General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsName Storms After Oil Companies -- They're The Ones Most Responsible For Climate Change
By Bill McKibben
Source: New York Daily News
Thursday, November 01, 2012
As gutsy New Yorkers begin the task of drying out the city, heres one thought that occurred to me last night watching the horrifying pictures from a distance. Its obviously not crucial right now but in the long run it might make a difference. Why dont we stop naming these storms for people, and start naming them after oil companies?
Global warming didnt cause this hurricane, of course hurricanes are caused when a tropical wave washes off the coast of Africa and begins to spin in the far Atlantic. But this storm rode ocean waters five degrees warmer than normal, so its no great shock that it turned into a monster. By the time it hit land, it had smashed every record for the lowest barometric pressure, and the largest wind field.
Most of its damage, of course, came from the savage storm surge, washing over the Rockaways, into the Holland Tunnel. It was astonishing to watch on TV as the Lower East Side became a part of the East River. And one reason that surge was so high? The sea level in New York harbor has gone up a foot as the climate has warmed. Sandy had a big head start on flooding out the city.
The fossil fuel companies have played the biggest role in making sure we dont slow global warming down. Theyve funded climate denial propagandists and helped pack Congress with anti-environmental extremists, making sure that common sense steps to move toward renewable energy never happen. So maybe its only right that we should honor their efforts by naming storms for them from now on. At the very least its fun to imagine the newscasters: Exxon is coming ashore across New Jersey, leaving havoc in her wake. Chevron forces evacuation of 375,000............
http://www.zcommunications.org/name-storms-after-oil-companies-theyre-the-ones-most-responsible-for-climate-change-by-bill-mckibben
Sugarcoated
(7,739 posts)And I must say, I thought it was full of AWESOME
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Good idea!
get the red out
(13,468 posts)LOVE IT.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Oil companies exist because there is demand. There is demand because industrial society has an infinite, unquenchable thirst for growth.
Yes, they do lobby and they do attempt to increase demand within their power (as every market provider does). But are they truly the root of the problem, moreso than the very nature of our modern economy and civilization?
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)The oil companies have been engaging in a full-scale propaganda war against climate change legislation and research. They are very well aware of the problem, and instead of trying to find solutions, their approach is to make as much money as they can while they can.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But this fire has been burning for a very long time, even before the first oil company existed.
Climate change legislation is essentially a choice between extinction in year X or extinction in year X + 10. Certainly looks good on paper though. The fact of the matter is the only way to curtail this issue is to curtail growth and exploitation of nature; if any legislation actually did that and the people realized it, I know where to place my bets when push comes to shove.
I simply see oil companies as a symptom of a sick and insane system, which is fitting the pattern of every single at-risk industry we have ever witnessed. Such entities are amoral, so playing with extinction to prolong their own existence is not out of the ordinary (and fits the human playbook we have written). I guess they do make the perfect scapegoat.
But while we throw tomatoes at them, can we not look at the human race that creates, depends, feeds on these companies while we grow without end? Because if you can't fix that problem, then you certainly wont fix climate change no matter what industries you shit-can.
polly7
(20,582 posts)and actively work to prevent solutions in order to profit ...... definitely, give them a storm name too, I'm all for that.
Do you really think ordinary citizens wouldn't choose alternatives to polluting the planet and watching oil-wars and misery if they were available and affordable?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)This involves abandoning infinite growth in a finite world, and thereby, global economic & technological decline. I do not think the ordinary citizen would choose this, and certainly not when there is no leadership suggesting it as a viable alternative to infinite growth & exploitation.
Decline doesn't have to be a "bad" thing, but it most surely will be if its not planned for.
I am disgusted with climate deniers, but I am also outright annoyed with the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too green movement, who thinks that we can maintain our current standard of living and grow endlessly using cleaner energy ("cornicopiasts" . Perhaps if the thorium reactor ever pans out, but then you still have resource exploitation and encroachment upon natural habitats.
I think we need to get real already. No one industry caused this. Civilization did and drives it forward, but how many are really pointing their fingers there? Instead, this energy shell game we practice is rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic (sorry for the cliche).
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)northoftheborder
(7,575 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... had the exact same thought. I'm ashamed of the world we're leaving in our wake.
cojoel
(959 posts)as in:
Hurricane Sandy was brought to you today by Exxon Mobil.
Uncle Joe
(58,562 posts)Thanks for the thread, polly.