Control by Carbon: The Totalitarian Side of Climate Change

The point we may be missing here is that all of these, what I term suppressive measures, are done based on an agenda that has little to do with any climate changes..... this is just the excuse to get us all under the thumb - firmly

Whats wrong in asking the car manufacturers to build fuels cell powered cars instead of diesel or gasoline powered cars.

What's wrong with asking for it, or what's wrong with Federally mandating it? Those are two vastly different questions, but many have trouble telling them apart.

why the governments are not doing something positive about this

Politics & greed are the major causes. Take the example of California's decision to cut emissions - EPA stopped California from going ahead with its plan to cut emissions, saying that Bush's proposal was good enough & no other proposal was required. Actually this decision was taken after executives of leading automobile companies met Dick Cheney. The scientists at EPA were convinced that there was nothing wrong in the proposal still the agency's head Stephen Johnson overlooked his staff's recommendations.

The governments need to realize that they must think of the overall well being of the society. In India the Supreme Court is hearing a plea to ban diesel since it is more polluting than other fuels. There can be many steps that can be taken such as imposing additional tax on use of diesel & the revenue generated can be used in R&D of cleaner fuel technologies.

Mridul Chadha,

This is the exact point, there's nothing evenhanded in the debate on global warming. It's oil companies with billions to spend on swaying politicians and public opinion against the common person with little else but the knowledge that what they're saying is garbage.

You'd think that people who really care about our economy would want people to stop using carbon-generating fuels if but to free us from the tyranny of energy industry profiteers and industries that put short-term profits over the long-term gains of society. We've sold our nation down the drain so that Bush's buddies can have a few extra rounds of fun at the expense of humankind.

Instead of "Give me liberty or give me death," we have "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

This the kind of milarkey what we're sold again and again by anti AGW advocates. They're going to emasculate you, angry white males.

Bull. What we have today is state-sponsored tyranny via global oil companies' dominance of our economy. We don't have the freedom to choose a carbon-free future. Instead we're sold the "freedom" of suicidal policies.

I would agree there is little even handed in the AGW debate, in fact it's not really a debate as much as a battlefield used to justify many actions.

I don't believe in grand conspiracies of evil people and I am not blind to the fact neither government nor corporations are made up of little demons (or angels) but just humans like you and I. There isn't a tyranny of oil companies, the people working do their best to satisfy a demand. If they had a pull as strong as that attributed to them there would be different outcomes in many sectors not the least of which the retailing and refining sectors. The truth as usual is lots of good intentions and different approaches to different prioritized issues. Everybody has a bias in favor of what they know and more of one in what they do, so those who excel in bringing oil to us will emphasize it's benefits because it's what they know best. What I don't see are people playing nice or fair, there is much hate and hateful language like this:

state-sponsored tyranny via global oil companies' dominance

I don't think you are unique or even on the worse end but really just another sad footnote to how thinking has been channeled destructively.

Government has the same compulsion that people working in any field do, that they can do it best. Now fortunately for them by and large they comprise of people good at manipulating others to think as they do (politics) so they tend to get their way more often than others. The AGW and oil relationship I believe to be mired between these types of thinking, various people see AGW as a tool to use to achieve 'a better world' only tangentially related to cooler global temperatures and anything to get there is a valid use. The scenario is one played out many times before, common enemy, shared pain, common villain. Unite through adversity.

I do believe their goals to be good, their methods leave much to be desired and I think the outcome were they to get their way wouldn't be all they had hoped for much like other people in the early 1900s. What I don't see is any conspiracy simply many people for many reasons trying many manipulations to achieve something they feel would make the world better. The best thing we can all do is quit with the demonization and bring all debate above board and not try to deceive and manipulate each other no matter how good we think we are (or how bad we think other are).

I do believe their goals to be good, their methods leave much to be desired and I think the outcome were they to get their way wouldn't be all they had hoped for much like other people in the early 1900s. What I don't see is any conspiracy simply many people for many reasons trying many manipulations to achieve something they feel would make the world better.

With due respect, this point of view ignores most of the history of the 20th century. Oil companies have done scarce little except what any other company tries to do - maximize demand for their goods and services by any means necessary. Just a small taste of what oil companies do to tip the table their way:

Between 1998 and 2005: ExxonMobil Grants $16 Million to Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

Exxon spends millions to cast doubt on warming

Big Oil, Big Influence

In 2006, 89 percent of ExxonMobil's donations went to republicans.

And, lest we forget:

Exxon dethrones Wal-Mart atop Fortune 500
Surging energy prices propel oil company to number-one spot

To put it simply, enabling global warming has produced the most profitable business in the world.

Why on earth wouldn't they do everything in their power to influence the political and scientific debate their way?

Wouldn't a smarter tactic for the oil companies be to fund the "pro global-warming" organizations, so that they could then label and shout-down anyone who points out that a lot of the research is bunk as being "oil company funded deniers?" And, also, leave an obvious trail saying they're funding the skeptics?

Just a thought.

Regardless, I just try to be logical. 30 years ago they were telling us an ice-age was coming. Boo! Now, they're telling us global warming is gonna melt us. Boo! And the only way to fix it is for us all to become poorer?

The middle-east just had it's coldest spell in almost 50 years.

I'm going with the spartan, this isn't about climate, it's about control

You assume evil motive of one group and not another, who wrote those articles? People being paid in both coin and fame. What motives do they have? Altruism, profit, power, satisfaction at advancing their moral concepts? Who knows; probably all of the above. Another big assumption is you believe oil to be evil, they don't that clearly colors how you view various actions along those lines in regards to demand. It's not often reported the other things Exxon or old Mobile or any of the other energy companies spend money on. Why is that? Doesn't support your thesis. Is that evil conspiracy manipulation on your part - I doubt it, I don't spend much time seeking contradictory information either.

I try to avoid dismissing it all out of hand and calling everybody else evil and hell bent on world destruction or domination (sorry Bodhi). People working at oil companies by large could reasonably be expected to not believe it's as bad a substance as others. Likewise government workers by and large are reasonably expected to believe that command control environments are good. This is a fight between two groups of ideas that aren't exactly opposed giving some weird outcomes and many confused people (if they know it or not).

I'm going with the spartan, this isn't about climate, it's about control

I'd agree that it's all about control, but largely about trying to control anything that would slow down oil consumption. After decades we're finally getting another increase in automobile mileage standards in the U.S., whilst other countries have implemented far higher standards. The anti AGW people argue that the government is trying to control us, but really it's the oil corporations who have controlled our government far more than is in our best interests, whereas in other countries where oil companies do not have the political leverage that they do in the United States they have been able to control governments far less in many instances.

Let's try to remember that we have in the U.S., ostensibly, a democracy, in which the government represents the will of the people. The control that's being thwarted by the oil companies is the control that the American people should have over their own lives. We can't take on Exxon individually, we need the corporate strength of our U.S. government to do that for us. So please, don't buy the anti AGW bull. This is all about controlling the government's ability to slow down Exxon profits.

This is all about controlling the government's ability to slow down Exxon profits.

That was the point of the article, it isn't really about AGW it's about making things 'fair' or 'equal' and this is a tool and/or justification to that ends.

That was the point of the article, it isn't really about AGW it's about making things 'fair' or 'equal' and this is a tool and/or justification to that ends.

Unfortunately KyleN I am at a loss as to how this article makes slowing down Exxon's profits its point. I am equally at a loss as to how it advocates fairness or equality.

Petroleum has become so expensive that to process and ship food to many poor countries has raised food prices in those nations to the point that people cannot afford to eat. Compared to the injustice of not being able to burn petrol on the Autobahn at will I'd say that there are more important aspects to fairness and equality to deal with in the world.

Bohdi's article is about the use of the anthropomorphic global warming threat to create re distributive programs under the guise of helping the climate. Exxon's profits are unrelated to climate, directly, and a policy designed to hurt their profits isn't necessarily good for the climate but since they make a good target AGW becomes a convenient excuse. Your boiled your own argument down to the goal of hurting Exxons profits, not helping the environment (or interestingly enough fellow citizens) and that was the point of the article.

The article isn't about fairness or equality, it's about manipulation and lying. That people get AGW and fairness all mixed up shows how much manipulation is going on here. The climate would do just fine if we were all enslaved under Gore and forced to live (or die as it were) off some mandated carbon footprint but would we be equal? Maybe, he might make everybody himself included do it or maybe not maybe a select 1000 people will be allowed to do whatever and the other 3 billion can just die that would be very unequal but it's not a related question. You can help or hurt the climate in equal or unequal manners and in effective or ineffective means. Getting the different issues all wrapped up speaks to me of a desire to confuse and manipulate others.

Bohdi's article is about the use of the anthropomorphic global warming threat to create re distributive programs under the guise of helping the climate.

The truth of the matter is that there's enormous income redistribution under the current regime - to the Exxons of the world. The world is paying a "greed tax" to the oil companies that is reflected in world prices for food and other commodities - and is as a result driving money away from world economies. Exxon does not invest in our future - it saps out money from our future and our present.

There is nothing in the article about helping the environment. It's just a hit piece on all of the possible alternatives to unrestrained oil consumption.

Ultimately the anti AGW movement has nothing to do with the environment at all. They don't give a hoot about what really causes global climate change. They only want to diffuse the discussion away from anything that would harm oil company interests. I see little evidence of any other primary motives.

Exxon does not invest in our future - it saps out money from our future and our present.

Really what then does it invest in exactly? It is after all a public company, buy a share then invest it in our future - problem solved! Was Exxon involved in a 'greed tax' in 1992 or maybe 1987? Or does greed taxes only crop up every now and then.

Yeah the article was about not falling for the scaremongers seeking to impose controls on your freedom in the name of saving you from certain death. Controls that give them a nice fat lifestyle and power (political) to spare. Nice how that works out.

Of course the anti-AGW movement has nothing to do with the environment, that's because the AGW movement doesn't either! Though the anti-AGW group isn't all for oil company profits, some likely are because well they work for or are owners in them but others like me are more interested in self-direction in my life and not selling/scaring myself into slavery.

Really what then does it invest in exactly?

Oil companies invest in ensuring the highest demand at the highest prices for its products. Since the product itself is not being improved, the best methods for them to ensure high prices and high demand are to a) reduce competition, b) eliminate possible substitute products, c) increase the perceived risk to supplies, and therefore their value and d) reduce the supply. Companies like Exxon do this by a) buying major competitors and then closing down competitive service stations b) ensuring that the development of petroleum substitutes for energy delivery are eliminated or delayed, as well as discouraging alternatives to automobiles and trucks such as trains and public transit c) by supporting U.S. policies which help to create enough fear of losing supplies but not so much fear that they cannot be delivered and d) failing to expand refining capacity in the U.S. for decades.

Yeah the article was about not falling for the scaremongers seeking to impose controls on your freedom in the name of saving you from certain death. Controls that give them a nice fat lifestyle and power (political) to spare. Nice how that works out.

And who is going to lose out in this power shift more than oil companies? The "controls" that people are talking about are mostly about controlling which industries our government chooses to subsidize and support. The government has controlled the development of alternatives to oil for decades by failing to invest in them substantially. Most of the needed changes can come about via free and fair markets and public investment in infrastructure.

Though the anti-AGW group isn't all for oil company profits, some likely are because well they work for or are owners in them but others like me are more interested in self-direction in my life and not selling/scaring myself into slavery.

When you come up with a good example of this slavery do let this know. In the meantime please explain to me how having to pay $50 to fill up a compact car and having no alternatives to private transportation other than oil-powered vehicles is anything but slavery.

And the end goal of putting all your profits reinvested in making more profits? A circle? No they have a pretty good dividend meaning most of what they make they 'give' away to the owners not to the evil schemes of your imagination. How much money was 'invested' in evil plots to ensure that alternative energy sources aren't used against say the YanpetII project? Yeah not really the same scale.

Refining capacity in the US, are you kidding? They have been using their evil power to lobby for that for like ever and to no avail. It's like one of the more sore spots you can come up with for the refiners.

In reference to the merger I assume are alluding to the Exxon Mobile merger. Do you know what that was for? How many retail stations did they gain...I'll answer it for you they lost a few thousand. What were they really after? The Mobile R&D and chemical divisions mainly, you know the post-oil world strategy. That wasn't peanuts in cost either.

We (the people) are going to lose out the most in this power shift because the power is shifting from small choice to no choice. The government has many things to answer for not the least of which being stepping on ideas that doesn't support their power base. AGW isn't being used to leverage for free market ideas by any government group or ideologue I've ever seen. I could only wish.

Slavery the inability to work for ones own benefit. AGW programs, you can't do .... you can't do ...., you can't do...., you must pay .... Which program exactly starts with 'You are free to do...'? You are 'free' to not spend money on oil, instead you spend them on taxes - lucky me. Why not try spend them on neither or both whichever you want! That is freedom.

Why are there few alternatives to oil, because the bang for the buck is the greatest. No conspiracy on Earth can change it only technology can. So sad that really because innovation hasn't been a strong point of any government since it's hard to control and dictate the things governments are created to do.

And the end goal of putting all your profits reinvested in making more profits? A circle? No they have a pretty good dividend meaning most of what they make they 'give' away to the owners not to the evil schemes of your imagination.

