Discussion about this post

User's avatar
docrhw Weil's avatar

I have imagined countries fighting over oil to be like heroin junkies battling for a needle of the poison that kills them. But this heartlessness by the oil companies is nothing new. To make engines run better in 1923 lead was added to gasoline. Even then many people realized that putting a heavy metal in the air could (and did) cause nerve and brain damage, particularly in children. The companies lied, doing urine tests on workers to show no buildup…while knowing full well that lead doesn’t concentrate there, it does in the blood. It took a brave geologist, Clair Patterson, who accidentally discovered high lead levels in soil samples, to stand up to these big companies, which for 40 years disparaged his findings. They even tried to pay off his school to fire him. It wasn’t until 1995 that lead was finally taken out of gasoline. Similar stories can be told about tobacco asbestos, DDT and many other toxic products that give their makes good profits at the cost of their souls.

The problem is connecting the dots. A homeowner in Ohio who is now paying higher insurance rates isn’t going to think that is because of stronger hurricanes in Florida, ones caused by climate change. In fact, a good scientist is not going to claim a 1:1 relationship exists; we’re looking at long term trends over a timeline that includes natural variations. For example, my mother (1913-2012) said that she saw NY City winters getting milder. She was right, mean annual temperatures increased 0.3 F per decade, and that rate is increasing. But given the annual swings in hot and cold over a few years there one won’t notice that.

So getting the science across to people, even explaining “climate change” to those whose education on the topic ended in the 10th grade, isn’t going to be easy. And as the shifting information on COVID showed, Americans often don’t get it that science is a process of testing and building on observations. They want simple answers now, so that lack of a 1:1 relationship will confuse them, as will any talk about statistics. Also, as a country we are far better at dealing with effects than causes. We’ll spend billions on health care or chasing alleged terrorists, but so much less on keeping people from getting sick or becoming violent in the first place. Environmental concerns are no less unbalanced, maybe because there's more money and good press to be made in addressing problems rather than avoiding them.

Eventually the situation could get so bad that most citizens will recognize, if not completely understand, what is happening to our environment. Then there will be panic and demands for self-sacrifice, largely from those who have the most to lose. But one thing is clear, unless we have a smarter, stronger and braver government, big corporations will profit off this too, laughing all the way to the bank. And this is all for what, how much can a person have and spend? I hope their executives enjoy counting their money in the grave.

Expand full comment
Ginger's avatar

Dream on! We are out of time. No legislation will be passed, no Amendments invoked, Biden is just as 'up in it' as McCarthy, Trump et al. The private sector has to save its children. The A-holes (and they really are physiologically just that) in government are worthless. I just moved back to CO. The smoke from the Alberta fires is choking us. All the way from CANADA! Jesus!! When are we going to wake up? Want to read the exact prediction of what's happening now? Read Nature's End by Whitley Strieber. Within just a few years, Strieber predicts exactly what is happening now. Oh, and Nature's End was written in 1986. He also wrote Warday in 1984 - maybe as a retrograde, that's next.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?