Global Ethics


原油価格がここまで急落した本当の理由 by limitlesslife
February 2, 2015, 1:48 pm
Filed under: 石油
【15/2/7号】 2015年2月2日 週刊ダイヤモンド編集部

世界の石油地図が大激変!

『週刊ダイヤモンド』2015年2月7日号の特集は、『世界を揺るがす原油安 超入門』。原油価格はなぜ、それほどまでに急降下したのか? 特集の中から抜粋してお送りします。

『週刊ダイヤモンド』2015年2月7日号の特集は、『世界を揺るがす原油安 超入門』

昨年暮れの出来事だった。エネルギー関連会社の社長は、密輸されたとみられるナイジェリア産の原油を買わないかと、ある外国人ブローカーから持ち掛けられた。

丁重にお断りしたそうだが、「欧州ではよくあるらしいけど、日本にまで来るとはね。それだけ原油が余っているわけだから、原油の価格が急落するのも仕方ないのかもね」。社長はボソリと言った。

原油の価格が急落している。昨年半ばに1バレル100ドルを超えていた原油価格は、足元で40ドル台半ばと半値以下にまで落ち込んでしまった。

原油価格はなぜ、それほどまでに急降下したのだろう。

一つには世界的な需要鈍化がある。欧州の景気低迷に加え、中国をはじめとする新興国も景気の減速懸念が強まっている。

国際通貨基金(IMF)が1月20日に発表した世界経済見通しでは、世界全体の成長率が3.5%となったが、昨年10月時点から0.3ポイント引き下げられた。ユーロ圏やロシア、中国で軒並み、景気が伸び悩んでいるためだという。

ただし、油価下落の最大の要因は需要鈍化とは別にある。

2010年ごろから米国で本格化したシェール革命(詳細は本誌特集31ページを参照)による大増産で、世界のエネルギー地図が完全に塗り替えられてしまったからだ。図1-2を見てもらいたい。米国のシェールオイル生産を示したグラフだが、10年足らずで生産量は10倍を超えているのがお分かりだろう。

原油の純輸入国だった米国がいまや、産出国として世界一の座に躍り出るまでになったのだ。14年の非OPEC諸国による石油生産量は前年から、日量で180万バレルも増加。このうち、実に80%の140万バレルが米国における生産、つまりシェールオイルの増産によるものだという。シェールオイルの生産量は、日量でOPEC全体の生産量の15%に相当するまで膨らんでいる。

それはまさに新たな市場の“創造”といえた。需要の伸びをはるかに上回って供給が伸びているわけだから、原油はだぶつき、価格が下がるのは当然だろう。

さらに、産油国同士のカルテルの“崩壊”が原油価格の急落を決定付けた。

OPECが減産見送りで
事実上の崩壊

シェールオイルの大増産で供給量が増えたとしても、中東を中心とした産油国12ヵ国でつくるOPECが生産調整で減産して、需給を調整すれば、価格の下落に歯止めをかけることはできた。

しかし、そうはならなかった。昨年11月に行われたOPECの総会で、サウジアラビアの主導によって減産の見送りが決定したのだ。

市場関係者はこれまでOPECに対して、油価急落時には緊急総会を開催し、価格維持のために減産に踏み切るとのイメージを持っていたが、「今回、OPECはその調整機能を自ら放棄したわけで、市場からの信頼を完全に失った」(総合商社の石油トレーダー)。

その結果、原油相場の底が抜けてしまい、OPEC総会での減産見送り以降、原油価格は見る見る転がり落ちていった。

「事実上、OPECのカルテルは崩壊してしまった」(エネルギーアナリスト)

減産が実現しなければ、価格の本格的な反転は難しいとみられる。しかし、OPECのパドリ事務局長はOPEC加盟国と非加盟国が減産を協議する可能性について、「目先にはそうした計画はない」と海外メディアで断言している。

これまでの常識が通用しなくなった“新世界”で、しばらくは混乱が続きそうだ。カルテルの「崩壊」と市場の「創造」によってもたらされた原油安は、さまざまな危機へと連鎖しながら、世界の政治と経済を混沌の渦へと巻き込んでいく。本誌特集では、その舞台裏をさまざまな角度から徹底検証する。

