Sometimes There Really Is A Conspiracy

Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell: names that are familiar to almost all of us. What we might be less familiar with is the role they and about 16 other fossil fuel giants have played historically in ignoring the denying the climate crisis that has come to engulf the world.

Matthew Taylor and Jonathon Watts write that those companies are responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions today:

New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet.

The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world’s leading authority on big oil’s role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 – the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians.

The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this report is that these companies knew, as far back as the 1960s, that they were degrading the earth in a way that future generations would pay a heavy price. And they have been working hard ever since to fund an array of climate-change deniers to conceal this truth.

The following brief video explains the situation succinctly:



It has been said that even paranoid people have enemies. In a similar vein, sometimes those who shout "CONSPIRACY!" are, sadly, correct.

The Koch Legacy

Following the death last week of David Koch, media coverage, I found, left much to be desired. MSNBC filled its two-minute report with fulsome praise of the man's philanthropy, with nary a word about his rapacious, insatiablee evil, massive climate-change denial funding being one of his most detestable and diabolical projects. Ditto for Global National.

Happily, the redoubtable Guardian showed no such timidity in assessing Koch's legacy:

Koch Industries, a private company, is the United States’ 17th-largest producer of greenhouse gases and the 13th-biggest water polluter, according to research from the University of Massachusetts Amherst – ahead of oil giants Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum and Phillips 66. The conglomerate has committed hundreds of environmental, workplace safety, labor and other violations. It allegedly stole oil from Indian reservations, won business in foreign countries with bribery, and one of its crumbling butane pipelines killed two teenagers, resulting in a nearly $300m wrongful death settlement. The dangerous methane leakage, carbon emissions, chemical spills and other environmental injustices enacted by Koch’s companies have imperiled the planet and allegedly brought cancer to many people.

Koch's separation from the rest of humanity was profound. Evil oligarch that he was, he cared not a whit for the travails of others, having never experienced them himself, all the while calling himself a self-made man, despite the fact that he and his brother inherited the family business.

From the perspective of many, however, his and brother Charles' greatest evil revolved around climate change:

Not only did Koch help unleash countless metric tons of greenhouse gases from the earth, he was a key funder of climate change denialism, stiff-arming scientists in order to further plunder the earth he was destroying. Revelations in Christopher Leonard’s new book, Kochland, show that Koch played an even greater role in funding climate change denialism than we previously knew. As we careen towards a climate catastrophe that seems more and more likely to happen within the next 11 years, we can rightly pin a portion of the blame on David and his brother.

In the play Julius Caesar, Marc Antony says: The evil that men do lives after them;/The good is oft interred with their bones. In the case of David Koch, that is both meet and just. As the Guardian concludes,

Death and destruction. That is David Koch’s legacy.

The Evidence And The Explanation

One of the big differences I have noticed between Canadian and American news is that while the former frequently addresses and uses the term climate change in their coverage of 'natural' disasters,' the latter almost never employs the phrase nor attempts any meaningful analysis of the underlying causes of catastrophes they commonly report on.

Last night, Global National addressed climate change head-on in relation to Hurricane Harvey. However, if you watch to the end of the report, you will see how deeply and shockingly ingrained denialism is in the psyches of many, many people.



Meanwhile, Matthew Hoffmann writes that the time is long past when we can think of climate change as something separate from our everyday lives:

The gulf between the enormity of the climate change challenge and our readiness to undertake it is staggering. This is painfully obvious when climate change is visible, when we are faced with the evidence that the impacts of climate change are happening now with devastating consequences. But this gulf is also evident in society’s failure to internalize climate awareness and concern. As a society we are simply not fully “woke” to the idea that climate change is not some discrete problem to solve; it is, as characterized by climate scientist Mike Hulme, a part of the modern condition. Addressing and living with climate change requires serious transformation of society. We have a lot of work to do and it will not be easy.

Unless and until we are able to honestly confront climate change and the role we all play in its ever-worsening effects, we can expect ever-more frequent reports of its increasingly devastating consequences for the entire world.

Climate Change Variables

Now that Donald Trump has formally announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, will the efforts of individual states and municipalities be enough to limit the damage of his benighted decision? This report provides some basis for hope:



Meanwhile, back home, Canadian mayors are not buying what Trump is selling.

Additionally, California's powerful leadership role in combating carbon emissions cannot be easily dismissed.

Almost Too Grim To Contemplate

While the Pope is imploring world leaders to act with dispatch to mitigate climate change, it is hard to remain optimistic about the prospects of American engagement under incoming president Donald Trump:

Is A New Purge On The Horizon?

Few of us will forget the disdain with which the Harper regime regarded science, especially the science around climate change. Virtual embargoes that prevented scientists from releasing and discussing with the public their findings were commonplace; the permission that was required from a labyrinthine bureaucracy essentially ensured that no information opposed to government ideology could be released.

It would seem that a similar situation in now shaping up in the United States under the incoming Trump administration, a situation that will also likely have students of history thinking of the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950's:



The Washington Post reports that these ominous signs are not being taken lightly:

Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

The efforts include a “guerrilla archiving” event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

How justified is this precautionary movement?

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that Trump has appointed a “band of climate conspiracy theorists” to run transition efforts at various agencies, along with nominees to lead them who share similar views.

“They have been salivating at the possibility of dismantling federal climate research programs for years. It’s not unreasonable to think they would want to take down the very data that they dispute,” Halpern said in an email. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared. . . .

No one, of course, is sure of what will happen under a Trump administration. But the very fact that these measures are being enacted as a precaution is surely a potent indication of how unhealthy many perceive the new American 'democracy' to be.

UPDATE: It appears that the Energy Department has shown some spine, and is refusing to name names. But will they be able to refuse once Trump is sworn in?

UPDATED: More From The Conservative Braintrust

Well, we know what an abomination Kellie Leitch is as a Conservative leadership hopeful, but what about Brad Trost?

The pool, it would seem, is very, very shallow:



UPDATE: Note to Brad Trost: A B.Sc. in Geophysics does not make you a geophysicist.

The Demagogue Speaks Again

Won't anyone tell him just to shut up?

Recently, the CBC, which has an ongoing yet inexplicable and wholly unwholesome relationship with Rex Murphy, gave him yet another opportunity to spew his denigration and venom about those who criticize Alberta and its moribund oil industry. It seems that the rest of Canada is not recognizing its debt to Alberta for being the country's former economic engine of growth.

You may wish to read the original piece, linked above, or move on to The National Observer's dissection of good Rex's cant. To whet your appetite, here are a few excerpts from that dissection, that cuts through the pretext of Rex's article to get to its real purpose: shilling, par excellance, for the oil industry as he vigorously denies climate change.:

After weeping crocodile tears for Alberta and Calgary, Murphy sets about his real work, tearing down anyone who believes fossil fuels have had their day and that climate change is a genuine concern.

David Suzuki and Neil Young are characterized as “dim-minded celebrities that took their jaunts to the oil sands to mewl over its planet-destroying potential.”

Murphy contends that the “critics bark without scrutiny, never receive the zealous oversight they impose on the industry. Environmental reporting is heinously one-sided and close-minded.”

Tell that to the many fine journalists in Canada and abroad - at the New York Times, the Guardian and many, many others - who do their best to tell the complex stories of energy and environment in a balanced, nuanced way.

Like his spiritual brother Conrad Black, Rex Murphy is quite adept at hiding his paucity of worthwhile thought with an elevated and clever use of words. Perhaps it is time someone told him the veneer is wearing thin.

David Bellamy Being Humiliated By George Monbiot Over Climate Change

The willfully ignorant will be offended, the critical thinker gratified, by this video:

Lest We Forget

H/t Michael Nabert

What If?

Last evening, I was watching the 6o'c lock news, distracted and perturbed by the howling winds (up to 100 kms. per hour) buffeting our windows. Here in Southern Ontario, about 100 kilometres from the snowstorm that has devasted Buffalo, I can perhaps be forgiven for feeling especially sensitive to increasingly frequent bouts of extreme weather linked to climate change.

Then I was overcome with a real anger whose origin I couldn't immediately identify. But as I thought about it, I realized that it was in part related to the prospect of a power outage, something we seem to experience here at least three or four times a year. There is nothing like a power outage to reduce us to an almost primal state, a state in which our facade of mastery of the universe is brutally stripped away. It is always a sobering and humbling opportunity to realize that, vis-à-vis nature, we are nothing.

Then I realized the real basis for my anger: all of the corporate and federal poltical hostility to taking meaningful action to try to keep the global rise in temperatures within 2 degrees Celsius, the uppermost limit that science tells us might prevent runaway and irreversible climate change.

While our overlords may safely (but temporarily) ensconce themselves as the worst comes to pass, the rest of us will be left to contemd with an increasingly harsh environment, all so that corporate entities can continue to amass record profits, taking all they can before the world as we know it disappears.

Then a thought occurred to me. The Salamander has frequently commented on how we need some powerful symbols, metaphors, and imagery around which opposition to the Harper agenda can coalesce. What if, for all the increasingly volatile weather, for all of the power outages, for all of the floods, for all of the "100-year storms," and for all of the other frequent natural disasters we are facing, Canadians place the blame where it belongs: let us affix pictures in our public consciousness (and in our advertising) that expose the corporate giants and their chief Canadian aider and abettor, Stephen Harper, for what they are: Protectors of a monied status quo that is dooming the rest of us to a life soon to become nasty, brutish, and perhaps short.

What if, when the next wallop of nature visits us, we think of it this way:

This storm is brought to you by Stephen Harper, who refuses to lift a finger to mitigate climate change.

Just a thought.

A Small Clip Reveals A Big Truth

The National Post's Jonathon Kay on the people he works with:

It's Not Either/Or

Those who have more than a passing acquaintance with federal politics are likely aware of the false premises and logical fallacies Stephen Harper and his wrecking crew regularly use to advance their mad agenda. There was, of course, the famous Vic Toews' declaration about either standing with the government or with the child pornographers. Of course that kind of absolutism, the assertion that choices are black and white, no nuanced thinking required, betrays a deep contempt for the electorate, clearly an indicator the regime views us as simpletons fit only for the manipulation that such reductionist thinking cultivates.

It was recently on display once again when Stephen Harper met with his climate soul mate, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Both agreed they would take no action against climate change that would imperil their respective economies, implying, of course, that the choices are stark.

Fortunately, as is regularly the case, there was ample criticism of this fallacious approach to the world's most pressing and dire crisis; and as usual, Star readers weighed in with their acerbic and insightful comments on Harper's nonsense. All of the letters are excellent, and I hope you will have an opportunity to read each one. Below, I reproduce just a few of them:

Re: PM lauds Australia for fighting carbon tax, June 10

Our prime minister seems to think that jobs and economic growth will trump any serious attempt to tackle climate change. This is a great example of no leadership and a complete dismissal of job creation and growth in new technologies that will happen as we move to a more sustainable situation.
One thing is certain: there will be job creation in casket making if we do not get serious soon about carbon emissions. Where are the leaders who will stop living in the past and embrace the future!

J.B. Ross, Orangeville

It’s a shame that our prime minister believes that a carbon tax will hurt the economy and cost jobs. B.C.’s carbon tax has clearly shown that this is not the case. And the U.S. Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that a carbon tax could benefit the U.S. economy.

But even if the government has an aversion to a carbon tax, from building renewable energy to increasing energy efficiency to building modern transit systems, there are so many ways to cut emissions and create jobs.

The prime minister is setting up a false choice. We do not need to choose between action on carbon and a strong economy. We need to choose both and get on with it.

Keith Brooks, Toronto

The Conservative lack of action on climate change will hurt jobs and the economy. When discussing climate change, Harper said that no country is going to take actions that will deliberately destroy jobs and growth. He, like Tim Hudak in Ontario, has his head in the sand.

Look at Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe. Its fight against climate change has increased its renewable electrical energy from about 6 per cent in 2000 to 25 per cent in 2012, with 370,000 jobs in that sector. Two-thirds of these are due to government legislation on renewables.

Nearer home, B.C. reduced CO2 emissions by 17 per cent in five years, through a carbon tax that returned the money to the taxpayers, without hurting jobs or growth.

The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy has stated that if nothing is done immediately to address climate change, a Canadian family of four will be paying up to $10,000 per year in weather damage by 2050. This will cause enormous human suffering and take money and jobs away from productive employment.

All parties except the Conservatives have policies to address climate change. The economy cannot afford a Conservative government in either Ontario or Canada.

Linda and Alan Slavin, Otonabee

Climate Change: Bill Nye Uses Science, The Right Wing Relies On Ideology

You decide who is right:

Climate Change Denial And The Koch Brothers

Since April 2013 the number of Americans who do not believe global warming is happening has increased from 16 to 23 percent. Find out why here and in the following video:

I Am Weak

Already, I am breaking my New Year's resolution not to mock unhinged televangelists. Pat Roberston, as usual, provided a temptation I could not withstand:

Climate Change Poll

The Disaffected Lib continues to do stellar work on the climate change file. Visiting his site will arm anyone interested with some solid information about what is, in my view, the most dire threat facing humanity today. Yet I can't escape the dispiriting conviction that despite such invaluable efforts and resources, little is going to change.

Today's Toronto Star reports that 53 per cent of Canadians polled July 23 by Forum Research believe that the recent Alberta flooding and the torrential storms in Central Ontario were the result of climate change attributable to human activity. That conclusion in itself is problematic, given that no specific weather event can be attributed to climate change, given the historic natural vagaries of weather. As well, drawing one's belief in human-caused climate change from such spectacular and destructive weather events suggests a very shallow conviction. If, for example, the rest of the summer proceeds in a more conventional way, with no more such storms and no more sustained and debilitating heat waves as afflicted Ontario last week, isn't it most likely that many of the newly converted will just dismiss those events as merely atypical weather and once more put climate change on the back shelves of their thinking? The attention span of our species can, at times, be deplorably short.

Some other interesting numbers emerged from the poll as well:

- A belief in human-caused climate change is more common among women (59 per cent) than men and the least wealthy (63 per cent).

- Conservative voters are least likely to believe human activities are causing climate change (38 per cent), compared with Liberals (66 per cent) and New Democrats (71 per cent.)

- Many Conservatives polled (71 per cent) don’t believe climate change even exists, while New Democrats are the most likely to believe it does (92 per cent.)

With statistics like this, and the fact that none of the three major political parties is led by people with the courage and integrity to confront the dire threat we are all facing, leaves me with the steadily-growing pessimism about the prospects of our long-term survival as a species.

“We Are Sleepwalking To Disaster . . " *

Many in the blogosphere are doing a stellar job covering the climate-change beat, including The Disaffected Lib, who has had several recent thought-provoking posts on the subject. So I really have nothing new or insightful to add, other than to draw your attention to a story covered in today's Star, written by its environment reporter, Raveena Aulakh.

Writing her story around a new report released by the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization covering the world's climate from 2001-2010, Aulakh reports the following:

It was the warmest decade for both hemispheres.

There was a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and an accelerating loss of net mass from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Sea levels rose about 3 millimetres annually, twice the 20th-century rate.

Deaths from heatwaves increased dramatically to 136,000, compared with fewer than 6,000 deaths in the previous decade.

The average global temperature was 14.47 C, which is 0.21 degree warmer than 1991-2000.

Almost 94 per cent of countries logged their warmest 10 years on record.

Rising sea levels, acidification of oceans, and glacial melting at a rate far faster than had been anticipated in earlier models - it would seem that we have entered into a kind of recursive loop that will be very difficult, indeed, impossible to break, if all of our politicians continue to shy away from both the financial and political capital expenditures required, and we continue our personal complicity in that inaction.

My wife often opines that the human race is turning out to be a failed experiment. It is a perspective I have long resisted, but I am beginning to think she is correct. Our collective capacity to ignore the obvious and shy away from remediation, even while the world both burns and drowns, seems ample testament to our monumental failure as a species.



* John Smol, a researcher on environmental change at Queen’s University.

On Corporate Welfare

David Lewis, the one-time head of the federal NDP and father of Stephen Lewis, used the phrase corporate welfare bums in his 1972 federal election campaign to describe the various subsidies handed out to the corporate world. It was a withering jab at the world of business, so proud to trumpet the merits of unfettered capitalism while not too proud to take every bit of free money that government has to offer it.

Today, that concept has never been more relevant. Probably the most egregious example of corporate welfare will become apparent in the coming months as the rest of Canada ponies up to pay for the environmental devastation wrought in Alberta that is, in my mind, the direct result of climate change, change which the corporate world continues to deny, evident in its ongoing concerted effort to oppose any measures that might ameliorate its most devastating effects. Corporate Canada will be asked for nothing by the Harper regime, which will continue to lower its tax rates as soon as the deficit is eliminated.

The futility of corporate welfare is, I think, very nicely addressed in the lead letter appearing in this morning's Star as Morgan Duchesney of Ottawa points out the folly of lowering corporate tax rates and getting nothing in return:

Re: The Great Recession still lingers, June 22

Stephen Poloz, the newly minted governor of the Bank of Canada, is working hard to distance himself from former governor Mark Carney’s “dead money” warnings to corporate Canada. Does that mean that Poloz also approves lowering tax rates for non-investing Canadian corporations that happily ship jobs to low-wage destinations like China?

As former CEO of Export Development Canada, Poloz is an expert proponent of corporate welfare. As corporate Canada continues to avoid research and development investment while stridently demanding lower taxes, the regime of public subsidy for private profit continues unabated under the Harper government’s well-advertised Economic Action Plan. Such behaviour exemplifies the eternal mythology of the so-called free market.

Private sector investment could reasonably be left to corporate Canada if our industrial titans were not so addicted to public subsidy. Ongoing multi-billion-dollar tax breaks and outright grants to the energy sector are good examples of this public-risk- for-private-profit model. In spite of the cost to working people, stiff corporate resistance to investment remains strong, although this hesitation is categorized as “thrift” by the generous Poloz. There is every indication that the Harper government plans to reward Canadian corporations with further tax cuts in spite of their continued reluctance to invest their profits in necessary research and development.

Of course, our political leadership has little desire to take a hard line on the business elite, who are, after all, their funding source and future employers. The tired excuse about not wanting to punish “job creators and innovators” is a bit threadbare in light of abysmal levels of corporate investment in Canada.
If Canadian corporations are operating overseas while shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, exactly who is benefiting and just how “Canadian” are these companies if they employ foreigners and only benefit arms-length stockholders?

Harper 'Stunned' By Magnitude of Alberta Flooding

I expect that climate-change denier Harper will be stunned with alarming regularity soon: