Want the Truth in Energy? We Need to Think for Ourselves
A few years ago I wrote this post expressing my displeasure at my countrymen, as they had adopted wholesale the explanation that our government provided for invading Iraq.
Immediately before the attack, this message, without a comma’s worth of variation, was broadcast on every major channel, not only in the U.S., but all around the world: “The G8 has today endorsed an American plan to bring democracy to the Middle East.” It was short, understandable, and credible to the vast majority of people onto whose ears it fell—if only because of its ubiquity: the rice farmers in Indonesia got it on their radios every 30 minutes for 24 consecutive hours, just as did the corn farmers in Iowa when they tuned in their morning, evening, and nightly news programs–across every network. The tactics for promoting a constant, unified message were solidly in place then (as they remain today) though, as we all learned just a few years later, there wasn’t a particle of truth in it.
This is a good time to bring this up, as we normalize U.S. – Cuban relations; this is another watershed event in mass communications that itself has great import. All over our airwaves, Americans are being told: “Cubans now know that the reason for their poverty was not the (55-year-long all-inclusive six-point) economic embargo that the U.S. imposed, but rather that “socialism is bankrupt.’”
Wow, that’s one sweeping generality, but most Americans will not find it suspicious in the least. There are questions we should be posing to ourselves and each other, but they will largely go unasked. In particular, it is up to each American to ask this: “Is it really possible that all that misery, endured by all those millions of people for over half a century had nothing to do with the embargo? The U.S. deployed six statutes (the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuba Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000) to ensure that the Cuban people would be incapable of prosperity, and that didn’t contribute one iota to the suffering of those on whom they were perpetrated? All that agony is attributed to an idealogy?
I’d love to believe that Americans have the vision to sort this out, but, putting it bluntly: we don’t. In fact, the very reason the message is couched and communicated so often is that its authors know very well that the American electorate is entirely incapable of seeing through it.
Obviously, there is a parallel to U.S. energy policy. There’s a reason that we have no energy policy here in the U.S., other than the de facto policy we live under, i.e., extract the last molecule of fossil fuel out of the ground and burn it. The reason is that Americans will accept anything, regardless of how vulgar, how brutal, or how immoral, as long as it’s what we want to hear, and that it’s shoved down our throats by people we (wrongheadedly) trust. Thinking for ourselves isn’t our strong suit.
I’m sure I’ll come up with an idea that’s more uplifting for Christmas, but I have another day or two to work on that.
Thank you Craig for that touch of reality! In our narrow field of vision we don’t seem to be capable of acknowledging that the people of Cuba are better off with out our so called “prosperity” of mega junk food consumerism. They don’t need to label their food as organic because that is what they all eat. No doubt there are many lesson we should be learning from them and hopefully they will not be tempted to fall into the decadence of our wasteful habits.
Energy is the currency of nature…carbon molecules are not energy. Hydrogen is the factor…we are moving from wood, coal, oil, natural gas to fusion. Carbon will not be envolved in energy.
I wish I could disagree with your article but unfortunately, I cannot.
Public opinion is fickle. When it becomes inescapably obvious that our energy “policy” is bankrupt, there will be plenty of finger pointing. Everyone who publicly denied that there was a problem will be excoriated.
In a sense, history is, or soon will be, repeating itself. I remember when the Vietnam war was widely supported and anyone who opposed it was labeled unpatriotic. When the war became politically unacceptable, people who had previously supported it pretended that they never had supported it and attacked others who had supported it.
Probably people with a better knowledge of history than I have can find other examples.
At the risk of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” allow me to point out (as was firmly recognized by Teddy Roosevelt, Adam Smith, and many other notables across human history) that “capital organizes.”
The wealthy interests at the “top” of our society – and who exert massive and undue influence in all areas of human endeavor – have no interest in a critically thinking and imaginative population over which to rule. Instead they encourage ignorance and demand obedience and conformity.
This is why the regular consumers of Fox News are shown not only to be more ignorant and misled on a whole range of issues, but actually grow more ignorant and misled over time with increased exposure. This well-researched and demonstrated fact puts me in mind of a quote by Samuel Foote, a British actor and dramatist of the mid 1700’s, “He is not only dull himself, but the cause of dullness in others.”
Rupert Murdoch and others like him are not interested in providing a public service to circulate crucial and valuable truths. They are instead intent on luring humanity into a snare of illusion and deceit, to preserve and expand their own political power and their own personal financial gain.
American society, in particular, labors under many severe misapprehensions. Chief among these, in practical terms, is that we are and have always been a democratic republic, yet our founders only appealed to the myth that all men are created equal, while at the same time enshrining slavery and granting suffrage only to white male landowners. Also, that capitalism and democracy are compatible or complementary (they are even mythologized as being one and the same). In reality, capitalism has – by design – always favored those with great wealth, and it operates according to predatory principles by which cooperation for mutual benefit applies only to trusts and cartels as convenience dictates.