Advertisements


新議会と地球災厄(トムグラム、マイク・クレア)ー 日本は? by limitlesslife
 Tomgram: Michael Klare, The New Congress and Planetary Disaster

Looking for a little hope on climate change?  Believe it or not, it’s here and it’s real. And I’m not referring to the fact that, at least temporarily, oil prices have gone through the floor, making environmentally destructive “tough oil” projects like western oil-shale fracking and Canadian tar sands extraction look ever less profitable.  Nor do I mean the climate change deal that was just reached at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and is being called “historic.” It’s true that President Obama made a positive move at that summit, another symbolic gesture in its wake, and is promising more of the same in the future.  These steps to check the worst future depredations of climate change have been hailed as perhaps more transformational than they are.  Nonetheless, in the face of a new Republican Congress in which anti-climate-change hawks may outnumber war hawks (no small feat), this is well worth noting.

I’m talking, of course, about the potentially carbon-reducing long-term deal between the planet’s two major greenhouse gas polluters, between, that is, Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping.  Both of them have been running “all of the above,” drill-baby-drill — or in China’s case dig-baby-dig and import-baby-import — energy programs to devastating effect. China, for instance, is slated to bring online the equivalent of a new coal-powered plant every 10 days for the next decade, even as it’s taken a leading position in developing solar power technology.

The steps agreed to in somewhat hazy language by the two presidents fall far short of what will be needed to keep this planet from overheating drastically, and yet they do at least pave the way for the first global climate change negotiations that might actually matter in a long while.  The genuinely good news, however, was none of the above.  It has to do instead with the thinking behind Obama’s Beijing decision.  The “architect” of the American negotiating position, months in the making, was presidential senior adviser John Podesta. And here’s what you need to know about him: he’s reportedly going to leave the Obama administration early in 2015 to run Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. This means that he’s essentially committed the leading Democratic candidate in 2016 to run her campaign on Obama’s gesture in China and whatever other climate change moves he plans to make in the coming year — on, that is, reducing carbon emissions.

As Coral Davenport of the New York Times explained recently, the thinking behind this is clear.  Despite the historically low-turnout 2014 midterm elections, Podesta — and the Democrats — are making a different kind of bet on 2016 based on polling figures showing that, among key presidential election year Democratic demographics (young voters, Hispanics, African Americans, and unmarried women), concern over climate change is rising in striking ways.  In other words, if you can tune out an election in which an aging 19% of the prospective electorate swept a whole crew of climate deniers into office and focus on deeper, longer-term calculations, something is happening, possibly generationally, that’s potentially big enough to change future elections.

It’s big enough, at least, to catch the attention of pragmatic political types in Washington, and may be the beginning of a tectonic transformation in this country.  Despite the power of Big Energy and the present hue and cry about “job destruction,” a “war on coal,” and all the rest, a rising climate movement could potentially transform our politics and our world.  No one who attended the enormous climate change rally in New York in late September could doubt that this was so, but that John Podesta has also been paying attention matters.  It tells us in a nitty-gritty way that sometimes the work of activists does pay off.

All those years in the (overheating) wilderness organizing and proselytizing, all those years when the mainstream media managed to look the other way, all those years when climate change activists in groups like 350.org had to struggle to avoid despair, may turn out to matter.  That’s the positive side of the picture.  Then there’s the other side, and it couldn’t be grimmer, as TomDispatch’s energy and climate-change expert Michael Klare, author of The Race for What’s Left, makes clear today. Tom

化石燃料共和党主義

GOP (大オイル党、大古党をもじった)ワシントンを襲奪

マイクル・クレア

Fossil-Fueled Republicanism
The Grand Oil Party Takes Washington by Storm
By Michael T. Klare

Pop the champagne corks in Washington!  It’s party time for Big Energy.  In the wake of the midterm elections, Republican energy hawks are ascendant, having taken the Senate and House by storm.  They are preparing to put pressure on a president already presiding over a largelydrill-baby-drill administration to take the last constraints off the development of North American fossil fuel reserves.

The new Republican majority is certain to push their agenda on a variety of key issues, including tax reform and immigration.  None of their initiatives, however, will have as catastrophic an impact as their coming drive to ensure that fossil fuels will dominate the nation’s energy landscape into the distant future, long after climate change has wrecked the planet and ruined the lives of millions of Americans.

It’s already clear that the new Republican leadership in the Senate will make construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, intended to carry heavy oil (or “tar sands”) from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, one of their top legislative priorities. If the lame-duck Congress fails to secure Keystone’s approval now with the help of pro-carbon Senate Democrats, it certainly will push the measure through when a Republican-dominated Senate arrives in January. Approval of that pipeline, said soon-to-be Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, will be among the first measures “we’re very likely to be voting on.”  But while the Keystone issue is going to command the Senate’s attention, it’s only one of many measures being promoted by the Republicans to speed the exploitation of the country’s oil, coal, and natural gas reserves.  So devoted are their leaders to fossil fuel extraction that we should start thinking of them not as the Grand Old Party, but the Grand Oil Party.

In seeking to boost fossil fuel production, the GOP leadership is already mapping out plans to fight on several fronts in addition to Keystone.  For example, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a likely presidential candidate, is promoting a scheme to eliminate what he calls government “obstacles” — that is, federal oversight of energy-related matters — to the construction of any border-crossing pipelines, whether for the importation of tar sands from Canada or the export of natural gas to Mexico.  Other prominent Republicans, including McConnell (who comes from coal-rich Kentucky), are eager to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from imposing strict carbon restraints on the use of coal, ban federal oversight of hydro-fracking, open offshore Alaska and Virginia to drilling, and facilitate foreign sales of U.S. crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Whatever individual initiatives one Republican figure or another may be pushing, as a group they fervently believe in the desirability of boosting the consumption of fossil fuels and the absolute need to defeat any measures designed to slow climate change through restraints on such consumption.  For many of them, this is both an economic issue, aimed at boosting the profits of U.S. energy firms, and bedrock ideology, part of a quasi-mystical belief in the national-power-enhancing nature of petroleum.  Top Republicans argue, for instance, that the best way to counter Russian inroads in Ukraine (or elsewhere in Europe) is to accelerate the fracking of U.S. shale gas reserves and ship the added output to that continent in the form of liquefied natural gas.  This, they are convinced, will break Russia’s hold on the continent’s energy supplies.  “The ability to turn the tables and put the Russian leader in check,” House Speaker John Boehner wrote in March, “lies right beneath our feet, in the form of vast supplies of natural energy.”

Central to the political ethos of many Republicans, including the likely candidates for president in 2016, is a belief in the restorative abilities of oil and gas when it comes to waning national power and prestige.  Governor Christie, for example, devoted his initial foreign policy speech to a vision of a “North American energy renaissance” based on the accelerated production of hydrocarbons in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.  “The dramatic change in the energy landscape in North America,” hedeclared, “has made all of us better off and will continue to do so.”  (Significantly, Christie unveiled his plan in Mexico, which is expected toopen its oil and gas fields to development by U.S. firms for the first time since it expropriated foreign oil assets in 1938.)

In order to claim such benefits from increased fossil-fuel production, the increasingly severe effects of climate change — including on highly vulnerable coastal communities in New Jersey — have to be conveniently left out of the equation.  In fact, most top Republicans solve that problem either by denying the very reality of climate change or by viewing it as, at worst, a future minor irritant.  In one of the genuinely bizarre outcomes of the recent election, Oklahoma’s James Inhofe is expected to be chosen as the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  A long-time proponent of the view that human-induced climate change is a giant “hoax,” Inhofe has pledged, among other things, to sabotage the EPA’s drive to restrict carbon emissions from coal.

The Power of the Purse 財布の力

What accounts for such a messianic belief in the beneficial effects of fossil fuel extraction?

Never underestimate the lure of money — or, to be more precise, campaign contributions.  The giant energy firms are among the leading sources of campaign financing.  Most of their money has, in recent years, gone to Republicans who espouse a pro-carbon agenda — and with such a crew now ascendant in Congress, staggering sums will undoubtedly continue to pour in.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics, the oil and gas industry was the ninth biggest supplier of campaign funds during the 2013-2014 election cycle, with 87% of the $51 million it spent going to Republicans.  The coal industry provided another $10 million in contributions, with 95% going to Republicans.  Koch Industries, the energy conglomerate controlled bybillionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, was the top oil company provider, accounting for $9.4 million in contributions; Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Occidental Petroleum were also major donors.  These figures, it should be noted, only include direct donations to candidates in accordance with federal campaign laws.  They exclude funds channeledthrough secretive super PACS and supposedly “non-profit” organizations that are not bound by such rules.  During the 2012 election, the CRP reports, the Koch brothers helped steer an estimated $407 million to such entities; equally large amounts are thought to have been expended in the 2014 go-around.

