Capitalism vs. the Climate

[Viking12]

A really good article on the deniers and a thorough exposition of the changes necessary to address climate change.

Naomi Klein
November 9, 2011 | This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation.

-snip-
The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything wanted to do anyway.”

Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong. Before I go any further, let me be absolutely clear: as 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists attest, the Heartlanders are completely wrong about the science. The heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels are already causing temperatures to increase. If we are not on a radically different energy path by the end of this decade, we are in for a world of pain

-snip-

It is true that responding to the climate threat requires strong government action at all levels. But real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.

Here is where the Heartlanders have good reason to be afraid: arriving at these new systems is going to require shredding the free-market ideology that has dominated the global economy for more than three decades. What follows is a quick-and-dirty look at what a serious climate agenda would mean in the following six arenas: public infrastructure, economic planning, corporate regulation, international trade, consumption and taxation. For hard-right ideologues like those gathered at the Heartland conference, the results are nothing short of intellectually cataclysmic.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,0

[PETRUS]

1. K&R. Thanks for posting.

[Gregorian]

2. Forgive me, I'm replying while busy. I'll bet she doesn't even mention population. Half of the equat

ion.

Use is half. Population is the other half. X+Y=climate change.

[Nihil]

5. She doesn't need to in order to get her message through.

Yes, over-population (especially in consumer-rich countries) is a huge part
of the problem but that isn't what her essay was attempting to address.

She attacks the targeted issues with precision rather than just blending into
the background with yet another generic "all these things are wrong" diatribe.

Seriously, have a read of it when you get the chance as it is excellent.

:hi:

[txlibdem]

3. One of the few remaining True Journalists - Ms. Klein says it like it is

The truth has a way of cutting through dogma like a hot knife through butter.

[PETRUS]

4. K&R

Really enjoyed this, thanks for posting.

[txlibdem]

6. Me too!!!

:grouphug:

[NickB79]

7. Lies and balderdash! The free market is all we need!

I read it right here E/E!

[txlibdem]

8. The article is a *must read*

[txlibdem]

9. Climate will *always* lose when the profit motive is there

Today's "job creators" can't seem to figure out that if the climate is devastated then so are their profits.

[bananas]

10. "a powerful faction in the environmental movement is pushing to go even further down the same disast

From the article in the OP:

Far from learning from past mistakes, a powerful faction in the environmental movement is pushing to go even further down the same disastrous road, arguing that the way to win on climate is to make the cause more palatable to conservative values. This can be heard from the studiously centrist Breakthrough Institute, which is calling for the movement to embrace industrial agriculture and nuclear power instead of organic farming and decentralized renewables. It can also be heard from several of the researchers studying the rise in climate denial. Some, like Yale’s Kahan, point out that while those who poll as highly “hierarchical” and “individualist” bridle at any mention of regulation, they tend to like big, centralized technologies that confirm their belief that humans can dominate nature. So, he and others argue, environmentalists should start emphasizing responses such as nuclear power and geoengineering (deliberately intervening in the climate system to counteract global warming), as well as playing up concerns about national security.

The first problem with this strategy is that it doesn’t work. For years, big green groups have framed climate action as a way to assert “energy security,” while “free-market solutions” are virtually the only ones on the table in the United States. Meanwhile, denialism has soared. The more troubling problem with this approach, however, is that rather than challenging the warped values motivating denialism, it reinforces them. Nuclear power and geoengineering are not solutions to the ecological crisis; they are a doubling down on exactly the kind of short-term hubristic thinking that got us into this mess.

She's got it right - Joe Romm has written a lot about TBI on his blog, here's one example:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/15/207530/the-breakthrough-institute-attack-energy-efficiency-clean-energy-backfire-rebound-effect/

Rebound effect: The Breakthrough Institute’s attack on clean energy backfires

By Joe Romm on Feb 15, 2011

Top energy experts debunk their false assertions and misleading statements about energy efficiency

<snip>

Recently, the Breakthrough Institute launched a major attack on energy efficiency. They used talking points that right-wing think tanks have pushed for years (see The intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism: Heritage even opposes energy efficiency). This shouldn’t be terribly surprising to longtime followers of TBI. After all, last year they partnered with a right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, to push right-wing energy myths and attack the most basic of clean energy policies, a clean energy standard.

This year, Breakthrough’s attacks on clean energy were used by the Republican National Committee as part of their overall attack on Obama’s clean energy agenda. Again, not a big surprise. TBI’s work is consistently cited by those who want to attack environmentalists and climate scientists, “George Will embraces the anti-environmentalism “” and anti-environment “” message of The Breakthrough Institute.”

Yes, I know, The Breakthrough Institute will insist it’s purely a coincidence that they are the darling of the anti-science, pro-pollution right-wing disinformers. The fact that they push right wing myths and even partner with right-wing organizations to push those myths has nothing to do with it. Nor does the fact that they spent the past two years dedicating the resources of their organization to help kill prospects for climate and clean energy action — and to spread disinformation about Obama, Gore, Congressional leaders, Waxman and Markey, leading climate scientists, Al Gore again, the entire environmental community and anyone else trying to end our status quo energy policies (see “Debunking Breakthrough Institute’s attacks on Obama, Gore, Waxman, top climate scientists, progressives, and environmentalists“). Nor does the fact that they even attacked Rachel Carson, who died decades ago after helping launch the modern environmental movement!

<snip>