A highschool buddy asked:
I can't figure why the big multinationals need to stop or slow CO2 emissions - it's essential to their profits and their way of life.
It should be obvious that the fuss about the human role in global warming is political - reality doesn't seem to enter into it. And, politicians, world wide, work directly or indirectly (mostly directly) for the multinationals (including drug dealers, who may be also be working for the larger corporations.) So why the fuss about global warming? What am I missing here? Any ideas?
Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get. -- Robert A. Heinlein
The same leftist political stripe of people (in some cases, the identical people,
e.g., Paul and Anne Ehrlich) who in the '70s, made a lot of noise about the impending "Ice Age," began screaming in the '90s about "Global Warming." After a few cold years cooled that concept, the greenies began to beat the drum for the latest bugaboo, "Climate Change" (which, if memory serves, is what we unenlightened usually call, "weather.")
Oddly enough, their cure for all three putative ills turns out to be the same: de-industrializing and impoverishing the uSA and its allies, at least down to the level of, say, the Peoples' Paradises of China and Russia. Of course greenies believe themselves to be fighting the (evil) multinational corporations.
Odder than that though, great trusts, controlled by the (same, evil) owners of multinational corporations, names like Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, fund the environmentalist organizations, making it possible for them to afford to harangue politicians, scare the public, etc. Might the multinationals and the enviros share some undisclosed interests? But a politician, however scientifically savvy, who fails to reflect the political conclusions of his/her constituency is not long for the office. And a corporation which fails to be owned by "informed people" is ripe for the takeover.
Of course America’s (relatively) stringent -- therefore expensive -- environmental regulations have done their part, along with inflated wages, to chase the evil manufacturing from American shores, to places like China, Russia, India, so much so, that the only remaining stick with which the enviro-saints can effectively beat their unholy fellow Americans, is that at least so far, most of us have been able to continue purchasing (foreign-made) consumer goods, because the prices have been relatively low. (This will change.)
Of course with all of the voluminous (7,000+ pages, in some cases) "Free Trade" agreements of the past decade, "America's" major industrial corporations were able to make the necessary moves abroad early and profitably, leaving their competitors wondering how they got left behind until they were taken over, the uSA less able to defend itself, Americans less able to keep up payments on the car and house, but overall, less blameworthy for the horrors of climate change (except for the CO2 we continue to guiltily exhale.)
Global warming/climate change is but one of the strategies that have been employed to impoverish America unto bankruptcy. Why would international bankers want to do that? Well, why would they want to have caused the last (Great) depression? the last two world wars? many other smaller ones? How could any of these human tragedies been good for the owners/controllers of multinational corporations?
Well, profits from the sales of armaments, munitions, medicine, and endless rebuilding are great! (Someone once observed that there are two things at the price of which, no one in need ever balks: medicine and ammunition -- life and death.) WWII was a cost-plus orgy, and once we were in it, had to be that way. Nobody wanted to lose. Whether the slimy deals made, and dirty tricks pulled, by certain Americans and allegedly "American" organizations in the years leading up to that war, may have helped to make it "necessary," is another matter.
Moreover, when a great nation undergoes a major depression, tremendous "buying opportunities" are created for those with deep pockets and either (1) fantastic luck, (2) extreme prescience, or (3) inside information. Many great old fortunes were tremendously enhanced in the wartime decade following the "Great Depression."
Over and above the profits to be reaped from wars and from impoverishing people, once a great nation becomes involved in war or bankrupted, major changes in its laws and political structure are far easier to effect, especially by those who knew what to expect, and had a well-developed strategy for how to "play it."
Hegelian dialectic is not merely for forcing a conclusion in a debate. Sufficient preparation brings about an undesireable condition as "thesis," strategic planning offers an equally undesireable opposite condition as "antithesis", impelling the desperate to choose the desired (prearranged) compromise (snare) deal as "synthesis."
Example: A consortium of banks and corporations offers loans for development to Nation X at a hopeful time in its history, temporarily ignoring its shaky economy, promising a bright future for its enhanced export capacities. Once the deal is signed, and the development built, other nations (coincidentally?) put up stiff competition, lowering the price of the exported goods, leading to default on the loan, and resumed (worsened) poverty for Nation X, and disgrace for its overly optimistic leaders. "Not to worry," say the bankers, "We'll refinance the loan on manageable terms, but you'll need to make a few changes in collateral. All of those publicly-owned properties like hydro-electric dams, water-supply facilities, roads, bridges, harbors will need to be 'privatized' (sold to us on favorable terms.) Etc."
In a nation where the people are (a) used to believing that they have a right to say what their government does and, (b) armed, such moves cannot be made too quickly or overtly. Allowances must be made, and plans laid, to fool and/or disarm those who would mount effective opposition. But once a man is forced to focus all of his waking hours on keeping his family housed and fed, he has little time, energy, or money to spend in opposition, especially when he is offered a plausible (if B___S___) explanation for why his former trade must be sent abroad, and his earnings increasingly taxed.
The multinationals have not only not decreased their global output of CO2 ,and pollutants, they've increased them, by moving the production to nations where the energy production is less efficient and dirtier, and emission standards are a joke, if not non-existent. And their profits are just fine, thank you very much. Witness Halliburton's move to Dubai.
The simultaneity and interdependence of (1) the Public Fool System, the world's premiere sheeple factory; (2) the collapse of the dollar and with it, pension plans; (3) the disappearance of jobs paying traditional American wages; (4) the unwritten -- but obvious -- invitation to outlaw border-crossers to become replacement "Americans;" (5) the repeal of ordinary bankruptcy laws; (6) the draconian -- but as yet unused -- federalized/militarized police forces trained in urban warfare, martial law, detention camps; (7) the spying on ordinary people, tracking their finances, and pushing for spychip IDs; (8) the advent of designer diseases, (9) the moves to create a federalized healthcare system wherein once the government refuses to provide care, one has no legal alternative but suffering and death; all could be mistaken as preparatory steps for "instant police state," to someone with a suspicious turn of mind.
Fortunately, I am a trusting soul. I rely on the fact that no such thing has ever happened here before, and am thereby reassured that my imagination has merely run wild for an hour or so. Now, back to the solid reality that is the land of the free and the home of the brave!