To a significant extent, these funds were shuttled to especially industry-friendly and powerful Republicans.  Among the leading recipients of oil funding in 2014, according to the CRP, were John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, along with John Cornyn, the particularly enthusiastic pro-energy senator from Texas, and Congressman Cory Gardner of Colorado, who just took a Senate seat from the environmentally conscious Democrat Mark Udall.  Not surprisingly, among the top recipients of coal industry funding were Boehner and McConnell, as well as especially coal-friendly congressional representatives like Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley of West Virginia.

These and other recipients of fossil fuel cash know full well that their future access to such largesse, and so their ability to get reelected, will depend on their success in pushing legislation that facilitates the accelerated extraction of oil, gas, and coal.  It doesn’t take too much imagination to calculate the consequences of this conveyor belt of financial support, both for affected communities and for the climate.

Energy-Surplus States エネルギー余剰州

Another way to understand the Republican embrace of fossil fuels is to focus on the relative importance of oil, gas, and mining operations to the economies of certain predominantly “red” states with built-in Republican majorities.  According to a revealing analysis by John Kemp of Reuters, only 13 U.S. states export more energy than they import (in descending order): Wyoming, West Virginia, Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Montana, Arkansas, Utah, and Kentucky. Fossil fuel extraction helps drive the economies of these states and voters there tend to elect particularly pro-extraction Republicans. When the 114th Congress convenes in January, 19 of the 26 Senate seats from these states will be held by Republicans and only six by Democrats.

Note that these states played a particularly pivotal role in the 2014 midterms, with the Republican leadership making an all-out drive to score major victories in them. Ten of these states had Senate races this year and the Republicans succeeded in ousting Democrats in five of them: Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Arkansas, and Alaska.  Needless to say, the giant oil and coal companies poured vast amounts of money into these campaigns. Koch Industries, for example, made substantial contributions to the Senate campaigns of Tom Cotton in Arkansas, Steve Daines in Montana, and Cory Gardner in Colorado.

In many respects, energy-surplus states have different interests than other states, which must import the preponderance of their energy supplies.  These energy-importing states, including Democratic bastions like Illinois, New York, California, and Massachusetts, often seek strict federal regulation of things like hydro-fracking and power-plant emissions.  Surplus states like Texas and Pennsylvania, on the other hand, largely prefer state-level oversight rather than the generally stronger federal version of the same.

The major fossil fuel companies also favor state-level oversight of energy affairs, which regularly results into drilling-friendly legislation.  When it comes to hydraulic fracking, here’s how ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson politely puts the matter: “[W]e believe that is best left to the state, [to] state regulatory bodies,” as they are more attuned to conditions on the ground.  “[W]riting a federal standard to apply across a whole range of these conditions we don’t think is the most efficient way to go about it.”

In this and other ways, energy-surplus states often resemble oil-rich countries like Russia, Nigeria, Angola, and Kazakhstan, where energy companies enjoy a cozy, often venal, relationship with top leaders. Scholars in the field speak of an “oil curse” that bedevils such countries, in which the best interests of ordinary citizens — not to mention the environment — are regularly sacrificed in efforts to boost output and line the pockets of ruling elites.

Oil, Gas, and National Security 石油、ガス、国家安全

A third reason why the Grand Oil Party tends to favor fossil fuel extraction is that its representatives view such production as a vital pillar of national security — another Republican priority.  Increased oil, gas, and coal extraction is said to enhance U.S. security in two ways: by invigorating the economy and so strengthening America’s competitive advantage vis-à-vis rival powers and by bolstering Washington’s capacity to confront hostile petro-states like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

The recent upsurge in oil and natural gas production in what’s being called “Saudi America” is especially beneficial, Republicans claim, because it lowers the cost of energy for American manufacturers and attracts fresh investment in energy-intensive activities by companies that might otherwise locate their factories in China, Taiwan, or elsewhere.  “The production boom in gas and associated lower costs,” Governor Christie argues, “have contributed to ‘re-shoring,’ a return of manufacturing jobs that had been migrating to Asia before.”

