Comments on: The U.S. Chamber’s climate blunders

By: OsamaBinLogin

OsamaBinLogin — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:56:51 +0000

I just watched a Nova show all about a photographer who spends his life photographing the ice retreating in Alaska and Greenland. Spectacular videos of glaciers breaking up into icebergs. It’s happening way faster than ever before, and the place where they break off is creeping further upstream, like 50′ or 100′ per year.

They say that all the mountain icecaps are going to melt. Too bad for the scenery, but that’s not the problem. A lot of your streams and riverflows come from those icecaps; it snows every winter and melts year round. That’s going to turn into winter floods and summer droughts. OK so what’s the effect upon agriculture? Places with two or three growing seasons a year, will have only one. More soil will erode, and that never comes back. How much will that cost?

Maybe we’ll have to make more reservoirs. Well the people in Africa are going to have to, too, and South America and Asia and everywhere. Some of these places already have big water problems, and famine problems, and money problems, and they don’t need this.

Air conditioners. That guy should be strangled.

By: Pete Altman: The US Chamber’s Continuing Climate Credibility Crisis | Proinvests.com

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:51:22 +0000

[...] the US Chamber is damaging its reputation and credibility: BusinessWeek, PRWeek, Fortune Magazine’s Marc Gunther, Newsweek, LA [...]

By: TokyoTom

TokyoTom — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:40:30 +0000

Ernie, you`re right to be asking the “who benefits” question, but you can`t ignore that it cuts more than one way: coal interests have benefitted greatly under the current regime of state-granted public utility monopolies, federal environmental laws that leave dirty plants in place (and no liaibility for downstream damages), and for the free use of the common, unowned atmosphere as a CO2 dump. That`s why they`ve been paying dearly to protect their current position.

Anyone who understands what happens to unowned resources and listens to any of the academies of science has to be troubled.

The policy question is how to steer a better course, without wasting too much money on pork justified on the basis that various interests need to be paid off in order to change course.

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:19:03 +0000

Ernie, of course you are right that GE, Siemens, PG&E, Exelon and the rest are acting in their own self-interest. So are GM and Chrysler, whichsupported climate change legislation before they became wards of the state. The coal and oil companies have another view, of course, and I’m sure the electric cooperatives do as well, although I don’t know where they stand or why.

If I’m pushing an agenda in this blog–and I suppose I am–it is one that takes what I’ve been able to learn as a reporter about climate science (not much, frankly, but I trust the mainstream view), economics (a little more, mostly self-taught), business (hopefully a good deal) and combines it to say, what’s best for the world? The world’s economy, the planet’s health, the U.S.’s national security, etc. Not an easy question but there you have it. I also ask lots of questions and try to keep an open mind.

My formal education isn’t especially relevant but since you asked, I have B.A. in English from Yale.

By: Ernie

Ernie — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:35:50 +0000

It seems that most of the companies that are supporting “climate change” legistlation are in position to make “windfall” profits from its passage. Investor owned utilties will make a larger profit because they are guaranteed profits by the various utility commissions, the more they are required to spend the more money they can pick from their consumers pockets. The non-profit electric cooperatives are against the legislation because they are truly acting in their members best interest, not the profit motive (the investor owned utilties should follow their example). GE, Siemens, and others stand to make huge profits on selling “green” equipment…paid for out of the pockets of hard working Americans who use energy. Chrysler and GM are now government controlled so they have to toe the line. What is your educational background that allows you to speak with any authority on this subject? Perhaps this is why so many newspapers and main steam media are failing…because reporters with little education in the area of concern are pushing agendas instead of reporting the news.

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:50:05 +0000

I wasn’t comparing the chamber to David Letterman re climate science. I agree with you that there is room for debate there, at least around the seriousness of the threat, pace of change, particular impacts, etc. I don’t think those who question the science of global warming should be compared with Holocaust deniers.

The chamber’s climate blunder was in not listening to a substantial portion of its membership, and as a result alienating or losing important companies–although I also think that the chamber’s comment to the EPA that air-conditioning could help ameliorate the threat of global warming was ludicrous. Sort of like saying umbrellas or rowboats could have helped New Orleans adapt to Hurricane Katrina.

By: D Taylor

D Taylor — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:42:04 +0000

What a ridiculous comparison. As someone who is not a scientist with the ability to evaluate the data independently, is hard not to agree with seemingly overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic global warming is real. But occasionally I hear such outrageous rhetoric (such as global warming doubters being compared with holocaust deniers) I have to scratch my head and wonder. If strong proponents of global warming have to resort to extreme statements to belittle dissenters, then they must be hiding a flaw in their position.

By: Ringside seat on the fight to steer the Chamber of Commerce`s climate bus - TT`s Lost in Tokyo

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:27:47 +0000

[...] From blog of Marc Gunther: [...]