Why Paris? The Questions No One Is Asking About the Post-9/11, Post-11/13 World

cropped-1604741_560811498264_7010113564277153021_n.jpgOn the morning of the Paris terrorist strike, 11/13/15, I was trying to write and, uncharacteristically for me, I was totally blocked. I seemed to be wading through a thick mental fog, and nothing I could do would clear it. I gave up, went about my day, and it wasn’t until that night, when the first reports of the bombings came in, that I understood: my inner turmoil was what we used to call a “sixth sense,” picking up on the fog of fear and distress that was about to descend not just on Paris, but on the entire West that evening.

For me, this post-11/13 period has been a time of swirling, insistent questions and concerns, which I share in the hopes of promoting some productive discussion.

One: Did the timing of the Paris strikes have anything to do with the imminent global climate talks scheduled to begin there this month? Is it possible that the global oil lobby could have somehow instigated at least the time & place of the strike as a way of destabilizing the climate talks that should be leading us away from a reliance on fossil fuels?

Two: Could the military-industrial complex of the United States, Russia, and European powers like Germany, France and England, be subtly promoting war in the Middle East by their “containment” policy, which includes keeping demand for weapons high? Every bomb dropped is an order placed, after all. We saw this strategy revealed in all its grotesquerie in the Halliburton/U.S. government policy in Iraq—first manufacture a war, blow everything up and destabilize society, then rake in millions in “reconstruction” contracts. Is this happening again in Syria?

Three: Why are so few commentators talking about the role of Saudi Arabia in supporting the Islamic State? After 9/11, when all other commercial air traffic in the U.S. was grounded, there were the reports of the sketchy Saudi Arabian flights allowed to travel around the country picking up Saudi nationals and transporting them back home. We know that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi and was supported by Saudi funds. Then as now, ancient Sunni/Shia rivalries are coinciding with contemporary geopolitics to fuel proxy wars in the Middle East. Is the situation in Syria really all about the rivalry between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, with the lives of millions of people caught in the crossfire of these warring ideologies? Why is American policy aligning with the Sunnis when they have been shown to be promulgating the most violent, extremist religious intolerance and hatred?

In this last question, we circle back around, perhaps to oil and the climate. If the world really got behind the shift to renewable energy that we MUST accomplish if we are to keep human civilization stable, the oil wealth of the sheikdoms would become much less important. Could it be that behind the world events currently playing out lie some desperate fossil fuel barons, willing to risk the collapse of the world order as we know it in order to keep the black gold flowing from the ground into their pockets? Is the Islamic State really some kind of bizarre mercenary army, paid to destabilize the region, no questions asked about tactics?

I know this sounds like the scenario of a wonderfully gripping international thriller, which we would enjoy in the movie theater precisely because we know it’s just fiction. But what if it’s not fiction? What if this time it’s all too terribly real—and the fate of the planet, at least the planet as we know and love her, really does hang in the balance?

My sixth sense is telling me now that we ordinary people are just pawns in a high-stakes game played by the super-elite, the rulers of the military-industrial complex, the fossil fuel industry and their political henchmen. The final question becomes: what do we do about it?

Related:

After Paris, Searching Upstream for the Source of Terrorism

Thanksgiving Refugees, Past and Present

Keystone XL: A Battle Won, But the Good Fight Continues

On a balmy day in November 2015, President Obama did the right thing and rejected the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all. Although I am well aware that this is just one battle in an on-going war, still it seems worthwhile to pause a moment to savor this victory.

At the climate change rally in Washington DC, Feb. 2013

At the climate change rally in Washington DC, Feb. 2013

Back in February 2013, I traveled to Washington DC with friends to participate in the historic protests against the Keystone XL. President Obama was conveniently absent the day we circled the White House with our protest parade, but the rally was the largest ever demanding that our politicians start taking climate change seriously, and we left D.C. the next day feeling satisfied that we had done our best to get our point of view across.

And now here we are at the hottest November ever; the glaciers and poles are melting at alarming rates; and there are dramatic die-offs of marine life as the oceans warm, turning, as one headline put it, into “cauldrons.”

Terrestrial life is similarly stressed, with mysterious mass deaths in Central Asia and raging, out-of-control fires burning in Indonesia. In the Middle East drought conditions persist, and it has been alarmingly hot—with predictions that by 2070, large portions of the Gulf peninsula will no longer be habitable for humans.

I was especially disturbed by a recent New York Times op-ed arguing that the time for climate change mitigation is past, and we must now do our best to adapt to the inevitable rapid heating of the planet.

“Drastic reductions would be needed to stabilize human influences on the climate at supposed “safe” levels,” writes scientist Stephen E. Koonin. “According to scenarios used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global annual per capita emissions would need to fall from today’s five metric tons to less than one ton by 2075, a level well below what any major country emits today and comparable to the emissions from such countries as Haiti, Yemen and Malawi. For comparison, current annual per capita emissions from the United States, Europe and China are, respectively, about 17, 7 and 6 tons.” And “even if today’s annual per capita emissions of three tons in the developing world grew by midcentury to only five tons (about 70 percent of Europe’s per capita emissions today), annual global emissions would increase by 60 percent.”

So are we doomed then? Will the world as we know it be swept away by the dramatic climate shifts ahead of us?

It’s impossible to deny the very real possibility that global warming will cause the collapse of many of the life support systems that have made human beings so incredibly successful as a species.

We are over-populated, and Mother Earth has ways of dealing with such imbalances. The only way to avoid serious system collapse is to dramatically recalibrate our relationship with the Earth. It’s not rocket science: we know that we need to leave fossil fuels in the ground, shift to renewable energy like solar, geothermal and wind, and stop deforestation. And while we’re at it, reduce our chemical dependency and shift food production into permaculture practices. Stop raising and eating so much meat, and shift to healthier plant-based diets.

We must continue to pressure our politicians to make the policy changes needed to support these crucial shifts (and another piece of good news is the possibility that Exxon-Mobil and other fossil fuel giants may be sued for lying to the public about the dangers of climate change–what I myself would call CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY).

Tonight, I raise a glass to toast Bill McKibben, 350.org and all the environmentalists who worked so hard for today’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.

It is a wonderful victory, but we still have a lot of work to do before we can rest easy knowing that we have done our part to assure that our grandchildren will inherit a habitable world.

%d bloggers like this: