Global warming! A raging issue that has become one of the signature issues representing the metaphorical and philosophical divide fracturing America. On both sides the groups have sectionalized themselves off into factions that would make James Madison roll over in his grave. In the left corner the scientists and the environmentalist, railing against – what they see as – the further desecration of the natural environment and humanities pollution laden march to imminent apocalypse. In the right corner the Evangelical Christian Right and a few other patches of the Republican Party claiming that the science behind global warming is false and polluting the atmosphere does…no damage….to the Earth.
Each group proclaims a monopoly on the correct “science,” with both constantly striving to discredit the other. Is Global Warming a real threat or is it simply the paranoid rant of some dope smoking tree hugger, as the right would have you believe? And if this threat is scare propaganda, what exactly is the endgame for the left?
When George Bush led us into his war of personal gain and vendetta — creating his own make believe threat – his motivation was clear and distinguishable. He is an oil barron and there is quite a bit of oil in the Middle East. One can easily see why it behooves a President who is a champion for the Petroleum industry to try to assert as much American influence and control as possible in a region that is so rich with the desired resource.
But with global warming the reasons for creating a fictitious threat are less clear. This gets to the heart of the true issue behind the debatable positions as they are related to global warming. In short, why is this debate even occurring? What could the left possibly gain – other then the satisfaction of trying to save the planet – from alerting the population to this potentially catastrophic issue.
This question needs to be examined closer and expounded upon. Why does the Right, and particularly the Evangelicals, have a problem with the idea that global warming is real? What exactly do these people have to gain by disproving the idea that polluting the atmosphere is harmful to the ecological health of the earth? In fact, what exactly is their counter argument? That polluting is harmless?
Now, when you ask a global warming non-believer this general line of questioning they will most likely launch into some “pseudo-scientific” diatribe about warming cycles and how the earth has always been heated in small increments, ect.
Let’s say, purely for examinational purposes, that the warming unbelievers are correct and the earth has always been warming, or gone through cycles, or whatever they are barking at the pulpits this week. What direction then, as a country, do we move in with our environmental policy if this is true? Do we completely lift all emissions restrictions, allowing companies to pump whatever they want into the atmosphere? If global warming is a fake concept it wouldn’t really seem to matter. In fact, taking away those restrictions would….probably save….big business…….a lot of money. Ah Ha!
Suddenly we’ve stumbled upon a profound concept that both sides seem to be unwilling to acknowledging or, in the Democrats’ case, are completely ignorant towards. The less environmental restrictions there are on corporate entities in the United States the lower the overhead operating costs for said companies. This is a basic economic concept; it is not a secret nor is it a liberal or conservative perspective or bent.
One of the draws for corporations of outsourcing to third world nations, in addition to the lack of labor laws, is the near total lack of environmental restrictions on emissions and waste disposal. This, coupled with the fact that companies pay workers far lower wages and are able to completely eliminate the factor of unions and their effects on a balance sheet from the equation, makes it completely impossible for an American company to not outsource and yet stay competitive in the world economic theater, especially with the current U.S. economic and trade policies and the conditions they’ve created.
Let’s return to our fanatical friends, the Christian Right. They, as a group, have been some of the most vocal opponents of the idea of global warming. It is reasonable to understand, given their very public religious positions, why politically the Evangelicals are bigoted against homosexuals; their perverted “literal” bible interpretations tell them they should be and they are programmed to comply.
Also understandable is their hang up with evolution — carbon dating is wrong, man lived along side dinosaurs, the world is only 325 million years old — it goes against their omnipotent creation in seven days theory that is so much more plausible than, say, poisonous gas trapping the sun’s rays in the atmosphere and heating the earth – but I digress.
The Christian Right’s aversion to global warming is completely baseless from every perspective and angle. No matter how one reads the bible, one will not find any passage that condemns people who believe that destroying a planet –- that in their belief structure God created — is wrong. Also, there is most definitely nowhere in the Ten Commandments a dictate that says “Thou shall not partake in conservationalism.”
Unlike evolution, it is not a threat to the archaic Evangelical interpretations of biblical doctrine to accept that global warming is a threat to humanity. It is even arguable that if you give God credit for the creation of the earth, then he would probably be pretty upset with the idea that the people for whom he created it think that they can carelessly trash his creation like college kids in a frat house.
So the question finally evolves to the point where the root understanding, the true motivation behind the debate, can be discovered.
What could possibly motivate a group whose interests have literally no stake in the Global Warming fight, to lead a crusade of repudiation against people who simply want to ensure the stability of the planet and the quality of existence for all life forms that inhabit it?
What has infuriated these oppositionists so much about what they see as the evil leftist science, that they would fail to understand the simplistic concept that even if the earth isn’t warming because of the massive amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, it is simply inherently better not to pollute for a wide range of other reasons including water quality, air purity, minimizing the acid rain effect, and many other environmental health concepts that are, thankfully, not currently under any debate or religious assault.
To really understand the ruse that corporate America and the Republicans have once again perpetrated on those poor, unsuspecting Evangelicals, it is prudent to return to the conclusion previously drawn concerning whom actually DOES benefit from global warming being discredited as a global threat.
Manufacturing in the U.S. has been working its way towards total collapse since the 1980’s. Globalization, while an inevitability, put the United States, and its higher overall cost of doing business, at a great disadvantage to the rest of the world. The result was/is the outsourcing of supply and production due, in large part, to the lack of restrictions placed on business by foreign governments less constrained by ethical concerns.
As the U.S.’s major corporations began jockeying for their respective positions in the newly developing and evolving global economy the accounting divisions of those companies, under pressure from increasingly vocal shareholders, got through the message to the executives very clearly that to optimize profits and to compete under the increasingly cut throat global conditions, all the stops needed to be pulled out concerning cost effectiveness.
There was opportunity to be had in the Wild West style business conditions of the third world. Corporate paradises of poverty and corruption where restrictions are non existent and anything goes, places like the Jamaican Free Zones are disgusting examples of the lack of regulation on corporate practices outside of the United States.
So when Al Gore started going to college campuses and corporate conventions showing his surprisingly powerful slideshow presentation generating an oddly bipartisan appeal, and eventually worked his way to your local Cineplex, the Right heeded the call from their corporate financiers and sprung into action with a propaganda campaign aimed directly at recruiting the Christian right into the fight.
One has to have respect for Rove and company, from an evil political genius, manipulator of the population, puppet master, type perspective. They say you can only go to the well oh so many times, but time after time the Republicans have been able to pimp out their most loyal voter base — the Christian right in case you haven’t caught the subtext yet — and time after time they respond in herd like unison, regurgitating whatever bile they are spoon fed on Fox News as their personal ethos.
So the master plan to protect the right of foreign governments to entice American business by allowing them to pollute their countries was unfurled. Rove railed the troops; the troops took up the cause; and the Christian Right, looking as uneducated and unreasonable as ever, fought the “good” fight against global warming with their usual fanatical vigor.
Essentially, they fight IN DEFENSE of pollution. Number one on the casualty list – The Kyoto Treaty, which remains minus a signature by the maestro of this long, drawn out opera known as the Prostitution and Exploitation of the United States, and friend to all things oil, King George II.
It is time for those particular Americans opposing environmental action to wake up to the realities that are going on around them and to stop using the bible as an excuse for their educational deficiencies.
On the most basic level, if the concept that the anti-environmentalists are apposing is wrong literally nothing happens. If they happen to be right, the Earth will face a once preventable but at that point irreversible state of environmental, economic, and political disaster, on par – ironically enough – with revelations.
It is admirable to stand up for the principles of one’s beliefs. Although one may disagree with the Christian Right’s interpretations of Christianity it is the duty of every true American to support, unceasingly, every citizen’s right to possess those views and to freely make those interpretations as they see fit in the spectrum of their private life or their place of worship.
Whether one subscribes to the long or the short version of earth’s history it is consistently evident that, should humanity vanish, it would not be the first, nor likely the last, species to rule the planet only to be dethroned in a rather dramatic fashion.
It is time for the U.S.’s population to realize that Global Warming is not a partisan problem. Global, by definition, means everyone. It is in the interest of all those that inhabit this planet to take care of the environment, whether the reason is to prevent the warming of the earth or to solve any of the many other environmental negatives harming more micro aspects of the earth’s ecosystem.
The deficiencies by the general population concerning their understanding of the spectrum of political issues currently relevant stems greatly from their inability to comprehend the underlying factors behind a particular issue. The result is a syndrome where a good majority of the population on both sides never truly understands the opinions that they are parroting.
With global warming, as with every other issue that the government actually acknowledges, there is always one side that stands to profit from a certain outcome. When examining an issue, if one is able to determine which side stands to benefit the most from a policy decision and then compares that understanding with the propaganda being presented by each side, it is then possible to be able to achieve a more realistic understanding of the true repercussions of the issue under consideration. Only then, with all the external and internal factors taken into account, can a truly informed position be a achieved.
When the issue of Global Warming is examined through this spectrum or with this thought process applied as a template, it is obvious that literally ONLY corporate American stands to benefit from the discrediting of global warming.
The needs of corporate America are obviously intrinsic with the health of the American economy, but at what price can we sell out the planet and the future of our forthcoming generations? When does the long term economic stability of the planet out weigh the forth quarter dividends of the Big Three?
To solve what ails corporate American and the U.S. economy it is necessary for the federal government to focus on policies and solutions that relate to larger scale economic issues such as leveling the trade playing field with Asia, opening up new markets in places like Cuba and South America, renegotiating NAFTA, re-strengthening the value of the dollar in relation to the Euro and the Yen, and the greater macro economic problems that the U.S. faces and will face as the global economy develops.
Destroying the environment as a cost control method is simply another short sighted and ineffective quick fix; and an insurmountably costly one at that. Even big business – the influence behind the angry mob – needs to reconsider their position on this issue for they too are afflicted with the very American disease of chronic shortsightedness.Powered by Sidelines