Climate Change is a Capitalist Conspiracy

[FilM]

You heard it hear first, climate change is a conspiracy by some of America's largest corporations:

BP
"The likely effects of global warming include a greater frequency of extreme weather conditions: droughts; heat waves; and floods caused by rising sea levels. Carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from an estimated 280 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial revolution, to 380 ppm today. During the last century, the earth’s surface temperature rose by about 0.6°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that it could rise by between 1.4 and 5.8°C by the end of this century."

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9007617&contentId=7014484

Wal-Mart
"Our world is changing: Declining natural systems, climate change and energy crises affect us and threaten future generations. As a large international company, we know we must play our part to restore the life support systems of the earth. Fortunately, along with that responsibility comes an opportunity to promote restorative business practices across our entire industry. "

http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=345

JP Morgan Chase
"The scientific evidence provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body created by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, concludes that climate change is linked largely to the emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity, from the burning of fossil fuels, and deforestation. While there remains uncertainty regarding the severity of impacts, we believe that it is appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach to climate protection by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today.
JPMorgan Chase will assume a leadership role in the financial services industry by helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our value chain and internally, as described in Section E. We believe we cannot accomplish significant reductions alone; we need the support of our clients, as well as public policy that establishes certainty for investors and allows significant investments in greenhouse gas mitigation. We will therefore work with our industry, clients and policy makers to establish a policy framework for direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions reductions."

http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/community/env/policy/clim

Goldman Sachs
"We believe that we can make a significant positive contribution to climate change, sustainable forestry and ecosystem services through market-based solutions. As such, Goldman Sachs will aggressively seek market making and investment opportunities in the environmental markets:

• We will continue to act as a market maker in emissions trading (CO2, SO2), weather derivatives, renewable energy credits, and other climate related commodities, and look for ways to play a constructive role in promoting the development of these markets.

• Goldman Sachs intends to be a leading U.S. wind energy developer and generator through our recently acquired subsidiary, Horizon Wind Energy (f.k.a. Zilkha Renewable Energy).

• We will make available up to $1 billion to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
• etc..."

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our_fi...ironmental_policy_framework_051116102823.html

Shell
"Systemic changes are needed in order to promote effective action to tackle carbon dioxide emissions. Society needs more energy as much as it needs better ways to reduce the negative environmental effects of its production and use. Governments have a crucial role in ensuring that consumers and industry respond effectively... no single company or industry can effectively address the challenge of global climate change. If governments provide a sound regulatory framework, companies can better help to "attack CO2". Likewise, if governments fail to play their part to address the problem, lawmakers and society at large should not look to industry to solve it alone."

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework...007/jvdv_article_climate_change_24012007.html


To cap it off, some of our largest companies have set up a pressure group to lobby our government to enact mandatory reductions:

"United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change.
USCAP Members Include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources,
World Resources Institute."

http://www.us-cap.org/

Many of our major corporations are involved in this conspiracy, this is just the tip of the iceberg!

 

[Voegelin]

ENRON was the biggest corporate supporter of Kyoto.

Lay, Skilling and Fastow saw millions in easy money trading carbon credits.

Follow the money...always follow the money...

 

[Alarum]

Wow. This is at the status of... creationism.

Oh. Right. Nevermind, now I get it. Apparently these unscientific conspiracy theories find fertile ground in poorly educated Christians the same way that 9/11 conspiracy theories find root in a certain breed of left-wing zealots.

The fact of the matter is that these mutterings mean nothing. Follow the money? Oh no, gasoline is a conspiracy, cars don't need it! Look at all the companies that make money off it!

Fact: Companies exist to make money.
Fact: If they can make money solving a problem, they will.

Apparently capitalism is now a problem. "Follow the money" "Que Bono" and logical failures accompany conspiracy theories wherever they go.

Global warming exists. No one, NO ONE has refuted the basic science behind it. CO2 absorbs in the infrared spectrum. Incoming energy from the sun clusters at a higher energy frequency. Outgoing energy from the earth clusters at the infrared frequency. Thus outgoing energy is trapped, incoming energy gets through fine, net temperature shift upwards.

 

[TheReasoner]

ENRON was the biggest corporate supporter of Kyoto.

Lay, Skilling and Fastow saw millions in easy money trading carbon credits.

Follow the money...always follow the money...

Hey, you are the ones who want capitalism. No-one else does.

 

[Alarum]

Hey, you are the ones who want capitalism. No-one else does. No-one with a right mind anyway.

Defining people who disagree with you as insane is probably not the best rhetorical tactic. It's pretty much on the level of 'nyah, nyah, nyah' on the playground. It angers the people who disagree with you, and humiliates the people who agree with you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If only corporations wanted Capitalism... but, sadly, they could care less.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TheReasoner]

Defining people who disagree with you as insane is probably not the best rhetorical tactic. It's pretty much on the level of 'nyah, nyah, nyah' on the playground. It angers the people who disagree with you, and humiliates the people who agree with you.

True.
My sincerest apologies, fellow debatants. I do not wish to indicate that any idealism is the result of madness or in any way inferiority among the supporters of the ideology.

While I must say that the consequences of the idealism have hardly been good. Yet the fruits seem to be consumerism and materialism.
While the idealism - as most others - was no doubt intended for good, I am yet to see any historical evidence of it actually working out. Plenty of evidence points to it's harmful effects though. Of course this is also true for totalitarian branches of communism. Which I am not advocating.
This is what I wanted to point to. This and so much more. I do not see any good fruits from this capitalistic idea. Where is it?
Where are the benefits from it? If there were any should they not have materialized by now? Why isn't the environment saved by capitalism, as many claimed would happen? I mean, the US has followed that road for how long? And what is happening? They are backsliding, but still claiming the position as nation number one. Which they sure enough held in many areas. 60 years ago. Statistics clearly show the failure of their system, yet this is apparently not noticed as advocates for capitalism seem to ignore the statistics and the world status economically, sociologically and environmentally. It would seem they stick their fingers in their ears and keep shouting their mantra, which was long ago proven to be fatally flawed.
Now I am not saying that the ideal itself is inherently and completely flawed in every way. Just that it's "purest" forms do not work. And that should any ideal be allowed to actually form a governmental policy over a long period of time - this ideal must actually work. If something does not work, it needs to be re-thought. And pure capitalism treads on the weak. On the poor and the unfortunate. It strengthens the strong and facilitates many forms of abuse we can very easily do without.
This is what I am pointing towards as I would also state that anyone thoroughly supporting any one ideal need to think their policies through thoroughly based on historical evidence. And if proven flawed actually have the guts to admit having been in error.

You are right though Alarum, I was disrespectful and foolish in my earlier statement, and I apologize to everyone concerned.

 

[TheReasoner]

If only corporations wanted Capitalism... but, sadly, they could care less.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Care to elaborate on that?

 

[Vylo]

Yeah, PG&E really want to stoke the flames under global climate change to make money.

Oh wait, they have to spend millions if not billions to upgrade their plants to meet new emission codes each year. I fail to see where they are gaining.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Care to elaborate on that?

Corporations =/= Capitalism.

In Capitalism, there are free markets, and companies make money based on their ingenuity, inventiveness, efficiency, productiveness, ability to attract customers, and similar abilities.

However, when government gets involved, for instance through distributing "corporate welfare" from taxes, or through regulating the market in ways that favor certain politically-connected companies over less well-connected companies, what you have is no longer Capitalism. If you really want to get technical about this, it actually resembles most the economic theory behind Fascism.

When corporations don't care about free markets, and would prefer to compete through political pull and government power, they do not care about Capitalism any more.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KenH]

Hey, you are the ones who want capitalism. No-one else does.

Yeah, I guess all of this movement in much of the world during the past 20 years toward free market economics is just a mirage.

 

[TheReasoner]

Corporations =/= Capitalism.

In Capitalism, there are free markets, and companies make money based on their ingenuity, inventiveness, efficiency, productiveness, ability to attract customers, and similar abilities.

Yes. Which is why I disagree with it. While inventiveness, ingenuity, productivity and efficiency are all good, if let completely loose it will harm the people. And then capitalism as an ideology has failed utterly. And that is what has happened so many times. And still happens. Look at WalMart for a modern day example. Or Nike, Coca Cola, etc. So many modern producers allow their chase after profit rule their decisions. And as a result many people have died. Many live in conditions so poor our farmers here in Scandinavia would be in serious legal trouble had they kept their animals in the same conditions. This is to satisfy production needs. To keep efficiency and productivity up while keeping the prices down to face competition. A friend of mine works in Dhaka, and he once told me of a construction site near his home. One of the workers had broken a bone. He was promptly picked up and thrown out on the street, so he would not be in the way. These workers worked for a few cents a week. They were fed at the worksite; Rice with sugar, to give them an energy boost. Many of these workers - or most - start as children and work until their bodies are broken. Many die. They have no social net to catch them. No rights. While this was for a local contractor, our own western investors are no different. Labor is easily available. So much so that changing an employee is so easy they do not have to worry about their health.

However, when government gets involved, for instance through distributing "corporate welfare" from taxes, or through regulating the market in ways that favor certain politically-connected companies over less well-connected companies, what you have is no longer Capitalism. If you really want to get technical about this, it actually resembles most the economic theory behind Fascism.

Mmm. Agreed. Or maybe Fascism/Feudalism. If you consider the corporations local lords with heavy political influence...
Either way, not good.

When corporations don't care about free markets, and would prefer to compete through political pull and government power, they do not care about Capitalism any more.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Mm. I think we do need some capitalistic aspects. Competition is vital. But "pure" capitalism is -in my opinion - unwise.

 

[Alarum]

While I must say that the consequences of the idealism have hardly been good. Yet the fruits seem to be consumerism and materialism.
While the idealism - as most others - was no doubt intended for good, I am yet to see any historical evidence of it actually working out. Plenty of evidence points to it's harmful effects though. Of course this is also true for totalitarian branches of communism. Which I am not advocating.
This is what I wanted to point to. This and so much more. I do not see any good fruits from this capitalistic idea. Where is it?
Where are the benefits from it? If there were any should they not have materialized by now? Why isn't the environment saved by capitalism, as many claimed would happen? I mean, the US has followed that road for how long? And what is happening? They are backsliding, but still claiming the position as nation number one. Which they sure enough held in many areas. 60 years ago. Statistics clearly show the failure of their system, yet this is apparently not noticed as advocates for capitalism seem to ignore the statistics and the world status economically, sociologically and environmentally. It would seem they stick their fingers in their ears and keep shouting their mantra, which was long ago proven to be fatally flawed.
Now I am not saying that the ideal itself is inherently and completely flawed in every way. Just that it's "purest" forms do not work. And that should any ideal be allowed to actually form a governmental policy over a long period of time - this ideal must actually work. If something does not work, it needs to be re-thought. And pure capitalism treads on the weak. On the poor and the unfortunate. It strengthens the strong and facilitates many forms of abuse we can very easily do without.
This is what I am pointing towards as I would also state that anyone thoroughly supporting any one ideal need to think their policies through thoroughly based on historical evidence. And if proven flawed actually have the guts to admit having been in error.

Capitalism, as a system though, merely attempts to give the individual the greatest power possible over their lifestyle and the fruit of their labors. It, as a system, takes what we understand of economic theory and applies it to the real world in order to maximize growth and wealth of everyone.

With capitalism the means of production are mostly private. This has several benefits over public means of production for the 'poor and unfortunate.' Firstly, public means of production, historically, have been a means to control the poor, not benefit them. Look at the serfs in Russia and France before their respective revolutions. Certainly the lot of the factory worker wasn't great, but the lot of the peasant in Russia was a lot worse. Historically, its pretty easy to see that the peasant was the model, and he was treated about as well as the Russian Peasant.

So, as a net, the impoverished have benefitted from Capitalism. And, in fact, Capitalism is not an exclusionary system. Welfare and the like are not inherintly anti-capitalistic. Adam Smith himself advocated public education and governmental systems not benefitting the private sector. These systems benefit the poor and the weak, not tread on them. Marx himself thought of capitalism as the most advanced economic and social system 'to date.'

Eudaimonist hit the nail on the head. What you appear to be talking about is corporatism, not capitalism. When corporations gain enough control of the industry that they can set their prices in a way to maximize their profits at the expense of consumers and their workers (one and the same, often) then things suffer. The true capitalist attitude is Henry Ford who, despite his other unsavory personal opinions, decided to 'pay my workers enough that they can buy one of my cars.'