WH: Naomi Klein concentrates on exposing the rackets on one side: the fossil fuels, nuclear power side. But the other side that wants to make money out of fear of climate change, is also involved in racketeering. The US Republicans manage the publc relations of one of the rackets. The US Democrats manage the public relations of the other racket. They each make accurate exposures of the opposite racket but not of their own. Naomi Klein is apparently concerned not to have leftists look too deeply into the Democrat racket and focus all their rage on the Republican racket. There will be enough criticism of the Democrats for her to be able to say she is not a Democrat shill. But no more: halva.proboards.com/thread/385/obama-emissions-trading?page=1&scrollTo=1191
Albert A. Soren: Tamra Gilbertson and Oscar Reyes quote Naomi Klein in their criticism of carbon trading, which since The Kyoto Protocol has been a hocus-pocus abra-cadabra - selling fresh air to make big polluters look as if .... : "Anyone who still thinks that creating a carbon casino can solve our climate crisis owes it to themselves to read this book. The most convincing and concise challenge to the green profiteers yet." Naomi Klein, author, the Shock Doctrine ; www.tni.org/en/publication/carbon-trading-how-it-works-and-why-it-fails
WH: Thanks for this valuable link.Yes, I am not surprised to see Naomi Klein say this. She after all wrote "Disaster Capitalism", which is a very shocking book. But her thesis is that disaster capitalists take advantage of disasters caused by extreme climate phenomena. She does not show herself as willing as some (including even some with "climate change skeptic"views) to look into the extent to which these extreme phenomena: hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, droughts, floods, are the result of anything other than "mother Nature's" response to centuries of industrialization and its environmentally destructive but unintentional, not deliberate, side effects. Moreover in the "This Changes Everything" film she starts with an expose of "geoengineer" David Keith and his "mad" proposals for global spraying of toxic aerosols in the upper atmosphere in ostensible "mitigation" of global warming, without looking further into the geoengineers and their far from straightforward relations with the mainstream climate debate. It is true that there are/were some climate change skeptics (e.g. Freeman Dyson, Edward Teller) who both deny/denied that there is a global warming problem and also propose global spraying of toxic aerosols as a solution to it, but this is a level of absurdity that is avoided by most climate change skeptics, who content themselves with denying that there is a global warming problem and then sitting back to attribute all the insanity that is being proposed and practised in the name of "solutions" and "mitigation" to their (often green and ecological) opponents in the climate debate. Naomi Klein identifies the Heartland Institute climate change skeptics as baddies, correctly, but does not investigate all their crimes, or the full extent of their cynicism. To depict them simply as tools of the fossil fuels lobby does not touch on a tenth of what is wrong with them, or wrong with their opponents in the climate debate. Greens and ecologists have not shown themselves the slightest bit interested, for example, in Professor Marvin Herndon's allegations that fly ash from coal-burning power stations is a key ingredient in atmospheric aerosol spraying programmes purportedly to "mitigate" global warming. It cannot all be used for making roads so it is sprayed into the atmosphere out of aircraft. That is what he claims. He also claims that aircraft emissions have a net warming effect (and he is not the only person to claim this. The European Commission does the same). So what is the logic of geoengineering proposals to use aircraft emissions to "mitigate" global warming? Naomi Klein does not investigate this subject.