|
Currently, anthropogenic climate change and global warming threaten the
very existence of life on the planet. On June 23, NASA climatologist
James Hansen put it this way: "We’re toast if we don’t get on a
very different path. This is the last chance."
Hansen also urged that the chief executives of oil companies be tried
for financing the continual denial of the seriousness of climate
change. Nothing will likely result from Hansen’s call to bring these
capitalists to justice.
On June 8, a bill that sought reductions in greenhouse gases failed in the
Senate, after its Democratic Party proponents failed to get enough
votes to block a Republican filibuster on the subject. The bill had
relied on a dubious emissions-trading system, according to which heavy
polluters would have had to purchase credits from industries that were
more compliant in reducing their emissions to meet government
standards.
The House of Representatives has held no
votes at all addressing global warming. And the Bush administration
this month dismissed the recommendations of Environmental Protection
Agency scientists that greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated.
The White House maintained that such action would cripple the U.S.
economy.
Meanwhile, though there are known ways of harnessing plenty of energy
and producing what the world needs without emitting dangerous amounts
of greenhouse gasses, our economy will not be tuned to these ends
anytime soon if those who sit in Congress are any indication.
In 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, Congressmen
and women had at least 45 times more money invested in oil and gas than
they did in "green" industries, such as producers of
energy-efficient products, solar and wind-energy products, and
recycling. In fact, while Congress people increased their investments
in oil and gas by 30 percent between 2004 and 2006, they decreased
their investments in green industries by 23 percent.
Clearly, oil and gas are better investments than "green
stocks," as Congress’ divestment from the latter shows. Lawmakers
made an average of only $2700 on their "green investments"
during this period, while they reaped $24,200 on those in oil and gas.
A wholesale transition from oil, coal, and nuclear to solar, wind, and
tidal energy would not be profitable, at least in the short term, which
is why the capitalist system is unable to make the rapid and full
transition to sustainable energy sources. However, while petroleum
could lose its value and "green stock" could become more
profitable at some point in the future, if we don’t act now, as Hansen
put it, "We’re toast."
What might surprise some is that, even though "green stock"
companies contribute more heavily to the Democratic Party, Republicans
actually have more money invested in these companies. Meanwhile, with
the imminent threat of global warming and human-driven climate change
threatening the existence of humanity, the various wings of the ruling
class are jockeying for position.
One wing, the one more often represented by Republicans, either denies
that greenhouse gas emissions are causing warming and ushering in an
ecological crisis, or tells us it is not that serious. Another wing of
the ruling class, more often represented by Democrats, says that global
warming is a threat, so we should rely more on nuclear power.
While the oil industry leans to the side of the Republicans, the
Democratic Party is frequently the party of choice for the
nuclear-power industry. Top executives of Exelon, the leading
nuclear-power operator in the U.S., have donated heavily to the Barack
Obama campaign, making the corporation Obama’s sixth largest
presidential campaign contributor last year, according to the Center
for Responsive Politics. And David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political
strategist, is a former consultant for Exelon.
It is perhaps significant that Obama rewrote legislation he had
proposed in the Senate in March 2006 to force nuclear operators to
notify authorities about radioactive leaks. The new version was more in
keeping with changes that had been urged by Exelon and Senate
Republicans; it removed language urging prompt reporting and merely
offered guidelines to federal regulators on the issue. But even the
watered-down bill failed to pass the Senate.
Since sustainable energy production has nothing to do with oil, coal,
or nuclear energy, sustainability is not to be found in the program of
Republicans or Democrats.
|