How Fossil Fuels and Slavery May Be Strange Bedfellows

[wtmusic]

"Parallels in reactionary argumentation in the US congressional debates on the abolition of slavery and the Kyoto Protocol

Today, the United States is as dependent on fossil fuels for its patterns of consumption and production as its South was on slavery in the mid-nineteenth century. That US congressmen tend to rationalise fossil fuel use despite climate risks to future generations just as Southern congressmen rationalised slavery despite ideals of equality is perhaps unsurprising, then. This article explores similarities between the rationalisation of slavery in the abolition debates and the rationalisation of ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases in the US congressional debates on the Kyoto Protocol.

<>

2 Similarities between slavery and the use of fossil fuels
3 Reactionary rhetoric
3.1 What is deemed bad is in fact good
3.2 The benefits of the proposed policy are uncertain
3.3 Change brings economic ruin
3.4 Solo action will be ineffective and unfair
3.5 Sovereignty
3.6 Social change will hit other groups
4 Conclusions"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5021x4506k0r622/

A fascinating comparison, which has applications to a wide range of political debate.