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."
|