> the chemistry is made of really common materials
I don't want to sound like a conspiray theorist, but something tells me the really big actors (like states) only want materials that they can control the suply of.
I don't want to sound like a conspiray theorist, but something tells me the really big actors (like states) only want materials that they can control the suply of.
Well you do?
It won't work as long as there's a roughly equal alternative that's cheaper/easier to produce. Free market will win here.
There's no way one state can force another state (aside from war) to manufacture something a particular way. It's like if I controlled the world's timber supply and said Canada must produce houses out of timber and not, say, concrete. Canada's gonna go produce using concrete unless I somehow make my timber price competitive.
This is quite naive - in fact we do this all the time
* IMF provides loans to developing countries on the condition that they dont have 'socialist' policies
* EU bailouts for Greece/aspain/etc. was given on the condition of sale of state assets and doing other things
* The worlds ship insurance industry is run in London. Nuclear powered contsiner ships are faster, cheaper, and better in every way. Good luck insuring them. Running them without insurance is. illegal
*'non-tariff barriers' - i.e. free trade negotiations - are all about aligning countries on how they manufacture/insure/regulate things like cars. Guess which econony gets the bigger say.
Russia was forced to adopt Eu standards for petrol quality and engine emissions standards in 2,000's and they still follow
Because these 'socialist' policies are usually the reason why these countries need IMF loans.
Same goes with the EU bailouts, but PIGS countries were already in a compact with the rest of the Eurozone. Not to mention, that governments should not own things that can go bust and drag a budget under water.
As shown lately with Russian oil sales - it's absolutely possible to insure ships somewhere else, other than Lloyd's of London.
Think batteries and nuclear fusion.
Extremely hard stuff, not easy to pick apples.
State actors can absolutely influence the fields for decades by choosing to fund certain approaches that lend themseves to centralisation.
This announcement is about an improvement in energy density made possible by $Bs being invested to allow sodium batteries to become more competitive with lithium.
There are also other battery chemistries being rolled out. Iron based ones seem particularly promising for stationary storage.
OP made it sound like the Evil Corporate Overlords are conspiring to hold us back from achieving battery freedumb.
Conspiracies are just common sense for a group of people; but that's exactly my point. A group doesn't have to meet at night by the torch light in black robes and decide upon secretive actions to further their own interests.
Any country without an expeditionary military force (about 187 of them) likes the resources they have. Ab abundant is great unless you have a known military adversary with extra-territorial ambition (that’s three countries).
Think about it :)
If someome resists, they will end up just like anyone who opposed the US's quest to take other nations oil.
As Donald used to say:
"Take the oil, then get out". They took the oil and stayed.
[0]https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-...
[1]https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2001...
The US often does stuff that costs taxpayers trillions so that the people bribing congress can make billions.
PFAS, Canadian lumber sanctions and oxycontin are three recent examples.
Any links I can read about this? I'm open to the idea that suppressing Iraq's oil industry was the main objective of the war. I don't like claims about "the US's quest to take other nations oil" being that it never happened either in Iraq or even Iran. At least when I ask for a source I can never get one. To me the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were mainly about projecting power, not oil. Certainly not Afghanistan because there is little to no oil there in the first place. Even regarding Iraq it is OPEC that sets the price and I doubt they would let Iraq greatly reduce the market price. It would have to be as you say: people with connections using the US's power to suppress competition. Many people online, however, seem to have the idea that US foriegn policy dictates collecting oil and that the US is stealing trillions of dollars of oil from various third world countries. I think the US gains a lot more from war to project power. Iraq for the most part today is a US ally. And if we are looking for people who would gain from the war it would more likely be Lockheed than Exxon. Lastly, there is no reason to say that US oil companies staged the war exclusively. It is possible that eg. SA were also involved or the main initiators.
Removal of Saddam removed one of the biggest adversaries of Iran. Now Iranian Revolutionary Guard can freely move from Tehran to Beirut and support the rebels in Yemen.
But let me flip your argument -- why did the US invade Iraq?
The US has/had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia was in the US's pocket at that time (it might have reversed since then).
I don't know. Do you have a source for that claim? Preferably from before the war started. (Later is fine too.)
>But let me flip your argument -- why did the US invade Iraq?
This doesn't flip the argument. That would only be the case if not being able to explain the war meant that it therefore was started for oil. These are not two sides of a coin. Simmilarly I wouldn't say that if we can't explain Iraq then it must have been to find aliens.
>The US has/had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia was in the US's pocket at that time
And what percent of the oil profits did the US get? If the claim is that the US will invade for oil then being in the US's pocket, whatever that means, is irrelevant. But I think you answered your own question here. The US likes having countries "in it's pocket." It wants to station troops in other countries. These are legitimate -- here I don't reffer to moral legitimacy -- national objectives. Skimming contracts or suppressing oil fields is not a legitimate national objective. If there are groups in the US (eg. Exxon) that are so powerfull they can make the US go to war without a single national objective achieved then they could simply take the $3 trillion directly. I think your point about the petrodollar is interesting, although I'd like to see some more evidence.