THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume IX, Issue # 25, February 6, 2007
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
GLOBAL WARMING ETHICS, PORK, & PROFITS:
Global Warming Alarmism Generates Political & Financial Incentives
By Paul K. Driessen
INCENTIVES TO SUPPORT PROPOSED "CLIMATE CONTROL" LEGISLATION: POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS & THEIR
ALLIES IN CONGRESS BUILD NUMEROUS GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, TAX BREAKS, & OTHER PORK INTO ENERGY & GLOBAL
WARMING LEGISLATION -- WHY MORE & MORE COMPANIES & ORGANIZATIONS ARE CLIMBING ABOARD THE CLIMATE
CHAOS "CONSENSUS" BANDWAGON TO "SAVE THE EARTH" FROM "CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE" -- DISCOVERING
PERSUASIVE REASONS TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC POLICY AGENDA OF POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
FULL STORY:
The ink has barely dried on its new code of conduct, and already Congress is redefining ethics and pork to fit an
environmentalist and global warming agenda. As Will Rogers observed,
“... with Congress, every time they make a joke, it’s a
law. And every time they make a law, it’s a joke.”
However, life-altering, economy-wrecking climate bills are no laughing matter. That’s why we need to recognize that the
Kyoto Protocol and proposed “climate protection” laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 emissions are to blame.
It’s why we must acknowledge the fact that money is to be made, and power is to be gained, from climate alarmism and
symbolism is a major reason so many are getting on the climate chaos “consensus” bandwagon.
In accusing ExxonMobil of giving “more than $19 million since the late 1990s” to public policy institutes that promote
climate holocaust “denial,” Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both 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 Change alone over the same period. The ExxonMobil contribution is a pittance, compared to what US
environmentalist groups spent propagating climate chaos scare stories.
It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 that the U.S.A, the European Union, and the United Nations spent since 1993
(some $80 billion all together) on global warming catastrophe research. And it ignores the fact that the Exxon grants also
supported malaria control, Third World economic development and, many other efforts.
Aside from honest, if unfounded, fears of climate disasters, why might others support climate alarmism?
Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants
from foundations, corporations – and U.S. government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming
in 2007. Such scientists also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories: “Climate change
threatens extinction of rare frogs, scientist says.” Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines and
quotes.
Politicians get to grandstand Green credentials, cement relationships with political environmentalists and global warming
activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations, magically transform $14 billion in alternative
energy 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 cause hundreds of deaths, as cars are downsized and plasticized to save fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
High energy prices are denounced at congressional hearings, if due to market forces, but praised if imposed by
government “to prevent climate change.” Drilling for petroleum in the Arctic or off our coasts is condemned, even to create jobs, tax
revenues and enhanced security; but subsidizing wind power to generate 2% 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, created the Climate Action Partnership, and
launched the emerging Enviro-Industrial Complex.
Environmentalists and global warming activists have turned climate fears into successful fund-raising tools, and a
brilliant strategy for achieving their dream of controlling global resource use, technological change, and economic
development through laws, treaties, regulations, and pressure campaigns. Recent developments promise to supercharge
these efforts.
Environmental Defense (ED) is collaborating with Morgan Stanley to promote emission trading systems and other climate
change 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 might enact. Other environmentalist groups, companies and
Wall Street firms will no doubt follow their lead.
ED designed and led the disingenuous campaign that persuaded many healthcare agencies to ban DDT, resulting in
millions of deaths from malaria. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, ED, and other groups
still post deceitful claims about DDT on their websites, further delaying progress against this killer disease. By blaming
climate change for malaria, they deflect criticism for their vile actions.
Climate catastrophe claims enable environmental activists to gain official advisory status with companies and
governments on environmental issues. They also make it “ethical” for Rainforest Action Network and other pressure
groups to oppose power generation in Third World countries, where few have access to electricity – and thereby keep
communities perpetually impoverished.
Meanwhile, Prince Charles gets lionized for appropriating 62 first class jetliner seats for his entourage of 20, on a
trans-Atlantic trip to receive an environmental prize and to lecture Americans on saving the Earth – because, at least,
he didn’t use his private jet.
Companies in the Climate Action Partnership and Enviro-Industrial Complex can develop and promote new product
lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates, and regulatory provisions to gain competitive advantages. They get
favorable coverage from the media and kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate
chaos skeptics.
Some worry that this could become a license to further redefine corporate ethics, present self-interest as planet-saving
altruism, and profit from questionable arrangements with environmentalist groups and Congress. Certainly,
cap-and-trade rules will create valuable property rights and reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, often by
replacing old, inefficient, high-polluting plants that they want to retire anyway.
DuPont and British Petroleum will get money for biofuels, General Elecctric for its portfolio of climate protection
equipment, Archer Daniels Midland for ethanol, Lehman Brothers for emission trading and other deals. Environmental
activists will be able to influence corporate, state and federal policy, and rake in still more cash. Insurance companies
can blame global 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 prices, there are lots of tricks
he knows. Jees, it’s just amazing how it grows.”
Indeed, the opportunities to “game the system” will be limited only by one’s “eco-magination.”
To determine the losers, look in the mirror. Activists and politicians are creating a Frankenstein climate monster on
steroids. Were it real, we would need to dismantle our economy and living standards to slay the beast. How else could
we eliminate 80-90% of United States and European Union fossil fuel emissions by 2050, to stabilize carbon dioxide
emissions and (theoretically) a climate that has always been anything but stable?
Think lifestyles circa 1900, or earlier. Ponder the British Environment Minister’s latest prescription: World War II-type
rationing, no meat or cheese, restrictions on air travel, no veggies that aren’t grown locally. France wants a new
government agency that would single out, police, and penalize countries that “abuse the Earth.” Others want to put
little solar panels on African huts, while kleptocratic dictators get millions of dollars for trading away their people’s
right to generate electricity and emit CO2.
We should improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, and develop new energy technologies. But when we demand
immediate action to prevent exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad through programs that don’t work,
create enough pork to fill 50 Chicago stockyards, and impose horrendous unintended consequences on countless
families. That is shortsighted and immoral.
© 2006 Paul K. Driessen
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Paul K. Driessen is Senior Policy Advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and the Center for the Defense of Free
Enterprise, two groups that have received some ExxonMobil support for work by Driessen and others on malaria
eradication, Third World agriculture, energy and economic development, climate change, and other issues.Driessen is
author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, which can be obtained at