Equally important, it is a Republican conviction that an upsurge in domestic oil and gas production will give Washington a stronger hand in its dealings with Iran and Russia, in particular.  For one thing, by becoming less dependent on imported energy, the U.S. is making itself ever less vulnerable to the blandishments of major suppliers in the Middle East.  In addition, by driving down international prices, American oil and gas output is also curtailing the energy revenues of Iran and Russia, making their leaders more susceptible to U.S. pressure.

Given this, the Republican leadership is especially focused on eliminating existing obstacles to selling crude oil and natural gas abroad.  At the moment, the exporting of crude is prohibited, thanks to a 40-year-old ban adopted in the wake of the Arab oil embargo of 1973-1974.  Natural gas exports are hindered by the lack of LNG facilities in this country and by regulatory barriers to their rapid construction. Constraints on such construction, according to Boehner (who, of course, wants to lift them), constitute a “de-facto ban on American natural-gas exports — a situation that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin happily exploited to finance his geopolitical goals.”

Not surprisingly, the major oil and gas companies are also strongly in favor of such steps, which would allow them to sell cheap oil and gas to Europe and Asia, where prices are substantially higher.  Building more gas-export facilities, says Erik Milito, an official of the pro-industry American Petroleum Institute, would mean that “our LNG exports could significantly strengthen the global energy market against crisis and manipulation… a win-win for our economy and our friends.”

The oil companies are also pushing for intensified efforts to integrate the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian oil systems which, Christie and othersclaim, would enhance U.S. security by diminishing reliance on Middle Eastern and other extra-hemispheric suppliers. At the same time, such integration would help American companies acquire greater control over production in Mexico and Canada. Mexico’s new energy legislation, which opens the way for foreign investment in its oil and gas fields, washeavily pushed by U.S. oil firms and prominent Republicans.

There is little question that increased exports would benefit American energy firms and their customers abroad.  Any easing of export constraints would, however, induce U.S. producers to divert output from domestic markets to more lucrative markets abroad, potentially harming American consumers. While prices might fall in Europe, they could risein the United States, removing the current economic stimulus that relatively low-cost oil and gas provide.  Increased exports would also mean that the recent slowdown in U.S. carbon emissions — a product of economic hard times and a switch from coal to gas in electricity generation — would be rendered meaningless by increased greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of U.S. fossil fuels in other countries.

Fossil Fuels Forever 化石燃料永遠

At a time when more and more people around the world are coming to recognize the need for tough restraints on fossil fuel combustion, the Republicans are about to march forcefully in the opposite direction.  Theirs will be a powerful vote for a fossil-fuels-forever planet.

The consequences of such a commitment are chilling.  While virtually all scientists and many world leaders have concluded that the heating of the planet must be kept to an average increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the pro-carbon agenda being pursued by the Republicans would guarantee a planet heated by four to six or more degrees Celsius or six to 10 degrees Fahrenheit.  That large an increase is almost certain to render significant portions of the planet virtually uninhabitable, and so threaten human civilization as we know it.  As the U.N.’s prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)noted in its recent summary report, “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

With Republicans now in control, pro-carbon initiatives will be the order of the day in Congress.  President Obama has veto power over most such measures and is reportedly planning various executive actions on climate issues — some intended to clinch a recent climate deal with China.  In the long run, however, his need to secure Republican support for key legislative endeavors and his own “all of the above” energy policy may mean that he will give ground in this area to win votes for what he may view as more actionable steps on free trade pacts and other issues.  In other words, for each modest step forward on climate stabilization, the latest election ensures that Americans are destined to march several steps backward when it comes to reliance on climate-altering fossil fuels.  It’s a recipe for good times for Big Energy and its congressional supporters and bad times for the rest of us.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left.  A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit’s Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2014 Michael T. Klare



by limitlesslife

1/20~27イラク・バスラ石油労働者連帯!全国ツアーへのご参加と外務省へ抗議の声を!

 永岡です、イラク関係のメールをお送りいたします。
<以下、転送>

こんにちは、イラク平和テレビ局inJapan川島です。転送・拡散お願いします!!

イラク連帯集会の案内と来日するイラク石油労働者との面会拒否する外務省への抗議の協力のお願いです。

イラクから石油労働組合のリーダーのアブ・ワタンさんとサミール・アディルさんたちをお招きして、イラクの現状と米・英・日本企業の石油略奪・マリキ腐敗政権の弾圧に対する
石油労働者の闘いを聞き、安倍政権に「戦争で儲けるな」、「イラク戦争検証し委員会を設置して
100万人の犠牲を出したことへの謝罪と補償」を求めるために全国ツアー を行います。

昨日のアルジェリアの拘束事件に関わっている日揮もイラクで火力発電所関連業務を受注しています。http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/world/news/CK2013011702000091.html
経産大臣が筆頭株主の石油会社JAPEXとINPEXもイラク市民が大反対する中マリキ政権と
勝手に自衛隊を派兵した南部サマワ近くの油田の石油採掘契約を結び、JAPEXが操業するガラフ油田では労働者の死傷事故が昨年6月起こっています。JAPEXは事故は認めていますがイラク石油省が調査妨害していることについてはコメントを拒否しています。
軍隊を派遣し、国家予算の90%以上を占めるイラク市民の大切な石油収入源を奪い、劣悪な労働条件を強いて働かせている日本や世界のグローバル企業に労働組合をつくって非暴力で声を上げて闘っているのがアブワタンさんたちです。

イラク労働者の訴えをぜひ聴きにきてください。
邦人救出でポーズをとる安倍政権・外務省は年末からのアブワタンさんたちの
要請行動を拒否しています、現場の労働者の声を聞け!と抗議の声を外務省に送ってください!

外務省中東アフリカ局 中東第2課 TEL 03-5501-8314 FAX 03-5501-8306
メール ご意見コーナー https://www3.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/mail/qa.html

*********転送歓迎*****************

【1/20~27 イラク・バスラ石油労働者連帯!全国ツアー】

~1/20東京・23沖縄・26広島・27大阪~

=日本政府・グローバル資本の石油略奪を許さず、イラク戦争検証を実現させよう!=

<主な内容>
講演
(1)アブ・ワタンさん (全イラク労働組合労働者評議会連合バスラ支部副議長)
テーマ: 「国際石油資本とマリキ政権に立ち向かう~イラク石油労働者」

(2)サミール・アディルさん (サナテレビ創設者、元IFC議長)
テーマ: 「イラクにおける99%(民衆)の闘い」

参加協力券 一般/前売り 1000円 (当日 1200円)
学生・障がい者・失業者/前売り 800円(当日1000円)

★前売り券予約受付中→ http://peacetv.jp/tour2.html からの申し込み
もしくは 
info@pecacetv.jp までお問い合わせください。

――――――――――――――――――――――――――
<全国ツアー日程>

東京 1月20日(日)14時~ 全水道会館

1月21日(月)政府・国会議員・石油企業への要請行動

沖縄 1月23日(水)19時~ 那覇市ぶんかテンブス館

広島 1月26日(土)18時~ 広島まちづくり市民交流プラザ

大阪 1月27日(日)14時~ リバティー大阪ホール
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
★詳しくはこちらから→ http://peacetv.jp/tour1.html

主催:イラク・バスラ石油労働者連帯全国ツアー実行委員会

問い合わせ e-mail info@pecacetv.jp
TEL 090・8162・300

集会の運営を支える賛同金の御協力もお願いします。
詳しくは http://peacetv.jp/tour3.html

*************************
川島実穂
m-kawa71@taupe.plala.or.jp
************************** 



イラ-ク(-ン)戦争は石油の為:グリーンスパン by limitlesslife
January 16, 2012 at 06:54:53

Alan Greenspan Explained Why We Invaded Iraq (And Why Iran is Next)

By  (about the author)

Alan Greenspan quite openly admitted why we attacked Iraq in 2003. The long-time chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (1986-2006), considered during his reign to be one of the two most powerful men in the United States, laid out the rationale in his 2007 memoir, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.”

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”


Alan Greenspan by 
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)

There it is, the reason we invaded Iraq — and by inference, why an invasion of Iran looms on the horizon. Now you know (if you didn’t already) why so many powerful politicians, media figures, and establishment opinion manipulators are frightening Americans about the possibility that Iran might build a nuclear weapon.

Keep in mind that Iraq and Iran have the second and third largest Middle East oil reserves [roughly the same amount] behind only Saudi Arabia. Just exchange a “q” for an “n” in Greenspan’s quote, and the pieces of the puzzle fall neatly into place.


What’s next? by 
PressTV
Americans are being systematically prepared for a potential war with Iran, just as we were for Iraq. Political leaders of both parties and the Obama administration have made it clear they will not accept a nuclear Iran. They tell us the prospect of a nuclear Iran cannot possibly be tolerated.

They don’t want us taking into consideration that the United States and Russia each have at least 8,000 nuclear weapons, or that China, France and the United Kingdom each have hundreds of their own. Additionally, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are known or believed to have large stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

In reality, the possibility of Iran potentially building one nuclear weapon in the next year or two does not appear to be a life or death catastrophe and certainly not a reason to start a new war. Iran surely realizes that were they to use such a weapon, it would be certain suicide. And in all fairness, why are all these other countries allowed to have nukes, but Iran, surrounded by hostile neighbors already possessing such weapons, is not?

None of that matters. The American people, few of whom have ever been directly affected by war, are ready and willing to attack Iran. They have already been convinced — 52 percent according to a poll published this month in Investor’s Business Daily — by politicians and the media that the U.S., if diplomacy fails, should go to war to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Nazi leader Hermann Goering understood this process:

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war… But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along…the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

You don’t need a crystal ball to figure out where all this is going. Iran will cooperate with us and share its oil or risk an American invasion and occupation, just as was done in Iraq and Afghanistan. How can all this dangerous and deadly madness be explained? To paraphrase Watergate’s Deep Throat, “Follow the Oil.”

thebigpicturereport.com

Arlen is a writer/blogger living in Monterey, CA. His political blog is thebigpicturereport.com. He writes a weekly quotation quiz “What’s Your QQ?” (Quotation Quotient) for the Monterey County Herald, and does a quotationquotient.com website and Facebook page. He also does a weekly quotation quiz segment and talks politics on Monterey’s progressive talk radio station, KRXA 540AM. He has yet to win any Pulitzer or Nobel Prizes, but if he does, he will let you know.thebigpicturereport.com



ホルムズ海峡封鎖?、EU危機 by limitlesslife

[uniting-peace][18803] 伊藤洋一がホルムズ海峡封鎖を語る

 永岡です、朝日放送のおはようコールABCのナットク!ニュース塾、今朝はエコノミストの伊藤洋一さんのお話でした。
イランがホルムズ海峡を封鎖すると言っており、そうされたらアメリカは軍事行動に出ると言っています。ホルムズ海峡は短いところで33km、機雷を数個沈めたら封鎖できるものであり、世界の原油の3割、日本の8割がここを通り、日本の備蓄は民間70日、国が90日で、半年は持ちこたえられるものの、それでも封鎖されたら日本の生命線が破綻です。さらに原油価格も上がり、日本は大変なことになります。もちろん、これをやられたらサウジアラビア他が黙っていないのですが、イランは核兵器を持ちたい、インドやパキスタンが持っているのに、イランも核兵器を持って大国になりたい(原油の出ているうちに)という意図があり、しかしアメリカにとっては、イランはイスラエルの隣にあり、イランが核武装したらえらいことになると懸念しています。アメリカはインドやパキスタンの核は黙認しても、イランは認められない(サウジにも攻撃できるので)のです。で、伊藤さん、イランから原油を買っている関係上、日本がこの仲裁役を買って出るべきとの指摘がありました。

そして、ユーロ安、メルケル氏とサルコジ氏が会談したものの、それを報じられて危機が表面化していると言うのです。そして、日本は円高対策で、アメリカには工場を作っていたのに、ヨーロッパには作っていなかった(この前まで1ユーロ170円が今100円を切っている)、この危機、ヨーロッパのおごりの終わりであり、ギリシャだと、靴磨きの人まで世界の文明は自分が作ったと自負しており、そういう驕りが今まであり、それが崩壊するとの指摘がありました。なかなか、面白いお話でした。