Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Science Fellows Challenge the Company's Fund-Raising For Senator Inhofe

Posted by samzenpus on from the keep-your-friends-close dept.

Lasrick writes "At the Dot Earth blog in the NY Times, 'Big companies have many, and sometimes conflicting, interests, as a spokesperson for Google tried to explain to the environmental blogger Brian Merchant this way: “[W]hile we disagree on climate change policy, we share an interest with Senator Inhofe in the employees and data center we have in Oklahoma.” Now the Web giant is facing fresh criticism, this time in an open letter from 17 scientists and policy researchers who were invited to Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters back in 2011 to explore ways to improve climate science communication....'"

5 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Wha if by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What if their reasoning goes like this: Inhofe is dangerous. We cannot now influence Inhofe. If Inhofe takes our money, then Inhofe will be, in part, dependent upon us. If we can create a financial dependency between Inhofe and his constituents, we can use that dependency to influence Inhofe. We can threaten to withdraw jobs, close plants, relocate.

    That is what most people complain corporations do, right? That is the source of their power along with campaign contributions. It seems to work, or at least everyone bitches about it as though is does work. I believe it works.

    So....

    What good is a purity-play if it doesn't get you what you need- influence?

    I don't know this is their thinking. It could very well be their thinking. Note my signature and check my last posts if you think I have priorities other than climate change abatement or am shilling for anyone. I am just a person looking to deal with reality in any way that is effective.

    1. Re:Wha if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That would be nice.

      I blame the ignorant people who elect him into office - time and time again.

      But, our elected officials reflect the Voting public.

      Gerrymandering?

      Ask yourself why does it work?

      During the last Presidential election, I had a wonderful time observing my neighbors here in the Bible Belt.

      First, you need to understand, if you are not a member of their particular Christian Sect, you are NOT a Christian - like Catholics and Mormons are not Christian in their eyes.

      BUT, given the choice between Obama/Biden and a Mormon and a Catholic Republican they HAD to vote Republican. Their reasons were whatever Fox News and Rush were spouting at the particular moment.

      Yes, there were a few explosions as some heads assploded while they were voting for a Mormon and Catholic.

      No, I won't pick on the Dems - they're too wimpy to take it.

    2. Re:Wha if by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, because going "You first!" is sure going to convince China, India and others to cut their own level of life so that we may preserve our own.

    3. Re:Wha if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, the old "only one way towards progress now let me dictate it" argument.

      How the hell did you manage to get that from my post? All I am doing is pointing out that your post reads like "we cannot significantly do something, so why bother?". I make no claim as to the "right" approach, or even a right approach, only that yours is a wrong approach.

    4. Re:Wha if by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Inhofe denies the consensus that climate change is real and is willing to screw over the future for his fossil-fuel industry customers, he's probably basing other policy decisions not on utilitarian principles but on self-interest.

      For instance, he voted against raising the debt ceiling. I'm no economist, and it's a matter of opinion (or crystal balls) as to whether the cuts the republicans are trying to get as ransom are a good idea or not, but based on his position on climate change, that really makes me suspect he'd tank the economy in an attempt to get tax cuts for his rich friends.

      Or worse, he's one of a disturbing number of representatives who seem to be religiously conservative, who ignores reality when it disagrees with his worldview. That can be more dangerous than simple greed in any numbers, since it can't be reasoned with.

      Anyway, as far as China, it's less likely that China will reduce their emissions until it's financially advantageous if we're still pumping out carbon like there's no tomorrow, and Inhofe is yet another barrier to changing that.