APR 25, 2025 | Demi Zheng
a battle between fatalism, pessimism, optimism, and, most importantly, the big boss of them all, realism
IT'S been so long since I've written anything here... Honestly, I kind of forgot this existed. BUT to preface this I want to say I'm writing this on a flight suffering from the fact that I slept a total of 2 hours last night and somehow was still not able to sleep on this flight (probably has to do with my forgetting Coke contains caffeine). SO I decided to do the responsible thing --- NOT studying for AP Euro, but writing something. Forgive the bad/messy writing. Also, when I refer to the collective 'we,' I mean America.
It's no secret that our livelihoods depend on a constant stream of energy to power almost EVERYTHING we almost cannot live without --- gas stoves, all electronics, air conditioning, the list goes on... Two key historical events show us what happens when there is an energy crisis: the 1973 oil crisis (Arab-Israeli War) and the 2022 energy crisis (Russo-Ukrainian War). Today, in light of the increasingly worsening climate crisis, with our energy reserves rapidly being depleted, our next energy crisis will no longer be embargos as products of war but a universal, global struggle. So I think that it's important to revisit America's---and also the world's---policies when it comes to energy in order to ensure and secure our collective future and survival.
As Stephen Gross writes in a Foreign Policy article titled "What Europe Can Learn From the 1973 Oil Shock" on November 3, 2022, because of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, OPEC quadrupled the price of crude oil and "the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries fully embargoed oil flowing to the United States, the Netherlands, and several other countries for taking staunchly pro-Israel stances in the conflict." This was a huge deal. After all, oil comprised of 60% of Europe's energy mix. Some believed that this embargo had the potential to destroy Western Europe completely.
Gross further argued that "the 1973 oil shock also created the potential for reform---elevating energy security as a goal and allowing environmentalist agendas to gain momentum." This would ultimately require collective action by Europeans. However, "National interests quickly took over, politicizing fuel prices and preventing meaningful integration within the European Community on energy issues." We missed the golden opportunity. It seems that just a decade after Europe was on the brink of collapsing from the oil shock, they started pouring and investing more money than ever back into hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, etc.)
Undoubtedly, this reaction is a result of a zero-sum mindset that arises especially when approaching natural resources. Psychologically, we can also explain this phenomenon with the concept of "loss aversion." Dr. Kristav and Dan Pilat, co-founders of the Decision Lab, define "loss aversion" as "a cognitive bias where the emotional impact of a loss is felt much more intensely than the joy of an equivalent gain." This zero-sum mentality coupled with loss aversion sparked an intense competition and investement-race into hydrocarbons. The zero-sum mindset led European countries to believe that if country X has some amount of oil, it means that we as country Y are losing out on that oil. And loss aversion would then lead country Y to be deathly afraid of this so-called "losing out" and to invest more money in procuring more oil and natural gas for themselves in order to offset this supposed feeling of "loss." Country Y's move to obtain more oil would then in turn threaten country X's Zero-Sum and loss aversion mentality, creating a cycle that goes on.
Gross explains: "When the Netherlands called for a declaration of solidarity from European Community members, the rest of the bloc demurred, fearing they, too, would suffer retribution from oil-producing states. Instead, Britain and France struck bilateral oil deals with Saudi Arabia, while West Germany tried to do so with Iran. Britain and Belgium restricted the export of refined oil products to their neighbors. And nearly every European nation that harbored a large international oil conglomerate called on it to favor its home country."
In fact, efforts before 1973 to collectivize the energy industry largely disappeared afterwards. Energy policy would remain, as Gross describes, "a profoundly national affair." So instead of moving forward together to find a collective solution to the crisis, European countries dug themselves (and their wells...) deeper and deeper into the hydrocarbon industry.
For a few decades, it would work. In the long term, who knows?
But what about America, the land of the free? What did we do in response? Did it work? How do the actions of leaders from that era affect us now?
As Gautama Mehta, an Environmental Justice Reporting Fellow at Grist, writes in a January 9th, 2025 article, "The presidents who immediately inherited the situation, Richard Nixon, and, upon his resignation, Gerald Ford, sought to remedy the situation primarily by expanding domestic energy production.
These days, a lot of people talk about Jimmy Carter as "a lousy president, but a great guy." When Jimmy Carter inherited the responsibility of caring for the nation in 1977, although the situation was a lot less dire, the U.S. was still relying significantly on foreign oil imports. And Carter was obsessed with energy. He installed solar panels on the White House in a symbolic act, and also established the Department of Energy.
Mehta explains Carter's two goals when it came to energy:
The first of which has remained a foundational pillar of American energy policy, the latter of which made him impossibly unpopular and pushed him out of presidency. Because in such a consumeristic and capitalist environment, his encouraging Americans to consume less was not received well. At all.
To understand what shaped American energy policy, we must first look at the American mind and American thought before, during, and after Carter's presidency. In this way, we can also understand ourselves and our current situation a little better.
On July 15, 1979, Jimmy Carter delivered a televised speech titled "Crisis of Confidence," commonly referred to as the "Malaise Speech" by critics. He begins by telling the stories and relating the opinions of people---common people---whom he had invited to Camp David. Some advised him on what to do, some talked about their worries and concerns for the nation, some were cynical, more were pessimistic, and everybody agreed that there was a serious problem in America.
As defined by Oxford Languages, malaise is "a general feeling of discomfort, illness, or uneasiness whose exact cause is difficult to identify." And this is exactly what Carter's speech made millions of people feel. His rather cynical worldview disgruntled people, tanking his approval ratings just a couple weeks after this speech. In it, he says, "But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America." He talks of "a fundamental threat to American democracy," that "the threat ... is a crisis of confidence." For a long time people had confidence in American ideals, in a rosy, picture-perfect American democracy, in American progress. We were proud of our past, we were proud of our present, and we were proudly optimistic of our future.
But now, Carter says, "our people are losing that faith," a problem because "just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past." He goes on to critisize consumerism itself, at this time an ideology which was so very embedded in the lives of Americans: "Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning ... cannot fillthe emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose." Oddly, this sentiment can be seen still in our lives today. In an attempt to open the eyes of Americans, Carter does not try to sugarcoat his words. He proclaims, "This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning."
Continuing, Carter recalls many of the problems that America has faced in the past few decades, from assassinations to inflation to Vietnam. Now, he pins the fault partially on the government: "The gap between our citizens and our government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual." Again, do we not see this reflected in our current American situation? What are we to do about it?
Carter tries to provide his own "honest answers." And boy, are they NOT easy at all:
He wants to restore American confidence. As one visitor to Camp David summarizes, "The strength we need will not come from the White House, but from every house in America." Here, Carter is a bit more optimistic than before, talking extensively about the true strength of Americans and the potential we had. Then, he presents Americans with a crossroads, one "path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest" and another that "leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves." Here, he presents the energy crisis as a perfect chance to take this challenge on. To walk on the right path. He outlines his energy policy:
While it is true that Carter's approval ratings inched upwards the week after his speech, with many people agreeing, the Iran hostage crisis three months later tanked all of his political momentum. So naturally people started picking apart all of his arguments, including that of his energy policy.
Critics berated Carter for going too far and for being unrealistic. They believed he was threatening America with the chains of conservatism. He asks people "to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel." And the capitalism, laissez-faire fueld American public was undoubtedly and inevitably very unhappy with this. Malaise was the right word for his speech because it made people feel fatalistic, worried, and above all, restricted and bound. Here we can ask another age old question that also remains relevannt today: To what extent should the government intervene in times of energy crises?
It is clear that the American public was not prepared to accept such harsh truths when we had been the dominant and leading country for so long. So should Carter have been the charismatic leader that replenished American confidence with a picturesque vision of a fake American future? Or did he do the right thing as best as he could? Above all, if he was considered more favorably as a president, would his policies have transformed America and what would the world look like now? We will never know.
Carter's approval ratings were in the trenches. Buried six feet deep. Ronald Reagan emerged from this chaos as the charismatic and optimistic leader that Americans craved. Americans wanted someone to tell, soothe, and assuage them that everything would be okay, that America was still strong, that we would only become more powerful.
[raegan was that person] [people willing to dismiss carter like ah he was just wrong, see?] [energy policy afterwards]
Despite Carter's failures, one question has always remained: Was Carter five decades too early for his time? Because it seems that everything he said remains relevant even today.