If the U.S. Interior Department decides that polar bears are endangered, litigation will be immediate from a group arguing that bear protection will "result in higher energy prices across the board, which will disproportionately be borne by minorities." So says Roy Innis, chair of the Congress for Racial Equality -- a recipient of Exxon funding that has recently aligned itself with activists opposing the environmental movement. Industry groups will rely heavily on the CRE lawsuit to "give us a very high-visibility national media platform on day one," says Jim Sims of the Western Business Roundtable, who says the CRE can help fight and "quite possibly reverse" a protective ruling. Fox News' Sean Hannity has guaranteed prominent airtime to Innis, and a 15-city bus tour will promote the lawsuit. Says Sims, "We should be able to very quickly take over this issue from the radical enviro groups and place it squarely where it belongs: on the negative impacts this decision will have on the poor."
source: Mother Jones
see also, in Grist:Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics
EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:34 pm
09 May 2008
It wouldn't hold up in court due to that.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 1:05 pm
09 May 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:48 pm
09 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:04 pm
09 May 2008
Plus, most people in lower income brackets take public transit anyway.
Permalink
jbosborn Posted 4:38 am
10 May 2008
The average citizen is seeing that they no longer want to eat the sub-quality food that comes from industrial farming, or drink the water contaminated by run-off from that same industrial agriculture. Social justice critics are seeing that global warming will result in more land loss and hardtimes for impoverished coastal regions like Indonesia and Central America rather than in the places where one can find the sources of global warming, like China and the US. We are starting to look at the big picture, which is simply that we depend on the earth for everything, and when we don't care for it, humans suffer (the poor feel it first since they can't buy their way out of trouble, and then the middle class, and maybe finally the rich).
Myopic articles of limited scope and limited explanation, such as this one, may be really detrimental to our society's progress in the right direction. Environmental activists and social activists should be on the same team in the effort to care for the earth for the sake of all us people.
Permalink
jbosborn Posted 4:53 am
10 May 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:17 am
10 May 2008
I never heard the words "will" and "would" used so much when it comes to policy and scientific understanding until "Global Warming" came along.
When has anything like these horror stories EVER happened?
The whole history of warming from 1820 on has been one of the successful rise and prospering of human civilization across the globe!
Anyone looking into it from the outside would deem AGWers as madmen!
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 12:09 pm
10 May 2008
Now every time you see a sock puppet for the oil industry post denier drivel on a site like Grist, smile and think about how their efforts WILL eventually bankrupt their paymasters.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:03 am
11 May 2008
I did a search here and couldn't find any article on that topic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/
Permalink
wendigo Posted 2:40 pm
11 May 2008
Permalink
wmonfalcone Posted 4:18 pm
11 May 2008
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 2:13 am
12 May 2008
While poor people pollute less, they also cannot afford to care about polar bears or other less cute (if viewed on photographs) wild animals.
Of course, maybe the rich and powerful can figure out that they (and that includes all who can read this) need to reduce their energy consumption. But I am afraid you have heard all this before and those who should read this - don't.
It is depressing. So little changes unless you change it for yourself.
Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:40 am
12 May 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:35 am
13 May 2008
By both a traditional indigenous and an ecological paradigm, this is ecopathic and psychotic, and it totally fails to recognize the real causes of these problems.
First and foremost, there are far too many people taking up far too much space on Earth. This means that the other species don't have enough room to live adequately.
Second, people who do not care about other forms of life are just as immoral as people who don't care about other people. (Actually, speaking for the non-humans, I'd say even more immoral!) Any starving animal is strictly focused on getting food, but aside from that level of poverty, there's no excuse for being so callous. What this really comes down to is a lack of empathy and spiritual understanding: we're all just part of the same thing, WE'RE ALL ONE. Not caring about bears or any other form of life means not caring about a part of oneself.
If there were an ecologically feasible number of humans on Earth living in an ecologically feasible manner, protecting habitat would not be an issue. It only is because humans are grossly overpopulated and insist on living in ecologically destructive ways. AND THIS INCLUDES POOR PEOPLE!
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 5:58 am
13 May 2008
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 6:25 am
13 May 2008
This is the social programing that right-wing framers are tapping into when they pit protecting individual species against economic development. Unfortunately, the environmental movement has fallen into this framing trap all too often.
The truth is that we are only a small part of a larger system, that depends upon balancing forces and the redundancy provided by a diversity of living species to ensure the ultimate survival of all life on earth. This was never about just polar bears, any more than protecting the Pacific Northwest forests was about spotted owls. This is about protecting a critical ecosystem upon which we all depend. Polar bears control seal populations, which feed on fish. That we depend on for food, and that interact with many other living species that affect our ultimate well-being (photo and zooplankton, algee, etc.)
Can nature survive our disruptions? Sure. There have been dramatic disruptions of natural systems before, and life has found a way. But can we survive our own ignorance and bad ideas? That is an open question. If you ignore the laws of aerodynamics when building a flying machine, you die. If your civilizations ignores the laws of living systems in that civilization's structure, by promoting monoculture and changing the composition of the planet's atmosphere . . .
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:32 am
13 May 2008
That said, we generally acknowledge that we must always show compassion toward all who are capable of feeling pain, especially the innocent, the vulnerable and the helpless. And the beings who belong to that class most certainly include many animals, as well as people. Therefore it is an equivalent case of immorality, to be cruel to sentient animals, as it is to be cruel to people.
Thanks also to Robco1, who sees things much as I do, but is more optimistic than I.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 11:09 pm
13 May 2008
Without any doubt, humans are part of the natural world and cannot disconnect themselves without suffering dire consequences. I am rather pessimistic that most will discover this (or accept this) way too late. Certainly it is short-sighted to ignore environmental impacts of our actions. Nevertheless, if you family is dying of cold or hunger, you will burn whatever burns and eat whatever is edible WITHOUT CONSIDERING the long-term effects. Since so many people have so little, this is a problem that you cannot talk away no matter how immoral this is judged by you.
Overpopulation is not a problem in North America though, so some of you seem to be pointing fingers at other countries. Pretty slick: Blame the problem on over-population somewhere else while not acknowledging that those same places have poverty, peace, and injustice issues that prevent habitat protection from becoming relevant for those people.
Protecting the environment is important. It guides my daily thinking to a very large extend. It is something North Americans can do in North America and world-wide by changing our habits. We have what we need. Mostly because we take it from others.
Go tell the people who suffer from the effects of earth-quakes, cyclones, famines, civil wars, dictatorships, etc. that they should not infringe on the habitat of protected species. Go tell people whose welfare is linked to having many children when they are old to not have as many children. Get of your high moral horse. Enjoy that you still have a good life and can afford to think much further than just to the next meal and live with neighbors that can still think about habitat protection. Enjoy living in a society that has a system to take care of you when you are old but with few children (who grew up thinking that family is not what supports you at old age). Worry about what your fellow citizens in North America do (if they can choose differently) and prepare for the "good" times ahead when we run out of energy and (even you!) will rampage and plunder the neighbors property (human and non-human)and violate their rights to keep on living.
And tell me ONE GOOD (and moral) SOLUTION to fix the problem of human over-population that people will agree to.
Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less
Permalink
ScintillatingSkua Posted 3:57 pm
08 Nov 2008
Permalink