EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Lobbying Cash Obscures US Climate Debate
When it comes to the debate in the United States over what to do about climate change, cash may very well have clouded the issue.
Lobbying groups for the energy companies and environmentalists have boosted their spending by double digits in a year because they knew that the US Senate would debate environmental legislation ahead of global climate change talks next month.
The early morning sun rises behind the US Capitol Building on October 22 in Washington, DC. When it comes to the debate in the United States over what to do about climate change, cash has clouded the issue. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Mark Wilson) But science and specifics are hard to find in the barrage of ads and messages about green jobs, alternative energy and the dangers of pollution.
Energy sector groups spent a total of $300 million (£183 million) in the third quarter of 2009 and were heading for a record spending year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbyist spending.
From January to September, some of the biggest energy lobby spenders included oil and gas ($120.7 million), electric utilities ($108 million) and alternative energy which showed a 40 per cent rise over last year to $23 million.
That makes the energy sector the third largest in terms of spending on lawmaker lobbying, campaign contributions, labor unions, business and special interest groups after health and business.
On the other hand, environmental groups, which tend to press for reforms that the energy sector opposes, spent $16 million during the same period, a 14 per cent increase from last year.
And the difference is apparent in the size of the lobbyist armies that descend on Capitol Hill each day. Overall, energy-related companies hired 2,225 lobbyists so far this year, compared to environmentalists who hired just 465.
Washington is blanketed with energy advertisements in the bus stops and metro, from big oil companies touting individuals who conserve energy in small ways to dire warnings from green groups about the dangers of doing nothing.
One advertisement that ran on television in October proclaimed that "C02 is green," denying its effects on global warming and calling carbon dioxide "Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer".
Leighton Steward, a retired Texas oil man who is spokesman for the group that ran the ads and set up websites to support the claims, said his aim was to stop US lawmakers from implementing costly regulations.
"We are getting ready to spend a couple of trillion dollars to try and reduce atmospheric dioxide which I don't believe is having any significant effect on climate change," he told AFP.
"It is clear, it is odorless, it is tasteless, it is a total benefit," he said, adding that "thousands of research papers that have been written on the benefits of additional carbon dioxide."
A coalition of environmentalist groups led by the Alliance for Climate Protection, which was introduced in 2006 by former vice president Al Gore, is running its own ads this week along with an online "wall" where people can express their support for clean energy.
"We believe that this effort, with nearly 200 organisers in 23 states, as well as the wall, will obviously have an impact in showing the support for action now and in the near term," said the group's president Maggie Fox.
"This is intended to move us forward in the broadest sense," she said.
The group's appeal for support reads: "I support clean energy policies that will create millions of jobs and solve the climate crisis."
However, there is no mention of the stickier concepts that have bogged down lawmakers, such as a "cap and trade" system to punish polluters, or how to capture carbon emitted by the coal industries which produce cheap energy.
There's a reason for the vagueness of the lobby-fueled debate, according to Bob Perkowitz, president of consumer research group EcoAmerica which studies mainstream Americans' beliefs on environmental issues.
"When they hear 'cap and trade,' they think of baseball. If you ask them what alternative or renewable energy means they can't describe those," Perkowitz said.
"The way most Americans are with global warming, they end up getting superficial information from different sources and forming some sort of vague opinion about it."
Columbia University geochemistry professor Wally Broecker lamented the mislaying of cash when it comes to the environment and creating new, greener technologies.
"The total amount of money spent on C02 capture in the atmosphere is seven to 10 million dollars. That's the amount a professional ball player makes in a season. That's absurd," Broecker said.
"As far as preparing, we are doing almost nothing and that is really terrible," he added.
"Fifty per cent of people in the US don't believe in evolution. The same mentality goes for global warming," he said. "We are not a very deep thinking population."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
8 Comments so far
Show AllIt's a simple fix, really: LOCK OUT LOBBYISTS...PERIOD!
Lobbying should be labeled for what it is: "BRIBERY!"
And, it should be prosecuted for what it is: BRIBING PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
And, those accepting these BRIBES should be prosecuted for RECEIVING BRIBES!!!! NO EXCEPTIONS!!!
It's the ONLY POSSIBLE way to return control of our government to the people!!!
Unfortunately, this article doesn't come close to explaining the heart of the issue:
Will Cap and Trade Work?
Not according to NASA's chief climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen who is on record describing Cap and Trade as the "Temple of Doom".
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090505_TempleOfDoom.pdf
If Cap and Trade won't work, why are many environmental groups supporting it?
Because neoliberal corporate foundations are the primary funders of name brand environmental groups such as NRDC, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, World Resources Institute, etc.
Check out who are the environmental nonprofit "partners" with the biggest recidivist corporate environmental criminals here: http://www.us-cap.org/
These corporatized "environmental" organizations are standing side-by-side with some of the biggest corporate carbon criminals on the planet. Check out what NRDC, CI, TNC, WWF "CEO's" make and ask yourself if those six-figure salaries are indicative of altruistic, principled, environmental leadership. (NRDC-$357,651/ TNC-$406,604/ CI-$454,125/ WWF-$439,327/ WRI-$356,251) (figures provided by Charity Navigator)
At the heart of the matter is we have a corporatized Congress, a corporatized media, and (a mostly) corporatized environmental movement-- all under the undue influence of obscene corporate wealth achieved by a regressive tax structure (half of the proceeds of those neoliberal corporate foundations would have otherwise been available as tax revenue in our treasury to adequately fund essential government services, agencies, and programs).
As long as the citizenry permits its government to continue aiding and abetting this descent into planetary cataclysm and indentured servitude to a corporate state, we all will have a snowball's chance in hell of saving ourselves, much less the planet.
"Fifty per cent of people in the US don't believe in evolution. The same mentality goes for global warming," he said. "We are not a very deep thinking population."
This is true but bland. It disguises just how terrible the situation is.
America has a big, instinctively active population, making it a mighty economy, just as Godzilla is big and active, making it a mighty animal. Neither is Godzilla deep thinking, which all, if we think deeply about it, is why America is a monster; a shallow thinker with its finger resting firmly on the button of a nuclear holocaust. Far worse than Godzilla.
Shallow thinking America cannot be tolerated. This is not a talking point. Either monster America implodes now, or it has to be destroyed.
We, amongst whom are many Americans, must brace ourselves and work at it. It will be terrible. The monster will die a horrible death. It will bleed, scream, bludgeon and kill many of us, as it is already. Americans must recognise they may have to die like Afghans, otherwise many of us will never be able to forgive and trust.
An oft repeated statement on this site by a very astute thinker who signs in as "Native Son" comes to mind ----- This issue could ultimately make us, the USA, face a "coalition of the "reluctant, but forced by the requirements of survival" to take us "on", "take us down" and ultimately "Take us out"--- and who could blame them? We are unbelieveably arrogant, stupid, and dangerous.
As to the "lobbying problem" mentioned above ---- the answer is simple.---- Put a bounty on the bastards.
I'm shocked by this news. Shocked, I said!
Seriously, show me something coming out of Congress today that is not tainted, painted, smeared, contaminated, infected or otherwise bought by the powers that be? Stating so in the caption is truly an oxymoron.
Don't be so hard on yourselves, guys. The situation here in Australia isn't better. It is a nation of staunch deniers who like pointing fingers at others over not doing enough. It would be nice if Australia wasn't doing enough, but as things are now we're not doing anything.
You can get a few dollars in rebates if you install solar hot water system or a rain water tank. We even had a rebate on photovoltaics, but it's gone now because the scheme proved 'too popular'.
The price for the electricity you feed into the grid is way below the price you pay for power and some even argue you shouldn't be paid at all, because why should the state subsidize you? This from the same people who complain that we don't have enough power generators and that's why we need to reactivate coal powered power plants with 40 year old technology. Not that I generate crazy amounts of power but shouldn't you be grateful that I do the little bit I do?
New technologies leave the country for the US or China because there is no grant money to be had to help them grow. There isn't even a permanent set of rules and regulations that would create a supportive climate for innovation and ensure that any kind of investment in new technologies won't be lost tomorrow.
So, it isn't just that the state and the industry don't do anything. This country doesn't even provide the tiniest encouragement and incentives for those who want to do something (or would want to if they were given a carrot).
It is clear, it is odorless, it is tasteless, it is a total benefit.
So good you should try rebreathing it.
So just try rebreathing your exhaled air in and out of brown paper bag. Especially if you are stupid Texas Oilman who promotes carbon dioxide as green.
You will not die or lose conciousness from hypoxia, because there is still plenty of oxygen in exhaled air.
But you will soon be compelled to breath much faster as the carbon dioxide levels rise in the blood and drive the desire to take deep breaths.
Yes carbon dioxide is a waste product that increases the acidity of your blood and brain cells, and excess must be quickly removed, long before the lack of oxygen drives breathing. It is a total waste product, just like the average climate change IQ of a Texas Oilman.
The molecule has a pair of carbon-oxygen chemical bonds.
A few hundred parts per million in the atmosphere is a massive quantity. These carbonyl bonds trap infrared radiation and send some of it back to earth. So the earth is average around 30 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be. The extra warmth helps retain transient moisture in the air which amplifies the warming blanket effect.
More carbon dioxide, more warming effect.
Which part is it that you do not get?
Or is the problem our fossil fueled none-negotiatable lifestyle?
Nature does not negotiate. Just ask the victims of Hurricane Katrina or the insurance companies.
Fossil fuels will turn us all into fossil fools.
And its the future fossilized fools who are spending millions on media campaigns to defeat any climate change measures at all, to keep their billionaire lifestyles, while they last.
Climate change deniers and sceptics are captives of carbon money.