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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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'.