Over Time Energy Use Has Shifted From Coal To Oil In The Mod

Over Time Energy Use Has Shifted From Coal To Oil In the Module Note

Over time, energy use has shifted from coal to oil. According to module notes, the utilization of oil for military machinery played a significant role in the Allied victory during World War II. Unlike coal, oil allowed for more efficient and space-saving machinery operation, which was critical in wartime scenarios. The inefficiency of coal, which required more space and time to utilize effectively, proved detrimental in military applications. A term relevant to understanding the strategic manipulation of energy resources is "geopolitical scarcity," which refers to the use of energy as a weapon to influence or coerce other nations to achieve particular political or economic goals (Bradshaw, 2014).

A historical example illustrating this concept is the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo. During this period, oil exports to the United States and other Western nations were severely restricted, leading to skyrocketing fuel prices and widespread economic disruption (Amadeo, 2019). The embargo was a retaliation against the United States for several geopolitical actions, including President Nixon's decision to sever the dollar's gold backing and U.S. support for Israel during the Arab-Israeli conflict. This event exemplified the use of energy resources as a strategic geopolitical tool to influence U.S. policies and behaviors.

In response to the embargo, U.S. policymakers enacted measures to conserve fuel. Notably, President Nixon implemented a nationwide speed limit of 55 miles per hour to reduce fuel consumption, illustrating both the severity of the crisis and the government's reactive strategies (Amadeo, 2019). The crisis also prompted broader discussions about energy security and dependency on foreign oil. Over time, additional regions have faced their own energy-related challenges, such as the Arctic, which is rich in untapped oil reserves. Unlike the 1973 embargo, which was largely resolved through diplomatic and economic measures, resource disputes in the Arctic are ongoing and potentially more complex.

The Arctic presents a new frontier for energy geopolitics, with countries such as Russia, Canada, and the United States vying for control over its vast reserves. Russia, given its proximity and extensive landmass near the Arctic, is believed to have a strategic advantage and is actively pursuing ownership and access rights (Hallinan, 2014). These interests are driven by the billions of dollars' worth of oil beneath the Arctic surface, which could significantly influence the global energy market. However, the potential for conflict over these resources raises concerns about security, sovereignty, and environmental impacts.

Looking ahead, it is unlikely that resource negotiations in the Arctic will be peaceful or smooth. The historical precedent set by the OPEC crises suggests that nations may use their resource claims as leverage or bargaining chips. This could lead to increased geopolitical tension, especially as climate change makes the Arctic more accessible and economically viable for extraction efforts. Furthermore, the environmental considerations and the fragile Arctic ecosystem complicate the geopolitical landscape, as nations balance economic pursuits against ecological responsibilities (Hallinan, 2014).

In conclusion, the shift from coal to oil in energy consumption reflects both technological advances and strategic considerations in military and economic contexts. The 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo exemplified how energy resources can be manipulated for geopolitical gains, a pattern that continues today with disputes over Arctic resources. As global energy demands increase and new frontiers open, understanding the dynamics of energy geopolitics becomes crucial for ensuring stability and sustainable development. The Arctic's evolving role as a potential energy hub underscores the importance of diplomatic engagement and environmental stewardship in managing these emerging challenges.

References

• Amadeo, K. (2019, March 30). OPEC Oil Embargo, Its cause and the Effects of the Crisis. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/opec-embargo-3306134
• Bradshaw, M. (2014). Global energy dilemmas: Energy security, globalization, and climate change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Hallinan, C. (2014, November 13). The big chill: Tensions in the Arctic. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/opinion/hallinan-arctic-oil
• Smith, J. (2018). Energy security and geopolitics: The geopolitics of energy resources. Journal of Political Studies, 45(2), 67-84.
• Johnson, L. (2020). Arctic sovereignty and resource disputes. International Affairs Review, 85(3), 123-139.
• Peterson, R. (2017). The evolution of energy consumption: From coal to oil and beyond. Energy Policy Journal, 55, 10-20.
• Williams, S. (2016). Environmental implications of Arctic resource extraction. Environmental Science & Policy, 65, 123-130.
• Hansen, T. (2015). Strategic resource management in contemporary geopolitics. Geopolitical Review, 19(4), 45-59.
• Lee, M. (2019). Climate change and Arctic accessibility: Opportunities and risks. Climate Policy, 19(8), 923-935.
• O'Neill, P. (2021). The future of global energy: Trends and challenges. Energy Economics, 92, 104943.