Jared Diamond's evil op-ed piece in today's NYT
Today's NYT contains an outrageous op-ed piece by corporate cheerleader Jared Diamond, who states, "I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability." The examples he provides? Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron.
It is here.
His title asks, "Will Big Business Save the Earth?" That's not a difficult question to answer: No. No, big business will not save the Earth. Instead of being honest, though, Diamond, answers the question in the affirmative and subjects us to a poorly-argued, mind-warping, illogical and denial-drenched apology for some of the most destructive corporations that curse our planet with their existence.
His overall argument doesn't hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. He spends the whole column arguing that we shouldn't hate big corporations because market forces are causing them to make changes to help the planet. "Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run." He attempts to show that Wal-Mart, Coca Cola and Chevron are transforming their production practices to reflect their concern for the natural world (and that this also improves their bottom line, so it's a big win-win).
His actual agenda is revealed in the last paragraph, which is partly a plea for the government to give corporations incentives like tax breaks and money for research to facilitate these changes. But if they're already modifying production practices to help the environment because that is good for profits, then why do they require incentives? I don't get it.
Mainstream liberal environmentalist groups lack credibility among real environmentalists for many reasons, one of which is the presence of corporate executives on their boards, and another of which is the huge amounts of money that they accept from corporations. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, landed a $3 million contract with Chevron in the early 1990s to implement an "Integrated Conservation and Development Project" in Papua New Guinea, where Chevron's oil drilling was vehemently resisted by the affected indigenous people. (See "Shilling for Chevron: Jared Diamond Greenwasher" here)
Diamond happens to serve on the WWF board. I'm sure it's purely by coincidence that he praises Chevron's efforts to improve the environment in his book "Collapse," and again in this NYT op-ed piece. I can imaging him hanging out with his fellow board members, business execs who complain of being misunderstood while sending him meaningful glances brimming with unspoken promises of millions of dollars in donations. I can imagine him deciding, "Hey, these guys aren't so bad! I'm going to convince the American people to give them some love, damn it!"
In his op-ed piece he states, "I ... have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies." In contrast, he seems to have carefully avoided speaking with even one of the countless victims of these companies. There's not a single quote by an indigenous person in the Amazon whose forest home was leveled for oil exploration and contaminated by oil spills. Not a single statement by a farmer in India whose crops died because Coca-Cola depleted and contaminated the village ground water. Not a peep from a single exploited factory laborer in China suffering with illnesses caused by the pollution generated by producing cheap plastic crap for Wal-Mart to import and sell to us.
The motivations for these companies to reign in their destruction of the world are, without exception, self-serving and purely concerned with the bottom line. It costs too much to clean up oil spills, retrofit factories, and crush angry natives. Diamond's sympathies are 100% in line with this, and his only desire is to assist these corporations in their accumulation of profit. "We should reward companies that work to keep the planet healthy," he urges. He doesn't express the slightest concern for the well-being of the natural world itself or for the living beings who comprise it.
He talks about the challenges that Coca-Cola faces in finding acceptable sources of water, and tries to convince us that "Hence Coca-Cola’s survival compels it to be deeply concerned with problems of water scarcity, energy, climate change and agriculture." But the obvious point remains unsaid: Coke is not a necessity. It is in fact harmful to those who drink it. We don't NEED to solve the problem of how Coca-Cola obtains water, or provide incentives for them to do it less destructively, because they could just fucking stop making it. Now there's a simple solution.
Diamond tries to confuse us by conflating slightly restrained rates of massive destruction with a net positive effect. Even if companies make changes that cause them to destroy nature at a slower speed than they have been accustomed to, this is hardly the same thing as not destroying it at all (which is what sustainability means), and the exact opposite of helping the planet heal.
As a collaborator with and propagandist for ecocidal corporations, Diamond should not be granted space to spread his lies. Both he and the NYT deserve scathing contempt for this op-ed piece.
It is here.
His title asks, "Will Big Business Save the Earth?" That's not a difficult question to answer: No. No, big business will not save the Earth. Instead of being honest, though, Diamond, answers the question in the affirmative and subjects us to a poorly-argued, mind-warping, illogical and denial-drenched apology for some of the most destructive corporations that curse our planet with their existence.
His overall argument doesn't hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. He spends the whole column arguing that we shouldn't hate big corporations because market forces are causing them to make changes to help the planet. "Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run." He attempts to show that Wal-Mart, Coca Cola and Chevron are transforming their production practices to reflect their concern for the natural world (and that this also improves their bottom line, so it's a big win-win).
His actual agenda is revealed in the last paragraph, which is partly a plea for the government to give corporations incentives like tax breaks and money for research to facilitate these changes. But if they're already modifying production practices to help the environment because that is good for profits, then why do they require incentives? I don't get it.
Mainstream liberal environmentalist groups lack credibility among real environmentalists for many reasons, one of which is the presence of corporate executives on their boards, and another of which is the huge amounts of money that they accept from corporations. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, landed a $3 million contract with Chevron in the early 1990s to implement an "Integrated Conservation and Development Project" in Papua New Guinea, where Chevron's oil drilling was vehemently resisted by the affected indigenous people. (See "Shilling for Chevron: Jared Diamond Greenwasher" here)
Diamond happens to serve on the WWF board. I'm sure it's purely by coincidence that he praises Chevron's efforts to improve the environment in his book "Collapse," and again in this NYT op-ed piece. I can imaging him hanging out with his fellow board members, business execs who complain of being misunderstood while sending him meaningful glances brimming with unspoken promises of millions of dollars in donations. I can imagine him deciding, "Hey, these guys aren't so bad! I'm going to convince the American people to give them some love, damn it!"
In his op-ed piece he states, "I ... have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies." In contrast, he seems to have carefully avoided speaking with even one of the countless victims of these companies. There's not a single quote by an indigenous person in the Amazon whose forest home was leveled for oil exploration and contaminated by oil spills. Not a single statement by a farmer in India whose crops died because Coca-Cola depleted and contaminated the village ground water. Not a peep from a single exploited factory laborer in China suffering with illnesses caused by the pollution generated by producing cheap plastic crap for Wal-Mart to import and sell to us.
The motivations for these companies to reign in their destruction of the world are, without exception, self-serving and purely concerned with the bottom line. It costs too much to clean up oil spills, retrofit factories, and crush angry natives. Diamond's sympathies are 100% in line with this, and his only desire is to assist these corporations in their accumulation of profit. "We should reward companies that work to keep the planet healthy," he urges. He doesn't express the slightest concern for the well-being of the natural world itself or for the living beings who comprise it.
He talks about the challenges that Coca-Cola faces in finding acceptable sources of water, and tries to convince us that "Hence Coca-Cola’s survival compels it to be deeply concerned with problems of water scarcity, energy, climate change and agriculture." But the obvious point remains unsaid: Coke is not a necessity. It is in fact harmful to those who drink it. We don't NEED to solve the problem of how Coca-Cola obtains water, or provide incentives for them to do it less destructively, because they could just fucking stop making it. Now there's a simple solution.
Diamond tries to confuse us by conflating slightly restrained rates of massive destruction with a net positive effect. Even if companies make changes that cause them to destroy nature at a slower speed than they have been accustomed to, this is hardly the same thing as not destroying it at all (which is what sustainability means), and the exact opposite of helping the planet heal.
As a collaborator with and propagandist for ecocidal corporations, Diamond should not be granted space to spread his lies. Both he and the NYT deserve scathing contempt for this op-ed piece.
Labels: Copenhagen, Ecology, Environment, Environmentalism
posted by Stephanie McMillan at
4:23 PM
17 Comments:
In Collapse there is an entire chapter about the different (ecological) paths taken by Haiti and the Dominican Republic. No mention of politics or dictatorships or anything remotely political (other than to brush it aside as an explanation for differences in development).
