You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Thursday, October 30, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Article image
Bill McKibben
Tom Dispatch / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 8 February 2012
“Why the Fossil Fuel Industry Fights So Hard”

The Great Carbon Bubble

If we could see the world with a particularly illuminating set of spectacles, one of its most prominent features at the moment would be a giant carbon bubble, whose bursting someday will make the housing bubble of 2007 look like a lark. As yet -- as we shall see -- it’s unfortunately largely invisible to us.

In compensation, though, we have some truly beautiful images made possible by new technology.  Last month, for instance, NASA updated the most iconic photograph in our civilization’s gallery: “Blue Marble,” originally taken from Apollo 17 in 1972. The spectacular new high-def image shows a picture of the Americas on January 4th, a good day for snapping photos because there weren’t many clouds.

It was also a good day because of the striking way it could demonstrate to us just how much the planet has changed in 40 years. As Jeff Masters, the web’s most widely read meteorologist, explains, “The U.S. and Canada are virtually snow-free and cloud-free, which is extremely rare for a January day. The lack of snow in the mountains of the Western U.S. is particularly unusual. I doubt one could find a January day this cloud-free with so little snow on the ground throughout the entire satellite record, going back to the early 1960s.”

In fact, it’s likely that the week that photo was taken will prove “the driest first week in recorded U.S. history.” Indeed, it followed on 2011, which showed the greatest weather extremes in our history -- 56%of the country was either in drought or flood, which was no surprise since “climate change science predicts wet areas will tend to get wetter and dry areas will tend to get drier.” Indeed, the nation suffered 14 weather disasters each causing $1 billion or more in damage last year. (The old record was nine.) Masters again: “Watching the weather over the past two years has been like watching a famous baseball hitter on steroids.”

In the face of such data -- statistics that you can duplicate for almost every region of the planet -- you’d think we’d already be in an all-out effort to do something about climate change. Instead, we’re witnessing an all-out effort to... deny there’s a problem.

Our GOP presidential candidates are working hard to make sure no one thinks they’d appease chemistry and physics. At the last Republican debate in Florida, Rick Santorum insisted that he should be the nominee because he’d caught on earlier than Newt or Mitt to the global warming “hoax.”

Most of the media pays remarkably little attention to what’s happening. Coverage of global warming has dipped 40% over the last two years. When, say, there’s a rare outbreak of January tornadoes, TV anchors politely discuss “extreme weather,” but climate change is the disaster that dare not speak its name.

And when they do break their silence, some of our elite organs are happy to indulge in outright denial. Last month, for instance, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by “16 scientists and engineers” headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The article was easily debunked. It was nothing but a mash-up of long-since-disproved arguments by people who turned out mostly not to be climate scientists at all, quoting other scientists who immediately said their actual work showed just the opposite.

It’s no secret where this denialism comes from: the fossil fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the Journal article, for instance, five had had ties to Exxon.) Writers from Ross Gelbspan to Naomi Oreskes have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we’ve ever faced.

Why doesn’t it fold the way the tobacco industry eventually did? Why doesn’t it invest its riches in things like solar panels and so profit handsomely from the next generation of energy? As it happens, the answer is more interesting than you might think.

Part of it’s simple enough: the giant energy companies are making so much money right now that they can’t stop gorging themselves. ExxonMobil, year after year, pulls in more money than any company in history. Chevron’s not far behind. Everyone in the business is swimming in money.

Still, they could theoretically invest all that cash in new clean technology or research and development for the same. As it happens, though, they’ve got a deeper problem, one that’s become clear only in the last few years. Put briefly: their value is largely based on fossil-fuel reserves that won’t be burned if we ever take global warming seriously.

When I talked about a carbon bubble at the beginning of this essay, this is what I meant. Here are some of the relevant numbers, courtesy of the Capital Institute: we’re already seeing widespread climate disruption, but if we want to avoid utter, civilization-shaking disaster, many scientists have pointed to a two-degree rise in global temperatures as the most we could possibly deal with.

If we spew 565 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere, we’ll quite possibly go right past that reddest of red lines. But the oil companies, private and state-owned, have current reserves on the books equivalent to 2,795 gigatons -- five times more than we can ever safely burn. It has to stay in the ground.

Put another way, in ecological terms it would be extremely prudent to write off $20 trillion worth of those reserves. In economic terms, of course, it would be a disaster, first and foremost for shareholders and executives of companies like ExxonMobil (and people in places like Venezuela).

If you run an oil company, this sort of write-off is the disastrous future staring you in the face as soon as climate change is taken as seriously as it should be, and that’s far scarier than drought and flood. It’s why you’ll do anything -- including fund an endless campaigns of lies -- to avoid coming to terms with its reality. So instead, we simply charge ahead.  To take just one example, last month the boss of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Donohue, called for burning all the country’s newly discovered coal, gas, and oil -- believed to be 1,800 gigatons worth of carbon from our nation alone.

What he and the rest of the energy-industrial elite are denying, in other words, is that the business models at the center of our economy are in the deepest possible conflict with physics and chemistry. The carbon bubble that looms over our world needs to be deflated soon. As with our fiscal crisis, failure to do so will cause enormous pain -- pain, in fact, almost beyond imagining. After all, if you think banks are too big to fail, consider the climate as a whole and imagine the nature of the bailout that would face us when that bubble finally bursts.

Unfortunately, it won’t burst by itself -- not in time, anyway. The fossil-fuel companies, with their heavily funded denialism and their record campaign contributions, have been able to keep at bay even the tamest efforts at reining in carbon emissions. With each passing day, they’re leveraging us deeper into an unpayable carbon debt -- and with each passing day, they’re raking in unimaginable returns. ExxonMobil last week reported its 2011 profits at $41 billion, the second highest of all time. Do you wonder who owns the record? That would be ExxonMobil in 2008 at $45 billion.

Telling the truth about climate change would require pulling away the biggest punchbowl in history, right when the party is in full swing. That’s why the fight is so pitched. That’s why those of us battling for the future need to raise our game. And it’s why that view from the satellites, however beautiful from a distance, is likely to become ever harder to recognize as our home planet.

Read Tom Engelhardt's response here.



Author pic
ABOUT Bill McKibben
Bill McKibben is the author of a dozen books about the environment, beginning with The End of Nature in 1989, which is regarded as the first book for a general audience on climate change. He is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign 350.org, which has coordinated 15,000 rallies in 189 countries since 2009.

Ik heb alles vgloens je

Ik heb alles vgloens je handleiding gedaan.Blijf nu zitten met het volgende probleem:root@CH3SNAS:/mnt/HD_a2/ffp/bin# ./nzbget -D -c /ffp/etc/nzbget.conf./nzbget: can't load library libssl.so.0.9.7 Ik heb funplug 0.5, mis ik nog iets of moet ik in een script een verwijzing maken ?Ik hoop, dat iemand me kan helpen, want ik ben al heel lang en op veel manieren bezig geweest een nzb downloader geinstalleerd te krijgen !

And, my own Sierra Club,

And, my own Sierra Club, along with many others claiming to be environmentalists, are equally to blame as the fossil companies. For example, the effort to shut down the Shoreham nuclear station on Long Island years back was supported by The Heating Oil Institute. Did the environmentalists then protesting care? They cared less about ensuring a safe, non-emitting source of power than they did about siding opportunistically with fossil fuel folks who were rightly scared nuclear could easily take away their cash -- 'renewables' can't, which is why BP, Chevron, etc. love to tout & support wasteful wind & solar 'farms'
www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037134&contentId=7068677 (note their predictions)

Fortunately, the world is coming to understand the ability of 3 things to meet all clean energy needs for thousands of years is right in front of us: local solar (DG), efficiency, and safe nuclear.

The Chinese, Czechs, Indians... all realize this and are moving forward. Perhaps they'll awaken our common sense again, as it was by JFK in 1962...
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Of course, partly thanks to ignorance of what "nuclear" means in the environmental community, we're now 40 years behind in meeting the 2000 goal of no fossil fuelled power. One can see Nixon here making the wrong choice in living color, while admitting he doesn't understand...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI&mid=5618117

So, indeed, as the old farm saying goes: "There's no substitute for human stupidity". Time to get serious: http://tinyurl.com/bueq2ev
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/energy-climate-all-talk-no-a...
Efficiency, local solar PV/hot-water and safe nuclear are all we need for millennia. http://ThoriumRemix.com/2011

Young people acting adult...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0 (1992)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko3e6G_7GY4&feature=channel_video_title (2011)
Anyone listening?
--
Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-3071

Its a good article with a

Its a good article with a valid point of view. But the title is wanting. It is just more incentive for the general public not to vote. The article could've been on how important it is to vote local so the general public's voice trickles up!

Thanks Bill. Nothing seems to

Thanks Bill. Nothing seems to overcome greed like a very heavy foot on the neck. Nature will provide that foot. I have as much faith in this as I do in how difficult it is for our species to back away from the "punch bowl."

The polar ice contains the

The polar ice contains the proof of man's contribution to global warming in the form of increased carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and frozen in the ice since the Industrial Revolution started.
(As the polar ice caps melt, the proof melts with it.)

Science is such an inconvenience with all that TRUTH and proof.
(We need to rely more on influence-peddling, bribe-taking politicians and Big Oil's lobbyists for leadership on the issue, don't we.)

We should not expect much

We should not expect much from our politicians of ANY party, since they are all under the influence of fossil industries, particularly energy and car industries that feed each other by continuing burning fossil fuels in power plants and in cars and other internal combustion engine powered vehicles. When one adds cow farts from all too numerous cows and other animals that feed our appetites, both in US and more recently in China and India, we are creating a nice greenhouse effect, which is great for folks who live in mid-west because they will not have to move to Florida when they get old and decrepit.

Anyhow, Florida, and east and west coast will drown under several yards of water once the Antarctics ice gets melting, as it already is even now. Or the Gulf stream may change its direction and cause freezing in Europe, as currently experiencing in most frozen countries across Atlantic, while we in US have spring weather fooling threes into budding.

There is enough energy that falls on our roofs in form of solar, both thermal and photovoltaic, wind, and geothermal energy in our basements that we can harvest this energy and go off the grid, making all the fossil corporations irrelevant. This energy could be stored in car batteries and thus also used to transport ourselves. Going totally to diffused harvesting of energy replacing grids and large power plants, and independent of those large fossils, is the best way, rather then building large solar, or wind farms that also harm the environment and loose of lot of energy in transmission.

It is much, much cheaper being green than being wasteful as we are now. retrofitting our homes to harvest energy (and water) in situ, will provide millions of jobs! We can do it ourselves, and run the fossils out of business, and they will have to find some useful work to do ;-)! Perhaps they can be growing food in their front lawns, rather then useless grass, which needs to be mowed and mowers use even more fossil energy ;-0)!

The polar icecaps are

The polar icecaps are receding, the glaciers are disappearing, and the permafrost is defrosting, but the dim still insist that there's no global warming.

Catastrophic climate change will result, whether America, Inc. is managed by the corporate party's Republicans who deny the evidence, or the corporate party's Democrats who ignore the evidence.

Jill Stein for President:

http://www.jillstein.org

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

http://www.chenangogreens.org

Thanks for the excellent

Thanks for the excellent piece, Bill. I wish I didn't keep thinking of that old New Yorker cartoon:
http://i.minus.com/jZMu8cD2WFPvl.jpg

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...