Bainbridge Island was the center of the evacuations; to this day, residents still feel ashamed and teach students a special unit about the incident, entitled “Leaving Our Island”. But one parent in the district, Mary Dombrowski, was persuaded by Malkin’s book that the evacuation was actually justified and insisted the school was teaching a one-sided version of the internment story, “propaganda” that forced impressionable children into thinking that the concentration camps were a mistake.
The school’s principal defended the practice. As the Seattle Times reported:
True, Japanese internment isn’t a controversial issue like global warming, but ten years ago, global warming wasn’t a controversial issue either. In 1995, the UN’s panel on international climate change released its consensus report, finding that global warming was a real and serious issue that had to be quickly confronted. The media covered the scientists’ research and the population agreed, leading President Clinton to say he would sign an international treaty to stop global warming.
Then came the backlash. The Global Climate Coalition (funded by over 40 major corporate groups like Amoco, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and General Motors) began spending millions of dollars each year to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to help reduce global warming. They held conferences entitled “The Costs of Kyoto,” issued press releases and faxes dismissing the scientific evidence for global warming, and spent more than $3 million on newspaper and television ads claiming Kyoto would mean a “50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax.”†
The media, in response to flurries of “blast faxes” (a technique in which a press release is simultaneously faxed to thousands of journalists) and accusations of left-wing bias, began backing off from the scientific evidence.† A recent study found only 35% of newspaper stories on global warming accurately described the scientific consensus, with the majority implying that scientists who believed in global warming were just as common as global warming deniers (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had received funding from energy companies or associated groups).†
It all had an incredible effect on the public. In 1993, 88% of Americans thought global warming was a serious problem. By 1997, that number had fallen to 42%, with only 28% saying immediate action was necessary. 1 And so Clinton changed course and insisted that cutting emissions should be put off for 20 years.
US businesses seriously weakened the Kyoto Protocol, leading it to require only a 7% reduction in emissions (compared to the 20% requested by European nations) and then President Bush refused to sign on to even that.† In four short years, big business had managed to turn nearly half the country around and halt the efforts to protect the planet.
And now, the principal on Bainbridge Island, like most people, thinks global warming is a hotly contested issue — the paradigmatic example of a hotly contested issue — even when the science is clear. (“There’s no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know,” said the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics.”)2 But all this debate about problems has kept us away from talk about solutions. As journalist Ross Gelbspan puts it, “By keeping the discussion focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it.”† So is it any wonder that conservatives want to do the same thing again? And again? And again?
Nice article. I’d be interested to understand why this didn’t happen in other parts of the world. I’ve lived in the UK most of my life, where saying you don’t believe in global warming is generally an invitation to ridicule. We have our own large oil company, BP, who could have attempted to sway UK public opinion in the same way that US companies did (in particular you mention Amoco, which BP took over in 1998). Apparently they either didn’t try in the UK, or they didn’t succeed. I wonder which and why?
posted by William Bland
on June 6, 2006 #
Okay, so you’ve identified the problem. What are the potential solutions? Ignore apparent debate-shifters? Talk louder? Neither of those seem very conducive to participatory decision-making.
posted by Scott Reynen
on June 7, 2006 #
You seem angry that “conservatives” are allowed to disagree with the position you support. Part of free speech, that.
Also, you seem to imply that everyone who doubts global warming (or has ever doubted, I guess) is a malicious, deliberate liar. Not true. I had my doubts about global warming, and while I no longer doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real, I still think there is a good deal of uncertainty in the details.
Also also, you seem to be upset that the Kyoto treaty failed. What is your response to Lomborg’s criticism of the Kyoto treaty: in brief, that it would have been extremely expensive while accomplishing nearly nothing in terms of preventing global warming?
posted by Matt
on June 7, 2006 #
You seem angry that “conservatives” are allowed to disagree with the position you support. Part of free speech, that.
Whatever gave you that impression?
Also, you seem to imply that everyone who doubts global warming (or has ever doubted, I guess) is a malicious, deliberate liar.
Again, what?
Also also, you seem to be upset that the Kyoto treaty failed. What is your response to Lomborg’s criticism of the Kyoto treaty: in brief, that it would have been extremely expensive while accomplishing nearly nothing in terms of preventing global warming?
It’s an absurd argument. Let’s say a large asteroid was going to hit Earth in ten years and cause major climate chaos. Would you denounce a program to blow up part of the Asteroid as “extremely expensive while accomplishing nearly nothing”? No, obviously it needs to be done, even if it’s not the whole thing.
posted by Aaron Swartz
on June 7, 2006 #
Me: “You seem angry that “conservatives” are allowed to disagree with the position you support.”
You: “Whatever gave you that impression?”
I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic here, but I am guessing you are not.
Pretty much everything you wrote gave me that impression, starting with the title. If you are not objecting that right-wing think tanks Shifted the Debate, what was the point of the article again?
If you are not accusing those who Shifted the Debate of deliberate dishonesty, what is the last paragraph of the article supposed to be saying?
[I ask you about Lomborg and his argument about the costs and benefits of Kyoto]
You: “It’s an absurd argument.” [asteroid analogy]
Interesting. I could see saying he made mistakes, but the claim that comparing costs to benefits is absurd, I did not expect. I don’t think your position is reasonable.
(And yes, this does apply to blowing up asteroids too.)
posted by Matt
on June 8, 2006 #
Problems concerning the environment, it would seem to me, are not suitable to be subject to such analyses. The simple fact is that, if you acknowledge that the problem exists, there is no sensible course of action other than to do everything in your power to fix or slow down the progression of the problem. If we don’t, we will have a lot more pressing things to do than sit around and shoot the shit about economics. Like, for example, head for higher ground.
posted by David Warde-Farley
on June 8, 2006 #
Matt apparently sees no difference between “disagreeing” and well-funded campaigns to shift the terms of the debate. Hopefully other readers did not make the same mistake and perhaps the later pieces will clarify things for Matt.
As for Lomborg, I didn’t say the idea of comparing costs and benefits is absurd, I just suggested that taking one small piece out of context and doing so for it is problematic.
posted by Aaron Swartz
on June 9, 2006 #
You say: “There’s no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know,” said the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Where can i find the souce of this statement on the web? Where is the hard evidance that there is a scientific consensus on this issue? I would like to form a jury of citizins who, even though they might be biased, can keep an open mind and just examine the real data apart from partisan rhetoric. I started discussing this here. Can you lend any help and\or join the jury?
Incidentally the addressess in your feeds for [This is part 4 of an article on the power of right-wing think tanks. See also part one, part two, and part three.] are incorrect, they do not include /weblog/ in their path.
posted by Seth Russell
on June 10, 2006 #
Thanks Scott, your references have been very helpful.
posted by Seth Russell
on June 11, 2006 #
Aaron, i cannot dispute anything you have written here. However i am trying to understand it as not just another volly in a polorized debate. As Global Warming, if it is a fact, should be on top of our ur national adgenda, i have started a jump list that presents references for a reading list on both sides of the issue. You and anyone else concerned about this issue are certainly invited to help this list grow and hopefully we will be able to focus the issues in a level headed manner apart from all the polorizing rhetoric.
posted by Seth Russell
on June 13, 2006 #
in the 1960’s, PCB contamination was shown to cause cancer, like global warming, there was strong scientific concensus. The Right fought the banning of PCB’s. Thousands of additional people suffered as the Right fought and luckily lost. When I say right I mean religious right. They always fight science, guess it contradicts literal bible belief.
when will the far right learn that the environment is not a politcal issue. PCB did not ask for political affliation, it poisoned all.
posted by richCares
on June 30, 2006 #
There is definitely a consensus among the climate scientists that global warming is under way. However, imo, focusing on “Global warming” is squandering “activism resources” that can be better spent on activism against the root cause: Unabashed Consumption. What is causing global warming?
1> Fossil fuels—why are we living in suburbs and driving SUVs. What are we so far behind Europe and Asia pacific when it comes to public transportation. Even car pooling does not cut it. Maybe a $10/gallon gas would do it for us!
2> Steaks: A source of green house gases(Methane in this case) is cow farts. Not trying to be offensive—it’s the plain truth.
I think rather than focusing on the large companies(which are no doubt in to maximize profits rather than sustainability of our existence), we need to focus on ourselves. I hope we don’t have to wait for catastrophes like mass desertification, loss of ozone(or even $10/gallon gas) to wake up…
posted by Jim
on August 2, 2006 #
As far as I can tell the science is NOT clear. It seems that the argument for GW is being made with a plethora of studies showing correlation b/t temp and human activity, but I can’t find anything that shows causation. The fact is, science itself is simply too young to speak definitely on a subject as complex (in the scientific term of the word) as climatology. Eg, the direct observation sample size of the last century is too small. If anyone knows of any compelling causation studies though, please post. ‘Consensus’, even among scientists, as an argument just doesn’t persuade me.
posted by Byron
on November 13, 2006 #
I was searching for some evidence of creativity among the Wikipedia user pages and found, yet again, an article that indicates that global warming is a slam-dunk, yet neglects to back up this position. While you cite numerous articles on bias (which, of course, is the point of your article) you cite no links to an affirmative, end-all argument to back up global warming. If “the science is clear” as you say, then why is it so hard to provide a clear argument without resorting to opinion polls, anecdotes and questionable statistics proclaiming the overwhelming consensus of government grant-based researchers (which, by the way, are notoriously politically biased).
posted by Dan Aldridge
on November 25, 2006 #
Please ask your conservative non-believers: What if we’re right? What if the planet is in dire danger?
posted by Colleen
on November 26, 2006 #
To the conservative non-believers: Even the few scientists that don’t believe that global warming is caused by man, believe that we are in an unprecedented climatic warming trend. What do you propose to do about this? Should we stop building in low-lying coastal areas? Should we stop providing insurance to new development in low-lying coastal areas? Should we raise insurance rates nationwide to help the insurance companies pay for insuring coastal properties? Should we build levees and dikes? Please tell me your proposals on how we as a nation should get through this climatic cycle.
posted by Al
on November 26, 2006 #
Dan, as you note, this isn’t the topic of the article. See Al Gore’s movie, or read a book if you want the slam-dunk case. Or look at the report of the IPCC or the British government, etc., etc.
posted by Aaron Swartz
on November 27, 2006 #
“To the conservative non-believers: … Should we stop building in low-lying coastal areas? Should we stop providing insurance to new development in low-lying coastal areas? Should we raise insurance rates nationwide to help the insurance companies pay for insuring coastal properties? Should we build levees and dikes? Please tell me your proposals on how we as a nation should get through this climatic cycle.”
Yes. Yes. Yes. And… yes.
And you don’t have to be conservative to be a skeptical economist, environmentalist, or scientist. Cost/benefit ratios do need to be considered, particularly in terms of environmental response, where action is often just as damaging in unforseen ways as inaction. And consensus is no way to run science - successful science goes against the defined scientific consensus almost %100 of the time - that’s kinda the definition of progressive science.
I recommend reading Michael Crichton’s essay on the subject, which addresses bad science and consensus arguments for MAD, Nuclear Winter, second-hand smoking, and primarily Global Warming issues. I also recommend “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg, and the many interesting discussions occurring within the skeptic community in science literature and skeptic literature such as Skeptic magazine and the discussion groups for the JREF.
And for the love of god, can people on this blog stop using the word “skeptic” like it’s a bad word? I’m a skeptic about E.T.s, Psionics, and Dowsing, too. We can’t even trust a 24 hour weather forecast, and you expect everybody to trust that a 200 year forecast will provide %100 accuracy?
Aren’t there any scientists left in the scientific community? The next person who uses the word “consensus” gets a sextant shoved up his un-scientific ass.
posted by Alex Nielsen
on February 9, 2007 #
I think there are already a lot of solutions. For example a car that can drive 100km with less than 3 liters of gas. The only thing why the industry still blocks this car is to make money. So at the end we have to find a solution for this point and I think we can cut off a lot of problems with this.
posted by Hainbuchenplatz
on February 19, 2007 #
The Kyoto protocol was a real nice idea, but there is always one problem with moral suasion that persists: Politicians and Businessmen are rational, and I mean rational in an economical way, so moral suasion is rather useless, and unfortunately, there is no such thing as an international environment authority…
posted by Bernd
on March 5, 2007 #
@Bernd: Don’t be such a fatalist. It is the citizens’ responsability to control the industry. We have the power to do that, remember the joint boycott of the mineral concern Shell when they wanted to sink the oil rigg Brent Spar in the North Sea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/221508.stm
posted by Mareike Hummel
on March 5, 2007 #
“The simple fact is that, if you acknowledge that the problem exists, there is no sensible course of action other than to do everything in your power to fix or slow down the progression of the problem. If we don’t, we will have a lot more pressing things to do than sit around and shoot the shit about economics. Like, for example, head for higher ground.” - Why? There are a lot of things to consider here. I agree that global warming is real. I also agree with most scientists that we (humans) are responsible. I also agree that the U.S. WAS the primary contributor of greenhouse gasses worldwide. Now comes the hard part. We no longer are. In fact, we aren’t a lot of things anymore. We don’t have the fastest growing most vibrant economy. We don’t have the best and brightest scientific talent anymore. Etc. Etc. Most important is the fact that there are a lot of emerging former third world countries that want their piece of the pie at all costs.
Costs are the problem. And people like you that say to do something at all costs is an elitist. Try telling this “all costs” theory to someone that lives inland and really needs to feed his family. We are already losing market share in almost every category overseas, and you want to tell him that the pine beetle life-cycle should be important to him(it is to me)? The fact of the matter is this: economics always matter. Especially to the majority of people at the bottom of it. Not the economics of the next 100 years, but the economics of this year. Hell, this month. So, if your solution to the problem (which I agree is important) doesn’t FIRST address this, why should people buy in. Is your livelihood at stake? Probably not.
posted by Nestles White Choclate Rain Man
on September 3, 2007 #
You can also send comments by email.
Comments
Nice article. I’d be interested to understand why this didn’t happen in other parts of the world. I’ve lived in the UK most of my life, where saying you don’t believe in global warming is generally an invitation to ridicule. We have our own large oil company, BP, who could have attempted to sway UK public opinion in the same way that US companies did (in particular you mention Amoco, which BP took over in 1998). Apparently they either didn’t try in the UK, or they didn’t succeed. I wonder which and why?
posted by William Bland on June 6, 2006 #
Okay, so you’ve identified the problem. What are the potential solutions? Ignore apparent debate-shifters? Talk louder? Neither of those seem very conducive to participatory decision-making.
posted by Scott Reynen on June 7, 2006 #
You seem angry that “conservatives” are allowed to disagree with the position you support. Part of free speech, that.
Also, you seem to imply that everyone who doubts global warming (or has ever doubted, I guess) is a malicious, deliberate liar. Not true. I had my doubts about global warming, and while I no longer doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real, I still think there is a good deal of uncertainty in the details.
Also also, you seem to be upset that the Kyoto treaty failed. What is your response to Lomborg’s criticism of the Kyoto treaty: in brief, that it would have been extremely expensive while accomplishing nearly nothing in terms of preventing global warming?
posted by Matt on June 7, 2006 #
Whatever gave you that impression?
Again, what?
It’s an absurd argument. Let’s say a large asteroid was going to hit Earth in ten years and cause major climate chaos. Would you denounce a program to blow up part of the Asteroid as “extremely expensive while accomplishing nearly nothing”? No, obviously it needs to be done, even if it’s not the whole thing.
posted by Aaron Swartz on June 7, 2006 #
Me: “You seem angry that “conservatives” are allowed to disagree with the position you support.”
You: “Whatever gave you that impression?”
I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic here, but I am guessing you are not.
Pretty much everything you wrote gave me that impression, starting with the title. If you are not objecting that right-wing think tanks Shifted the Debate, what was the point of the article again?
If you are not accusing those who Shifted the Debate of deliberate dishonesty, what is the last paragraph of the article supposed to be saying?
[I ask you about Lomborg and his argument about the costs and benefits of Kyoto]
You: “It’s an absurd argument.” [asteroid analogy]
Interesting. I could see saying he made mistakes, but the claim that comparing costs to benefits is absurd, I did not expect. I don’t think your position is reasonable.
(And yes, this does apply to blowing up asteroids too.)
posted by Matt on June 8, 2006 #
Problems concerning the environment, it would seem to me, are not suitable to be subject to such analyses. The simple fact is that, if you acknowledge that the problem exists, there is no sensible course of action other than to do everything in your power to fix or slow down the progression of the problem. If we don’t, we will have a lot more pressing things to do than sit around and shoot the shit about economics. Like, for example, head for higher ground.
posted by David Warde-Farley on June 8, 2006 #
Matt apparently sees no difference between “disagreeing” and well-funded campaigns to shift the terms of the debate. Hopefully other readers did not make the same mistake and perhaps the later pieces will clarify things for Matt.
As for Lomborg, I didn’t say the idea of comparing costs and benefits is absurd, I just suggested that taking one small piece out of context and doing so for it is problematic.
posted by Aaron Swartz on June 9, 2006 #
You say: “There’s no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know,” said the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Where can i find the souce of this statement on the web? Where is the hard evidance that there is a scientific consensus on this issue? I would like to form a jury of citizins who, even though they might be biased, can keep an open mind and just examine the real data apart from partisan rhetoric. I started discussing this here. Can you lend any help and\or join the jury?
Incidentally the addressess in your feeds for [This is part 4 of an article on the power of right-wing think tanks. See also part one, part two, and part three.] are incorrect, they do not include /weblog/ in their path.
posted by Seth Russell on June 10, 2006 #
Seth,
I don’t know of the source of Aaron’s statement, but I just checked with Wikipedia entry on global warming and in the list of references at the end is a survey of 928 papers on global warming. Here’s a one-page summary of the survey: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.
Scott
posted by Scott Teresi on June 10, 2006 #
Thanks Scott, your references have been very helpful.
posted by Seth Russell on June 11, 2006 #
Aaron, i cannot dispute anything you have written here. However i am trying to understand it as not just another volly in a polorized debate. As Global Warming, if it is a fact, should be on top of our ur national adgenda, i have started a jump list that presents references for a reading list on both sides of the issue. You and anyone else concerned about this issue are certainly invited to help this list grow and hopefully we will be able to focus the issues in a level headed manner apart from all the polorizing rhetoric.
posted by Seth Russell on June 13, 2006 #
in the 1960’s, PCB contamination was shown to cause cancer, like global warming, there was strong scientific concensus. The Right fought the banning of PCB’s. Thousands of additional people suffered as the Right fought and luckily lost. When I say right I mean religious right. They always fight science, guess it contradicts literal bible belief.
when will the far right learn that the environment is not a politcal issue. PCB did not ask for political affliation, it poisoned all.
posted by richCares on June 30, 2006 #
There is definitely a consensus among the climate scientists that global warming is under way. However, imo, focusing on “Global warming” is squandering “activism resources” that can be better spent on activism against the root cause: Unabashed Consumption. What is causing global warming? 1> Fossil fuels—why are we living in suburbs and driving SUVs. What are we so far behind Europe and Asia pacific when it comes to public transportation. Even car pooling does not cut it. Maybe a $10/gallon gas would do it for us! 2> Steaks: A source of green house gases(Methane in this case) is cow farts. Not trying to be offensive—it’s the plain truth.
I think rather than focusing on the large companies(which are no doubt in to maximize profits rather than sustainability of our existence), we need to focus on ourselves. I hope we don’t have to wait for catastrophes like mass desertification, loss of ozone(or even $10/gallon gas) to wake up…
posted by Jim on August 2, 2006 #
As far as I can tell the science is NOT clear. It seems that the argument for GW is being made with a plethora of studies showing correlation b/t temp and human activity, but I can’t find anything that shows causation. The fact is, science itself is simply too young to speak definitely on a subject as complex (in the scientific term of the word) as climatology. Eg, the direct observation sample size of the last century is too small. If anyone knows of any compelling causation studies though, please post. ‘Consensus’, even among scientists, as an argument just doesn’t persuade me.
posted by Byron on November 13, 2006 #
I was searching for some evidence of creativity among the Wikipedia user pages and found, yet again, an article that indicates that global warming is a slam-dunk, yet neglects to back up this position. While you cite numerous articles on bias (which, of course, is the point of your article) you cite no links to an affirmative, end-all argument to back up global warming. If “the science is clear” as you say, then why is it so hard to provide a clear argument without resorting to opinion polls, anecdotes and questionable statistics proclaiming the overwhelming consensus of government grant-based researchers (which, by the way, are notoriously politically biased).
posted by Dan Aldridge on November 25, 2006 #
Please ask your conservative non-believers: What if we’re right? What if the planet is in dire danger?
