Could it not be considered corrupt to promote nuclear power, when radioactive waste accumulates from such power generation, and when there is no provision for disposing of that waste? Consider that it is known to the decision-makers that the radioactive half-life of such waste is many, many generations. Consider that, even if a truly safe method of storage is identified (which it has not), that the volume would eventually overload any such safe storage. Consider that it might be even more corrupt to promote nuclear power if the real reason for promoting nuclear power is for the express purpose of producing such waste so that some of it can be reprocessed into weapons-grade plutonium.

Even if it is presently unavoidable to use some irreplaceable fossil-fuel in the present, is it not corrupt to actually promote greater and greater use, when it is possible to pursue alternative sources of energy? (I can think of two reasons to draw only lightly at any given time upon our finite supply of fossil fuels. One reason is that, for the foreseeable future, we may need them as emergency or supplementary sources of energy. Another reason for using fossil fuels very lightly in any given era is that the use creates large amounts of harmful gases, pollutants, and residue.) Agreed, that all energy is solar energy. Some is animal and vegetable matter created and nourished indirectly by solar power, and stored beneath the ground. This is essentially irreplaceable, unless someone finds a way to compress millions of years into tens. Geothermal energy is solar energy even more indirectly. It may seem inexhaustible, but it is not replaceable, and it is unknown how much use will unbalance some part of the physical system of which we are all a part. The radiation of the sun is, of course, solar energy by direct definition. The movement of air is caused by solar energy, so wind energy is solar energy by only one step of removal. The movements of ocean currents, if not actual tides, could be considered solar in origin also. To the best of our knowledge, using direct solar power or wind power or ocean currents do not deplete the source or unbalance any part of our delicate system.

Could it not be considered corrupt to cancel or delay economy requirements for internal-combustion engines, merely to promote the short-run profits of the petroleum industry and avoid inconveniencing the auto industry?

Could it not be considered corrupt knowingly to deplete an aquifer underlying a semi-arid region by pumping from that aquifer, well beyond the recharge rate, for irrigating water-intensive crops? The mere fact that such a practice is generally approved, very profitable, and quite legal does not relieve the decision-maker of responsibility.

Could it not be considered corrupt to repeal or neutralize environmental protections, or protections for endangered species, in deference to favored corporations or groups? Could it not be egregious corruption to appoint as heads of protective agencies individuals who are hostile to the missions of the agencies they are appointed to lead, and to give them a secret mandate to undermine the functions of those agencies?

Could it not be considered corrupt knowingly to promote an economic system that requires (arguably) 5% growth per year in order not to collapse upon itself, when it is also known that the economic system must be contained within a finite framework? Is it not corrupt for decision-makers to agree to dismiss the idea of sustainability as a mere quaint notion? Such a pyramid scheme (and this is the mother of all pyramid schemes) makes that of Bernard Madoff seem minuscule.

Could it not be considered corrupt to precipitate a “pre-emptive” war, for whatever unrevealed reason, by swaying the public with false reasons?

I challenge you to complete the list for yourselves, or to construct your own from scratch.