The Ancestors’ Legacy: A Tale of Retribution against the Descendants of those who Denied Climate Change

Climate change. This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. Author: Tommaso.sansone91

by Paul Sheridan and Neil Wollman

A recent news article stated: “With world leaders gathering in Madrid next week …, the latest assessment issued by the United Nations said Tuesday that greenhouse gas emissions are still rising dangerously. ‘The summary findings are bleak.’ Countries have failed to halt the rise of greenhouse gas emissions despite repeated warnings from scientists…. The result… is that “deeper and faster cuts are now required.” (“Bleak U.N. Report on a Planet in Peril Looms Over New Climate Talks,” NY Times, Nov. 26.)

But, as we know, the U.S. and other major polluters are going in the opposite direction. If current trends continue, what might be expected to happen in the coming decades? We present below a hypothetical scenario for the future–a possible dystopian future. It is soon to be a major motion picture perhaps (“Apes of the Planet?”) –or maybe a reality show in years to come…

Early in this century, many promises were made. This Protocol, that Report…Kyoto, Paris, a most important Summit, the Biggest of Conferences. Technologies were available to decarbonize electricity production, to increase buildings’ efficiency, to protect and restore natural ecosystems, to get cropland to absorb more carbon than it releases. The largest emitters declined to step up their commitments in any significant way. And then, time ran out.

First, the great floods and fires of the 2050s, then resulting refugee migrations, next the famine of 2062-67 (enhanced by desertification and loss of most insects), and then the Wars for Water.  The planet’s problems accelerated– epidemics, SARS, Ebola, New AIDS resurgence. Most countries were affected by rising sea levels due to global warming—numerous cities were already gone—Manila, Lagos, Guangzhou, Rotterdam, Hanoi–Osaka’s history, Venice’s heritage, and New York’s riches. The impacts tended to fall disproportionately on the poor and vulnerable, those least responsible for the problems. 

The ancestors of the current elite had said none of this would happen, everything would be fine, it was just a cycle, and if we reacted, it would hurt our economy. Fish depopulation, weather events, fires, shrinking biodiversity, all sorts of extractive mining–these were all just temporary aberrations. Some said a warmer planet would be good, because “Earth will be able to support enormously more people, because a far greater land area will be available to produce food.”  Those in the Administration and Congress had held up needed legislation back in the early 2000s. Those in the oil industry had perpetuated myths.

But starting in the 2050s the descendants of those who didn’t act when they should have paid the price–whether deserved or not–for their ancestors’ betrayal of the environment. Many were killed, some went into hiding.  Others, feeling a great guilt, committed suicide.   Reports on where the descendants lived helped further their demise, with targeted assassinations.  It was pure rage and not rationality that fueled the slaughter; those who killed were desperate, seeing a bleak present and bleaker future. That despair was at its worst in the infamous Women’s Massacres of the 2060s – of women, and by women.  Continually multiplying social inequalities meant the rioters and the gangs had nothing to lose.

 Some offspring were defensive, continuing to embrace their ancestors, saying they knew not what they had done. Others felt shame, changed their names, moved to other continents in the hope of being unnoticed. And some disavowed their ancestors’ misdeeds, and dedicated their own lives to making the best of a hopeless situation, to better the lives of those still surviving. Some descendants contributed their inheritances to the neediest survivors.  They realized their ancestors’ errors and sought mercy in public, but that was not very effective when facing a mob. The 2020’s US Senate leader’s family spoke out publicly, decrying the actions of their ancestors–but they were still among the missing when the rioting intensified, intent on retribution.

For those multitudes who were not descendants and whose lives were not ended abruptly, there was a death of hope instead.  For a while there had been some possibility for survival by colonizing space, but the dreams of a Next Frontier were dashed by the collapse of any research in the technologies needed. There was no escape, no Argentina to disappear to…things would only get worse. It was just a matter of when we would die on this planet, with no way out. The living started to envy the dead, even those who died for their ancestors’ sins. 

This artcle originally appeared in Medium—see link here .

Note from Kathie MM: Pegean says

Get your act together, people!

The crises could pour right into your backyard while you’re still around to pay the price for neglect.

US Military Is a Bigger Polluter than As Many As 140 Countries – Shrinking This War Machine Is a Must

San Francisco Youth Climate Strike – March 15, 2019. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

By Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher and Patrick Bigger – The Conversation

24 Jun 2019 – The US military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels. Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the US military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries. If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.

In 2017, the US military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. The US Air Force purchased US$4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the navy US$2.8 billion, followed by the army at US$947m and the Marines at US$36m.

