Name Storms After Oil Companies -- They're The Ones Most Responsible For Climate Change
By Bill McKibben
Source: New York Daily News
Thursday, November 01, 2012
As gutsy New Yorkers begin the task of drying out the city, here’s one thought that occurred to me last night watching the horrifying pictures from a distance. It’s obviously not crucial right now — but in the long run it might make a difference. Why don’t we stop naming these storms for people, and start naming them after oil companies?
Global warming didn’t “cause” this hurricane, of course — hurricanes are caused when a tropical wave washes off the coast of Africa and begins to spin in the far Atlantic. But this storm rode ocean waters five degrees warmer than normal, so it’s no great shock that it turned into a monster. By the time it hit land, it had smashed every record for the lowest barometric pressure, and the largest wind field.
Most of its damage, of course, came from the savage storm surge, washing over the Rockaways, into the Holland Tunnel. It was astonishing to watch on TV as the Lower East Side became a part of the East River. And one reason that surge was so high? The sea level in New York harbor has gone up a foot as the climate has warmed. Sandy had a big head start on flooding out the city.
The fossil fuel companies have played the biggest role in making sure we don’t slow global warming down. They’ve funded climate denial propagandists and helped pack Congress with anti-environmental extremists, making sure that common sense steps to move toward renewable energy never happen. So maybe it’s only right that we should honor their efforts by naming storms for them from now on. At the very least it’s fun to imagine the newscasters: “Exxon is coming ashore across New Jersey, leaving havoc in her wake.” “Chevron forces evacuation of 375,000.”...........
http://www.zcommunications.org/name-storms-after-oil-companies-theyre-the-ones-most-responsible-for-climate-change-by-bill-mckibben
= new reply since forum marked as read
Good idea! 
This involves abandoning infinite growth in a finite world, and thereby, global economic & technological decline. I do not think the ordinary citizen would choose this, and certainly not when there is no leadership suggesting it as a viable alternative to infinite growth & exploitation.
Decline doesn't have to be a "bad" thing, but it most surely will be if its not planned for.
I am disgusted with climate deniers, but I am also outright annoyed with the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too green movement, who thinks that we can maintain our current standard of living and grow endlessly using cleaner energy ("cornicopiasts"
. Perhaps if the thorium reactor ever pans out, but then you still have resource exploitation and encroachment upon natural habitats.
I think we need to get real already. No one industry caused this. Civilization did and drives it forward, but how many are really pointing their fingers there? Instead, this energy shell game we practice is rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic (sorry for the cliche).
Thanks for the thread, polly. 
