[ad_1]
At a virtual climate summit on April 22, hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden, several countries pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) defended his country’s continued use of fossil fuels.
He shared that Mexico has found three large hydrocarbon deposits, but tried to present this as a development that should please the summit participants rather than alarm them.
“Although we have found three large reserves of hydrocarbons,” the president said, “the oil we are discovering will cover the demand for fuel in the domestic market and end the practice of exporting crude oil.” By doing so, he added, “we will help prevent the overuse of fossil fuels.”
While statements made by the AMLO at the summit received widespread criticism from many who considered it a “declaration of war on clean energy,” the Mexican leader has more of a stance on fossil fuels than a major contempt for the climate emergency.
Proclaiming ‘Energy Sovereignty’
Domestically and internationally, AMLO has long been shaping Mexico’s dependence on large oil and gas imports as a crisis of “energy sovereignty”. To respond to this crisis, it has strengthened state-owned corporations in the electricity generation and fossil fuel industry, and has also prioritized the use of fossil fuels. These reforms were part of AMLO’s aggressive efforts to nationalize (re) fossil fuels and fuels in the country since 2019.
The idea of “energy sovereignty” has its own roots In the fight against the Mexican colony, the country threw out U.S. and British exploitative companies and nationalized the fossil fuel industry to claim sovereignty over resources.
At the beginning of the century, US and British companies began extracting oil reserves from Mexico. Although these companies expanded Mexican oil production to the U.S. in 1921, the wealth generated from that extraction returned to the U.S. and Britain, and they did little to improve Mexico’s economic conditions — exploitation is a typical colonial relationship.
These foreign companies held British and U.S. citizens in key positions. In addition, a Mexican worker received half his salary and worse housing for doing the same job as a foreign worker.
Article 27 of the 1917 Mexican constitution gave the Mexican government the right to expropriate resources such as oil. But the implementation of this article was impossible because of the strong resistance of oil companies backed by the U.S. Department of State.
The presidency of Lazaro Cardenas (1934-1940) underwent a significant transformation: he oversaw the massive distribution of land and supported the right of workers to strike. On the issue of oil, his administration’s Mexican authorities sided with the striking Mexican workers and asked oil companies to increase their salaries and benefits, but the companies refused.
In response, Cardenas used Article 27 and nationalized the Mexican foreign oil company on March 18, 1938, which formed the state’s PEMEX with a monopoly on fossil fuels. During this time, Cardenas also created the statewide CFE, which is responsible for generating and distributing electricity.
The movement sparked massive celebrations throughout Mexico, including a six-hour parade in Mexico City. Although the U.S. considered military intervention in response to nationalization, it chose not to intervene because World War II began and the U.S. needed allies.
The nationalization of foreign energy companies was a significant event in Mexico not only for the country but also for world colonial history: Mexico, a country that would soon become part of the “Third World” bloc, appeared and dominated against imperial powers. Elsewhere similar claims of sovereignty had quite different results – the 1953 US-led coup in Iran, after the Iranian government nationalized the UK and US oil companies, changed the country’s trajectory forever.
Despite all the success achieved through nationalization, Mexico’s successive presidents have liberalized the energy sector in recent decades, and as a result, Mexico has been dependent on countries like the US to import energy, despite having fossil fuel reserves.
AMLO’s immediate predecessor, Pena Nieto, completed the liberalization of the energy sector and invited foreign companies to exploit Mexico’s oil reserves. The alleged reason for this was to make the sector more efficient and to combat the massive corruption in PEMEX.
Nieto’s move, however, did little to combat corruption – such as his administration officials, Emilio Lozoya. accused taking massive purchases from private energy contracting companies.
Moreover, the liberalization of the energy sector has been perceived by many in Mexico, including AMLO, in the wake of the destructive exploitation of the pre-1938 era.
In this context, it is easy to insist that AMLO’s rhetoric of “energy sovereignty” and the country’s energy dependence end at all costs. However, the Mexican president’s commitment to the use of fossil fuels must be critically assessed in the face of an increasingly urgent global climate emergency.
