..continued
from
previous page 8
The
politics of climate change
People
The
third element to this climate change argument is people, the workers,
the workless, the citizens. Along with natural environments and all
kinds of plant and animal life, the human species faces a grave
threat, although this could be easily missed when listening to
politicians and business leaders. It seems, in general, that ordinary
folk pay more heed and give more credence to the real authorities
when they get the opportunity to hear from them. Hence the growing
“green” movements around the world, community self-help groups,
pressure groups and the like. Politicians, happy to pass on the
responsibility for action rather than tackle it themselves at the
root, encourage citizens to turn off lights, TV sets and computers
and share cars to work. Businesses talk comfortingly about
self-regulation, green up their corporate image and spend inordinate
amounts of money yet create ever more emissions from advertising
campaigns designed to increase sales of bio-fuels, low energy light
bulbs etc. and attempt to assuage consumer guilt with spurious
carbon-trading schemes. The onus is put squarely, but not fairly, on
the consumer’s shoulders.
It
is immediately apparent that these three elements don’t operate in
isolation, but are related in various ways. The links between
governments and business are inextricable, often murky. The IPCC
issued three reports between February and May 2007. This was a joint
project between the UN and the World Meteorological Organisation,
offering evidence of likely consequences and avoidance of the most
catastrophic events of global warming. At the same time the Guardian
(2 February) reported that the Exxon Mobil-backed American Institute
“had offered $10,000 apiece for scientific articles contradicting
the IPCC’s findings.” In April the New York Times, whilst
reporting negative effects of global warming – heatwaves, floods,
storms, fires and droughts – was also keen to balance this with the
positives, “some benefits to health such as fewer deaths from cold”
and “the greening of cold areas.” One link noted by informed,
independent media is that of the ever-revolving-door syndrome,
enabling easy passage in either direction between government and
business. Much commented on and much complained about examples in the
US include the huge K Street lobbying industry, the movements of both
unelected appointees, governmental advisors and elected politicians
from or into the oil, energy and arms industries board rooms. This
has included Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and the Bushes themselves. Some
parallels in the UK are John Major and the Carlisle Group, Geoffrey
Robinson, Peter Mandelson and the Powergen/Enron scam and Walmart’s
acquisition of Asda with a little personal help from Tony Blair.
(Thanks here to Greg Palast for The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.)
Regarding
the differing stances taken by the print media, Extra’s
July/August 2007 investigation into the IPCC’s reports backs up
their contention that in this instance the UK
media covered the reports more thoroughly and accurately than the US.
For example, with regard to the second report, the Daily Telegraph and
Guardian noted such details as government
interference, alterations made at the behest of several government
delegations to state that millions rather than billions would be at
risk from coastal flooding, and that China and Saudi Arabia insisted
on diluting some of the wording. But US media (New York Times)
were criticising China’s influence on the dilutions in the report
while at the same time commenting positively on the US’s mostly
constructive role. Compare this with the UK Times’ report
that the following statement “North America is expected to
experience substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption”
was removed at the insistence of the US delegation leader Sharon
Hays, a White House science aide. Following a number of these
insistences of changes to the report several scientists, including
one of the co-authors, walked out of the drafting session, refusing
to have any more truck with it.
Following
the final report in May, media in the US, still clearly in thrall to
big business, cite economists and experts linked to the Cato
Institute and the American Enterprise Institute who argue that,
counter to all the scientific evidence, climate change would actually
be good for the US economy. (Bring on the disaster – it’s great
for GDP.) It’s often a fine balance for governments needing to be
seen and heard to be concerned for the people’s welfare whilst
keeping corporate business happy. On this issue a lot of the noise
they are making is about cost, monetary cost. Here, with the
revolving door in evidence again, is a former power-industry
lobbyist, now White House environmental advisor: “there is no
leader in the world that is going to be pursuing a strategy that
would drive their economies into a deep recession.” So, let’s
look at the cost of acting, advise the politicians. Not ‘let’s
act’, not ‘let’s ask our populations what they want’, not
‘let’s put humanity first in the frame’. Insurance companies,
likewise, are busy assessing and projecting the likely costs of the
future.
The
third link to be considered, that between corporations and citizens
is of a purely commercial nature. Citizens (workers) are a necessary
part of the transactions all the way along the line. They are
essential as labour for extraction, transportation, production and
marketing, etc. and they are also vital as end users, consumers. If
they can fill one of these requirements, fine – two, even better.
However, for the millions who have no chance of factoring into this
equation there is no place at the bargaining table either. They are
surplus to requirements, superfluous, not worth considering apart
from their use as an example and clear warning to those “fortunate
enough” to be inside the loop. In the developed world prisoners are
more valuable to business than are the flotsam and jetsam of human
society living on the edge in some of the hardest of all places to
survive. These are the ones initially who, in great numbers, will
bear the brunt of the effects of global warming. To whom can they
look for protection – recognition even? Corporations have no
interest in nil returns, only in repeat business. And loyalty is as
long-lived as profit, corporate allegiance to which will trump
allegiance to any flag.
As
to what can be done, should be done, will be done . . .
It’s
easier to say what won’t be done by corporations legally bound to
put the profit motive above the public good and by governments
dismissive of the collective aspirations of their electorate. Without
a doubt certain sections of world society deserve their own speedy
demise. People, collectively, have the power to bring about that
demise. Governments and corporations are made up of individuals who
are, in the main, diametrically opposed to and totally disinterested
in the views and opinions of most of the world’s people. But it
will be the people, who, by sheer weight of numbers, will end the
tyranny that is being waged now by international capitalism on their
habitat. People everywhere are shouting Ya basta! “Enough!”
and are beginning to realise that their loyalty is to each
other and to the maintenance of a protected, sustainable world
environment, not just for now, but for all future generations.
JANET
SURMAN