Imminent Peril (Part II)
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer, FTW
Contributing Editor for Energy
Scientists are warning that we have only one or two generations
to avoid global catastrophe.
Why aren't we heeding their warnings, and what can be done?
© Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness
Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com.
All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site
without express written permission. Contact admin@copvcia.com. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for
non-profit purposes only.
[Having detailed a large body of scientific research over the
course of decades that demonstrates the threat level posed by Peak Oil/Gas and
diminishing energy resources, in the wake of an environment in near full revolt
against Homo Sapiens, Dale Allen Pfeiffer looks at the ideological and economic
barriers to implementing effective solutions. The chief culprits are a mindset
locked in a belief that infinite economic growth is possible, and a sect of
radical Christianity that is actively trying to bring about the "end of
the world" - a sect to which George W. Bush belongs.
Beyond that, there are less offensive but no less dangerous
belief systems widely accepted by liberals and progressives which do nothing to
address the real problem or move to toward the only solution: sustainability,
reduction in consumption and some drastic changes in the way we live our lives. -
Michael C. Ruppert September 2, 2003]
Sept 2, 2003, 1200 Hrs (FTW)
-- In the first half of this article, we
reviewed the unprecedented warnings issued during the past decade by the world
scientific community. And we summarized the results of the first global
assessment studies that were issued in just the last couple years. We learned
that virtually all of the planet's major ecosystems have been stressed to the
brink of collapse. And we were warned that we have only one generation, or at
most two, in which to deal with these impending crises.
Why are these issues not foremost in the minds of every
human being living right now? Why are we not engaged in a global dialogue to
seek a solution to these problems? Next, we will turn our attention to the
answer to these questions.
Mindset
The prevalent economic system is predicated on
never-ending growth, where prosperity requires continuous growth in production
and consumption. Under this system, this growth must take place on a planet
with limited resources and carrying capacity.
Economists are completely blind to these limits. They
illogically argue that as known reserves of vital resources grow short, the
increasing value of the resource in question will spur the discovery of
additional reserves and render previously uneconomical reserves economical.
When cornered, economists point towards scientific and technological
innovations that they are certain to come to our rescue. They ignore the
scientists and engineers who warn that we cannot expect such breakthroughs
alone to solve our problems, and argue that we need basic changes in our
lifestyle. We need to wean ourselves from over-consumption, emphasizing
sustainability instead.
Continuing overconsumption plays upon the intransigent
nature of human behavior. Human beings are predisposed toward developing habits
and comfortable patterns of behavior. That which is new is alien and suspect.
Change is resisted until it becomes absolutely necessary, or until the benefits
of change become obvious. Even when change is clearly beneficial or necessary,
many resist, becoming obstinately and blindly reactionary instead.
The situation is further obfuscated by the media, which
has tended to either ignore the scientific warnings or downplay the warnings and
quickly divert the public awareness to more innocuous matters. There is a
documented bias in the media towards positions favored by their owners and
sponsors.1 Whether this media bias is deliberate or
systemic, the effect is a public that is uninformed or-worse-misinformed.
The problem of disinformation is largely intentional.
There is a powerful disinformation industry, the purpose of which is to produce
conflicting studies attacking the veracity of information that may prove
harmful to moneyed interests.
Many scientists are employed for no other purpose than to
contradict the work of other legitimate scientists. This tactic was pioneered
by the tobacco industry2, but has developed into a major industry of its
own devoted to retaining the status quo in favor of major corporations. Yearly,
corporations funnel millions of dollars into junk science, either directly or
through conservative think tanks and foundations.3 4
Practitioners of junk science are closely linked to the
public relations and advertising industries. Modern advertising developed out
of research into brainwashing and psychological manipulation. Edward L.
Bernays, the father of the PR industry, applied the work of Freud and other
psychoanalysts to the task of swaying public opinion5. In the last few decades, military researchers
have developed computer programs that utilize artificial intelligence to mimic
basic personality types. These programs can then be used to determine how to
manipulate people into doing and thinking as desired.6 The PR industries, as well as the major
political parties and the military/intelligence establishment employ all of
these techniques.7
The moneyed elite has a vested interest in maintaining the
status quo. This is not because they are necessarily intrinsically evil people.
Some actually believe they are acting for the good of all. Many believe that
the less affluent classes are inferior. They believe that the masses are
incapable of making their own informed decisions and must be told what to do.
But most simply cannot face their own culpability. They are removed from the
chain of causality between their actions and their inevitable effects. They are
no more inclined to accept the responsibility for their actions than are meat
eaters inclined to accept responsibility for the slaughter of the animals whose
meat they purchase in the supermarket.
Returning to the reactionaries,
perhaps the worst of this breed are the Christian Zionists. They are Christian
fundamentalists who are actively seeking to bring about their own vision of
Armageddon. According to these fanatics, once Israel reclaims all of its former
territory, a massive religious war will be provoked with Jews and Christians on
one side and Muslims and other unbelievers on the other side. At that point, the
true believers will ascend into heaven while the antichrist and the four
horsemen of the apocalypse ravage the earth. Finally, Christ will return to
vanquish the antichrist and proclaim a new kingdom of God, all people will be
converted to fundamentalist Christianity, and the true believers will return to
govern over the kingdom of Christ.8
Christian Zionists are not a
fringe group. They are numerous, well organized, and influential. During the
Reagan years, Christian Zionists were invited to present their interpretation
of the Book of Revelation at the Pentagon. Among the most notable Christian
Zionists are Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George W. Bush. In spring of
2002, after Bush demanded that the Israelis pull back their tanks from West
Bank refugee camps, Jerry Falwell led born-again Christians to flood the White
House with phone calls, emails, and letters telling Bush to back off. Bush
retracted his demand and the tanks rolled on.9
Christian reactionaries are a powerful group, and they
stand opposed to the resolution of the environmental threats affecting the
planet so obviously today.
There are many who view the Bush family as the ultimate
cynics and argue that the Bushes may well have no God other than power. That
would make Bush's "use" of these zealots even more distasteful. Yet
Bush himself has demonstrated in his speeches, an outlook that he may well
believe, he is "chosen". In a recent story published in Ha'aretz,
Bush was quoted as telling Palestinian Prime Minster Mahmoud Abbas that God had
instructed him to strike at Al Q'aeda and Saddam Hussein. 10
Coup and Empire
In 2000, the moneyed interests backing the George W. Bush
presidential bid pulled out every stop in order to install their candidate.
They outspent every other candidate from both parties. In Florida, George's
brother Jeb rigged the voter lists in an effort to disenfranchise minorities
and others who vote predominately democratic. As the election came down to only
a few thousand votes, and Al Gore appeared likely to win in a recount, the U.S.
Supreme Court-dominated by Reagan and Bush Sr. appointees-ordered that the
recount cease, handing the presidency to George W. Bush. In their decision, the
Supreme Court-which is supposed to set precedent in matters of constitutional
law-stated that this was a one-time decision which could not be used as a
precedent.11
In the months following his inauguration, Bush made very
clear that he had no interest in resolving environmental and social problems.
His administration was packed with oil, pharmaceutical and defense industry
executives. Practically the first action of his administration was to back out
of the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming. In the months ahead, he also backed out
of a biological weapons treaty and sought to weaken or overturn a variety of
environmental laws and legislation on everything from water and air quality to
opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
He refused to do anything about the California energy
crisis, even when it became apparent that corporations such as Enron had
largely contrived the situation. Instead of launching an investigation, he and
Vice-president Dick Cheney had Enron President Ken Lay and other industry
insiders submit a wish list, which then served as the basis for the
presidential Energy Plan.
