Osama bin Laden is quite probably the most hated and vilified figure in the American consciousness. And rightly so.
The man has said that he wants to destroy the America’s global economic dominance. As Casper wrote, today he took aim at the United States’ failure to curb carbon emissions.
To stop global warming, he called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt. “This is possible … if the peoples of the world stop consuming American goods.”
First off, even if the American economy came to a halt, emissions would still rise, global consumption would rise and the US would be deprived of its capacity to transition to clean energy. If he really wanted to help the “tens of millions [driven] into poverty and unemployment” he would not seek to tear down the markets required to produce clean energy. Access to reliable energy is directly associated with raising living standards. Unless bin Laden wants the world’s population to continue using fossil fuels, he must recognize the need for clean energy development, which requires investment and robust markets.
His strategy is not to stop global warming, but rather to draw broader global support for his anti-American efforts. What better way to wreak havoc and chaos in the nation of his enemies than to associate himself with one of the fastest growing sectors of the US economy: clean energy.
After all, bin Laden is the new Hitler. Folks throw his name around when they want to paint something or someone as un-patriotic, irrational or evil. By highlighting the climate challenge, bin Laden opens the floodgates for climate deniers to claim that taking action on climate issues is now un-American, anti-American and that seeks to destroy the economy.
These claims of course are untrue, offensive and unacceptable.
But they sure as hell create yet another barrier to developing a clean energy economy (added to fossil fuel interests entrenched in Congress, a tough investment environment and the infuriatingly slow pace of climate negotiation).
So while yes, the US has shirked its responsibility to tackle climate change, I cannot see how bin Laden’s call to action actually advances this goal. Instead, Osama bin Laden just handed the enemies of clean energy a grenade launcher, which they eagerly received.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Yeah… I dont think Bin Laden’s that fussed about climate change… Gut feeling !
After all he used planes in 9/11
I’m no fan of bin Laden, but I would wager that about 99% of the global population would like to “destroy America’s global dominance” as well. It is after all the #1 driver of human suffering and ecological destruction.
Matt, you make a reasonable point. There are massive problems with American consumption and ecological destruction, but we won’t fix it by reverting back to subsistence living. At the moment we don’t have enough clean energy technology physically deployed to be able to quickly reduce American impact on the environment and contribution to climate change. This means, we need to support and expand the growing clean energy economy. Additionally, the quicker we end our dependence on foreign fuels (including oil and natural gas), the less the American government will be tempted to meddle in the affairs of other countries (in theory). Making energy cheap, abundant and clean will go much farther in reducing human suffering around the world than shutting down the American economy. bin Laden’s ’strategy’ to stop global warming is entirely misguided and therefore I can’t see his latest video as anything but a brilliant ploy to further hurt the United States.
Why not make cars with smaller engines. We are we sp consumed with speed. Must arrive to the ariport in udner fifteen minutes…. Must speed… Must balsze a trail… Etc.
Surely half of that is down to a lack of effort though.
When you consider how the US turned into a war machine engine following Pearl Harbour, it truely is a wonder what can be done when a nation puts its mind to it.
Almost the whole of Africa is filled with cheap labour, cheap land and an abundance of heat, and yet no one seems to consider the idea of investment in solar energy there. Despite what it would do for those nations, despite the advantages to western nations reliant upon Oil. Im not saying this is the best solution but I am saying that there needs to be political will before anyone will even consider some of these ideas which to the layman seem so obvious.
In the US however, as we have just seen with further proof, following the courts decisions on allowing corporations even more opportunity to affect national feeling through a larger money spend on political issues, the Corporation is King. Politicians are running scared of corporations (how did we let that happen?), And the corporation appears not inerested in what the layman can see, or what the starving african needs to survive.
Juliana,
I agree with you generally. Cheap energy has pulled (and will continue to pull) hundreds of millions from suffering, and so far it looks like clean energy will do that with more equity than the first industrial revolution. But we also need a paradigm shift. How many other unsustainable behaviors are tied to our energy use? Say we found an energy source that was clean, free, perpetual and infinite. What would the world look like with unlimited energy? Here’s a concrete example:
“In the 1970s, technology and economic incentives led to more efficient home heating and insulation in America. What did we do with that ability? Use less energy? No. We built bigger houses.” -Michael Nelson & John Vucetich
So technology that could have saved energy, money and the environment instead led us to lose our sense of community, develop farmland into subdivisions, and consume more resources. If we frame the clean energy future around peoples’ quality of life and health, I think the global warming “debate” is almost irrelevant.
Hope you’re well,
-joe