Giving a blind eye to climate emergency
Criticisms of AMLO’s latest moves – from the Western government officials, lobby team and above all Western press – have been lively and have followed two themes. The first is market-oriented. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) – committed to maintaining the neoliberal order – is concerned that AMLO’s energy policies could weaken the “confidence” of foreign investors and prevent Mexico from receiving the necessary investments. He also expressed concern that these policies would result in an unfair monopoly – perhaps because in this case the monopoly would not be under USCC control.
The second criticism is the environment, and the AMLO is criticized for “fixing fossil fuels”. This criticism is quite justified, but it is articulated in a way that completely excludes what AMLO is trying to achieve outside of Mexico — and especially the West — with the help of fossil fuels: energy sovereignty.
The refusal to acknowledge the long history of AMLO’s colonial exploitation by Western media and government officials in examining – and criticizing – AMLO’s energy policies reflects Western historical amnesia and hypocrisy.
There are also clear indications that AMLO – which is trying to invade its actions as neoliberal and anti-colonial by calling it “energy sovereignty” – does not take the climate crisis seriously and that its policies do little to build an alternative to neoliberalism. .
How can it be against the colonial or neoliberal AMLO to exploit Western resources in a sustainable way, capitalists, burning fossil fuels?
AMLO’s energy policy is clearly focused on oil, with no indication of the introduction of renewable energy. The National Energy Plan 2020-2024 states that achieving “sustainable energy self-sufficiency” is necessary to increase hydrocarbon exploration, infrastructure and processing capacity. It envisages achieving energy sovereignty through hydrocarbons and “clean energy,” which includes natural gas and nuclear energy.
But the “energy sovereignty” achieved through hydrocarbon exploration and investment can last as long as fossil fuel reserves.
The oil and natural gas reserves known in Mexico will last only 9.3 years, while the world’s reserves are estimated to last 40-50 years. The life of AMLO’s energy sovereignty could therefore be as short as a decade.
Moreover, a full analysis of AMLO’s environmental policies makes it difficult to say that its administration does not deny the climate crisis. In the latest commitment to the Paris Agreement presented in 2020, Mexico has completely suspended its commitments for 2015 by 35% of the energy it needs from clean sources by 2024 and 43% by 2030. The head of the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources changed three times in two years. Its latest secretary, Víctor Toledo, resigned after saying in a leaked audio that the AMLO administration has no “clear objectives, full of contradictions and different interests” about environmental policy. The department’s budget has been slashed, and federal budget allocations have been increased for oil refineries and environmentally hazardous tourism projects like the Mayan Train. In addition, according to the Climate Transparency Group (PDF), approximately 73% of the country’s climate change budget is spent on natural gas transportation.
Finally, AMLO has linked the corruption of the energy sector to the privatization of previous administrations and neoliberal policies.
While this complaint has many merits, AMLO is strengthening PEMEX and CFE as if these organizations are not to be filled with corruption, and as if no drastic measures are needed to combat this corruption.
For the AMLO administration there has been more “anti-corruption” less about rhetoric and action. For example, Carlos Romero Deschamps, a former PEMEX union leader, “voluntarily agreed to quit his job” and went away with astonishing retirement benefits despite being investigated for corruption in March. Also, CFE CEO Manuel Bartlett, accused of illegally obtaining and hiding assets worth more than $ 42 million, received full support from AMLO and was eventually acquitted.
In short, while the fate of the Mexican people and humanity in general is hanging in the balance due to the climate crisis, we see on the one hand the arrogance of Western (neo) imperial powers that don’t care – let alone apologize – for exploiting Mexico. On the other hand, we have the heads of postcolonial states such as AMLO. Opposition to anti-colonial and neoliberal rhetoric is inconsistent with the urgent needs of climate policy and the people.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the attitude of Al Jazeera’s editorial.
[ad_2]
Source link
