Non-violent grass roots reform and Democracy: Mainstream Media Aiding And Abetting Ecocide In Progress

I don't know if you've heard but there's a rumor going around that weather is getting more extreme.

You might not have known this if you rely on the traditional media; and you might not know much about how closely it's related to Climate Change unless you check with alternative media outlets, including the following articles which reports on how rarely they mention Climate Change when reporting on extreme weather:

Major broadcast TV networks mentioned climate change just once during two weeks of heat-wave coverage 07/12/2018

ABC, CBS, and NBC aired 127 segments on the recent heat wave and only one noted that climate change is a driver of extreme heat Throughout the recent record-breaking heat wave that affected millions across the United States, major broadcast TV networks overwhelmingly failed to report on the links between climate change and extreme heat. Over a two-week period from late June to early July, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired a combined 127 segments or weathercasts that discussed the heat wave, but only one segment, on CBS This Morning, mentioned climate change.

The recent heat wave was record-breaking and deadly

From the last week of June into the second week of July, an intense heat wave moved across the U.S., going from the eastern and central parts of the country to the West Coast. A large area of high atmospheric pressure helped to create a massive and powerful heat dome, which migrated from New England to southern California. The heat wave brought record-breaking temperatures -- during its first week, 227 U.S. records were broken for highest temperature for particular days, and during the second week, at least six locations in southern California alone saw record-breaking highs. The heat wave killed at least five people in the U.S. and up to 70 people in Quebec, Canada.

Climate change is exacerbating both the frequency and intensity of heat waves

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that human-induced climate change is exacerbating both the frequency and intensity of heat waves. Heat domes like the one that caused this recent heat wave are becoming more intense and more common, scientists have found. UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain, who has studied extreme weather patterns in California, said recent heat in California was unusual. “The overall trend over decades to more intense and more frequent heat waves is definitely a signal of global warming,” he told The New York Times. And according to Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for Weather Underground, this recent heat wave was “the kind of thing you expect to see on a warming planet,” making it “easier to set a heat record.” Complete article

Until I saw a couple of these articles on alternative media outlets I didn't pay attention, but once I did I noticed very few references to Climate Change during the coverage of these fires, and some of the few that I did see came at times that few would be watching or were spun in a manner that might distract from the issue instead of educating the public in the most effective way possible.

One of the most blatant examples was on the first Saturday of August. the fourth, earlier this month, when CNN ran a segment that lasted at least a couple minutes, which is longer than most of their segments, except for when they're covering the obsession du jour, before six O'clock in the morning. Not only was this segment one of the few times they associated extreme weather with Climate Change, but they spent a fair amount of time criticizing the general public for not being familiar with it, as if it's entirely their fault, without discussing how few times they remind the public about Climate Change during these storms or heat waves. They certainly didn't mention this study exposing how rarely they mention Climate Change when discussing extreme weather, nor did they discuss the enormous volume of propaganda ads they sell to energy companies.

A few days later both MSNBC and CNN did another short segment connecting Climate Change with the weather, the one on MSNBC was also before six in the morning when feew people were watching and it was very brief, the one on CNN was only slightly longer featuring Peter Gleick talking to John Berman. Unfortunately they didn't provide much longer coverage on this segment, and instead of spending more time explaining the science to the public they spent a portion of this quoting Donald Trump and explaining how ignorant he was about the subject. This might give some people the impression that the Democrats are better informed, or that they might support better science; however, people more familiar with alternative media outlets often find that the Democrats often support the oil companies agenda as well.

It wasn't long after the BP disaster that Barack Obama began restoring oil companies rights to drill off-shore; and after promising to stand up to the Keystone Pipeline during the campaign he indicated he might support it once in office and only reversed himself again when there were massive protests. Also, before the BP disaster, they cut corners to save money and increase profits, which is why it happened in the first place. ExxonMobil acted in a similar manner after the Exxon Valdiz spill as described in "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power" by Steve Coll, and other sources, mostly that don't get nearly as much of an audience as the traditional media, which is controlled by six oligarchs.

After both disasters the oil companies spent a fortune on propaganda ads telling us how they were improving safety and making amends; however, what is often reported only at a much lower profile in articles, than the ads that are repeated over and over again, the oil companies are also spending an enormous amount of money on legal expenses to minimize the damage they have to pay to those hurt by the disasters.

