 |
|
|
 |
|
Global Warming - A Threat Well Before 9/11 |
|
August West |
|
|
|
One thing that has not changed in the wake of the 9/11 mass murder
is the ongoing climate crisis. And that's because it was already a
dire threat to human survival well before that day. The normally conservative
climate science community has been issuing some stern warnings in
recent years, and their most recent, the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) report, was by far the most alarming, predicting a rise
of as much as 10 degrees Farenheit by the end of this century, compared
to the rise of 1 degree over the past century, which has been enough
to greatly destablize world weather (see The Heat is On by
Ross Gelbspan). This latest warning is in fact a rather conservative
consensus, and does not take into account possible complications due
to feeback mechanisms. e.g. the breakdown in the Atlantic Ocean currents,
which would disrupt the Gulf Stream, a flow of water that keeps western
Europe mild.
Scientists say that humanity must reduce its output of greenhouse
gases by 60-70% in the near future. The '97 Kyoto Accord could agree
on only a 5% reduction. The recent updated Kyoto agreement has so
many holes in it that its provisions may constitute an increase in
emissions. One of these is the emissions trading mechanism, under
which nations can buy rights to pour carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-effect-enhancing
gases from nations those discharges are below the levels alloted them
by the treaty. Thus, Russia, whose emissions are way below its allotment
due to the collapse of its industrial production since the end of
the Soviet Union, could sell its excess rights to countries whose
emissions are well above their quota, such as the leading industrial
powers, and the latter will not have to make any real reductions.
Also, forests and even agriculture will be counted as carbon sinks,
zones which absorb carbon and hence theoretically reduce the levels
of greenhouse gases, and this will count as reduced emissions. The
actual science behind the notion of sinks is in fact dubious at best.
To top it all, the government of Japan was induced to sign on to the
treaty by a provision declaring it not legally enforceable.(See The
Ecologist, March/April '99, special climate issue, and S.F.Chronicle,
7/24/01, p A11)
And yet, the U.S. government refuses to even go along with Kyoto lite,
and continues to cast doubt on whether global warming is even real,
or significant. The Clinton administration scuttled attempts at a
Kyoto lite back in November, and though many of its demands have now
become part of the agreement, the Bush administration has taken matters
further, and will settle for nothing that is not absolutely approved
by the oil industry.
Many climate activists have become so desperate as the situation worsens,
they are advocating approval of Kyoto lite, asserting that any agreement
is better than nothing, and that once the process begins, more stringent
measures could get approved at a later date. History tends to cast
doubt on such a notion. The interests of the world's leading capitalist
powers are to secure the best conditions for capital accumulation
on the part of their enterprises. Governments will adopt rhetoric
meant to convey an image of concern about global warming and ecocide
in general because that is part of their legitimacy function, the
need to make their inhabitants feel their needs are being considered.
But rhetoric is all that is. When push comes to shove, only the bottom
line counts.
Some environmentalists (e.g., Ross Gelbspan) wish to believe that
there are good guys in the oil industry, companies such as British
Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, which are actually moving in the
direction of alternative technologies. But meanwhile, both these companies
are engaged in further oil exploration and development of new fields,
be it in the North Sea, Central Asia, the Arctic coast of Alaska,
or New Guinea. (See The Ecologist, March/April '99, February
'01, April '01, May '01). And the head of BP , John Browne,former
head of the WTO, is now the head of the Trilateral Commission's European
branch, pushing for international trade treaties that will make any
climate deals moot and subject to the needs of profitability. If they
invest in alternative technologies, it is to control them, and ensure
they won't come on line till all the current investments of the energy
companies are fully paid off, and all the money that can be squeezed
out of them has been. No company can accept mass instant depreciation
of its capital, and stay in business.
Capital's very nature requires that it take over more and more of
the world, turn more and more of what is natural and alive into saleable
dead commodities. The people who make the investment decisions don't
plan to be around in 20-25 years, when the heat hits the fan, and
in any event cannot afford to think about such long term problems
if they are to stay in their roles as managers of capital. The prospect
of severe weather disruptions, a movement back and forth between extremes
in temperature, between drought and deluge, far more intense storms,
mass species die-offs in the oceans, and outright interference with
the processes of food production, such as the already occuring desertification
of much of China, and rising ocean levels,which are already threatening
Pacific islands such as Tuvalu (S.F.Chronicle, 10/13/01), are
likely to create massive movements of human beings seeking shelter
from the storm, and ensuing widespread instability. This provides
perhaps the most compelling reason for humanity to liberate itself
from capital's dictatorial hold: our lives do indeed depend on it.
(October 15, 2001)
|
|
|
|
