|
The seeds for future military conflict were sown in Scotland when the G8 recognized that Global Climate Change was a reality but did not put in place policies or a process that will deal with the issue in the urgent way needed. Why the failure to act? Primarily because of the United States. Our oil industry government – with a president and vice president from the oil industry surrounded by cabinet officials and other top officials from that industry – puts U.S. oil company profits ahead of facing up to climate change.
In the communiqué released at the end of the G8 summit at Gleneagles, Scotland it states that global warming is a “serious long-term challenge” for the entire planet. The nations participating, countries that currently represent 45% of global emissions of greenhouse gases, but have just 13% of the world's population, promised to act with “resolve and urgency” to reduce the gas emissions thought responsible for climate change - but they specified no targets or timetable. Friends of the Earth International Vice Chair Tony Juniper said: “This is a very disappointing finale. The G8 have delivered nothing new here and the text conveys no sense of the scale or urgency of the challenge. Bush appears to have effectively stalled all progress. The action plan, without any targets or timetables, will deliver very little to reduce emissions, or to roll out renewables to the scale required.”
Concern about global climate change is beginning to show itself among corporate leaders as well. Lord Oxburgh, the outgoing chairman of Shell Oil, has announced he plans to take a position with a climate-change charity when he quits the oil giant later this year. He told The Sunday Times that he is so concerned at the potential destruction from global warming that he wants to devote more of his time to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels. Exelon Corporation, one of the nation's largest electric utilities and General Electric are joining the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Members of the Pew Center's Business Council, which now number more than 40 major companies, agree that enough is known about the science of global climate change to warrant action, and they pledge to take steps to reduce or offset their own greenhouse gas emissions. It is hard to deny global climate change as a reality – the evidence stares us in the face. As Timothy E. Wirth co-chairman of the Energy Future Coalition cogently points out: “The Arctic is melting, sea levels are rising, desertification is increasing, species are moving, plants are blooming earlier in the year, and patterns are changing in the habitat and migration of birds: one indication after another that the world is starting to warm very significantly.” Last year the London Observer published excerpts from a U.S. Defense Department Report that found that “climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.” According to The Observer:
“The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
“'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'”
Global climate change “should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern” according to the report. They conclude that catastrophic climate change is “plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.”
Ralph Cicerone, the new head of the National Academy of Sciences who is a climate scientist himself, testified on July 20 before a Senate Commerce subcommittee on global climate change that a 2004 Pentagon report on potential global impacts of severe change in the world's climate. Among the consequences described in the report were surging seas breaking down levees in the Netherlands as soon as 2007, making the Hague “unlivable,” and Europe's climate becoming “more like Siberia's” by 2020. They saw possible “mega-droughts” in southern China and northern Europe. Further, these dramatic changes could lead to military conflict. “It was well done,” Cicerone said of the report. “I didn't think it was fictional.” Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), told The Observer “This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies.” The oil and gas industry has spent more than $440 million over the past six years on politicians, political parties and lobbyists in Washington, DC. According to the Center for Public Integrity the industry has spent more than $381 million on lobbying activities since 1998, pushing hard on everything from a new national energy policy to obscure changes in the tax code. Further, the industry has given more than $67 million in campaign contributions in federal elections since the 1998 election cycle. This includes giving more than $17 million to major party candidates since 1998. Since January 2000, the oil and gas industry has spent $393,952 to transport and entertain members and staff of Congress's energy committees and top Energy Department officials in places such as Vail, Colorado, London and Hong Kong. The industry also funds think tanks, advocacy groups and lobbyists to make its case in Washington. The Bush administration is putting the interests of big oil ahead of preventing a world wide environmental and economic catastrophe. In June, The New York Times revealed that Philip Cooney, a lawyer from the American Petroleum Institute had joined the White House to control the presentation of climate science – even though he had no scientific background. He edited out evidence of glacier retreat and inserted phrases suggesting that there was scientific doubt about climate change in government reports. After he was caught he left the administration and went to work for an oil company. Cooney's work was augmented by Harlan Watson, the US government's chief climate negotiator, who insisted that the findings of the National Academy of Sciences be excised from official reports. Rick Piltz worked for ten years with the U.S. federal program that coordinates global climate change research for NASA, the U.S. EPA, the National Science Foundation, and other federal agencies, became a whistle blower about the politicization of climate change research and policy making by the Bush administration. Earlier this year, Piltz quit his job and started talking to the press. Soon, an article in the New York Times exposed Phil Cooney was published. He reports that in the first year of the Bush Administration, he was directed over the phone to just delete a whole section on the National Assessment “Climate Change Impacts on the United States. The Assessment was produced from around 1998 to 2001 – it is the most comprehensive look at the implications of climate change to the United States. The Administration decided to remove any reference of the Assessment from government documents and, despite an Assessment being required every four years has taken no steps to conduct another one. And, they strategized to avoid the National Academy of Sciences from reviewing the Assessment.
Despite blocking information about the Assessment the NAS report the Bush operatives excised left no doubt that climate change is real. They report:
“Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century. This warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years, and has been accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, lengthening of growing seasons for some, and earlier arrival of migratory birds.”
The debate now is over whether humans are the cause of the unusual climate change that is being documented. “Almost all of the major greenhouse gases -- with the exception of  chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) -- have both natural and human-induced sources. For example, carbon dioxide is not only formed by the decay in plant matter, but also by the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. And atmospheric methane can be formed by growing rice, raising cattle, coal mining, using land-fills, and handling natural gas. Both carbon dioxide and methane are more abundant in the Earth's atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years, the report says. Carbon dioxide is probably the single most important agent contributing to climate changes today, the report says. In addition, the other greenhouse gases combined contribute to climate changes approximately equal to that of carbon dioxide.” The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before industrialization was 280 parts per million. Current worldwide trends point to in excess of 550 parts per million and the near the end of this century the world will have doubled and perhaps tripled the concentration of carbon. With these facts in mind it is hard to say – with a straight face – that human behavior is not the primary source of global climate change. The new head of the National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone testified before the Senate: “Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fuels.” Further, “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and it continues to rise.” Cicerone cited data from weather stations and ships indicating the surface of the Earth is generally hotter by about seven-tenths of 1 degree Fahrenheit just since the early 1970s. In addition to being a likely source of future military conflict, the catastrophic economic impacts of global climate change and the potential of our expanding our economy in new areas are being ignored by the Bush administration. Others, for example, the insurance industry, are recognizing that economic impacts will be significant. One insurance industry report outlines how climate change could increase the financial costs of extreme weather around the world. Even quite small increases in the intensity of major storms (hurricanes, typhoons, windstorms) could increase damage costs by at least two-thirds by the end of the century. The most extreme storms could become even more destructive, making insurance markets more volatile, as the cost of capital required to cover such events increases. Facing up to the challenge of global climate change will actually create economic opportunities. If rather than thwarting efforts to solve the problem the U.S. took leadership we would create jobs and opportunity throughout the United States. First, as part of breaking our addiction to oil the United States should stop corporate welfare to the oil, gas and fossil fuel industries. These industries include some of the wealthiest corporations in the world yet they receive tax breaks, loan guarantees, protection from law suits, elimination of royalty payments for oil wells on public lands and other forms of welfare. Overall, the new tax breaks in the latest version of the energy bill were pegged at about $23.5 billion by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. There is also another $5.4 billion in grants, subsidies and loan guarantees. The minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform says the total cost of the legislation to taxpayers will be more than $140 billion over the next 10 years. Besides the direct costs to the federal budget, that estimate takes into account secondary impacts of the legislation, including such items as higher prices for gas and electricity. It is senseless to provide taxpayer to support for big oil – in the billions of dollars annually – while we are trying to break out addiction to oil and reduce fossil fuel use. For example, one provision provides $2 billion for research into deep water oil and gas development – feeding our oil addiction rather than breaking it. Removing big oil corporate welfare will provide an opportunity for alternative, sustainable and clean energies to advance – and will encourage conservation and reduced use of fossil fuels. Rather than becoming followers of Germany, Denmark and Britain on wind power, and Japan on solar power (where the U.S. used to lead), the United States would become a leader in all these areas as well as in biomass, geothermal and hydropower, exporting our technologies and products rather than adding to our trade deficit by buying from other countries. Corporate welfare to the oil industry is not new nor limited to the Republican Party. A Clinton-era report, circa 1995, “Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States,” produced for Greenpeace by Industrial Economics, Inc. found