Two American delegations visit Montreal 06 December 05

It does seem as though many in the US are looking to support Kyoto and / or switch to renewables. There seems to be a bottle-neck in producing wind turbines due to a surge in demand from the US (see article below).

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1659093,00.html

There does seem to be a vibrant debate, within the environmental movement as to what energy sources we should switch to.

Mark, if you are ever chatting to your chum, George Monbiot, you might ask him where he stands with regards to Jeremy Leggett’s book, Half Gone. He endorses the book on the cover (in fact, he seems much in demand for book endoresements), but he seems to be much less optimistic than Leggett about the feasibility of moving to a “solar”-power society (that is “solar” in a very broad sense of renewables derived from the sun) – and let’s not forget the moon (tidal). Did Monbiot actually read Leggett’s book, I wonder.

according to: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=49158

Which means runaway GW could be much much worse than anyone has imagined.

We need much more than Kyoto, or Son-of-Kyoto. We need to get totally serious and stop emitting our GHGs now, pronto, instantly! Preferrably starting yesterday.

I think any official who doesn’t address this strongly should be imp….(well, I won’t go there).

Sorry this is a bit off topic. Today’s Guardian reveals a leaked document written by Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (funded by Exxon Mobil). It sets out a strategy to undermine Europe’s climate change position and to avoid a target-based post-Kyoto agreement. It involves paying people to target journalists and bloggers, and to attend environmental group events. It targets not just views of climate science, but also of tactics. It appears from the article that the UK are a particular target for this campaign.

Here is the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1661916,00.html

Well done, Greenpeace, for obtaining the leak! Now we know what we have long suspected.

As for our own two contributors to this site – of course it doesn’t actually prove whether you have sorted out your pay-cheques yet.

Almuth Ernsting

I nailed Horner over at Tech Central Shill some time ago, using a sock puppet to distribute misinformation. He’s never appeared in comments again, and strangely the comments have disappeared. I learned from this instance to take screen shots when I find such mendacity.

Best,

D

I’ll go read the article. If what you say is true, it does confirm what we all really knew deep down. Big money and rightwing political views will not admit a climate problem and will do all they can to prevent others from learning the facts about climate change. Money talks, and I for one am sure a frequent guest here is on the payroll of a certain group. Their success in always having a rejoinder to any new scientific evidence on global warming shows they are well schooled in talking points. In short, I ignore the lot of them! If it isn’t science based, I don’t want to hear about it, save your rightwing religious bias for someone who cares. Science is not a church or beer Hall based occupation. History will judge who dared speak truth as best we can know it and those who told lies as best they could be paid to.

As an American I just want to express my appreciation to those Europeans, Canadians, and others who are putting pressure on the current US administration—not to mention exposing corporate underhandedness! I follow the climate change news closely, and I cannot help but notice that so much of the climate change news comes from outside the US. American press just isn’t giving GW the coverage that we need.

I do not see that what Mr. Horner has done is in any way different from the tactics of Greenpeace, NRDC, Mark Lynas or any other activist group. As I understand the Guardian article, Mr. Horner is developing a strategy to enhance the distribution of his viewpoint. You dislike that tactic because you disagree with Mr. Horner’s viewpoint. You do not dislike the tactic because you believe it to be inherently evil.

You may believe that he holds his viewpoint only because he pays him to do so, but that does no mean that you are correct. More likely, he works at CEI because his viewpoint supports the philosophy of the organization. (Parenthetically, $1.3 million is a small portion of the CEI budget; I think it unlikely that CEI would change its philosophy for such a small fraction of their income.)

You apparently wish to believe that everyone who holds opinions different from your opinions is a whore. You have a right to believe it, but it is not true.

You apparently have convinced yourself that I receive money for publishing on this blog. That too is not true. Nevertheless, you have incorporated one of the favorite tactics of radical activists into your repertoire, to wit – a lie repeated loudly and frequently enough becomes truth for a large portion of the audience.

I myself was raised in a Republican, right-wing, small business family. My mother taught me to be a non-conformist, and not follow the herd over the cliff. Used to read Ayn Rand. I would think, “It’s better to teach a person to fish, than give him fish.” I believed that our open class system gave everyone a chance to advance & prosper; those who didn’t advance were lazy. I used to believe in the expanding economic pie: the poor may get a smaller portion than the rich, but that portion would continue to grow.

(I guess in a similar vein upper caste Hindus can also feel good about the caste system, thinking that each person can advance to a higher caste & eventually heaven in succeeding lives by performing duties well in this life; and the poor/polluted must have done something wrong in their previous life to be born in such mean estate.)

But my more fundamental background was at Sunday School. I soon came to realize most Americans were hypocrits – Christian one hour a week, and money-minded the rest of the time. Then I came to realize Americans were not hypocrits, because their religion was money, not Christianity, though Christianity does seem to be used as a sugar-coated cover for many Americans, if not for Ayn Rand.

I find that killing people through environmental harm is inconsistent with my religion, & I also came to realize that excessive pursuit of the kingdom (wealth), power, & glory for myself was also inconsistent with my religion, especially when this involves harming others.

I know you are concerned about people’s rights to advance economically & to be free of governmental constraints (“the government that governs least governs best”).

So, since you are an engineer by training, here is the problem: come up with a solution that will reduce GHGs substantially (not any of this namby-pamby Kyoto 5% stuff), AND help us advance economically & retain our freedoms. You might even win the Nobel Prize for your solution, & we’d all be very grateful.

It seems to me diabolic, since other oil companies, such as BP & Shell, are (weakly) trying to go along with GHG reductions, at least asking for a level playing field of reduction. So the devil must be in the Exxon deals & its money & its lackeys, incl much of the U.S. media and many gov officials—such as my Senator, Kay Hutchinson Bailey, who gets the most money from oil than any other politician, including GW Bush.

Maybe we need to infiltrate them. Since we don’t have lots of money for such a project in the material world & since it seems we’re dealing with the devil, perhaps an effective strategy would be prayer. Here’s a few suggestions for those who pray: 1. Pray to God to stop GW (I think he may be already on it since he created the world & pronounced it “good,” but he may like to hear from us anyway); 2. Pray for the souls of Pres. Bush, et al.; 3. Dedicate every decade of the daily rosary to fight GW; 4. Ask our Guardian Angels to go tell the Guardian Angels of Bush, et al., to have their wards stop GW; 5. Pray to Our Lady, and ask her to pray to God, whom she carried in her womb, to have the bad guys stop aborting the earth; 5. Pray for all the other angels & saints to get in on the “Stop Global Warming” campaign. Re the devil, what really stops him, which he is completely powerless against, is humility, humble prayers.

On the other hand, this terrible attack on those who would save the earth might just be due to human short-comings & not the devil at all—but it’s still possible prayer might work.

This is totally outrageous and demonstrates Aappalling cynicism at the heart of our government. I apologise for quoting the article, as I can’t find a link:

‘Treasury hijacks funds meant for green causes’ – (article by Oliver Tickell in Independent Newspaper of 10 Dec 2005)

Hundreds of millions of pounds raised from electricity bills to help develop renewable energy are being diverted to the Treasury, creating a new “stealth tax”. So far, the Treasury has taken £210m from the so-called NFFO fund, while only £60m has been spent on renewable energy. By 2010, he fund is expected to have raised as much as £1bn, which is likely to be taken by the Treasury for general spending. The process is based on the fund being a “hereditary revenue of the Crown” along with income arising from the the Crown’s traditional rights to treasure trove, swans and surgeons. A former environment minister, Michael Meacher, has condemned the move as “perverse and illicit”, referring to “the predator of Whitehall”. He said: ”’The use to which this money is put should be determined by the purpose for which it was levied in the first place”. The discovery comes as Britain faces gas and power shortages this winter and the climate change conference in Montreal grinds to an inconclusive end. The UK’s emissions of greenhouse gases are rising steeply and the UK is expected barely to meet its Kyoto protocol target for CO2 reductions. If the £1bn were spent on renewable energy, it could displace a major coal-burning power station and significantly help the Government to meet its emissions targets. Since it was set up in 2002, the NFFO (Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation) fund has raised £321m from consumers’ electricity bills – more than £13 for every household in England and Wales. Of that, the Treasury has so far taken £210m. Just £60m has been spent on capital grants for offshore windpower installations, leaving a balance of £51m. The Department for Trade and Industry has confirmed that once the money is in what is known as the Consolidated Fund, it belongs to the Treasury. “It is the policy of the Government that we do not hypothecate revenue, so once the funds are transferred that is it”, said the DTI’s renewables policy adviser, Alex King. The Treasury took a first tranche of £60m in 2004, as it was allowed to do under a one-off provision in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. However the power regulator Ofgem, which administers the fund, has now revealed that on 20 September it paid a further £150m to the Treasury. “Further funding was paid to Her Majesty’s Treasury under the Civil List Act 1952”, said an Ofgem spokesman. “As receipts of levy surpluses are regarded as hereditary revenues of the Crown, it is intended that annual transfers to the Treasury will continue, in accordance with the 1952 Act”. The Civil List Act 1952 states that “hereditary revenues of the Crown” are to be paid into the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund. The nature of these revenues is not specified, however Halsbury’s Laws of England, written by Lord Hailsham in 1932, states that the hereditary revenues of the Crown include revenues from Crown lands, and other revenues from treasure trove, fines, forfeitures, and “prerogative relating to royal mines, royal fish and swans”. It is not clear on what basis the NFFO fund could be so regarded. The Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, failed to mention the transfer of funds in a written answer on 12 September, in response to a parliamentary question by Bill Wiggin MP, the Conservative environment spokesperson. Instead he said the estimated “size of the fund” would be £500m by 2008. This figure, which does not account for the 20 September transfer or other subsequent transfers, was thus wrong. “I am astonished” said Mr Wiggin, when presented with the facts. “Did the minister know he would transfer the money out a week later? He must have done. I suspect his officials could have tried harder to ensure that I knew what was going on. I find it hard to believe he has control over his department if this is what is going on. Either that or he did know and did not want me to know, which is not acceptable in a written parliamentary answer”. The director of Greenpeace, Stephen Tindale, said: “This sounds like a scandal in the making. Money raised from consumers for renewables must be spent on renewables – not on general expenditure. This is enough money to make Britain the world leader in offshore wind power, and that is how we believe it should be used”. Mike Childs, of Friends of the Earth, said: “This money has been raised for renewables and that’s how it should be spent, for example, to bring on a new generation of renewable technologies such as wave and tidal power”.

