The delayer-1000s at the Competitive Enterprise Institute have launched an ad compaign to confuse the public. Their goal: Misleading people into thinking that restricting greenhouse gas emissions means restricting energy use and that means suffering for the poor around the world and at home (as if the CEI ever endorsed policies aimed at helping the poor). Don’t let them.
The science and economics are clear: Action is much cheaper than inaction. Failing to restrict GHGs will doom the world’s poor to centuries of misery.
The Progress Report from Think Progress (Subscribe here) has excellent coverage of CEI’s disinformation campaign:
Yesterday, the right-wing think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) unveiled an advertising campaign intended to provoke fear about solutions to global warming. The ads also make specious claims about former Vice President Al Gore’s own energy use. In CEI’s words, “The ads contrast Gore’s energy-consuming lifestyle with the life-and-death need for energy in developing countries.” The $30,000 campaign, set to run for two weeks on CNN, CNBC, and Fox News, includes a 60-second television spot and a longer web video. Despite decrying the “alarmism” of those who advocate fighting global warming, CEI is happy to use false alarmism in its own attacks. At the press conference, CEI’s General Counsel Sam Kazman said that climate change legislation of the kind Gore supports would herald “death on a massive scale” and “absolute disaster, suffering, and starvation on a massive scale” in the developing world. Today’s Progress Report sets the record straight.
CLUELESS ALARMISM:CEI claims that combating climate change means “restricting access to affordable energy,” a “sure recipe for increasing poverty, disease and human misery around the world.” CEI’s alarmist claims not only ignore the very real threat posed by climate change to the developing world, which would face food shortages and devastating drought. Moreover, the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 and now ratified by 174 nations — including the European Union,
China, and — recognizes the different economics of developing and industrialized nations. Industrialized states, which have achieved prosperity over 150 years of development without having to account for global warming pollution, are expected to meet stricter emissions standards, while developing nations are expected to engage in a more gradual transition to low-carbon economies. These guidelines have been embraced by the leaders of practically every nation on earth. Even major Fortune 500 companies have endorsed significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. At the India Baliconference this past December, leaders of developing nations shamed the American, Canadian, and Japanese delegations into action.