Laray Polk: When we began this conversation in 2010, our starting point was a statement you had recently made in the press: “There are two problems for our species’ survival—nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.” What is meant by “environmental catastrophe”?
Noam Chomsky: Actually, quite a lot of things. The major one is anthropogenic global warming—human contribution to global warming, greenhouse gases, others—but that’s only a part of it. There are other sources of what’s called pollution—the destruction of the environment—that are quite serious: erosion, the elimination of agricultural land, and turning agricultural land into biofuel, which has had a severe effect on hunger. It’s not just an environmental problem; it’s a human problem. Building dams and cutting down the Amazon forests has ecological consequences—there are thousands of things and the problems are getting a lot worse.
For one reason, because of the role of the United States. I mean, nobody’s got a wonderful role in this, but as long as the United States is dragging down the entire world, which is what it’s doing now, nothing significant is going to happen on these issues. The US has to at least be seriously taking part and should be well in the lead. It’s kind of ironic; if you look at this hemisphere, the country that is well in the lead in trying to do something serious about the environment is the poorest country in South America, Bolivia. They recently passed laws granting rights to nature.4It comes out of the indigenous traditions, largely—the indigenous majority, they’ve got the government advocating on their behalf. Sophisticated Westerners can laugh at that, but Bolivia is going to have the last laugh.
Anyway, they’re doing something. In the global system, they’re in the lead, along with indigenous communities in Ecuador. Then there’s the richest country—not only in the hemisphere, but in world history—the richest, most powerful country, which is not only doing nothing, but is going backward. Congress is now dismantling some of the legislation and institutions put into operation by our last liberal president, Richard Nixon, which is an indication of where we are.5In addition, there’s a great enthusiasm about tapping new sources of fossil fuels and doing it in ways which are extremely environmentally destructive: water and other resources are destroyed through fracking and deep-sea drilling.6 Anywhere you can find anything that you can use to destroy the environment, they’re going after it with great enthusiasm. It’s like issuing a death sentence on the species.
And what makes it worse is that a lot of it is being done out of principle—that it’s not problematic, that it’s what we ought to be doing. In a sense, the same is true of nuclear weapons. They’re justified on the grounds that we need them for defense—we don’t need them for defense—but the argument for moving forward toward disaster is a conscious, explicit argument that is widely believed. With regard to the environment and the United States, there is also quite a substantial propaganda campaign, funded by the major business organizations, which are quite frank about it. The US Chamber of Commerce and others are trying to convince people that it’s not our problem, or that it’s not even real.7
If you look at the latest Republican primary campaign, virtually every participant simply denies climate change. One candidate, Jon Huntsman, said he thinks it is real, but he was so far out of the running, it didn’t matter.8 Michele Bachmann said something to the effect, “Well, it could be real, but if it is, it’s God’s punishment for allowing gay marriage.”9 Whatever the world thinks, they can’t do much if this is going on in the United States.
In Congress, among the latest cohort of Republican House representatives from 2010, almost all are global- warming deniers and are acting to cut back legislation to block anything meaningful, and to roll back the little that exists. I mean, it’s surreal. If someone were watching this from Mars, they wouldn’t believe what was happening on Earth.
Hugo Chávez gave a speech at the United Nations at one of the major General Assembly meetings, and, of course, the press was full of ridicule and absurdities and so on. They didn’t mention the talk he gave. You can find the talk, I’m sure, on the Internet, in which he said that producers and consumers are going to have to get together and find ways to reduce reliance on hydrocarbons and fossil fuels.10 Of course, Venezuela is a major oil producer. In fact, practically the whole economy depends upon it; they’re a lot more reliant on oil than Texas is. So it can be done. We don’t have to be lunatics who are willing to sacrifice our grandchildren so that we can have a little more profit.
Actually, the whole Texas system is interesting. I’m sure you know the history, but back around 1958, the Eisenhower administration introduced an arrangement whereby the United States would rely on Texas oil: exhaust our domestic oil resources instead of using much cheaper and more accessible Saudi oil resources, for the benefit of Texas oil producers.11 And I think for the next fourteen years, the country relied primarily on Texas oil. Meaning, exhaust domestic resources and later on dig holes in the ground and pour oil back into them for strategic reserve. This was pretty sharply criticized even from a straight security point of view. An MIT faculty member, M. A. Adelman, an economist who is an oil specialist, testified before Congress on this, but it didn’t matter. Profits for Texas oil producers overwhelm even elementary security considerations like reliance on foreign oil.
