http://www.truth-out.org/marching-cliff/1323195281

Marching Off the Cliff

by: Noam Chomsky, 
Truthout: 6 December 2011 
  <http://www.truth-out.org/sites/default/files/120611chomsky.jpg> 


(Image: JR /  <http://www.flickr.com/photos/truthout> TO; Adapted: Mikael
Miettinen <http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikaelmiettinen/3263569059/> , Bob
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobjagendorf/4096695652/> Jagendorf)

A task of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, now
under way in Durban, South Africa, is to extend earlier policy decisions
that were limited in scope and only partially implemented.

These decisions trace back to the U.N. Convention of 1992 and the Kyoto
Protocol of 1997, which the U.S. refused to join. The Kyoto Protocol’s first
commitment period ends in 2012. A fairly general pre-conference mood was
captured by a New York Times headline: “Urgent Issues but Low Expectations.”

As the delegates meet in Durban, a report on newly updated digests of polls
by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Program on International Policy
Attitudes reveals that “publics around the world and in the United States
say their government should give global warming a higher priority and
strongly support multilateral action to address it.”

Most U.S. citizens agree, though PIPA clarifies that the percentage “has
been declining over the last few years, so that American concern is
significantly lower than the global average – 70 percent as compared to 84
percent.”

“Americans do not perceive that there is a scientific consensus on the need
for urgent action on climate change â(euro) [ A large majority think that
they will be personally affected by climate change eventually, but only a
minority thinks that they are being affected now, contrary to views in most
other countries. Americans tend to underestimate the level of concern among
other Americans.”

These attitudes aren’t accidental. In 2009 the energy industries, backed by
business lobbies, launched major campaigns that cast doubt on the
near-unanimous consensus of scientists on the severity of the threat of
human-induced global warming.

The consensus is only “near-unanimous” because it doesn’t include the many
experts who feel that climate-change warnings don’t go far enough, and the
marginal group that deny the threat’s validity altogether.

The standard “he says/she says” coverage of the issue keeps to what is
called “balance”: the overwhelming majority of scientists on one side, the
denialists on the other. The scientists who issue the more dire warnings are
largely ignored.

One effect is that scarcely one-third of the U.S. population believes that
there is a scientific consensus on the threat of global warming – far less
than the global average, and radically inconsistent with the facts.

It’s no secret that the U.S. government is lagging on climate issues.
“Publics around the world in recent years have largely disapproved of how
the United States is handling the problem of climate change,” according to
PIPA. “In general, the United States has been most widely seen as the
country having the most negative effect on the world’s environment, followed
by China. Germany has received the best ratings.”

To gain perspective on what’s happening in the world, it’s sometimes useful
to adopt the stance of intelligent extraterrestrial observers viewing the
strange doings on Earth. They would be watching in wonder as the richest and
most powerful country in world history now leads the lemmings cheerfully off
the cliff.

Last month, the International Energy Agency, which was formed on the
initiative of U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974, issued its
latest report on rapidly increasing carbon emissions from fossil fuel use.

The IEA estimated that if the world continues on its present course, the
“carbon budget” will be exhausted by 2017. The budget is the quantity of
emissions that can keep global warming at the 2 degrees Celsius level
considered the limit of safety.

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said, “The door is closing â(euro) [ if we
don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what
scientists tell us is the minimum (for safety). The door will be closed
forever.”

Also last month, the U.S. Department of Energy reported the emissions
figures for 2010. Emissions “jumped by the biggest amount on record,” The
Associated Press reported, meaning that “levels of greenhouse gases are
higher than the worst-case scenario” anticipated by the International Panel
on Climate Change in 2007.

John Reilly, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s
program on climate change, told the AP that scientists have generally found
the IPCC predictions to be too conservative – unlike the fringe of
denialists who gain public attention. Reilly reported that the IPCC’s
worst-case scenario was about in the middle of the MIT scientists’ estimates
of likely outcomes.

As these ominous reports were released, the Financial Times devoted a full
page to the optimistic expectations that the U.S. might become
energy-independent for a century with new technology for extracting North
American fossil fuels.

Though projections are uncertain, the Financial Times reports, the U.S.
might “leapfrog Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest
producer of liquid hydrocarbons, counting both crude oil and lighter natural
gas liquids.”

In this happy event, the U.S. could expect to retain its global hegemony.
Beyond some remarks about local ecological impact, the Financial Times said
nothing about what kind of a world would emerge from these exciting
prospects. Energy is to burn; the global environment be damned.

Just about every government is taking at least halting steps to do something
about the likely impending catastrophe. The U.S. is leading the way –
backward. The Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives is now
dismantling environmental measures introduced by Richard Nixon, in many
respects the last liberal president.

This reactionary behavior is one of many indications of the crisis of U.S.
democracy in the past generation. The gap between public opinion and public
policy has grown to a chasm on central issues of current policy debate such
as the deficit and jobs. However, thanks to the propaganda offensive, the
gap is less than what it should be on the most serious issue on the
international agenda today – arguably in history.

The hypothetical extraterrestrial observers can be pardoned if they conclude
that we seem to be infected by some kind of lethal insanity.

© 2011 Noam Chomsky

Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate.

Noam Chomsky


Noam Chomsky’s most recent book, with co-author Ilan Pappe, is "Gaza in
Crisis." Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to