Guess who else is part of the evil climate change conspiracy?

Discuss

41 Responses to “Guess who else is part of the evil climate change conspiracy?”

  1. brerrabbit23 says:

    I’m not saying the statement, particularly given the source and it’s venue for publication, isn’t valid or remarkable, but…

    Calling GE disinterested would probably be silly, seeing as how they… y’know… invest heavily in development and sale of new (increasingly efficient/green) technologies and all…

    • saurabh says:

      Not to mention nuclear power generation equipment. Still, the fact that all the candidates for the Republican party are unable to admit that they agree with basic tenets of science (never mind climate change, how about evolution?) is so pathetic that I’ll accept help from anyone who is willing to join in on lambasting them.

    • Snig says:

      But the point of the article is that they started that serious investment after doing an independent review of the research, and decided that the science was valid.  They’re not known for their kindness to the environment for the environment’s sake.  They could have also decided the global warming science was invalid,  and invested in conventional non-green coal fired plants.

      • Stooge says:

        Just because GE claims their investment policy has been informed by an impartial review of the science does not make it so. I’m sure you wouldn’t have to work too hard to find similar claims by, say, Philip Morris.

        Whether GE does or does not invest in something has no bearing on its scientific validity, it merely tells you how GE feels about the potential profitability of that market segment.

        • Snig says:

           Excellent example.  Had Philip Morris said “we’re confident that tobacco will eventually be proven safe, and we’re putting billions into growing more tobacco”, that would be one thing.  But they instead they just said “we’re confident that tobacco will eventually be proven safe” and allowed tobacco production to decline and diversified into food and beer.  It’s not really of interest what they say, it’s that they invested billions.    

  2. bardfinn says:

    Sadly, this story exists.

  3. Dimmer says:

    The “comments” on the FT page are particularly depressing.

  4. AwesomeRobot says:

    Goddamn registration gate.

  5. TestSalad says:

    Can someone copy and paste the text to here? For Fair Use criticism of course…

  6. Ben Rogers says:

    Just google “GE rejects Republicans’ climate change doubts.” Access the article from that link, and you’ll have full access. Protip: works for virtually all news sites.

  7. lilj says:

    GE gets massive tax credits for producing energy-efficient durable goods.  This is why they have a consistently low effective tax rate.  If they can convince legislators that the credits are necessary, they keep their taxes down.  It’s a huge corporation.  Follow the money.

  8. Why not just register for ft.com? It’s free anyway, they have to make a buck somehow

  9. I find it appalling that progressives refuse to even consider the fact that, yes, there are hugely powerful vested interests that stand to make billions and trillions of dollars from human created climate change.Are GE a disinterested corporate citizens, simply trying to do their part to make the world a better place?”Climate change represents the biggest opportunity for global giant GE over the coming decades, the company’s Australian and New Zealand chief executive Steve Sargent says.”http://news.smh.com.au/business/climate-change-a-big-opportunity-ge-20080807-3rn1.html Follow the money. The pro-AGW money matches if not exceeds the anti-AGW money.

    • teapot says:

      Seriously – yawn. Your comments are always so far off topic it’s scary. It’s also classic that you and those of your ilk see “progressive” as a negative label.

      Firstly: try linking a bit more carefully. Your link is broken because you’ve forgotten how to use a space bar.

      Secondly: Try providing a link that is a little more recent. That’s from four years ago.

      Thirdly: Cite your sources if you’re gonna make insane claims. Your last sentence bears no relation to the article you linked and is completely made up. We don’t believe your bullshit. People here aren’t as stupid as you would hope.

      I am waiting for the day that the mods delete your account because they decide you are an astroturfer.

      • brerrabbit23 says:

         While I see your point, I’m not sure personal attacks are really helpful.

      • Snig says:

        They’re pretty good at stomping out the astroturfers on BB, which leads me to doubt that she is one.  I disagree with her, but I’ve never seen her be uncivil.  It’s one thing to disagree, but it’s another to say she shouldn’t be here.   

        • teapot says:

          The only reason I suspect that is because of the type of article she (? Sasha is a guys name too) comments on. BB isn’t exactly a blog about politics so when the only comments I notice from a person are on posts with a political angle I start to wonder.

          A little harsh? Probably. Unjustified? Possibly. The reason it got to here? Because Sasha’s last line is a claim which has no factual merit and it forced me into gtfo mode.

          • Snig says:

             I’ve known a male Sasha too, so you could be right.  I know I often jump in a political partisan fashion, (and my comments, sometimes justly, have been culled when I foam at the mouth) and I’m certainly not paid to do so.  I agree the line was crazy talk, but  I think a refutation of the offending line is better than gtfo. 

    • Snig says:

      As a progressive I staunchly believe that GE is nearly exclusively motivated by profit.  They and other corporations are planning for end of oil and consequences of climate change as smart money is on those things happening.  They are less geared towards avoiding end of oil and climate change, as they can make money until those things happen, and plan on doing so after we go through the end of oil and likely consequences of climate change.  I am more concerned about Republicans and oil bribed Democrats not believing in those events, and derailing any attempt to delay or prevent these events.  The Republican line that they’re not really sure about AGW since Al Gore hasn’t had any successful movies lately is amazing as the vast majority of scientists have come to the conclusion that it’s happening.

      “The pro-AGW money matches if not exceeds the anti-AGW money.”
      The world consumes 30 billion barrels of oil each year, 7 billion tons of coal. That’s a chunk of change.    How is pro-AGW gonna get more money than that?  The belief that there’s  a secret cabal that’s duped nearly all the world’s scientists and the Europeans and the Chinese, just so Al Gore or some  else is going to make a fortune on funny looking light bulbs is just crazy talk.

    • atimoshenko says:

      It’s difficult to run a going concern manufacturing products for problems that do not exist. GE’s ecomagination, on the other hand, has been going strong since early 2005 – the beginning of Bush’s second term.

      As an aside, I continue to be puzzled by the right’s aggressive denunciation of climate change. How can people who admire personal responsibility suddenly choose to oppose the making of short-term sacrifices to avoid long-term risks (the very definition of responsible behaviour)? How can people who hold private property sacrosanct justify not making an effort to minimise their impact on any property that is not their own?

      • Because, in very broad terms, personal responsibility is something you shout at those you don’t approve of. When those people shout it back at you, they’re just trying to oppress you.

        Mind you, I’m not saying any one person actually, consciously, thinks this way. Just that the overall gestalt works this way.

      • VicqRuiz says:

        How can people who admire personal responsibility suddenly choose to oppose the making of short-term sacrifices to avoid long-term risksBecause the linkage between the sacrifices and the risk avoidance is exceedingly difficult to quantify. 

        If America and Europe, acting alone, cut their GHG emissions by, say, 60%,  can anyone say within a reasonable margin for error what the 2050 CO2 ppm and the world’s overall temperature will be?  Will the sacrifice have been justified?

        By comparison, if the US government continues to run annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion, we can calculate with fair precision how much debt our children and grandchildren will be settled with.  Yet we cheerfully beggar future generations in order to enjoy our current levels of consumption.  Why is it so surprising that we treat the climate the same way??

    • Ian G says:

      I’m trying understand what your point is here. I think most progressives have been saying for years that there are vast business opportunities for Green tech and innovation, as well as from the restructuring of society towards sustainability. The counter-argument has always been that business-as-usual is the only way to go.

       I’ll go out on a limb and say that what I think you were trying to say is that there is money to be made from climate change, so the scientists have an interest in showing that AGW is occurring when it is not. That would imply that every climate and physical scientist out there is on the take from companies or would directly profit from climate change, which is what most free marketeer, right-wingers imply and is quite simply delusional.

  10. ocschwar says:

    What’s really pathetic is that the only remaining sector in American industry that is good at innovating and MAKING SHIT and BUILDING SHIT is the greenie weenies. 

    • ocschwar says:

      Who cannot seem to exercise enough clout to protect themselves from libel by the DC establishment. 

      • Guest says:

        We’ll exercise our clout when/if we need it. That will be after you’ve let it all go to hell and then you get hungry or need clean water. Lotta good you computer science or MBA will do you then.

        Go ahead, assume we’re losing. Uh hunh.

  11. greebo says:

    Kinda makes a mess of the usual right wing argument that tackling climate change will be bad for the economy. Here’s an American company already making money out of the switch to energy efficiency.
    OTOH certain comments above make me think the response is to declare “being green” as an unamerican activity, and hence to disown such companies. I guess capitalism that makes money by accepting the science rather than denying it cannot be real capitalism.

    • No; it will be bad for the sectors of the economy that they are invested in.

    • VicqRuiz says:

      Real capitalism is when you build a better mousetrap, and force the other mousetrap makers to improve their product, cut their price, or close their doors.

      Real capitalism is not when you lobby the government for a law reqiuring that X percent of all the mousetraps sold use your technology, or prohibiting manufacture and sale of your competitor’s lightbulbs mousetraps.

      • just curious when this “real” capitalism is going to kick into effect.  when are the external costs of oil and coal going to be factored into their price?  then real capitalism will force them to improve their product, cut their price, or close their doors. 

  12. the prospect of voters electing a president reluctant to accept the scientific consensus

    …and FT has won this morning’s award for the most artful use of the word ‘reluctant’ in a sentence!

    Check back this afternoon to see who wins for the most cynical use of the word ‘skeptical’ in a press release.

  13. Guest says:

    When GE owns their mess in Pittsfield, I will have an ear for them. 

Leave a Reply