2 September 2005
Had a long conversation with a pal of mine last night about why exactly, the US seems unconcerned about global warming and what, in all likelihood is the imminent climate catastrophe, which I think is worth sharing with readers.
Now I’m not saying I necessarily agree with his conclusions but I have to admit that it does have a terrible logic to it and goes some way toward explaining the actions of US capital, its rejection of Kyoto and its focus on securing its energy supplies. And, given the history of the US in Vietnam and of course Iraq, it is obviously unconcerned about the environmental and human consequences of its actions which lends further credence to the argument I am presenting to you.
Essentially, the hypothesis goes something like this: some years back the US calculated that global climate meltdown was an inevitability and therefore needed to produce a plan that would enable US capitalism to come out the ‘other side’ on top in what the PNAC describes as a position of ‘full spectrum dominance’ of this post-apocalyptic world. Of course, the PNAC omits any reference to this climate apocalypse but much of what it does posit fits such a future world, a world moreover, that may well be a lot closer than anyone previously imagined.
Moreover, the federal government’s ‘benign neglect’ of the disaster that has struck New Orleans would seem to fit the hypothesis, in fact, it’s almost a ‘dry run’ for what now seems to be a foretaste of what we can expect to be a ‘normal’ event in the future.
They calculated that a considerable percentage of the world’s population would perish (mostly of course in the poor countries, but then, since when have they been bothered about the poor of the planet) including even a sizeable chunk of its own population but that its technological and military advantage would enable it to secure its economic position in this post-apocalyptic world.
It assumes also that such a scenario would ‘take care’ of its major rival, China, which in spite of its vast industrial capacity and population size, would be in no position to challenge the US, being more concerned with its internal problems than competing with the US for economic dominance.
Indeed, if their calculations are correct, such a future scenario would ‘take care’ of all its economic rivals.
Thus, using its superior technological advantage, it would be in an unrivalled position to sell solutions to those who survive who would in any case, more likely to be the developed countries such as those of Europe and Japan even considering the vast dislocations that they too would suffer.
Of course, just as with the situation of world wars I and II, there would be enormous dislocations and destruction but that the ruling elite would be well-positioned to survive such a cataclysm just as they have survived previous disasters.
Now of course, this scenario assumes an awful lot, not the least of which is the biggest gamble of all, that climate meltdown is in fact survivable but one assumes that those who have prepared the forecast (the CIA, NSA?) for the ruling elite have done a ‘worst case’, ‘best case’ analysis insofar as they can.
But as with any prediction, the whole thing could go terribly wrong and reduce those that survive to living in nothing more than a subsistance economy and, the biggest unknown of all would be whether such a catastrophe would lead to a runaway increase in CO2 that would make the atmosphere itself unable to support life that needs oxygen.
Adding further credence to this hypothesis is the continual reference by Bush to ‘technological solutions’ to climate change.
And given Bush’s predilection for an ‘end of days’ future and his apparent unconcern about such a future, one is inclined to think, ‘does he know something we don’t?’