What, me Worry? Weather or not: All Canadians should be worried about the future of our environment
The release of Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the impact of climate change should cause Canada to rethink its do nothing policy on global warming.
Stern, the World Bank's former chief economist, has warned the world faces a crisis on par with the two world wars and the Great Depression if greenhouse gas emissions are not radically reduced in the next 10 to 15 years. In case you need help coming to terms with it, yes that's pretty scary.
“We've had the word from scientists, environmentalists and now from one of the world's leading economists. Maybe we should start listening,” said John Bennett, Senior Policy Advisor, Sierra Club of Canada.
The report suggests money invested in reducing emissions will pay for itself many times over in lower fuel costs but more importantly in avoided costs. Rising sea levels, severe storms, drought, flooding and other impacts of global warming will impose huge cost on the global economy Stern warns. A disproportionate cost will fall on developing countries that have contributed far less to creating the problem than industrialized countries.
In the twenty first century it is time that Canadians realized that Corporations are much more than purveyors of the products we all want: they are also the most powerful political forces of our time.
Anyone who is interested can take the time to search for statistics on companies like Wal-Mart or Nike, only to find that these organizations bask in budgets bigger than the gross domestic product of most nations. They might be surprised to see that of the top one hundred economies, fifty-one are multinational corporations, and only forty-nine are countries. You might read how a handful of powerful CEO's are writing the new book of rules for the Global economy (Klein, 2000).
Should it surprise us then that when the time comes for these same companies to be held accountable for their contribution to global warming, governments turn a blind eye to their actions?
Does it help that many governments have their hands in the corporate change purse?
American Vice President, Dick Cheney was, from 1995 to 2000, the CEO of Halliburton, the worlds largest oil field services company. Halliburton, through its European subsidiaries, sold spare parts to Iraq's oil industry, despite U.N. sanctions, and had contracts to rebuild oil infrastructures destroyed in Bush Sr's Gulf War (during which Cheney was secretary of defense). Cheney was also a member of the Kazakhstan Oil Advisory Board.
Condoleezza Rice sat on Chevron Oil's Board of Directors from 1991 to 2001, and Chevron named a 129,000-ton oil tanker after her; I'm not kidding, you can even see for yourself by visiting the Chevron website under ‘news' at www.chevron.com. Rice also used her expertise as a Soviet foreign relations specialist on the National Security Council during Bush Sr's reign to advise Chevron on its investments in the Caspian Sea during her board tenure. Hmmmm…
We have plenty to worry about here in Canada as well. Although there is much discussion regarding Harper's background in the petrochemical industry, there is admittedly no solid proof identifying his links that I can find. However, despite the fact that it seems as though Harper is good at covering his tracks, his refusal to disclose contributors to his leadership campaigns, have raised suspicions that this industry had a hand in both his rise to Prime Minister and the policies he espouses.
Canadian oil companies have spoken repeatedly about the need for a made-in-Canada plan, which is coincidently the terminology Stephen Harper uses. They've talked about targets for Kyoto being unreachable which is exactly what the Tories have repeated in their campaign to remove Canada from the Kyoto accord.
Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, an outspoken activist against global warming, has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their “ultra-conservative leader” to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto Accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
“The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta,” Gore said recently while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, "and the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind this ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests.”
Gore warns that Harper wants to remove Canada from the Kyoto accord, which the United States signed under former president Bill Clinton, but has refused to ratify under President Georgie W. Bush.
Is it a coincidence that George W. Bush is a Texas oilman, albeit not a very successful one?
His company, Arbusto, merged with Spectrum 7 in 1984 as it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Harken Energy bought out Spectrum in 1986, giving Bush a seat on Harkens board, some stock options and a $120,000 consulting contract. The energy industry pumped $2.8 million into Bush's 2000 campaign.
Just this last July, representatives of The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Government Accountability Project (GAP) urged the American Congress to investigate - and repeal - an executive order signed by President George W. Bush that gives sweeping powers to U.S. oil companies operating in Iraq.
The two public interest organizations charged that President Bush far overreached a May 22, 2003, United Nations resolution that was designed to protect Iraqi oil revenues for humanitarian purposes when he signed an executive order that could place U.S. corporations above the law for any activities “related to” Iraqi oil, either in Iraq or domestically. Bush signed Executive Order 13303 the same day that the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which sets up a development fund, from Iraqi oil revenues, for “humanitarian purposes.”
“This order reveals the true motivation for the present occupation: absolute power for U.S. corporate interests over Iraqi oil,” said IPS Senior Researcher Jim Vallette. “This is the smoking gun that proves the Bush administration always intended to free corporate investments, not the Iraqi people” (Institute for Policy Studies, 2003).
U.S. oil companies already hold a nearly three-fourths stake in the Tengiz oil fields in Kazakhstan. As a house rep from Wyoming from 1978 to 1989, he cosponsored a measure to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling and voted against the Clean Water Act, which required industries to release publicly their records on toxic emissions. The Sierra Club, quoting from 1997 EPA data, point out that Halliburton's facility in Duncan, Oklahoma, was in the top 20 percent of the dirtiest in the United States. Cheney still receives annual payments from Halliburton, which has recently been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and other postwar construction contracts. Cheney has consistently opposed increased environmental protection laws.
“This is a scary scenario but also a huge opportunity to set the global economy on a sustainable path,” said Emilie Moorhouse, Atmosphere and Energy Campaigner, Sierra Club of Canada.
So why isn't the Canadian Government listening? Mr. Bennett had this to say on the subject.
“We have studied the environmental impacts of global warming and made very rough attempts at examining the cost of reducing emissions but the Canadian government has not assessed the economic impact of climate change. It's the head in the tar sands approach.”
Considering this information, we must ask ourselves, who is in charge here? We have to expose the government for what it is, a corporate lackey. Tony Clark, the author of Silent Coup, argues that citizens must go after corporations, not because we simply don't like their products, but because corporations have become the ruling political bodies of our era. In other words, because that is obviously where the power is. So take the power back.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
Stern, the World Bank's former chief economist, has warned the world faces a crisis on par with the two world wars and the Great Depression if greenhouse gas emissions are not radically reduced in the next 10 to 15 years. In case you need help coming to terms with it, yes that's pretty scary.
“We've had the word from scientists, environmentalists and now from one of the world's leading economists. Maybe we should start listening,” said John Bennett, Senior Policy Advisor, Sierra Club of Canada.
The report suggests money invested in reducing emissions will pay for itself many times over in lower fuel costs but more importantly in avoided costs. Rising sea levels, severe storms, drought, flooding and other impacts of global warming will impose huge cost on the global economy Stern warns. A disproportionate cost will fall on developing countries that have contributed far less to creating the problem than industrialized countries.
In the twenty first century it is time that Canadians realized that Corporations are much more than purveyors of the products we all want: they are also the most powerful political forces of our time.
Anyone who is interested can take the time to search for statistics on companies like Wal-Mart or Nike, only to find that these organizations bask in budgets bigger than the gross domestic product of most nations. They might be surprised to see that of the top one hundred economies, fifty-one are multinational corporations, and only forty-nine are countries. You might read how a handful of powerful CEO's are writing the new book of rules for the Global economy (Klein, 2000).
Should it surprise us then that when the time comes for these same companies to be held accountable for their contribution to global warming, governments turn a blind eye to their actions?
Does it help that many governments have their hands in the corporate change purse?
American Vice President, Dick Cheney was, from 1995 to 2000, the CEO of Halliburton, the worlds largest oil field services company. Halliburton, through its European subsidiaries, sold spare parts to Iraq's oil industry, despite U.N. sanctions, and had contracts to rebuild oil infrastructures destroyed in Bush Sr's Gulf War (during which Cheney was secretary of defense). Cheney was also a member of the Kazakhstan Oil Advisory Board.
Condoleezza Rice sat on Chevron Oil's Board of Directors from 1991 to 2001, and Chevron named a 129,000-ton oil tanker after her; I'm not kidding, you can even see for yourself by visiting the Chevron website under ‘news' at www.chevron.com. Rice also used her expertise as a Soviet foreign relations specialist on the National Security Council during Bush Sr's reign to advise Chevron on its investments in the Caspian Sea during her board tenure. Hmmmm…
We have plenty to worry about here in Canada as well. Although there is much discussion regarding Harper's background in the petrochemical industry, there is admittedly no solid proof identifying his links that I can find. However, despite the fact that it seems as though Harper is good at covering his tracks, his refusal to disclose contributors to his leadership campaigns, have raised suspicions that this industry had a hand in both his rise to Prime Minister and the policies he espouses.
Canadian oil companies have spoken repeatedly about the need for a made-in-Canada plan, which is coincidently the terminology Stephen Harper uses. They've talked about targets for Kyoto being unreachable which is exactly what the Tories have repeated in their campaign to remove Canada from the Kyoto accord.
Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, an outspoken activist against global warming, has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their “ultra-conservative leader” to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto Accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
“The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta,” Gore said recently while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, "and the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind this ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests.”
Gore warns that Harper wants to remove Canada from the Kyoto accord, which the United States signed under former president Bill Clinton, but has refused to ratify under President Georgie W. Bush.
Is it a coincidence that George W. Bush is a Texas oilman, albeit not a very successful one?
His company, Arbusto, merged with Spectrum 7 in 1984 as it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Harken Energy bought out Spectrum in 1986, giving Bush a seat on Harkens board, some stock options and a $120,000 consulting contract. The energy industry pumped $2.8 million into Bush's 2000 campaign.
Just this last July, representatives of The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Government Accountability Project (GAP) urged the American Congress to investigate - and repeal - an executive order signed by President George W. Bush that gives sweeping powers to U.S. oil companies operating in Iraq.
The two public interest organizations charged that President Bush far overreached a May 22, 2003, United Nations resolution that was designed to protect Iraqi oil revenues for humanitarian purposes when he signed an executive order that could place U.S. corporations above the law for any activities “related to” Iraqi oil, either in Iraq or domestically. Bush signed Executive Order 13303 the same day that the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which sets up a development fund, from Iraqi oil revenues, for “humanitarian purposes.”
“This order reveals the true motivation for the present occupation: absolute power for U.S. corporate interests over Iraqi oil,” said IPS Senior Researcher Jim Vallette. “This is the smoking gun that proves the Bush administration always intended to free corporate investments, not the Iraqi people” (Institute for Policy Studies, 2003).
U.S. oil companies already hold a nearly three-fourths stake in the Tengiz oil fields in Kazakhstan. As a house rep from Wyoming from 1978 to 1989, he cosponsored a measure to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling and voted against the Clean Water Act, which required industries to release publicly their records on toxic emissions. The Sierra Club, quoting from 1997 EPA data, point out that Halliburton's facility in Duncan, Oklahoma, was in the top 20 percent of the dirtiest in the United States. Cheney still receives annual payments from Halliburton, which has recently been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and other postwar construction contracts. Cheney has consistently opposed increased environmental protection laws.
“This is a scary scenario but also a huge opportunity to set the global economy on a sustainable path,” said Emilie Moorhouse, Atmosphere and Energy Campaigner, Sierra Club of Canada.
So why isn't the Canadian Government listening? Mr. Bennett had this to say on the subject.
“We have studied the environmental impacts of global warming and made very rough attempts at examining the cost of reducing emissions but the Canadian government has not assessed the economic impact of climate change. It's the head in the tar sands approach.”
Considering this information, we must ask ourselves, who is in charge here? We have to expose the government for what it is, a corporate lackey. Tony Clark, the author of Silent Coup, argues that citizens must go after corporations, not because we simply don't like their products, but because corporations have become the ruling political bodies of our era. In other words, because that is obviously where the power is. So take the power back.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
