13
Mar
07

The Global Warming Business

Warren Buffet says when he’s evalutating a business he looks at the cash. How much cash is coming in, how much is going out, how much cash is in the bank. Just knowing that much about the man might tell you why he didn’t get caught up in the dot-com mania. In a different way, I’ve heard wise people say that when you see a lot of people involved in something, follow the money. Throughout my life I’ve noticed that while people will become motivated, sometimes religiously so, because of a personal belief or value system they have, oftentimes if you poke deeper you’ll find out that nothing motivates people to join a cause like money.

I believe this is the essence of the global warming movement, which I would prefer to call the “global warming industry,” because while some are involved because they truly believe, the movement would not exist were it not for those interested in the financial gain and power they derive from it.

And BTW, I’ve been inspired to write this because of Chris’ post on the global warming swindle.


Like Chris, I feel it necessary to add a disclaimer. I love nature. In fact, I think I love it more than most of the so-called “environmentalists” we see in the news. I grew up camping and hiking in the mountains. I used to want to be an oceanographer. Nature is still my favorite show on PBS. I grew up in Los Angeles and would like nothing more than to find ways to get rid of pollution. I think encouraging solar and wind power startups, even to the point of funding them with government dollars, is a great idea. I’m all for national parks, thinking green, preserving the rainforest (I lived in the Amazon jungle region of Brazil for two years), and saving the pandas (just watched a couple of documentaries on them last month, in fact).

What I am not for is allowing financially motivated groups hijack environmental causes for the purpose of making money and gaining power, and that is what I believe has happened with the global warming movement. While there are many well-intentioned individuals involved, I believe they have been tricked by others who are anything but concerned about the environment and who have adopted the creed of preserving the environment only as a way to line their wallets with more green and gain power.

One thing that really gets me about the global warming movement is that anyone who says “You know, this might be a problem, why don’t we examine the evidence?” is immediately discredited and branded as an idiotic, anti-environment, SUV-driving, psychopath. To even suggest that global warming is not a problem, or even to just suggest that while it is a problem it might not be man-made, is to risk the wrath of whoever is behind this movement. There is no room for intellectual debate. There is no room for an opposing view. And this atttitude alone is enough to make me wonder what is the real motivation here. Someone who really cares would be trying to convince others based on facts, but these people could care less about facts.

Now here’s a thought. Why don’t the global warming people focus on what everyone can agree on? I learned a long time ago that if you want a few things, and somebody else wants some things that are different, but some of the things you want are the same things that they want, then you cooperate on what you both want and worry about the other things later. With the global warming people there is no such attitude as far as I have seen. Every time I hear about global warming it’s being used in a political context to condemn someone, rather than a practical context in which something could actually be done.

Who are the big producers of Co2? It’s not the government, it’s certain types of businesses. Sure, the government passes regulations, but that takes a long time and can be difficult. Then once you’ve got something passed there’s the whole question of enforcement. I’ve heard some businesses talk about how they saved money by going green. Why aren’t environmentalists focusing on more ways that businesses can cut costs and save money while also helping reduce pollutants and protect the environment? Why aren’t there more cash contests to reward those who find ways to reduce the negative effects of humanity on the environment? $25M is a great start, but a lot more could be done, and engaging capitalist interest would go a lot farther than trying to get the government to legislate.

But you see, the global warming movement isn’t interested in just solving the “problem” if they can’t gain political power at the same time. Environmentalism in general and global warming in particular are just means to an end. If those problems were solved the same people would find a new problem as their vehicle towards what they really want, which is control and money.

Anyway, enough ranting. Watch at least the first five minutes of the movie.

  • http://voxpopdesign.com/bloomburst Matthew Reinbold

    Having seen both the British expose and an Inconvenient Truth in a 24 hour period I’m not sure I understand where all this animosity is coming from (not so much here, but certainly from Chris’s post). The call to action at the end of an Inconvenient Truth is to buy low wattage bulbs, use low energy appliances, and consider a hybrid car (if possible) – hardly the stuff of eco-world domination that people have claimed. And the movie discusses plenty of facts; sure, its facts supporting a particular viewpoint but that’s pretty much the basis of choosing (and supporting) a side.

    I am not familiar with the kind of eco-terrorism and big money that is claimed to surround the global warming movement. There are plenty of people with something at stake on either side (perhaps new ‘Green’ industries verses traditional energy producers?) and they will continue to lambaste each other with whatever will garner them an audience – arguing over an alleged apocalypse makes for good copy. The fact that we have bloggers being pulled off topic and asserting their positions while having nothing new or unique to add to the debate is a testament to how emotionally charged the issue is.

    Like you said, any regulation (for or against) takes a tremendously long time. So why are so many bright people using second (or third) hand information to make such a big ruckus now? Is the CPM for Global Warming ads that lucrative and the topic that volatile that its a new blog tactic?

  • http://www.chrisknudsen.biz Chris

    Amen and thanks for the ref.

    The movie is great. I highly encourage all to watch it.

  • http://www.eransworld.com/blogger.htm Eran

    There are many companies who like to exploit the green movement. I once worked for a local environmentalist, Robert Redford. At Sundance, protection of the environment was the most important thing and it was so important that we paid twice as much for electricity. Utah Power has/had a wind program where you paid a premium price for “wind power”. Link The price of wind power was almost 100% more than regular power and there was no real proof that it was wind power since you cannot separate out the power grid. UPL said that they were buying the same amount of energy used from a “clean” source. My take on it was that UPL saw Redford as a fool and soon parted him of his money. Really can you prove that the power you bought is wind power? UPL buys power from a variety of sources and why would they pay more just to get wind power? UPL wouldn’t as it would lower their profit margins of a publicly traded company who has since been purchased by Warren Buffett’s energy conglomerate (Buffett to purchase U.S. utility). We all know that Buffett isn’t about to lose money. From Buffett to purchase U.S. utility, “The energy field is one that I basically like,” Buffett said by telephone. “It’s not a business you can dream about; however, it’s a capital-intensive business that provides decent returns. It’s stable and it’s predictable.”

    Robert Redford is just as hypocritical with the environment at times putting his business ahead of the environment. I do believe that he does more good than harm.

    I was privileged enough while working at Sundance to be in the conference room of a Global Warming Summit with world leaders including Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth” presentation. Gore hadn’t released the movie yet but he gave a presentation that was an outline and basis for the movie. He showed clips of the movie. After seeing his presentation I thought to myself the same things that you are writing about here. What was Gore’s real agenda? In the past Al Gore and environmentalist didn’t really seem to go together. It seemed odd to me and to others I mentioned it to at the time. To me it seemed like it was agenda driven and I thought he is thinking about a comeback and is going to use the environment to defeat the Republicans in 2008. Fast forward a few years to now and that is what a lot of others now think also. Again not being altruistic but using the environment as a platform to gain power. See Goremovement 2008

    I think there is a lot of hype and not enough hard facts and data. Mostly it is just media madness. (Anne Nicole media frenzy) Today’s media loves gloom and doom and the environmental movement is full of gloom and doom. What’s more gloomy than the end of the world and thus we have the media frenzy stirring it up. In reality the earth has survived many ice ages and thaw cycles. I am sure it will survive another.

  • http://www.chrisknudsen.biz Chris

    @Matthew:

    I think it would be better for you and me if you didn’t read my blog anymore.

    Chris

  • http://voxpopdesign.com/bloomburst Matthew Reinbold

    @Chris

    Love you too, sunshine.

  • Dave

    Matthew,

    Why stop at refraining from reading Chris’s blog? Because, really, it would be better for you and me and Chris if you just didn’t express your opinions.

    The world would be a much better place if everybody said only the nicest and least provocative things. By which I mean if you don’t agree with me, then shut up, because ultimately I believe in the sanctity of freedom of expression. For me.

    Dave

  • http://www.mwi.com Joshua Steimle

    For those interested in buying the Great Global Warming Swindle on DVD.

    And for those who are interested in some fallout associated with the program.

    I went back and watched the clips from Carl Wunsch (about 23 minutes into the video, also at 47, 49, and 55 minutes). The parts they dedicate to him and his research are relatively short (a total of 2-3 minutes vs. 5-10 minutes for others who are interviewed) and form only a small part of the film’s evidence. Essentially all they do with Wunsch’s research is point out that the temperatures of oceans do not necessarily reflect what is going on at the given moment, but due to their depth there are ocean temperatures today that are still being affected by what happened thousands of years ago. That is, a certain part of the ocean could be warming, but that might be because of something that happened in the earth’s atomosphere circa 1100 A.D., or 3000 B.C., or 10,000 B.C.

    When Wunsch says he was “misrepresented” it appears that what he means is that he doesn’t want to appear to support a position that he disagrees with, not that what he is shown saying isn’t factually accurate. Wunsch believes in Co2-caused, man-made, global warming, and yet here he is shown in a video that is attempting to debunk the theory. Think of it as though you were being interviewed for a documentary on your religion and you were told it was going to be a show on how your religion had been mininterpreted by society, and then when the show comes out it turns out to make your religion look like a crock. Whatever you said might be what you intended to say, and even if you knew what the show was really going to be you might have said the same things, but chances are you wouldn’t have agreed to be interviewed for the show in the first place.

    If my take on this is accurate then what we can get from all this is that the show’s producers were rude, perhaps unprofessional, and perhaps unethical, but that this does not necessarily mean the production’s accuracy is flawed in any way.

    Still, if it were me I would have told everybody being interviewed exactly what type of show it was going to be and I would have screened it by them prior to releasing it to prevent exactly this type of thing because even if it doesn’t change the quality of the presentation it certainly doesn’t help the credibility factor.