The Environment and the War on Terror

by David Clark

Posted on 11-03-06

   Most Americans are very concerned with the problem of international terrorism.  Some Americans are concerned about the problem of global environmental collapse.  We all need to understand that these two problems are intimately connected, and that stopping international terrorism depends upon first solving the problem of global environmental collapse.  In this essay I would like to explain this connection and suggest how both problems could be solved by a more responsible American government. 

   The more we study the universe around us, the more we have come

to recognize how unusual it is to find a planet that is hospitable

to living creatures.  The more we study the geological history of

the Earth, the more we have come to recognize how unusual it is to

find an extended period of moderate climate and temperature.  This

current period on this hospitable planet has offered a special

opportunity for the rise of human civilization.  We thrive in all of

the abundance that the natural world has to offer us.

   This abundance offers us two separate kinds of resources.  First, we

consume raw materials, such as clean water, food and minerals, from

natural sources to provide for our needs.  But eventually every

pound of raw material we take from these sources must be returned to

the environment to be recycled as waste.  We rely on landfills,

waterways and the atmosphere to absorb and recycle these wastes.

These two kinds of resources combine to provide the rich bounty that

we enjoy on this special planet that we call home.

   But we now find ourselves in an environmental crisis in which

these resources are under threat of depletion.  Recent growth in our

population and our technology has led us beyond the point at which

the Earth's environment can sustain our demands. We are drawing on

raw material sources faster than they can be replenished and we are

sending back wastes faster than nature can recycle them. Oil is a

prime example.  We know that the sources of plentiful oil will soon

be peaking and drying up. We also know that the carbon dioxide waste

from burning oil is clogging our atmosphere and over heating our

planet. Several scientific studies have concluded that the tipping

point at which we first exceeded nature's capacity to sustain us was

around 1980; for example, see Wackernagel et al [11].  As we

have moved beyond that point, we find that the need to intelligently

allocate these natural resources becomes ever more pressing.

Solutions to the Environmental Crisis

   Alarming as this crisis is, the environmental movement has generated

an impressive array of well vetted methods to reduce our consumption

to a sustainable level.  These methods begin with scientific

advances that point the way to new environmentally friendly

technologies. They include multiple new sources of energy, more fuel

efficient uses of that energy, sustainable agriculture, and

systematic recycling programs.  Fully developing these technologies

will require economic restructuring that will give the free market

the necessary incentives to invest in them.  The new field of

ecological economics has laid out a promising road map for this

restructuring. Making these changes will create many new industries

employing many people doing meaningful work with a promising future.

America could contribute a great deal to a world wide effort to

bring about these solutions. Altogether, this is a very brief

summary of the solution to the environmental crisis advocated by the

environmental movement. I will call this the “Green World

Solution.”  For a more expansive summary of this solution and

several good references, see the Green World Appendix below.

   Many think that this is the only solution; that the alternative to

the Green World Solution is to foolishly continue to ignore the

environmental problem altogether. Well, that just isn't so. For this

country there is an altogether different possible solution. We live

in the United States of America, the most powerful country in the

world as measured economically, politically or militarily. Our

annual military expenditures are nearly as much as those of the of

the rest of the world combined. Yet we constitute only five percent

of the world population. If there isn't enough to go around, why,

isn't the solution obvious? All we need to do is to use our

economic, political and military power to commandeer the resources

of the planet so that Americans can continue to enjoy a wasteful and

unnecessarily excessive level of consumption. We take control of the

sources of raw materials. We send our wastes abroad to those

desperate enough to accept a small fee to harbor them.  We out

source our manufacturing so that it can be done cheaply where there

are no unions, no child labor laws and no environmental protection

acts. We can then continue, at least for a few more years, to avoid

any change to the over consumption imposed by the wasteful

industries that control our economy and our government.  We can stop

thinking about any environmental crisis.  I call this the “Imperial

America Solution.”

   While you may wonder if anyone would ever take this second

solution seriously, you must admit that it would be another approach

to the same problem.  It is important to recognize the Imperial

America Solution for two reasons.  First, this is the default

solution in the sense that it is what will naturally happen if the

running of the country is relegated to large corporations that, by

their very nature, are only accountable for a bottom line profit and

not accountable to the American people.  The second reason it is

important is that, amazingly enough, there are those who not only

take it seriously but even advocate its use.

   In 1997 an extreme right wing group came together to form a plan that

they called the ``Project for the New American Century" (PNAC).  Their

mission was to use military force to take control of global resources for

American use and to exploit the third world through a program of American

imperialism. When I first read their Statement of Principles [1], I thought

that this was a stunt by some liberal to discredit the conservatives.  As

events unfolded, I realized that it was indeed a fringe group of

neoconservatives successfully discrediting themselves.  Among the 25

founding members of this group were Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and

Libby. Noticeably missing was George W. Bush, brought in later as

their front man to run in the 2000 election.  You can read about

this group here. I urge you to review the PNAC “Statement of Principles”

[1], reflect on what the same people have done in the last six years, and

see if you do not agree that the PNAC is precisely the Imperial America

Solution to the environmental crisis.

