Climate-Industrial Complex: Businesses see profits in green movement

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 else.

online.wsj.com...=article-outset-box

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?

jw

although it may seem counter intuitive, i must point out

it was the Oil Giants that denied climate change 15years ago

but after AL Gore, the Oil Giants are now EMBRACING climate change theory

Oil companies do NOT deny climate change, in fact they are the main proponents of such garbage these days

there are countless profits to be made from this, maybe WE should get in on it since theres obviously no way to stop it

maybe we should get in the carbon credit trade early

reply to post by muzzleflash


"If you can't beat 'em, joim 'em."

The biggest advocates for AGW trading schemes just so happen to be the companies with the most profits at stake.

Who would've guessed?

It's easy to fault CEO's for falling in line, but when the money flows to those who say "Yes," it is easy to see the corporate reality.

You must deliver to your shareholders the best return possible; so, if the $$$ go to the "green," you have to follow the money.

It doesn't make the science any different.

jw