Keith, As to why the Heartland Institute is a repeat sponsor at serious energy+ conferences and news aggregators, ask the Directors & Owners of the two respective firms mentioned:
1. EUEC http://www.euec.com/directors.aspx 2. epOverviews http://www.epoverviews.com/about.php Best, Christian On Dec 13, 2011, at 06:56 PM, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Christian >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. Why? Best Keith >On Dec 11, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Heartland Institute - SourceWatch >> http://www.sourcewatch.org/indexphp?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 requires·. 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 speeches·that 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 thing·. 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): biofuel@sustainablelists.org/'>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20111214/12f96d54/attachment.html _______________________________________________ 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/
