The military-industrial complex is closely allied with the fossil fuel industry in their immensely profitable fight to continue with 💵 Business As Usual 💵 for as long as possible.
Our bloated US imperialism budget is eagerly supported by the leaders of both parties, urged on by free-spending lobbyists. This would be comically embarrassing if it wasn’t so tragic. 🤦♂️
The heartbreaking, disgusting, and brutally tragic story of how we got to where we are today…
"Why Action on the Climate Crisis is All Hot Air"
How did we reach this point of abject failure: where the greater the scientific consensus and real-world evidence, the smaller the impact that consensus has on decision-making?
The astonishing disjunct between threat and response is possible only because the oil lobby has historically shaped, and continues to shape, popular understanding of the gravity of what lies ahead.
Cognitive dissonance reigns.
It is true that the establishment media has, very belatedly, started to diagnose more unpredictable and extreme weather patterns as symptoms of a wider climate crisis. It is hard to deny reality when reality keeps slapping you in the face.
But otherwise, the media has been, and continues to be, the core of the problem. It still plays cover both for the oil lobby and for the global corporations whose bottom line depends on a continuing addiction to over-consumption and “economic growth.”
That should be no surprise, because media corporations, whose job it is to frame our understanding of the world, are themselves deeply embedded in corporate profiteering at the planet’s expense.
Under the capitalist system, the primary duty of oil corporations – like other corporations – is to maintain profitability and guarantee value for investors and stockholders. Ethics never got a look-in.
So the fossil-fuel industry spent part of its vast profits pursuing a twin-track: first, muddying the waters about the climate science, then channeling attention towards largely meaningless, small-scale fixes that fell to the public to implement.
For the critical years when urgent, state-backed action was needed on a massive scale, climate denial, funded by dark money from Big Business, was given regular airtime on influential media channels like the BBC. Ordinary people were left, as they were supposed to be, confused and unsure.
We are still encouraged through advertising to consume as much as possible and throw away items of new technology – from personal computers to phones – every few years through planned obsolescence.
But this individualised, competitive, wasteful way of life is being given a makeover. Cars are now hybrid or electric. Holidays are “carbon offset” somehow. Plastic on our food is described as recyclable. Advertising now explains to us how all the stuff we buy is saving the planet.
Living ever more of our lives online supposedly helps too, because it reduces our carbon footprint. It is a green revolution in which everything stays pretty much the same – including the ability of giant corporations to make massive profits.
Armed with warnings – decades in advance – from their own scientists, the oil industry had enough of a head-start to invent a self-serving narrative. It's one in which ordinary people are encouraged to consume as much as before, while being persuaded either that they are making a difference or that the damage they are causing will be reversed by imminent technologies.
The new watchword is “net zero”. But in truth, it is a giant psy-op, as climate scientists have gradually started to appreciate.
In 2021 a group of three leading academics admitted that for years they had been duped into championing the promises of the Green New Deal. Technological fixes, such as carbon capture, offsetting and geoengineering, were “no more than fairy tales”, they warned. Net zero policies “were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate”.
James Dyke, an expert in global systems at Exeter University, observed: “It’s astonishing how the continual absence of any credible carbon removal technology seems to never affect net zero policies. I've now realised that we have all been subject to a form of gaslighting.”
There's much more in this brilliant piece by Jonathon Cook, and I hope you will read the whole thing.
In the piece below, the author asks, "Why is the government putting big money behind dubious carbon capture projects that specifically benefit Big Oil and help delay climate action?"
Spoiler: It's capitalism.
You probably already knew that, but the article does a great job of explaining exactly why subsidizing carbon capture is such a disastrous policy choice, and why the Biden administration nevertheless is pouring billions of dollars into it...
Record heat waves. Widespread fires. Devastating storms. The tragic toll of climate change is becoming more evident every day.
To avoid even more severe impacts in the future, we must quickly and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions — largely caused by fossil fuels. Fortunately, the tools we need to cut emissions through energy efficiency, renewable energy, and beyond are growing quickly, becoming better and more affordable over time.
We will also need some “carbon removal” in the future — where we use nature (with trees or soils) or industrial processes to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, sequester it, and keep it from adding to our climate woes.
In the last few years, more attention has focused on industrial methods, because they can bury carbon in permanent, geologic reservoirs, unlike trees and soils that can burn down or be plowed up. In principle, this makes sense. But in practice, industrial carbon removal is wildly expensive, far too energy and resource intensive, and only removes pathetically small amounts of carbon. It’s nowhere near being a viable solution to climate change.
For the foreseeable future, cutting emissions is the most feasible means of addressing climate change. And whatever carbon removal we might eventually develop should only be used to address the final, hard-to-abate emissions left after fossil fuels are phased out. Most of all, carbon removal should never be used as a substitute for cutting emissions, or to help delay phasing out fossil fuels.
So why is the federal government doing exactly the opposite — putting big money behind dubious carbon capture projects, in ways that specifically benefit Big Oil and help delay climate action?
Planting a large variety of new trees is a good thing. It’s good for the climate, it’s good for human well-being, and it’s good for biodiversity.
Creating monoculture tree plantations is NOT a good thing. They don’t do much for biodiversity and they are at great risk of pest infestation, disease, drought, and ultimately being destroyed by wildfires. The only value of monoculture tree plantations is — from a capitalist perspective — to claim spurious carbon offsets, thereby allowing the continuation of Business As Usual and the endless consumption of fossil fuels.
Cutting down existing trees, especially in old-growth forests, is a terrible thing to do. There is no justification for it, outside of someone finding a way to make lots of money by desecrating nature.
Here is part of the conclusion from a report on "Forests and Decarbonization: Roles of Natural and Planted Forests"...
Realizing the greatest possible benefits of tree planting requires sensitivity to both ecological and sociological contexts. Wherever possible, we should protect carbon stocks in natural ecosystems, including savannas, grasslands, and both undisturbed and naturally regenerating forests. However, there is also an important role for managed forests: planting can reduce pressure on unmanaged forests, and yield wood products that may displace fossil fuels. Ultimately, however, tree planting is not a panacea to mitigate climate change, as only immediate and drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Do you know how empires win? By feeding their people bread and circuses.
I’ve been talking recently about a general strike for the climate, as have a few other activists. But if I’m being honest, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon — because almost everyone has an excuse for why they can’t participate.
We have all grown accustomed to a very pleasant standard of living. Even if you might think it’s hard to get by, try comparing your situation to that of an average person in Nigeria or Pakistan or India or Ethiopia. It’s not even close.
Nearly all of us in the Global North have a nice place to live, lots of clothing, regular meals, and plenty of entertainment right at our fingertips.
So when that call comes for a general strike — for everyone to stop going to work, stop paying bills, and stop shopping — well, sure, we might say, that sounds like a great idea. We support the cause, but unfortunately we just can’t do it right now. Because… reasons.
And that’s the problem. Everyone has reasons. We’ve all grown too comfortable — which is entirely by design! The empire knew they had to make us “fat and lazy” (metaphorically speaking), so we wouldn’t be so likely to take a stand against them.
In the late 19th century, when union organizers called for strikes, or when anarchists in the U.S. and Europe were urging an end to capitalism, it was easier for them to get cooperation and to find supporters.
In the 1930s, when a huge number of people were underemployed and times were tough all over, going on strike or campaigning for socialism didn’t mean as much of a sacrifice as it would for most of us today.
Starting in the 1950s, however, leaders and influential thinkers in the Global North realized that the best way to stay in power and enrich themselves would be to provide plenty of cheap “bread” and diverting “circuses” to their citizens.
Too many people, even here on Mastodon, seem to be in denial about how bad things are likely to get on our current path. I suppose I can understand how they might wish the situation was different, and perhaps some of them aren't psychologically or emotionally ready to handle an honest look at the dire future we face, so they simply avoid it.
But I worry that almost everyone will be unprepared for the collapse of our fragile modern society when it comes.
Far too often in the corporate media, we’ll see stories about heat waves and climate change headlined with a picture of kids playing in a sprinkler, or of a romantic couple strolling on the beach. As if a few warmer days every year is nothing to be alarmed about.
That’s because billionaire elites and the media they own have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The longer they can keep everyone believing that Business As Usual is just fine, the more money they will make.
But in reality, climate breakdown triggers a whole range of devastating impacts…
The companies listed below are killers. And that’s not a metaphor, it’s literally true.
They are guilty of ecocide, as are the banks and investment firms which fund them, along with the governments that permit this ecocide — actually encouraging it, in fact, with 💵 trillions 💵 of dollars in subsidies.
MANY humans have died, directly as a result of this treachery. Many MORE animals and plants have died, including whole species being wiped out.
Don't ever let anyone tell you we don't have enough money to fight climate change, or to reduce income inequality, or to begin the shift toward degrowth.
The money is there. It's just being spent in all the wrong ways and all the wrong places...
Trillions of dollars of subsidies for fossil fuels, farming, and fishing are causing “environmental havoc,” according to the World Bank, severely harming people and the planet.
Many countries spend more on harmful subsidies than they do on health, education, or poverty reduction, the bank says, and the subsidies are entrenched and hard to reform as the greatest beneficiaries tend to be rich and powerful.
In 2021, UN agencies reported that almost 90% of agricultural subsidies harmed people’s health and the climate, and drove inequality, while the IMF found that trillions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis at a time when rapid cuts in carbon emissions were needed.
Fossil fuels are “vastly underpriced,” the report says, while subsidy reforms “save lives.” Pollution from fossil fuels causes 8.7 million deaths a year, according to a 2021 study, one in five of all deaths globally.
Subsidies for agriculture are “unequal and unwise,” the report says. “Not only do these subsidies promote inefficiencies, but they also cause much environmental havoc.” The report found that subsidized fertilizer caused so much overuse in some regions that it reduced crop yields, while also causing huge nitrogen pollution.
It also found farm subsidies were responsible for the destruction of 5.4 million acres of forest a year, about 14% of global deforestation, which leads to almost 4 million extra cases of malaria a year. Fishing subsidies amount to about $118 billion a year and are a key factor in the over-exploitation of marine life, which has sent the oceans into “a collective state of crisis,” according to the report.
The report says government subsidies today make up an “enormous share of public budgets worldwide, perhaps larger than at any point in human history.”
It's a vicious cycle between Big Oil, Big Ag, and Big Government, with money going round and round and round. That cycle must be broken.
Capitalism got us into this mess. Capitalism cannot get us out of this mess. We need system change NOW.
Here's an article explaining "Why Only Degrowth Will Save The World."
From the introduction...
Let’s be clear. It isn’t ‘climate change’ that’s the problem. It’s a multitude of crises stemming from the fact that our current capitalist economy, predicated on endless accumulation and extraction, has tipped nature out of balance. And if we don’t change this system, we are screwed.
They suggest following these basic principles:
✦ Never extract more than ecosystems can regenerate.
✦ Never waste or pollute more than ecosystems can safely absorb.
And then they propose a plan of action...
End planned obsolescence — Guzzling materials and energy only for them to be useless in a few years, all in the name of the growth imperative, is madness. Policy options include extended warranties on products and the right to repair products. Take the Fairphone, for example.
Cut advertising — Advertising, especially when tied to social media giants like Google and Facebook, is mass manipulation on an unprecedented scale. Hickel calls it an “assault on our consciousness — the colonisation of not only our public spaces but our minds, to make us desire things we don’t need”. Policy options include quotas on ad expenditure, legislation, banning ads in public spaces, and social policies to reduce inequality.
Move from ownership to usership — especially for equipment that is necessary but rarely used. Take lawnmowers, for example, or cars. Common Asset trusts, anyone?
End food waste — Around 50% of all the food produced in the world, about 2 billion tonnes, is wasted every year. This is an insane ecological cost, in terms of energy, land, water, and emissions. Ending this could cut the scale of damage caused by the agricultural industry in half.
Scale down ecologically destructive industries — such as the fossil fuel industry (obviously), the beef industry, the arms industry, the commercial airline industry, etc.
This article is sickening to read. It perfectly encapsulates the disgusting horror of consumer capitalism at its very worst while presenting the stark difference in reality between the Global North and South.
‘It’s Like a Death Pit’
How Ghana became fast fashion’s dumping ground
It’s hard sometimes to understand just how un-equal our modern human society really is.
We often talk about the 1% versus the 99%, but that’s not even close to an accurate ratio for the true scale of inequality. Because the “haves” in our society — the owners, the rulers — do not possess a mere one hundred times more power and wealth than the rest of us. The disparity is far greater than that.
(See the video linked below for more on this.)
Through consolidation and monopolies and lobbying and bribery and corruption, within the past four decades the wealthy and powerful have achieved complete dominance over us and over the world we live in. It’s not an exaggeration to say they own and control virtually EVERYTHING.
They own the corporations. They own the resources. They own the governments. They own the major media. They own (most of) the Internet.
And what are they doing with all that wealth and power? Simple. They’re grabbing more. And more and more and more. They will never have enough.
In the meantime, while they continue hoarding, our owners are also working to convince you and me that everything is okay, that the status quo is just fine, that there’s nothing to worry about. They want to keep the stores open, the factories running, the airliners flying, and the cruise ships sailing.
The longer our rulers can keep assuring everyone that BUSINESS AS USUAL is the way to go, the more money they will make. And they believe (though it's likely a delusion) that with enough money and enough power, they and their descendants will be able to survive and even thrive in the 3°C to 5°C world of the future.
I’m not sure at this point if anything can be done about this. It may be too late. But I hope I’m wrong.