Canyon Country Zephyr page 30

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

Wall Street, Climate Change, and What's Crazy: An Archeological Perspective on Change

By Scott Thompson

Truth time now. I wonder if within institutional Wall Street there isn't a spreading concern that informed discussions of climate change might spook the markets into a downward trend. And I wonder if the silence I'm calling crazy—and, as far as the world's future is concerned, it is—isn't the manifestation of a tacit understanding to shut up about bad news, fueled by underlying panic.

In any case, the gist of the Journal's story was that Senate Democrats were about to grill various oil company CEOs on their corporate tax breaks. House Speaker John Boehner's remark was that erasing the subsidies would be "tax hikes [that] will raise gas prices, destroy jobs in this country and increase our dependence on foreign oil." Pointing out that this was a cynical comment is the kindest thing I can think of to say.

"The reality is that most governments, strongly influenced by the fossil

fuel industry, continue to allow and even subsidize development of fossil fuel

deposits...[This is crazy because] Continued business as usual fossil fuel use

will result in loss of all Arctic summer sea ice within the next several decades."

- James Hansen and thirteen other climate scientists, 2011

Yes, I added the phrase in brackets and no, it was not implied by the text as written. Pardon my bad manners, James.

I did that because allowing the summer Arctic sea ice to melt in conjunction with a sustained atmospheric CO2 level greater than 350 parts per million (ppm) is like playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in the chamber.

There are two reasons why such a comparison is apt. First, as long as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is greater than 350 ppm, the atmosphere will continue to warm. And, because it's now at 390 ppm and climbing at 2 ppm each year, we're already locked into a sustained period of further warming, and that means that once the summer sea ice is gone, it's not coming back within any time period relevant to our species. Second, when the sea ice is gone, the dark ocean water that replaces it will absorb heat from the sun that the sea ice once reflected back into space—thus warming the ocean even more, every summer, in an escalating cycle.

Now just because some Democrats were willing to grandstand about oil company tax breaks doesn't mean that those tax breaks will be eliminated or that Democrats are getting serious about climate change. To the contrary:"...the Obama administration approved a proposal by Shell to drill five new exploratory deep-water oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, the second such approval for the gulf since the lifting of a federal moratorium on deepwater drilling last October."

Now that really shows you, because deep water drilling, and all the hazards that go with it, is one of a variety of ways the fossil fuel industry is expanding the scope of its exploration - the others being tar sands, oil shale, Arctic exploration, mountain-top removal coal mining, and hydro-fracking to enhance natural gas production. All perpetuate or at least risk ecological destruction on a scale heretofore unknown in order to suck out the last of the fossil fuels from the Earth; exactly what the eminent climate scientist James Hansen warned us we must NOT do if we want to live on a habitable planet.

Truth time now. I wonder if within institutional Wall Street there isn't a spreading concern that informed discussions of climate change might spook the markets into a downward trend.

II.

"...class divisions became a deep fracture line weakening the fabric of Chacoan society. The divisions were not unlike those between Wall Street and Main Street in the United States during the banking crisis and economic recession of 2008 to 2010."

- Archeologist David E. Stuart, 2010

CO2 figures so prominently as a greenhouse gas because, once it's emitted, significant portions hang in the atmosphere for a millennium or longer, continuing the warming. It's like sticking the world's ice sheets in an oven for a thousand years.

As everyone with an intact corpus callosum knows, what's generating ever more CO2 in our atmosphere is burning oil, coal, and natural gas, however derived, in addition to deforestation. Therefore, any government that subsidizes companies for producing these fossil fuels, especially oil and coal, especially when these companies are expanding their sources of extraction, is aiding and abetting a planet-wide process of self-destruction.

Enter a news story on page A3 of the May 12, 2011, edition of the Wall Street Journal, "Oil CEOs on the Hot Seat." While I don't normally read the Journal, I happened to see this one because the paper was free at the hotel where Gail and I were staying. The story was about an upcoming Senate Finance Committee hearing on tax breaks—government subsidies—for oil companies. Per the story, the oil industry claimed that 85.5 billion dollars in tax breaks over the next ten years would be on the table.

I thought, "Son-of-a-bitch, am I reading this right? That our government is subsidizing oil companies to the tune 0/8.55 billion dollars per annum (maybe it's more if you include coal; I don't know!) to produce the very greenhouse gas that has the crucial role in destroying the stability of the world's climate? That's crazy!"

