Written by Ed
Finn and first published at rabble.ca
The tenacious
refusal of the world’s business and political leaders to heed the warnings of
climate scientists about global warming raises the stark possibility that it
may already be too late. The tipping point beyond which concerted preventive
action becomes impracticable is just 12 years away, according to the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That’s all
the time the IPCC scientists give us to keep the global temperature from rising
above 1.5 degrees Celsius. If it rises higher than that, they warn, the
consequent intensity of extreme heat, pollution, droughts, floods, hurricanes,
wildfires, rising sea levels, and consequent mounting hunger, poverty, and mass
displacements will annihilate billions of people.
Realistically,
what are the odds that the scientists’ latest warning about global warming will
be heeded, any more than their many previous alarms have been in the past?
I’d put the
odds against at 100-to-1, perhaps even 1,000-to-1.
Starting with
the Club of Rome’s seminal study on The Limits of Growth in 1972,
climatologists, ecologists and other scientists have been trying to stop the
economic folly of pursuing infinite growth on a finite planet. They have
repeatedly called for curbs on carbon dioxide emissions, air and ocean
pollution, resource depletion, deforestation, armed conflict, poverty,
inequality, and overpopulation -- each successive plea differing only in its
mounting urgency as it fails to spur preventive corporate and political action.
This apparent
indifference of CEOs to a looming climate catastrophe is often mistakenly
attributed to their dismissal of global warning as a hoax. Some of them
undoubtedly are deniers, but most, though they may be avaricious and heartless,
are not stupid. They can’t dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence that
global warming is real and that, left unchecked, it will make the planet
unlivable for billions of people, possibly even wipe out human civilization.
The entrenchment of capitalism
Why, then,
you may ask, do business executives stubbornly continue to maintain a ruinous
economic system whose contamination of the environment is clearly the chief
cause of global warming?
The obvious
answer is that neoliberal capitalism is now so deeply entrenched in both law
and practice that even the most intelligent and ethical corporate officials
dare not try to reform it on their own. Their legal charters and business
mandates oblige them to make the maximization of profits and shareholder
dividends their overriding objective. That fixation trumps everything else (no
pun intended), including the broad public interest, a clean environment, and
even humankind’s survival.
The
enshrinement of profit maximization is built into Canada’s business
legislation, as it is in the United States and elsewhere. Our courts uphold
this principle. In a noteworthy case in 2004 (the People vs. Wise), Canada’s
Supreme Court ruling was based on the Canadian Business Corporations Act. The
relevant section of this Act states that corporate directors and officers “owe
their fiduciary obligations to the corporation, and the corporation’s interests
are not to be confused with the interests of creditors or any other
stakeholders.”
And there you
have it. Any CEO or board of directors rash enough to deviate from the pursuit
of profits for any reason – for the benefit of employees, customers, society as
a whole, or even the planet – would be severely chastised. Either they’d be
sued by major shareholders under the Act, or the subsequent decline in profits
would leave them vulnerable to a hostile takeover.
So the
corporations, in effect, are compelled by the law, by the greed of their investors,
and by the very nature of their unbridled capitalist economic system, to
continue their destructive assault on the environment. Capitalism is inherently
dependent on maintaining the lunacy of perpetual economic growth, and hence
opposed to any limits being placed on its virulent pursuit of profits.
Capitalism and a clean climate, in short, are clearly incompatible.
As for the
world’s governments, who hypothetically have the obligation and potential
ability to restrain the corporate environment-wreckers, they have also been
effectively hamstrung. The far superior financial and economic might amassed by
the big business barons now empowers them, in effect, to dictate most
governments’ policies and priorities.
Certainly,
any political attempt to seriously hobble the dominant capitalist system is now
unthinkable. Even the corporations’ power to retaliate by shifting factories,
jobs and investments to more compliant low-wage, low-tax countries is in itself
a strong deterrent to would-be political planet-savers.
Is resistance now futile?
With both
corporations and complicit governments thus locked into a perpetuation of
environmentally destructive capitalism, it is not surprising that some
scientists and activists have become deeply discouraged, and a small but
growing number forlornly conceding that further resistance is probably futile.
Among the
stalwarts who adamantly remain convinced that the struggle is not yet lost is
climatologist Bill McKibben. In a recent New Yorker essay, he admits that “we
are on a path of self-destruction, but argues that “there is nothing inevitable
about our fate. Solar panels and wind turbines are now among the least
expensive ways to produce energy. Storage batteries are cheaper and more
efficient than ever. We could move quickly if we chose to, but we’d need to opt
for solidarity and co-ordination on a global scale.”
He admits,
however, that “the chances of that look slim.” One wonders, as time passes
through the relatively brief 12-year deadline set by the ICCP, how much longer
McKibben’s optimism will last.
One of the
eminent experts on the environment who is not at all sanguine about humanity’s
chance of survival is Elizabeth Colbert, a staff writer for the New Yorker and
author of a recent best-selling book, The Sixth Extinction.
She lists the
five major extinction events that have occurred since complex animals evolved
on Earth more than 500 million years ago, first quoting from a plaque in the
Hall of Biodiversity in the Museum of Natural History in New York:
“Global
climate change and other causes, including collisions between Earth and
extraterrestrial objects, were responsible for the previous five extinctions.
But today we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction, this time caused solely
by humanity’s transformation of the ecological landscape.”
“In an
extinction event of our own making,” Colbert muses, “what will happen to us?”
Her blunt answer: “Most likely, we will cause our own extinction.”
She reminds
us that, “Having freed ourselves from the constraints of evolution, humans
still remain dependent on Earth’s biological and geochemical systems. By
disrupting these systems -- cutting down tropical rainforests, altering the
composition of the atmosphere, acidifying the oceans -- we are putting our own
survival in danger.”
In her book,
she describes how humans have already driven hundreds of species into
extinction, and many more into near-extinction. On a planet where most forms of
life are interdependent to some extent, this mass slaughter is disastrous.
She quotes
Paul Ehrlich, an ecologist at Stanford University: "In pushing other
species into extinction, humanity is busy sawing off the limb on which it
perches."
Colbert
concludes her book with this somber epilogue: “Right now we are deciding,
without meaning to, which evolutionary pathways will remain open and which will
forever be closed.
No other creature has ever managed this, and it will
unfortunately be our most enduring legacy. The Sixth Extinction will continue
to determine the course of life long after everything people have written and
painted and built have been ground into dust and giant rats have inherited the
Earth.”
Prominent pessimists
An even more
pessimistic writer on the environment is William T. Vollmann, whose latest
book, Carbon Ideologies, was recently reviewed in Harper’s by Nathaniel Rich.
He describes it as "one of the most honest -- and fatalistic -- books
about global warming yet written."
Rich notes
that nearly every book about climate change that has been written for a general
audience contains within it a message of hope, and often a prod toward action.
But Vollmann declares from the outset that he will not offer any solutions
because he does not believe any are possible:
“Nothing can
be done to save the world as we know it; therefore, nothing need be done.”
Rich says that anyone who begins reading Carbon Ideologies in a hopeless mood will finish it hopeless. “So will the hopeful reader. But there exist other kinds of readers. Those who do not read for advice or encouragement or comfort. Those who seek to understand human nature, and themselves. Because human nature is Vollmann’s true subject -- as it must be.
"The
story of climate change hangs on human nature, not geophysics. Vollmann seeks
to understand ‘how we could not only sustain, but accelerate the rise of
atmospheric carbon levels, all the while expressing confusion, powerlessness,
and resentment.’ Why did we take such insane risks? Could we have behaved any
other way? If not, what conclusions must we draw about our lives and our
future?"
Rich sees
Carbon Ideologies as being “in the vanguard of the coming second wave of
climate literature -- books written not to diagnose or solve the problem, but
to grapple with its moral consequences.”
One of the
climate commentators already in this vanguard is author Jonathan Franzen, whose
latest book from Farrar, Straus and Giroux is titled The End of the End of the
Earth. He bluntly compares the state of our planet to “a patient with bad
cancer” whose death is certain and whose main concern is maintaining as good a quality
of life as possible before the end.
"Drastic
planetary overheating is a done deal," Franzen declared in an article he
wrote in 2015. "No head of state anywhere, even in places most threatened
by flooding or drought, has committed to leaving carbon in the ground."
The essay was angrily denounced at the time, especially by environmentalists
and critics on the left.
In an
interview with Postmedia, Franzen said that, if the essay had been published
today, he wouldn’t expect it to have had such a furious reaction. “I think in
the last three-and-a-half years that it has become much more apparent to many
more people that we are not stopping climate change. We’re not even coming
close to stopping it. In fact, we are continuing to accelerate it.”
He says that
his foremost aim is to encourage people to live responsibly in the face of our
all but certain extinction as a species. “Our world is poised to change vastly,
and mostly for the worst. I don’t have any hope that we can stop this change
from coming. My only hope is that we can accept the reality in time to prepare
for it."
In much the
same vein, Postmedia’s David Reevely, in a column last fall titled "Let’s
prepare for climate change if we’re not going to fight it," urged that
Canadian governments should at least make it a priority to help people adapt to
a much warmer future.
Among his
suggestions were: conserve city water and get used to brown parks and fields
during the summer; renovate public buildings, especially schools and nursing
homes, to cope with hotter weather; add air-conditioning, improve ventilation,
and plant more shade trees; increase our capacity to fight forest fires;
enhance medical research and training to cope with tropical diseases that don’t
yet afflict us here; start building high flood
walls around our coastal cities to protect them from rising sea levels; build
more and wider roads to the Far North, so that, “when the Russians start eyeing
our Arctic (as a safer residence), we can stop them with something other than
pickup trucks."
"All of
this, Reevely admits, “will make for a more expensive, more precarious, more
cruel world. But, if we aren’t seriously trying to stop global warming, we
should at least be getting ready for it."
Plutocrats plan for survival
Ironically,
that is what many of the main propagators of global warming are doing.
Corporate executives who are locked into the capitalist system’s suicidal
pursuit of profits are secretly preparing to survive the catastrophic outcome.
