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

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....'"

Comments

Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

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.

Re:Wha if

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wha if

[rolfwind]

Corporations and their funds should not be allowed to give or fundraise for politicians period. Only private citizens should be allowed to do either. It should not be a tax deduction either. It would fix a lot of problems.

Re:Wha if

[Rockoon]

The reasoning is likely much more simple than that:

One American Senator is completely meaningless and will continue to be meaningless with regards to "Climate Change," however one American Senator can be quite meaningful with regards to our business operations in his district.

Look folks, China is in the #1 spot emitting ~25% of the worlds CO2, and its still a god damned developing nation (about half of the people in China are still subsistence farming.) There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.

Re:Wha if

[Rockoon]

Ah, there's the attitude of progress!

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

If only Oklahoma's 1st district had the right Senator, for then we could force China to not be on track to producing half of the worlds CO2 emissions by 2050.

Re:Wha if

[Type44Q]

I blame the ignorant people who elect him into office

What, here in Oklahoma?! Nah...

Re:Wha if

[Nemyst]

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.

Re:Wha if

[MozeeToby]

There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.

When a Watt of energy from wind or solar costs significantly less than a Watt of energy from coal, oil, or gas emissions will plummet. When a battery has higher effective energy density than gasoline, emissions will plummet. The problem is thinking you can come up with treaties and laws to tackle the problem, the thing about agreements like that is that the more everyone sticks to them the more there is to be gained by being the one who cheats. If you want to fix it, you have to improve the tech so that it's an upgrade, not a downgrade.

Re:Wha if

[Bucc5062]

I believe he said "Corporations and their funds". Certain a CEO is a private citizen and can do what he/she will with their own money. Perhaps the point is that it is not right for a CEO to use the power and profit of a Corporation to influence votes. If they can pull millions of dollars out of their own (deep) pockets then fine, though they do run up against campaign finance laws. Corporations can now contribute with no caps and thus play a huge part in how a campaign plays out.

Re:Wha if

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wha if

[evendiagram]

Look folks, China is in the #1 spot emitting ~25% of the worlds CO2, and its still a god damned developing nation (about half of the people in China are still subsistence farming.) There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.

It's really easy to absolve yourself of any responsibility with statements like this. Perhaps looking at your country's contribution per capita would be more helpful.

Re:Wha if

[interkin3tic]

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.

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

"Corporations are voluntary grouping of people"

This is a lie on so many levels it's heard to know where to begin.

You make it sound like they're all of one mind WRT politics. They're a "voluntary grouping" , right? But they're not. They're just there to work and pay the bills; they haven't "voluntarily grouped " for political reasons at all.

  Yet you force them to accept what the corporation does and use their presence in the corporation are a a kind of justification, hey,. they're there as a voluntary group! They can leave if they don't like it!

Of course they could leave their job. As if. I love it when this argument finally gets down to "if you don't like it , you are free to leave your job / state / nation" part . It's a joke and factually as untrue as "if you don't like it, you can leave your job, lose your house, wreck your credit and live on the street" . Only in an adolescent fantasy world does this kind of logic exist.

What's more, it puts unwarranted amount of political power into the hands of a tiny minority of people merely because they're rich. That's the real world effect. It's no different than 18th century England with a king and the various barons. They wield the real power. But this is what democracy was invented to prevent. You seem to overlook that basic fact. Democracy is a means to an end- the opportunity for citizens to participated as equals in government. You turn it into a circus of perverts, gleefully shaking their packages at the whole POINT of democracy through some fucking "voluntary group" horseshit.

People should be limited in how much they can give candidates. Candidates elections should be publicly funded. Elections should be of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations. and the tiny sliver of people who run them.

Nothing could be simpler to understand.

Re:Wha if

[jfengel]

Unfortunately, one senator is NOT completely meaningless. Inhofe isn't just a Senator. He's the ranking minority member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. That means he has enormous say in any legislation on the environment. If the Senate changes hands, he becomes the chairman of that committee, and has the power to singlehandedly stop any legislation to do anything about climate change. He would also have significant power to introduce legislation to dismantle any regulatory framework, and the ability to hassle executive branch agencies with subpoenas (and has shown a willingness to use it).

The committee structure of the US Congress puts enormous power in the hands of a few individuals. And the ones with the biggest axes to grind try to end up in prominent positions: the House Committee on Science and Technology is packed with people who aren't just climate change denialists, but creationists to boot.

Re:Wha if

[kwbauer]

Depends on the corporation now doesn't it? The corporation in question during the completely misrepresented SCOTUS ruling was, in acutality, a corporation formed for the purpose of a "voluntary grouping for political reasons." The line of reasoning the justices were following is that the laws of the US have been manipulated to the point of requiring such voluntary groupings to form a corporation in order to pool their money and then laws were enacted to prevent them from using that money to buy speech time.

You see, in days of yore, a man could afford to print up some pamphlets and distribute them on his own and have quite an impact on the political environment. In keeping with the original intent of those old guys of days gone by, the current SCOTUS realized that buying airtime and distributing movies IS the modern equivalent of printing and distributing pamphlets and that "the average guy" is no longer able to effectively make political speech without pooling resources with like-minded individuals (that other first amendment right).

lolwut?

[girlintraining]

this time in an open letter from 17 scientists and policy researchers [...] to explore ways to improve climate science communication....

Yeah, because improved communication is the problem, not people shoving their fingers in their ear and going "glory glory halleluja!" If only there was some scientific explanation for behavior like this. Anyway, the solution is simple: Better education, not better 'communication'. A better educated population is more likely to use science, reason, and excercise critical thinking in response to new information, than an uneducated one. Ah, what's the going rate of a college education these days?

Oh. Right.

Re:lolwut?

[Eunuchswear]

Anyway, the solution is simple: Better education, not better 'communication'.

Not really.

The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

It's a Lewis Page article - as usual when Page reports research it turns out that the research doesn't say what Page claims it does.

What about Gay Marriage?

[CajunArson]

So when Google/MS/etc. etc. all were heaping money on for the pro-gay marriage debate why was protest by company employees not allowed while this is seen as being a "moral' thing to do?

I'm not taking a position either way on either topic, I'm just pointing out that lots of people on this site and in general have very blinkered views where paying money to support the "correct" politicians is perfectly fine while paying money to support the "incorrect" politicians should somehow be illegal.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Rockoon]

..by "equal rights" you seem to actually mean "inclusion into the special rights club that all non-married people are still excluded from."

Either support the availability of all of the special rights that married people have to all unmarried people also, or stop calling it "equal rights."

Basically, stop lying. We understand that the phrase "equal rights" has powerful connotations that automatically get a large group of drones to stand with you, but its still a fucking lie.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[virg_mattes]

..by "equal rights" you seem to actually mean "inclusion into the special rights club that all non-married people are still excluded from." Either support the availability of all of the special rights that married people have to all unmarried people also, or stop calling it "equal rights."

This doesn't follow logic at all. The concept that marriage has certain "special rights" both ignores the concept that it also has certain responsibilities that unmarried people don't have to deal with, and ignores the idea that (in a perfect world) anyone is free to enter into marriage and free to leave it. Your argument makes about as much sense as getting mad that people can incorporate a company and get into some "special rights club" that unincorporated people don't enjoy. It may be technically accurate but it's nonsensical.

Virg

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Xest]

I'm not talking about special treatment for being married, that's country specific so pointless to talk about as if tax breaks for being married or whatever are some inherent trait of marriage everywhere - they're not.

By equal rights I'm referring to the ability to marry someone you love. Currently only gay people are denied that right.

If you jumped off your ethnocentric horse of American marriage benefits for a moment you'd realise that there is an underlying equality issue there that's far more important than whinging about tax break inequality and the like.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[asylumx]

They must disable this logic when the article is about gun control, eh?

good grief, give it a rest

[stenvar]

It's fine for some group of scientists to point out how they believe Imhofe is wrong. But calling on companies to blacklist any politician who doesn't agree with their position goes way too far.

In fact, a company that really is interested in good corporate citizenship should spread its money and influence around so that opposing views are heard.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[EmagGeek]

Indeed. Scientists are scientists. These people are politicians that claim to be scientists.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[TapeCutter]

Two points.
1, Science is a matter of evidence, not a matter of belief.
2. To have an opposing view, one must first agree there is such a thing as 'reality'.

Comm 101

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Speaking of improved communication, where's a link to this letter?

Re:Zealotry and the balkanization of our culture

[oh_my_080980980]

Kind of depends if your friends discriminate against you based on their beliefs..doesn't it...

Simple solution to complex problem

[evilRhino]

Government representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, not multinational corporations. Make it illegal for foreign entities to fund domestic campaigns and we can avoid these conflicts.

Job One of Do No Evil

[ThatsNotPudding]

Don't build anything in states that promise zero business taxes and allow no-benefit, slave-wage jobs.

Not that hard if you a functioning human soul.