That rather proves my point, they invest very little in creating a better or alternative product. Most of the money goes to shareholders - in other words, it's income redistribution via a protected monopoly - an "oil tax" on our economy with little reinvestment in the economy as a whole.

How much money was 'invested' in evil plots to ensure that alternative energy sources aren't used against say the YanpetII project? Yeah not really the same scale.

The Yanpet 2 project is creating ways for Saudi Arabia to produce plastics, antifreeze and other derivative products - in other words value-add products so that Saudi Arabia and Exxon, its partner in the project, can get more money from refineries as oil supplies dwindle. That hardly has a blessed thing to do with green alternatives. But your pushing it does reveal that you seem to know quite a bit about Exxon - which makes one wonder who you're working for.

Refining capacity in the US, are you kidding? They have been using their evil power to lobby for that for like ever and to no avail. It's like one of the more sore spots you can come up with for the refiners.

Bull. The oil industry has expanded existing refineries rather than build new ones because they're afraid to make the clean-air investments that are required for new refineries. The answer is simple - but they don't want to have to deal with clean air standards any more than they want to deal with global warming.

In reference to the merger I assume are alluding to the Exxon Mobile merger. Do you know what that was for? How many retail stations did they gain...I'll answer it for you they lost a few thousand. What were they really after? The Mobile R&D and chemical divisions mainly, you know the post-oil world strategy. That wasn't peanuts in cost either.

And just how many is a "few thousand"? How many nationwide, including not just Exxon and Mobil outlets but all retail outlets in same-market comparisons? In our own area I cannot name you a single new gasoline station since we've moved here but I can name you at least a dozen within twenty miles that have closed. Looking back a ways there were fewer U.S. gasoline stations in the 1990s than there were in the in the 1930s, with closings increasing substantially since the 1970s. Hmmm, fewer stations, higher prices, fewer alternatives to offer lower prices. Seems pretty simple to me. I agree that mergers occur for any number of reasons, but don't think that eliminating competition isn't one of them.

We (the people) are going to lose out the most in this power shift because the power is shifting from small choice to no choice.

Right now we really have NO choice - it's gas (or gasahol) for our cars or nothing. Yeah, a few hybrids, whoopie. I don't see where you get the "no choice" option - alternative energy sources are likely to be just that, lots of alternatives.

Which program exactly starts with 'You are free to do...'? You are 'free' to not spend money on oil, instead you spend them on taxes - lucky me. Why not try spend them on neither or both whichever you want! That is freedom.

AGW programs are still on the drawing boards, it seems to me that there are lots of choices yet to be determined. Could it be that public policy just might create industries that benefit humankind by helping to save the environment? Could it be that what you're afraid of is regulations that no longer favor oil companies lopsidedly in energy production? Could it be that you're selling fear rather than engaging possible solutions? In the meantime while you're doing that free enterprisers in France and India are bringing a car to market that runs for 75 miles on compressed air. Oops, sorry oil companies, no more monopoly on moving people about freely - capitalism must move on.

Why are there few alternatives to oil, because the bang for the buck is the greatest. No conspiracy on Earth can change it only technology can.

We'll see how true that stays as lithium ion batteries begin to power cars from Chevrolet and Toyota - now that automakers begin to see that there are increasingly cost-effective alternatives to oil that inspire their owners to more product loyalty. Oil is about to go down for the count, KyleN, get used to it.

I'm not wrapped up in the oil companies, I work in health care IT, I just say they aren't evil and defend them because I defend anybody attacked for wrong or unfair reasons and have more insight than most thanks to my childhood. I know about Yanpet because I lived in Yanbu Al-Sina'iya. What is being done to them today is what will be done to the next group to challenge absolute government control proponents tomorrow. As Bodhi quoted above, we are taking away your freedom for your own good.

I am all for alternative energy sources and support wind power in particular in my state of Texas though I have been trying to come up with a viable solar option considering how much sun I get. So far the technology isn't there for that though but getting close and it's not public innovation as that's doing it, it's the public demand. That has nothing at all to do with the vendetta you seem to have against private enterprise as embodied by oil companies.

Even in my distrust of government I don't see the degree of conspiracy you allude to in the retail closings. They are due to many reasons not the least being more efficient pumping stations, ever fill up in the 50s - it wasn't that fast and it wasn't pay and go. What other industry increases it's supply without demand? Retail gasoline is driven by retail gasoline customer's preferences and self-serve fast pump is the deal now for good reason and the number needed to supply that is much lower. Then another reason is the triple hull storage tank requirements, anytime you increase the cost of doing business you decrease the number of players in the market. Should there be such a rule? Probably but why cry about the result?

I want to engage all possible solutions which means keeping the government out of it. They restrict choice not enhance it, how do monopolies survive? Government power, it's the only way. Trace back all monopolies and you find at the end of the road a government regulation, government subsidy, government obstacle that was used to create that end. Or the ones set up on purpose by government like utilities. Oil itself went down this road with government leases in the early days. Power corrupts, governments are built on power so keeping them as much out of it as possible is our best hope of getting alternatives to anything.

We are arguing here not about the environment but about the government's involvement in choice. All AGW solutions offered to date have been levers used by pro-government types to increase government control. What AGW solution do you know about that is different? Once the word 'force' gets into it then it's simply the other word for 'government'.

Choice come from my ability to say no. Right now despite everything you want to believe you can say no to oil, inconvenient yes going to land you in jail no. In any AGW solution to date saying no results in anything from imprisonment to death depending on how hardcore the government is about it. You can't say no to them, they have the guns.

Oil can go down as you put it (soon as the plastics research the /gasp oil companies are doing on not hydrocarbon plastics is complete) and it will not bother me at all. My freedom doesn't have to die with it though.

I want to engage all possible solutions which means keeping the government out of it. They restrict choice not enhance it, how do monopolies survive? Government power, it's the only way

With due respect, how is it that you think that oil has a near-monopoly over transportation fuels? Do you think that Exxon got to the place that it was without enormous influence over government?

There's a myth that markets work well only without market regulation: the truth is that truly free and fair markets are possible only WITH government regulation. Without it small competition is inevitably pushed out, stifling innovation, choice and employment opportunities while raising prices, lowering productivity and placing working capital in the hands of fewer people. That's our current economy in a nutshell. Government regulation is necessary because individuals do not have the same power as corporations. We need the corporate action of "the people" assembled in our democratically elected governments to ensure that there's a fair playing field for all businesses and that the interests of people who do not have corporate power are protected.

You wouldn't play baseball without a rulebook and umpires - why would you play business without regulation and enforcement? It only makes sense. We should trust the CEO of Exxon or Enron more than a democratically elected government to do the right thing? I don't think so.

All AGW solutions offered to date have been levers used by pro-government types to increase government control. What AGW solution do you know about that is different? Once the word 'force' gets into it then it's simply the other word for 'government'.

You know, we had these things called EPA emission standards that were put into the law books starting back in the 1970s. Funny thing happened: capitalism did not come falling down, our air got cleaner and cars got better. Hmm. Maybe this regulation thing isn't always so bad. Want to know what the world looks like without corporate regulation? Just go to China. Air so bad they're concerned about how the athletes are going to be able to compete in the 2008 olympics. Water so polluted that millions of people have had to stop drinking from lakes that are open sewers for industrial waste. Pitiful working conditions that enable corporations to produce cheap goods that put American workers out of jobs. It's what they call state-sponsored capitalism, a nice way of saying fascism, that is, the complete submission of the state to the interests of the powerful and the greedy in the name of nationalism. That's REAL totalitarianism - and it's what we're headed towards in the U.S. if government regulation and enforcement is not stepped up.

We in America are blessed with a government that can be, and should be, of, by and for the people, not by, of and for these artificial persons called corporations who don't even vote or take on the responsibilities of citizenship. Corporations are, technically speaking, tools of the state governments to enable the betterment of their citizens. When corporations play by the rules and don't shut out competitive innovations, they can be a great thing. When they don't play by the rules you get companies like AT&T trying to charge people hundreds of dollars extra for Internet access which is by its nature an inexpensive and open communications environment. The only thing that keeps monopolies from forming is a fairly elected democratic government that's not afraid to regulate unfair competitors and to act in the interest of people who have little to gain from corporate greed.

You use several interesting examples though I find it hard to believe they teach you the lesson you claim to learn from them.

Capitalism requires government because it requires protection of private property, regulation beyond that only harms. That is a tried and tested economic fact. The debate doesn't come from any other angle just what is and isn't private property and to what extent the protection should be. Which is how debates outside of economic circles gets so weird. Probably how surgery debates would look to a surgeon. Use the right words but not sure what they really mean.

Understanding why people do something is the key to trust. If you know what then you can predict the outcome and thus trust the action. A CEO of Exxon has a clear motive, his actions are predictable thus I can trust him. A elected official has more motives, not all are clear or disclosed, I can't trust their actions.

Weren't we just talking above about refining, and the EPA rules of the 1970s, refining capacity issues, EPA rules. Yeah unintended consequences because regulation of that sort isn't the efficient solution. Next example communist China that owns the businesses doing the pollution, lesson - direct government control results in less than ideal impacts. What is the real lesson? Business reflects the people because it survives only by the people an attribute normally associated with democratic institutions however not as tightly correlated as we'd hope. That is the crux of the argument over well most large political issues today. A politician can only hope to please some people, a business only deals with people that want to deal with it. Economics and politics are branches of the same thing human motive study.

The Chinese experiment is destined to fail and they know it, it's why they are changing. Their people are gaining wealth through the rapid industrialization and then demanding better conditions. It's a cycle and they aren't managing it very well but it's hard to micro-manage a billion people. I think they do great considering it's just foolish of them to keep trying.

A corporations relationship to you is more democratic in nature truly than your Congressperson's relationship to you? Don't believe me, take Target for example. Don't shop there. You have exercised your choice. Now Bush, don't like him, quit living here. Not so easy, not so much choice. When do you suffer reduction in choice in the market? When government grants it.

Government should stick to what government was designed for - the monopolization of force. And yes that includes fraud a form of force. Government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what business there should be. That's where the various AGW proposals are going. The only thing keeping monopolies from failing is a government - doesn't need to be democratically elected just anybody with the right to shoot others for not obeying.

I think politicians are colored by their own field of deception and manipulation and have trust issues concerning the rest of us. People are better than politicians give them credit for, they don't need to be told what to do just left alone. We need a boxing referee to borrow your example not a chain gang.

Capitalism requires government because it requires protection of private property, regulation beyond that only harms. That is a tried and tested economic fact.

I am afraid that my China example blows that out of the water. Clearly the public suffers when governments are designed to protect only private property, as it will tend to protect only those with the most private property who have the most influence over governmental policy. As the owner of a stock-issuing corporation I can assure you that this is no myth. My corporation, like very other U.S. corporation, is granted its charter by my state government: it exists at the whim of the people's government. If I do not serve the people, then my charter can be revoked. But this happens much more frequently with small corporations, which have less legal and political clout, than it does large corproations. What you suggest is that we should have a feudal government that exists only to protect the interests of the lords, the property-owners. Fortunately we have a government that's formed for citizens, not property owners.

Understanding why people do something is the key to trust. If you know what then you can predict the outcome and thus trust the action. A CEO of Exxon has a clear motive, his actions are predictable thus I can trust him. A elected official has more motives, not all are clear or disclosed, I can't trust their actions.

You only have an inkling of the motivations of the CEO of Exxon because it's a publicly traded company, and as such provides a great deal of open information, thanks to...regulations. Try figuring out what a private company's motivations are. Good luck - countless millions are spent trying to get behind the opaque wall of private companies for business intelligence purposes. Make no mistake about it - unless there were regulations you wouldn't have idea one about what Exxxon wanted to do. By contrast, except when fellows like Dick Cheney try to block us, public officials have virtually every comment that they make on the public record.

Weren't we just talking above about refining, and the EPA rules of the 1970s, refining capacity issues, EPA rules. Yeah unintended consequences because regulation of that sort isn't the efficient solution.

Very unclear to me what your point is here. The EPA rules were remarkably efficient in a) reducing air-borne pollutants and b) making information about fuel efficiency available to the public. If you have a government that's only about protecting private property, you can forget about anything that helps or protects the consumer.

Next example communist China that owns the businesses doing the pollution, lesson - direct government control results in less than ideal impacts.

Hmm, apparently you're not tracking the Shanghai Stock Exchange's growth, the fifth largest in the world - private wealth is booming in China via state-sponsored capitalism. Many if not most of the state-owned industries have been privatized. The pollution in today's China is due largely to unregulated private and public industries.

Their people are gaining wealth through the rapid industrialization and then demanding better conditions.

People are starting to demand better conditions but because they do not have a democratic government with free speech but instead one that exists largely at the behest of corporate interests change will be very slow in coming. In the meantime American jobs go down the drain due to unfettered Chinese corporate power.

A corporations relationship to you is more democratic in nature truly than your Congressperson's relationship to you? Don't believe me, take Target for example. Don't shop there.

A Congressman I can vote out. Good luck having any say over Target's corporate policy as an individual - and even less if the company is owned privately. The "don't shop there" tactic is not likely to result in voluntary regulation of pollution by non-consumer corporations.

Long story short, I am afraid that you're underestimating the value of good democratic government and overestimating the altruism available from oligarch heads of major corporations who have increased their personal compsenation by hundreds of percentages while their workers have been given crumbs.

There's a myth that markets work well only without market regulation: the truth is that truly free and fair markets are possible only WITH government regulation.

OK, two items here.

First, where is the evidence supporting your claim that free and fair markets are only possible with government meddling?

Without it small competition is inevitably pushed out, stifling innovation, choice and employment opportunities while raising prices, lowering productivity and placing working capital in the hands of fewer people. That's our current economy in a nutshell.

Second, would you like to rephrase this? If you really believe our current economy demonstrates raised prices, lower productivity and concentrated capital, aren't you arguing against regulation? We've never had a free market in this country, yet you're holding our economy up as evidence that they don't work?

First, where is the evidence supporting your claim that free and fair markets are only possible with government meddling?

The U.S. is still the most free and fair marketplace in the world, and manages the highest level of GDP and generally leads in productivity. This is in part because of our stock markets, which are well regulated and supported by government requirements for fair disclosure, transparent accounting, objective bond ratings and financial reporting. When corporations ignore these regulations, such as with Enron or the current mortgage crisis, the economy and the markets suffer globally. Prior to effective regulation, we had this little thing called the Great Depression, in which literally nobody could even get their money out of a bank - if there were any left in it.

A people's government enables large businesses to be regulated to keep individuals and small businesses from being pushed out of the economy by unfair and undue influence of ultra-wealthy corporations and individuals. In short, greed is good only when it's not the only game in town.

Second, would you like to rephrase this? If you really believe our current economy demonstrates raised prices, lower productivity and concentrated capital, aren't you arguing against regulation? We've never had a free market in this country, yet you're holding our economy up as evidence that they don't work?

Our well-regulated economy has been picked over by the influence of major corporations on regulations and the courts. We have people in the Executive branch who refuse oftentimes to enforce the law of the land. We have mergers that have eliminated competition without opposition from our government. We have regulators who are enabling less open competition in telecommunications and many other industries. In other words, the Bush administration is at war with free market capitalism and is trying to engineer state-sponsored capitalism for the oligarchs, in which the government acts only on behalf of the most powerful corporations - which leads inevitably to income segregation and economic failure.

Our fundamental system is sound, but it's under attack. These people want to roll back the clock to the 19th century robber barons. Capitalism without regulation by democratic governments is an ugly thing.

Capitalism without regulation by democratic governments is an ugly thing.

And again I will point out, we've never had such a thing, so no one knows whether this is true or not. Our "free market economy" started being regulated two hundred years ago. You point out that our market is the most free, and one of the best performing. To me, this tends to indicate, but not confirm, that a real free market would likely perform even better, but again, we just don't know.

Partisan Hack, it's funny that you automatically attribute everything good about our economy to regulations, and everything bad to evil corporations without a shred of evidence to support either position.

Partisan Hack, it's funny that you automatically attribute everything good about our economy to regulations, and everything bad to evil corporations without a shred of evidence to support either position.

There's a balance to everything, but it's pretty clear that the era of the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's featured a well-regulated economy, sound tax policies and extraordinary growth in personal incomes and real wealth. Since 1980 and the emasculating of many regulations we have more centralization of wealth in fewer hands, loss of personal income growth and in many instances a decline in personal income and far less access to capital except in very isolated industries such as software and biotech. In short, them's that's gots the gold is making the rules. That's called an oligarchy - and if you notice that's not spelled d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y.

Corporations are not evil, I own one and they can be very useful mechanisms in the hands of willing entrepreneurs. What IS evil is when the influence of enormous global corporations overshadows the ability of citizens to influence their government. Corporations, chartered by governments, are instruments of the state to promote the general welfare of society. Most small and medium corporations do just that. But I do not think that there are many enormous corporations who put the general welfare of citizens above the welfare of their management and their shareholders. Corporate wealth is not equivalent to a healthy society. Again, my case study is the "new China." With state-sponsored captialism, in which there is almost no regulation of business, natural resources are squandered and destroyed, freedoms are curtailed.

There is, as in everything else, a balance. Our government was founded by entrepreneurs, so there is and should be in general a healthy tension between forces that want regulation and forces that want to keep regulations to a minimum. But when there are forces that eliminate that tension, who forget that we were a nation built in the shadows of the East India Company that had sucked the American colonies dry and denied our entrepreneurs markets for their goods, then we are in danger of forgetting our true roots and reverting to the excesses of rule by the crown and by the lords of property.

Henry - you're not making a lick of sense.

Opposition to 9/11 "Truth" and opposition to the "climate change" propaganda come from the same place and it's not the opponents who are fanatics in either case. If you subscribe to a movement that tells me the sun is made of jelly and cite some alleged science to demonstrate it, and then say that we have to put restrictions on society, on capitalism. lower standards, hurt the poor, line the pockets of GW preachers and empower big, Big, BIG government to react to it, I'm hardly the fanatic for saying, "Mmm...no, that's not going to cut it with me."

Fanaticism seems more to be the cause of pushing drastic and radical changes on a people based on theories, debatable theories if leaders like Al Gore were willing to debate it. All of the talk about civil liberties and fascism at the hands of Bush and the war pales in comparison to the fascism being introduced through the theory of 'climate change'. It's not even the theory itself that makes proponents fanatics and pseudo-fascists - it's the ends (or rather, far-fetched predictions) justifying the means that makes it dangerous and frankly, pathetic.

Keep government out, keep my taxes out and I'll be happy to sit back and see what you and yours can do with and to climate change through petitioning, education, boycotts, clubs, hearts and minds etc.

If you are a global warming hysteric labeling your opposition as 'fanatics' based on your inability to sell your far-fetched theory, then you are a 'Truther', just with a different cause.

You are a fool if you don't believe in science that is accepted by the majority of the world. I have an idea, if you don't believe in science - you don't get to reap any of its rewards. There is nothing wrong with saying you must accept a cheaper and cleaner proposal (solar) than a more expensive and far dirtier proposal (coal). You act as if requiring new cars be electric will hurt the economy, when it would actually be incredibly beneficial.

You are in the far minority because you don't believe the facts. It is the same with the 9/11 truthers, so you have no basis for your argument. You see what you want to see.

Clearly, you would rather the world go to hell than try to fix it (except when it comes to those damned Muslims) because you are a religious fanatic that could see global warming as positive. Bring on the apocalypse, eh? Seriously, when you think science is propoganda - you need to go the @!$%# back to kindergarten.

Ouch. Harsh! Yet sophomoric....

So, if one is not in the majority than one is a fool???

Henry - you're not making a lick of sense.

There was one time in this country of ours that the majority believed that black people were subhuman and a small vocal minority of "truthers" persevered and proved the majority wrong.

I'm not equating the two, or three since you dragged 911 into it, but pointing out the slippery slope you're slowly receding on...

Skeptical Inquirer did a big story on AGW a few issues ago. It was spread over two issues. They examined all the evidence and decided that yes, it is definitely real. There were many letters to the editor complaining about the conclusion since the letter writer seemed to assume skeptical should mean convinced beyond any doubt of the facts before looking at the evidence. But that's not what it means. It means looking at the evidence and drawing the most likely conclusion.

There was one time in this country of ours that the majority believed that black people were subhuman and a small vocal minority of "truthers" persevered and proved the majority wrong.

And then there were all those millions of time the vocal minority was wrong. Irrelevant, either way. Look at this issue and this evidence to judge this issue, not at any other issue.

There are many many ways to address climate change that are not the fascist approaches Bodhi1 lists in this article.

There was one time in this country of ours that the majority believed that black people were subhuman and a small vocal minority of "truthers" persevered and proved the majority wrong.

There is a difference between scientific (qualified) information, and public opinion. The facts say evolution exists and the climate change is the effect of human actions. The scientific facts do not show that Black people are subhuman, actually it confirms the opposite.

This is the difference between faith and reason. It is why faith is so worthless.

There are many many ways to address climate change that are not the fascist approaches Bodhi1 lists in this article.

That's true, but part of the problem as shown in this article, is that many of our politicians don't really care about AGW, but instead they care to use it as an excuse to grant themselves more power.

The same things happens with the GOP and terrorism. Yes terrorism is real, but many in the GOP leadership care less about effectively combating it or minimizing it and more about extending their own power.

It's when AGW is politicized that everything gets @!$%#ed up.

America used to be innovative. Now, not so much. This is why Detroit is no longer the major player in the automobile sector and why our political process is stagnant.

What did we turn into last time?

Two-legged hairless homicidal monkeys that walk upright and use the interet! That's what!

Scared now?

Two-legged hairless homicidal monkeys that walk upright and use the interet! That's what!

heh that's good who knows maybe with a warmer planet we will all mellow out and drop the homicidal and control tendencies. More rain, more warmth, more food and more sleep. It doesn't have to be all bad.

A preference ought to be given to the children of the world, those who have not yet had a life to live.