follow us like us subscribe contact us
Loading, please wait

The Doha Climate Joke

By Jen Alic | Mon, 10 December 2012 23:14 | 4

There is only one thing you need to know about the proxy energy war and climate change: You will never know anything because all the reports that exist on energy and climate change are bought and paid for by people with agendas.

Whatever side you fall on is not your own; whatever passion you have one way or the other is not the result of independent thinking; it has been dictated by politics, not climate. 

This is what should have the public up in arms. But the masses generally like one to do their thinking for them.

So, with that in mind, let’s skip right to the Doha climate circus.

Developing countries are up in arms because the West isn’t keen to increase carbon emission reduction targets or foot the bill for any more climate change spending. So there they all sit in Doha, acting surprised, as the fossil fuel boys put the brakes on any climate progress.

It is unclear what Doha was expected to accomplish. The talks never stood a chance, facing off as they are against the $80 billion-boys who call themselves the Koch Brothers.

Before they all sat down in Doha, they knew that the Koch Brothers have a liberal stance when it comes to opening their wallets to kill climate legislation. The Koch Brothers make big oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. look cheap indeed when it comes to fossil fuel lobbying efforts. And as long as the Koch Brothers are swimming in money, the US will not move on climate legislation.

Related Article: GM Experiences Record Sales for Eco-Friendly Cars

There is no solution for this—and everyone could do with a transfusion of reality. Opining that “there is too much power in too few hands [and] we need to get the money out of politics”—in the words of the International Forum on Globalization (IFG)—are true but naïve.  

Similar sentiments from a Doha delegation of US youth would have President Barack Obama ignore politics and act on climate change. Quaint, but again, out of touch with reality.

Only a major catastrophe will shift this balance of power—and not likely in anyone’s favor.

The only surprise here is that anyone is surprised.

Here’s what we’ve got so far: Industrialized countries have pledged $100 billion annually for a Green Climate Fund by 2020. In the meantime, developing nations want an additional $60 billion by 2015. They’re not likely to get it. If they do, it will only be at the expense of climate legislation—meaning, it would only be an appeasement buyout. 

Everyone is tainted in the climate change debate, but let’s look at the Koch Brothers because they have the deepest pockets and wield the most influence.

Right now, 29 US states have renewable energy standards to reduce carbon pollution. All of these states are turning to the Koch Brothers to lobbying for these standards to be overturned.

The key institutes doing this dirty work are the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—both privy to the Koch Brothers’ deep pockets.

Related Article: Climate Change and the Fiscal Cliff Both Lead to the Same Outcome

The Heartland Institute is “libertarian”—a wishy-washy political ideology that has in recent years become fossil fuels’ BFF and gives an occasional nod to socially liberal things like gay marriages for a splash of color. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a straight-up conservative outlet.

And let’s not forget the Sierra Club, on the other side of the divide. This is the climate change boys’ club, but its pockets aren’t quite as deep.

One will never know why Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and die-hard climate change skeptic suddenly betrayed the Koch Brothers last year—after taking three year’s funding from them—and told the world that climate change is real and worse than anyone thought.   

We are swimming in a sea of disinformation on all sides; and despite the fleeting optimism that Hurricane Sandy might lend some objectivity to the climate change debate Doha makes it clear that this will not happen. 

What has never entered this debate is pragmatism, which in the end is simply a sort of cynical objectivity that some might think is rather inhuman. If one were to put the politics aside—which requires ignoring the dueling reports and their manipulative mathematics—one would likely conclude that fossil fuels are not our enemy, and that renewable energy is our friend. They must be developed in tandem. As always, it is about balance.

By. Jen Alic

About the author

Contributor
Jen Alic
Company: ISA Intel

More recent articles by Jen Alic

Sun 18 August 2013
Egypt, Take III: No End to the Carnage
Thu 15 August 2013
Iraqi Oil Exports Slump But Optimism Abounds
Thu 15 August 2013
E.ON Sees First-Half Profit Slump in Europe
Tue 13 August 2013
Will Moribund Uranium Prices Rebound?
Sun 11 August 2013
BG Group Gets US LNG Export Approval

Leave a comment

  • David B. Benson on December 11 2012 said:
    Well, possibly because Richard Muller is a competent scientist.
  • David Hrivnak on December 11 2012 said:
    Yes we can do something. Buy an electric car and say by to oil. You can make a difference and save money and emissions at the same time.
  • John D on December 11 2012 said:
    Here is the issue in a nutshell. Society has pretty much concluded that it prefers economic growth over saving a planet for their descendents to enjoy.
  • Mel Tisdale on December 12 2012 said:
    "Whatever side you fall on is not your own; whatever passion you have one way or the other is not the result of independent thinking; it has been dictated by politics, not climate."

    There is a one word response to such a comment. The problem is that I forget what it is. I know it begins with a 'b' and ends in 'ollocks,' but the rest escapes me.

    Mr Alic needs to get out more and meet a wider range of people. Perhaps those without a scientific leaning might be susceptible to being influenced by the likes of Senator Inhofe, but not for long, if they care to explore the issue in any depth, that is. And what could be more important than an issue that a large body of scientists specialising in the topic are stating will be catastrophic for our species. It is the height of irresponsibility to take a contrary position without at least being sure of one’s facts. It should be criminal to take a contrary position that is not based on sound science, especially if it is instead in some way related to personal (but only short-term, perforce) gain.

    No, Mr Alic, you are wrong to be so absolute in your views. There is a large body of people who understand the science and can see clearly just how deep the ungazi is that the human race is now firmly in. Doha showed that democracy just doesn’t cut it. It obviously puts the wrong types into office. If it didn’t, we would not be facing around 4C average rise in global temperatures (about 5 C over land) with little, and certainly nothing like enough, being done to combat it. For evidence of just how inferior politicians are, listen to any Prime Minister Questions (PMQs) in the British House of Commons. Infantile is hardly strong enough. Yet it is they who are typical of those that attended Doha and who have let us all down so terribly and probably irreversibly.

    Paddle-less and heading up a creek at a rate of knots, the human race now faces a situation where it is almost certainly too late to avoid disaster, and if we pass some tipping points, possibly extinction or damn near so. That view is not the result of any political shenanigans and certainly not on anything the likes of Fox News have said on the subject, or the Guardian for that matter. It comes from a study of the science in relation to actual measurements, by looking at the graphs those measurements show and on the despair that they invoke.

    I find it insulting to be accused of being so easily influenced as Mr Alic considers me to be and I doubt I am alone. For scientific information on the topic, go to skepticalscience.com. That is a web site run by scientists who refuse to allow any content that is not based on pure science and only pure science. It also has a rigorous comments policy that some other climate sites would do well to follow. For information on just how deep the problem is that the likes of Senator Inhofe has worked so hard to create, watch ‘The Annual Cabot Lecture’ on Youtube.

Leave a comment