tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6285352837548119886..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Petroleum and PropagandaEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41376763693321403802012-05-28T05:11:27.341-04:002012-05-28T05:11:27.341-04:00I bought a used copy for less than David Archer...I bought a used copy for less than David Archer's text. Why? I'd borrowed a library copy first. I could've gone with more scientific explanations. But I know those don't help convince people that they're being deceived. <br /><br />It is an academic book and Jacques is not easy to follow. My technical background doesn't help me follow Poly Sci lingo. But I'm looking for new tools. I want to create a vocabulary to plant new insights between the ears of sleepwalking politicians and voters. His ideas need regular people to turn them into everyday speech and action. [As George Lakoff might have done for environmental issues (he had a Sierra contract once) but is apparently too fond of regular politics to bother.]<br /><br />Jacques sees the environmental counter-movement clearly. It's a broad push-back against all sustainability efforts, not just climate by Big Oil and their flunkies. The roots of the opposition are deep and he plumbs them in many ways. He begins with Rachel Carson and the unsuccessful chemical industry campaign to discredit her. That failed but they learned fast and changed methods. Conservative Think Tanks now shield the contributors and mystify the public. He is good at exposing inconsistency and deception. I believe that's one key to undressing their motives to help people understand. <br /><br />Jacques makes unfamiliar use of capitalization but explains that in a Terms section. For example, the pair of words - others/Others. Lower case 'others' have agency and purpose. In contrast, 'Others' are socially constructed so that they may be disposed of. An example could be basic training. Soldier are socialized to kill the enemy - the ultimate<br /> 'Other'. Or, societies decide indigenous people are too primitive to appreciate their land. So we civilized ones aren't stealing when we use something they aren't, or take their minerals, lumber, oil, etc. Englishmen without property couldn't vote. So it was OK to drive them from the countryside into cities since the industrial project (Industria) needed cheap labor. <br />The neoliberal, global economy organizes society so that this socialization process is applied to anything or anyone who becomes available for commodification or consumption.Jay Althttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11146408415375034447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73952884371250297852012-05-23T15:05:56.142-04:002012-05-23T15:05:56.142-04:00The book is not priced to sell, but you can read h...The book is not priced to sell, but you can read his lenghty and capitalization challenged introduction <a href="http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/92956/Introduction_to_my_book_Environmental_Skepticism_Ecology_Power_and_Public_Life_Ashgate_2009_" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />It sounds far out but perhaps that's just the dialect :) This passage<br /><br /><i><br /><br />Discourse in the counter-movement indicates that the counter-movement represents the interests of the global poor and disenfranchized, and these discourses are found to be misrepresentative and inauthentic. Here we see how the counter-movement frames the periphery in the Global South as undeveloped, indigenous peoples as savage elements of the state of nature needing to be civilized, women as hysterical emotional characters needing reason and management, and non-human nature (Earth others) as the penultimate instrument for disposal. the framing of these actors as others then prepares us for their use and annihilation, and it is hard to estimate a larger loss of security than this. thus, inasmuch as the countermovement insists on separating out some people from others, and humans from non-human nature in order to exploit both, it is violent. <br /><br /></i><br /><br />is too good a description of the emails, tweets and billboards under discussion.<br /><br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58089361217177119352012-05-22T17:24:17.507-04:002012-05-22T17:24:17.507-04:00I've traded emails with Peter on occasion. Un...I've traded emails with Peter on occasion. Unfortunately, the price tag on that book may not have helped it.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33755243183254020232012-05-22T16:08:16.156-04:002012-05-22T16:08:16.156-04:00John M & all -
Here is the summary of a small...John M & all -<br /><br />Here is the summary of a small, helpful book. The<br /> author is a political scientist who teaches <br /> sustainability. He takes ideas such as those by <br /> Oreskes and Conway, to use a tired sports cliche, "to<br /> the next level." Guess he didn't have their publicist? <br /> Enjoy. <br /><br />Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power, <br />and Public Life 2009 Peter Jacques<br /><br />"Environmental skepticism is the position that major <br /> environmental problems are either unreal or <br /> unimportant; in other words, environmental <br /> skepticism holds that – especially global <br /> environmental problems—are inauthentic. This <br /> book empirically and historically describes, in line <br /> with published research, how environmental <br /> skepticism has been organized by US-based (some <br /> in the UK) conservative think tanks as an anti- <br />environmental counter-movement. <br /><br />This is the first book to analyze the importance of<br /> the US conservative counter-movement in world<br /> politics and its meaning for democratic and<br /> accountable democratic deliberation, its importance<br /> as a mal-adaptive project that hinders the world’s<br /> people to rise to the challenges of sustainability,<br /> the threat of the counter-movement to<br /> marginalized people of the