Renewables as a weapon against terrorism

For someone so determined in eliminating Islamic extremism and terrorism, US president Donald Trump seems to be underestimating one of the main pillars in the war on terrorism: oil.

Fracking and further investment in pipelines will make increase domestic oil production. But if the US doesn’t start to make a transition to greener energies, its dependence on Middle-East oil could cost it in the near future.

When we talk about renewable energies as a security issue, the logic is that if we mess up with the environment, eventually the Earth will revolt against us and make human survival pretty difficult.

Some changes are already under way: global warming, sea level rise, destruction of habitats, alteration in food chains, and the list goes on. Scientists alerted to this. Obama did as well.

But by blaming China for what Trump considers to be an invention, the future of America is endangered in more direct ways than we would think of at first glance.

Contesting global warming, and possibly reversing Obama’s executive order on abiding to the Paris Agreement, doesn’t really cost votes.

It takes time to measure the impact of pollution on the environmental, and without intense smog situations like the ones China frequently experiences, policies on countering climate change will hardly be a priority for the typical voter.

But what if renewables are the key to a preventing a more frightening daily danger?

What if they could prevent terrorism?

States that depend heavily on oil revenues tend to be more disorganised. That guaranteed source of income lets the government function without the need to impose taxes on the population.

This can lead to conflicts and insurgency groups especially if market fluctuations occur.

But oil is not just a trigger for conflict. Terrorist groups also receive money from sponsor states often funded from their oil export sales.

The Islamic State controls and exploits refineries in the Middle East, revenues from which represented one of its largest sources of income.

This financial asset took a hit when the US started to direct airstrikes at those oil refineries. But the US can’t exactly bomb all oil extraction sites in the Middle East just to prevent other terrorists groups from adopting the same tactic.

It is not due to the human and environmental risks but thanks to the fact that the US still needs that oil to fully function.

The solution might be to just leave oil alone. It seems reasonable to assume that by investing in green energy and making renewable technology cheaper,  oil consumption would decrease.

In an era where Instagram is full of green food, let’s make renewables trendy as well.

If oil states didn’t receive as much by way of oil revenues, their financial system might be forced to adapt and become more stable.

If sponsor states didn’t receive that money either, they would have no extra money to spend on foreign terrorist groups.

And, terrorist groups would need to find another way to carry on receiving all that funding – which could take a while to replace.

But none of this can be done if the major pollutants don’t get on board. Many developing countries need environmental leadership.

Perhaps China can take on that role. But the US is still in second place when it comes to CO2 emissions. The US cannot afford to go back on its decision under Obama to be environmentally responsible.

If not for long term survival, then at least for short term anti-terrorism security.