The Best Buddhist Writing 2010 - Melvin McLeod [112]
A partial answer arises from an understanding of the strong grip that greed has upon the human heart, and when the people at the helms of the oil, coal, and gas companies—those most responsible for emissions—act in the grip of greed, we can see how immense is the resistance to effective controls on emissions. Economic power does not operate in a domain of its own but is intimately interwoven with political power, and in the U.S. the ties between the two are extremely hard to break. Through their lobbyists, the carbon energy companies have a substantial impact on the formulation of public policy, and the reluctance of politicians to press for stricter controls on carbon emissions is almost directly proportional to the contributions they receive from these industries. This is the hurdle we must clear if we hope to institute a sane environmental policy.
In the public sphere, ecology is locked in such a tense wrestling match with the economy that the relationship between the two seems to be one of inverse advantage. According to the dominant economic model, for an economy to thrive, it must become more productive, turning out a greater number of goods and services. Enhanced productivity involves increased use of energy, and since the energy comes from electricity (provided largely by coal plants), and goods must be transported (with oil-derived fuels), a successful economy almost inevitably results in higher carbon emissions. In the framework of our present economic model, placing restrictions on carbon emissions means limiting productivity, and a decline in activity entails economic losses that will spread throughout the entire economic order. Limits on productivity would usher in a recession, layoffs, lower wages, and reduced employee benefits. Within this framework, the one escape from this fate is increased production, which brings us back to square one.
While unmitigated greed certainly contributes to the resistance corporate leaders show to proposals to curb carbon emissions, greed alone is not a sufficient explanation. Buddhist psychology teaches that greed often coexists with a strong impulse to dominate and control, and this seems pertinent here. For the executives of the oil and coal industries, control over the mainsprings of the economy, its reservoirs of energy, confers the exhilaration of power, of knowing they can dominate national and international affairs. This intoxication with power is hard to relinquish, even though unrestrained use of these fuels endangers the planet, including the executives themselves and their descendents. Another motivating factor may be fear of stagnation, decline, or even collapse, if productivity is curtailed due to controls on carbon emissions. Such fear increases when, as recently, major financial institutions and automobile manufacturers totter at the edge of survival.
Another explanatory factor, most prominent among the general population, is delusion. Delusion screens from our minds the imminence of danger, giving us a foolhardy sense of invulnerability in the midst of insecurity. In our private lives, we unconsciously assume that we are immortal beings, exempt from old age, sickness, and death. Delusion also plants in us the assumption that our environment will always remain safe and secure. If hurricanes, droughts, and floods should strike, we persuade ourselves that they are only temporary displays of the moodiness of the weather and console ourselves that things will “return to normal.” We resist acknowledging that our own behavior can be responsible for a potentially catastrophic and irreversible transformation of our climate. Such delusion, already entrenched in the human mind, is strongly reinforced when the energy corporations use their wealth and influence to spread disinformation and cast doubt on the truth and urgency of global warming.
Thus, in the U.S., denial of global warming and indifference