world, and its<br /> philosophical implications through its commitment<br /> to a “deep anthropocentrism.” <br /><br />The book does not end in deconstruction of the<br /> counter-movement, however, but concludes with a<br /> full elaboration how to deal with current and<br /> impending global environmental imbroglios through<br /> two propositions: first the book offers a way to<br /> civically engage and evaluate complicated<br /> knowledge claims without falling into a positivist<br /> “science-trap” that only degrades into dichotomous<br /> dialogues that offer no closure or little ability for<br /> fair social action. Second, the book proposes that<br /> we reclaim our public life from the economistic<br /> neoliberal globalism that currently and fully<br /> ensconces world politics. <br /><br />The book proposes that in order to do this we need<br /> to develop an ecological demos where all earthly<br /> inhabitants and environments are considered vital<br /> and potential actors in their own right (the<br /> ecological self, ala Val Plumwood and Bruno Latour). <br />In addition the book argues that we must reclaim,<br /> decommodify, and defend the commons—like water <br />and genes-- against private enclosure that <br />inevitably becomes devoured by the predatory, <br /> expansionary network of core powers, institutions,<br /> and organizations like multinational firms that serve<br /> Northern consumption."Jay Althttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11146408415375034447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68585520862234489622012-05-22T11:47:53.266-04:002012-05-22T11:47:53.266-04:00EM is *not* out of the game at all, but one must a...EM is *not* out of the game at all, but one must avoid the "thinktank X is bad, EM is funding them" unless ou8 can prove that currently true.<br /><br />The other point is that one *cannot& make sense out of this without looking at the key family foundations.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76656262882426409042012-05-22T03:36:45.159-04:002012-05-22T03:36:45.159-04:00Well color me stoopid, that is why they call me &q...Well color me stoopid, that is why they call me "Hey Stoopid".<br /><br /><br />A sad tale, of catch 22, of biting the hand that feeds.<br /><br />Most interesting, the oil corporations, in fighting for a delay, to maximize their profits, want and or desire the entire population of humanity, to jump the shark.<br /><br />A sick sad sorry state of affairs, indeed!<br /><br />One truly hopes and wishes that the intentions of "Desertec", is multiplied by two orders of magnitude, to counter this lunatic insanity. <br /><br />Link: http://desertec-africa.org/<br /><br />Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. ~Cree Indian ProverbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62088752098553241252012-05-22T02:31:42.714-04:002012-05-22T02:31:42.714-04:00So EM is out of the game now? Do they still fund ...So EM is out of the game now? Do they still fund Heritage? Note that the latter just participated in bailing out the HI conference.<br /><br />In any event I think it's better to consider the network as one big 'tank, with donor money substantially fungible. It's tobacco tactics (not to ignore the lead and chemical industry forerunners) and Powell strategy, although IIRC the first of the 'tanks was established in the late '40s.<br /><br />Agreed that MoD didn't detail all of this very well, nor did it succeed in highlighting the central thread (to which climate is only incidental, notwithstanding that it has by far the greatest consequences).Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6043921494956008642012-05-22T01:29:30.954-04:002012-05-22T01:29:30.954-04:00Good commentary ...and I like Powell's book, b...Good commentary ...and I like Powell's book, but I do think the ideological "free market fundamentalism" discussion in Merchants of Doubt got lost somewhere.<br /><br />We certainly know ExxonMobil & co have organized and funded much of this, but much (including the formation of George Marshall Institute) had little or nothing to do with fossil funding. Only later did EM funding come along for a while and then O'Keefe.<br />Here is the grant data from, top 6 (others are much smaller):<br /><br />$1490K Sara Scaife Foundation, 2003-2010<br /> $910K L&H Bradley F 2003-2011<br /> $395K Earhart F 2003-2009<br /> $330K Exxon Mobil 2003-2005<br /> $305K Carthage (Scaife) 2003-2008<br /> $280K Claude Lambe (C. Koch) 2006-2009<br /><br />It would be an error to ignore the fossil interests, but would also be an error to ignore the strong ideological component, which sometimes in independent for many of the people involved. Of course some of the foundations have fossil interests.<br /><br />As comes through strongly in MoD, much of the MoD+Singer foursome's motivation is ascribed to cold-warrior/free-market/ideology, not particularly money ... and she reiterated that in response to questions today at a Stanford talk.<br /><br />As for Heartland, EM F used to fund them, and coal (Murray Energy) certainly has, but see:<br /><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax" rel="nofollow">Fake science, ...</a> p.48, and especially pp.57-58.<br /><br />There is pretty strong evidence that most of the money coming to Heartland was from Barre Seid via DONORS TRUST/CAPITAL, and most of the money there was *not* from direct fossil interests, and that is consistent with the 2012 Heartland fund-raising plan.<br />This makes sense: EM has "handed the ball" off to family foundations, cheaper that way.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17251044290885428692012-05-21T19:47:30.410-04:002012-05-21T19:47:30.410-04:00"'Hell.' wrote Thomas Hobbes, 'is...<i>"'Hell.' wrote Thomas Hobbes, 'is truth seen too late.' Survival is falsehood detected in time."</i><br />-- <a href="http://www.wisdomcommons.org/wisbits/1714-excerpt-from-the-enemies-of-society" rel="nofollow">excerpt from "The Enemies of Society"</a>J Bowersnoreply@blogger.com