American Imperialism as a “War on Terror”

The PNAC team found vast levels of funding from large corporations

that stood to make huge profits from their agenda.  Riding on this

endowment, they successfully hijacked the entire U.S. government in

the 2000 election:  the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and

ultimately both houses of Congress. After the election a number of

the PNAC members took their places as leading figures in the new

government; Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and so forth. Many

Americans were deceived by their plans to “challenge regimes

hostile to our interests” and advance a “policy of military

strength and moral clarity” abroad [1].  But those on the receiving

end of these tactics had no trouble seeing them for what they were.

When they resisted uninvited foreign intrusions, they were labeled

as “terrorists”. When they began to fight back, the President

declared a “War on Terror”.

The PNAC team played this hand very well, using the language of

terror to vilify those who they intended to exploit and to frighten

and intimidate the American people.  Even so they found the task of

selling their agenda to Congress and to the public to be an uphill

battle.  They formulated a plan to build a natural gas pipeline

across Afghanistan, but could not convince the Taliban government to

approve it.  They wrote the Patriot Act and drafted a strategy to

invade Iraq, but failed to attract political support for either.

Their frustration was clearly expressed in a 2000 PNAC report which

observed that “the process of transformation, even if it brings

revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.” [6].

Most conveniently the “new Pearl Harbor” arrived on 9/11/01 and the

red carpet was rolled out for the Bush/PNAC government.  A terrified

Congress and public suddenly agreed to everything.  Afghanistan was

invaded, the pipeline was built, and the Patriot Act was passed.

Soon after they invaded Iraq as well.  Every speech the President

has made since has included an impassioned warning to fear “the

terrorists”. The Iraq war has not been mishandled; it has been

handled exactly as intended.  The PNAC team has demonstrated the

meaning of “moral clarity” by killing over a hundred thousand

people, neglecting to ensure them of basic human rights and allowing

them to be ridiculed and tortured in our prisons. All of this has

served to increase the threat of terrorism, rather than to decrease

it, and to turn much of the world against us. More terrorists to

fight against in a never ending war means ever more justification to

carry out the Imperial America Solution and more fear in the hearts

of Americans who would otherwise oppose it. Osama bin Laden hoped to

incite jihad in the Arab world, but he could never have succeeded to this

degree without the faithful collaboration of the American government.

A glaring example of this cooperation was President Bush's remark

about the “axis of evil”.  Every word of this president's State of

the Union Addresses is hammered out and debated by his PNAC staff

for months in advance. In the 2002 address we heard that Iraq, Iran

and North Korea formed a dangerous “axis of evil”. Why on earth

would they want him to say such a thing? What possible outcome could

it have other than to press these countries to produce weapons to

defend themselves so that we would have a justification to attack

them? Subsequent to the 2002 speech the world witnessed the U.S.

pound the first member of this axis into the dust, rendering it an

impoverished country in a state of chaos and civil war.  Not

surprisingly, the other two members of the axis have scrambled to

arm themselves in defense. Doing so has earned them the status of

“terrorist states” as well. Plans to attack Iran are now rapidly

falling into place, and the next steps in the Imperial America

Solution are ready to unfold.  At this point only a major political

reversal will stop a preemptive war with Iran, and North Korea appears

to be next.

One Solution to Both Problems

Our natural resources are now facing unprecedented destruction and

depletion.  Not only are fossil fuels reaching a point where their

supply will not meet our demands. The same is true of other material

resources: minerals, metals, water for irrigation, topsoil and food

supply.  Entire species are being driven to extinction at a

prodigious rate.  At the same time our wastes are being produced in

quantities that our air, water and land can no longer absorb and

recycle without becoming dangerously polluted.  (See [3],

[4], [8].)

While I have been very critical of our national leadership, I expect

that Bush and his advisors do have the best interests of America at

heart.  They realize that we are facing an environmental crisis, but

they have been manifestly uninterested in the advice and council of

the scientific and academic communities [2].  The result is

that they are only aware of one solution to this crisis.  Their

solution is outlined in the PNAC “Statement of Principles”

[1], which is a euphemism for the Imperial America Solution

that has turned into their failed “War on Terror”.  They are simply

not aware that the Green World Solution really does offer a much

better way to shield America from the pending environmental

collapse.

The Imperial America Solution to our environmental crisis suffers

from three shortcomings. It is at best a short term solution which

offers no vision for the future, it is the underlying cause of

international terrorism, and it contradicts the natural morality and

ethics of the American people. The attacks of 9/11 illustrate the

consequences that we can reasonably expect if we continue to apply

it. In contrast the Green World Solution is a long term solution for

a hopeful future, it will eliminate the root cause of international

terrorism, and it will serve the good of all mankind. In short, it

is a single solution to both the environmental problem and the

problem of international terrorism.

Green World Appendix

If I have soured your enthusiasm for American Imperialism, you might

like to hear more about the Green World alternative.  This approach

will require coordinated contributions from our scientific, economic

and political leaders.  It will contrast with the current Imperial

America approach that relies on purely political decisions informed

by the interests of the corporations that put our leaders into

power. This is an extensive subject, and my intent is only to

outline a few of the central facts and methods. For a very

accessible overview I recommend the text [4]  by Lester

Brown, the founder and director of the Earth Policy Institute.

Surely the biggest single environmental challenge is that of finding

sustainable energy sources.  Simple economics suggests an obvious

first step: abandon the policy of American imperialism.  Stop

stifling free market competition by spending hundreds of billions of

dollars to subsidize the oil industry through wars to secure foreign

fossil fuels.  This alone would encourage investment in

alternatives while freeing federal dollars for a large scale

initiative.

Scientists recognize the important distinction between two kinds of

technologies.  Proven technologies are those which could currently

be developed to meet performance standards under reasonable

economic constraints.  Unproven technologies are those which still require

advances in fundamental research.  Proven technologies can be

implemented on a timetable that we can specify today based on our

willingness to fund them.  Unproven technologies may never be

realized, regardless of our level of funding, because they depend on

unpredictable new discoveries.  Addressing our environmental

problems will depend upon a balance between proven and unproven

technologies. Distinguishing the two will require intensive dialog

with our scientific and economic experts. Unfortunately the

Bush/PNAC people have repeatedly refused to engage in this dialog [2].

The urgent and large scale problem of replacing fossil fuels is

likely to require a major federal project set on a short time line

using proven technologies.  For example, Shinnar and Citro

[10] offer one possible concrete plan that would utilize

electric cars as were developed in the nineties [9].

These ideas contrast with Bush's Freedom CAR program which “focuses

on the high-risk research needed to develop the necessary

technologies, such as fuel cells and advanced hybrid propulsion

systems,...” [7].  Reliance on such unproven

technologies virtually guarantees a healthy market for petroleum in

the foreseeable future.

At the same time we need to encourage American ingenuity and

industry to utilize proven technologies while investigating unproven

technologies to address the broad range of environmental challenges.

Much of this might be achieved through a more productive tax system.

The strategy is to reduce existing taxes and make up the loss by

increasing taxes on environmentally damaging products and practices.

While the net taxes we pay need not change, our tax dollars

would be serving two different purposes.  They would fund the

current services while also producing economic incentives for

industry and research institutions to invest in environmentally

friendly alternatives. This strategy is touched upon in Lester

Brown's [4], and more fully developed in his [3].  A careful account of

the path to modernization of our economic theories to achieve these

goals is given by Daly and Farley in [5].

Bibliography

[1]  E. Abrams et al, “Statement of Principles,” Project for the New American Century,

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm.

[2]  P.W. Anderson et al, ``Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush

Administration's Misuse of Science: Nobel Laureates, National Medal

of Science Recipients, and Other Leading Researchers Call for End to

Scientific Abuses”, Union of Concerned Scientists News, (18

February 2004).

[3]  L. Brown, Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth,

W.W. Norton (2001).

[4]  L. Brown, Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a

Civilization in Trouble, Earth Policy Institute (2003).

[5]  H. Daly and J. Farley, Ecological Economics, Island Press

(2004).

[6]  T. Donnelly, “Rebuilding America's Defenses,” Project for the New American Century  (September 2000), p.51.

[7]  “FreedomCAR Vehicles and Technology Program”, U.S. Department of

Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/.

[8]  A. Gore,  An Inconvenient Truth,  Rodale (2006).

[9]  http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/collection/object$\_$1303.html

[10]  R. Shinnar and F. Citro, “A Road Map to U.S. Decarbonization,”

SCIENCE:  Policy Forum, Vol. 313 (1 September 2006), 1243-1244.

[11]  M. Wackernagel et al., “Tracking the ecological Overshoot of the

Human Economy,” Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences (9 July 2002), 9266--9271.

THE AUTHOR:  David M. Clark serves SUNY New Paltz as

Associate Dean of the School of Science and Engineering, SUNY

Distinguished Professor of Mathematics, and Director of

Environmental Studies.  In this piece he draws on his

multi-disciplinary knowledge to offer a unique perspective on

current global problems.

Go Back to Features.