that the US government provided up to $11.9 billion in subsidies to the US oil industry in 1995 excluding the cost of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies (with their inclusion the figure rises to as high as $35.2 billion). The oil industry should also be required to clean up the environmental mess it has made. One example of corporate welfare protecting big oil from its pollution is an additive to gasoline, MTBE. It has contaminated more than 1,800 community water systems in 29 states with a potential cleanup cost of $29 billion. Under the energy bill, MTBE makers, including large oil companies and refiners, would be shielded from lawsuits claiming that MTBE is a defective product and that the companies knew all along it would cause water contamination problems. At least 80 lawsuits involving MTBE have been filed. Shouldn't big oil pay for the damage it has done? In addition to stopping corporate welfare, big oil should be made to pay its fair share of taxes. Many oil companies avoid taxes by going off shore. According to the Center for Public Integrity, U.S.-based oil and gas companies have nearly 900 subsidiaries located in tax haven countries, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Second, removing corporate welfare for big oil should encourage the development of alternatives to gasoline. Ethanol is readily available – four million cars in the U.S. can use either gasoline or ethanol – every car could easily be made to do so. Turning corn, crops, plants and even solid waste into biofuel should be a high priority in order to make ethanol more available. Combine biofuel with hybrid auto technology and SUV's will get more than 150 miles to the gallon and a Prius will get 300 miles per gallon. Such changes could also save the struggling automobile industry. Americans are already showing interest in hybrid cars that get 30 to 50 miles per gallon, imagine the excitement among consumers if cars producing ten times the energy use were available! And, imagine how automakers would be increasing their mileage rather than fighting CAFE standards. Also, technological breakthroughs that are on the horizon – e.g., fuel cells – who knows what breakthroughs are ahead. And tax payers will be more likely to fund mass transit when the price of oil reflects the reality of the market rather than the subsidized corporate welfare price. The rust belt would no longer be rusty producing new cars, subways, light rail and rapid buses. Third, the power grid needs to be modernized – it is fragile and antiquated as well as inefficient. We need a system that can handle energy generated by wind turbines, solar energy, and fuel cells. We also need a system that is capable of fixing itself when the power goes out – power outages cost businesses $80 billion annually. Finally, our power grid needs to allow local control by municipalities who want to develop their own energy; reward conservation through increased use of compact fluorescent bulbs, efficient appliances, better insulation and other steps which can take us a long way towards reducing our electric load; and allow for a dispersed energy development – down to individual homes not only conserving energy but also generating some of their energy needs – Distributed Generation. Individuals and businesses should be able to see the financial benefit of retrofitting buildings so they are energy efficient. And rather than grandfathering in old dirty coal-fired power plants they should clean up to the level required of new plants or pay for the cost of the environmental damage they are causing. The technology is available, it is just not being used. Fourth, develop land use plans and regional transit plans that are consistent with the reality of global climate change. Sprawl development is no longer affordable or sensible. It consumes large quantities of land, segregates houses from shops and workplaces, depends on automobiles, and has little regard for the natural environment. Local governments can put in place rules for building sustainable communities, affordable housing and help determine how people get to work, school and shopping. Facing up to the challenge of global climate change is a political opportunity for leaders with vision – and not addicted to big oil money. It is an opportunity for economic expansion, the creation of jobs, sustaining our life style, protecting public health, conserving the environment, lifting the standard of living of poor countries, enhancing our security and avoiding future wars. It is time to put the interest of Americans, and the world, before the interests of big oil and corporate coal.
· Rate of sea level rise seen doubling (July, 2005)
· Droughts trigger food shortages in one-sixth of world's nations (July, 2005)
· Piltz memo details White House tampering with science findings (June, 2005)
· Australia's killer drought prompts a wave of farmer suicides (June. 2005)
· Siberian wildfires up tenfold in 20 years as thawing permafrost dries up Siberian lakes (June, 2005 )
· Some enviros now endorse "greenhouse friendly" nuclear power (May, 2005)
· Researchers find Mann's climate reconstruction " highly robust" (May, 2005)
· 132 U.S. Mayors vow to meet Kyoto goals (May, 2005)
· Climate impacts cost the world $145 billion in 2004 (April, 2004)
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
