Well Keith, Dollars to donuts:
Stewart @ the Daily Show (and other independent minded citizens like myself) find the militant "we can piss in the soup, who cares!" modus operandi of Heartland Institute guests, staff & directors funny at best. Except, not really funny. Examples: 7/10 on the Militant-We-Can-Piss-in-the-Soup!-o-meter: http://blog.heartland.org/2011/12/coca-cola-playing-a-dangerous-game-by-cuddling-with-environmentalists/ 2/10 on the Militant-We-Can-Piss-in-the-Soup!-o-meter: http://blog.heartland.org/2011/12/getting-the-enron-story-straight/ 10/10 on the Militant-We-Can-Piss-in-the-Soup!-o-meter: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/12/01/climate-change-weekly-climategate-2-reveals-more-destruction-evidence-s http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/12/09/climategate-conspirator-mann-plays-persecuted-victim I wish the Daily Show's Stewart would host the Heartland Institute's Managing Director James M. Taylor (http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor) and Science Director Jay Leher (http://heartland.org/jay-lehr) on the show ... A little light can go a long way. Christian On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, that's not what I asked. > >Wish Stewart @ the Daily Show would make them a weekly feature. > >Why? Best Keith >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/20111214/2f6f68b8/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/
