Hurricane Exxon

The other day, I received a link to this video, which suggests that we stop naming hurricanes after the hapless Sandys and Katrinas of this country and start naming them after politicians who deny the science of climate change. The video is professionally done; you may enjoy it.

My first thought was that this idea had been partially stolen from environmentalist Bill McKibben, who suggested that we name hurricanes after energy corporations, but the video actually predates McKibben's article. However, I think McKibben's suggestion has more merit.

Liberal pundits such as Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow enjoy making fun of conservative politicians, including these climate change deniers. But in addition to wasting time that would be better spent analyzing real issues, their ridicule leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. It feels a bit like picking on the mentally retarded. If we're going to name hurricanes after politicians, maybe we should choose Democrats like Barack Obama, who are fully aware of the threat that climate change poses to human survival, yet continue to do almost nothing about it.

A social psychologist would say that “The Climate Name Change” commits the fundamental attribution error, which refers to the widespread tendency to overestimate the significance of personal traits as causes of behavior and to underestimate the importance of the environment or social situation. For example, we might exaggerate the extent to which Senator Imhofe's statements about climate change are due to lack of intelligence, while overlooking the role of the political culture of Oklahoma, largely controlled by fossil fuel companies.

We live in a political system characterized by what Lessig calls dependence corruption. Our politicians are embedded in a network of obligations to powerful moneyed interests that systematically distort their judgments. They are immersed in what anthropologists call a gift economy in which favors are exchanged, but without any explicit agreement to do so. These favors include campaign contributions and other rewards dispensed by corporate lobbyists. Equally important are threats, such as the implicit threat that a “corporate person” will use its financial power to defeat them in the next primary or election. Dependence corruption makes our politicians largely interchangeable. While not free of blame, they're only doing what they have to do to survive under corporate rule. Should any of them decide to stand up to the plutocrats, the powerful will find new servants to take their place.

Under these circumstances, it's probably unrealistic to expect meaningful changes in our climate policy. McKibben's article has the advantage of placing the responsibility closer to where it actually belongs. Reversing climate change will not just require replacing a few Congresspeople, but replacing our prevailing economic and political system. If we fail, human extinction awaits.

You may also be interested in reading:

Public Getting Warmer

Whose Opinion Matters?

What the Data Say