Heritage Foundation Stakes Out The "Anti-Gore" Position
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 01. 7.07
The President of the Heritage Foundation recently spelled out his, and presumably the position of many others, on Climate Change. In a piece in "Real Clear Politics" Edwin Feulner said:- "This time, the impetus is "global warming," but the prescription is the same: government controls and slower economic growth. "Our natural role is to be the pace car in the race to stop global warming," Al Gore explained in a speech this fall. The former vice president says that to do that, "we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions." Of course, the reason the United States emits so much CO2 is because we've got the planet's largest economy. So Gore's prescription boils down to saying we need to show the rest of the world the way forward by freezing -- and then reversing -- our economic growth. That's exactly the wrong approach. If anything, we need to increase the pace of our growth, and the rest of the world's. Economic growth, after all, is the surest way to clean up the environment".
Like it or not, we design-focused TreeHuggers are surrounded by powerful people who support Mr. Feulner's thinking. We could resort to challenge and response tactics, debating point-by-point the design and market cycnicisms inherent in the last statement: and be overlooked as naive. Probably a waste of time.
We know that a company can milk existing operations, control access to natural resources, layoff and outsource workers, let operations slip into disprepair, and show little regard to the future. Examples surface every day. In this world view, every dollar spent on cleaning up after Katrina gets counted as "GDP," and hence is praised as 'economic growth.' Ignoring climate risk is consistent with this world view.
Alternatively, a company can work to design more resource efficient operations. It can design beautiful, efficient to use products that delight it's customers. It can invest to maintain shareholder value for the long term. And, it can minimize wasteful, toxic "throughput" to create economic growth.
Such are the companies and products we like to talk about on TreeHugger. We hope that Heritage members will one day join us in the celebration.
" Of course, the reason the United States emits so much CO2 is because we've got the planet's largest economy"
I'm neither a Gore convert or fully sold on the conclusions of Stern, but even I find the above a shockingly feeble piece of reasoning. This grim fascination with economic growth as the sole measure of sucess is simply not sustainable on a planet of 7 billion or so people. Green credentials are starting to drive public choice, and any big business (and by extension economy) which ignores it will not be big much longer, as the demand is only going to increase as awareness grows. Doesn't even have to be a climate change argument...the desire for human progress makes cleaner energy generation, increased efficiency and generally not screwing the planet entirely laudible objectives if you ask me. I find it annoying that the debate is now so polarised between the "we're all doomed" view and the "carry on as normal" head in the sand stance. He who shouts loudest I suppose.
So... Feulner seems to be saying: Americans emit the most CO2 and have the strongest economy, so emitting CO2 and economic strength are linked, BUT then, a stronger economy is linked to better environmental projection. Follow Feulner's "logic" and what you get is this: we should burn more CO2 to protect the environment. Such people should be reprimanded throughout the press for their lies.
It is not lies, it's stupidity. Lies are different from stupidity. Stupidity is only using one measure for success, in his case economic growth no matter what, and not facing up to the reality of the world. Lying is intentionally distorting the truth. His perception of the truth and how the world works is different from many on Treehugger. His conclusions in this matter are stupid because they are founded on an inadequate grasp of the problem and contradictory recommendations, though he himself may not be a stupid man.
This is just the kind of naive rhetoric one would expect from a republican thoroughbred - ignore the wood, let's go for the trees!
Until these people wake up, there is no hope that the media will take any interest in what is clearly a partisan issue.
YOU WERE WARNED!
And don't forget, windmills and solar panels are made in un-manned factories full of robots*, so solar and wind power don't create any jobs.
*The robots come from magical fairy dust, so there aren't even any jobs to be had building robots.
Seriously, how the heck did this "It's the Economy or the Environment!" false dichotomy get traction?
The growth of an environmentallyresponsibe industrial base is still growth (ie. net increase of jobs & money).
This man, and people like him, should not be permitted to cast the old, traditional, wrong-headed strategies for easy, unsustainable "progress" as some sort of heroic struggle against a green-economy-induced recession.
Wow. I'd like to try some of the crack this guy's smoking. Think he'd share?
I find these comments stupid. So we are the planet's largest ecomony because we produce the most CO2 are we? So what? We can STILL be the planet largest economy and produce a LOT LESS CO2!
We got the technology, we got the best minds and so, there's really no excuse but to do so.
"We could resort to challenge and response tactics, debating point-by-point the design and market cycnicisms inherent in the last statement: and be overlooked as naive."
So, you seem to take the position that since you have no coherent counter-arguments, you just won't bother.
"Probably a waste of time."
Now who's being cynical?
==== author's response follows ===
Undeniably that was a cynical take. But, watch cable "news" for 10 minutes and you'll see what breeds that mindset.
Conversely, my closing statement, I'd hoped, was grass-roots optimistic.
Name: Helpful Reminder
What Can be Done about Trolls?
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored -- or banned.
Brian, you can't reason with these people. I told someone that it shouldn't hurt the economy (places that have gone green are also making lots of money) because there are lots of jobs to be had creating more efficient products and building windmills and such. He said the government shouldn't be in the business of creating jobs, especially if they are pointless, and then he compared creating jobs via environmental controls to creating a job by throwing a brick through a window ("I just made a job because someone has to replace that window").
The best thing to do is convince the majority of people who can be convinced that this is what we need to do. I agree with your false dichotomy sentiments.
"Alternatively, a company can work to design more resource efficient operations. It can design beautiful, efficient to use products that delight it's customers. It can invest to maintain shareholder value for the long term. And, it can minimize wasteful, toxic "throughput" to create economic growth."
I totally agree, TH.
When are these guys going to learn, that sustainability and safety are fast becoming much more important that endless growth?
What the green biz community really needs now, is a think tank/PR firm with big pockets, to educate everyone about all the ways that sustainable/clean biz can CREATE GROWTH. All these think tanks like the Heritage Fndtn, which are supported by men whose wealth comes from Legacy Energy, are poisoning the dialogue and doing America a huge disservice.
All in the name of covering the *sses of these older, dirtier businesses who are change-averse.
[Note: It appears as though treehugger.com selectively censoring comment. 2nd attempt at posting.]
Crosius wrote:
"This man, and people like him, should not be permitted to cast the old, traditional, wrong-headed strategies"
He should not be permitted? And just how do you seek to accomplish that? Perhaps you would like to enact what an editor of Grist magazine recently suggested -- institute Nuremberg trials, to punish "eco-criminals" for their "wrong-headedness". Your ideological opponents could then be sentenced to re-education camps, where they won't bother you with their pesky dissenting views.
------------------------------------
Gerald Shields wrote:
"So we are the planet's largest ecomony because we produce the most CO2 are we?"
No, he didn't say that. Several of the commentors here seem to use logic like this:
a) Socrates is a man
b) Some men have beards
c) Therefore all men are Socrates
-----------------------------------
Troll Reminder helpfully wrote:
"When you try to reason with a troll, he wins."
I understand your deep concern. It starts out with a little innocent reasoning. The next thing you know, people will start to use logic, facts, and coherent argument. Then were would be be?
Fortunately, your fears of reasoning are misplaced -- see above.
What Can be Done about Trolls?
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored -- or banned.
Brian & Hitchcock:
I think the two of you would benefit if you actually read the entire article. You would have both learned that “Research cited by the World Bank finds that once per capita income in a country rises to between $5,000 and $8,000, pollution starts to decline.” Or that because of economic growth we developed alternate sources of energy so that we no longer have to burn wood for fuel. Even if you could somehow freeze / drastically reduce CO2 levels do you think the “majority” will agree to walk to work, vacation in their own homes or live in smaller homes with less appliances? I’ll answer that, NFW.
=== author's response follows -====
Those numbers make intuitive sense. But they apply to developing economies where a burgeoning population leaves their marginal family farms and moves to the city, still a long way from the middle class values we exerience. And not pertinent to the culture changes that North Americans may have to make to mitigate climate change.
Poverty isn't good, that's for sure. But lets be careful with country by country analysis. A lot of it has to do with exporting pollution (the way that a lot of the US' consumption pollution happens somewhere else, where products are manufactured).
This is a foul piece of illogical rhetoric. A child could see that the man does not state an argument and his conclusion is plucked from thin air. Where do you Americans find these people and how do others listen to (without seemingly hearing) them without having multiple hernias through laughing so much?!
=== author's response follows ====
Think tank "experts" get paid to do the bidding of wealthy individuals and corporate donors who donate large sums of money to the organizations. At the start it must feel exhilarating to be paid a nice salary for arguing utopian, unproven theories. Then, after a lifetime of following the pattern, I imagine it comes to seem normal. There is no peer review. There is no accountability for outcomes. Just ideas and salaries for them.
Author:
Let’s not forget the point of the discussion: If environmentalists continue to challenge economic growth nothing will be accomplished from an environmental standpoint. Don’t misunderstand me; I think it’s great we are buying more fuel efficient cars and other environmentally safer products but nothing we do will quell our desire to consume. The average American is not going to give up their cars, houses, vacation travel, etc. anytime soon. So the Heritage Foundation is right, let’s accept the fact civilization wants to grow economically and deal with the environmental problems with that in mind. I mean do you think anyone in the Heritage Foundation or Gore Camp would be opposed to a fund set up to preserve rain forests?
Someone, apparently trying to criticize the views expressed by Feulner, asked:
"Seriously, how the heck did this "It's the Economy or the Environment!" false dichotomy get traction?"
Similar sentiments were echoed in followup comments.
The answer to the question above can be answered by looking in the mirror. There is no anti-environmental lobby in the US. There are only "environment OR economy" people (the left -- Gore's specific, publicly stated position is that the economy MUST shrink in order to save the planet), and "environment AND economy" people -- generally the right.
Consider -- the general position of the left (so-called environmentalists) is that we should stop driving, stop consuming things, and hence stop making things. The right on the other hand supports HEVs and PHEVs, ethanol, electricity generation from nuclear, solar, wind, and eventually fusion -- all developed privately (so that it will actually happen). To the extent that any of these proposals are supported by the left (most are opposed), they are supported solely through the imposition of federal government mandates (specifically mandates that the US constitution forbids the federal government from imposing).
Basically, I turn the query back on you. YOU are the one espousing the position that we must damage the economy in order to save the world. If you truly hold that position, then support it. If you don't hold it, then stop insisting on the enactment of policy that is guaranteed to damage the economy while offering little or no chance of even moving in the direction of the goal of improving the environment.
The magic of having the largest economy in the world is that we are in a place where we can develop alternatives. Saving the world from global warming can create jobs, industries, and even alter the functions of existing companies, not to mention save our only home. Saving the earth is the ultimate in protecting property rights.
Danielle a.k.a. taureandevi.blogspot.com