Another important delusion is that self-interest and competition are the instrumental forces behind human progress. Yet our history shows that humankind emerged from the savagery of an animal existence by sharing and cooperating, not through greed and conflict.
How does this apply to renewables? The controlling interests in our society have not yet decided it is to their private advantage to shift from filthy ancient sunlight to the clean modern stuff. The immensely profitable fossil energy industry is subsidized – according to a recent presidential speech – to the tune of $4 billion annually… that’s pretty rich music.
However beneficial renewables will be to our United States and health and well-being for ourselves and our progeny, there is a substantial transition cost for all those firms that continue to regard these resources as competition. Their formidable lobbying power ensures that the feeble attempts to subsidize renewables will continue to be sporadic, unpredictable and anemic. We may also expect the campaign of misinformation, concealment, and discredit to endure long past the tipping point.
If we want to escape indentured servitude and act with true liberty, we will find instruction in the words of a man who accomplished those feats in great measure, Frederick Douglass:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Exxon-Mobil and its ilk are quite well organized, and not for altruistic public benefit. If we logical, critically thinking and imaginative humans want to see our national security and political sovereignty preserved, and if we want to defend ourselves and our posterity against the lethal ravages that fossil fuels inflict upon the biosphere and the economy, we had best get organized.
Nuke tech as it currently exists is not an option. All currently operating and genuinely planned commercial nuclear fission energy technology is prohibitively expensive when all the costs are accounted for – mining, refining, construction, insuring, waste containment, facility lifespan, decommissioning – and, given natural disasters, human error and sabotage/terrorism potential, it’s clearly proven to be inherently dangerous to the biosphere just to operate.
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) is safe, clean, proven technology, and modern energy storage systems make it viable. Harvesting modern sunshine is much cleaner and safer (and cheaper in the long run) than sucking and digging up filthy prehistoric sunshine, dragging it dangerously all over the planet, burning it up, and pouring 32 billion metric tons of CO2 yearly into the modern sky. Only bribery keeps that toxic filth marketable.
Thanks for this very thoughtful piece on the subject.
Cuba is not going to be Americanized in the next few years, they will enjoy seeing their long lost family members, with some cash and luggage that will go home empty. We will be able to buy a cuban cigar at a smoke shop, beyond that not much will change in the near future. Our energy policy could copy Iceland that’s mostly geothermal, some wind and some solar, lowest CO2 footprint globally. Or copy Germany 70% green with wind and solar, most likely we’ll burn every carbon atom for the next 50 years, and then realize we missed our green revolution. I wish we the people could have a voice in the future, other than these posts.
Your last comment, Craig………. Do you also believe we need to be told illusions to be at peace? In the long run, is not the truth uplifting? I know that it could be said in kinder ways, but does that make a bit of difference anyway, when most of us want to simply get by from day to day in happiness. We need to trust govt officials, and they have consistantly deceived us. Is this treason to be, in any way, rewarded? Is ignorance an excuse? Or willful deceit?
Good question! Coincidentally my wife and I watched “Reds” last night, and I’m reading Ian McEwan’s “Black Dogs,” both ask the same question.
This is why I go it alone. Can’t wait for them.
Good for you. Btw, I would never suggest that you wait for anyone. 🙂
The reason is that Americans will accept that we “extract the last molecule of fossil fuel out of the ground and burn it” is because big oil has big money to throw at our politicians who just by coincidence don’t even try to create an energy policy. Only we can create the energy policy by how we spend our money and how we vote
I don’t think you need to trash the American public to that extent. It’s not all their fault. They have, for years, been bombarded by the fossil fuel industry BS without letup and without any pushback. It is any wonder that they are largely ignorant of the true benefits of renewable energy? Even on MSNBC, where I am pretty sure that almost all of the broadcast staff understsnd the damage to the planet being systematically done by the fossil fuel industry, when is the last time you heard any of them pointing out the folly of continued fossil fuel use, other than in the misdt of some catastrohic environmental disaster (think Deepwater Horizon), even though every other commercial is from BP, or Exxon, o Shell, or one or another of that cohort. And they continually hear from certifialely nuts politicians that “climate change is a fraud,” or “God wouldn’t let anything happen to us,” or some similar nonsense.
The Merchants of Doubt have, for years had almost free frun of the playing field and used that time effectively. Is it any wonder that the public is not behind climate change as they should be?
That’s an extremely astute point, my friend. I sometimes get on a roll and don’t know when to stop rolling….
Hugh,
On MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan would do a segment on alternate energy or energy efficiency almost every one of his shows. He finally left to work with returning veterans who feel that our national security is directly tied to our use of renewable energy resources and getting away from fossil fuels. Currently Ed Shultz does a segment on most of his shows about energy efficiency or alternate energy business.
I personally don’t mind MSNBC taking funds from the fossil fuel industry knowing that most of it’s viewers are, like me, not going to pay it any mind and know better. Rather those commercials be played there and the money going to that station than anywhere else. Might as well fight the enemy with their own money.
Brian