

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A recent Bloomberg View (2/24/14) headline reads, "Profit From Global Warming or Get Left Behind." In his new book, WINDFALL (New York: Penguin, 2014), veteran journalist McKenzie Funk traveled the globe for six years, following the money in twenty-four countries to profile "hundreds of people who felt climate change would make them rich."
In a separate interview, Funk notes that "on Wall Street you no longer get a lot of climate denial." Largely indifferent to the causes of climate change, his respondents decided early on that investing in green technology was a losing proposition. Instead "the warmer the world, the less habitable it became, the bigger the windfall."
In 2008, Royal Dutch Shell developed two sophisticated climate-risk scenarios called Blueprints and Scramble. The first modeled a greener future while the latter predicted - due to government inaction - a future of droughts, floods, heat waves and super storms. By 2012, Shell executives confided to Funk "We've gone to Scramble. This is a Scramble kind of world. This is what we're doing." Another Shell official opined "I will be one of those persons cheering for an endless summer in Alaska."
The author's message is that in the short term, there will be definite winners and losers because ecological catastrophe is "...not necessarily a financial catastrophe for everyone." And while readers of this newspaper will temporarily avoid the most dire consequences of globing warming, upwards of one billion other human beings won't be spared.
During this interim period, the phrase 'a rising tide will lift all yachts' is more than a metaphor:
Funk is curiously nonjudgmental about his interview subjects, preferring to view them as good people "according to their own belief system," who only act out of perceived self-interest. He allows that "We can't trust capitalism to fix this" but asserts there's "nothing fundamentally wrong with profiting from disaster" and frets that readers might unfairly vilify businessmen.
In one narrow sense he's correct in that the system's internal but fatally flawed logic is responsible. Any CEO who allowed climate justice considerations to enter his or her decisions would quickly be replaced by someone more attuned to the bottom line.
In an earlier opinion piece, I characterized many otherwise caring folks who truly worry about the earth's survival as "capitalism deniers" because of their unwillingness to utter the "C" word. This, despite the fact that blame for environmental degradation lies squarely with our growth-and-profit-at-any-cost economic system. The system's apologists exist within and outside government and they will never be the solution.
The rest of us must draw the obvious conclusions and act accordingly within the tenuous time frame that remains.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

A recent Bloomberg View (2/24/14) headline reads, "Profit From Global Warming or Get Left Behind." In his new book, WINDFALL (New York: Penguin, 2014), veteran journalist McKenzie Funk traveled the globe for six years, following the money in twenty-four countries to profile "hundreds of people who felt climate change would make them rich."
In a separate interview, Funk notes that "on Wall Street you no longer get a lot of climate denial." Largely indifferent to the causes of climate change, his respondents decided early on that investing in green technology was a losing proposition. Instead "the warmer the world, the less habitable it became, the bigger the windfall."
In 2008, Royal Dutch Shell developed two sophisticated climate-risk scenarios called Blueprints and Scramble. The first modeled a greener future while the latter predicted - due to government inaction - a future of droughts, floods, heat waves and super storms. By 2012, Shell executives confided to Funk "We've gone to Scramble. This is a Scramble kind of world. This is what we're doing." Another Shell official opined "I will be one of those persons cheering for an endless summer in Alaska."
The author's message is that in the short term, there will be definite winners and losers because ecological catastrophe is "...not necessarily a financial catastrophe for everyone." And while readers of this newspaper will temporarily avoid the most dire consequences of globing warming, upwards of one billion other human beings won't be spared.
During this interim period, the phrase 'a rising tide will lift all yachts' is more than a metaphor:
Funk is curiously nonjudgmental about his interview subjects, preferring to view them as good people "according to their own belief system," who only act out of perceived self-interest. He allows that "We can't trust capitalism to fix this" but asserts there's "nothing fundamentally wrong with profiting from disaster" and frets that readers might unfairly vilify businessmen.
In one narrow sense he's correct in that the system's internal but fatally flawed logic is responsible. Any CEO who allowed climate justice considerations to enter his or her decisions would quickly be replaced by someone more attuned to the bottom line.
In an earlier opinion piece, I characterized many otherwise caring folks who truly worry about the earth's survival as "capitalism deniers" because of their unwillingness to utter the "C" word. This, despite the fact that blame for environmental degradation lies squarely with our growth-and-profit-at-any-cost economic system. The system's apologists exist within and outside government and they will never be the solution.
The rest of us must draw the obvious conclusions and act accordingly within the tenuous time frame that remains.

A recent Bloomberg View (2/24/14) headline reads, "Profit From Global Warming or Get Left Behind." In his new book, WINDFALL (New York: Penguin, 2014), veteran journalist McKenzie Funk traveled the globe for six years, following the money in twenty-four countries to profile "hundreds of people who felt climate change would make them rich."
In a separate interview, Funk notes that "on Wall Street you no longer get a lot of climate denial." Largely indifferent to the causes of climate change, his respondents decided early on that investing in green technology was a losing proposition. Instead "the warmer the world, the less habitable it became, the bigger the windfall."
In 2008, Royal Dutch Shell developed two sophisticated climate-risk scenarios called Blueprints and Scramble. The first modeled a greener future while the latter predicted - due to government inaction - a future of droughts, floods, heat waves and super storms. By 2012, Shell executives confided to Funk "We've gone to Scramble. This is a Scramble kind of world. This is what we're doing." Another Shell official opined "I will be one of those persons cheering for an endless summer in Alaska."
The author's message is that in the short term, there will be definite winners and losers because ecological catastrophe is "...not necessarily a financial catastrophe for everyone." And while readers of this newspaper will temporarily avoid the most dire consequences of globing warming, upwards of one billion other human beings won't be spared.
During this interim period, the phrase 'a rising tide will lift all yachts' is more than a metaphor:
Funk is curiously nonjudgmental about his interview subjects, preferring to view them as good people "according to their own belief system," who only act out of perceived self-interest. He allows that "We can't trust capitalism to fix this" but asserts there's "nothing fundamentally wrong with profiting from disaster" and frets that readers might unfairly vilify businessmen.
In one narrow sense he's correct in that the system's internal but fatally flawed logic is responsible. Any CEO who allowed climate justice considerations to enter his or her decisions would quickly be replaced by someone more attuned to the bottom line.
In an earlier opinion piece, I characterized many otherwise caring folks who truly worry about the earth's survival as "capitalism deniers" because of their unwillingness to utter the "C" word. This, despite the fact that blame for environmental degradation lies squarely with our growth-and-profit-at-any-cost economic system. The system's apologists exist within and outside government and they will never be the solution.
The rest of us must draw the obvious conclusions and act accordingly within the tenuous time frame that remains.