Today’s New York Times Sunday Review piece by White House correspondent Mark Landler, “A New Era of Gunboat Diplomacy,” gives disturbing insight into the mindset not only of the men and women who preside over national foreign policies, but also into the media lapdogs who cover them.
Landler reports that China and the U.S., along with practically every other country in possession of a serviceable Navy fleet, are entering into “a new type of maritime conflict — one that is playing out from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arctic Ocean, where fuel-hungry economic powers, newly accessible undersea energy riches and even changes in the earth’s climate are conspiring to create a 21st-century contest for the seas.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of Landler’s sources, explains blandly that “This hunt for resources is going to consume large bodies of water around the world for at least the next couple of decades.”
Clinton has got the right metaphor there. What Landler describes all too flippantly as “a watery Great Game” could well indeed “consume large bodies of water around the world.”
What neither Clinton nor anyone else interviewed for Landler’s article bring up is the cardinal question: When the game is over, what will be left of the living beings that used to populate those waters in unimaginably vast numbers?
Landler describes the navies and drill ships of countries from China and the U.S. to Turkey and Israel jockeying for control of huge troves of oil and natural gas deposits that have been discovered beneath the sea.
Of especial interest to these circling energy vultures are the deposits beneath the Arctic ice. Landler reports that “melting ice has opened up the fabled Northwest Passage,” making resource extraction in the Arctic more viable than before.
This offhand and veiled reference to climate change provides a window into the sociopathic mindsets of the men who rule the Energy Kingdoms. The cowboys of global fossil fuel extraction are essentially warlords, relying on the national armies of their nominal countries of origin to clear the way of opposition to their reckless drilling.
From their warped point of view, global warming can be seen as a bonus.
If the Arctic ice melts, so much the better–it’ll make it easier to get those billions of barrels of oil out of the sea and into the global market.
No matter that deep sea drilling has been proven to be highly risky and lethal to the environment. Hello, does anyone remember BP in the Gulf of Mexico?
Imagine a spill like that going on in frigid northern waters.
Imagine billions of barrels worth of oil or gas gushing into the Arctic Ocean, to be picked up by the currents and spread all over the world.
Imagine the destruction of marine wildlife, and indeed the entire marine food chain, that this would entail.
NY Times reporter Landler doesn’t waste time contemplating such grim scenarios. The focus of his article is “gunboat diplomacy,” a glamorous new competition among national navies to dominate the oceans, seen strictly in utilitarian terms. His only mention of fish, or indeed any maritime creature, is a brief aside that icebreakers are being sent into the Arctic circle by countries like China and Korea, “to explore weather patterns and fish migration.”
Landler’s article, which is billed as “news analysis,” reveals the extent to which the chillingly disturbing values of the Energy Kings have permeated not only the governments who are supposed to be regulating their industry and safeguarding the natural world, but also the media “watchdogs,” who are obviously sitting cozily in the laps of Big Oil.
Questions of environmental sustainability and health are simply outside the picture for these folks. It’s not relevant to them whether or not the polar bears survive. They don’t care about the coral reefs, or the plankton. They don’t care about whales. Their only concern is the bottom line.
What is the most effective opposition to such monomania?
Trying to think of persuasive strategies gives me a touch of hysteria. We could appeal to their love of seafood! Wouldn’t they miss their caviar and oysters?
They will figure out how to grow these in tanks.
We could appeal to them as property owners: what’s going to happen to their beachfront homes, not to mention their office towers in coastal cities around the world, when the waters begin to rise?
They will have armies of lawyers figuring out ways to make the taxpayers bear the burden of their lost properties.
We could appeal to their brand image. Does Exxon-Mobil really want to go down in history as the biggest perpetrator of maritime omnicide in world history?
They will throw this back at us, and rightly so: they were just doing their job of giving the consumer what she wants, a steady supply of affordable energy.
It’s true that we all share the blame for this tragedy unfolding in front of our eyes. It’s also true that we have the power to stop it.
How? We need to demand that the rights of the denizens of the natural world be respected. A new Declaration of the Rights of Nature has been written–it needs to be circulated, popularized and upheld.
We need to insist that our politicians report to the people, the taxpayers, not to the corporations. Yes, people want energy; we want cars, we want electricity. But we want to direct our tax dollars into R&D of renewable sources of energy–solar, geothermal, wind–not into dangerous oil and gas extraction or nuclear fission, and not into dirty coal mining either.
We need to call the mainstream media on its dereliction of duty when it presents one-sided reports like Landler’s industry white paper today.
Extracting those billions of barrels of oil buried below the earth’s surface miles beneath the sea would not just be a death sentence for marine life. It would drive the nails on the human coffin as well, along with all the other species on this planet who will not be able to adapt to the erratic climate extremes of floods, droughts and storms that will inevitably ramp up once the planet heats beyond the point of no return.
Under these circumstances, if the governments won’t listen, radical action may prove a necessity. The French Resistance to the Nazis were considered criminals in their own time and place, but look like heroes to us today, with the power of hindsight.
We are in the midst of a new, much larger Holocaust now, one that threatens not just one group of people, but all of us, and our natural world as well.
Each of us has a choice to make. You can go along with the crowd, watching impassively as the train leaves the station for the gas chambers, or you can dare to raise your voice in opposition, and maybe even to throw a wrench in the gears of power.
Each of us is going to die sooner or later. Wouldn’t you rather die knowing you had done your utmost to make a difference, to safeguard the world for your children and all life on this planet?