The Climate Change “Debate” and Marketization of Nature: Everyone Loses

FactoryFlickruserKimSengDespite near-unanimous global scientific and governmental consensus that global warming is accelerating due to human activity, debating this fact is still a favorite political pastime in the United States.

Governments around the world acknowledge the science that connects industrialization, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and their detrimental impact on the climate, and are currently acting upon solutions. Yet the US, one of the largest greenhouse gas producers, has repeatedly refused to participate in global climate reform. To further confound this reality, the November midterm elections placed ardent climate-change deniers in line for senior legislative environmental policy positions.

Meanwhile, the evidence continues to mount. An abundance of reports show that not only does climate change exist, but that it’s human-induced and will cause severe and non-reversible negative consequences for the planet. Most recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 2014 Climate Change Report, which states the observed changes in the climate are “unequivocal” and that carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased exponentially in the past 60 years. The majority of carbon emissions are absorbed into the ocean, causing rapid acidification which has already caused mass die-offs.

Despite having presented overwhelming evidence from over 130 countries that support this conclusion, IPCC reports continue to be attacked by US media outlets. In 2007, minor errors in the Climate Change Report were widely exploited to justify a denial of its findings, forcing scientists in the US to respond in an open letter. Instead of acknowledging climate change science, the US media continues to distort reality by creating a false equivalency between the two sides.

Additionally, when extreme weather phenomenons are reported, climate change is rarely mentioned as a contributing factor. Project Censored found that out of 450 news segments about weather anomalies in 2013, only 16 of them mentioned climate change.

One may be inclined to believe that politicians who deny man-made climate change are innocuously naïve, but many times they are consciously furthering the neoliberal business agenda at the expense of the planet. Accepting the true human impact on the world would mean instilling regulations to curb pollution, which would cut into corporate profits. As Naomi Klein keenly elucidates, the destructive nature of neoliberalism does not lend itself to a sustainable environment, now or ever. Free-market advocates don’t look at earth resources beyond market shares, and their corporate mantra is to continuously maximize profits.

Fossil fuel companies know their time is running out, so they’ve launched a propaganda war to confuse the American public about climate change, raising serious questions about democracy and the right to information. Journalist George Monbiot has extensively researched the ties between oil companies and the reproduction of climate change disinformation. As Abby Martin on Breaking the Set revealed, those who want to protect oil interests fund think-tanks with the sole aim of derailing climate change evidence and environmental advocacy.

One example of intentionally manipulating public opinion is EPA Facts, whose single purpose is to debunk research by the Environmental Protection Agency. Sourcewatch describes it as a “front group operated by the PR firm Berman & Co.” which manages several similar groups that work to further market fundamentalism, including anti-minimum wage campaigns, food safety, and a host of other social policies. Another egregious example of this collusion is the American Enterprise Institute. This Exxon Mobil-funded think tank blatantly offered funding to scientists and academics that could produce research to dismiss human caused climate change.

Other industries that contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, such as the beef industry, also have ties to climate change denial. A report by the 2006 UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that livestock production is responsible for up to 18 percent of total emissions, more than all transportation combined. Coincidentally, Koch Industries, which oversees Matador Cattle Company, has consistently funded climate change denial.

These astroturf groups have subverted the dialogue, toxified the political process and halted environmental progress. Sociologist Robert J. Bruelle found just how prevalent they are too, with at least 140 organizations existing solely to poison the well and delay legislative action on climate change. Mega rich donors who also want to chip in are becoming more savvy in their funding techniques, using third-party agencies such as Donors Capital Fund to anonymously funnel money into neoliberal policies. As the Guardian revealed last year, anonymous billionaires donated up to $120 million to anti-climate groups to discredit the scientific consensus using Donors Trust.

As journalist Lee Fang discussed on Democracy Now, Republicans who deny man-made climate change and are largely backed by fossil fuel companies will soon be in key positions to block environmental policies. This includes Senator Jim Inhofe in the Environment Committee, Senator Ron Johnson in the Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee, and possibly Senator Ted Cruz in the Science Subcommittee, which controls federal scientific research. Beyond their proclaimed skepticism or outright denial of climate change, these leaders’ ties with oil giants will dismiss any chance of judicious policy decisions.

Because campaign funding is intimately tied to corporate interests, Americans must recognize the influence that corporations and politicians have on media, advertising, think-tank research, and other avenues of information. It’s also a critical time to recognize neoliberalism (or market-fundamentalism) as a toxic system that places corporate profit over any chance for democracy. Acknowledging climate change as a global reality is the first step to demanding sustainable environment policies and proper investment in renewable energy sources.

Other countries are quickly progressing on this front. Germany’s Energiewende project (energy transition plan) has successfully turned nearly one-third of their electricity production carbon-free over the past ten years, and are projected to be 100% renewable as early as 2050. The country’s renewable plan uses electricity through solar photovoltaic and onshore wind power energy.

The US could do this too. Dr. Mark Jacobson from Stanford University developed a plan for America to shift to 100 renewables by 2050, tailoring the proposals for each state based on regional resources available. California, for instance, would meet its energy needs by switching to 55% solar, 35% wind, 5% geothermal, and 4% hydroelectric power. Details of the intricate plan include land requirements, projected cost and savings, expected job creation, and how the proposed trade-off would significantly reduce pollution and global warming emissions.

Plans like this demonstrate the potential the US has in shifting its energy policies and being a leader in sustainable development. Rather than watching the fictitious ‘climate change’ debate unfold, the American public should be aggressively advocating for the development and implementation of green energy plans. It is now or never, and unfortunately, the planet cannot wait.

Written by Sabrina Nasir

Photo by flickr user Kim Seng

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply

The Pinky Swear Doctrine

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

                                          – Dwight Eisenhower, 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation

This speech by Eisenhower demonstrates reflection and honesty that is all too often missing from the Oval Office. The great and wonderful POTUS that we all have come to know nowadays, displaying an image of unreserved authority and grave conviction, is conspicuously missing here in Ike’s speech. Instead, in this brief, bizarre moment of time, we the people were given a glimpse into the little old man behind the curtain; small and stout in stature, yet honest, forthcoming and surprisingly human. Eisenhower’s warning was startling: he dared expose the looming beasts of fascism from within the very den where they dwell and multiply – dogs of war he himself had helped feed and grow over the course of his two terms in office.

How can the military-industrial complex be counterbalanced? It bears repeating: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” This is precisely where journalism ought to come in, educating and alerting the masses so to keep their representatives in check through a sustained, coordinated effort of dissent. The corporatized for-profit Hill, however, has co-opted and annexed the Fourth Estate, providing a nice little addition that’s just down the hall and around the corner from Congress, where representatives can throw it a bone from time to time to keep it happy. Vietnam, The Gulf War, Iraq/Afghanistan – along with multiple covert operations in between, like Operation Cyclone and Iran-Contra, to name a few – clearly indicates war has never been so plentiful and profitable.  Had we an informed citizenry by way of a muckraking press, guarded with an intellectual ability to think critically about the powers that be, then perhaps these wars would have never been.

It would appear Eisenhower’s words of wisdom have fallen on deaf ears.

A disclaimer is in order: my intentions are not to nostalgically wax poetic about Eisenhower because quite frankly he did nothing short of solidifying the idea of not just an unchecked permanent armaments industry but also perpetual military/intelligence operations overseas in order to keep the balance in favor of Western norms and ideology. For instance, under Eisenhower, both Operation Ajax and Operation PBSUCCESS ousted two democratically elected leaders through coups orchestrated by the CIA; that being the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and President of Guatemala, Jacobo Árbenz. This set the precedent for dozens of more coups later on down the road, all in the name of stopping the red menace.

Eisenhower’s reign is an example of the deceptive “benevolent dictator” our framers of the Constitution had duly warned us about, unchained by the inherent checks and balances made explicit in the role of the Executive. Indeed, American foreign policy has effectively dethroned the rule of law, replacing it with the arbitrary whims of officials. The “law is king,” Paine once said; nowadays the order has been reversed, where elitist officials decide when to apply the law as they see fit. President Eisenhower, like our leaders today, said “trust me” to the rest of our governmental branches, conducting military strikes and operations without congressional oversight and thereby paying little mind to constitutional law. And as of recent, we have seen the same rationale entertained by the likes of Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama in their bid to conduct military strikes in Syria. They too have said “just trust us,” asserting that Assad used Sarin on his people without feeling the need to prove it as such.

Nevertheless Eisenhower had his moment of clarity in the Farewell Speech of 1961. But not only were his words a warning of the commodification of war itself, moreover it warns of the perpetual specter of war according to government narratives alone – with zero factual basis.  And with a disinformed citizenry, one has not the power to act because one is not in the know to begin with.  Just trust us, they say.  Here, embedded in the warning of Ike’s Farewell Address, we have the original prototype of the eventual Wolfowitz doctrine: a maximalist Executive that boxes out congressional oversight, engaging in covert and overt preemptive “operations” in order to prevent large scale wars in the future, operations based on so-called intelligence that never sees the light of day, top-secret and hushed – for elitist eyes only. Give us your uninformed consent; we promise to do the best we can with it.

The American political system has effectively substituted constitutional law for a pinky swear doctrine.

To say the least, our leaders didn’t get Ike’s memo. Or maybe they did – they just made it into a paper airplane, kicking their feet up on the table of discourse and reason, carelessly wielding their duties with a flick of the wrist. Indeed, to make matters worse, the soaring commodification of war has forayed into a sort of fetish for American officials, where they childishly revel in all things related to war on a superficial level that is astounding.

We now have the likes of NSA Chief Gen. Keith Alexander donning himself a modern day Picard by virtue of his spy facility modeled after the bridge of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek. And, furthermore, to add axe-murderer to Creep Street, the NSA facility is known as the “Information Domination Center.”

I have two questions for our trekkie NSA Chief:

While conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, when an analyst inquires whether or not to hack somebody’s private information, do you say “make it so!” whilst swiveling in your armchair? Also, when shredding everything the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution stands for with, presumably, photon torpedos, if you miss the target do you reenact the Annoyed Picard meme? Really, I’m seriously interested.

Likewise, we have Obama and his so-called Terror Tuesdays, where he meets with top national security officials and flips through baseball cards of bad guys, greenlighting drone strikes with an arbitrary point of the finger. Clearly the former Constitutional lawyer must be dyslexic, because he thinks that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around. Also, seeing that these hits are based primarily on intelligence reports that are not vetted by any congressional oversight, I do hope nobody is throwing Obama a Curveball.

Actually, check that, it would appear the al-Majala massacre was just that, a curveball by way of faulty intelligence – and Obama whiffed. But I’m sure he was just doing the best he could with what he had. Mistakes happen. I mean, maybe he just pointed to the wrong baseball card because he was too busy working on his dance moves for the Ellen DeGeneres Show.

While it’s all fun and games for armchair government officials, for those serving on the front lines of war, it’s dead serious. Yet since our media has been bought like a cheap suit, the citizenry isn’t privy to instances where the likes of Seal Team Six pick bullets out of the skulls of innocent victims in a special ops raid gone bad so as not to be held culpable for murder. Nope, in a world where fluffy disinformation is rife and the fetishist military-industrial complex runs amok in all its glory, the Gardez massacre got zero fucking traction by news outlets.

Preeminent war exercised through a permanent arms and intelligence industry, in theory, is supposed to stymie future wars. But whether it’s special operations in the dark of night or drones used via the disposition matrix, there is no such thing as a surgical and precise war. As the anti-war activist meme goes, bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.  Make no mistake about it, we invade countries to harvest their resources, build bases and gain a geopolitical foothold against other superpowers like Russia.

Here’s a rule of thumb: whenever politicians promise their efforts are good and just when it comes to military action, you can be damn sure they have something up their sleeve. That is the simple fact.

And that is precisely why we shouldn’t just trust them.

Yet while officials of yesteryear had the decency to button up their hegemony and jingoism in some semblance of reality and reason, like Eisenhower, nowadays officials just flaunt it braggadocio-style and care not about the ramifications of their actions. The likes of Obama and Alexander have zero compunction when it comes to the actual cost of war because both of them have been deluded by their own power and prestige as indispensable do-gooders in the world.

A similar delusion was enjoyed by Roman elites. They too dedicated their glory to games and reenactments of old battles in the Colosseum; meanwhile they crumbled within, due to a morally bankrupt autocrat and defanged Senate. Sound familiar?

Written by Mike Micklow for Media Roots