If we follow the money, who profits more in the so-called Global Warming debate?

Question

Keeping in mind that the U.S. is one of the few nations that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol because it "would ruin the economy" (Bush) - do you think making a profit has something to do with the mostly domestic (U.S.) controversy surrounding human activity as significantly involved w/ accelerating climate change?

For example:
Some might argue environmentalists have a lot to gain by getting millions in research grants, hocking their "green" wares for profit, and making bank by raising taxes (o! those pesky, profiteering liberals!).

Others might say Corporations, such as the Petroleum Industry, have a lot to lose, especially if alarmed citizens want alternative energy sources.

And still others might say Eternal Salvation in priceless: Global Warming is a sign of the Apocalypse and is awesome for the saved!

Where do you stand? Who has the most to gain/lose? What do YOU personally have to gain/lose on your side of the "debate"?

correction: should read that the U.S. is one of the few nations that has NOT ratified the Kyoto Protocol...

Harry H-
I hadn't heard the U.S. spends $60B on climate research (per year?). How much do you think the U.S. spends on military actions etc. to protect petroleum endeavors or to subsidize production of oil?
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=287&Itemid=333

Steve -
I appreciate your insight. It seems that some people are arguing the 1000s of international scientists involved in producing the IPCC report (but especially Al Gore) have an ulterior motive. I'm curious as to what they believe it might be. My question is less about the validity and motivation of the IPCC's scientific findings and more about the so-called "debate" surrounding the results.

Answer 1

While this might be a reasonable way to approach an ethical question, it is irrelevant to a scientific question. For example, we can't decide if a vaccine works or not based on who stands to profit from it; we must do actual science and listen to the results of actual scientists.

So as for me, I'm going with the fact that there is not one single peer-reviewed study on global warming that disagrees with these two basic points:

1. It's happening.
2. Humans are, to a significant extent, making it worse.


EDIT -

to answer your question, the money driving the "debate" must be existing money, not potential money. That is, while many deniers suggest that some people stand to make money when nations take action on global warming, that is only "potential" money. It doesn't actually exist in any great quantities yet. Therefore, it's easy to realize who is funding the debate: the people who are making money off the current approach (do nothing and hope for the best). Those folks are primarily the coal industry, and to a lesser extent, the auto industry. And their current take dwarfs any "potential" money.

On a side note, I think it's interesting that many conservatives argue against global warming because they feel someone will "make money off of it." Isn't this a good thing? Aren't we in a capitalist society?

Answer 2

I often wonder why pro CO2 Global Warming proponants keep stearing the debate as that between conservatives and liberals. If you wonder why people are giving arguments about profits in this debate, it must certainly be clear that there are liberals who are also not happy with the Politics of Climate.

I can tell you right now that among scientists, it's getting even more heated than it is on these yahoo! boards. Expect a really messy two years in the scientific side of the debate. Rumor has it that blood will be drawn. This has more to do with science and not with politics. Many scientists have been concerned about scientific integrity for some time now and with all the corporate and politically influenced science that is happening, are looking for a really big target to fight this battle with. Scientific integrity will become a major issue as well as funding and how it influences science.

Other than that, I have to agree with Trevor. There are people profiting from both sides of the debate. Too much money and politics in the whole messy GW science. It's easy to get disgusted and walk away from it all.

Answer 3

Enron

They wanted the Kyoto Protocol more than any other US entity.

Most of us with active braincells know what happened to them.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA384.html

" With a payoff worth tens of billions of dollars at stake, Enron Corporation laid out millions in campaign contributions in the 1990s apparently in part to persuade the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate to support the Kyoto global warming treaty.

Enron hoped to cash in on the Kyoto treaty by masterminding a worldwide trading network in which major industries could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide - the inert gas that some scientists and most environmentalists believe contributes to global warming.

The Houston firm's lobbying push appeared to be on the verge of success when Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol in November of 1998."

Answer 4

If scientist are motivated by money, I would have to say it is the global warming climatologists:

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government: Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway).

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.”

But those who say scientists are distorting the facts for big oil, what they are really saying is that these scientists are purposely deceiving the public, thus, public opinion, endangering all of humanity, being an accomplish to mass murder the likes we have not seen since hitler, endangering the lives of their grandchildren, all for 10 000 dollars. Is the world that bad of a place?

Answer 5

Global warming isn't about profit. There are people on both sides of the argument who are trying to profit from it but these are people who have newspapers and books to sell, TV shows and movies to promote etc.

Until a couple of years ago several of the petrochemical companies engaged in a policy of discrediting the science because they feared it would impact on their profits. Nowadays, every major oil company in the world accepts global warming is a reality and many of them are investing resources in developing cleaner and alternative technologies - they stand to lose out in some ways but gain in others.

The arguments about research grants is an extremely weak one. If scientists wanted such grants they'd be working where the money is - pharmacuticals, defence, petrochemicals, medicine, cosmetics, technology, communications - just about anything other than climate. This is an argument put about by some climate change skeptics but fails to stand up to scrutiny.

Even using the most conservative estimates, the losses from global warming are infinitely greater than any possible gains. The most detailed report into climate change puts economic losses at $600 billion a year right now, rising to $4.2 trillion a year by the end of the century.

Answer 6

The country that has the most to gain by the U.S. ratifying the Kyoto Protocol is China. The protocol puts NO LIMITS on the emissions of China. Under the protocol, China can, and will (and IS) increase emissions without limit. They are manufacturing billions of products cheaper than in countries that are spending billions on emission controls and workplace safety and worker rights (like the U.S.). Under the Kyoto Protocol the U.S. would have to spend EVEN MORE money, in the form of penalties paid to China. So of course China has ratified it. For them, it is just an agreement to accept billions of dollars from the U.S. while continuing to use dirty, unsafe manufacturing processes and oppress the under payed workers to undercut the U.S. market in all kinds of manufactured goods.

Answer 7

Polliticians- do you think they'd even be talking about it if they wern't going to profit from it in some way? Kinda like the Iraq war maybe; just something to take the minds of the people off how our country and libertys are being stolen from us

Answer 8

Liberals did no longer arise with worldwide warming. Scientists who're interior the sector and analyzing it stumbled on it to be going on. they actually went to congress and the senate in 1988 first, to warn them of the implications of international warming. right here's a clue for you, the monied hobbies who argue against worldwide warming are the oil, coal and ability hobbies. they are those investment the conservative politicians of their districts to call worldwide warming bullsh*t. i assume their paid propaganda worked on you. Why do ignorant human beings continually think of that huge company hobbies are the sufferers?

Answer 9

Do you honestly believe that we would spend as a country $60 billion dollars in Global Warming research without someone making a profit?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2093850,00.html

http://www.dailymotion.com/neverknwo/video/x1a4bt_chemtrails-exposed-on-discovery-cha

Answer 10

Everybody and nobody. Who profited during the debate between creationism and the theory of evolution? Who profits between the Cola wars between Coke and Pepsi. I think the point is moot.