posted by Colleen on November 26, 2006 #
To the conservative non-believers: Even the few scientists that don’t believe that global warming is caused by man, believe that we are in an unprecedented climatic warming trend. What do you propose to do about this? Should we stop building in low-lying coastal areas? Should we stop providing insurance to new development in low-lying coastal areas? Should we raise insurance rates nationwide to help the insurance companies pay for insuring coastal properties? Should we build levees and dikes? Please tell me your proposals on how we as a nation should get through this climatic cycle.
posted by Al on November 26, 2006 #
Dan, as you note, this isn’t the topic of the article. See Al Gore’s movie, or read a book if you want the slam-dunk case. Or look at the report of the IPCC or the British government, etc., etc.
posted by Aaron Swartz on November 27, 2006 #
“To the conservative non-believers: … Should we stop building in low-lying coastal areas? Should we stop providing insurance to new development in low-lying coastal areas? Should we raise insurance rates nationwide to help the insurance companies pay for insuring coastal properties? Should we build levees and dikes? Please tell me your proposals on how we as a nation should get through this climatic cycle.”
Yes. Yes. Yes. And… yes.
And you don’t have to be conservative to be a skeptical economist, environmentalist, or scientist. Cost/benefit ratios do need to be considered, particularly in terms of environmental response, where action is often just as damaging in unforseen ways as inaction. And consensus is no way to run science - successful science goes against the defined scientific consensus almost %100 of the time - that’s kinda the definition of progressive science.
I recommend reading Michael Crichton’s essay on the subject, which addresses bad science and consensus arguments for MAD, Nuclear Winter, second-hand smoking, and primarily Global Warming issues. I also recommend “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg, and the many interesting discussions occurring within the skeptic community in science literature and skeptic literature such as Skeptic magazine and the discussion groups for the JREF.
And for the love of god, can people on this blog stop using the word “skeptic” like it’s a bad word? I’m a skeptic about E.T.s, Psionics, and Dowsing, too. We can’t even trust a 24 hour weather forecast, and you expect everybody to trust that a 200 year forecast will provide %100 accuracy?
Aren’t there any scientists left in the scientific community? The next person who uses the word “consensus” gets a sextant shoved up his un-scientific ass.
posted by Alex Nielsen on February 9, 2007 #
I think there are already a lot of solutions. For example a car that can drive 100km with less than 3 liters of gas. The only thing why the industry still blocks this car is to make money. So at the end we have to find a solution for this point and I think we can cut off a lot of problems with this.
posted by Hainbuchenplatz on February 19, 2007 #
The Kyoto protocol was a real nice idea, but there is always one problem with moral suasion that persists: Politicians and Businessmen are rational, and I mean rational in an economical way, so moral suasion is rather useless, and unfortunately, there is no such thing as an international environment authority…
posted by Bernd on March 5, 2007 #
@Bernd: Don’t be such a fatalist. It is the citizens’ responsability to control the industry. We have the power to do that, remember the joint boycott of the mineral concern Shell when they wanted to sink the oil rigg Brent Spar in the North Sea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/221508.stm
posted by Mareike Hummel on March 5, 2007 #
“The simple fact is that, if you acknowledge that the problem exists, there is no sensible course of action other than to do everything in your power to fix or slow down the progression of the problem. If we don’t, we will have a lot more pressing things to do than sit around and shoot the shit about economics. Like, for example, head for higher ground.” - Why? There are a lot of things to consider here. I agree that global warming is real. I also agree with most scientists that we (humans) are responsible. I also agree that the U.S. WAS the primary contributor of greenhouse gasses worldwide. Now comes the hard part. We no longer are. In fact, we aren’t a lot of things anymore. We don’t have the fastest growing most vibrant economy. We don’t have the best and brightest scientific talent anymore. Etc. Etc. Most important is the fact that there are a lot of emerging former third world countries that want their piece of the pie at all costs.
Costs are the problem. And people like you that say to do something at all costs is an elitist. Try telling this “all costs” theory to someone that lives inland and really needs to feed his family. We are already losing market share in almost every category overseas, and you want to tell him that the pine beetle life-cycle should be important to him(it is to me)? The fact of the matter is this: economics always matter. Especially to the majority of people at the bottom of it. Not the economics of the next 100 years, but the economics of this year. Hell, this month. So, if your solution to the problem (which I agree is important) doesn’t FIRST address this, why should people buy in. Is your livelihood at stake? Probably not.
posted by Nestles White Choclate Rain Man on September 3, 2007 #
You can also send comments by email.