what do we have to do?

Colin

Almuth & Norbert,

I think this discussion raises an interesting issue that is relevant to how blogs, like this, should be run.

Specifically,

Should people who contribute to this blog declare any interests, especially financial? What is the ethical framework for discussion?

It is my perception that what is deemed acceptable is very different between the US and the UK (I can’t really comment on other countries). In this, I really do not want to say whether one is better than the other, but would observe that in the US, the use of money to buy political influence is an acceptable (and currently unavoidable) part of political life.

For US politicians, money and fund-raising are a prerequisite to developing the TV campaigns etc., without which they would not get elected. In return, politicians are expected to be sympathetic to the political issues facing their corporate donors, and the political think-tanks that these donors fund. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is all part and parcel of the political process in the US.

In the UK, there are strict limits on the use of money in politics. Perhaps of most importance, political parties cannot buy television advertising – they are allocated equal slots before a general election. We have recently lost our Home Secretary as he did not properly declare his interest in a pharmaceutical company. A few years ago, one MP, Neil Hamilton famously lost his job for receiving “cash for questions”. In my own small way, as a parish councillor, the first thing I have to say at the beginning of meetings is to declare any interests – and if I do have interests, I can be excluded from some of the discussions.

I would recommend the book “Selling Politics” by Laurence Rees of the BBC (1992) for a discussion of the differences between the US and the UK on these matters – especially pg. 67.

As I wrote before, I really do not want to get into commenting on whether one political system is better than another. However, I think this might go someway to explaining why Norbert believes it is acceptable for Horner (& his ilk) to lobby via blogs.

Although difficult to police, at the least, I think it should be ethical policy for contributors to this blog to declare any financial or related interests. There are probably other ethical standards that would be good to apply.

Peter

to finance exorbitantly expensive election campaigns. I believe that it is most onerous for those in the US House of Representatives, who must seek re-election every two years. Senate terms are for six years.

Without denying its existence, I also believe that it is easy to over-state the malleability of politicians. Just last week a Representative from California, Cunningham, pleaded guilty to taking bribes and will probably do some time in jail. Such blatant illegal activity is relatively rare. More common (if the media are reliable) is the bending of the opinions of elected officials to the needs of those who supply their campaign cash, which apparently is less rare.

However, your post omits the case, which I believe most common, wherein contributors bestow contributions on those elected officials who have demonstrated that they share the values and philosophies of the prospective contributor. That is, individuals and companies contribute to candidates who they believe will favor their interests. Mark Lynas, for example, would never contribute campaign cash to George Bush, who said during his first campaign that he would not support the Kyoto Protocol. I would and did contribute to the Bush campaign, as did Exxon/Mobil (they gave somewhat more than I gave). Ford Motor Company more likely supported Al Gore. Does that mean that Al Gore modified his stance on AGW to please the Ford directors?

I believe that the latter is most common among the think tanks. Contributors seek out organizations that espouse values favorable to the contributor. There is no need to impart sinister motives to either the recipients or the contributors. There are too many organizations out there to worry about trying to purchase the loyalty of one of them.

Furthermore, it does not seem reasonable to question the motives of only those recipient/contributor pairs that propound opinions different from your own. The labor unions and education organizations who contribute to the Democrats are no more pure than Exxon/Mobil; they too have agenda.

I think that the scariest scenario of all would be to have politicians indebted to the government for all of their campaign funds. That seems to me to be a sure route to disaster.

This is a good analysis and suggestion. I would very much agree with a requirement to declare financial and related interests – and what about having to use real names (after all, email addresses are not made available)? Perhaps this blog and others could be moderated in this way?

Almuth Ernsting

Actually, as I made a suggestion above, we ought to know whether people are minors or not!

They don’t care about the issues, only the influence. I think many, if not most Americans, understand the corruption in our political process, and that makes us cynical. It demoralizes the country.

I do believe we Americans own the airwaves for radio & TV…which brings me to another point. Radio & TV used to have a public service duty. For instance, if there is a big problem facing America, even lesser problems, they should report on them in a fair way. The U.S. media has been very silent on GW after 1990. And when they do mention it, it is usually in a pro-con format, or with fossil-fuel based caveats.

I’ve been thinking about this. When employed, the pro-con format properly should have been between scientists (who are cautious in making claims) and victims/environmentalists who are concerned about the harms & avoiding the harms. Or at least all three positions should have been mentioned (victim/environmentalist, scientific, contrarian). Otherwise, it’s between “we require 95% certainty” and “we won’t budge unless there’s 99% certainty…and even then…”

Our media (also supported by big business) and goverment are totally corrupt. This is not a democracy. It’s not even a representative (of the people) democracy. All they (gov & media) have to do is fool most of the Americans most of the time.

I believe that most politicians in most countries are motivated by a wish to help deliver a general good & do good works. Also, that they will not be involved in bribery. (Actually, I believe that even in countries where bribery appears to be widespread (such as in some African countries), I suspect that people feel they are not doing anything illigitimate – it is just an accepted part of the job.)

I think the real danger is that we all look through the eyes of our experience and the people we mix with. When we are forced to mix with people of a different outlook (say as parents talking with their teenage children and their teenage children’s friends; it can be quite a shock to any number of assumptions that we hold).

Given what I said before about the American political system and the need for money, it is no surprise that most American politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) are extremely wealthy men. This is not to say that these people aren’t concerned about the common good. There is a traditional of amazing generosity amongst wealthy Americans – Rockerfeller, Gates etc. But I am concerned that there is tendency to see the world from the eyes of big business donors. And these big business donors are also likely to be ethical people – but they will have particular responsibilities to their shareholders, employees etc. etc. And these big businesses do want to have some influence in return for their money.

Some American commentators are more strident in their concern about this – e.g. Frank Greer, American TV consultant “Greer believes America is at the point ‘where there is paraysis in Congress. People are afraid to take bold stands in favour of the public interest because they have to raise money from special interest. From big corporations. From big unions. And they have to have that money because campaigns are so expensive.’” Selling Politics, Rees (1992).

American, Bill McKibben, outlines the links between ExxoMobil and the Bush Administration at:

http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/12/12/mckibben/index.html?source=weekly

Norbert, aren’t you concerned about this link at all?

Peter

I believe that the corruption situation may be the cause of a great deal of human suffering. The primary example is that there is food enough for all humans, yet some starve because they live in areas that lack the infrastructure to deliver the food to them.

A friend once noted that every government official has room to exercise judgment during the discharge of his duties and that official judgment is openly for sale (or at least for rent) everywhere on earth except in Europe and North America. I believe that corruption is one of the major factors retarding economic progress in many developing nations.

I do not know the fraction of American politicians who are wealthy.

I think that President Bush has consistently said that one of his objectives is to maintain a government posture that lends itself to enhanced prosperity. He apparently believes, as do I, that the best way to ensure prosperity for everyone is to promote a vigorous economy. Both Mr. Bush and Exxon announced long before the 2000 presidential election that they do not believe that climate change will have a critical impact, that anthropogenic forcing are minor and that even if those things are incorrect that Kyoto is not an effective means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

I think that Frank Greer’s opinion of what is in the public interest probably differs from President Bush’s opinion (and my opinion), but I do agree that many politicians are pathologically cautious about expressing an opinion on any controversial issue. I do not know if that has changed much. Pundits have been complaining about “mealy-mouthed politicians” for as long as I can remember. It does seem that the sides have become less civil (to wit – Dano) and the discussions more strident.

The short answer to your question is, No I am not concerned that President Bush consulted Exxon/Mobil to get a recommendation. I think that Exxon/Mobil knows as well as any organization what will contribute to a favorable business climate (no pun intended), and am not surprised that the government would seek their counsel. I was more concerned when Vice-President Gore sought counsel from NRDC.

I am concerned that Mr. McKibben feels required to impugn the motives and integrity of Messrs. Bush and Watson.