Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Alarms Censored, Polluters Sanctioned, Ignorance Recompensed

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

About 25 years ago, while employed as editor of an environmental compliance newsletter, I read an article in which weather scientists expressed concern that high concentrations of air pollutants in our atmosphere were causing the earth to retain the heat of the sun and that, at the then-current rate of polluting emissions, the planet would experience a sudden warming at some point over the next century.

I passed these reports on to my subscribers, managers of businesses of various sizes, who were just then beginning to come to terms with new restrictions on their right to pollute. Government had recently started regulating the management of hazardous materials, and new air and water pollution limits were gradually kicking in.

To the business managers’ immense relief, the pace of regulation was cut back drastically by the laissez-faire governments of the 1980’s and 1990’s, and pollution was resumed apace. As a result, my readers didn’t worry much about climate change, though I continued to report on it periodically, and neither did the general public.

The new millennium marked the belated discovery by the commercial media that the predictions of climate change were coming true. Although the prospect of catastrophic warming wasn’t news to informed citizens, who, like me, had been following the story for the better part of twenty years, it was news to the commercial press. Even as recently as 2005, the embedded mass media managed to get through Hurricane Katrina without, in the continuous coverage I watched, a single mention of the possible role of warming in that year’s devastating storm season.

Suppose the press had picked up the story back in the early 1980’s. Suppose the press had demanded that the Reagan-Bush-Clinton administrations answer for progress in preventing catastrophe. Suppose the press had explored alternatives.

Suppose in response we’d subsidized appropriate technologies back then. We might have developed our country’s vast geothermal resources, using the heat of our planet’s molten subterranean core to generate power, as Iceland does. We might have erected a system of rapid ground transportation, reducing the need for much automotive traffic, as Japan has done. We might have put turbines where the wind always blows, as Holland has done. We might have photovoltaics on every roof, maybe even a domestic industry to make the hardware for it. We could be scrubbing our emissions instead of our workers.

We did none of these things. Nothing in our public discussion suggested that any such steps were even desirable, much less necessary. The press didn’t simply censor the issue out of the news. Rather, the press reported, without scientific support, that the risks were exaggerated and the projections, flawed. News-mongers suggested that those demanding regulatory action were hysterical. The press, in its commercial wisdom, invented terms like “doomsayer” and “environmental extremist” to mock people who expressed concern for the future of humanity and to chill serious public discussion of their concerns.

Even this week, Reuters reporters at the Bali conference on climate change referred in their lead to people predicting the inundation of Indonesia as “doomsters,” a word that trivializes the entire discussion. Ironically, Reuters’ report from Bali was so bleak that the reporters themselves might justifiably be mistaken for doomsters.

And so we have eschewed discussion, and we now find ourselves relying on the very 20th Century technologies that threaten to destroy our kids’ future. As things turned out, it was not public knowledge and informed choice, but corporate profit and market pressures that determined our policies and sealed our grandchildren’s fate.

And ours. Because we have no choices now but to stop polluting. One way or the other. Despite the entreaties of our thuggish leaders and their rich patrons, we will halt productive activity when that becomes necessary. It won’t be long before our children and grandchildren demand this, and we can’t refuse them. They might decide not to fund our pensions or even adopt new laws on euthanasia. Not that we don’t deserve that and worse.

Everybody that turned away for 25 years from the inconvenient truth about our activities and our way of life will certainly be brought to account, along with the rest of us. The people who chuckled when they heard that half of Greenland would fall into the sea within their grandkids’ lifetime will be gasping a different tune when those same grandkids shut down their respirators and turn us all out of our squalid quarters in slippers and johnnies.

 

Hartford, Connecticut, lawyer, grandfather, Air Force veteran. Author/publisher, Current Invective www.currentinvective.com

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Capital Murder in Texas

Fort Hood Mystery

Censored: Media Consolidation Debate

Yoo Disbarment Sought

All In for Rotten AIG

Connecticut Congressman Dodges Impeachment Questions

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments