The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on a barnstorming tour, holding a series of innocuously-named "State Climate Dialogues." While the promotional materials sound forward-looking -- conservation, clean energy, efficient technology -- make no mistake about the purpose of the events. The national chamber is trying to derail the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act or any other legislation that puts a price on greenhouse-gas emissions.
How's the tour being received so far? Not so well:
Claims of dramatic job losses and rising prices for consumers were quickly dismissed by environmentalists, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's office, Montana economists, and others. Those forecasts fail to account for new technology and emerging economies that will reduce carbon emissions and keep Montana's economy humming.
"It's fake and it's not realistic," Eric Stern, senior counselor to Gov. Brian Schweitzer, said of the industry forecast. "There is a clean-energy future, and Montana sits at the center of that."
...
In the audience, former Billings Mayor Chuck Tooley, who began offering public presentations on climate change and the need for action two years ago, said he was taken aback.
"He's from upside-down land," Tooley said of ["Frontiers of Freedom" President George] Landrith. "I wasn't sure if he was serious or not."
As oil prices top $109 a barrel, it's quite an odd time to make the case that climate action will destroy our economy:
As the rising cost of crude oil trickles down to the gasoline pump, fuel prices are siphoning cash away from other consumer spending, making it harder to revive the flagging U.S. economy and putting pressure on the Bush administration. It also siphoned more money out of the country: The Commerce Department reported today that the U.S. trade deficit jumped in January to $58.2 billion, compared to $57.9 billion in December, as a record, $27.1 billion monthly bill for imported crude helped offset an increase in U.S. exports.
Yet continued reliance on fossil fuels is exactly what opponents of climate action are pitching as a crutch for our economy. I heard all about it at the recent Heartland Institute's "2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York City. I couldn't help but feel terribly depressed by the worldview presented there. Bleak doesn't begin to describe their outlook on our future.
Despite wildly varying views on whether our climate is changing or if we're to blame, every speaker agreed on several points: renewables can never meet more than a tiny fraction of our energy needs; carbon emissions must not be regulated; explosive growth in global fossil fuel use is a sign of progress.
So for all the pictures of children running through flowers displayed in the exhibit hall, if you take the Heartland Institute's philosophy to its logical conclusion, humanity is helpless before the two possible paths ahead of it:
- Stay dependent on fossil fuels forever, and
- Carbon constraints will destroy civilization as we know it.
Self-styled "global warming expert" Christopher Monckton lays it out for us:
If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the world's poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has even created a video version of Monckton's vision, featuring children shivering in the cold.
The national chamber's effort to derail the Climate Security Act displays the disconnect between what's happening locally across the country and the lobbying machines inside Washington, D.C. On top of the vast clean energy opportunities, local chambers have a vested interest in protecting sporting and wildlife-watching tourism opportunities. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, spending related to wildlife-related recreation totaled $120 billion nationally in 2006 -- fully one percent of the nation's gross domestic product. And nationwide, over 800 cities have signed on to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
All that means is that as it continues its "State Climate Dialogues," the national chamber may not like what it hears.
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Flat
Russ Posted 8:10 pm
22 Mar 2008
The stark fact is that civilization is currently unsustainable, and we face a choice:
-We can rationally effect a transition to a sustainable economy based on renewable energy and lower impacts all around. It'll certainly be difficult to do this, and there will be plenty of sacrifices. It will certainly no longer be possible for the greedy to follow their bliss wherever it leads. (I think this is what is most terrible to those who preach denial. They reveal themselves as simply existentially greedy, as congenitally unable to envision the world in any other way. They apparently could never live any other way.)
But doing this we can build a sustainable world where everyone has Enough.
(By the way, in the current world everyone does not have enough. In this world, so perfect to chamber of commerce types, there are plenty of "children shivering in the cold".)
The other option:
-Listen to the lies, do nothing, business as usual, everything hums along, la de da....until civilization goes off a cliff. I don't know what form the collapse will take, but it's likely to be abrupt and catastrophic, and then man will just have to try to cobble things together. Who knows how or even if he'll be able to recover some semblance of well-being, or just dwindle...
This is what I believe is at stake here, right at this moment, indeed for a long time now. And that's WHO I believe we're up against, what they're trying to drag us into.
So far, they're winning.
Permalink
NiraliSherni Posted 9:08 pm
22 Mar 2008
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 9:36 pm
22 Mar 2008
Maybe it's just the "don't feed the troll" principle. Nobody really gives a damn what is said on Gristmill. What's important is money. Money buys power, as the coal industry well knows in donating to Presidential candidates.
The stark fact is that civilization is currently unsustainable, and we face a choice:
-We can rationally effect a transition to a sustainable economy based on renewable energy and lower impacts all around. It'll certainly be difficult to do this, and there will be plenty of sacrifices. It will certainly no longer be possible for the greedy to follow their bliss wherever it leads.
The existence of cities has given most of humanity a choice: live a high-consumption lifestyle, or sit out in the slums without an economic future. So people pursue the mass suicide of consumer society in order to avoid the sort of humiliation and pain that individual adherence to principle would get them. Never mind that the principle they would be following would be one of "let's have a future!" Greed pays the rent.
-Listen to the lies, do nothing, business as usual, everything hums along, la de da....until civilization goes off a cliff. I don't know what form the collapse will take, but it's likely to be abrupt and catastrophic, and then man will just have to try to cobble things together. Who knows how or even if he'll be able to recover some semblance of well-being, or just dwindle...
It's not really like world society is doing nothing -- it is, after all, burning 85 million bbls./ day of crude oil, accounting for only 36% of the total of greenhouse gases, while bringing dozens of new coal-fired plants on line...
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 9:46 pm
22 Mar 2008
Bring back the streetcars. Give the suburbs to the organic farmers.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:57 pm
22 Mar 2008
Explain this Chamberoids.
Look at what environmental degradation has cost.
Still think efforts to shift human activity to cooperate with nature, rather than fight it, are too expensive?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:21 am
23 Mar 2008
For capitalists, not being able to exploit the natural world to depletion and death is an opportunity cost.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
bigTom Posted 2:50 am
23 Mar 2008
"If you don't let us eat the seed corn, children will go to bed hungrey tonight!"
Or if you don't let us cut the last old growth forest, lumbermills will close.....
The problem with all unsustainable endeavors is that it is hard to stop in time.
Permalink
GHarri Posted 3:24 am
23 Mar 2008
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1& ...
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:08 am
23 Mar 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:22 am
23 Mar 2008
There are now 6 Billion people on this planet.
The largest percent of that number owe their existence to Global Warming.
The warming that occurred after 1830 has driven productivity to all time highs. Human science and engineering of the 21st century would not have been possible except for the warming.
Oh, there were some side effects, like CO2 from melting tundra, but the natural feedback mechanisms of the atmosphere prevent it from causing harm.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:07 pm
23 Mar 2008
That's like sayin' that Doberman dogs owe their existence to England's tax system.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:16 am
24 Mar 2008
Yes, and while most think it's due to genetic engineering, an equal argument could be made that it's due to increased sunshine, warmer weather and a longer growing season. In the same way I would also argue that global warming is more responsible for the decrease in diseases such as smallpox than any vaccine.
Dobermans? Not sure what the parallel is...
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:38 am
24 Mar 2008
The Doberman was originally a cross-breed created by a tax collector in England called Dober who used the dogs to protect himself since he was bein' attacked by angry peasants who were upset over his high assesments and collections.
Did the economic system lead to the creation of the Doberman? Yes, in a round-'bout way, but there were also many other factors involved. The specific person, the specific people he was collectin' taxes from, the economic factors of the specific area, not to mention the health and genetics of the dogs originally used for the cross-breed and the home environment they grew up in.
In the same way, yes rising temperatures after the last major ice age lead to an increase in agricultural production, but there were many other factors as well.