This activity
was revealed last year by the New Yorker’s Evan Osnos in an article aptly
titled Survival of the Richest, and subtitled Why some of America’s wealthiest
people are preparing for disaster.
Osnos tells
us that “survivalism -- the practice of preparing for a crackup of civilization
-- has spread among many of the CEOs, financiers, bankers and big investors:
the same capitalist kingpins whose devastation of the planet is causing the
catastrophe they now plan to outlive.”
He says it’s
difficult to find out how many wealthy people have become survivalists, but
notes that it has certainly taken root in Silicon Valley and New York among
technology executives and hedge-fund managers.
Osnos was
told by Steve Huffman, co-founder and CEO of Reddit, that he and at least half
of the Silicon Valley billionaires have acquired some "apocalypse
insurance" in the form of "a hideaway somewhere in the U.S. or
abroad." One of them has bought five wooded acres on an island in the
Pacific Northwest and stocked it with generators, solar panels and thousands of
rounds of ammunition. Others have bought houses or cabins in New Zealand, which
has become a favoured refuge from a global cataclysm.
Other wealthy
would-be survivalists have built luxury complexes underground in abandoned
nuclear missile silos. One of them, Larry Hall, paid $300,000 for a silo and
another $20 million to create 12 private apartments that he has sold for $3
million each. They are stocked with enough food to sustain 75 people for five
years, mainly by raising tilapia in fish tanks, and growing hydroponic
vegetables under glow lamps.
"Opulent
survival shelters like this, of course, are beyond the financial capacity of
most victims of an apocalyptic event,” Osnos points out. “It is bitterly ironic
that those most likely to live through such a calamity are the ones whose greed
and power precipitated it."
Extinction may yet be averted
Despite these
bleak and depressing forecasts, most people continue to reject rather than
accept them. Perhaps they are right to remain optimistic about the future and
continue to “eat, drink and be merry” as long as they can. But will the wisest
and brightest of them belatedly be motivated by the increasing violence of
Nature’s wrath to build the equivalent of Noah’s ark?
That will
depend on whether and when enough people come to realize that the oncoming
climate catastrophe is being caused primarily by the ravagement of Earth’s air,
water and soil by the world’s big corporations. Specifically, by the dominant
cancerous capitalist economic system that they have inflicted on the planet.
Regrettably,
this pernicious corporate cancer will not be “cured” before the ICCP’s 12-year
deadline elapses in 2020. But it’s not inconceivable that it will be detected
and the first essential survival measures taken by that time.
It depends on
how long it will take for the planetary vandalism of unfettered capitalism to become so
glaringly obvious that the exposure of its colossal carnage will spark a
worldwide revolution and the overthrow of global plutocracy. Capitalism would
then be replaced by some form of progressive democracy dedicated to saving as
many people as possible from the devastation of an overheated planet.
The world's
most brilliant thinkers and scientists would then be assigned the imperative
mission of devising ways and means of preventing humankind’s extinction.
Even such a
tardy endeavour would almost certainly succeed in saving millions of people --
many more than the wealthy few thousand hunkered in their underground bunkers.
Certainly enough of them with the knowledge and dedication to undertake the
monumental task of restoring some semblance of civilization for the survivors.
This
optimistic prospect of humanity’s rescue from oblivion may seem as unlikely as
the pessimistic outlook of the prominent skeptics quoted above. It will all
depend on how much longer the corporate oligarchs and their political lackeys
are permitted to keep poisoning and despoiling the planet. On how long, in
effect, corrosive and unchecked capitalism is allowed to keep dragging us
toward the abyss.
That
nightmare looks like it will continue for at least another decade, until after
the climatologists’ tipping-point deadline has passed. We can only hope,
therefore, that humankind’s extinction will ultimately be forestalled by the
too-long-delayed extinction of capitalism.
Ed Finn grew up in Corner Brook,
Newfoundland, Canada, where he became worked as a printer’s apprentice,
reporter, columnist, and editor of that city’s daily newspaper, the Western
Star. His career as a journalist included 14 years as a labour relations
columnist for the Toronto Star. He was part of the world of politics between
1959 and 1962, serving as the first provincial leader of the NDP in
Newfoundland. He worked closely with Tommy Douglas for some years and helped
defend and promote medicare legislation in Saskatchewan.
Unfortunately, this article has so many inaccuracies as to call to question any and all opinions expressed.
ReplyDeleteFor example:
“climatologist Bill McKibben” Bill McKibben is not a climatologist, he is a writer and social organizer; he has no training in climatology. In fact, he has no science training whatsoever.
“eminent expert on the environment ... Elizabeth Colbert” In fact, the author of "6th Extinction" is Elizabeth Kolbert, not Colbert. And she is not an expert on the environment, she is a newspaper journalist, now popular non-fiction author. Writing a popular book does not make one an expert.
“Paul Ehrlich, an ecologist at Stanford University” Paul Ehrlich is not an ecologist, he is an entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera, aka butterflies. He wrote an interesting book 51 years ago.
This is the result that comes from writing outside one's area of knowledge.
global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans ever since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.
ReplyDelete