That’s what it means to have a country that’s business-run, nothing else matters. It is the same reason we can’t have a health system like every other industrial country. The people who matter, the financial institutions, won’t allow it so it’s off the agenda.
The Koch brothers give large amounts of money to universities. In exchange they get a hand in choosing faculty.12 How corrosive is this practice?
Such practices would be extremely harmful, virtually by definition. If universities (journals, researchers) are to serve their public function in a free and democratic society, the institutions and the faculty must be scrupulous in rejecting outside pressures, particularly from funders, whether these are state or private. Funding should be flatly rejected if it comes with conditions such as those you describe.
Nine out of twelve Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee signed an Americans for Prosperity pledge to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases.13 To what degree are campaign contributions and pledges like this one stifling the political process on environmental issues in the US? And to what degree does US energy policy impact other countries?
The US is the richest and most powerful state in the world, by a large measure. Its policies on anything impact others. Energy policies in particular have an enormous impact, also on future generations, for reasons too well known to spell out again in detail here. The Republican pledge is simply another indication of abandonment of any pretense of participating in the political system as an authentic parliamentary party, instead taking on the role of lockstep uniformity in service to wealth and power. Dismantling the (much too weak) regulatory apparatus is simply a way of informing future generations that we care nothing about their fate as long as we and those we serve profit now. There is no doubt that campaign contributions have a significant effect on party programs and eventual government decisions, hence undermining democracy, if we understand democracy to be a system in which government decisions reflect the will of the public, not the power of those who can purchase outcomes with substantial contributions.
What are the factors that have led to conservative think tanks, largely funded by industry interests such as the Kochs and ExxonMobil, being able to hold sway over consensual science in terms of public opinion?14 Even if the science is hard to comprehend for most nonscientists, isn’t it evident what industries that fund climate-change skepticism stand to gain?
It is entirely evident. Major industries and lobbying organizations (US Chamber of Commerce, etc.) have been quite frank about their efforts to sway public opinion to question the overwhelming scientific consensus on the severe threat of anthropogenic global warming. There is no novelty in this. Industries that produce what they know to be lethal products (lead, tobacco, etc.) were able to use their wealth and power for long periods to continue their murderous activities unhampered.15 The effects have been dire, and continue to be, but they are even more ominous in the case of the intensive efforts to undermine steps that might preserve the possibility of a decent life for future generations—with effects already evident, but only a foretaste of much worse that is all too likely to come.
Is the fossil-fuel industry monolithic?
The industry, like others, is dedicated to profit and market share, not to human welfare. But it is not immune to public pressures, and also recognizes that there is potential profit to be made from development of sustainable energy. The industry is mostly oligarchic, but not a monolith, and there are some conflicts within it. But in general, counting on the good will and altruism of participants in a semimarket system never makes sense, and in this case is virtually a commitment to disaster.
Footnotes:
4 Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra, Ley Nro. 071 (Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia December 21, 2010), http://www.gobernabilidad.org.bo/. See also, agenda for “Rights of Mother Earth: Restoring Indigenous Life Ways of Responsibility and Respect,” International Indigenous Conference, Haskell Indian Nations University, Lawrence, Kansas, April 4–6, 2012.
5 Pres. Nixon advocated for an autonomous regulatory agency for antipollution programs upon entering office. In 1969 Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); within a year, the Environmental Protection Agency had been established. At the signing of NEPA, Nixon remarked, “[T]he 1970s absolutely must be the years when America pays its debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters, and our living environment. It is literally now or never.” “The Guardian: Origins of the EPA,” EPA Historical Publication-1 (Spring 1992); Dennis C. Williams, “The Guardian: EPA’s Formative Years, 1970–1973,” EPA 202-K-93-002 (September 1993).
6 With approval from the Obama administration, Royal Dutch Shell began exploratory drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in summer 2012. However, the inability to respond to changing sea-ice conditions “underscores environmentalists’ concerns that Arctic Ocean conditions are too unpredictable for safe drilling and that industry isn’t up to the challenge.” Companies with similar plans include ExxonMobil (in partnership with Russia’s OAO Rosneft), ConocoPhillips, and Statoil ASA. Tom Fowler, “Shell Races the Ice in Alaska,” Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2012. On activism in Alaska, see Appendix 9.
7 “In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce surpassed both the Republican and Democratic National Committees on political spending. . . . Not long ago, the Chamber even filed a brief with the EPA urging the agency not to regulate carbon—should the world’s scientists turn out to be right and the planet heats up, the Chamber advised, ‘populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological and technological adaptations.’ As radical goes, demanding that we change our physiology seems right up there.” Bill McKibben, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” Rolling Stone, August 2, 2012. Four major companies have pulled out of the Chamber over its stance on climate: Apple, Pacific Gas and Electric, PNM Resources, and Exelon. Nike resigned its board position. David A. Fahrenthold, “Apple Leaves U.S. Chamber over Its Climate Position,” Washington Post, October 6, 2009.
8 Near the end of his presidential bid, Huntsman changed position. On August 18, 2011, Huntsman tweeted, “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” At the Heritage Foundation on December 6, 2011, he asserted, “there are questions about the validity of the science, evidenced by one university over in Scotland [sic] recently.” Huntsman’s remarks also coincided with an anonymous hacker’s release of stolen e-mails from the University of East Anglia and COP17 proceedings in Durban, South Africa. Evan McMorris-Santoro, “Jon Huntsman’s Climate Change Flip Flop Explained,” TalkingPointsMemo.com, December 6, 2011; Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman, “New Trove of Stolen E-mails from Climate Scientists is Released,” New York Times, November 22, 2011. On influence of Tea Party on Republican campaigns, see note 3, chap. 6.
9 At a rally in Florida, after Hurricane Irene narrowly bypassed the state, Michele Bachmann told the audience: “I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’” Along similar lines, less than a month after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, Gov. Rick Perry described the BP spill as an “act of God.” Adam C. Smith, “Michele Bachmann Rally Draws over 1,000 in Sarasota, but Some Prefer Rick Perry,” Tampa Bay Times, August 29, 2011; Peggy Fikac, “Perry Stands by ‘Act of God’ Remark about Spill,” Houston Chronicle, May 5, 2010.
10 Hugo Chávez, “Chavez Address to the United Nations,” CommonDreams.org, September 20, 2006. On US-Venezuela energy relations, see note 8, this chapter.
11 “By the 1950s, low-cost oil from abroad, even with a 10 percent tariff and added transportation costs, began to displace American oil in the home market. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration, under pressure from the Texas oil lobby, imposed quotas. These lasted fourteen years and further depleted U.S. Reserves. . . . In 1959, Venezuela offered to open its domestic market to U.S. exports in exchange for privileged access to the American oil market. When the United States rejected the offer and abrogated a 1939 reciprocal trade agreement, Venezuela approached Saudi Arabia, the largest and lowest cost producer, to join it in convening the founding conference of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Baghdad in 1960. OPEC exploited favorable circumstances to raise oil prices fourfold in 1973 and 1974, tenfold by 1981.” Encyclopedia of Tariffs and Trade in U.S. History, ed. Cynthia Clark Northrup and Elaine C. Prange Turney (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2003), 1:286.
12 In 2008 Florida State University’s economics department received a pledge of $1.5 million from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. In exchange, any new hires for a program promoting “political economy and free enterprise” must pass approval of a Koch-appointed advisory committee. Two other schools have similar arrangements: Clemson University and West Virginia University. The Koch foundation also provided millions to George Mason University for the establishment of the Mercatus Center—described by one political strategist as “ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington.” Kris Hundley, “Billionaire’s Role in Hiring Decisions at Florida State University Raises Questions,” Tampa Bay Times, May 10, 2011.
13 Tom Hamburger, Kathleen Hennessey, and Neela Banerjee, “Koch Brothers Now at Heart of GOP Power,” Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2011.
14 “Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of ‘skeptic’ scientists who continue to do so.” Chris Mooney, “Some Like It Hot,” Mother Jones, May/June 2005. ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers are also both large supporters of ALEC, a group of corporate lobbyists and lawmakers who meet at yearly lavish confabs and provide legislative boilerplate at the state level. See Beau Hodai, “Publicopoly Exposed: How ALEC, the Koch Brothers and Their Corporate Allies Plan to Privatize Government,” In These Times, July 2011.
15 See Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2010); Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman, “The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism,” Environmental Politics 17 (June 2008): 349–85, doi:10.1080/09644010802055576.