Actually, the lie that responding to the global warming crisis is very false. Raising fuel and energy efficiency, renewable energy, and recycling subsidies would all make us very prosperous and save billions, but instead we subsidize fossil fuels way too much and leave recycling exclusively to a market skewed to compete against it by this corporate welfare favored by certain industries. We could have the New Deal, but the economy gets steadily worse and worse with a leading economist predicting a 90% chance of economic armageddon
http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=55356. The individual companies can not make this profitable for themselves individually against these odds. That's why we have to push for a solution to take care of these economic externalities that ARE costing corporations and everyone else billions. Not to mention the economic damage that global
warming WILL inflict already and will much worse if we don't get our act together.
Dan Weisenbach <dan@no.address> wrote:
I much prefer the "corporate agenda" of the Wall Street Journal with their accurate, in-depth, and honest reporting; as opposed to the socialist agenda of The New York Times and the Boston Globe; or the outright communist leanings of Grist.
Dan Weisenbach, Caring Capitalist
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:07:15 -0800, Steve Bloom wrote:
> Bear in mind the Wall Street Journal's political agenda. Global
> warming is bad for corporate profits, so best just to ignore it for
> as long as possible, eh?