When the mainstream media does report on the fact that none of the BP oil executives went to jail it is in brief articles that aren't featured in a high profile manner, and they rarely mention at the same time that, while none of the BP executives went to jail for their activities that killed eleven workers and did much more damage to the environment, over a hundred people that committed fraud against BP went to jail at tax payer expense.

This isn't limited to people committing fraud; it's routine for police to arrest large numbers of environmental protesters, at tax payer expense without addressing any of their concerns or adequately reporting on it in the oligarchy media.

The Republican's don't even do a good job pretending they care about protecting the environment, except perhaps, when it's the environment where rich people live, including when Rex Tillerson sued to prevent fracking near his horse ranch, while supporting it everywhere else, when he cam make massive profits by polluting other people's land. But if the Democrats do a better job pretending to protect the environment, they're counting on the public forgetting their track record and not looking to close, especially when it comes to the Summer's Memo, written by Lawrence Summers before he became a major adviser or Cabinet member for both the Clinton and Obama administration.

Most people that rely on traditional media probably forgot about this memo, assuming they ever heard of it at all, but people more familiar with alternative media aren't as likely to forget the Summers' Memo at Whirled Bank 12/12/1991 where he says, "The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. ..... I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted. ..... The concern over ..... prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer"

The clear implication is that he thinks that corporations should be allowed to profit by polluting those with the least amount of political power; this was an internal memo which wasn't supposed to be leaked to the public for obvious reasons.

However when the Clinton Administration indicated they wanted him to join their Cabinet anyway they attempted to turn it into a joke according to US Senate hearing for Summers' nomination to Secretary of the Treasury in 1993 PDF which begins when Senators Max Baucus, Bill Bradley, and Representative Joseph Kennedy II talk about how great and admirable Lawrence Summers, is before bringing the Memo up and giving him a chance to respond and he said, “When I make a mistake, I make a big one.” Mayor La Guardia said, “You don’t make many, but when you make one, it’s a beauty.” as if this was just a joke. Then Summers said “No sane person favors dumping toxic waste near where anybody lives or thinks that places could be better off with more toxic waste.” Economists that believe rich people should be allowed to profit by polluting the poor are welcome in both political parties, while those that disagree are routinely considered "radicals" or even "terrorists!"

On at least one other occasion either he, or one of his allies said the purpose of that memo was to stir up debate and prevent this from happening, which might sound very good if they actually followed up on it; however he didn't have a track record, either before writing this memo, or after saying that he didn't mean it, of fighting to prevent exporting pollution or speaking out against it, instead his track record and the track record of the entire political establishment is of doing the opposite, unless there's an enormous amount of pressure from the grassroots to protect the environment.

This track record continued when Obama promised to stand up to the Keystone Pipeline during his campaign and made other promises to protect the environment but once in office he indicated that he was ready to cave on many issues, partly with the support of Lawrence Summers who advised his administration on numerous occasions, and only took some steps to stop the Keystone pipeline after massive protests, but still allowed the return of off shore drilling after the BP disaster, and even tried to help correct Carl-Henric Svanberg's comments, when he accidentally said what he believed about the "small people," saying that he didn't mean that anymore than summers meant that he wanted to pollute "Less Developed Countries," however his actions fighting to avoid any accountability and resume business as usual so they can increase profits, clearly indicates he only pretended to care about "small people," just like Obama who usually does a better job pretending.

Flip-flopping is an art form that they teach each other while rising in politics and they've developed a pattern that can be recognized if people look close enough; while Obama was Senator they were giving him an enormous amount of positive media coverage that enabled him to become a front runner beating Hillary in 2008; and now they're doing similar things with Elizabeth Warren. But those that watch close enough might catch a few slips like, as I reported in several previous articles including Elizabeth Warren is a charismatic propagandist not the Messiah! and Elizabeth Warren Makes Me Scream! when she explained, in "The Two Income Trap," how Hillary Clinton stood up against "that awful bill" as first lady, but then after collecting an enormous amount of campaign money from the banks voted for the same one as Senator.

When it helped her get elected to the Senate the media reported on it, but when Hillary was running for president the mainstream media remained silent about it and in her second book "A Fighting Chance" she mentions how Hillary stood up to the banks as first lady but omits the part where she caved after taking donations from the banks. Elizabeth Warren does the same things with Lawrence Summers when she writes about how she was warned no to criticize insiders in "A Fighting Chance" and uses this for brownie points to improve her political career, but then later in a lower profile article, Elizabeth Warren Was Mostly Absent In The Left's Fight Against Larry Summers 09/17/2013, while most reports were giving her credit for standing up to Summers she says Summers is, "a brilliant economist who has made terrific contributions to the field of economics. I have no doubt that he's going to continue to do that in the future."

This article points out that she supported Janet Yellin over Lawrence Summers, however it fails to mention that both Yellin and Summers opposed Glass-Steagall, which Warren supposedly supports. This is another common practice to speak loudly in favor of something that has little chance of passing to get political credit then quietly support the other politicians that are ensuring that it doesn't pass so that Elizabeth Warren can have it both ways. There was a similar incident where the media gave her a lot of credit for fighting against pollution causing Climate Change but this was a t a time when other politicians were taking the lead with some legislation while she was quiet on that as well.

This is an art form to deceive the vast majority of the public, so that the oligarchy can have their way at the expense of the vast majority of the public even when it comes to the destruction of the environment that will be devastating for everyone, eventually even the insiders!

When it comes to spending enormous amounts of money that oil companies make on deceptive or misleading ads the entire political and media establishment clearly indicates they consider this free speech; however the same standards don't apply to environmentalists, even though they can't use money they make by polluiting the environment to pay for their propaganda and can't buy nearly as much advertising time, assuming they're allowed to buy any at all as the environmental group that attempted to buy time during the 2012 State of the Union Speech found out when Exxon filed a lawsuit to prevent if from airing.

Technically it might be inaccurate to say that Exxon "Hates your children," perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Exxon loves profit more than they care about you children and are willing to sacrifice them to increase their profits; the way they phrase it on their web site is "Exxon must hate your children because their business model depends on drilling for more and more of the fuels that cause climate disruption, even though fossil fuel companies have already discovered significantly more oil, gas and coal than scientists say we can safely burn. They are creating climate chaos every day — and they’re getting rich doing it." And they also say, "Does Exxon actually hate your Children, America, and the World? No one knows, but its record and actions, and those of its fossil fuel industry colleagues, credibly indicate a disregard for our nation and its future. The ad produced by Environmental Action, The Other 98% and Oil Change International is obvious satire, but with a serious message that is protected by the First Amendment."

However this is mild compared to the deceptions made by oil companies profiting off the destruction of the environment, and it's closer to the truth than their lies! Chevron also came up with their own campaign which got much more air time than the satirical responses, which were only shown to people that knew where to look for them on alternative media outlets since the corporate media sells propaganda to maximize profits, not on the free market, only accepting ads that increase profits while consulting with lawyers, lobbyists, politicians and public relations people to justify their censorship, which a large percentage of the public is unaware of!

Claims about an environmental Apocalypse, are no longer fringe conspiracies, assuming they ever were; it's now reality for many people already and this is expanding, and will eventually cause destruction even in the back yards of wealthy oil executives and economists, that have indicated they don't care about the vast majority of the public as long as they can increase profits for themselves, regardless of what it does to the rest of the world. Even the traditional media is reporting on a growing amount of this damage, although they still report on a large portion of it as isolated incidents without explaining just how extensive it is, and they're obsessively distracting the public with fringe Russia Conspiracy theories that ignore the fact that the reason Trump was able to win the election is that they helped rig the nomination for someone the public hated and the only alternative they enabled the public to hear from was Trump with his absurd rhetoric that some thought was the lesser evil.

Bill McKibben has repeatedly pointed out that the real "radicals" aren't the environmentalists that are trying to prevent the destruction of our planet, despite all the propaganda portraying them that way, but the oil companies, economists, politicians and public relations people that are trying to convince the public that they have to choose between a strong economy and protecting the environment. They've made it clear that they care far more about a growing GDP that doesn't improve the quality of life for the majority of the public that are seeing their income slowly go down, when adjusted for inflation, while health care is eroding and environmental destruction is growing, especially in the areas getting hit the hardest by forest fires, red tide, along with many other pollution problems, or extreme flooding.

They don't seem to understand that the reason they don't have an economy on Mars or Venus is that the atmosphere doesn't support life and if we keep conducting business as usual it's a matter of time before our atmosphere steadily loses the capacity to support life or maintain an economic system, or that it devolves into a state of war as we fight over water. If things go according the the implied plan of the oligarchs they'll be the last to be destroyed, but even they'll start dying off eventually if they continue with their "radical" and insane fiscal ideology!