It’s no coincidence that US military emissions tend to be overlooked in climate change studies. It’s very difficult to get consistent data from the Pentagon and across US government departments. In fact, the United States insisted on an exemption for reporting military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This loophole was closed by the Paris Accord, but with the Trump administration due to withdraw from the accord in 2020, this gap will will return.

Our study is based on data retrieved from multiple Freedom of Information Act requests to the US Defense Logistics Agency, the massive bureaucratic agency tasked with managing the US military’s supply chains, including its hydrocarbon fuel purchases and distribution.

The US military has long understood that it isn’t immune from the potential consequences of climate change – recognising it as a “threat multiplier” that can exacerbate other risks. Many, though not all, military bases have been preparing for climate change impacts like sea level rise. Nor has the military ignored its own contribution to the problem. As we have previously shown, the military has invested in developing alternative energy sources like biofuels, but these comprise only a tiny fraction of spending on fuels.

The American military’s climate policy remains contradictory. There have been attempts to “green” aspects of its operations by increasing renewable electricity generation on bases, but it remains the single largest institutional consumer of hydrocarbons in the world. It has also locked itself into hydrocarbon-based weapons systems for years to come, by depending on existing aircraft and warships for open-ended operations.

Not green, but less, military

Climate change has become a hot-button topic on the campaign trail for the 2020 presidential election. Leading Democratic candidates, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, and members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for major climate initiatives like the Green New Deal. For any of that to be effective, the US military’s carbon bootprint must be addressed in domestic policy and international climate treaties.

Our study shows that action on climate change demands shuttering vast sections of the military machine. There are few activities on Earth as environmentally catastrophic as waging war. Significant reductions to the Pentagon’s budget and shrinking its capacity to wage war would cause a huge drop in demand from the biggest consumer of liquid fuels in the world.

It does no good tinkering around the edges of the war machine’s environmental impact. The money spent procuring and distributing fuel across the US empire could instead be spent as a peace dividend, helping to fund a Green New Deal in whatever form it might take. There are no shortage of policy priorities that could use a funding bump. Any of these options would be better than fuelling one of the largest military forces in history.

– Benjamin Neimark – Senior Lecturer, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University
– Oliver Belcher – Assistant Professor of Geography, Durham University
– Patrick Bigger Lecturer of Human Geography, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University

Article by Neimark, Belcher, and Bigger is from Transcend Media Services July 2, 2019; originally published on theconversation.com July 1, 2019. Creative Commons License.

_________________________________________

Note from Kathie MM: Pegean says UGH! Did you hear about the military extravaganza in Washington DC yesterday? What did that do for the environment? What did it do for the nation’s image? It sure costs a lot of taxpayer dollars to portray the country as the world’s greatest bully! While you’re here, click this link for some of the most important photos you’ve ever seen.

Commentary is by Kathie MM and Pegean.

In a World of Corporate-Backed Politicians, Beware the Sounds of Sirens

Odysseus is tempted by the swirling Sirens in Homer’s The Odyssey.

by Roy Eidelson

“Citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy.” — Noam Chomsky, 1989 (Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies)

My copy of Homer’s The Odyssey, a remnant of high school Latin days,has been gathering dust on a shelf for decades now. But I’ve been thinking more about the book in recent years, especially as my writing has increasingly turned to the psychology of propaganda. In that context, one of the epic poem’s most provocative passages chronicles the brief encounter between Ulysses and the Sirens during his ten-year voyage home from the Trojan War.

The two Sirens—peculiar creatures, part human and part animal—sit in a meadow where they warble songs that are, quite simply, lethal. Even the most disciplined sailors are drawn to the shore by the irresistible sounds, and they never depart. As Homer describes it, “There is a great heap of dead men’s bones lying all around, with the flesh still rotting off them.”

But Ulysses and his crew escape this fate, thanks to guidance from the goddess Circe. Her advice is clear and effective. Upon approaching the Sirens’ island, the crew should put wax in their ears and then bind Ulysses securely to the ship’s mast. In this way, he alone can safely listen to the enchanting songs, which purport to bestow wisdom and foretell the future.

So why consider this 3,000-year-old story now? Because for many Americans hoping to help steer our beleaguered country toward greater justice and equality, a pair of modern-day—albeit figurative—Sirens are seemingly always poised to draw us off course. Indeed, their beguiling appeals and promises will only grow louder and more persistent as we move ever closer to Election Day 2020. 

Not surprisingly, the first—and more ruthless—of the two is Donald Trump, with full-throated support from the Republican Party leadership. His repetitive refrain of fearmongering and racist dog-whistling—all under the guise of “Making America Great Again”—lures not only the intolerant but also some who are insecure and despairing. By contrast, the second can be found within the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Sadly, its own chorus promotes skepticism toward any progressive proposal—for example, a Green New Deal or Medicare for All—that could disrupt a status quo very favorable to the super-rich and powerful. 

