How Coal Trumps Climate in Washington

For the first time since 1984, a presidential debate has concluded in the United States without the words ‘climate change’ even once gracing the candidates’ lips. That’s insane. The problem has, you know, gotten dramatically worse over the last quarter-century, and we typically only start discussing the world’s most pressing challenges less when we’re on the way to fixing them.

But no matter; there were other things to talk about, like Iran’s bomb and who loves Israel the most and China, those damned “currency manipulators.” And, of course, coal, gas, and oil. There was no mention of the global warming that has caused epic droughts and extreme heat here in the United States, and only a cursory nod to possible solutions like clean energy.

Which all creates a rather surreal sort of effect; there is, after all, this very real body of science that has come to very urgent conclusions about what the industrialized economies of the world must do to prevent the very real disaster that potentially looms on the periphery of the near future — so we focus on fossil fuel extraction and American exceptionalism and whether or not we should call China names. To the rational observer with a working understanding of global warming, it must be baffling.

Chris Hayes had a segment last week that did a pretty good job of explaining the root of this phenomenon:

Our fossil fueled climate problem is massively asymmetrical; in the ‘Pro-’ column you have the executives of the richest companies in the world, the politicians who benefit from their campaign contributions, and, as Hayes says, real live people who work in the industry and stand to lose their jobs if a coal plant shuts down. All of those folks have an intensely focused incentive to maintain the climate-altering status quo; also, some are richer and more influential than almost anyone else on the planet.

Here’s a fine example from today’s news, of the pro-fossil fuel complex in action. The Hill has a story headlined Inhofe starts pro-coal campaign tour for GOP Senate candidates:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is hitting the road to fire up support for GOP Senate candidates opposed to Obama administration rules on coal and other energy sources. Inhofe began his tour in Montana, where he touted Rep. Denny Rehberg's (R-Mont.) coal credentials. Inhofe said the Montana Senate candidate would fight to keep the Corette power plant in Billings, Mont., open, while incumbent Sen. Jon Tester's (D) support of the administration’s air pollution rules put the plant's future in jeopardy … Inhofe is backing the candidates to bring GOP colleagues to the Senate to achieve one of his key legislative aims — curbing the administration’s environmental and air rules.

Inhofe is, of course, one of the largest recipients of coal and oil cash in the Senate. As so, in a year where extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change, turned most of the nation into a disaster zone, Inhofe hops on his chariot and calls for more coal, more gas, more pollution. Unabashedly and with a straight face. There’s nothing to stop him.

See, the “Anti” fossil fuels contingent is a comparatively ragtag band of environmental activists, concerned citizens, and progressive businesses that, while having made incredible use of their resources, are hopelessly outmanned and outgunned. They can catch the public’s eye with creative protests and passionate demonstrations, they can make every argument with the facts and the moral imperative on their side. But ultimately, they can only struggle to compete with the sheer capital amassed by the fossil fuel industry—they fund few reelection campaigns, their numbers appear too few, and they have, for the moment, been swept aside.

And so, masking the climate silence, the nation sees talk of fossil fuels; how much to drill and where, and who’s a better friend to coal, all while the record temps tick up and onward. Romney says Obama’s waging a “war on coal,” and Obama says he’s a hypocrite, that Romney once hated coal, too. It’s surreal.

Because the scientists are clear: we need a war on coal. If the nation sufficiently understood what global warming is capable of, they’d cheer the candidate who was waging the war on coal and calling for a transition to cleaner and safer power sources. But that probable severity of climate change remains masked; by industry, by politicians, and by a beltway media that diligently parrots their platforms. Which means all of us back home continue our fossil fueled-march towards a warmer, weirder world, oblivious, and surrounded by climate silence.