed to the cheap and efficient distribution of energy to hold the capacity to enact policy and set norms and customs that incompatible with the needs of

society. Without action taken on behalf of the society alter the discourse and affect a sustainable change on the system, there exists for the potential for crisis and system collapse.

1. Four Pillars of Energy Sustainability in a Modern Society:

With the rise of industrialization and the rapid intensification of the production of energy, one might rationally assume that the sun would occupy a more central role in the means of

producing energy for human society. However, the dominance of liberal and capitalist ideology in the global system demanded that energy sector be organized in a manner that maximized

profitability. The initial ability of markets to supply energy in terms adequately abundant and affordable to modern society institutionalized fossil fuels as the primary means of producing energy. The negative externalities associated with the harnessing of energy from fossil fuels did

not serve as a major hurdle to ensuring that the distribution of non-excludable goods within society, allowing for the continued replication of social and economic systems globally despite a

marked rise in pollution and environmental degradation. These issues generally affected only local communities, and the limits of the scale of the crisis did little to change the public discourse on the nature of energy production to ensure the continued reproduction of society. The

establishment of public policy on energy came about in this way to be of little importance, and was often hidden from the public and political discourses of the time which placed more

importance of other problems facing society that threatened social stability in the short term. The evolution of social and economic processes which became dependent high inputs of energy that came from the industrial revolution demanded that an increase in energy production was

necessary to meet the growing demands of increasingly advanced societies and growing populations around the world. Energy policy in this manner had become a ‘public good’. It is

within this context that society became reliant on energy for the continued reproduction of existing social and economic systems.

In the modern era, the establishment of an energy policy which ensures the sustainability

and continuation of the system has become a necessity. It is now becoming increasingly apparent that many of the current processes of producing energy for use in societies globally are

unsustainable. It appears that most industrialized societies are dependent on the production and consumption of fossil fuels for energy, but experts agree that global fossil fuel reserves will be nearly entirely depleted in the foreseeable future. Propelled by the needs of citize ns in some

societies, such as those in Germany, and in others my the needs of national governments, such as that of China, discourses which favor alternative energies are beginning to replace traditional

narratives that allowed for the production of energy to remain under the auspices of the market. However, traditional processes for the production of energy through the burning of fossil fuels remains stubbornly entrenched in some of the most powerful and influential societies in the

global system. The difference in the effects of negative externalities produced through a reliance on fossil fuels is similar across cultural and societal boundaries. The use of fossil fuels as the

primary driver of economic growth and social cohesion cannot be sustained. Environmentally, the effects have been disastrous, resulting in a rise in global temperatures and causing potentially irreversible damage to the climate of the planet.97 In simple terms of social reproduction, fossil

97 Freeman, 4

60

fuels are also becoming increasingly less viable, as supplies of oil and other fossil fuels are already becoming depleted around the world. Instead, new sources of energy must be developed.

The four pillars of sustainability outline how energy must be produced in industrialized, energy dependent societies if it is to ensure the continued functioning of that societies established

social, political, and economic systems. They may serve as a means of measuring the efficacy of utilizing a certain fuel for the production of energy for a given society. If any of these four social imperatives of energy production are overlooked or neglected, then the system itself is exposed

to the potential of crisis and collapse. While individual societies are organized in inherently different manners will inherently place heightened value one or more of the four pillars based on

principles unique to that culture and social environment, invariably all four factors must be adequately met to ensure the replication of social practices.

1. Production of energy: The first of these factors is abundance of energy, which is necessary for society to thrive. Heightened energy availability actually serves to further increase energy

demand, as the high supply leads to a decrease in price, fueling even more consumption and growth. The age of oil generated a massive increase in the supply of energy in modern, developed economies, creating highly wasteful societies of mass consumption. Producers of

energy worked diligently to encourage the increased use of energy to replace outdated means of production with more modern, efficient processes, as these more advanced methods

generally required high inputs of energy to produce goods, and increases the margin of profit for both energy producers and the industrial consumers of energy.98 The United States makes a great example of the benefits of energy abundance. It has historically enjoyed massive

energy surpluses in its history, allowing for lax measures in the conservation of energy. A decline in abundance of energy requires heightened levels of conservation in order to

maintain previously established social processes.

2. Finance and consumption of energy: The second of these pillars is low cost. The cost of

energy is inversely correlated with growth, in terms of both economics and population. Higher cost of energy in its various forms is a barrier to expansion, as scarcity of resources

limits the amount of resources an individual and society are able to consume99. In its most basic form of consumption, energy in the form of food resources limits the growth of a population, and an insufficiency in supply leads to prices prohibitively high for the

sustainability of population growth. In terms of energy, higher costs prohibit the amount of capital available to be spent on other commodities. As the price of oil rises, consumers spend

more money to put gas in their cars, heat and cool their homes, and keep the lights on, leaving less money to be spent on other goods. Ensuring that the energy supplied to a society is sufficiently affordable is a necessary requirement for the replication of social processes,

especially when energy costs begin to rise. A rise in energy costs puts strain on the economic resources of a society, and if not kept in check by measures of increased efficiency in energy

usage, can result in a societal and economic crisis.

3. Early and knowledge intensive energy: The third factor is cleanliness of energy production.

That energy be produced in a manner that does not place undue stress on the environment is of high importance to the sustainability of social and economic systems that rely on the

98 Kash and Rycroft, 14 99 Kash and Rycroft, 14

61

environment for their continued existence100. Through the early period of industrialization, cleanliness of production of energy took a backseat to other factors. The real cost of pollution

is something that until recently was not such a pressing concern for societies around the world. Certainly pollution was an issue in the cities thick with smog, but economic growth

managed to largely offset the costs to public health and environmental degradation through rapid capital accumulation fueled by rampant economic growth. In modern society, cleanliness of energy production takes on new imperatives as global warming threatens

traditional societal organization across national borders. Rising ocean levels, increased desertification, and other negative environmental problems have arisen from years of

increased levels of carbon dioxide in the air. The economic loss from pollution totals in the billions of dollars each year globally. Establishing cleaner means of producing energy is imperative for the stability of societies.

4. Energy and security: The final factor in determining a sound energy policy is security.

Security is a broader category than the previous three, as it takes on various connotations depending on the party addressing the concern. Security of supply is of critical importance for consumers and producers of energy alike, as an insecure supply means of producing

energy can result in a decreased supply of energy in times of conflict, leading to a deficiency of abundance and increased costs of production. For states, security of energy supply also

pertains to the security of the state. Modern armies cannot function efficiently without adequate supplies of energy to power them. Without a guarantee over energy supplies, planes cannot fly, tanks and supply vehicles cannot drive, and supply lines cannot be maintained.

The territorial integrity of the state becomes threatened if the state cannot secure adequate energy resources to keep it supplied. Ultimately, a reliance on foreign sources of energy for

the continuity of economic and social institutions, especially from entities with interests competitive or hostile to one’s own, can lead to a security dilemma, generating the potential for a lack of sufficient abundance of cheap and available energy resources.

Focusing on these four pillars energy production for the reproduction of society allows us

to carefully analyze the different contemporary means of producing energy and evaluate their compatibility with modern society. The energy resources available to a society each have their pro’s and con’s in terms of meeting the conditions necessary for the continued replication of

society. For the purpose of illustration, I will divide the analysis into two parts. Each fuel will be scrutinized for compatibility with the four pillars of energy sustainability. The first will consist

of forms of energy production that were staples of the any modern society from the outset of the industrial revolution through the 1970’s. This group of fuels can be referred to as the “old generation”, and consists of coal, petroleum, and nuclear energy.

100 Kash and Rycroft, 15

62

The second group includes more modern and sustainable means of energy production, sources of energy which have seen increased exploitation in various societies globally in the years

preceding the energy crisis in the 70’s. This “new generation” will focus on energy production from solar and wind sources.

Type of

Energy

Affordability Security Cleanliness Abundance

Coal High

Low energy cost, yet high

environmental and public health cost

High

Domestic reserves ensure security

sustainability

Very Low

Horribly polluting, not sustainable in

long term

High

Currently abundant, but finite supply

Nuclear Low

Very expensive, reliant on

government

subsidies for viability

Very Low

High risk, reliant on imported fuel and

meltdown risk

Low

Potential for environmental

catastrophe

Low

High cost renders economically

infeasible

Petroleum Moderate

Reliant on government

subsidies for

continued use

Low

Developed economies reliant

on exports

Low

Burning releases carbon, pollutants

Low

Reliance on imports, declining

world supply

Type of

Energy Affordability Security Cleanliness Abundance

Solar Moderate

Low support has

stunted research in new technologies,

promises lower future cost

High

Can be produced

entirely domestically

High

Does not produce

pollution

High

Nearly infinite

Wind High Already reached

price parity with natural gas in

United States

High

Can be produced

entirely domestically

High

Does not produce

pollution

High

Can be produced

anywhere the wind blows

Hydro High Cheap hydro power

has been produced for decades

Moderate

Domestically

produced, but dams may be high value target in times of

conflict

High

Does not produce

pollution

Low

Few highly

productive sources of hydro power not already exploited

63

The analysis will allow for a comparative insight into the total relative costs to society

caused by the production of energy, and help generate further clarity on the issue of determining the optimal energy strategy for social wellbeing.

2. The Old…

Fossil fuels, the traditional means of producing energy, have historically been very cheap and abundant. For many countries, including those endowed with large supplies of oil and coal,

they have also historically been secure. This has begun to change in the last forty years, as trends in oil prices on the world market have limited the utility of oil based economies. Declining

reserves and increasing demand on the world market has greatly decreased the abundance of the fuel. Lack of supply has drastically increased price. As domestic wells run dry, such as in countries like the United States, oil has to be imported to meet the needs of the society,

decreasing the security value of the fuel. The global shortage of fuel spurred on by rapid global industrialization gives rise to the possibility of a single large oil exporting nation or larger

consortium of energy producing nations to cease selling to a dependent state to cause massive shortages that would cause economic and societal systems to freeze. The developed world has seen such action taken in the past, when OPEC cut off production to the United States in 1973

and 1979, causing massive energy shortages within that country101. Overall, the argument for maintaining the status quo wherein oil is the most important element in providing for a societies

energy needs is weak. Coal similarly poses a number of challenges to the successful reproduction of healthy

functioning economies and societies. Modern coal mining techniques are ecologically

devastating. In the United States, roughly 60 percent of all coal is mined through strip mining, a process which contributes to significant pollution to the environment and nearby communities.102

Over the course of the last three decades, over 400,000 acres of forested land have been decimated by coal mining in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia alone. In addition, hundreds of miles of streams have been buried, and 12,000 miles of streams have been contaminated with

heavy metals and toxins.103 China likewise suffers from catastrophic costs associated with the production of energy from coal. The state of degradation of the environment through increased

reliance on the burning of notoriously dirty Chinese coal has cost the country billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The United Nations Development Program reported that in 2003, China accounted for 80 percent of the world’s coal mining related fatalities, a figure that was calculated

at 5,986 in 2005.104 The World Bank estimated that in China, between 3 and 8 percent of GDP is lost annually due to air and water pollution. Pollution further resulted in 750,000 deaths each

year because of filthy water and air.105 These costs seem invisible to some policy makers, as they are not equally distributed across all consumers of the energy. Instead, smaller populations within the greater society are made to bear the brunt of the environmental costs, leading to

smaller and less noticeable localized crises. When the invisible costs are added to the initially cheap cost coal promises, it proves to be a much more costly means of energy production.

101 Freeman, 32 102 Freeman, 40 103 Freeman, 40 104 Lampton, 225 105 Lampton, 227

64

Nuclear energy fares even worse when matched up against the primary elements of a sound energy policy. While initially billed as too cheap to meter in the 1960’s, nuclear power

quickly became too costly to produce. No new nuclear plants have been slated in the United States for construction since 1973. Nuclear energy failed to be cost effective as it became

apparent that it would be impossible for private insurers to provide coverage for an accident that would cause untold billions of dollars of damage. 106 The American government was required to subsidize the industry against any massive potential risk. With the passage of the Price-Anderson

Act in 1957, private insurers’ liability for a single accident at a nuclear facility was capped at $560 million dollars, with the government being liable to cover the remainder of the costs. This

Act was extended for ten years in 1975, only four years prior to the accident at Three Mile Island.107 While the scale of the accident paled in comparison to that of the Chernobyl reactor meltdown in 1986, or the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe in 2011, the simple act of failure soured

the opinion of many in America and served as a warning of the potential for disaster through the production of nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors also pose an additional security risk as a target for

enemies of the state108. In times of conflict, nuclear reactors could serve as prime targets. Blowing up a nuclear reactor bears the additional cost beyond that of a massive reduction in supply of energy that of the release of radioactive material akin to that of a nuclear weapon. Even

simple terrorists have the potential to be empowered by the atom to release massive nuclear devastation within a society, even without the power of the bomb. The risks nuclear energy pose

to the public and the costs associated with it are too severe to warrant its production when far safer means of energy production are available.

3. …and the New

Renewable energy resources in relation to these more traditional and dominant sources of fuel stack of well in comparison. No source of fuel can promise the same level of security as

renewable energies. There is no risk that the sun will stop shining or the winds will stop blowing. Sustainable energies can be produced entirely domestically, removing the element of reliance on foreign sources for continued energy production. In addition to being completely secure,

renewable energy can boast as being the cleanest potential source of energy production. Unlike fossil fuels, the production of energy through renewable energy technologies does not release

pollutants and toxins into the environment. Increased production of renewable energy would decrease the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, lowering the threat of global warming and all its associated risks. Green energy has the potential to be an incredibly abundant source of

power. A 13,000 square mile patch of land in the American Southwest, a largely deserted region optimal for solar energy production, holds the capacity to produce enough solar energy to meet

the entire electricity needs of the United States based on electricity consumption in 2005.109 Expand that region to 39,000 square miles of optimal solar energy producing land, a figure which represents only 73% of the land in the United States with the highest potential for solar

energy production, and the potential exists for the production of sufficient energy resources to replace the entire demand for electricity consumption and all US transportation related fuel

106 Freeman, 27 107 Kash and Rycroft, 221 108 Freeman, 26 109 Freeman, 53

65

demand.110 The efficiency of producing energy through solar energy has increase dramatically in recent decades, falling 95% since 1970.111 Future advances in solar technology will only serve to

lower the cost of producing energy through this means. Wind power similarly is highly compatible with the four pillars of energy sustainability.

In terms of cost, wind energy has already reached price parity per kilowatt hour with even the most efficient means of producing electricity from natural gas. Older natural gas plants produce energy at a cost about three times that of wind energy, even before factoring in the invisible costs

associated with energy production from natural gas such as pollution and carbon emissions.112 The breaking of this price barrier allows for utilities that rely on natural gas for energy

production to shift their production into wind. This shift would not only decrease the level of pollution produced by natural gas burning plants, but also holds the potential to free up natural gas supplies to power transportation vehicles on natural gas. The conversion would be difficult,

but holds the potential to reduce a dependence on imported oil and provide a cleaner alternative to power a society’s cars, busses, and trucks.113

Now that the two generations have been analyzed for compatibility with the needs of society, it is important to note the high level of incompatibility of certain means of energy production relative to others. Comparing the utility for a given society to produce its energy

through the fuels of the “old generation” vis-à-vis the sustainable energy technologies of the “new generation” procures a startling revelation. The fuels that the majority of developed OCED

countries rely on are highly incompatible with establishing a sustainable society. This evidence only further serves to demand an answer to the question posed at the start of the paper. What about these societies has allowed for an increase in investment in the research and production of

environmentally sustainable fuels, and what can be changed within the intricate workings of American society that could lead to an increase in the production of clean and reliable sources of

domestic energy within the confines of that state?

VIII. Conclusion

1. Brief Summary Every society is forced to reflect on the efficacy of their values and goals as they evolve.

Each is given the opportunity to organize in a manner which can best suit their new and dynamic needs. The responsibility to set up a sound energy policy that best meets the needs of the society falls on the individuals within that society. It cannot be stressed enough that an

acknowledgement of the failure of capitalistic market principles, to the extent this failure has caused a delegitimization capitalistic discourses in favor of a sustainable discourse, will be

insufficient to ensure insulation against further inadequacies of the renewable energy sector to meet the energy demands of a growing and dynamic network of social and economic systems.

A conscientious effort must be taken by society to ensure that sufficient support is given

to the development of new technologies and processes of the generation of sustainable energy

110 Freeman, 53 111 Freeman, 50 112 Freeman, 57 113 Freeman, 58

66

technologies that we possess the knowledge to produce energy at a low enough cost to enable the reproduction of developed societies that are so dependent on energy for sustenance and growth.

This will ensure that if global society were indeed to reach a point of energy crisis so severe that a widespread shortage of oil led to astronomically high prices, or climate change and

environmental degradation became so severe that it impeded the adequate distribution of public goods within a society, there exists the technology to mainta in an ever increasing supply of cheap and secure energy at a price which allows for the continuation of sufficient resources to

allow the continuation of global political, economic, and social processes. The ultimate goal through the increase in technological development in sustainable energy technologies is that

sufficient advancements are made in the harnessing of clean energy from the environment can be produced at continuously lower prices, in order to fuel further economic growth and allow for the successful and healthy replication of existing social and economic systems. It is beneficial for all

individuals within society to not have to face extreme levels of societal crisis in order to break the allure of a social imperative that must be delegitimized in order to return to the successful

replication of social processes. It is for the benefit of societies with the presence of strong vested interests determined to

subvert the production of energy to focus on the generation of wealth instead of efficienc y,

growth, and greater social equity, to organize in order to demand that their society produces energy in a manner which allows for the continued replication of global processes. The societies

which happen to contribute to the most to the high global demand for oil and are thus among the primary societies responsible for the majority of the emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases driving climate change and environmental unsustainability happen to be those which have

largely advanced in their manner of social organization, in no small part because of the success in the market system to generate surplus, have already passed through the social process of the

delegitimization of narratives which generate inefficient discourses and social policy evolution to allow for sustainable growth, to the extent that they have organized in a predominately democratic manner.

Strong democratic organization will allow for a more expedited social response to the increased stress market domination in energy systems is causing society, and will allow for a

more rapid delegitimization of market narratives in energy in favor of more sustainable public goods models. If the delegitimization of market based narratives that allow for non-excludable goods to be subject to the boundaries of the market can occur in these large, powerful, and

developed societies rapidly enough, it may result in the significant mitigation of the effects of crisis in energy and the environment relative to a similar future reliance of those societies on

fossil fuels. Not only would the disruptive processes associated with the process of scarcity and accumulation, and climate and environmental instability, be mitigated through an increase in the sustainability of the nature of energy production in these economies have a profound effect on

global processes of sustainability that affect the ability to provide adequate public goods for the successful growth and replication of global society as a whole, a change in the discourse on the

nature of the distribution of non-excludable goods as being one which favors equitable and sustainable growth within these powerful and influential societies would effect a shift in global narratives on sustainable development and social organization as well.

67

2. Contributions to Literature

This thesis takes a new look at how powerful actors in the global system influence society, and explains how the relegation of energy production to market forces has failed to

allow for energy sustainability. Its Marxist interpretation of power in the global system provides for an alternative perspective on the nature of energy and society than the existing dominant narratives in the public discourse. It is my sincere hope that this literature, and other literature

like it, help bring about a change in the perspective in power in the global system. State centric discourses are misleading, and distract individuals from understanding the true actors that

determine the state of world affairs; firms.

3. Implications

The neo-liberal policies which currently dominate international discourse at the international financial institutions, the World Bank and IMF, which emphasize the importance of

market principles in determining the provision and distribution of non-excludable goods throughout society, will be replaced with one which makes a guarantees the provision of these

goods to individuals throughout society in order to maintain the ability of these social and economic systems to continue functioning and growing. The production of goods which are not critical for the continued replication of existing social and economic systems, namely excludable

goods, remain under the control of market forces. This hinders trade and economic growth across global society. The technological knowledge gained in societies to first and most aggressively

pursues the development of sustainable energy technologies will stand to benefit from being able to sell advanced knowledge to societies with less capital to expend on investment of technological development. These more developed societies will see increased levels of growth

and development as further advances in the production of sustainable energy technologies promises to continue to lower the cost of energy, thus lowering the burden of the cost of energy

that society has to carry. An increase in the technological development for the cheap and affordable production of sustainable energies also stands to benefit less developed economies. Societies with a lower level of development that lack the capital required to invest in the large

scale development of new sustainable technologies will be able to make advances in sustainability, by purchasing the knowledge required to produce increased levels of cheap and

affordable sustainable energy domestically, and the components required to produce energy in a consistently more affordable method. Lower costs in energy would invariably fuel growth in the developing world as well, as lower energy costs would encourage increases in production of

goods as the costs associated with providing the energy needed for the production of goods decreases and the costs associated with transporting goods to markets both domestically and

abroad become lower. Once the distribution of non-excludable goods is removed from the control of the cyclical

and crisis prone control of the market, the focus can shift away from the production of these non-

excludable goods in a profitable manner to instead one which allows for the lowest costs of production, so that individuals in society have access to sufficient levels of capital to move

beyond simply meeting their basic needs and begin to demand the production of more excludable goods typically associated with an increased standard of living. With the adequate distribution of public goods through a conscientious effort on the part of society to produce non-excludable

goods not in the most profitable manner, but instead in the overall cheapest and most efficient

68

manner, we will see a global society that more adequately is suited to the processes of free trade for the greatest production of wealth for the greatest benefit of all can be realized.

Looking forward, global society can transition either smoothly or violently towards true social sustainability. If the urgency of this transition is fully realized a significantly influential

collective of individuals within the system, then societies globally will pass through the process of the delegitimization of a narrative which relegates the production of non-excludable goods to market forces and associated crisis tendencies, and generate across diverse and varied societies

globally a narrative which instead focuses on producing non-excludable goods in the cheapest manner and most efficient manner in order to release society from the bonds of the rising costs of

necessities imperative for the social and economic reproduction of these societies. If however, within these influential societies in the global system the discourse on the distribution of non-excludable goods fails to remove the imperative in production of these from the auspices of the

production of wealth, then the effects of crisis within that society will only continue to grow. An inability to address the factors contributing to rising energy costs, and climate and environmental

related problems, will only place more strain on the system before the stress becomes so great that it leads to the delegitimization of the system.

I cannot say at what point the illusionary benefits of relegating energy production to

market forces will place sufficient strain on society that it leads to the breakdown of the credibility of the dominant narratives. Will oil hit $200 a barrel before individuals in capitalistic

societies with a wealth generation imperative in the energy sector demand that subsidies be removed from oil companies in favor of subsidies for the technological development of sustainable energies? Can it hit $300? It is impossible to say at exactly what point the discourse

favoring the development of more sustainable means of producing and distributing non-excludable goods will manage to break the allure of massive profit in a society. However, it is

certain that the discourse shift must occur because of the overreliance of the global economy on a system that emphasizes relying on market forces alone to determine the means of distributing non-excludable goods based on maximizing the production of wealth. The profits derived from

oil will only continue to rise as societies around the world develop and increase their demand for the finite supply of the market demanded means of energy production, encouraging vested

interests within society to maintain the reliance of that society on the consumption of oil. This narrative should not be broken; it must be broken if society is to maintain the affordable access to non-excludable goods required for the sustainable growth of social and economic systems.

The only uncertainty that remains is when this narrative placing more importance on profit than efficiency and affordability. The question is not if this societal shift will occur. The question is

when.

69

IX. Bibliography "As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows." Pew Research Center for the

People and the Press. http://www.people-press.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-prices-pinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-production-grows/?src=prc-headline (accessed May 4, 2012).

Agyeman, Julian, Robert Bullard, and Bob Evans. Just Sustainabilities Development in an Unequal World.. London: Earthscan, 2001.

Agyeman, Julian, Robert D. Bullard, and Bob Evans. Just Sustainabilities: Development in an

Unequal World. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

Bosman, Rick. "Future of the German Renewable Energy Act." Energy Transition Blog.

http://entran.org/?p=155 (accessed May 8, 2012). Brimmer, Esther. Power Politics: Energy Security, Human Rights and Transatlantic Relations.

Washington, D.C.: Center for Transatlantic Relations, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, 2009.

Cheru, Fantu. The Rise of China and India in Africa: Challenges, Opportunities and Critical

Interventions. London: Zed Books ;, 2010.

Christiansen, Sonja, and Jim Skea. Acid politics: Environmental and Energy Policies in Britain

and Germany. London: Belhaven Press, 1991. Clapp, Jennifer A., and Peter Dauvergne. Paths to a Green World: the Political Economy of the

Global Environment. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.

Clark, John G.. "Economic Development vs. Sustainable Societies: Reflections on the Players in a Crucial Contest." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26 (1995): 225-248. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2097206?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoAdvanced

Search%3Fq0%3Deconomic%2Bdevelopment%2Bvs%2Bsustainable%2Bsocieties%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSea

rch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&Search=y (accessed April 25, 2012). Forbes. "Crude Oil Prices 1861 - 2009." Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/13/oil-prices-

1861-today-real-vs-nominal_flash2.html (accessed November 13, 2012).

Dahl, Robert Alan, Ian Shapiro, and Jose� Antônio Cheibub. The Democracy Sourcebook . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.

Fine, Ben, and Alfredo Saad-Filho. Marx's Capital. London: Pluto, 2010.

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. "Framing Sustainable Development: The Brundtland Report- 20 Years On." Sustainable Development in Action. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/media/backgrounder_brundtland.pdf (accessed May

70

4, 2012).

Freeman, S. David. Winning our Energy Independence: an Energy Insider Shows How. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, Publisher, 2007.

Central Intelligence Agency. "Germany." The World Factbook.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html (accessed

December 13, 2011).

Cable News Network. "Global 500 2011: Annual ranking of the world's biggest companies from Fortune Magazine.." CNNMoney - Business, financial and personal finance news. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/ (accessed December 13,

2011).

Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975. Heilbroner, Robert L.. The Worldly Philosophers: the Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great

Economic Thinkers. Rev. 7th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

Huang, Yasheng. Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Hylko, James, and Robert Peltier. "The U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Policy: Road to Nowhere." Power: Business and Technology for the Global Generation Industry.

http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/The-U-S-Spent-Nuclear-Fuel-Policy-Road-to-Nowhere_2651.html (accessed December 13, 2011).

Kash, Don E., and Robert W. Rycroft. U.S. Energy Policy: Crisis and Complacency. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984.

Krasner, Stephen D.. Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S.

Foreign Policy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Lampton, David M.. The Three Faces of Chinese Power: Might, Money, and Minds. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2008. Lees, Charles. Party Politics in Germany: a Comparative Politics Approach. Basingstoke,

England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Leithead, W. E.. "Wind Energy." Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society 365 (2007): 95. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25190482?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DW.%2BE.%2BLeithead%2Band%2BWind%2BEnergy%26gw%3Djt

x%26prq%3DPhilosophical%2BTransactions%2B%2BMathematical%252C%2BPhysical%252C%2BAND%2BEngineering%2BSciences%26S (accessed November 13, 2011).

List, Friedrich. The National System of Political Economy. New York: A.M. Kelley, 1966.

71

Mayer, Margit, and John Ely. The German Greens: Paradox Between Movement and Party.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998.

Meadowcroft, James. "The Politics of Sustainable Develpment: Emergent Arenas and Challenges for Political Science." International Political Science Review 20 (1999): 219-237.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1601576?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DMeadowcroft%2Band%2BThe%2BPolitics%2Bof%2BSustainable%2

BDevelopment%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3DW.%2BE.%2BLeithead%2BAND%2BWind%2BEnergy%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3D (accessed November 13, 2011).

Metz, Bert. Controlling climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Pew Research Center. "Modest Support for "Cap and Trade" Policy: Fewer Americans see Solid

Evidence of Global Warming." The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press.

people-press.org/reports/pdf/556.pdf (accessed May 6, 2012).

OpenSecrets.org. "Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever." OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html

(accessed December 13, 2011).

OpenSecrets. "Oil & Gas." OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01 (accessed March 25, 2012).

Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation: the Political and Economic Origins of our Time. 2nd

Beacon Paperback ed. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2001. Shirk, Susan L.. China: Fragile Superpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Simon, Christopher A.. "Is Energy a Public Good?." Renewable Energy World - Renewable

Energy News, Jobs, Events, Companies, and more. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/07/is-energy-a-public-good-49201 (accessed April 14, 2012).

Spretnak, Charlene, and Fritjof Capra. Green politics. Rev. ed. Santa Fe, N.M.: Bear, 1986.

Stagliano, Vito. A Policy of Discontent: the Making of a National Energy Strategy. Tulsa, OK:

Pennwell Corp., 2001.

Strange, Susan. States and Markets. 2nd ed. London: Pinter Publishers ;, 1994.

Frankfurter Societäts-Medien GmbH, Frankfurt am Main. "Successful Social Market Economy

72

Model." Facts about Germany. http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/economy/main-content-06/successful-social-market-economy-

model.html (accessed December 2, 2011).

Central Intelligence Agency. "United Kingdom." The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html (accessed December 13, 2011).

Whitlock, Craig. "Cloudy Germany a Powerhouse in Solar Energy." Washington Post: Breaking

News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html (accessed December 13, 2011).

Who Killed the Electric Car?. Film. Directed by Chris Paine. New York: Sony Pictures Classics, 2006.

Zalloum, Abdulhay Y.. Oil Crusades: America through Arab Eyes. London: Pluto Press, 2007.