All Articles All Articles

Will Trump Never Go? Part 3

Will Trump Never Go? Part 3

By Dennis Loo (7/23/17)

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

The immigration issue and civil wars breaking out over scarce resources due to rising seas, innudating island nations and flooding lower lying areas such as Florida, Manhattan's subways, or many of our seaports, unusuable because they are already or will be underwater, and to parched areas, that were previously productive, due to global warming, was identified by the DoD itself as a paramount issue, dwarfing the current terrorism security issue.

But the current US POTUS blissfully denies that global warming even exists and the Democrats, while conceding that global warming is real, do far too little given the situation's practically unspeakable gravity.

Obama was president when that DoD report was released in 2003:

As I recounted in Globalization and the Demolition of Society at pp. 167-168:

In a 2003 report commissioned by Andrew Marshall and written by former Shell Oil Head of Planning Peter Schwartz and California think tank Global Business Network’s Doug Randall, the Department of Defense (DoD) itself warned of the convulsive effects that global warming in the not distant future will wreak in the form of forced migrations of tens of millions and wars over resources critical to actual survival; the DoD described this as a threat “greater than terrorism.”

The research suggests that …adverse weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit in a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 3 ,066 years ago, or, at the extreme could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago. . . .

[A]n increasing number of business leaders, economists, policy makers, and politicians are concerned about the projections for further change and are working to limit human influences on the climate. But, these efforts may not be sufficient or be implemented soon enough.

Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding. . . . 

As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate change, many countries’ needs will exceed their carrying capacity. This will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply. Or, picture Japan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eying Russia’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive agricultural processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China—all armed with nuclear weapons—skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights—leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation.

The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs through seven.[1] [Emphasis added.]

The response from the Pentagon’s spokesperson Dan Hetlage to this report was interesting:

We did not expect any White House response to the Pentagon on this report. Andrew Marshall is our Yoda, our big thinker who peers into the future. But it’s all speculation. It was very ethereal, very broad in scope. It wasn’t like, “Oh, wow, that totally debunks the president’s stand on global warming,” because it was merely a thought exercise. We don’t have a crystal ball. We don’t really know.[2] [Emphasis in the original.]

They “don’t really know.” When astronauts go into space, the back-up systems NASA creates to protect the astronauts and their missions are multiple in nature in case the first few fail. The scenarios they run in preparation for outer space travel are diverse and complex. These efforts are protecting a handful of people in space; yet, when the entire planet is at risk, the trigger for action is based on whether or not they know for certain that something will happen. Of course, at the point when the dangers are manifest and present, action in response is much too late. This is the equivalent of packing the entirety of humanity into one big car and those in charge of the welfare of the passengers deciding that they are not going to put on any seatbelts because they do not know for certain that there will be an accident.

In other words, both the GOP and the Democrats are putting their heads in the sand. Indeed, the last two years have provided more than enough evidence that the devastating effects of global warming are occurring as we speak.

Let's consider this from the standpoint of what causes immigration and mass emigration in the first place. What is causing the problem is where we should address this first rather than, as Thomas Edsall is doing, accept the current Right-Wing expression of it as simply citizens scapegoating immigrants as the problem. 

Let us look at the "threat" people like Trump say that immigrants pose. They pay $12 billion in taxes. And this is only the so-called illegals. As for so-called legal immigrants, see this.

Do immigrants take jobs from domestic workers? In general, the domestic worker and the immigrant worker are competing for different jobs

Do immigrants take advantage of welfare programs? They don't and they actually help to fund these kind of programs.

Can Trump bring back the net loss of manufacturing jobs? The short answer is no, and the reality is that while some manufacturing sites are coming back, robots are largely taking those jobs. In 2003 the US crossed over from being a primarily manufacturing to a service economy. Trump is not going to turn that around. No one or collective body will because they are not going to buck the laws of capitalism that seeks the cheapest labor it can find. 

It makes sense to tell people the truth, even if it means having to go against the tide, especially at first. A real coinciding of interests between domestic workers and the international working class makes sense and actually addresses this widespread anti-immigrant bashing going on. But do you think the Democrats in the US are going to do this? Of course not. This policy will have to come from below mainly and struggle very hard, but it can and must be done. The alternative is what we see right now happening before our very eyes. 



Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code