True enough, but that's not what was crazy about the story. What was crazy about the story, in my opinion, is that it made no mention of the fundamental relationship between these gargantuan government subsidies, the resulting price of fossil fuels, and the quantity of CO2 emissions. When the stability of your planet's climate is at stake, and when the story is about an issue central to the crisis, you need to add at least a brief comment tying the subject to climate change.

Yet I assume that the reporters who wrote the story thoroughly lack craziness. What I do suspect is that, like any good alcoholic's wife (or husband), they knew what not to say. For one thing, they probably understood that what their readers were interested in was tracking the fate of these tax breaks in order to gauge their effect on oil company profits. And, for another, I suspect that the paper's management has little or no interest in addressing climate change in a way that would be congruent with the best (as opposed to the most cautious) climate science.

But, for about 150 years

prior to its collapse

in 1130 CE,

Chaco Canyon was indeed

the power center of

an economic system

spanning the San Juan Basin

Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico is a strange, stark place. Stippled with greasewood, threaded by an unremarkable seasonal wash, and framed by low, broken-stone mesas, the canyon doesn't seem the likely core of the most robust society in America prior to the Anglo-American juggernaut. But, for about 150 years prior to its collapse in 1130 CE, Chaco Canyon was indeed the power center of an economic system spanning the San Juan Basin, which fills up northwestern New Mexico and overflows into southwestern Colorado, southeastern Utah, and northeastern Arizona.

When Gail and I first visited the canyon in 2003,1 couldn't stop photographing Pueblo Bonito. First built in the 800s by the Anasazi (properly called "the Ancient Ones" by their Pueblo Indian descendants), by 1115 it had expanded to include 33 kivas and nearly 700 rooms, roughly half of the latter devoted to storage. To explain the scale of this achievement, no larger apartment structure was built in North America until the 1880s. (See David E. Stuart, Anasazi America, p. 80). Its ruins, as preserved and shored up in spots by the U.S. Park Service, still radiate grandeur and power. I found myself gazing in reverential silence at the magnificent 11th and 12th century masonry, the deep, wide kivas, and the strange canyon walls. We've been to Pueblo Bonito twice now, and I've done some people-watching on site. Almost everyone I've seen there, whether Native American or not, regardless of their age and background, reacted in the way Gail

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>

	Wall Street, Climate Change, and What's Crazy: An Archeological Perspective on Change By Scott Thompson I. Truth time now. I wonder if within institutional Wall Street there isn't a spreading concern that informed discussions of climate change might spook the markets into a downward trend. And I wonder if the silence I'm calling crazy—and, as far as the world's future is concerned, it is—isn't the manifestation of a tacit understanding to shut up about bad news, fueled by underlying panic. In any case, the gist of the Journal's story was that Senate Democrats were about to grill various oil company CEOs on their corporate tax breaks. House Speaker John Boehner's remark was that erasing the subsidies would be "tax hikes [that] will raise gas prices, destroy jobs in this country and increase our dependence on foreign oil." Pointing out that this was a cynical comment is the kindest thing I can think of to say. "The reality is that most governments, strongly influenced by the fossil fuel industry, continue to allow and even subsidize development of fossil fuel deposits...[This is crazy because] Continued business as usual fossil fuel use will result in loss of all Arctic summer sea ice within the next several decades." - James Hansen and thirteen other climate scientists, 2011 Yes, I added the phrase in brackets and no, it was not implied by the text as written. Pardon my bad manners, James. I did that because allowing the summer Arctic sea ice to melt in conjunction with a sustained atmospheric CO2 level greater than 350 parts per million (ppm) is like playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in the chamber. There are two reasons why such a comparison is apt. First, as long as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is greater than 350 ppm, the atmosphere will continue to warm. And, because it's now at 390 ppm and climbing at 2 ppm each year, we're already locked into a sustained period of further warming, and that means that once the summer sea ice is gone, it's not coming back within any time period relevant to our species. Second, when the sea ice is gone, the dark ocean water that replaces it will absorb heat from the sun that the sea ice once reflected back into space—thus warming the ocean even more, every summer, in an escalating cycle. Now just because some Democrats were willing to grandstand about oil company tax breaks doesn't mean that those tax breaks will be eliminated or that Democrats are getting serious about climate change. To the contrary:"...the Obama administration approved a proposal by Shell to drill five new exploratory deep-water oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, the second such approval for the gulf since the lifting of a federal moratorium on deepwater drilling last October." Now that really shows you, because deep water drilling, and all the hazards that go with it, is one of a variety of ways the fossil fuel industry is expanding the scope of its exploration - the others being tar sands, oil shale, Arctic exploration, mountain-top removal coal mining, and hydro-fracking to enhance natural gas production. All perpetuate or at least risk ecological destruction on a scale heretofore unknown in order to suck out the last of the fossil fuels from the Earth; exactly what the eminent climate scientist James Hansen warned us we must NOT do if we want to live on a habitable planet. Truth time now. I wonder if within institutional Wall Street there isn't a spreading concern that informed discussions of climate change might spook the markets into a downward trend. II. "...class divisions became a deep fracture line weakening the fabric of Chacoan society. The divisions were not unlike those between Wall Street and Main Street in the United States during the banking crisis and economic recession of 2008 to 2010." - Archeologist David E. Stuart, 2010 CO2 figures so prominently as a greenhouse gas because, once it's emitted, significant portions hang in the atmosphere for a millennium or longer, continuing the warming. It's like sticking the world's ice sheets in an oven for a thousand years. As everyone with an intact corpus callosum knows, what's generating ever more CO2 in our atmosphere is burning oil, coal, and natural gas, however derived, in addition to deforestation. Therefore, any government that subsidizes companies for producing these fossil fuels, especially oil and coal, especially when these companies are expanding their sources of extraction, is aiding and abetting a planet-wide process of self-destruction. Enter a news story on page A3 of the May 12, 2011, edition of the Wall Street Journal, "Oil CEOs on the Hot Seat." While I don't normally read the Journal, I happened to see this one because the paper was free at the hotel where Gail and I were staying. The story was about an upcoming Senate Finance Committee hearing on tax breaks—government subsidies—for oil companies. Per the story, the oil industry claimed that 85.5 billion dollars in tax breaks over the next ten years would be on the table. I thought, "Son-of-a-bitch, am I reading this right? That our government is subsidizing oil companies to the tune 0/8.55 billion dollars per annum (maybe it's more if you include coal; I don't know!) to produce the very greenhouse gas that has the crucial role in destroying the stability of the world's climate? That's crazy!" True enough, but that's not what was crazy about the story. What was crazy about the story, in my opinion, is that it made no mention of the fundamental relationship between these gargantuan government subsidies, the resulting price of fossil fuels, and the quantity of CO2 emissions. When the stability of your planet's climate is at stake, and when the story is about an issue central to the crisis, you need to add at least a brief comment tying the subject to climate change. Yet I assume that the reporters who wrote the story thoroughly lack craziness. What I do suspect is that, like any good alcoholic's wife (or husband), they knew what not to say. For one thing, they probably understood that what their readers were interested in was tracking the fate of these tax breaks in order to gauge their effect on oil company profits. And, for another, I suspect that the paper's management has little or no interest in addressing climate change in a way that would be congruent with the best (as opposed to the most cautious) climate science. But, for about 150 years prior to its collapse in 1130 CE, Chaco Canyon was indeed the power center of an economic system spanning the San Juan Basin Chaco Canyon in northwestern New Mexico is a strange, stark place. Stippled with greasewood, threaded by an unremarkable seasonal wash, and framed by low, broken-stone mesas, the canyon doesn't seem the likely core of the most robust society in America prior to the Anglo-American juggernaut. But, for about 150 years prior to its collapse in 1130 CE, Chaco Canyon was indeed the power center of an economic system spanning the San Juan Basin, which fills up northwestern New Mexico and overflows into southwestern Colorado, southeastern Utah, and northeastern Arizona. When Gail and I first visited the canyon in 2003,1 couldn't stop photographing Pueblo Bonito. First built in the 800s by the Anasazi (properly called "the Ancient Ones" by their Pueblo Indian descendants), by 1115 it had expanded to include 33 kivas and nearly 700 rooms, roughly half of the latter devoted to storage. To explain the scale of this achievement, no larger apartment structure was built in North America until the 1880s. (See David E. Stuart, Anasazi America, p. 80). Its ruins, as preserved and shored up in spots by the U.S. Park Service, still radiate grandeur and power. I found myself gazing in reverential silence at the magnificent 11th and 12th century masonry, the deep, wide kivas, and the strange canyon walls. We've been to Pueblo Bonito twice now, and I've done some people-watching on site. Almost everyone I've seen there, whether Native American or not, regardless of their age and background, reacted in the way Gail

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>