Die-Hard Denial
After corporate execs from some of America's biggest companies, including DuPont, BP America, and Pacific Gas and Electric -- California's largest utility -- testified before Congress yesterday, urging the government to place mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, most legislators were impressed. Not James Inhofe. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Congress' leading skeptic of human activity as a cause of global warming, accused the executives of advocating limits in order to boost investments by their companies in cleaner energy sources, such as solar power."
I'm telling you, the Four Horseman of Apocalypse could descend on Capitol Hill atop flaming steeds and Inhofe still wouldn't budge. Alarmists! he'd cry. What's your angle?
I'm telling you, the Four Horseman of Apocalypse could descend on Capitol Hill atop flaming steeds and Inhofe still wouldn't budge. Alarmists! he'd cry. What's your angle?
6 Comments:
I have little faith in politicians, from either party... but this guy takes the cake - doesn't he ?!
I thought James Inhofe had a valid point with asking why CEO's would find a comparative advantage for taking a day away from work to speak with Congress.
I wish that both sides of the aisle took the time to ask more questions like this one by James Inhofe.
That being said, Barbara Boxer had every right to call out the Senators who were trying to compare BP & Dupont's opportunistic behavior to that of Enron.
The fact that BP & Dupont are investing in energies to curb emissions and decrease waste in order to increase profits provides hope for a market-based solution to pollution. If the market is telling big business to change their ways, then this could be the beginnings of a more compelling argument that addressing the issue of climate change does not have to "destroy the economy." In fact, voluntary measures by big business point to an upcoming economic boom led by the transition to renewables. More than likely, the future will be somewhere in between catastrophe and bliss for the economy. But this hearing pointed out realistic solutions to unnecessary pollution.
I thought James Inhofe had a valid point with asking why CEO's would find a comparative advantage for taking a day away from work to speak with Congress.
I wish that both sides of the aisle took the time to ask more questions like this one by James Inhofe.
That being said, Barbara Boxer had every right to call out the Senators who were trying to compare BP & Dupont's opportunistic behavior to that of Enron.
The fact that BP & Dupont are investing in energies to curb emissions and decrease waste in order to increase profits provides hope for a market-based solution to pollution. If the market is telling big business to change their ways, then this could be the beginnings of a more compelling argument that addressing the issue of climate change does not have to "destroy the economy." In fact, voluntary measures by big business point to an upcoming economic boom led by the transition to renewables. More than likely, the future will be somewhere in between catastrophe and bliss for the economy. But this hearing pointed out realistic solutions to unnecessary pollution.
I might agree, Brad, except that Inhofe was not posing a question. He was making an accusation. Quote: "Some companies are coming together in an attempt to profit from government intervention where they have failed in the marketplace. They are climate profiteers. These companies will gain market share against their competitors while the economy flattens and jobs are sent to China."
I agree with most of your comment, but you don't honestly think Inhofe was making a valid point there, do you?
As if they never profited to begin with by government intervention.
Seems like simple projection to me, that has global ramifications.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main