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 oiclass="underline" 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.
2.
Protest and Universities
Laray Polk: What was the rationale for the protest when the Iranian students came to MIT in the 1970s?
Noam Chomsky: There was a secret agreement made between MIT and the shah of Iran, which pretty much amounted to turning over the Nuclear Engineering Department to the shah. For some unspecified but probably large amount of money, MIT agreed to accept nuclear engineers from Iran to train in the United States; it could have become a nuclear weapons program. There was not much question about that. They called it nuclear energy. It was being pressed in Washington by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and Wolfowitz. They wanted Iran to develop nuclear facilities and they were allies at the time. That was pre-1979. Well, the story leaked, as these things tend to do. And what happened then was pretty interesting. The students got pretty upset about it, there was a lot of student protest, and then finally a referendum on campus. I think about 80 percent voted against it. Of course, that’s not binding; that’s student opinion.
But there was enough of a protest that they had to call a faculty meeting about it. Usually nobody goes to faculty meetings—too boring to go to—but at this meeting everybody showed up; it was huge. The proposal was presented by the administration, and then there was discussion. There were maybe five of us, I think, who stood up to oppose it, and it passed overwhelmingly.
How did you present your opposition?
MIT, first of all, shouldn’t be taking support from states developing nuclear capabilities. And if the US government wants to do it, I’ll protest that too, but it shouldn’t be done here. That’s not the task of a university to help other countries develop nuclear capabilities. They shouldn’t do it here either, but certainly not for another country ruled by a brutal tyrant just because it’s an ally. But it was a straightforward argument. Essentially, the students’ argument.
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.”
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,”
13
Tom Hamburger, Kathleen Hennessey, and Neela Banerjee, “Koch Brothers Now at Heart of GOP Power,”
14
“
15
See Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway,