Conspiracy theories are always fun, aren't they? One imagines a group of over-intoxicated flannel wearers sitting around comparing pistol sizes, and wondering why the ice fishing season has shortened to a week, or whether the fact that Brittney got ugly is a plot by American Idol to up viewership. I mean, do people really have time to sit around and think about UFOs and who killed JFK?
Apparently, some people figure that conspiracy theories can work towards the greater good. This clip is about a recent law suit filled by a village in Alaska against 20 major oil companies, led by Exxon-Mobil. The village of 400 native Alaskans is being washed away, because the rising temperatures are resulting in more fierce storms that sweep across their island, without being broken by ice. The ice isn't forming anymore.
And, according to this lawsuit, the oil companies are liable...not because they caused the increase in the atmospheric temperature...but because they engaged in a conspiracy theory to block evidence of climate change.
Does anyone think that the legal system is going to solve our problems? Has suing big tobacco for health care costs incurred by the various state medicaid programs really changed American risk behaviors? And if it has had a minor effect here, what about the rest of the world?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, but..
The case isn't just about conspiracy - they are seeking to hold the 20 companies liable for their greenhouse gas emissions, and only 8 for conspiracy.
There is in fact documented proof that not only several companies, but also the U.S. government conspired (and this isn't a theory) to change information that was released about climate change, and to limit access to information.
Law suits will not fix the global climate crisis, but they may bring attention to the active efforts made to withhold information, and yield the money needed to relocate this, and other, villages. Suing big tobacco didn't make the health problems go away, but it was a legal assignment of liability, and there was a drop in support for tobacco companies, which one might hope would be a similar result in this current case, though obviously oil and tobacco play very different roles in our lives. I don't think that there is one single strategy that will cause the world to shift gears with regard to climate change, so perhaps this is one tactic that can address some of the immediate effects even while having an impact on a larger level.
For more on political interference with distribution of information, see:
Documented Incidents of Political Interference. Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf
Scientists Statement: Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/UCS_Pstcrd_7_04d_1.pdf
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Committee Examines Political Interference with Climate Science. 19th March 2007. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1214
The Real Climate Censorship. George Monibot. The Real Climate Censorship. The Guardian April 10, 2007. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/
Also see numerous articles by environment reporter Andrew Revkin in the New York Times.
Post a Comment