View Comments |
Print This Post
| 
by Jack Ward | December 5th, 2007
As folks in the northern latitudes prepare for winter, global warming zealots are heading to the tropics to join in a gabfest about global warming.
As folks in the northern latitudes prepare for winter, global warming zealots are heading to the tropics to join in a gabfest about global warming. While many will be shoveling snow, these elites will be enjoying the surf, sand, and global warming in this tropical paradise. Organizers expect more than 13,000 diplomats, politicians, celebrities, activists, and members of the media to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia from December 3rd to the 14th. The purpose of this conference is to work out a replacement for the global warming pact known as the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.
As a reminder, even though Vice President Al Gore was instrumental in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord, President Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification after the U.S. Senate voted (95-0) against the Kyoto principles. The Senate's action was based on overwhelming input from the scientific community. Approximately 17,000 scientists and climatologists signed a statement disputing the UN report professing human-induced global warming. When she had the opportunity, Senator Barbara Boxer didn’t support the Kyoto Protocol treaty. But now as chair of the Senate Environment Committee, she has become an eco-zealot. Boxer will head a delegation of usual suspects going to Bali to endure the tropical heat.
The global warming/global cooling hysteria isn’t new. The Los Angeles Times said, “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.” And a New York Times headline screamed, “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776.” But those stories were from 1929. Not to be outdone Newsweek ran an article in April of 1975 entitled, "The Cooling World." The article cited the ominous signs indicating that “the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” In May of 1975, the New York Times warned, “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
To recap, soothsayers warned us of global warming in 1929, warned us that the earth was cooling in 1975, and are now warning us that it is warming again. Many of the same charlatans that predicted human-induced global cooling in the mid 1970’s are now predicting human-induced global warming. If they keep trying they are bound to get it right.
Anyone who has dealt with organizations knows that nothing productive can be accomplished with thousands of participants and opinions – unless the solution is predetermined. Such is the case with this ‘the sky is falling’ conference. To say the fix is in would be an understatement. A propaganda movie hyping human-induced global warming and a Nobel Peace Prize doing the same assures that emotion will determine the outcome of the conference.
But are these eco-zealots really that concerned about carbon emissions? Folks with green eye shades and sharp pencils have estimated that to travel and hold this 12-day conference, 47,000 metric tons of carbon will be emitted into the atmosphere. To offset these carbon emissions, 4,700,000 trees will have to be planted in the tropics. (A tree planted in the tropics can remove about 22kg of CO2 from the atmosphere per year and that means about 100 trees can remove one metric ton of CO2.)
Imagine that – to hold this boondoggle conference, 47,000 metric tons will be emitted and 4,700,000 trees will have to be planted to offset the carbon emitted. You would think that if these ‘eco-friendly’ folks were really concerned with carbon dioxide and global warming, they could have held a teleconference and eliminated this embarrassment.
To continue this eco-friendly myth, Indonesia plans to eliminate cars from the conference site and supply about 200 bikes for people to use. Imagine 200 bikes for 13,000 people. This appears to be as well thought out as the basis for this human-induced global warming conference.
Since commercial airlines can’t handle the sudden spike of 13,000 travelers, most of the elite will be traveling by private aircraft. But the Bali airport doesn’t have space to park hundreds of these private aircraft, so pilots will have to drop off their elite passengers and fly off to another location to park, belching additional CO2 all the way there and back.
Participants have already been warned that it will be hot in Bali. Angus Purnomo, the meeting's executive chairman, told a news conference, “To prevent people from melting in the sun, we will ask everyone to wear light clothes and short sleeves.” How thoughtful.
Another good essay that follows the money trail – keep em coming. We need more unabashed cynics that say: “Yes, yes, your motives are noble and pure I’m sure, but can I have a look at your financial records?”
After a career working with and for major American corporations, I’ve witnessed the lifestyles of the rich and shameless up close and personal and developed some simple axioms. First, the powerful among us have two sets of standards; one for themselves and one for the rest of us.
Working for a major automotive corporation, I observed the free of charge executive dining rooms, complete with mahogany paneling, menus and waitresses, while the common worker was granted the unadorned, pay for your meatloaf cafeteria or patronized the local fast food joints. I’ve delivered brand new cars to division chiefs for their personal use at no cost to themselves; one Chevrolet division president was married with only one grown daughter away at college and had 5 new Chevrolets in his garage at all times. His maid said he wouldn’t drive most of them before I was ordered to return them to the company garage for replacement.
I’ve watched executives maintain, at company expense, lavish hotel suites and apartments in one location because they refused to relocate the wife and kids from the family mansion within a different location. I’ve watched nepotism in full flower and executives who dream up crucial business meetings in order to fly to a remote location to visit their kid in college.
In another comedy I witnessed, company board of director members arrived in chauffeured limousines at a manufacturing plant to explain to workers making $13.00 an hour that expenses were out of control and the company had to cut back. Imagine lecturing 150 employees on the need for layoffs and salary reductions and then hopping into your Cadillac limousine for the trip back to the airport. What was completely bizarre was that the board members saw no incongruity between their message and their actions. And it’s important to emphasize it never occurred to them the workers might resent chauffeured limousines and layoff slips.
Were these “let them eat cake” board members stupid or just needlessly cruel? The answer is neither. They simply didn’t see the issue from the employees’ viewpoint. And, I don’t mean they refused to see it, I mean they consciously disregarded the incongruity. The plant needed to be downsized and their perks included chauffeured limos – two separate issues entirely. In their mind, their position entitled them to certain unique benefits; the plant workers’ position didn’t entitle them to anything special – because there is nothing special about plant employees.
Second axiom: The powerful aren’t sure why they merit more than the rest of us, but they intend to take full advantage of their opportunities. As human beings, our nature requires a central command hierarchy to organize our efforts – ant like communism doesn’t work and never will simply because we’re not ants – and it isn’t in our nature. All of our organizations require a specified status hierarchy and designated leaders to fill the hierarchy; in human society, we expect it and we demand it. Military units, governments, corporations, environmental movements, they all share this common human trait and psychological need for central command.
We compensate our leaders partly to reflect our own importance. Comparing the salaries of central command leaders to professional sports figures or actors is apples and oranges. Tiger Woods is immensely talented and very wealthy, but he doesn’t lead anyone other than his caddy. A sizable minority of corporate, military and government leaders are fumbling mediocrities, but we reward them lavishly because we need to reaffirm our importance by demonstrating their importance, not because they merit it on individual talent.
In that same vein, we consistently overstate the individual brilliance of our leaders. The next time there is a market downturn in any industry group, automotive, airlines, retail, etc., notice that the majority of companies within each group suffer equally. Apparently, none of the incredibly talented executives running these companies could prevent the downturn from affecting the organizations under their command. When the markets eventually turn back up, the executives rush forward with claims that their efforts, and their efforts alone, brought about the recovery at their respective companies.
We also want our leaders treated like celebrities. Major executives aren’t merely on the company payroll like common workers, they sign individual employment contracts exactly like NFL quarterbacks. So many years, so much money, plus performance bonuses, hiring bonuses, golden parachutes. At an S&P 100 company, utter failure as a leader can make you rich for life once the Board boots you out. Individual success as a leader has nothing to do with the long term health of the company, your last huge stock option grant was based on moving the stock price a mere 5 points. Unlike Bill Gates, most chief executives didn’t create and build the company they work for, have no emotional attachment to it, but they’ll make damned sure they don’t personally suffer if things go south.
Among senior executives, there is constant recognition they need to get theirs while the getting is good. Market factors, temporary anomalies within demand and supply patterns, current events (unexpected wars, natural disasters), and a host of other conditions can make a company profitable, all the while having absolutely nothing to do with who is running the show – the junior administrative assistant to the Chief Legal Officer could have steered the company to record profits under certain advantageous conditions. The executives understand this fact quite well, but aren’t reluctant to claim every one of the benefits offered them.
These simple axioms explain much about our “save the world” confidence games and the hustlers who promote them. There is no anomaly between chauffeured limos, executive jets and preaching on global warming in their minds, recall the board members and the layoff slips – two separate standards at work. And, conferences requiring personal attendance in beautiful and exotic locales, with elaborate dinners and diverting entertainment after a hard day of meetings, are covered under the second axiom above. We want leaders to save us from our sins, real or imagined, and we need to reward these leaders lavishly to reassure ourselves we actually are in control of the physical world and that control is overseen by a caring, central command structure.
As long as we disregard our psychological need for central command structures, we will be perpetual victims of these confidence games: Because this basic need is irrational, emotionally powerful and not to be denied. There was little difference between the personal ambitions of leaders in the former Soviet Union and leaders in California’s present government, the perceived differences in political ideology and theories of government are simply rationalizations and smokescreens. As long as we refuse to consciously apply the logical checks and balances which control our irrational human need for central command, we will remain willing victims of these leaders, regardless of whether it’s the local politician or a global warming hustler like Al Gore.
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 9, 2007