Yes, News Corp. The parent organization of Fox News Channel, Dow Jones and many other conservative outlets. James Murdoch, son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch and Chairman and Chief Executive of the Europe/Asia part of News Corporation, calls for conservatives to get behind efforts to set the country "on a path toward an economy powered by energy that is clean, safe, secure and stable."
Largely supportive of the ongoing efforts by Senator John Kerry (D), Senator Lindsey Graham (R) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I), Murdoch insists that acknowledging the realities of climate change are consistent with conservative principles. In his recent Washington Post column, Murdoch says:
You do not need to believe that all climate science is settled or every prediction or model is perfect to understand the benefits of limiting pollution and transforming our energy policies -- as a gradually declining cap on carbon pollution would do. This is the moment to champion policies that yield new industries, healthy competition, cleaner air and water, freedom from petroleum politics and reduced costs for businesses.
In other words, it's time to stop the partisan gamesmanship and whining, and start contributing to the solution. One of the basic tenets of conservatives is that industry is best positioned to innovate and to solve society's ills. The time has come to stop just talking and start doing. The smart companies are already finding ways to profit from innovative new technologies.
The future starts now. Will conservatives embrace it or choose to turn a blind eye to opportunity and live in the past?
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 51
From the conversations that I’ve had with conservatives, most seem to be of the opinion expressed in the article. It’s the neo-cons, the GOP and those of the Religious Right who seem to be resistant to finding solutions to a very real problem the planet is facing. I’d love to see the conservative economic principles put into action, as it would help restart our stagnant economy.
Three words that cannot be used in the same sentence: conservatives smarten up.
I think if we stay focused on finding solutions there is room for alternative paths to getting there. The problem is that too many lose track of the goal.
That has been my observation as well David.
To get real environmental change, the EPA would have to be cleaned up of burrowed-in toxic sludge.
I see no inclination yet on the part of the Obama team to do this.
In fact, horrors have been appointed to the EPA and other agencies in charge of chemical safety.
Harmed people cannot sue and recover until the feds are cleaned up. Nobody, no matter what they call themselves, seem inclined to do this in the least, and the things proposed for energy are just more enrich-the-rich schemes, so no help there.
If Main Street wants stuff cleaned, they will just have to chase the conglomerate 'garchs out of town on their own.
So far, however, the 'garchs are moving to take over drinking water systems. This is not going in the right direction.
CO2 is a distraction.
Hey guys, you like mercury? Estrogen mimics in your water? Hello!?
The right wing capitalists as deniers on global climate change are short sighted and will soon be forgotten as globalization increasingly change the current paradigm toward world base on sustaniablity and envormental stewardship. If conservatives expect to survive in a limted supply future they will have to change towards a greener 21st century
True but you have to be some kind of moron to think a phony cap and trade bill will do it. and even worse to even consider an international governing body to "oversee" a world reduction in CO2. Consiveratives traditionally don't favor Global Governance and neither should anyone else.
Cap and trade is not the best solution. I would rather see a straight carbon tax (and less income tax), or (even better) "feebates". But to argue that cap and trade is not also effective simply is not supported by anything. Actually, historically, it has been an effective strategy to diminish acid rain.
The Cap and Trade Success Story
Also note, We did it without an international treaty. We can do it again.
Climate Bill: Jobs, Energy, Security
A climate deal needs a strong compliance and verification system. It's up to the U.S. Senate to provide one. Fred Krupp is president of Environmental Defense Fund.
But that doesn't stop the denialist industry from applying their preconceived fantasy story line to anything they can get their hands on, even if they have to steal it.
If an Engineering/Scientific group within Boeing or a nuclear power plant manufacturer was caught (regardless of how) manipulating analyses and fudging numbers to sell his "product" all over the world there would be heck to pay. There would be demands for criminal action, investigations, etc from all quarters (as there should). Where is there a hint of that now with the recent climategate mess (any caution, any call for a full accounting and release of data/records/computer codes etc.)? Much of it is tax supported anyways and should be public domain.
Actually, most would argue that those who don't understand evolution are wrong-headed and wrong. But everyone is entitled to their opinions even when those opinions are not supported by the factual record.
If an Engineering/Scientific group within Boeing or a nuclear power plant manufacturer was caught (regardless of how) manipulating analyses and fudging numbers to sell his "product" all over the world there would be heck to pay.
The problem here is that you assume a false premise, then draw conclusions from it. Or probably more accurately, you had a preconceived conclusion and then interpreted the handful of dodgy emails as evidence to support that preconceived conclusion.
Where is there a hint of that now with the recent climategate mess (any caution, any call for a full accounting and release of data/records/computer codes etc.)?
There are many calls for full accounting. The UEA is investigating, and the head of the unit has stepped aside during the investigation. If anything improper was done there will be ramifications. But most people wait until evidence of wrongdoing is actually presented. The handful of emails (out of over 1000 stolen) are not evidence. In fact, the ridiculous assertions of the denialist industry are so far out of the universe of reality that one has to wonder if the rest of their lives are so fraught with hyperboly.
No false premise. They DID try to manipulate peer reviewed journals, "adjusted data" (by their own admission), and attempted to keep their raw data from being released (the raw data that they didn't simply throw away). See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
You in typical fashion understate my point about what an uproar there would be if the same deception were attempted by a business. I'm simply saying that this requires even more scrutiny (since they want us to spend trillions on this issue). It is a far bigger impact than 1 or even 10 plane crashes or even a nuclear power plant catastrophe so where are Pelosi, Reid, and Obama in calling for a full accounting and independent review of this whole issue (especially any parts that are funded by public funds)? They say nothing - silence.
Scientists and most sentient beings disagree with your opinion. But perhaps you can provide scientific support for an alternative? Frankly I don't understand why you are so threatened by natural phenomena. Perhaps you need to revisit your faith. My faith is not threatened at all by scientific realities.
No false premise. They DID try to manipulate peer reviewed journals, "adjusted data" (by their own admission), and attempted to keep their raw data from being released (the raw data that they didn't simply throw away).
Your statements are mostly opinion based on cherry picking phrases that you don't understand out of a handful of emails from the more than 1000 stolen. This has been discussed in the informed literature so there is no real excuse for continuing to be ill-informed. Futhermore, there are lots of cya investigations going on that will find whatever they will find. Most people tend to wait for evidence before hanging someone because they disagree with their views. And most people don't create a fantasy story that conforms to their predetermined conclusions and then wonder why others haven't bought into their fantasy.
You in typical fashion understate my point about what an uproar there would be if the same deception were attempted by a business.
I didn't understate your point, you overstated it based on a false premise.
(since they want us to spend trillions on this issue). It is a far bigger impact than 1 or even 10 plane crashes or even a nuclear power plant catastrophe so where are Pelosi, Reid, and Obama in calling for a full accounting and independent review of this whole issue (especially any parts that are funded by public funds)?
This little piece is proof of your viewpoint. You clearly don't understand the science, which is fine because most don't. But you act as if you are making a scientific judgment when in fact you are in fact simply against the possible policy remedies. Which is exactly the problem. You and other denialists have reached your conclusion first, and that conclusion is "we don't want government telling us what to do." You then cherry pick and hyperventilate over things you don't really understand in an effort to deny a reason for the policy options you don't like.
Sorry, that's not how science works. Science observes a phenomenon, studies it, and if the evidence overwhelmingly leads to a certain conclusion than that's what we conclude. Denialists start with the conclusion (we don't like government intervention/cap-and-trade/taxes/whatever) and then backtracks to either cherry pick "support" for that conclusion or just deny it outright with no effort to present viable alternatives supported by the preponderance of the data. It's not very honest, and certainly not scientifically defensible. It is, however, what free market lobbying groups do for a living.
Lets get cleaner energy because it is a good thing. Dont cheapen it with bunk.
~M
Same thing. Cleaner energy means no global warming. But the best, cheapest, initial solution is energy efficiency. Utility regs in the U.S. actually work against combined heat and power (CHP) plants. A change in those regs would nearly meet scientific recommendations for addressing global warming - and it would ultimately save $Hundreds of Billions$.
Ironically, this article is about the smarter conservatives. But many conservatives still parrot the blogosphere falsehoods even after they have been shown to be, well, bogus.
Take the "globe has been cooling for 10 years" charade. No, it hasn't. The only reason the charts used by denialists show cooling is because they are faked charts. They have cherry picked start years to give the impression that the natural variation seen is "cooling" when all one has to do is shift the start year one year and the chart shows "warming." So continuing to parrot a falsehood based on active deception demonstrates either lack of knowledge or complicity in that deception.
Here's a nice explanation of the "global cooling" fakery by denialists.
And here is current article showing that 2009 will likely be the warmest on record and the last decade the warmest in history.
It's one thing to be ignorant, another to be actively so.
Article linked below: "This Decade Is Warmest on Record, 2009 Ranks Fifth". So much for the "global warming is over" myth.
~M
"I want America to take care of America for a change." To bad he and his country of Texas are not longer apart of the world of nations, having decided not to be apart of the U.N.
Furthermore, it's seems that their oil base economy has since been depleted along with shore line oil spills that have destroyed much of Texas coastal ecosystem. Since then Texas has turned it's back on the rest of the world they have become increasing militaristic and paranoid and has ask former U.S. President G.W. Bush to become emperor and king of the land of Texas in a desperate effort to bring back the good old days.
Actually, it's not. For example, utility regulations in all but 2 states make energy waste from coal cheaper than efficient use. Lobbying from the coal and utility industries keep these regulations in place. If, however, cogeneration or combined heat and power plants were built to replace aging ones, coal waste would be cut at least in half.
Also, a national smart grid - while costly in the short run - would save $Trillions in the long run.
It's Time for the Global Warming Deniers to "Throw in the Towel"
Australian droughts convinced Murdoch of climate change. "Conservatives", who apparently don't "believe" in conserving anything, have not appeared inclined to follow Murdoch's lead.
Btw, This Decade Is Warmest on Record, 2009 Ranks Fifth
I am very opposed to government mandated, freedom crushing efforts to 'clean up the environment.' We need to stop propping up oil and other energy sources with subsidies and let the free market work. Americans want to move away from oil and they will do that without government intervention.
"I think a good way to smoke out corporate socialists in free-marketeers' clothing is to ask whether they agree that all ways to save or produce energy should be allowed to compete fairly at honest prices, regardless of which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them."
He goes on to say:
"I can tell you who won't be in favor of it: the incumbent monopolists, monopsonists, and oligarchs who don't like competition and new market entrants."
Of course, the subsidies you mention include allowing oil and coal companies to externalize the real costs of their products, specifically, environmental degradation and mideast wars "to protect our vital national interests in the region."
Do you think the U.S. interstate highway system was a good idea? How about the internet?
Do you think the U.S. interstate highway system was a good idea? How about the internet?
I'm not sure what those have to do with cleaning up the environment?
Energy is not just a business. Our national economy depends on it, and therefore, it is a security issue for the nation. It is also a public health issue. I do think that government must play a role in advancing the national interest.
I ask about the internet and the internet highway system because they were also government programs. Today, a similar system is being discussed by people, from Al Gore to T. Boone Pickens. A smart electrical grid is described by Thomas Friedman in his book, Hot, Flat, and Crowed, and by Gore in his new book, Our Choice. A smart grid is very similar to the interstate highway system and the internet in its affects on the economy and jobs. It would ultimately enhance energy efficiency by several fold, reduce pollution, and speed the growth of renewable sources of energy.
That's why I ask you about the interstate highway system and the internet.
Your thoughts?
The companies can no longer jam searches with their stuff to prevent people from finding out about research on estrogenic compounds or on surfactants.
The issues of burrowed-in and revolving doors are discussed on truthout from time to time and on other sites concerned with sunshine and transparency.
The harm from chemicals is discusssed openly in some other countries, and it is becoming quite difficult to block that information in the states.
This is why there is such a push to get these chemicals back into India (after the memory of Bhopal has faded) and into Africa. South and Central American countries have wised up in some respects, particularly Equador, which has a solid core of dedicated supporters from the U.S.
I am nobody, really. Don't trust me on this stuff. It has become easier to find the research of independent researchers.
I agree with Lovins concerning monopolies. They want out-of-scale stuff that is ironically quite vulnerable to cut or broken lines and things like that.
Micro-grids will happen despite the fierce attempts to stop them. They empower local people, especially kids needing to learn practical stuff in schools, and when people hear how they work, they want this. Concentrated photovoltaics, regular phtovoltaics, and thermal are going to get placed. Even geothermal is going in in some places.
Regular people are doing this at great expense and while getting pretty frustrated with installed monopoly behaviors.
What Kucinich did in Cleveland can happen in other places. It is just going to take time.
Junketing by leaders is soap opera, but it's clotted cream on the surface of a pond teaming with stuff going on under the surface.
Got to run. Thanks for thread. I will think about this more.
Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance on this issue. It will be willful ignorance, if from this point forward, you do not find out what the difference between weather and climate is.
. Even though I support cleaner air, this post is close to "bear baiting" any gop members to immediately oppose your bill just from the general tone of this post.
. To get cross co-operation, we need to be civil, not "poke the bear."