posted on May, 21 2009 @ 12:42 PM
Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a
very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.
There would be an outcry if big oil organized a climate change conference and invited only climate-change deniers.
The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial
complex does not promote discussion in a way that will be best for everybody. Those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for
politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody
President Eisenhower warned about the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the
miraculous solution to all current difficulties."
This is true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample
evidence that this approach does not pass cost-benefit tests.
Is a "climate-industrial complex" emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain?
The corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its
relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented,
[the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business."
The World Business Summit will hear from "science and public policy leaders" selected for their scary views of global warming. They include James
Lovelock, who believes that much of Europe will be Saharan and London will be underwater within 30 years; Sir Crispin Tickell, who believes that the
United Kingdom's population needs to be cut by two-thirds so the country can cope with global warming; and Timothy Flannery, who warns of sea level
rises as high as "an eight-story building."
These visions of catastrophe are way outside of mainstream scientific opinion. When it comes to sea-level rise, for example, the UN expects a rise of
between seven and 23 inches by 2100 -- considerably less than a one-story building.
Gore, et al stand to reap fortunes at our expense. Are you happy, now?