Jared Diamond simply doesn't "do" politics - even when there is absolutely no denying that it's kind of significant.
Ecological History deliberately starts out looking at the really low-level factors like calories per square meter ;-) -> so what's the incentive not to stay at that level and remain "neutral" as well as highly respected in rich circles?
It is obviously only for the dirty plebs (like present company) to get mired in "politics"...
Can you provide a single by "an indigenous person in the Amazon whose forest home was leveled for oil exploration and contaminated by oil spills", Stephanie? Can you really? And was that leveled by chevron?
Jared Diamond takes for granted that people in a position to dominate others, must do so. From this point of view, it is easy to see that he is greatful that Coke's private security forces have not thrown us all into gulags yet.
Actually, implicit in his emphasis is a return to modernization theory (Which was a theory of development developed by MIT students on the State Department payroll. They were being paid to "come up with a competing development theory to Marxism").
It just views all injustice as a natural consequence of the world moving from traditional to modern.
Very smug nonsense, though it attempts to employ many very interesting facts!
So, Steph, what's the big solution? I have a nasty feeling that you're about to suggest eating seaweed and living in grass huts.
Some dare call it "Greenwash"...
Woooooo, I love this!
The solution would have been for governments to go to all the energy companies 15-20 years ago, and tell them:
1) By 2030 we will ban the burning all fossil fuels.
2) You have until then to research and develop green alternatives.
3) If you begin work on this and show regular progress, we will pay out incentives.
4) If you do not, your corporation will be shut down in 2030 and be forbidden to operate.
Unfortunately, it's probably too late for that now. We'll just keep trucking along until something catastrophic necessitates governments to finally play hardball with corporate polluters, but of course it'll be too late to reverse much damage at that point.
Fuck that motherfucker.
I was starting to wonder when Ted Rall had gotten so extreme as to jump on the "Coca Cola is death" wagon (one of the best products ever, in moderation of course. The proof is in its longevity. Not Pepsi, just Coke. Is it absolutely necessary for survival? Of course not. Also, Coke and other death drinks are usually bottled locally, and if they're stealing water from India for drinks sold outside of India, it's news to me.) and then I got to the bottom of it. The article, that is. I really need to start at the bottom from now on, apparently. My time is important to me. Somebody in the corporate media is a whore for corporations? Who knew? Ms. McMillan knew, that's who.
Stop making Coke, indeed.
Reverend, the "water stolen from Indian village" story is just so much BS, just like the forest in the Amazon razed (and by Chevron??) for oil drilling one. Probably something Stephanie lifted from an Indymedia story.
As for Coke, it is indeed evil. You should drink beer, ales preferably.
Just picked up by counterpunch good job
Your link to the article contains a spurious <br&rt; breaking it.
Incitatus:
I don't like the taste of beer, or ale. I'm really not much of a fan of alcohol. I also don't drink much Coke, but I'm glad it's there when I want it. The secret to its delicious taste is the coca leaves, I'm convinced.
The best-tasting Coke (outside of Atlanta, a place I once had the misfortune to reside in for a couple of years) is the Coke they serve at McDonald's. I haven't eaten meat for nearly half of my 36 years, but I occasionally duck in there for their incomparable fries, rumors that they're sprayed with brain matter notwithstanding. I'm part of the problem, see?
Reverend, I don't think The Coca Cola Company still uses coca leaves on its leading soft drink brand, as it used to in the 19th century. That's too bad, it would do wonders to undo the demonizing of this very useful herb.
Even though the formula is secret, they reportedly still use the leaves for flavor, with the "poison" removed, of course.
Indians are imaginary.
God put the earth here empty for Incitatus to exploit.
Praise God!
If the earth was empty, there would be nothing for Incitatus to exploit, therefore that makes no sense. Also, there is no god, only Nature. Nature gave the evil white man better technology (at the time, at least), so it's best if you whine to Her.
Post a Comment
<< Home