Economic ideology of climate change

I posted a comment at Truthout:

The most neglected aspect of the climate crisis is its economic root. It's in the interest of the highly profitable fossil fuel industry to (1) push climate denial to preempt the cost of mitigation and/or loss of sales/profits; (2) promote pipeline projects to decrease their transportation costs, thus boost profits; (3) find more sources of fossil fuels to extract and sell for profit and (4) sell as much fossil fuel products as possible to maximize profit (this includes minimizing energy efficiency).

Economic ideology is the primary driver of human behavior and, as it stands now, corporate capitalism rules. Regardless of the [good] intentions of bioconservatism, it cannot override the powerful forces of fossil fuel capitalism. The only way to specifically target the fossil fuel industry is to make it unprofitable. Another way is to redirect current economic ideology away from power concentration in the elite class (oligarchs and the 1%-ers).

The biggest problem with industrial pollution (includes climate change) is scale. Large powerful nations enable large powerful corporations which extend their reach into international markets to become international conglomerates. By pooling the monies of many investors, small numbers of executives have the power to use and do use these huge sums to profit at any means and that includes polluting the environment with their toxic outputs. If economies were structured so that power is  disseminated in a way that prevents it from being concentrated in the hands of a few elites, industry could only operate on a small scale. And small scale produces less pollution.

Stand with Water-Protectors

My comment at a Truthout post regarding the North Dakota Access Pipeline:

The colonial NoDAPL battle is another iteration of an economic conflict between two disparate sides; one brings the military and police power of the state, the other brings the voices of an oppresses population. We have and currently see similar (economic) fights all over the country and all over the world. Some examples include international trade pacts (TPP/TTIP) where corporations purchase government influence to negotiate terms to their benefit and develop marketing/propaganda strategies to sell them to the voters of their respective countries. Strong-arming or influence purchasing of local governments for tax benefits/incentives to draw so-called jobs in the form of factories (like cars or airplanes), sports teams (to subsidize stadiums/roads) and retail enterprises (like Walmart stores). International armed conflict where control of economic resources is a significant driver of government directed military conflict - the war in Iraq was at least partially about gaining control of Iraq's oil; it was also an opportunity for arms producers to sell more products to the U.S. military. Even U.S. elections are about corporations buying political marketing/propaganda in the form of campaigns to purchase/persuade voters to their thinking. In all cases, powerful corporations are backed by the institutional and/or military power of governments to exert their will on a weaker opponent.

The true nature of the conflict is powerful corporations/individuals fighting the less powerful to increase their opportunity to increase their power. For the sake of oppressed/repressed people everywhere, we should always stand with them. Many thanks to the water protectors. You are fighting for my rights as well as yours and I stand by your side.

Adverse effects of religious teaching

Unlike PZ Myers who has written often and militantly against deist teaching, I had primarily held a neutral stance, thinking religiosity was relatively harmless. Then the recent presidential election occurred and an editorial at Truthout blamed it on irrational thinking... so putting it all together...

Religion imbues irrational thinking because it promotes belief in beings which cannot be detected by any physical means. It teaches followers to believe in things they cannot rationally sense.

Abrogation of rational thinking through early religious indoctrination sensitizes followers to further irrational and illogical arguments.

Propaganda and marketing uses emotional appeals to shortchange/ short circuit rational and thus critical thinking.

While both Republican and Democratic parties are guilty of propagandish tactics and arguments, the recent president-elect was particularly adept.

The problem is that religious teaching and practice is legally protected by the US Constitution. How do we get around that obstacle?

Update: Confirmation that religious teaching is anti-critical thinking - NPR reports Evangelicals don't trust scientists.

Political responsibility

I hadn't thought about Dan Quayle for a while but then I just watched a Molly Ivins video where her opinion coincided with mine, he's stupid. And some dots started connecting... did G.H.W.Bush choose Quayle because he's stupid as a way to prepare the country to see his less than brilliant son(s) as qualified to be POTUS? I actually don't think he did but the consequences of his choice of Quayle for VP is evidenced by, thankfully, former president GWB and ominously by president-elect DJT.

Not hopeful

My Truthout comment at a post titled: Donald Trump's Victory Is Not the Last Word

Republicans have an in-group which is better known as the 0.1%. Democrats also have an in-group, the 5%. Donald Trump only has Donald Trump; he has no group loyalty. With his election, we may very well have just doomed the planet to catastrophic climate change. For those who voted for him hoping to improve their personal economic circumstances, not only will it not happen; he will sell your future and that of all your children and grandchildren to enrich himself. The future is far from optimistic.

I hope this is wrong today...

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. 

H. L. Mencken 

US editor (1880 - 1956)

 

The election hasn't been decided yet ... and I had a hard time believing we elected GWB twice. The oligarchs win regardless of who sits in elected office. International strife might be just a smidgeon more stable with Clinton.

More confirmation...

of the corrupting influence of information control/secrecy. This time, a post at Truthout describes the role of secret power brokers on U.S. elections - they effectively eliminate any chance of voters to select their favorite candidate by locking out most political speech.

My comment:

Absolutely. Secrecy and control of information are at the root of power and wealth concentration in this country and elsewhere. The Real News Network recently posted a series about how trade became linked to control of intellectual property which expands into how information control ('intellectual property') benefits its controllers to the detriment of economies and the majority of people at large (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=832&Itemid=74&jumival=1561). Indeed, the economic consequences of information control (including disinformation) is behind the climate change that threatens economies, ecosystems and humanity. If we really want to fix the system, the most meaningful reform would start with universal whistleblower protection.

Independent confirmation

Any one who has read my series describing the relationship between ecosystems and economies knows how I think economies actually work:

Econology Part 1a: It's not the economy, Stupid; it's economics
 
Econology Part 1b: The depth and breadth of economies

Econology Part 2: The ecology of economies

Econology Part 3: Eleven economics lessons from ecosystems

Econology Part 4: Emergent flaws of Capitalism (1, 2)

 Econology Part 5: The Next Economy

A major conclusion is that the currency of change/evolution in ecosystems/economies is genetic information/information. Thus, the take home message is that control of information underpins the concentration of power in economies. The types of 'economic' policies proposed by policy makers, lobbyists and most economists don't address this; the only true reform of economic systems is essentially complete information transparency.

Not being an economist, I have very little background knowledge on which to draw support for my thesis and the mainstream economic thinking discussed in the media completely counter my ideas. But just recently, I came across a video series where an Australian economist, Peter Drahos, describes the impact of ever tighter control of intellectual property on the larger economy... and much of what he says concurs with my reasoning - Yes! If you can spare the time, it's worth a listen/view.