I do not wish to imply that the situation would have been
much better had Al Gore been sworn into office. Though Gore has gone to great
lengths to present himself as an environmentalist, his record as Vice-president
was full of compromise and watered down legislative efforts. Witness his
performance at the first Kyoto conference, where he lobbied to weaken the
resulting treaty on global warming. In context of the scientific warnings
issued over the past decade, Al Gore appeared to be the spokesman for big
business with a conscience, seeking a compromise that would not penalize the
ability of corporations to generate profit by exploiting the earth's resources,
nor hamper economic growth or the right of the affluent to over-consume. Cast
in this same light, George W. Bush was the candidate of big business without
a conscience.
By fall of 2001, the Bush administration had earned the
animosity of most of the international community, and his popularity at home
had plunged to record lows. The Democrat-controlled Congress was successfully
fighting many of his proposals. His administration was dead in the water; it
appeared unlikely that any of his goals would come to fruition. Had things gone
on this way, in all likelihood George W. Bush would soon be facing impeachment.
There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that the Bush
administration had complete foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11. That aside,
it is certain that the Bush administration, and business interests tied to it,
were the big winners in that catastrophe and the subsequent anthrax attacks.
Bush himself was heard to quip on the day of the attacks, "I hit the
trifecta!"12 As a result of 9/11, Bush's
popularity surged to unheard-of heights. He and Dick Cheney declared a never
ending "terror" war and ramrodded legislation through Congress that
negated civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Whatever their
connection to the 9/11 attacks (and whatever the attackers might ultimately be
shown to be), the Bush administration has obviously capitalized on them to push
ahead a fascist and imperialist agenda both at home and abroad.
Within a month after the
attacks, Bush launched a war against one of the poorest countries in the world,
though a country in a commanding position with regard to the potentially
energy-rich Central Asian region. This gave him command of a vital strategic
position at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Military units
poured into the surrounding countries, as did exploration teams from the
various oil majors. Yet, as the oil prospects were toned down, so was the
military presence.13 The US had already turned its attention to the Middle East.
The US has not focused much attention
on Saudi Arabia, the country of origin for Osama bin Laden and most of the
attackers, and the country from which Al Qaeda receives much of its financial
backing. Nor has the US turned its attention to Pakistan, which has very strong
ties to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Instead, the US has turned its attention
to the one Middle Eastern country without ties to Al Qaeda; a country which is,
in fact, reviled by Al Qaeda for its secular government. It is, however, a
country that holds 11% of the world's proven oil reserves: Iraq.14
Clearly, the United States is
not fighting a war on terrorism. It is fighting a war of imperial conquest
aimed at dominating the world through control of its energy resources. Witness
the Bush administration's lack of interest in capturing Osama bin Laden. Witness
the Bush administration's insistence on a war with Iraq on the basis of
falsified and exaggerated "evidence". Witness that Bush has done
nothing about North Korea, even though they admit that they are actively
seeking nuclear weapons and will use them preemptively. Witness the Bush
administration's efforts to destabilize Venezuela and support a coup in that
country, though the only offense of democratically elected President Chavez is
to use a portion of oil profits to help alleviate poverty within his country.
Witness the Bush administration's inclination to label, as international
terrorists, one faction of a long-standing civil war in Colombia, while sending
military aid and military advisors to that country in an effort to beef up the
policing of oil pipelines that the rebels have damaged.
What's To Come
The Bush administration is not
interested in a war on terrorism. The elite interests behind the Bush
administration seek to ensure their continued dominance in a world of shrinking
energy resources and looming environmental catastrophes. Comparing US policy
over the past decade to the four strategies analyzed in GEO-315, it would appear that the US has been pursuing a Markets-First strategy, while giving a nod
to the Policy-First strategy. However, since George W. Bush moved into the
White House-and certainly since 9/11-the US has given up any pretense of a
Policy-First strategy and is currently moving away from a Markets-First
strategy to a Security-First strategy.
A Sustainability-First strategy has never received any
serious consideration.
If the US continues to pursue
its current strategy, then this country will become even more of a police state
in every sense of the word. The privileged classes will complete their flight
to guarded and gated communities, while the rest of the population will be left
to contend with a collapsed economy, energy impoverishment and starvation.
Civil liberties will be dismissed and the constitution retired. Anger and
dissent will be met with overwhelming repression. A massive military
organization will take command of the world's resources while forcing the world
population to accept a harsh military justice.
As burgeoning personal debt
comes crashing down on the citizens of the US, it is likely that new laws will
force them into debt servitude. Indeed, as energy production diminishes some
form of slavery will have to be instituted in order for the elite to retain
their accustomed lifestyles. As rates of imprisonment skyrocket, prisons will
be transformed to work camps where the remaining industries will have access to
abundant free labor. As for the masses, both within the US and throughout the
world, they will be faced with unparalleled levels of starvation and suffering.
Or, if some alliance is formed in opposition, the
Christian Zionists might just get their conflagration. It is doubtful, however,
that it will be the apocalypse they are seeking.
Other Options
It doesn't have to be this way. We still have the time and
resources to build a better world for all of us. Compromise is not the answer,
nor is a cosmetic change in the prevailing economic system. It is doubtful that
regulation of market-based capitalism is viable over the long-term. Experience
has shown that eventually capitalism will find some way of nullifying any
imposed restrictions, and then the maximization of profit will regain
preeminence over environmental and social considerations.
A sustainable society must be focused on the small scale,
based on strong local communities, most likely functioning on principles of
direct democracy. Local communities require localized and self-contained
economies. Such economies would not be measured by growth and profit, but by
sustainability and quality of life. Local transportation would return to the
basics: foot, bicycles and horses. Intercommunity transport would likely
consist of high-speed monorails. Intercontinental transportation would return
to the high seas. Housing would be restructured for energy efficiency, possibly
in conjunction with the recycling of industrial waste heat. Communities would
be supported by a local agricultural base, utilizing organic and permaculture
techniques. There are already working models for sustainable communities, and
the movement toward sustainability is growing.
We cannot depend on our political leaders or our business
leaders to walk us safely through this minefield. We need to educate ourselves
and we need to organize. We must take back the reins into our own hands, and we
need to move fast.
Endnotes
1. Manufacturing Consent,
Herman, Edward & Chomsky, Noam. Pantheon Books, 1988.
2. Tobacco Industry Efforts
subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's Second Hand Smoke
Study, Ong, Lisa & Glantz, Stanton. Lancet, 2000; 355: 125359. http://www.electric-words.com/junk/glantz/glantz.html
3. Who Determines what is Junk
Science? The Corporate Corruption of Science, Fist, Stewart, editor. http://www.electric-words.com/junk/junkindex.html
4.Trust Us, We're Experts: How
Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles on Your Future, Rampton, Sheldon
& Stauber, John. Tarcher/Penguin.
5. The Father of Spin,: Edward L.
Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations, Tye, Larry. Owl Books, 2002. See
a detailed review of this book: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html
6. Profiling and Personality
Simulation, Livergood, Norman D. http://www.hermes-press.com/program1.htm
& Brainwashing America, Livergood, Norman D. http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
7. Toxic Sludge is Good for You!:
Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry, Stauber, John C &
Rampton, Shelton. Common Courage Press, 1995.
8. Armageddon Lobby. http://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htm
9. Ibid.
10. "Roadmap is a Lifesaver for us".
Ha'aretz, August 31, 2003.
11. The Best Democracy Money Can
Buy, Palast, Greg. Plume, 2002, 2003.
12. Remarks by the President in
Texans for Rick Perry Reception. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020614-8.html
13. Much Ado
about Nothing-Wither the Caspian Riches, Pfeiffer, Dale Allen. From the
Wilderness, 2002. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html
14. US Intentions, Pfeiffer,
Dale Allen. From the Wilderness, 2003. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030703_us_intentions.html
15. Global Environmental Outlook-3.
United Nations Environment Programme, May 22 2002. http://www.grida.no/geo/geo3/
postamble();