Question by mission_viejo_california: Who still believes International Warming is triggered by man?
International warming ethics, pork and profits
By Paul Driessen
internet posted February 12, 2007
The ink has barely dried on its new code of conduct, and already Congress is redefining ethics and pork to fit a global warming agenda. As Will Rogers observed, “with Congress, every time they make a joke, it is a law. And every time they make a law, it really is a joke.”
However, life-altering, economy-wrecking climate bills are no laughing matter. That’s why we want to recognize that the Kyoto Protocol and proposed “climate protection” laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 is to blame. It’s why we should acknowledge that money to be created, and power to be gained, from climate alarmism and symbolism is a major purpose so several are finding on the climate “consensus” bandwagon.
In accusing ExxonMobil of giving “more than $ 19 million considering that the late 1990s” to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust “denial,” Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered each the donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Modify alone more than the exact same period. It’s a pittance compared to what US environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scare stories.
It amounts to 30 cents for each $ 1,000 that the US, EU and UN spent since 1993 (some $ 80 billion all together) on global warming catastrophe study. And it ignores the truth that the Exxon grants also supported malaria control, Third World economic improvement and several other efforts.
Aside from honest, if unfounded, fears of climate disasters, why may other individuals assistance climate alarmism?
Scientists who use climate change to clarify environmental adjustments increase their chances of finding investigation grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that spending budget a whopping $ 6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also enhance the likelihood of finding headlines and quotes in news stories: “Climate alter threatens extinction of uncommon frogs, scientist says.” Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines and quotes.
Politicians get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with activists who can assistance reelection campaigns and greater aspirations, magically transform $ 14-billion in option power pork into ethical planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise serious eyebrows.
Corporate actions that cause even one death are dealt with severely but praise is heaped on federal mileage standards that trigger hundreds of deaths, as automobiles are downsized and plasticized to save fuel and decrease emissions. High power costs are denounced at congressional hearings, if due to industry forces – but praised if imposed by government “to stop climate adjust.” Drilling in the Arctic or off our coasts is condemned, even to generate jobs, tax revenues and enhanced security but subsidizing wind power to produce two% of our electricity is lauded, even if giant turbines despoil millions of acres and kill millions of birds.
Alarmist rhetoric has also redefined corporate social responsibility, developed the Climate Action Partnership and launched the emerging Enviro-Industrial Complicated.
Environmental activists have turned climate fears into productive fund-raising tools – and a brilliant technique for achieving their dream of controlling international resource use, technological modify and economic development, by way of laws, treaties, regulations and pressure campaigns. Current developments promise to supercharge these efforts.
Environmental Defense is collaborating with Morgan Stanley, to promote emission trading systems and other climate modify initiatives – giving ED direct monetary and policy stakes in the banking, investment and political arenas, and in any carbon allowance or cap-and-trade programs Congress may well enact. Other environmental groups, organizations and Wall Street firms will no doubt adhere to their lead.
ED designed and led the disingenuous campaign that persuaded several healthcare agencies to ban DDT, resulting in millions of deaths from malaria. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, ED and other groups nevertheless post deceitful claims about DDT on their internet sites, further delaying progress against this killer illness. By blaming climate change for malaria, they deflect criticism for their vile actions.
Climate catastrophe claims enable activists to obtain official advisory status with companies and governments on environmental concerns. They also make it “ethical” for Rainforest Action Network and other pressure groups to oppose power generation in Third Globe nations, where handful of have access to electrical energy – and thereby keep communities perpetually impoverished.
Meanwhile, Prince Charles gets lionized for appropriating 62 1st class jetliner seats for his entourage of 20, on a trans-Atlantic trip to obtain an environmental prize and lecture Americans on saving the Earth – because at least he didn’t use his private jet.
Companies in the CAP and EIC can create and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to acquire competitive benefits. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove therapy from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate chaos skeptics.
Some worry that this could grow to be a license to further redefine corporate ethics, present self-interest as planet-saving altruism, and profit from questionable arrangements with environmental groups and Congress. Definitely, cap-and-trade rules will generate useful property rights and reward organizations that reduce CO2 emissions, frequently by replacing old, inefficient, high-polluting plants that they want to retire anyway.
DuPont and BP will get funds for biofuels, GE for its portfolio of climate protection gear, ADM for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading and other deals. Environmental activists will be in a position to influence corporate, state and federal policy, and rake in nevertheless a lot more cash. Insurance firms can blame international warming for rate increases and coverage denials.
Lobbying and deal-brokering will enter a new era. As Thenardier the innkeeper observed in Les Miserables, “When it comes to fixing costs, there are lots of tricks he knows. Jees, it’s just amazing how it grows.” Indeed, the opportunities to “game the program” will be limited only by one’s “eco-magination.”
To determine the losers, look in the mirror. Activists and politicians are generating a Frankenstein climate monster on steroids. Had been it genuine, we’d need to have to dismantle our economy and living standards to slay the beast. How else could we eradicate 80–90% of US and EU fossil fuel emissions by 2050, to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and (theoretically) a climate that has often been anything but stable?
Assume lifestyles circa 1900, or earlier. Ponder the British environment minister’s most recent prescription: Globe War II rationing, no meat or cheese, restrictions on air travel, no veggies that are not grown locally. France desires a new government agency that would single out, police and penalize countries that “abuse the Earth.” Other individuals want to put little solar panels on African huts, whilst kleptocratic dictators get millions of dollars for trading away their people’s appropriate to produce electrical energy and emit CO2.
We must enhance power efficiency, decrease pollution, and develop new power technologies. But when we demand immediate action to avoid exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad via programs that do not work, develop enough pork to fill 50 Chicago stockyards, and impose horrendous unintended consequences on numerous families. That is shortsighted and immoral.
Very best answer:
Answer by ♥Reids girl♥
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Comments are closed.