ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Organized Climate Change Denial “Played a Crucial Role in Blocking Domestic Legislation,” Top Scholars Conclude

The Denier Industrial Complex (Click to Enlarge)

Two leading scholars have written an excellent analysis of what I’ve been calling the Denier Industrial Complex.

Riley E. Dunlap, a sociology professor at Oklahoma State, and Aaron M. McCright of Michigan State call it the “climate change denial machine” in their book chapter, “Organized Climate Change Denial,” for the new Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society.

In a note, the authors explain:

The actions of those who consistently seek to deny the seriousness of climate change make the terms “denial” and “denier” more accurate than “skepticism” and “skeptic,” particularly since all scientists tend to be skeptics.

Some try to downplay the central role of the denial machine in U.S. politics, but the fact is that what the deniers have accomplished in this country is unique in the world, going far beyond the spread of disinformation.  They have allowed fossil fuel interests to “capture” almost an entire political party — at least these in national office (see National Journal:  “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones”).

In this country, the power of the Denier Industrial Complex is magnified by the absurd extra-constitutional, super majority “requirement” for 60 votes in the Senate.  As long as the machine operates and Republicans in office lack the guts to challenge it, the chances of serious climate action remain severely limited.

Here is the conclusion of this important article:

Read more

Politics

Top 5 Reasons Why The Occupy Wall Street Protests Embody Values Of The Real Boston Tea Party

2011: Demonstrators stage civil disobedience protests against corporate control of America. 1773: Protester boards an East India Trading Company ship, dumps tea.

In recent years, the Boston Tea Party has been associated with a right-wing movement that supports policies favoring powerful corporations and the wealthy. As ThinkProgress has reported, lobbyists and Republican front groups have driven the current manifestation of the Tea Party to push for giveaways to oil companies and big businesses.

However, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations picking up momentum across the country better embody the values of the original Boston Tea Party. In the late 18th century, the British government became deeply entwined with the interests of the East India Trading Company, a massive conglomerate that counted British aristocracy as shareholders. Americans, upset with a government that used the colonies to enrich the East India Trading Company, donned Native American costumes and boarded the ships belonging to the company and destroyed the company’s tea. In the last two weeks, as protesters have gathered from New York to Los Angeles to protest corporate domination over American politics, a true Tea Party movement may be brewing:

1.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was A Civil Disobedience Action Against A Private Corporation. In 1773, agitators blocked the importation of tea by East India Trading Company ships across the country. In Boston harbor, a band of protesters led by Samuel Adams boarded the corporation’s ships and dumped the tea into the harbor. No East India Trading Company employees were harmed, but the destruction of the company’s tea is estimated to be worth up to $2 million in today’s money. The Occupy Wall Street protests have targeted big banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, as well as multinational corporations like GE with sit-ins and peaceful rallies.

2.) The Original Boston Tea Party Feared That Corporate Greed Would Destroy America. As Professor Benjamin Carp has argued, colonists perceived the East India Trading Company as a “fearsome monopolistic company that was going to rob them blind and pave the way maybe for their enslavement.” A popular pamphlet called The Alarm agitated for a revolt against the East India Trading Company by warning that the British corporation would devastate America just as it had devastated South Asian colonies: “Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. [...] And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin.”

3.) The Original Boston Tea Party Believed Government Necessary To Protect Against Corporate Excess. Smithsonian historian Barbara Smith has noted that Samuel Adams believed that oppression could occur when governments are too weak. As Adams explained in a Boston newspaper, government should exist “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” Patriots behind the Tea Party revolt believed “rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty,” says Smith. Occupy Wall Street protesters demand a country that invests in education, infrastructure, and jobs.

4.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was Sparked By A Corporate Tax Cut For A British Corporation. The Tea Act, a law by the British Parliament exempting tea imported by the East India Trading Company from taxes and allowing the corporation to directly ship its tea to the colonies for sale, is credited with setting off the Boston Tea Party. The law was perceived as an effort by the British to bailout the East India Trading Company by shutting off competition from American shippers. George R.T. Hewes, one of the patriots who boarded the East India Trading Company ships and dumped the tea, told a biographer that the East India Trading Company had twisted the laws so “it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity.” Occupy Wall Street demands the end of corporate tax loopholes as well as the enactment of higher taxes on billionaires and millionaires.

5.) The Original Boston Tea Party Wanted A Stronger Democracy. There is a common misconception that the Boston Tea Party was simply a revolt against taxation. The truth is much more nuanced, and there were many factors behind the opposition to the East India Company and the British government. Although the colonists resented taxes levied by a distant British Parliament, in the years preceding the Tea Party, the Massachusetts colony had levied taxes several times to pay for local services. The issue at hand was representation and government accountable to the needs of the American people. Patrick Henry and other patriots organized the revolutionary effort by claiming that legitimate laws and taxes could only be passed by legislatures elected by Americans. According to historian Benjamin Carp, the protesters in Boston perceived that the British government’s actions were set by the East India Trading Company. “As Americans learned more about the provisions of the new East India Company laws, they realized that Parliament would sooner lend a hand to the Company than the colonies,” wrote Carp.

Progressive political movements, from Martin Luther King to Mahatma Gandhi, have drawn on the original American Boston Tea Party for inspiring civil disobedience against oppression. Indeed, the very first Boston Tea Party was truly radical and faced scorn from elites and conservatives of the era.

NEWS FLASH

New Sarah Palin Movie Brings In Just $7,000 In Opening Weekend | The Undefeated, the much-anticipated documentary about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) was an abject flop when it premiered this summer, and the latest Palin biopic doesn’t seem to be doing any better. The new documentary, Sarah Palin: You Betcha took in just $7,000 in its opening weekend, getting about 40 viewers per day across all six locations it played in, the U.K.’s Daily Mail reports. Unlike the glowing The Undefeated, Sarah Palin: You Betcha is a “gotcha” portrayal of the former vice presidential candidate, but the lackluster turnout suggests people of all political persuasions are losing interest in Palin.

Economy

Business Owners, Investors Say Tax Changes Make ‘Zero Difference’ In Hiring: ‘I’m Not Sure What The Connection Is’

Wrapping the wealthy in the term “job creator,” Republican lawmakers are hammering President Obama over the “Buffett rule,” a tax reform policy based on the simple and popular notion that millionaires should pay their fair share in taxes. To the GOP, this is a surefire way to ensure millionaires or “job creators” do not invest in the economy. “The reason we tax cigarettes in this country is to get people to stop smoking,” said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). “If you tax capital more, you get less capital. If you tax job creators more, you get fewer jobs.”

But a surprising group of people find that to be entirely untrue: the “job creators” themselves. As the billionaire behind the Buffett Rule, Warren Buffett, explained, “I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.”

Indeed, 200 millionaires created a group known as the Patriotic Millionaires to make this exact case. In a direct rebuttal of the GOP, members of the group like Ask.com founder Garrett Gruener noted that a higher tax rate makes “zero difference” in how he invests:

Ask.com founder and Oakland venture capitalist Garrett Gruener said that changes in the marginal tax rates make “zero difference” about where he is going to invest.

“The kind of investing I’ve done for the last 25 years isn’t based on how a few points of the income tax rates change,” said Gruener, a Democrat and member of the Patriotic Millionaires. But “somehow, the Republicans have managed to convince 98 percent of the people that they are affected by how 2 percent of the population is taxed.”[...]

Business owners also dismantled the other Republican talking point that higher tax rates will harm small businesses. “I’m not sure what the connection is” between raising tax rates and hiring, said Anchor Brewing CEO Keith Greggor. Anchor has added 26 full-time and 10 part-time employees since last year. Not a lot of “small-business owners I know are millionaires,” Greggor added. SF Made, an organization that represents 230 San Francisco manufacturers with 100 or fewer employees, said if there is a connection between raising taxes and inhibiting small-business investment, “we haven’t seen it.”

Patriotic Millionaires launched a video last month challenging Republican millionaires in Congress for their opposition to the Buffett Rule, stating that millionaire lawmakers’ “continued support of policies that advance their own economic self-interests is un-American.” But if Republican lawmakers are unwilling to listen to the “job creators” they say they speak for, then perhaps they will heed the advice of their figurehead President Ronald Reagan. After all, the Buffett rule is practically his idea.

Alyssa

‘Arrested Development’ And The Housing Market’s Collapse

I’ll remain skeptical that Arrested Development is actually coming back via 10-odd new episodes produced for an outlet like Netflix or Showtime and a movie until the actors are actually on a set filming somewhere. But if that blessed event does come to pass, I’m curious to see if the family will still be in the same business. In a weird way, the creepiness of the Bluths’ model houses is a marvelous foreshadowing of the dramatically overheated housing market, and the shells of developments depopulated by foreclosures. So will the family be crushed by the downturn? Actually sort of protected by the decline of their business prior to the 2008 crash? The show was always sort of loopily brilliant about politics, so I’m hoping the show comes back if only to see what they’ll do with this new set of circumstances.

NEWS FLASH

Texas Releases Inmate From Life Sentence After DNA Evidence Reveals He Is Likely Innocent | Texas will release Michael Morton, a man sentenced to life in prison for the 1986 death of his wife, after a DNA test reveals another man more likely committed the crime. The case “will likely raise more questions” about Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) 2001 appointee whose tenure has been “controversial.” The Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to overturning wrongful convictions, claims that Bradley “suppressed evidence” that would have helped clear Morton. Perry also appointed Bradley to the Texas Forensic Science Commission in 2009, where he has been critical of the commission’s investigation of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham — a likely innocent man who was executed in 2004. The state Senate “refused to confirm him as head of the commission after he told reporters Willingham was a ‘guilty monster.’” Given Perry’s record of execution, it is fortunate that Morton was not on death row. If he had received the death penalty, he would still be innocent but there would be no way to reverse his sentence.

Yglesias

The Eurozone Needs Credibility, Not A Ton Of Money

I have a mild dissent from Kevin Drum’s take on the European Financial Stability Fund issue. He says that “all the tricks in the financial rocket scientist’s toolkit can’t change” the “grim reality” that “Europe either ponies up eye-watering amounts of money for its teetering banks and teetering countries or faces financial catastrophe and the end of the eurozone.”

I think the real situation is both more and less dire than that. The real issue here is not so much a question of volume of expenditures as it is of credibility. If people really think that the EU will do what it takes to prevent bank failures, defaults, and euro exits then there’s no reason for firms or individuals to invest resources in trying to hedge against the risk of bank failure, default, or an exit from the euro. Some idiosyncratic speculators may want to bet on those outcomes, but other speculators will offset them. The total amount of spending that would be needed to back up a credible commitment might ultimately be quite small. Conversely, if you give people the impression that ultimately the EU will blink and the whole thing will go to shit then you’re going to see not just speculation but tons and tons of everyday firms and households trying to make financial moves to protect themselves. Efforts to counteract these moves by dribs-and-drabs can end up being very expensive, and likely doomed anyway.

That’s good news because it means that an institutionally and politically workable solution need not be very expensive. It’s bad news because levering up the EFSF appears to be the only institutionally and politically workable solution. And I don’t think any solution that involves a finite sum of money necessarily has the right kind of credibility. Instead, it sounds to me like basically a challenge for speculators to be daring enough to break the EFSF bank and then count on institutional gridlock to prevent a new solution from emerging. Not only does the EFSF have a quantitative limit, but the kludginess of the solution serves to highlight the extent to which institutional dysfunction makes a euro rescue difficult.

NEWS FLASH

White House Press Secretary Peppered With Questions About Obama’s Evolution On Marriage | This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged questions from the Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson about President Obama’s evolution on same-sex marriage, saying, “I’ll let the president address that question.” Watch it:

During an interview with ABC News today, Obama weighed in on the issue and said he was “still working” on changing his views. He added that his thinking has been influenced by friends, family, and children of gay couples he knows who are thriving.

Politics

Michael Steele Calls Perry’s Racist Ranch Name ‘Very Troubling’

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has come under fire after the Washington Post reported yesterday that he hosted friends and lawmakers at ranch that featured a rock inscribed with the word “Niggerhead” on it. Perry’s camp has sought to discredit the story, but in an interview with Time Magazine today, former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who is African American, said the revelation is “very troubling on some many levels, for so many reasons.” “So, I’m sorry – my attitude is just remove the rock,” Steele added, “Just get rid of the rock.”

Steele appeared on MSNBC this afternoon where he elaborated on his criticism of Perry:

STEELE: We cannot be lackadaisical about these issues. We cannot be insensitive in that regard and say well just paint over it, because it still is a reminder of what’s beneath the paint. And I think again that’s what irks a lot of African Americans and a lot of minorities when it comes to how the Republican Party and sometimes its individual candidates respond to these types of things.

Watch it:

African-American GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain also criticized Perry, telling ABC News yesterday that the ranch name is “just plain insensitive towards a lot of black people in this country.”

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up