Home

                                                                                  
 

                      Global Warming 2012



The politicization of this issue may have crippled it, which is a shame, given the inherent importance of the subject - the environment.  Few things, if any, could be said to be more important.  But objectivity is proving to be a tall order, as all who have followed the internet blogs in any depth knows all too well.  Given the "believers" vs "deniers" apocalyptic language surrounding this issue, one can't help but wonder if perhaps there is something besides the environment at stake here.   When people are more interested in maintaining a certain worldview than anything else, this is a clear indication that they have been convinced, for whatever reason, not to bother thinking.  And when pop-pom waving replaces thinking on a large scale, we have become a crippled body politic.  

A recent example of this polarizing effect is Yale economics professor William Nordhaus's article in the New York Review of Books entitled, "Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong."  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false.  Rather than making an even handed, pros vs cons analysis, Nordhaus toes a party line and presents a very one sided argument, somewhat reminiscent of a lawyer in a courtroom, demonstrating just how difficult objectivity has become today.  So when addressing the cui bono question, which was an excellent idea, he fails to recognize the financial interests lining up on both sides of this apparent power struggle.  Everyone knows about the big energy firms that would love to continue polluting unabated which are more than happy to fund the requisite polluter friendly studies.  But what about the gargantuan financial interests on the other side?  What about the carbon market and its potential?  Often alluded to as a new fiat currency, and quite possibly the next sub prime bubble, carbon credits are expected to eclipse both gold and oil, possibly becoming a 10 trillion dollar market at maturity according to Richard Sandor, the founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange ("CCX") who is also known as the  "father of carbon trading".   And Sandor is also a pioneer in the area of derivative financial instruments, credited with having "brought derivatives to the agricultural, insurance, and utilities sectors."   (http://cla.umn.edu/news/clatoday/spring2002/sandor.php)

Another popular proponent of the "market approach" to combating pollution and global warming is J.P.Morgan Chase's own Blythe Masters, who is "widely credited with creating the modern credit default swap." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters )

"Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases." (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M)

James Cameron, writing for Time in 2007, hailed Richard Sandor a "genuine pioneer" who "harnessed the power of financial incentives."    (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663322_1669930,00.html)   CCX owes its existence in large part to two very generous grants from the Joyce Foundation;  a $347,000 in 2000 and another $760,000 in 2001. (http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange - under "History")   Coincidentally, Barack Obama sat on the Joyce Foundation Board at that time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation - under "Governance" )  It should also be pointed out that Al Gores Generation Investment Management also owns stakes in CCX, as does Goldman Sachs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management).  Gore has teamed up with quite a host of personnel from Goldman Sachs in the founding of GIM, including David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations.  In fact, Gore's primary founding partner in GIM was Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs Chief Executive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange - 3rd paragraph   ...   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663 - under "Gore's Circle of Business" ... 7th paragraph) )   A green version of The Carlyle Group, maybe?   Cozy.  Remember, too, that Gore somehow finds time to be a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, a very prestigious venture capital firm, whose "Pandemic Biodefense Fund" should do fairly well if all the influenza vaccination hype continues. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE53N6YO20090424)   So too should an old friend, Donald Rumsfeld, since he also has very large stakes in Tamiflu.   And Goldman Sachs is currently morphing into an oil company, buying up oil fields, tankers, pipelines ... and more importantly they own (along with other oil companies) the primary trading floor on which oil futures are now trades, the intercontinental exchange (or "ICE" - based in Atlanta) which is unregulated by the US government.  This should come as no surprise since oil profits are "unparalleled" even by pharmaceuticals, defense, and banks ... (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7/the_tyranny_of_oil_antonia_juhasz)

Invoking the NAS was also a good idea on the part of Nordhaus.  But it appears that, once again, he may have fallen short.  As it happens, the NAS published a comprehensive report just last year called "America's Climate Choices". (http://americasclimatechoices.org/)   The "steering committee" which oversaw the entire report consisted of 23 individuals, only 5 of which have a Ph.D. in a field related to climate science. (http://dels.nas.edu/Committee/Committee-America-Climate-Choices/BASC-U-08-04-A)   Why?  There is no shortage of qualified scientists within the NAS membership. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences_(Environmental_sciences_and_ecology) ,   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences_(Human_environmental_sciences)   Why have most of these highly qualified National Academy scientists been excluded from this report when it was (presumably) issued by the National Academies?  In fact, the chair of this committee, Albert Carnesale, also chairs two other committees at the National Academies: the Committee on Conventional Prompt Global Strike Capability and the Committee on Nuclear Forensics.  He is also on the Advisory Board of the RAND Corporation and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  The four sub-committees also lack backgrounds in climate related science, easily verifiable on the aforementioned website (http://americasclimatechoices.org/)   (Just follow the "site navigation" to the individual reports ...)

This was reminiscent of the 2010 letter in the journal "Science" entitled "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science." (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full).  This letter had over 250 NAS signatories, many of whom lack the credentials to speak on climate change.  This didn't go unnoticed either:

"However, an investigation into the professional backgrounds of the scientists finds that many do not work in climate science and some work in fields not even remotely related to it."

"Pediatric surgeons, an expert in the Maya and the Olmec civilizations, a chemist that studies bacteria, a ‘computer pioneer’ with Microsoft, an electrical engineer, the chairman of a biotechnology firm, and even an expert studying corn are but a few of the 255 ‘experts’ that signed the letter."  (http://www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/many-signatories-of-controversial-letter-on-climate-science-not-working-climate-related-fields)

Here are those NAS signatories listed, replete with links to biographical sketches. (http://www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/scientists-pen-letter-decrying-assaults-on-climate-science  or   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/06/climate-science-open-letter)   Go through them yourself and see how many of them have any background in studying the climate.   The author(s?) of the letter also made the unfortunate blunder of using a faked photo, which was subsequently exposed. (http://www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/many-signatories-of-controversial-letter-on-climate-science-not-working-climate-related-fields)  So what's really going on here?  NAS member Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has published more than 200 papers and books, may have the answer as to why it has proved so difficult to produce a valid NAS statement on climate change:  because a compelling, scientific consensus on climate change does not exist. (http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf)  Is a truly scientific consensus on something as complex as the earth's climate even possible, let alone likely?  Needless to say, Lindzen is one of the many highly qualified NAS scientists who were excluded from the "America's Climate Choices" report, even though he is a NAS member and is far more qualified to speak on climate change than the preponderance of the panelists who did participate, including various lawyers, public policy makers, many professors (of sociology, law, decision sciences, political science, applied economics, agricultural economics), various economists and economic advisors, a director from the RAND Corporation, a former FEMA director, industrial engineers, environmental engineers, a chemical engineer at DuPont, a mechanical engineer, the chief atmospheric scientist at DuPont, a DuPont CEO, a former chief economist and VP of General Motors. 

So while I'm willing to downplay the fact that Nordhaus is a former Skull and Bones member, I find it reprehensible that he ignores the way the NAS is being used, or more accurately, abused, especially since he is a member himself.   Because the truth is, the trappings of scholarship are being used to put a scientific veneer on both sides of this issue.  Big energy firms funding polluter friendly studies are not the only ones guilty of this.  There are even larger interests behind the carbon market, which is is widely recognized as having the potential to eclipse even gold and oil, becoming the largest commodity market in existence.  Furthermore, the administration of it could give some global, bureaucratic entity the power to control all global industry which, as the UN and the League of Nations before it have shown us, is one heck of a slippery slope and one that has proven most useful for giant multinationals.  If the global warming movement is going to do any good at all, it will have to reconcile the very inconvenient truths hiding behind it, particularly the ushering in and administrating of what could easily become the largest commodity market the world has ever known.   Corruption in national governments, as well as global, intergovernmental, bodies like the UN, is pretty widely acknowledged or, to be sure, it's not exactly a secret.  It isn't at all surprising to find this trend carrying through to our National Academies, which routinely liaise with other learned societies and government policy makers, also playing an important organizational role in academic exchanges and collaborations between countries.  No doubt the US National Academies possess the credentials, and therefore the potential, to provide the valuable service of forming legitimate, scientific consensus on important issues, as do the national academies of other countries.  Instead, they are being used to advance the usual realpolitik and oligarchic agendas.  

Citizenry genuinely concerned about the environment, as many are, would like to see a legitimate effort here, not a corrupt one with obvious ulterior motives and curiously constructed scientific study panels whose findings are a foregone conclusion from the outset.  In a more natural setting (that is, one not influenced by popular culture and mass media) most of us would likely have some conservative sensibilities about global warming and some progressive ones.  Too bad we have largely been sold on the maladaptive notion that we must choose one, which in effect keeps public opinion (genuine public opinion ... ) out of the discussion.  But then that's the point.   Funny how the big interests masquerading as saviors somehow always end up being the primary beneficiaries of their "reforms" and "regulations" that were supposed to help small business and/or the common man.  Progressive Trojan Horse window dressing at its best.  The commodification of carbon, or pollution quid pro quo, will dovetail quite nicely with the current financial milieu of hucksterism.  Think of it as the organic label for all global industry.  In the end, it will be ok to pollute, since it can be commodified and gamed by the top dogs.   And even better that they can get those pesky third world peoples off of their ancestral lands, so rich in natural resources, in the process.  Thanks to the Kyoto Accord, cutting indigenous people off of their land to create "clean development mechanisms" (think hydroelectric dams) and "carbon sinks" to generate "offsets" so that the giant corporations can pollute may be looked upon as "conservation."  Imagine that - people with some of the smallest carbon footprints in the world having to make way for corporations with some of the largest, in order to ... save the world?!  Who knew?  Sick, sick times.

Perhaps Alexander Cockburn made a good point in his allusion to the papal indulgences;

"In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the Tenth Century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide."

"Then, as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves."
























em>