http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07-1

Let’s look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That’s five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000 Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America’s Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000 Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don’t even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Let me say this, if the same scientists and anti-pollution groups had come out and said that the usage of more and more fossil fuel vehicles and plants would lead to more and more respiratory problems, especially in the young and elderly, near cities which are blanketed by emissions pollution, and the science backs it up as it does, then I’d say the government would be admirable to requiring more efficient vehicles, plants, and try to reduce such pollution. Same goes for the environment (dumping, hazardous materials/waste, etc). But that’s not what’s going on here. Like the institution of the church so many centuries ago, they claim infallibility, destroy the careers and reputation of anyone who offer contradicting evidence as some kind of moral sinner who needs to be destroyed, ridiculed, and banned from a public voice. The Cap & Trade system is the result of the total control of the world, taxation as punitive measure for a flawed premise lacking any evidence and proof. We’re supposed to just take it?

Review that chart in the linkk I supplied above. At present time, we’re at a historical low for volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is CO2? Plant food. Why didn’t the Earth get destroyed when CO2 was 6000 ppm 600 million years ago – instead of leading to a boom of plant life? What was the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age all about when cars didn’t exist?

Should humans with better technology strive to be more efficient and responsible? Of course.

Should one group of humans scam another with a false premise, hide it, destroy the careers of those who question it (as seen in the emails hacked), and we all just go along with the scam – even if it means some countries harm their economies to follow it while other nations don’t have to abide by the same self injury? That’s a question for each to answer.

In response to matt1122 who said:

Note: I haven’t read the leaked emails, and they could say “we need to do this to get rich, yo!” I doubt they do, though.

“Canada’s image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling”

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-gr...a-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal

In response to jazzeru who said:

but what bothers me most though is that all of this radical change being discussed may be built on claims that are overstated. at the VERY least they have been severely compromised by recent disclosures of data-rigging and silencing of opposition – something antithetical to the scientific method and peer review. you can see it just in this thread – try having a debate with jazzeru with some honest questions – you are immediately called dumb and that you are the only one who doesn’t believe it. people even resort to calling people who have HONEST questions about the science “flat-earthers”. maybe man-made global warming is true – but do you really think because of the movie you saw that cities are going to fall into the ocean?

there is so much misinformation out there – the hurricane example you set forth has been debunked. the federal hurricane specialist at the national hurricane center in miami said this year that global warming has no effect on hurricane activity – there is some speculation that intensity may increase with global temperature, but the doomsday scenario you set forth is completely unrealistic. yet someone like yourself, who believes like i do that we should try and make the world a better place, uses this 1 in a zillion occurrence as evidence we should do something that can hurt a lot of people – while likely solving nothing.

i am just using this to illustrate that we shouldn’t pass billions in taxes and other regulations when half the bullshit out there is incorrect. lets wait and see what is going on first. in the meantime – invest away in green technologies and wind farms, and solar panels and every other thing. let the gov’t give subsidies and tax breaks for private investors who want to explore other possibilities. and when it is viable and can be mass-produced – THEN you tax people and force them into the technologies – not the other way around imo.

In response to 5thandmadison who said:

Some Reasoning: As the world’s oceans warm up and hurricanes become more fierce, we have a Katrina sized Hurricane hit the NYC area. Hoboken get’s destroyed. All that real estate destroyed – people displaced, history vanishes. Now, it would cost tens of billions of dollars, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars to fix a city like NYC and the surrounding area. Why not invest NOW in ways to have electric cars, solar energy, wind energy, algae energy, eliminate CO2 emissions and more – for the chance to protect ourselves in the future. What is the harm in that? I mean, we do it everyday with weaponry, computers and more – why not invest in something that WILL benefit us in the future even if Global Warming is not as bad as predicted.

If your answer is – because the economy can’t handle the debt burden, then you haven’t looked at the US economy in a historical perspective – after WW2, we had a higher debt burden and INCREASED it to invest in our GIs with the GI Bill. In the 80’s under Regan we had a HIGHER debt burden as a percentage of GDP as we SPENT TONS OF MONEY to defeat the USSR in the cold war.

This is just as I explained before – an attempt to make the crowd mad, get us to fall in line with the Oil and Gas interests who are scared they are going to lose a ton of money.. And, I have a ton of shares of ExxonMobil and ConnocoPhillips – I hope my investment stays strong, and it will if they invest in the future, not some paranoid present we live in.

In response to ricky roma who said:

MR, if you suddenly could change the atmosphere to what existed during the Pre-Cambrian 2 things would happen, humans and animals would suffocate and die along with most plants. Sea levels would rapidly rise several hundred feet above their current levels making someplace in western Pennsylvania waterfront property.. Some life would survive, but nothing more complex than plankton, algae, and bacteria, maybe some primitive aquatic animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TectonicReconstructionGlobal.gif

I have no idea exactly how much of an effect we have but I think it’s logical to say that when you reintroduce 8,000 million metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year you’re going to have an effect.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, we’re having an effect, but other factors also play a role. We could be on a warming trend, but are adding to the problem, making change happen quicker than it has in the past.

Fossil fuels are dirty and contain all kind of nasty compounds that we would be better off without. What’s the harm in finding cleaner alternatives?

The only people it harms are people with an interest in keeping us dependent on fossil fuels or don’t want to do spend the money to reduce the emission of poisons into the air we breathe and the water we drink.

In response to MidnightRacer who said:

CO2 is increasing even more this year than the last few years as the global population increases, yet global temperatures are in decline. Why? Even the people who believe in AGW/human caused global warming cannot explain why while CO2 is increasing, why are temperatures globally declining? Is that why they’re trying to delete the data, “trick” with the numbers, and scam everyone while attacking scientists who merely peer review their work or present data and evidence that the AGW believers want destroyed. Seriously, you guys remind me of the institution of the church some hundred years ago who burned people alive, hung them upside down – inquisitions to control the populace and tax them to death for your own ideologies built on a scam.

I’ve posted here many times CO2 as a ppm in the atmosphere over millions of years to compare. It’s ranged from CO2 = 6000 ppm (0.6% of total atmosphere) some 600 million years ago when cyanobacteria contributed to that huge volume of 6000 ppm of CO2 which represented levels 15.5844 times the current levels. Given jazzeru’s and others’ logic that supposedly if something coincides then it must be the cause (a logical fallacy), then at 6000 ppm, the CO2 should have fried the Earth given today’s historical low of 250 ppm (couple hundred years ago) to today’s 385 ppm threat that any more will melt all the ice and flood the planet. Funny, right. Actually, this CO2 was extremely beneficial to the sudden boom in plant growth (they need CO2 to survive, increase=increase in plant yield), as well as retaining warmth under the atmosphere for life on Earth to thrive. Today’s CO2 levels are at 385 ppm (0.0385% of total atmosphere).

CO2 does not create heat (it only retains it). Whether from humankind (5% of total CO2 contribution) or from nature (95% of total CO2 contribution), you actually need the Sun’s activity (increases) in order to see global temperatures rise. We can see all the planets experience both simultaneous rises or drops in temperatures. Yet none share the same atmospheres.

Historically, we’re seeing CO2 levels at a historical low given the history of the Earth. But those who are humans are destroying the planet start that measure from the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850 A.D.) to today. Then, CO2 was at 250 ppm and as we exited the last Ice Age, we entered into the current warming period as cycled after the Medieval Warm Period in the 1300’s.

If you guys have read the news, the government wants to now create technology to reduce CO2 en masse. However, the slippery slope is that (even if we had such capabilities of large scale), reducing CO2 while the Sun is at a minimum of activity could actually throw us into a human caused Ice Age (like I said, if we were even capable of such a large scale intrusion into nature). But we cannot affect the planet on that scale nor do we have the money to even dent such an impact globally – in either direction.