Money, power, and misinformation, are the tools that the special interests use to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence of the causal relationship between the burning of carbon based fuel and global climate change. The effort to undermine the science behind climate change is being funded and directed by a few powerful people, the carbon barons. These carbon barons in an effort to protect their profits and preserve the status quo have devised a multifaceted scheme to preserve their domination of the world’s energy supply, insuring their continued economic and political domination of the world. How did this all begin?

     A century ago one man, President Teddy Roosevelt stood up to the world’s first carbon baron J.D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller was at the time the world’s richest and most powerful man, history’s first billionaire, the original carbon baron. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company controlled 40 percent of the world’s oil supply before it was eventually broken up into several smaller firms by Roosevelt’s anti-trust legislation and litigation. Rockefeller’s empire was split into 30 companies including two we know well today Exxon and Mobile, which have been allowed to merge into one again. The Roosevelt anti-trust action was brought to preserve the free market, and save democracy. Roosevelt’s anti-trust crusade and legislation were successful challenges to Rockefeller’s political and economic power. Though his actions are hailed in history books and he was immensely popular yet somehow Roosevelt was forced out of the election of 1908 by his own party. In hindsight we can see the turning point in history was not the breakup of Standard Oil for anti-trust violations as the history book portray, it was Rockefeller’s alliance with media mogul and former Roosevelt ally William Randolph Hearst (Lewiston Evening Journal Staff ). Hearst’s media empire had national reach and at Rockefeller’s request he launched an unprecedented series of attacks on Teddy Roosevelt (Lewiston Evening Journal Staff ). The marriage of the carbon baron’s cash and a willing media brought down one of our greatest presidents in a matter of months. The headline from the April 4^th, 1907 Lewiston Evening Journal says it all, “Corporations desire an executive they can handle, not one of the Roosevelt school- Mr. Taft in the race.”  The Roosevelt era of trust busting has long since passed and Rockefeller’s old company after years of deregulation has been put back together again. Today new carbon barons have emerged to threaten not only the free market and our democracy but life on the planet as we know it, all in the name of increased profits, and there is no Teddy Roosevelt in sight.

Just as Rockefeller had Hearst to shape the news and formulate public opinion a century ago, today’s carbon barons have media moguls of their own and are taking the tried and true strategy to all new heights. Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch the modern day Hearst are all too happy to carry the carbon barons message to the masses, just as Hearst a century before. By sowing the seeds of doubt among the public the media wing of the carbon barons empire is shaping the climate change “debate”. In fact the media blitz to counter act the science is so effective that less people in 2009 thought global warming was real than at any time in the 21 year history of the Gallup survey (Gallup). How is this accomplished in today’s mass media environment? While newspapers were the only media in Rockefeller’s era today we have talk radio, television, the internet and newspapers. Yet just as in Hearst’s and Rockefeller’s day the control of this multitude of media platforms and outlets is concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations. In reality only ten media conglomerates dominate the global media market (Meier), and the sources cited by the global warming deniers are even less diverse and objective.

The methodology the carbon barons employ is three pronged, the first is through direct campaign financing of carbon friendly candidates. The second prong or front if you will consists of the authoring and funding of quasi science which disputes the empirical evidence of carbon caused climate change, while funding of conservative think tanks to disseminate the “scientific reports” to a gullible public. The third prong is the complicit press, a press bought and paid for by the carbon barons, a complex web of board memberships and cross ownership ties it together in a neat little bow, a carbon bow.

Follow the Money: The tie that binds, Cash is the currency of climate change deniers and when given in the form of political contributions it has a powerful effect on a politicians stated position.  Unlike in the early 20^th century today reporters and the general public can access the financial records and see the contributions of the carbon barons and track their cash as it flows through the political system. These financial disclosures tie the groups who publish the climate change denying reports, the media groups who recite it and the politicians who present it as fact to their constituents together with an indisputable knot, a knot comprised of cash.

In an age where campaign contributions are reported and can be tracked electronically, the carbon baron’s employ a coordinated strategy to preserve the appearance of propriety and the facade of democracy. How much does it cost to have a Senator ignore the science and become a climate change denier? Well that amount varies based on the Senator for example, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson has long been a supporter of Science according to her hometown news paper the Houston Chronicle yet suddenly in 2007 she issued a report titled Global Warming the Settled versus unsettled science (Berger). Eric Berger the Science writer for the Houston Chronicle was shocked by the Senators flip flop but a closer look at the money trail reveals the real story behind her sudden doubts. In 2008 after the report was issued Kay B. Hutchinson received $807,256 from the Oil and Gas Industry and an additional $285,000 from natural gas pipeline companies (Open Secrets ). In 2008, Kay B. Hutchinson was not facing re-election, so why did she receive the sudden influx of donations, was it the report?  

Prior his run for the presidency in 2008, Senator John McCain repeatedly stated his concerns regarding climate change. After receiving $3,000,000 from the oil and gas lobby in 2008, Senator McCain’s position changed. The change is demonstrated by his actions and not his words. Within a year of receiving over $3,000,000 from the oil and gas lobby, McCain spent his summer campaigning and fund raising for climate change denying candidates including California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman  (Federal Election Commission).  Since 1990 the oil and gas lobby have contributed over $190,000,000 to Republican candidates for the house and senate directly. This figure does not include 529 spending, funding for governors races, presidential campaigns or contributions to Political Action Committees and think tanks. It is important to note that this figure does not include any contributions from oil and gas pipeline companies which are deemed separate for reporting purposes or coal companies, which amount to an additional $75,000,000 to house and senate republicans.  Is there some correlation between the republican national committee’s position on climate change and these massive donations? Of course not that would be illegal. Obviously these donations are a result of the positions these carbon friendly candidates take due to the underwhelming quasi-scientific evidence that carbon is not bad for the environment.

In his January 4^th, 2005 speech, Senator James Inhofe, then the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works illustrates his command of the subject of climate change.

 ”Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns, said Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma (Inhofe).** 

**Simple fact checking reveals that during the 2004 election cycle the Environmental Lobby donated at total of $671,677 to all candidates combined (Open Secrets ) versus the more than $87,000,000 from the carbon barons to house and senate republicans alone.  In 2004 Senator Inhofe raised $4,273,456 from individuals and corporations who are directly tied to the carbon industry. It makes perfect sense for a lobby to spend 8.21% of its total lobbying budget for the entire 2004 election cycle on one Senators vote only if that one Senator happens to Chair the Senate Committee on the Environment, from where he can control the legislative agenda. During the 2008 election cycle with Senator Inhofe no longer the Chair but in the minority and serving as ranking member, his donations from the carbon lobby fell by 90% to $444,900 (Open Secrets ). Today’s climate change deniers and their media wing would have America believe that these facts are merely coincidence.  Now let’s examine the second prong of the three pronged carbon baron strategy to control the news and public opinion, the quasi-science.

The carbon baron’s first prong of identifying carbon friendly politicians would be transparent unless it was accompanied by a misinformation campaign. To accomplish their goal the carbon barons devised a two step system to first fund quasi-science that calls climate change into question, and then propagate its message.

The first phase funds the “science” while the second phase serves to reinforce the underlying pre-determined “scientific” message. Namely that global warming is not a threat, not caused by man, and not related in any way to the burning of fossil fuels. This message is amplified by conservative “think tanks” that generate climate change denying op-ed articles which quote the quasi-science reports as gospel and reason to doubt climate change is carbon related. This integrated strategy is designed to give the media wing “credible” source materials for their anti-climate change news reports while simultaneously providing the elected officials in their pockets something to hide behind other than the piles of the carbon baron’s cash.

From the CATO Institute to the Americans for Prosperity the conservative think tanks have editorials flying off the presses reinforcing carbon industry funded science. For each quasi-science report written literally dozens of editorial writers are pre-positioned to amplify the message. Some classic examples are the “Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy” by George Avery of the CATO Institute, and of course the ever quoted “What to Do about Climate Change” by Indur Goklany also of the CATO Institute. The first seeks to undermine hard science by pointing to the so called climate gate email scandal and was written by a medical doctor not a climatologist or even meteorologist. While Indur Goklany a statistician and insurance actuary, claims that the loss of 4 to 10% of land mass due to “alleged” rising oceans is not a serious threat to humanity because that land has little value.  Of course the merits of these reports would be arguable as neither has been peer reviewed as neither author’s peers write on these subjects, but it’s who they work for that really undermines their papers. The Cato Institute is hardly N.O.A.A. or the Academy of Sciences. 

 The CATO Institute was founded by the Koch brothers, as was the climate change denying group American’s for Prosperity. Who are the Koch brothers? Charles and David Koch are the new American carbon barons each is worth an estimated $17 billion and together they own the largest privately held oil company in the world with annual revenues in excess of $100 billion dollars. In 2008 the Koch brothers alone donated $20,000,000 to anti-climate change candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. The Koch family has a long and checked history in American political life, their father founded the racist arch conservative John Birch Society. Today the Koch’s along with Exxon Mobile are the largest funders of the climate change deniers (Bogardus).

     ”Although it is both a top campaign contributor and spends millions on direct lobbying, Koch’s chief political influence tool is a web of interconnected, right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups funded by foundations controlled and supported by the two Koch brothers.”-Center for Public Integrity (Bogardus).

Americans for Prosperity was established in 2004 by David Koch, who is Chairman of the Board of Directors of the AFP Foundation. For each of the three years, from 2005 through 2007, the Koch family foundations contributed more than $1 million to AFP. In 2008, the funding level doubled to $2 million (27% of AFP’s budget), bringing the total 2005-2008 contribution to $5.2 million. Information on Koch family contributions to the AFP 2009 budget is not yet available. In addition, several top level AFP staff are former Koch Industries or Koch Foundation employees; and the Koch brothers fund the placement of summer fellows and associates at AFP (DeMelle).    

     Unsatisfied by the scientific communities acceptance of the CATO and AFP “scientific works” the Koch brothers have established a new group The Heartland Institute, this institute is specifically charged with producing quasi-science to cloud the public’s perception of the “debate” on climate change. The group even holds an annual International Conference on Climate Change to give the “science” it produces more credibility; the keynote speaker at last year’s conference was none other than our old friend Senator James Inhofe.

     Beyond the “science” and think tank reports to gain traction with the general public the carbon barons needed a third prong, a way to fully integrate their comprehensive strategy. The answer was a vertical distribution platform that could reach the masses and a credible financial media group who would reinforce the economic policy of imported oil. Into the breach stepped the modern day version of William Randolph Hearst, Rupert Murdoch, and the Mayor of New York, billionaire financial information broker Michael Bloomberg. Murdoch long recognized as the modern day Hearst is the King of Tabloid journalism. The Koch’s and Bloomberg just happen to serve as board members on each other’s foundations and charities, along with Jeb Bush and a select few conservative political types. Murdoch and several of his NEWS CORP executives sit on the boards of multiple energy companies, and it just so happens that two former Exxon Mobile Chairmen are on the board of Murdoch’s company and foundation. Perhaps this is why Fox News Network is the leading purveyor of faux science and climate change denying punditry; Fox derives more advertising revenue from big oil and coal companies than all other networks combined (Media Matters). Obviously this is a coincidence as no news organization that describes itself as “Fair and balanced” would intentionally mislead the public on such a critical issue.

     As for Bloomberg his role is to provide credible “unbiased” economic perspective on the benefits of big oil and coal. Recently a Bloomberg columnist ran a series of articles denigrating the concept of energy independence from an economic perspective, citing the low costs of imported oil and the downside of not importing middle-eastern oil (Bassett). As the importation of oil accounts for two-thirds of our trade deficit and drains $1,000,000,000 a day from the United States, while creating no jobs how is this argument even plausible?  It’s not according to Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman who cites big oil as a threat to our economy and the planet as a whole. Dr. Krugman cites the scare tactics and greed of the carbon barons as the only rational to continue doing business as usual in his 2009 New York Times op-ed entitled Betraying the planet (Krugman).

     No recent administration was as friendly to the carbon barons and hostile to the environment as George W. Bush’s. George W. Bush’s Director of White House Counsel for Environmental Quality was former Koch Industry attorney Elizabeth Stolpe. Prior to being appointed by Bush, Stolpe was under investigation for directing Koch employee’s to dump toxins into the ground water in seven states, while she ran Koch’s environmental policy division, the charges were dropped suddenly when she accepted the policy job within the Bush Administration.

     What’s really at stake for the world and those who profit from the coordinated effort to hide the truth? Why all the subterfuge and misinformation to protect a system which is killing the planet? Why do we fuel international terrorism by transferring $1,000,000,000 a day to countries run by dictators who hate us? Why do we as a nation place our national security at risk by subjecting our economy to the whims of a powerful few carbon barons and kings?

     The answer is simple, it’s greed. Every day the few who benefit from what is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, insure that you know nothing about what is happening. According to production reports I have read the King of Saudi Arabia makes $240,000,000 per day as long as oil is above $70 a barrel. You will not find the King on the Forbes list of the World’s Richest People, he doesn’t want you to know that he makes $167,000 per minute, 24hours a day 7 days a week and more every year, all to destroy the planet. All that money while being guarded and secured by American military might. An absolute dictator, his regime routinely decapitates its citizens for minor offenses. His middlemen like the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobile Corp, are perhaps easier for us to understand. Last year Charles and David Koch brought in $2.1 billion each, for bringing you, the American consumer the oil and gas that you need. The average American family of four lives on $42,000 a year, it would take 50,000 years for the average American family to make what David made last year alone. Fifty-thousand years is nothing, to earn what the King of Saudi Arabia made it would take 2,085,610 years. In other words the King of Saudi Arabia made more than money last year than the entire population of New York City, all eight and one half million of them combined. Can you imagine winning a $240,000,000 Powerball jack pot every single day of your life? What would you do if you did win even once? The King is destroying the world one barrel of oil at a time. With his profits he educates over 300,000,000 students in fundamentalist Muslim schools, (CIA) in fact he has built every Islamic maddrassa in Pakistan and Africa. These are the same schools that turn out terrorists, not one at a time but by the hundreds. The fact is we the American people serve the King of Saudi Arabia. He has loaned us over $1 trillion dollars as he and his investment companies own over $1 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, and this is in addition to the estimated $1,700,000,000,000 in publicly traded securities he controls. His power is limitless his reach  global his politics not democratic and his schools create Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda members on a daily basis, he is our friend and ally. He must be because over the course of the past 25 years we the American people have spent over $2,000,000,000,000 defending him from his neighbors and enemies (Pentagon Quadrennial Defense Review).  I guess now you know why President Bush was holding his hand.

 While most of the world’s industrialized nations are modernizing agricultural production methods and encouraging through subsidies greater food crop production rather than the growth of feed stock for livestock, the Unites States is turning food into fuel for automobiles. Even today the Pentagon announced the test flight of an F18 fighter jet which will run on biofuels. While JP4, the current fuel of choice for high performance aircraft is $3.50 a gallon the new biofuels are only $36 a gallon, and require more energy to produce than they are capable of creating. Not only are the biofuels much more expensive but they have the added benefit of taking food from the mouths of starving people. Obviously this stance is unsustainable in the long run and undermines American national security by depriving our nation of the opportunity to aid the starving, thus winning the hearts and minds of a new generation. In addition to the ludicrous biofuels the U.S. Department of Agriculture still pays farmers not to grow crops, in the form of market subsidies to maintain lower food production. These actions and others like them leave the doors open to those who can and will use our actions rather than our words to define us.

Greed has been with humanity from the onset and remains part of the human condition. To address the issue of greed and the divisions it creates will require man to be aware, and the few will not allow awareness. The schools, churches, governments and social movements are all tools of the few to perpetuate the system which perpetuates their greed and power.

The most significant social issue facing the humankind in the 21^st century is the intentional division of the masses by the investor class.  The perpetuation of the myth that capitalism is good by the capitalist class is baffling. The message that somehow greed is beneficial to mankind is troubling. The evolution of modern society is being held hostage by special interests not only in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world but also in every 3^rd world dictatorship. These are the capitalists who bring you wars for another people’s resources, financial inequity to enrich each other and allow famine and epidemics to preserve the bottom line. For a dollar a share they will lay off 100,000 workers and ship the jobs to Mexico, and once Mexico becomes too expensive China and India. Beneath the surface of each and every issue one can raise as a potential social problem runs the current of greed. All the world’s social issues can be traced back to the affects and or byproducts of greed. More money for one means less for another, more food, more liberty, more control, more for one always means less for someone else. Resources are not unlimited the supply is always finite, and control of resources means less for most and much more for the few.

     The system exists to benefit the few and is perpetuated by those same few who control what you hear, what you see, what you think and what you learn. The game is rigged, sure you can form a fringe group and make noise but your message will not be heard, your voice will not be allowed to threaten the system which the few control. From time to time one of the few will stand up and point to a lesser issue and cry for your action to help, all designed to divert your attention. You are a pawn, a serf, a minion. As in Rome the masses are distracted by games and entertainment so they do not see the wool in front of their eyes. There is no movement to address the true inequity that unbridled capitalism creates because the few send you messages that you can one of them, just buy a lottery ticket, or work hard come up with the next big idea. The system insures that you’re happy being exploited alongside your friends at the country club, because they show you images of those who are far worse off. This myth of capitalism breads social injustice.  Speak out and be jailed challenge the system and be branded a traitor or simply led into the woods with a shovel to dig your own shallow grave accompanied by men who think they are one of the few, minions all.

1. Back in 1992, what prompted you to write your first book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit?
2. Mr. Vice President, are you certain that carbon dioxide is bad for the climate?
3. How can we be sure that the increased carbon dioxide comes from man’s actions and not nature?
4. Mr. Gore what do you say to those who claim global warming is not real and that you are trying to make money off of climate change regulations?
5. Do you think that it’s too late to stop climate change, and if it’s not when is that tipping point?
6. Mr. Vice President, when you were the Vice President you had access to classified national security briefings did climate change ever come into those conversations? And if so how did it and if not do you think that it should have?
7. The models of climate change that I have seen indicate that a large portion of the world’s crop growing regions will be adversely affected by global warming or climate change if you will, how do you see this development affecting our national security?
8. Being that my readers are from Arizona and the climate models predict long term droughts, how do you see climate change affecting the local economy in our state specifically and the southwest region in general?

10.  While many of my readers are informed and concerned about climate change what would you say to those who not only doubt climate change is caused by carbon emissions but that it is even occurring? Obviously you have faced these types of doubters before and what is the best way to get the climate change message out to those who are skeptical?

11.  Over the course of the past decade we have seen a dramatic increase in major hurricanes striking the US coast with Katrina being the worst in terms of damage caused economically. Do you see this as a long term trend and if so how can we as a nation prepare for this type of storm?

12.  Getting back to the national security angle, do you see the current troubles in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa as partially climate related? Having served in the region over the course of three decades myself there appears to be a greater demand for a more limited fresh water supply then when I first visited the region in 1985. Do you think there is a correlation between the rise of poverty and the lack of fresh water resources in the region with the growing fundamentalist terror networks we are facing in the “war on terror” and if so how can we address the issue?

13.  Mr. Vice President, much has been made of your role in the global warming “debate”. Obviously as a political figure many of your former opponents attack you, the messenger, as a way of discrediting your position on carbon emissions and the impact that carbon has on global climate change. Do you think that these critics believe what they say or are they merely paid spokesmen for the oil and gas industry and the other carbon dealers?  How do you win an intellectually honest debate with dishonest people?

14.   The Worst can scenario Mr. Vice President what is it, and can it be prevented if we continue to postpone the implementation of a global carbon initiative?

15.  Given the massive amounts of carbon stored in the permafrost and tundra is it possible that we have already reached a point of no return and that the planet is no longer capable restoring the natural balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? If this is the case what would the result be over the course of the next few decades?

16.   Mr. Vice President your non-profit organization is a partner in the Repower America movement with T. Boone Pickens, how it is possible to create economic growth and cap our carbon emissions simultaneously? Who do you think is paying for the conservative think tank commercials which are intended to undermine this initiative?  

17.  Obviously the coal, gas and oil industry’s are determined to continue business as usual and appear to be engaged in a concerted effort to re-start the climate change debate, how do you think the history books will judge these men and the companies they run?

18.  Beyond the economic opportunity that you see in the carbon trading industry and alternative energy fields where do you see new opportunities for job growth in the 21^st century? And if you were a college student today what field of study would you pursue?

19.  Mr. Vice President if you would close your eyes and envision the 22^nd century what do you see?

20.  Given the magnitude of the climate crisis we are facing and your current role, can you foresee an event that would trigger your return to public service? Given the inaction of our current administration and the prior administrations rolling back of important environmental regulations this surely has occurred to you. So might a time come when we see Al Gore running for President in the future or do you feel that you can accomplish more from outside the system?

The power outages were infrequent in the beginning then the scheduled rolling blackouts began in 2014 and the people of Phoenix became alarmed. By 2018 more than three million refugees had fled Arizona.  For years the warning signs had been ignored, or simply wished away. Over the course of two decades the Colorado River had disappeared and so in the course of a year did the Nation’s fourth largest city. The once booming metropolis has become a ghost town, reclaimed by the desert while political operatives continued to argue the facts of global warming on behalf of the pollution industry.

       While the introduction may seem implausible, the fact is we have quietly passed the tipping point in the desert southwest. Life as we know it is about to change forever. As a region the desert southwest relies on snow melt for nearly all of its water supply. Fed by annual Rocky Mountain snow melts the Colorado River is the life blood of this otherwise arid region. According to recent reports (Christensen) the Colorado is no longer capable of supporting the annual demands we have placed on it. As the Colorado River System provides nearly all of our water, 20% of Arizona’s electricity and a whopping 13% of the nation’s food supply, the systems death will be truly catastrophic (Imperial County Farm Bureau). 

        The construction of Hoover Dam in the 1930’s harnessed the mighty Colorado and brought prosperity and development to the desert southwest. The rapid growth of the region led to the expansion of the Colorado River basins management via the addition of the Glen Canyon Dam which created Lake Powell in the 1960’s. Today the two dams, Hoover and Glen Canyon generate hydroelectric power which is sent as far away as Los Angeles and provides clean renewable energy to millions of people. This power production will end in less than 10 years according to a recent study (Barnett and Pierce), as what were once the world’s largest man made reservoirs Lake Mead and Lake Powell, disappear. What is behind this looming crisis? Global warming and the reduced snow pack it creates. The reduction in snow fall in the Colorado River Basin including Arizona have already reduced Lake Mead to 43% of its capacity down from 51% only a year ago, at the current rate of decline the lake will not be able to meet the requirements of the Imperial Valley growers in 5 years. The farms and ranches of the Imperial Valley currently grow 13% of the national food supply 100% of the water supply for these farms comes from the Colorado River. Reports say this entire area will revert to desert by 2021 (Kunzig).

       We have a crisis on our hands, created by global warming. Many continue to doubt against all scientific data that Co2 creates a warming of the atmosphere, or that man has an impact on Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The science says otherwise. Ice cores taken from both Polar Regions give us accurate readings of atmospheric conditions over the past 21000 years by using a spectrometer to analyze the ices composition.  According to Environmental Engineering Professor Victor Ponce of San Diego State University, the rate of change in the Co2 content of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began is 100 times the historical average. From the beginning of mans use of agriculture 10,000 years ago until 1900 the average increase of Co2 in the atmosphere was 0.00478 parts per million, from 1900 to 1959 the average increase had risen to .44 parts per million per year. Since 1959, the average increase has accelerated to an average of 1.42 parts per million per year.  Effectively we have added more Co2 into the atmosphere more over the last 50 years then was added in the preceding 10,000 years combined!  (Ponce) What could account for this rapid growth in atmospheric Co2 levels? Man’s use of fossil fuels, the rapid deforestation of the planet and the explosion in human population are the only three variables in the equation. The rapid rise in Co2 levels corresponds with the rise in global temperatures, or if you believe industry lobbyists it’s merely a coincidence, in fact they would have you believe Co2 is good for you.

      Arizona sits on the front line in the global warming debate we are after all sitting in the center of one of the world’s great deserts. Yet over the past two decades we have grown our Co2 emissions by more than any other state in the nation a staggering 61% (McKinnon). Six of our state’s largest power plants burn coal these plants are responsible for 56% of the total Co2 emissions. The local population consistently mocks environmental news as propaganda blissfully ignorant they continue to build golf courses and plant winter lawns as if they lived in the Midwest. Arizonan’s deal with global warming by lowering the temperature on the air conditioners, or jumping in their pools. What will they do when the pools are dry and the water stops flowing?  According to Charlie Ester, water resources manager for the Salt River Project, “we are going to hurt, or move”. Ester runs the series of 6 dams on the Salt and Verde River basins which supply two thirds of the water required by the City of Phoenix and its suburbs (Kunzig). Many Arizona’s believe falsely that the Salt and Verde River systems make them immune from the drying up of the Colorado River. Researchers using tree ring dating have identified an 800 year pattern of direct correlation between the Colorado and Salt and Verde River systems. The study proved that if the Colorado goes dry so too will the Salt and Verde (Kunzig). What happens then?