These two Sirens certainly don’t sing identical songs. But both rely on the same choir directors for their music: namely, the behemoths of corporate America, including Wall Street, the oil and gas industry, military contractors, health insurers, Big Pharma, and media conglomerates. That’s why we’re serenaded with “only a huge defense budget can keep us safe;” “higher taxes on the wealthy will cripple our economy;” “a single-payer healthcare system can never work here;” “climate change disaster can be averted with small steps;” “minimum wage hikes will force mass layoffs;” and other similar claims. All are broadcast far and wide, even though they lack substance and run counter to the common good. 

Defenders of the billionaire class, from both sides of the aisle, also have prepared verses to advance the prospects of their don’t-rock-the-boat candidates. So we can expect to hear much of the following in the months ahead: dismissive critiques aimed at progressive leaders—young and old—whose vision and fearlessness threaten the existing order; angry condemnation of those who note troubling inconsistencies in the words and actions of so-called mainstream politicians; duplicitous efforts to label leftist reformers as out-of-touch “extremists” whose dangerous ideas won’t sell in Middle America; and overblown tributes focusing on “civility” and “bipartisanship” rather than the unflinching pursuit of justice and the public interest.

An abundant supply of wax and sturdy rope isn’t the answer for resisting the collective confusion and destruction wrought by today’s Sirens. That’s because we can’t afford to close our ears to their self-serving messages that mislead so many, nor can we afford to listen to their lies and distortions without responding. Unlike the challenge faced by Ulysses and his crew, these are voices that must be defeated, not merely escaped. 

A contemporary Circe might therefore offer a different recommendation for our circumstances: what psychologists call “attitude inoculation.” The basic idea comes from the familiar public health approach used to prevent contracting and spreading a contagious virus. Consider the flu vaccine. When you get a flu shot, you receive a modest dose of the actual influenza virus. Your body responds by building up the antibodies necessary to fight off the full-blown virus if it later attacks as you go about your daily life. A flu shot doesn’t always work, but it improves your odds. 

The favorite mantras of today’s corporate-backed politicians are much like a virus that infects the public with false and harmful beliefs about what’s happening, what’s right, and what’s possible. So here too, inoculation is essential. Knowing that these hazardous appeals are heading our way, we must be vigilant and prepare in advance for the onslaught by learning to recognize deceitful claims and by developing cogent counterarguments to them. Once we’ve personally acquired this psychological “immunity,” then we’re ready to be first responders when it comes to inoculating others. 

To be clear, the Sirens I’ve described are far from the only obstacles to a brighter collective future, one in which hardship, mistreatment, and crushed aspirations are no longer a routine part of so many lives. But their manipulative pleas and cautionary tales, contrived to divert and divide, are undeniable threats to progress on the urgent journey before us.

********

Roy Eidelson, PhD, is the former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility. He is the author of Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible.

Forewarned is Forearmed: Get Ready for Political Mind Games in 2019. Part 2

Image licensed under CCA-Share Alike 4.0 Internatl. Culture Jam activism sticker mentored by Avram Finkelstein, Center for Artistic Activism. Author: BettyTkao.

by Roy Eidelson

[One percenter mind games continued from December 26, 2018]

Distrust

“They’re Devious and Dishonest.”  From condemning labor activists to vilifying racial justice advocates, one-percenters will portray their adversaries as treacherous, devious, and evil in intent. With this mind game, they’ll encourage us to be suspicious and unsympathetic toward those who are facing difficult circumstances or insurmountable hardships. When this appeal works, we’re more likely to turn our backs on the victims of the self-aggrandizing rich and powerful.

“They’re Different from Us.” Whether they’re stigmatizing immigrant groups or progressive reformers, the 1% will describe those they deplore as unworthy of our trust, casting them as different and out of touch with what most Americans want. Whenever this deceitful ploy is successful, it leads potential allies to view each other as adversaries. In this way, natural coalitions that could develop among individuals and groups opposed to today’s plutocrats are squelched or destroyed.

“They’re Misguided and Misinformed.”  From the corruption on Wall Street to the further militarization of foreign policy, one-percenters will argue that their critics are misinformed and unreliable, and that their judgments are not to be trusted. Whenever we’re persuaded by such defensive appeals, we discount or entirely disregard important voices of dissent. Crucial opportunities for tackling inequality and advancing the common good are lost as a result.

“Trust Us.”  Whether it’s billionaire union-busters or lobby-backed politicians, the 1% will promote themselves as paragons of integrity. They know their efforts and policies will be much harder to counter if we mistakenly view them as trustworthy and selfless in word and deed. The weight of evidence doesn’t support this favorable image, but that reality doesn’t matter if we fail to recognize their devious misrepresentations, hollow promises, and corrupt enterprises.

Superiority

“They’re Losers.”  From reviling the homeless to disparaging the unemployed, today’s plutocrats will portray those who are down-and-out as inferior to the rest of us. With this mind game, they’ll encourage us to stand aloof from decent people who deserve our compassion and solidarity. And by boosting our own sense of self-worth, they’ll aim to discourage us from recognizing that the massive concentrations of wealth and power in this country reflect ruthless exploitation and unconscionable disregard of the needy.

“We’ve Earned It.”  Whether CEOs are defending their astronomical pay or claiming the mantle of indispensable job creators, one-percenters will fraudulently argue that they’ve earned everything they have through determination and fair play—and that they deserve our praise rather than criticism for their actions and choices. These assertions of superiority go hand in hand with the pursuit of ever greater dominance. As long as their self-glorifying narratives go uncontested, extreme inequality will remain a disturbing fixture of our society.

“Pursuing a Higher Purpose.”  From promoting inequality-boosting right-to-work legislation to defending human rights abuses, the 1% will insist that their actions embrace and protect the values we cherish. But prioritizing big-money interests subverts the vision of a nation of equal opportunity, where people from all walks of life join together for the common good. Despite this glaring contradiction, greed-driven appeals often succeed because they tap into our sense of pride over our country’s accomplishments and influence in the world.

“They’re Un-American.”  Whether they’re railing against desperate immigrants or kneeling football players, one-percenters will stoke intolerance by presenting their critics as inauthentic and unpatriotic Americans. They recognize that their rule will be jeopardized if unwelcome change-seekers gain broad support. So they’ll condemn those individuals and groups that refuse to silently accept hardship and mistreatment, characterizing them as ungrateful outsiders who fail to appreciate all that’s good about the United States.

Helplessness

“Change Is Impossible.”  From catastrophic climate change to inequality-boosting globalization, the 1% will insist that the world is shaped by forces much too powerful to be tamed by human intervention. Closer analysis, however, reveals that they lack the motivation—not the capacity—to exert influence over these disturbing phenomena. Indeed, even when they’re not the direct cause of others’ misery, too often they’re bystanders unwilling to use their enormous resources to benefit the common good.

“We’ll All Be Helpless.”  Whether they’re opposing gun reform measures or minimum wage hikes, one-percenters will warn us that changes will produce harmful repercussions that we’ll all be powerless to combat. The goal is to frighten us into accepting a status quo that serves their own interests but causes widespread damage to the public good. They hope that concerns about future helplessness will lead us to turn our backs on those suffering under the current system.

“Don’t Blame Us.”  From environmental disasters at home to reckless militarism overseas, the 1% will be quick to claim there’s nothing they could do when circumstances take a turn for the worse. Given their inordinate wealth and power, these cries of helplessness and blamelessness merit careful scrutiny. Although they strut the stage boasting about their purported talents and accomplishments, today’s plutocrats head for the shadows when it’s time to accept responsibility for their policy failures.

“Resistance Is Futile.”  Whether it’s protecting tax cuts for billionaires or flooding political campaigns with cash for future favors, the 1% will try to convince us that we’re helpless to wrest our lives and our country from their control. If we believe we’ll never succeed, our change efforts grind to a halt. But we should remember that one-percenters are susceptible to the disempowering effects of perceived helplessness too—if we can demonstrate our own collective power.

Resisting the 1%’s Mind Games

To reiterate: Any effective strategy for turning the tide on the 1% in 2019 depends upon countering and neutralizing these mind games. Concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness deserve to be important guides in policy debates and in efforts to advance the general welfare. But today’s plutocrats cunningly exploit these concerns solely for their own benefit, disregarding the harmful consequences that befall everyone else.

What, then, can we do? First, we should understand that the 1%’s mind games are much like a rampant virus that can infect unsuspecting people with false and democracy-endangering beliefs. Second, we should take the steps necessary to psychologically inoculate ourselves. That’s best accomplished by learning to recognize these flawed, manipulative appeals wherever they appear—in the media or in our neighborhoods—and by preparing forceful counter-arguments to them. And third, having become skilled “first responders,” we should organize others in our communities to do the same. The mission starts now.

Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, and the author of the new book POLITICAL MIND GAMES: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s Possible. His website is www.royeidelson.com and he’s on Twitter at @royeidelson

This article was originally published on Counterpunch at https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/20/get-ready-for-these-political-mind-games-in-2019/