The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Krushnic and King: The Corporate Nuclear Complex
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

They’ve run the most profitable companies in history and, to put it bluntly, they are destroying the planet. In the past, given an American obsession with terrorists, I’ve called them “terrarists.” I’m referring, of course, to the CEOs of the Big Energy companies, who in these years have strained to find new ways to exploit every imaginable reservoir of fossil fuels on the planet and put them into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. One thing is certain: just as the top executives running tobacco companies, the lead industry, and asbestos outfits once did, they know what their drive for mega-profits means for the rest of us — check out the fire season in western North America this year — and our children and grandchildren. If you think the world is experiencing major refugee flows right now, just wait until the droughts grow more extreme and the flooding of coastal areas increases.

As I wrote back in 2013:

“With all three industries, the negative results conveniently arrived years, sometimes decades, after exposure and so were hard to connect to it. Each of these industries knew that the relationship existed. Each used that time-disconnect as protection. One difference: if you were a tobacco, lead, or asbestos exec, you might be able to ensure that your children and grandchildren weren’t exposed to your product. In the long run, that’s not a choice when it comes to fossil fuels and CO2, as we all live on the same planet (though it’s also true that the well-off in the temperate zones are unlikely to be the first to suffer).”

Remarkably enough, as Richard Krushnic and Jonathan King make clear today, the profits pursued by a second set of CEOs are similarly linked in the most intimate ways to the potential destruction of the planet (at least as a habitable environment for humanity and many other species) and the potential deaths of tens of millions of people. These are the executives who run the companies that develop, maintain, and modernize our nuclear arsenal and, as with the energy companies, use their lobbyists and their cash to push constantly in Washington for more of the same. Someday, looking back, historians (if they still exist) will undoubtedly consider the activities of both groups as examples of the ultimate in criminality.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: Nuclear Weapons 
Hide 3 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OutWest says:

    If we’re able to avoid the creditable CO2 threat we need to dump the one hundred and fifteen year old answers, i.e. electric cars and solar –well, they may have minor peripheral value. For power the thorium breeder reactor that has been operated both commercially and on a small scale with promising results should replace the uranium fission reactors. This would avoid the spent fuel disposal and weapons concerns to a large degree.

    Short term sea blooms cultivated and controlled by fertilization can sink carbon, increase PH and as a bonus, increase the earth’s albedo. There’s a good deal of engineering capability at ready but being crowded out by political contributors with ineffective schemes. This approach addresses the greatest threats, i.e. loss of atmospheric and oceanic convection circulations due to warming at the poles but not at the equator.

    Big subject but the political obstruction of technology needs to be addressed.

  2. Marian says:

    Don’t plants use CO2 for growth, and in turn create oxygen? Not a bad thing when you consider the growth of the human population. Doesn’t that growth lead to more water and energy use? The greedy corporation are using humanity and nature for profits is the nature of business, and it benefits the growth of humanity. The real solution to the presumed environmental threat is culling the human herd. And here I am told the very same evil corporations are leading the war crimes. So what’s the actual problem?

  3. Megaprofits? You must be joking. Do a Google stock quote on any Big Energy company over the past five years. (My personal favorite: Click on the five-year quote option.)

    My theory is that the real problem is people from Big Panic pushing books and speeches and the occasional movie, sucking up billions in government grants, with irrational fear as the marketing tool.

    Peace, love, truth,

    The Grate Deign

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower