The Heartland Institute is a loud & proud $$$$ "sponsor" at various conferences (EUEC in Phoenix) & news aggregators (epOverviews) ...
Wish Stewart @ the Daily Show would make them a weekly feature. On Dec 11, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heartland Institute - SourceWatch > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute > > -- > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate > > Capitalism vs. the Climate > > Naomi Klein > > November 9, 2011 > > There is a question from a gentleman in the fourth row. > > He introduces himself as Richard Rothschild. He tells the crowd that > he ran for county commissioner in Maryland's Carroll County because > he had come to the conclusion that policies to combat global warming > were actually "an attack on middle-class American capitalism." His > question for the panelists, gathered in a Washington, DC, Marriott > Hotel in late June, is this: "To what extent is this entire movement > simply a green Trojan horse, whose belly is full with red Marxist > socioeconomic doctrine?" > > Here at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on > Climate Change, the premier gathering for those dedicated to denying > the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming > the planet, this qualifies as a rhetorical question. Like asking a > meeting of German central bankers if Greeks are untrustworthy. Still, > the panelists aren't going to pass up an opportunity to tell the > questioner just how right he is. > > Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute > who specializes in harassing climate scientists with nuisance > lawsuits and Freedom of Information fishing expeditions, angles the > table mic over to his mouth. "You can believe this is about the > climate," he says darkly, "and many people do, but it's not a > reasonable belief." Horner, whose prematurely silver hair makes him > look like a right-wing Anderson Cooper, likes to invoke Saul Alinsky: > "The issue isn't the issue." The issue, apparently, is that "no free > society would do to itself what this agenda requiresŠ. The first step > to that is to remove these nagging freedoms that keep getting in the > way." > > Claiming that climate change is a plot to steal American freedom is > rather tame by Heartland standards. Over the course of this two-day > conference, I will learn that Obama's campaign promise to support > locally owned biofuels refineries was really about "green > communitarianism," akin to the "Maoist" scheme to put "a pig iron > furnace in everybody's backyard" (the Cato Institute's Patrick > Michaels). That climate change is "a stalking horse for National > Socialism" (former Republican senator and retired astronaut Harrison > Schmitt). And that environmentalists are like Aztec priests, > sacrificing countless people to appease the gods and change the > weather (Marc Morano, editor of the denialists' go-to website, > ClimateDepot.com). > > Most of all, however, I will hear versions of the opinion expressed > by the county commissioner in the fourth row: that climate change is > a Trojan horse designed to abolish capitalism and replace it with > some kind of eco-socialism. As conference speaker Larry Bell > succinctly puts it in his new book Climate of Corruption, climate > change "has little to do with the state of the environment and much > to do with shackling capitalism and transforming the American way of > life in the interests of global wealth redistribution." > > Yes, sure, there is a pretense that the delegates' rejection of > climate science is rooted in serious disagreement about the data. And > the organizers go to some lengths to mimic credible scientific > conferences, calling the gathering "Restoring the Scientific Method" > and even adopting the organizational acronym ICCC, a mere one letter > off from the world's leading authority on climate change, the > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the scientific > theories presented here are old and long discredited. And no attempt > is made to explain why each speaker seems to contradict the next. (Is > there no warming, or is there warming but it's not a problem? And if > there is no warming, then what's all this talk about sunspots causing > temperatures to rise?) > > In truth, several members of the mostly elderly audience seem to doze > off while the temperature graphs are projected. They come to life > only when the rock stars of the movement take the stage-not the > C-team scientists but the A-team ideological warriors like Morano and > Horner. This is the true purpose of the gathering: providing a forum > for die-hard denialists to collect the rhetorical baseball bats with > which they will club environmentalists and climate scientists in the > weeks and months to come. The talking points first tested here will > jam the comment sections beneath every article and YouTube video that > contains the phrase "climate change" or "global warming." They will > also exit the mouths of hundreds of right-wing commentators and > politicians-from Republican presidential candidates like Rick Perry > and Michele Bachmann all the way down to county commissioners like > Richard Rothschild. In an interview outside the sessions, Joseph > Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, proudly takes credit for > "thousands of articles and op-eds and speechesŠthat were informed by > or motivated by somebody attending one of these conferences." > > The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to > "promoting free-market solutions," has been holding these confabs > since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And the strategy appears to be > working. At the end of day one, Morano-whose claim to fame is having > broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that sank John Kerry's > 2004 presidential campaign-leads the gathering through a series of > victory laps. Cap and trade: dead! Obama at the Copenhagen summit: > failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projects a couple of > quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as > progressives do so well) and exhorts the audience to "celebrate!" > > There were no balloons or confetti descending from the rafters, but > there may as well have been. > > * * * > > When public opinion on the big social and political issues changes, > the trends tend to be relatively gradual. Abrupt shifts, when they > come, are usually precipitated by dramatic events. Which is why > pollsters are so surprised by what has happened to perceptions about > climate change over a span of just four years. A 2007 Harris poll > found that 71 percent of Americans believed that the continued > burning of fossil fuels would cause the climate to change. By 2009 > the figure had dropped to 51 percent. In June 2011 the number of > Americans who agreed was down to 44 percent-well under half the > population. According to Scott Keeter, director of survey research at > the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, this is "among the > largest shifts over a short period of time seen in recent public > opinion history." > > Even more striking, this shift has occurred almost entirely at one > end of the political spectrum. As recently as 2008 (the year Newt > Gingrich did a climate change TV spot with Nancy Pelosi) the issue > still had a veneer of bipartisan support in the United States. Those > days are decidedly over. Today, 70-75 percent of self-identified > Democrats and liberals believe humans are changing the climate-a > level that has remained stable or risen slightly over the past > decade. In sharp contrast, Republicans, particularly Tea Party > members, have overwhelmingly chosen to reject the scientific > consensus. In some regions, only about 20 percent of self-identified > Republicans accept the science. > > Equally significant has been a shift in emotional intensity. Climate > change used to be something most everyone said they cared about-just > not all that much. When Americans were asked to rank their political > concerns in order of priority, climate change would reliably come in > last. > > But now there is a significant cohort of Republicans who care > passionately, even obsessively, about climate change-though what they > care about is exposing it as a "hoax" being perpetrated by liberals > to force them to change their light bulbs, live in Soviet-style > tenements and surrender their SUVs. For these right-wingers, > opposition to climate change has become as central to their worldview > as low taxes, gun ownership and opposition to abortion. Many climate > scientists report receiving death threats, as do authors of articles > on subjects as seemingly innocuous as energy conservation. (As one > letter writer put it to Stan Cox, author of a book critical of > air-conditioning, "You can pry my thermostat out of my cold dead > hands.") > > This culture-war intensity is the worst news of all, because when you > challenge a person's position on an issue core to his or her > identity, facts and arguments are seen as little more than further > attacks, easily deflected. (The deniers have even found a way to > dismiss a new study confirming the reality of global warming that was > partially funded by the Koch brothers, and led by a scientist > sympathetic to the "skeptic" position.) > > The effects of this emotional intensity have been on full display in > the race to lead the Republican Party. Days into his presidential > campaign, with his home state literally burning up with wildfires, > Texas Governor Rick Perry delighted the base by declaring that > climate scientists were manipulating data "so that they will have > dollars rolling into their projects." Meanwhile, the only candidate > to consistently defend climate science, Jon Huntsman, was dead on > arrival. And part of what has rescued Mitt Romney's campaign has been > his flight from earlier statements supporting the scientific > consensus on climate change. > > But the effects of the right-wing climate conspiracies reach far > beyond the Republican Party. The Democrats have mostly gone mute on > the subject, not wanting to alienate independents. And the media and > culture industries have followed suit. Five years ago, celebrities > were showing up at the Academy Awards in hybrids, Vanity Fair > launched an annual green issue and, in 2007, the three major US > networks ran 147 stories on climate change. No longer. In 2010 the > networks ran just thirty-two climate change stories; limos are back > in style at the Academy Awards; and the "annual" Vanity Fair green > issue hasn't been seen since 2008. > > This uneasy silence has persisted through the end of the hottest > decade in recorded history and yet another summer of freak natural > disasters and record-breaking heat worldwide. Meanwhile, the fossil > fuel industry is rushing to make multibillion-dollar investments in > new infrastructure to extract oil, natural gas and coal from some of > the dirtiest and highest-risk sources on the continent (the $7 > billion Keystone XL pipeline being only the highest-profile example). > In the Alberta tar sands, in the Beaufort Sea, in the gas fields of > Pennsylvania and the coalfields of Wyoming and Montana, the industry > is betting big that the climate movement is as good as dead. > > If the carbon these projects are poised to suck out is released into > the atmosphere, the chance of triggering catastrophic climate change > will increase dramatically (mining the oil in the Alberta tar sands > alone, says NASA's James Hansen, would be "essentially game over" for > the climate). > > All of this means that the climate movement needs to have one hell of > a comeback. For this to happen, the left is going to have to learn > from the right. Denialists gained traction by making climate about > economics: action will destroy capitalism, they have claimed, killing > jobs and sending prices soaring. But at a time when a growing number > of people agree with the protesters at Occupy Wall Street, many of > whom argue that capitalism-as-usual is itself the cause of lost jobs > and debt slavery, there is a unique opportunity to seize the economic > terrain from the right. This would require making a persuasive case > that the real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope > of building a much more enlightened economic system-one that closes > deep inequalities, strengthens and transforms the public sphere, > generates plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate > power. It would also require a shift away from the notion that > climate action is just one issue on a laundry list of worthy causes > vying for progressive attention. Just as climate denialism has become > a core identity issue on the right, utterly entwined with defending > current systems of power and wealth, the scientific reality of > climate change must, for progressives, occupy a central place in a > coherent narrative about the perils of unrestrained greed and the > need for real alternatives. > > Building such a transformative movement may not be as hard as it > first appears. Indeed, if you ask the Heartlanders, climate change > makes some kind of left-wing revolution virtually inevitable, which > is precisely why they are so determined to deny its reality. Perhaps > we should listen to their theories more closely-they might just > understand something the left still doesn't get. > > * * * > > 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 thingŠ. It's > the reason why we should do everything [the left] 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. > > But when it comes to the real-world consequences of those scientific > findings, specifically the kind of deep changes required not just to > our energy consumption but to the underlying logic of our economic > system, the crowd gathered at the Marriott Hotel may be in > considerably less denial than a lot of professional > environmentalists, the ones who paint a picture of global warming > Armageddon, then assure us that we can avert catastrophe by buying > "green" products and creating clever markets in pollution. > > The fact that the earth's atmosphere cannot safely absorb the amount > of carbon we are pumping into it is a symptom of a much larger > crisis, one born of the central fiction on which our economic model > is based: that nature is limitless, that we will always be able to > find more of what we need, and that if something runs out it can be > seamlessly replaced by another resource that we can endlessly > extract. But it is not just the atmosphere that we have exploited > beyond its capacity to recover-we are doing the same to the oceans, > to freshwater, to topsoil and to biodiversity. The expansionist, > extractive mindset, which has so _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
