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.

Capitalists can never stop killing the planet

This is from my own blog, but I thought you all might enjoy it over here in the Rall Universe too...
-- Stephanie

***
In a discussion group I participate in, someone asserted that capital, as a unified entity, could act to save itself by reducing its damage to the environment, even if it had to sacrifice significant profit to do so. I'm sure that for many people, this belief underlies their hopes for progress at the Copenhagen talks. But these talks are now falling apart before they even happen, which was inevitable given the fundamental nature of global capitalism.

I'm revising some of my comments to the group for re-posting here:

Because of the globalization of production and consumption, the intertwining of complex financial markets, and because capitalists employ mechanisms (like the UN or World Bank) for uniting for particular cooperative purposes, they can seem essentially multinational in character. But the ruling class is not in fact globally unified and can not act as such, even in this final stage of the imperialist era. They are still separate blocs rooted in nations, competing over resources and markets. China vs. India vs. U.S.... these are still real rivalries. Capitalists still require their national governments and armies to defend their interests as they persist in trying to expand their global reach.

One might argue that national governments act as international representatives to facilitate relationships between blocs of capital that are more cooperative than competitive. But let's see what happens when the value of China's investments in US treasuries dissolves when the dollar collapses. Let's see what happens when China builds a dam that blocks a major river from reaching India. Or how the current struggle over Central Asia's oil plays out. On an individual level, the national character of capital blocs becomes obvious during the simple act of attempting to buy or use foreign currency.

Any talk by governments, individually or collectively, of managing the environmental crisis is either 1) lies to pacify the people and divert the energy of more potentially radical environmental movements or 2) schemes for making more profit while actually making the crisis worse (carbon offsets, for example, actually increase carbon emissions).

Those in power can and do collectively make minor specific adjustments in policy, and trumpet these as evidence that they really won't destroy the planet, or at least will try very very hard not to. But these are meaningless -- it's the trend overall that matters. Who cares about adjustments when they're still killing everyone? They congratulate themselves for these plans and schemes and agreements, while their rate of destruction actually accelerates.

Those who run this system are not stupid. They know that their system is unsustainable and will result in omnicide, and in their own demise. Yet they will fight over the last bit of profit from the last bit of earth, until it's too late to save anything. They have little control over this -- the economic mechanism that brought them into existence and keeps them in existence *as capitalists* makes it impossible to stop, as impossible as it would be for me to tie a knot in a rainbow.

The ruling class can not decide to stop competing and give up capitalism deliberately in favor of a sustainable global new order. Francis Fukuyama argued in "The End of History" that that had happened in an economic/political sense after the fall of the Soviet Union -- he turned out to be wrong. New blocs of capital coalesce, strengthen and face off once again.

Capitalism has an inherent law of expansion that can not be reformed, even by itself, even to save itself. It is only when capitalism is in crisis, like crisis of overproduction, that contractions must happen, but these are only times of regrouping to expand even further still. Capitalism, if not overthrown, will end up destroying itself along with us. It can not do otherwise. It's not because capitalists are bad people, it's because of mechanisms in the system (that are still described best by marxists) of competition and the constantly falling rate of profit. Though there is also a mechanism leading toward increased monopolies, competition remains primary -- there can never be a situation where one corporation swallows all the rest into one overarching global über-bloc of capital.

Governments can, though, sacrifice some capitalists to save the system, as happened with the New Deal, and has happened in the recent financial crisis too. But this is to preserve a system with competition at the core, and they will always protect the interests of "their" blocs of capital first. The best that capitalists can hope for is to get as much as they can while they can get it. They can't make the system stop even if individuals among them might wish to; the only way for it to stop is for those with opposing interests (that's us) to stop them.

It might seem counter-inituitive that some members of the ruling class like Al Gore are helping to expose that the planet is in trouble. But the ruling class needs spokespeople to convincingly address the concerns of the people, or they risk social disorder. These spokespeople may even personally care very deeply about reforms. Unfortunately they are incapable of calling the system that causes all this into question, so their net effect is negative.

All these recent exposure movies like "Inconvenient Truth," "Food Inc.," "Capitalism: A Love Story" do not really challenge the system's fundamental nature, or exploitation as a way of life. They serve (whether intentionally or not) as ways of making people think their issues are being addressed while bringing them back into the fold. They soothe and divert percolating discontent before it has a chance to break the surface as open rebellion. The election of Obama was used for this too -- it drew millions of disillusioned people back into the system's political orbit, changed them from outsiders into participants and defenders. NGOs do this, all reformers do this, even if their intentions are good.

There are always contending ideas within the ruling class about how best to preserve and expand their rule. They're not one united monolith. They have differences about how it's best to rule and protect their capital. Some of them think it's best to try to minimize the damage, prevent social disorder, make reforms; while others are more in favor of raw exploitation and the iron fist. These opinions contend, and sometimes reforms are made when the ruling class as a whole finds them necessary for the continuation of their ability to exploit. But their fundamental activity is the exploitation, not the reforms. It always will be, as long as they hold power.

For those upset by the failure of the Copehagen talks, they were doomed from the start. Even if agreements had been reached, the nations involved would have been incapable of going against their own nature. Agreements would have been unavoidably broken, limits regretfully breached.

Our future should not be thrown away on impossible wishes and hopes. For us, there's no dodging responsibility -- we must stop omnicide ourselves, by overthrowing those in power and dismantling their system.