Genetic enegineering is one, but more importantly were improvements in farming techniques, mechanization, introduction of new crops from foreign locations, globalized trade of foodstuffs, irrigation, and (sometimes with unfortunate side effects) new means of fertilizer and pest control.
Temperature change was a big part of it, but by no means was the sole, or even the largest, reason for the explosion in agricultural production.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 8:20 am
24 Mar 2008
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:17 pm
24 Mar 2008
Under competitive capitalism where the future of your small business, like your fishing business, passed on to the next generation, is the ultimate consideration. Just as in a family, where giving the next generations the best chance at happiness and success is the ultimate consideration, the health of the resource, in this case the salmon assumes primary importance.
When a big fishing corporation takes over it will catch all the fish as fast as it can, then move ontop another fishing ground, and when the fish are gone, another business. For smaller local businesses only a sustainable future works. This is sane capitalism. Corporate feudal capitalism? Insane.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 1:00 pm
24 Mar 2008
Any name will do, I suppose. The thing is that it's not really a monopoly; it's more like an oligopoly, where the competitors all take an interest in having everyone believe in the same "free market" ideology while they game the system for their own greater profits.
Under competitive capitalism where the future of your small business, like your fishing business, passed on to the next generation, is the ultimate consideration. Just as in a family, where giving the next generations the best chance at happiness and success is the ultimate consideration, the health of the resource, in this case the salmon assumes primary importance.
The first part is a sentence fragment -- but I fail to understand how the "ultimate consideration" under any sort of capitalism can be a concern for the long-term future. Bills are all payable in the short term; if they're not paid, bankruptcy becomes the result of repeated failure to pay attention to the short term.
The "free market" isn't free -- it requires quite a bit of social co-ordination to bring it into being -- and the main purpose of all this social co-ordination is to assure that businesses are all focused on profit, all the time. Profit to pay off debts; profit to maintain market share; profit to achieve personal security for the owners.
Moreover, "market" production is production for effective demand, demand backed by money. This enforces the requirement that one must have money in order to participate in the market system. This, and not merely corporate bigness, explains why capitalism is so dangerous to Earth's ecosystems. Earth's resources must be plundered in order to produce for effective demand, so that businesses can produce like crazy in order to game the system for all the money it will surrender.
For smaller local businesses only a sustainable future works. This is sane capitalism.
Actually, it's just small business. A system in which there are only small businesses, in which businesses are prohibited from becoming corporate monoliths, would be something rather different from the capitalism we know. Large businesses outperform small ones because they can survive on smaller margins, and thus small business want to become large ones. What do you want to do about that?
At any rate, if you would like to create an economic system which allows only small business, you will be faced with plenty of ethical dilemmas. What about the small businesses which have become successful enough to become big businesses? Are you going to take away their bigness, and punish them for success? And if you insure small businesses against bankruptcy, what kind of growth opportunities will there be for people with no businesses at all? By insuring the small businesses, you've guaranteed them a market share. Where is the market share for the start-ups?
There really isn't anything "unethical" about small business, or about any business per se, large or small. The problem, as suggested by Harry Shutt in The Trouble With Capitalism, is that there is too much capital out there in proportion to the real investment opportunities in existence. Moreover, the more successful this capital is, the more the capital creates more capital, and thus the problem compounds itself.
Let me suggest a distinction that may clear things up. Who makes the economic decisions? Economic oligarchy is a system where a few rich people make the economic decisions. That's what we have now. Economic democracy is a system where the public as a whole (or at least its qualified representatives; say, for instance, you have a minimum voting age) makes economic decisions for the whole.
Economic democracy is something I'm suggesting we try. Everyone should be put in positions of responsibility for the economic life of the whole, starting with education but continuing with the sharing of democratic power over economic decisions, because everyone will then be responsible for the mitigation of abrupt climate change. And then we'll get somewhere.
We can have businesses under economic democracy; but the money system which these businesses use must be under the effective control of the people, exercising their will democratically. Please see Hutchinson, Mellor, and Olsen's The Politics of Money for further details.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink