True, it is a "leadership" issue but the question is, what does any "leadership" have to go up against to make the necessary changes? It isn't as if anything about the current predicament is "new" or surprising. We were talking about the problems inherent in developing an advanced, technological and global civilization on non-renewable and highly polluting energy sources thirty to forty years ago. And yet nothing came of any of that except for a few forays into alternative energy sources, mostly during the OPEC crisis in the mid 1970s. But what happened to the emerging environmental consciousness of that era? It isn't just that humankind can't figure out how to manage its environmental impact -- it is that there are very powerful economic forces that have a stake in preventing the kinds of changes we need. If we don't confront that at the grass-roots level as well as the "leadership" level, nothing will change.
Here is something I wrote recently. It isn't perfect. I'm an artist -- not an economist or an expert in these matters -- but this is how it all looks to me given our current situation:
What matters most to the Powers That Be (a small but powerful minority, an elite)
is control of the energy market(s). Centralized energy markets are easier for them to control. If you have an advanced technological civilization whose primary source of energy is a single commodity that can be controlled by a relatively few corporations and individuals, then you in essence have a monopoly and a means of creating extraordinary wealth for those who own and manage these corporations and who through them develop and manage the distribution of this commodity.
If we take that position and posit it as the central aim of the PTB -- if we understand that the valuation of a currency, for example, is tied to the centralized control of that commodity, which the US dollar has been for quite some time -- then you understand that the centralized control of this commodity is the foundation upon which the entire US Imperialist agenda is based. Through it, so to speak, it has post-industrial civilization by the balls.
For this market monopoly to work the commodity in question has to be plentiful enough to meet the demand of an expanding global market while, at the same time, sufficiently difficult to discover, extract, refine and bring to market to warrant a sufficient price in the market place that will provide a profit on investment.
For those engaged in this market control, profit on investment is the bottom line. All other considerations such as resource depletion and/or environmental degradation of any type as a consequence of commodity development and deployment are secondary at best. Resource depletion can even be factored in as a positive over time as it increases the value of the commodity, especially if the expanding global market for energy is kept tied to this primary energy source.
Alternative energy sources would be viewed as potential competitors in the energy market and, therefore, their technological patents should be acquired and kept shelved, under developed, and out of the market place.
This is my understanding of what has happened.
Now, of course,
if the commodity in question is a limited global resource, at some point the expanding global demand for product is going to be greater than the ability to meet that demand. As this occurs the costs of acquiring this resource invariably increase because the value of the resource in the market has increased. So long as the resource remains under your geopolitical control, scarcity is a 'good' thing for the profit margin. However, any resource that is outside of your geopolitical control can be viewed as a potentially competitive market threat. It is therefore necessary to acquire geopolitical control of these resource areas and it is preferable if the cost of this acquisition not be borne by the monopoly directly. The Iraq war is an example of how this is done -- the corporations profits continue to increase while the cost of waging a resource war is borne by a subject population through blood and taxes and increased cost of energy product in the market. Since this is government/military in service of a corporate elite,
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18890.htm">the very definition of fascism, such market manipulation for control are cast as something they are not -- a 'war on terror', for example, in need of a "catalyzing event" to entrench public opinion.
Meanwhile,
if the commodity in question is a limited global resource, even with expanded geopolitical control over resource acquisition, at some point demand will actually outstrip product supply at any price. For this reason, at this point, it might be necessary to bring off-shelf patents for alternative energy production and bring them into the market.
However, some method needs to be found to both fund development and implementation of these alternative energy resources while defraying costs to corporate and simultaneously keeping these alternative energy sources under energy monopoly control.
In other words, it is a market balancing act --
all regardless of environmental impact from acquisition, development, distribution and consumption of product -- where profit is the primary, if not the only, concern. Alternative energy sources are fine
so long as they can be brought on-line within the energy monopoly framework, and preferably if the cost of their development can be defrayed to the subject population, aka "consumer" through direct and indirect taxation.
What I'm getting at here, folks, is that, environmental degradation is not a concern for the energy market monopoly -- any more than "national security" is a concern for them except in how it effects their profit margins. To them, "national security" means "security of profit margin" and "continued monopoly control of the energy market," and "sustained wealth creation through time."
Whether or not it contributes to global climate change, we know that the acquisition, production, refinement, distribution and consumption of hydrocarbon energy contributes to environmental degradation. This is especially underscored if we understand by "environment" not only the atmosphere of the planet, weather and its direct effect on ecosystems
but include in that term the social environment, i.e., everything from the individual heath of consumers who have to breath the air containing hydrocarbon emissions to the degradation of entire societies who are both the beneficiaries and the victims of a monopoly market that taxes them through their consumption and/or employs and or destroys them in fascist wars of acquisition.
The point is that monopoly market control of energy resources is unhealthy for individuals, for societies and for ecosystems alike. Abundant, clean energy is a real possibility and has been for almost half a century and could have been developed and brought online to the point where we would not be facing either significant environmental degradation of any type much less global resource acquisition wars that threaten nuclear holocaust. That these energy sources were deliberately not developed and implemented shines a very harsh light on the monopoly capitalist system -- and it is that system, including the global banking system behind it, that must be named and tamed if we are to see our way to a future absent abject, tyrannical, fascist control.
EDIT TO ADD: What is not made totally clear in the above is that, in my view, ALTERNATIVE, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOURCES ARE INHERENTLY DECENTRALIZING. What that means is that the wealth creation and political power that comes from a broad redistribution of energy sources
is precisely what is NOT wanted by the fascist powers that be.
This is what we are up against.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
