How climate pain is being spun into corporate gain

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Jul 24, 2013
8,546
834
175
How climate pain is being spun into corporate gain - environment - 31 March 2014 - New Scientist

The wolves of Wall Street have got climate change, but at a terrifying cost, reveals Windfall: The booming business of global warming by McKenzie Funk

MY BOOKSHELVES contain several metres of books on climate change. This addition makes many of them seem redundant. It is also by a long way the most readable – and it made me laugh.

Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming by journalist McKenzie Funk tells the story of the people and corporations trying to profit from climate change. Many of them don't want to halt its progress, they want to bring it on.

Here we meet private fire-fighters in drought-hit Los Angeles, selling their services to insurance companies, Russian shipping lines eyeing new routes opened up by the melting Arctic, Dutchmen rebuilding flooded islands in the Maldives, and manufacturers of snow-making machines selling their products to distressed winter resorts.

They all have an interest in global warming's destructive progress. Funk lays bare their vanities and insanities while also exposing the magic of markets that can profit from anything."I'm interested in climate change as a driver of human behaviour," says Funk. "It's a window into our collective state of mind."

Many environmentalists have been gratified recently to discover that corporations feature climate change in their annual reports, and entrepreneurs make pitches to bankers and hedge-fund managers that read like back-issues of the environmentalists' own doomsday scenarios.
The case seems to be won that climate change, rising population, and declining resources – from metals to water and land – are brewing up an environmental apocalypse. Gordon Gekko and the wolves of Wall Street have finally got climate change.

But not so fast. While greens fear the collapsing ecosystems, rising tides, climate migrations and mega-famines, the corporates and speculators see opportunity. Environmental pain can be corporate gain. In this synthesis of some of his great magazine journalism over a number of years, Funk brings the "booming business of global warming" spectacularly to life.
Some of his climate profit-takers do something useful to stem the problem at source – by building bigger and better wind turbines, for instance. But they are a small minority. Most of the windfalls are elsewhere. Seed companies like Syngenta and Monsanto develop more drought-resistant crops. Engineers ship air-conditioners or seek contracts to build sea walls round coastal cities.

Some of the entrepreneurs take advantage of politicians' desire to "do something", even something as screwy as planting a "green wall" of trees to stop the advancing Sahara desert. Others take advantage of human misery by ferrying climate refugees across the Mediterranean in leaky boats, or by building fences to keep people from fleeing Bangladesh for India.

But much of the potential profit in climate change is coming from the rapacious pursuit of resources that are in diminishing supply thanks to increasing drought and other climate changes.

Investment guru George Soros famously said "farmland is going to be one of the best investments of our time". And land-grabbers are following his advice, buying up African farm and pasture land because, well, the world is going to run out of food, isn't it?

Elsewhere, water-grabbers are building dams and sinking wells to corral scarce supplies, or getting into desalination, or playing the water markets in Australia and California. Water is no longer a publicly owned resource for the world, but a highly profitable business. Veolia, the world's largest water company, is busy in 74 countries.

Even insurers win. Twenty years ago, green campaigners heralded insurance companies as the first in the corporate world to flag up concern about climate change. But, as the activists and actuaries shared conference platforms round the world, it has emerged that the insurers are not sweating about future payouts as natural disasters escalate. Instead, they are wearing Cheshire-cat grins as they consider the "pricing power" they gain as scared property owners in flood zones and on cyclone tracks pay up whatever it takes to get cover.

If things get too scary and even the insurance companies take fright, then the big daddy of all profit engines from climate change could be geoengineering. The people who brought cloud-seeding and Star Wars military technology to past generations now want to keep out the sun by throwing sulphate particles into the stratosphere and soak up carbon by dumping iron filings into the oceans.

For them, the worst-case scenario for climate could turn out to be a best-case scenario. For the rest of us, the vision of some Climate Inc mega-corporation, contracted to keep its hands on the planet's thermostat, may be unnerving – unless, of course, you plan on being a shareholder. With money, all can profit.

This, you may say, is how capitalism works. Sure. But it knocks on the head the idea that nobody can escape the dire consequences of rising temperatures and shifting weather patterns; the idea that we all have a vested interest in working together to fix it. Sadly, concludes Funk, that's not how it goes.

Environmental rhetoric holds that climate change will wreck the lives of our children. The trouble is that, for the most part, the victims will not be our children. They will be the children of others – in flooded Bangladesh, parched Africa, or almost anywhere without air conditioning. When the rivers empty and the wells run dry, hydrology will follow the old saying in the American West that "water flows uphill to money". We are not all in this together.

Climate change is usually framed as a scientific, economic or environmental issue, says Funk, whereas it is primarily an issue of human justice. It is about winners and losers. This book – a terrifying romp through our climate futures – tells how the world's winners plan to carry on winning, whatever the cost.
 
Any sensible person views all government intervention in the economy as a profit opportunity. The potential is there; you just have to look for it. Of course you need to be thick-skinned to cope with some of the hate you'll feel but since it's impotent hatred, what the hell!
 
Yeah sure.. NOBODY can lift a finger to fix a problem until the government blesses the actions as a communal exercise. Every other INDIVIDUAL action to solve a problem is suspect and subject to scorn..

Crappy anti cap attitude there for sure.... Cant adapt to climate change without political approval and an army of bureaucrats......
 
Yeah sure.. NOBODY can lift a finger to fix a problem until the government blesses the actions as a communal exercise. Every other INDIVIDUAL action to solve a problem is suspect and subject to scorn..

Crappy anti cap attitude there for sure.... Cant adapt to climate change without political approval and an army of bureaucrats......

So you are now admitting that there is a problem that needs fixing? Interesting.
 
Yeah sure.. NOBODY can lift a finger to fix a problem until the government blesses the actions as a communal exercise. Every other INDIVIDUAL action to solve a problem is suspect and subject to scorn..

Crappy anti cap attitude there for sure.... Cant adapt to climate change without political approval and an army of bureaucrats......

So you are now admitting that there is a problem that needs fixing? Interesting.

Of course there's a problem assuring that the developing nations can EARN a standard of living similiar to ours WITHOUT Economic Imperialism as practiced by the UN or the Greens thru Agenda 21 and other "sustainability" efforts.. I'm all for every INDIVIDUAL effort to solve these problems. And it's silly to expect an effective energy policy to come from political orgs that are CLUELESS about energy engineering or how an economy organizes from the grassroots.. OR that energy policy comes from a group of lawyers at NRDC.

About a decade ago, I was arguing with folks on-line and on campus just like you and GoldiRocks.. Their message then was that solar and wind and ethanol was gonna allow EVERY GRANNY to be energy independent. That all these "green shoots" were gonna be totally democratized development with no huge corporate footprint. I ridiculed them back then also.. Told them that someday -- BIG SOLAR and BIG WIND would be as much a govt/corporate collusion as oil ever was..

Top down direction for COMMUNAL action looks a lot more like a smoggy day in Beijing than it does in your mind....
 
Yeah sure.. NOBODY can lift a finger to fix a problem until the government blesses the actions as a communal exercise. Every other INDIVIDUAL action to solve a problem is suspect and subject to scorn..

Crappy anti cap attitude there for sure.... Cant adapt to climate change without political approval and an army of bureaucrats......

So you are now admitting that there is a problem that needs fixing? Interesting.

Of course there's a problem assuring that the developing nations can EARN a standard of living similiar to ours WITHOUT Economic Imperialism as practiced by the UN or the Greens thru Agenda 21 and other "sustainability" efforts.. I'm all for every INDIVIDUAL effort to solve these problems. And it's silly to expect an effective energy policy to come from political orgs that are CLUELESS about energy engineering or how an economy organizes from the grassroots.. OR that energy policy comes from a group of lawyers at NRDC.

About a decade ago, I was arguing with folks on-line and on campus just like you and GoldiRocks.. Their message then was that solar and wind and ethanol was gonna allow EVERY GRANNY to be energy independent. That all these "green shoots" were gonna be totally democratized development with no huge corporate footprint. I ridiculed them back then also.. Told them that someday -- BIG SOLAR and BIG WIND would be as much a govt/corporate collusion as oil ever was..

Top down direction for COMMUNAL action looks a lot more like a smoggy day in Beijing than it does in your mind....

Right, because it is silly to expect governments to be able to solve difficult technological problems - like how to get to the moon and back. Can't be done. Nope. We must demand that individuals solve the problem, because we all know that only an individual can solve what it took an entire planet of humans to fuck up. :cuckoo:
 
Right, because it is silly to expect governments to be able to solve difficult technological problems - like how to get to the moon and back. Can't be done. Nope. We must demand that individuals solve the problem, because we all know that only an individual can solve what it took an entire planet of humans to fuck up. :cuckoo:


Once upon a time America had a government that could get folks to the moon and back.

Once upon a time.....

These days we have a government that apologizes for their predecessors having done it.
 
So you are now admitting that there is a problem that needs fixing? Interesting.

Of course there's a problem assuring that the developing nations can EARN a standard of living similiar to ours WITHOUT Economic Imperialism as practiced by the UN or the Greens thru Agenda 21 and other "sustainability" efforts.. I'm all for every INDIVIDUAL effort to solve these problems. And it's silly to expect an effective energy policy to come from political orgs that are CLUELESS about energy engineering or how an economy organizes from the grassroots.. OR that energy policy comes from a group of lawyers at NRDC.

About a decade ago, I was arguing with folks on-line and on campus just like you and GoldiRocks.. Their message then was that solar and wind and ethanol was gonna allow EVERY GRANNY to be energy independent. That all these "green shoots" were gonna be totally democratized development with no huge corporate footprint. I ridiculed them back then also.. Told them that someday -- BIG SOLAR and BIG WIND would be as much a govt/corporate collusion as oil ever was..

Top down direction for COMMUNAL action looks a lot more like a smoggy day in Beijing than it does in your mind....

Right, because it is silly to expect governments to be able to solve difficult technological problems - like how to get to the moon and back. Can't be done. Nope. We must demand that individuals solve the problem, because we all know that only an individual can solve what it took an entire planet of humans to fuck up. :cuckoo:

Did you realize that I used the term individuals as the contrast to your communal visions of how shit gets done? Youd be dense or dishonest if you didnt. Government didnt turn a screw to get us to the moon. Only pencils and checkbooks. My dad designed parts of Apollo that had NO GOVT SCIENCE OR ENGINEERING content. My NASA counterparts at KSCenter were Program Mgrs, not worker bees. Governments Rent ability from the private sector.

The problem you refer to is being BADLY addressed by political pressure to exert Economic Imperialism over developing countries and placing casino wagers on technologies they dont understand here at home. They do NOT know better than the MILLIONS of folks working in related fields.....
 
Right, because it is silly to expect governments to be able to solve difficult technological problems - like how to get to the moon and back. Can't be done. Nope. We must demand that individuals solve the problem, because we all know that only an individual can solve what it took an entire planet of humans to fuck up. :cuckoo:


Once upon a time America had a government that could get folks to the moon and back.

Once upon a time.....

These days we have a government that apologizes for their predecessors having done it.

Well, none of that is true. But you knew that.
 
Of course there's a problem assuring that the developing nations can EARN a standard of living similiar to ours WITHOUT Economic Imperialism as practiced by the UN or the Greens thru Agenda 21 and other "sustainability" efforts.. I'm all for every INDIVIDUAL effort to solve these problems. And it's silly to expect an effective energy policy to come from political orgs that are CLUELESS about energy engineering or how an economy organizes from the grassroots.. OR that energy policy comes from a group of lawyers at NRDC.

About a decade ago, I was arguing with folks on-line and on campus just like you and GoldiRocks.. Their message then was that solar and wind and ethanol was gonna allow EVERY GRANNY to be energy independent. That all these "green shoots" were gonna be totally democratized development with no huge corporate footprint. I ridiculed them back then also.. Told them that someday -- BIG SOLAR and BIG WIND would be as much a govt/corporate collusion as oil ever was..

Top down direction for COMMUNAL action looks a lot more like a smoggy day in Beijing than it does in your mind....

Right, because it is silly to expect governments to be able to solve difficult technological problems - like how to get to the moon and back. Can't be done. Nope. We must demand that individuals solve the problem, because we all know that only an individual can solve what it took an entire planet of humans to fuck up. :cuckoo:

Did you realize that I used the term individuals as the contrast to your communal visions of how shit gets done? Youd be dense or dishonest if you didnt. Government didnt turn a screw to get us to the moon. Only pencils and checkbooks. My dad designed parts of Apollo that had NO GOVT SCIENCE OR ENGINEERING content. My NASA counterparts at KSCenter were Program Mgrs, not worker bees. Governments Rent ability from the private sector.

The problem you refer to is being BADLY addressed by political pressure to exert Economic Imperialism over developing countries and placing casino wagers on technologies they dont understand here at home. They do NOT know better than the MILLIONS of folks working in related fields.....

You really should take your meds, bubba.
 
Government didnt turn a screw to get us to the moon. Only pencils and checkbooks. My dad designed parts of Apollo that had NO GOVT SCIENCE OR ENGINEERING content. My NASA counterparts at KSCenter were Program Mgrs, not worker bees. Governments Rent ability from the private sector.

The problem you refer to is being BADLY addressed by political pressure to exert Economic Imperialism over developing countries and placing casino wagers on technologies they dont understand here at home. They do NOT know better than the MILLIONS of folks working in related fields.....

I guarantee you that a good portion of the research that got us to the moon and beyond was accomplished by government employees working at government facilities. If your dad worked at the Cape, he must have had a closet full of NASA Tech Briefs. Apparently you didn't read them. There's a poster at my office that charts the large number of PhDs and Masters in the NUWC (Naval Undersea Warfare Center) workforce. You think they hire PhDs cause they're good at signing checks?
 
Last edited:
And, of course, the most significant difference between government and private industry research is the need for immediate application. Businesses don't invest in research that doesn't possess potential for immediate profit. What private industry would have built the LHC?
 
Government didnt turn a screw to get us to the moon. Only pencils and checkbooks. My dad designed parts of Apollo that had NO GOVT SCIENCE OR ENGINEERING content. My NASA counterparts at KSCenter were Program Mgrs, not worker bees. Governments Rent ability from the private sector.

The problem you refer to is being BADLY addressed by political pressure to exert Economic Imperialism over developing countries and placing casino wagers on technologies they dont understand here at home. They do NOT know better than the MILLIONS of folks working in related fields.....

I guarantee you that a good portion of the research that got us to the moon and beyond was accomplished by government employees working at government facilities. If your dad worked at the Cape, he must have had a closet full of NASA Tech Briefs. Apparently you didn't read them. There's a poster at my office that charts the large number of PhDs and Masters in the NUWC (Naval Undersea Warfare Center) workforce. You think they hire PhDs cause they're good at signing checks?

Funny you mention stuff like NASA Tech Briefs.. My dad did Tech Pubs and Training for a Fortune 500.. One reason I went into science/tech was that he brought home his work. It had Government logos ALL OVER THEM. Pamphlets, Videos, full scale documentaries on BASIC SCIENCE all sponsored by Government. Tech Briefs USED to pamphlets that were prepared by BOTH NASA and Industry. Many of them under contracts. TODAY it's a glossy magazine with commercial ADVERTISING and prepared LARGELY by contractors. It's merely a vehicle for govt/corporate liasion for disseminating technology in their COMMON interests.

Of course all these agencies hire grads.. I've worked with HUNDREDS of them. Their job is to protect the PROCUREMENT interests of the Fed Govt and translate Govt REQUIREMENTS to contracts. Occasionally they USE the commercial deliverables to do PUBLISHABLE work. They do not REPLICATE what they KNOW they can buy.. INCLUDING basic science.

Here's the problem with Govt science.. You cannot push the EDGES of the science envelope without knowing what tech already lurks behind corporate locked doors. So there is an INATE COLLUSION to get "in bed" with the BULK of the proprietary work being done in the private sector. You cannot regulate efficiently without this collusion.. Just as you can't develop a meaningful National Energy policy without INVITING members of the Energy Sector into the conversations. When Cheney had meetings with the energy companies -- the LEFT went ballastic. I personally don't want the Government TINKERING with any energy policy that is not INFORMED by what the Energy companies already know about supply and technology.

This conflict of interest on the part of a government that simultaneously seeks to REGULATE and INNOVATE in any sector is a problem that leftists seem to be completely oblivious to.
See the response to your other comment below..
 
And, of course, the most significant difference between government and private industry research is the need for immediate application. Businesses don't invest in research that doesn't possess potential for immediate profit. What private industry would have built the LHC?

This is why I want Government involvement in Tech and Science limited to STRATEGIC LONGRANGE research and development. They should not be involved in any tech sectors where products ALREADY EXIST.. (See wind and solar for example).

In order to choose winners/losers from EXISTING tech, they have to sign non-disclosures on PROPRIETARY information disclosed to them by multiple COMPETING corporations. And their actions reward and punish simultaneously. Thus for every gov loan and subsidy targeted to an EXISTING technology -- they are INHIBITING other competing and deserving developments.
 

Forum List

Back
Top