Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Paul Driessen :: Townhall.com Columnist
Forty years of perverse "social responsibility"
by Paul Driessen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Two billion people – a third of the world’s population – still don’t have electricity, for lights, cooking and refrigeration, water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, offices, shops and factories. Women and children are plagued with lung infections caused by wood and dung fires, and by acute intestinal diseases caused by tainted water and spoiled food. Some ten million die from these causes every year.

But instead of helping destitute families get abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, Rainforest Action Network, Environmental Defense and other pressure groups want banks to withhold funding from coal and gas generating plants, because they would release greenhouse gases. They block hydroelectric and nuclear projects on equally questionable grounds – and then praise Citigroup, JP Morgan and Bank of America for being "socially responsible." Up to 95% of people in Sub-Saharan countries have no electricity, and these activists and banks are telling them the biggest threat they face is hypothetical climate change. Al Gore personally uses more electricity in a week than 25 million Ugandans do in a year, and Hollywood gives him an Oscar for his devotion to "saving the planet."

Environmental Defense is poised to rake in millions from emissions trading credits, through its new alliance with Morgan Stanley, and an axis of anti-developers is telling the Third World: You can't have electricity. You can't have refrigeration or a modern, industrialized society. Your future is renewable, sustainable energy – expensive, intermittent and insufficient: a couple of wind turbines near your villages and little solar panels on your huts, to power a light bulb, radio, hot plate and maybe tiny refrigerator. Even if Al Gore and ED are right about catastrophic climate change, their prescription – reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 60-80% over the next few decades – would be disastrous. The ensuing poverty, misery, disease and death would likely dwarf even their malaria records.

But they aren't right. In fact, ice core/temperature data going back thousands of years clearly show that planetary temperatures rise first and, 400 to 800 years later, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase. Temperatures fall and, centuries later, CO2 levels decline.

Talk about an Inconvenient Truth! It completely destroys the central premise of climate catastrophe – that CO2 is responsible for climate change. Climatologists featured in the new British documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," explain that warm ocean water can't hold as much CO2 as cold water. As changing solar forces warm the planet, the oceans release their stores of carbon dioxide. Even Al Gore’s own temperature-and-CO2 graph shows this. (View the film and Mr. Gore’s graph at a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU)"

Developed countries are being told they must spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on symbolic gestures that will do nothing to stop climate change. Countless workers are at risk of losing their jobs. American and European families face 10-15% increases in energy, food and consumer prices. And Third World families are being forced to abandon their dreams, and endure continued deprivation and disease.

Whatever happened to the "people" part of CSR's commitment to profits, planet and people? To Humpty Dumpty, the central question in defining words is "who is to be master." Granting environmentalists an even higher "level of authority" may be good for them. But it's not necessarily good for other folks.

Instead of CSR, we need global social responsibility – for all corporations, including nonprofit multinational environmental corporations … for all people, not just First World activists … and for all concerns, health and economic, as well as environmental. The world would be a far better place.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming hype. He also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

Be the first to read Paul Driessen's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Frey-
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. For some reason, I can't keep my internet connection working more than a few seconds at a time. It's holding, for the moment.

I should stipulate one thing off the top. A meaningful debate between us on the subjects of malaria, or the impact of environmentalism on third world countries won't be possible. (Your input, however, is appreciated) I'm not well enough enformed to have defensible positions. That said, I see nothing in your second instalment that I'd object to.

On the warming, we definitely have disagreements.

"...planetary temperatures rise first and, 400 to 800 years later, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase."

This particular argument may, from both sides, be a largely semantic problem. If we assume the data to be correct, then the ROOT cause of the temperature changes clearly can't be CO2. Your contention that the CO2 provides a positive feedback is demonstrably true, but it's magnitude is highly debatable. The high end of the estimates puts us (by 2100) at temperatures not seen since the PETM. While that would roughly correlate to the projected CO2 concentrations, it entirely ignores the effect of the antarctic circumpolar current.

The most obvious dilemma is how the warm periods end, if these feedback loops dominate. With the notable exception of the current interglacial period, the warming trends throught the Pleistocene have reversed themselves very abruptly, implying a trigger far more powerful than the feedback forces of greenhouse gasses. Given the necessity for external triggers in both directions, the CO2 merely magnifies some other pattern, to the extent that it does anything at all. Whether CO2, by itself, is enough to begin this feedback loop is still to be determined.

I have serious doubts about our ability to discern whether temperature lags behind CO2, or the other way around, when going back hundreds of millions of years. (I actually have the same doubts with respect to the Pleistocene data) It's well established how increased temperatures will increase greenhouse gas concentrations, so it becomes a matter of faith as to which came first. While CO2 released in the formation of the Siberian Traps would seem to be an obvious explination for the heating at the end of the Permian, it seems at least as likely that the traps themselves were caused by the same event that caused the P-Tr extinction, presumably some sort of large impact. Additionally, such an overwhelming extinction would severely alter the biological aspects of the feedback systems, greatly reducing the sequestration processes that currently dominate the carbon cycle. As the P-Tr boundary is thought to be hottest period on earth since the inception of life, but the CO2 levels were only a small fraction of those in the Late Ordovician, (likely much colder than today) there was clearly something else going on.

I need to get to sleep, so I'll continue this tomorrow. Happy monday to you.

On malaria
Well, on environmentalists and the third world, but it includes malaria.

I'll try to make this one a little shorter than the last one.

I just finished reading Driessen's book, "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death." In it, he chronicles the ways the environmental groups have damaged the people of third world countries through their opposition to use of DDT, building of dams and power plants, etc. Now, I'm the first to agree that Driessen makes a good point. We've all seen or had experiences with radical enviromentalists who have gotten so far into their cause that they've forgotten about the consequences, like someone who touts a wonder drug while forgetting all about the side effects. It was a good point, a point that needed to be made, and Driessen backed it up with a lot of research.

But, Driessen goes too far. He claims not just that the environmental movement bears some responsibility for the problems of the third world, but he also claims, explicitly and implicitly, that environmentalists bear 100% responsibility for the problems. He has a chart, on page 86, titled "Environmentalism's Death Toll." It includes deaths from malaria, malnutrition, typhus, dysentery, and other health problems in the third world in 2001. Not just some fraction of the deaths. All of them. Every person that died from malaria, or from hunger, or from typhus, or every child that went blind from lack of vitimin A, Paul Driessen blames them all on those mean old environmentalists. A writer like Driessen, who does extensive research, has got to know that's ridiculous.

For example, he writes about the Bujagali Dam in Uganda (Chap. 3). There are protests on environmental grounds, yes, but also on societal grounds (the resulting lake would displace villagers and drown a local sacred waterfall), political grounds (the dam would effect the flow of the Nile, impacting Sudan and Egypt), economic grounds (dams cost big bucks, and will this one be cost-effective?), and corruption-related grounds (AES Corp., the biggest investor in the project, is under investigation for bribery related to this project's approval). It's a lot more complex than "It's all the Green's fault."

His stance on DDT is similarly simplistic, although he has moderated it some. On the Eco-Imperialism website, he now acknowledges DDT resistence in mosquitoes (he glossed it over in the book) and admits that malaria probably cannot be eradicated.

Judging from this article and his other recent writings, though, he hasn't changed his tune. His line is still "If we could just defeat those evil activists, Africa would be free of all its problems". He's sticking to his anti-enviromentalist agenda, and he'll twist the facts (or ignore them) any way he has to to serve it.

Thanks for reading.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.