     The power outages were infrequent in the beginning then the scheduled rolling blackouts began in 2014 and the people of Phoenix became alarmed. By 2018 more than three million refugees had fled Arizona.  For years the warning signs had been ignored, or simply wished away. Over the course of two decades the Colorado River had disappeared and so in the course of a year did the Nation’s fourth largest city. Yet the debate raged on, does Co2 cause climate change, is global warming real?

     The water wars are next, today 40% of the world’s population is affected by a water war they are small in scale but like the one raging in Darfur, once they start they will are devastating to humanity. While today we American’s fight for and defend our access to oil, in the near future this will shift to water. Like our ancestors we will fight for access to the water hole, rather than spears and stones we will use missiles, robotic drones and Special Forces soldiers.

     “Water, thou hast no taste, no color, no odor; canst not be defined, art relished while ever mysterious. Not necessary to life, but rather life itself … Of the riches that exist in the world, thou art the rarest and also the most delicate thou so pure within the bowels of the earth!”. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

     We have come a long way since the 18th century from a media stand point no longer is the media merely the printing press with movable type. In the 21st century we have print, television, radio, movies and the internet screaming at us 24hrs a day. We live in an age where a slow speed car chase occurring thousands of miles away masquerades as breaking news. Beamed via billion dollar telecommunications satellites to your television, several experts offer a running commentary of the irrelevant event taking place half a world away. Today’s news and media coverage of world events is fast if nothing else, I mean if a cat is stuck in a tree in central Ohio we will know about it before lunch and before dinner we will have heard from the cats owner, seen the cat’s kittens and heard experts from the ASPCA and Arbor Society debate the value and safety of possible extraction methods.

     Meanwhile, on the other side of the world one hundred US and international firebases in Afghanistan have come under intense attack from the Taliban, and in Washington a billionaire CEO of the world’s largest corporation has a senator put an earmark in a spending bill building him a bridge at tax payer expense. (Shah)So who decides what is news and why that darn cat is so important while my friends and your tax dollars aren’t? The media of course, but who are the media exactly and what incentive would they have to steer you away from the real story of the day and onto the poor cat stuck in a tree. The media today are not the hundreds of radio and television stations or the thousands of internet sites or even the production companies who make movies, the media today are in fact only nine international conglomerates, these nine multinationals are not in the news business they are in business period. The boards of directors of these nine multinationals are populated with CEO’s of the worlds other great multinationals, not Walter Cronkite. Firms like Exxon Mobile, General Electric, Microsoft, Archer Daniels Midland and Boeing determine what you see and hear.

      In today’s world the classic “Common Sense” would not get a second look at any publishing house, not because they don’t want to publish it, because they can’t, they can’t because of the economics of the marketplace and the ownerships ties to the political powers that ensure their continued monopoly and utter domination of the media. The advertisers cannot be upset, no marketing executive want his or her commercials running after a news story which contains video of US Soldiers being dragged through the streets of Kandahar, so we simply don’t see it. A free press no longer exists in American life, free being the operative word. Opinion pieces are driven by one side of the argument or the other even “factual” reporting is tainted by high powered commercial enterprises in today’s media world. True media and news objectivity no longer exists. Richard Nixon would never have been impeached had he been president within today’s media environment, want proof look at the actions of the last president. Yet, the people are unaware as the media runs headlong in search of the next “cat in a tree” or Britney Spears story under the guise of breaking news. The commercial enterprise that is today’s media is simply that a commercial enterprise. News is a profit center not a public service ,attack the messenger has been replaced by purchase the messenger and shape the news to make your advertisers happy.

Works Cited Shah, Anup. Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership. 2nd January 2009. 6th November 2009 .

How is this accomplished?

Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden and his hired muscle,  Mullah Omar of the Taliban are conducting total war in Afghanistan as we speak. The Taliban on paper are not an overwhelming force by any means in fact if the Taliban were to field its entire fighting force for one set piece battle in classic western style the war in Afghanistan would be over in a matter of hours not days, weeks or years, which is exactly why it will not happen. Total war is warfare at is purest, it is the type of warfare we have not seen in the west since Sherman’s March, if you discount Curtis Lemays bombing strategy during World War II. In total war, no distinction is made between combatant and civilian, no resource is to be left to the enemy, no supplies, no water, no food and no population to reinforce his ranks. In total warfare, the tax base of a nation is just as likely a target as its tank or soldier, because the tax base pays for the tank and  the soldier, so total war recognizes that wrecking a country’s economy impares its ability to conduct a war against you. The more open the nation state’s economy the more peril it faces in total war. Going all in so to speak.

The stated goal of Osama bin Laden in 2001 was to bring the United States to its knees by bleeding it dry, not in terms of lives but in terms of money. Osama and his Taliban allies are of the opinion that the Soviet Union fell not because of Ronald Reagan’s speeches and military spending but because of the war in Afghanistan, and many economists agree that the overwhelming burden on the Soviet economy the Afghan Campaign coupled with the effective undermining of Soviet morale by the Mujahadin’s willingness to die, Radio Free Europe and the stinger missiles provided by the USA were larger causes of the collapse then Reagan’s rhetorical attacks.

Living with constant warfare from the moment of birth the typical Taliban fighter is less than 25 years old,  a local member of a Pashtun Tribe, his family has lived in the same village for 500 to 1300 years, to say he knows the territory is an understatement, he fights side by side with his brother and father, uncle and cousins, a high esprit de corp and unit cohesion through cohorting units are modus operandi for the Taliban.  The history of the Pashtun people is one of constant turmoil, and violence. Like in Vietnam the local people either harbor the guerilla fighters or die a quick death by summary execution for consorting with the enemy, so most will either support them openly or under the table based on the proximity to US forces. Sure some of our NATO allies are effective but look a the recent news that the Italian forces were paying the Taliban not to attack them, and when the Italians were replaced by the French in that sector the Italian Commander didn’t bother to inform the French of this fact. The result, eight french soldiers killed in one attack. So not only were the local people supporting the Taliban so were the Italians!

So you think you still want to fight in Afghanistan, and by that I mean you want someone else to fight in Afghanistan not you or your kids. But you do want the US Flag carried into the fight, but you don’t want to pay more in taxes? Ok, so let’s get this straight, the US Forces are engaged in a War which is now longer then our involvement in WWI and WWII combined, and you won’t go, and your kids aren’t going, who is fighting this war and more importantly who exactly is paying for it?

Now back to the Taliban, they are going all in this hand, all the chips are on the table. They are all fighting, if they can walk they fight, if they can’t fight they pitch in with everything they have, and I mean everything. Meanwhile back at the ranch, you’re watching the NFL on tv and complaining about your taxes, which are the lowest they have ever been in the history of the country while we were at war! But you want your neighbor to send his ass and his kids asses over to fight for you. Hell you might even say that the Hollywood anti war types are doing more for this effort then you are, and they are. They are paying more in taxes, and they are going over on USO tours to entertain our guys. Remember, if there is one thing the Army learned from Vietnam it wasn’t that you can’t fight local guerillas with popular support it was don’t let the media see what the hell is going on and do not under any circumstances draft people, those two things make the public pay attention to what you’re doing ten thousand miles away. If on the other hand you control the media (embedding) and you ask for all volunteer’s, don’t raise taxes then you can do whatever you want and the American people will not even question it. So here we are at the poker table of life and death that is modern warfare, sitting across from a professional poker player who is not only holding all the cards, he’s dealing em. He has all his chips on the table, his is all in, and he hasn’t even told us the rules of the game. We are looking at our cards, and think it’s a good hand but then again we don’t even know the rules of the game. Gee I am sure glad it’s not me, or my money at that table because that doesn’t sound fair at all.

So Mr. President, feel free to go all in after the hand is dealt just remember that the rules in war are made up as you go along, and that the chips are mens lives and the stakes couldn’t be higher, at least for the few chips we have in the game.  Sure you were dealt a bad hand by the prior administration who left Afghanistan in a hurry to get into a high stakes oil game in Iraq but you can’t blame them anymore. Mullah Omar and his boys will be back in the spring time with a vengeance, and the game they are playing is total war. Don’t even mention the fact that the Pakistani Army is pushing the Taliban for the first time, if you believe that Mr. President your more of a fool then the people at Fox News make you out to be.