The science of climate change has never had a chance in the world of American politics when forced to compete with the financial backing of the carbon-burning industrial complex (CBIC).
The CBIC has been better able to frame the message that the science behind climate change is wrong, partisan, Al Gore, a hoax, another tax burden or simply incomplete than the science ever being correct or at least worth entertaining.
Maybe that is about to change?
NY Times today reported about the difficulties international behemoths Coca-Cola and Nike are having with restocking their bottom lines because of increasingly inconsistent global weather patterns. They are openly attributing these unfriendly weather patterns to climate change:
Coca-Cola:
Coca-Cola has always been more focused on its economic bottom line than on global warming, but when the company lost a lucrative operating license in India because of a serious water shortage there in 2004, things began to change.
and,
“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.”
Nike:
Nike, which has more than 700 factories in 49 countries, many in Southeast Asia, is also speaking out because of extreme weather that is disrupting its supply chain.
These aren't tree-huggers and fans of the Polar Bear but instead folks just worried about the really important stuff, MONEY:
“This study is about one thing, the economics,” Mr. Paulson said in an interview, adding that “business leaders are not adequately focused on the economic impact of climate change.”
Heck, it even has the attention of the conservatives:
Although many Republicans oppose the idea of a price or tax on carbon pollution, some conservative economists endorse the idea. Among them are Arthur B. Laffer, senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; the Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign; and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the head of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, and an economic adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican.
“There’s no question that if we get substantial changes in atmospheric temperatures, as all the evidence suggests, that it’s going to contribute to sea-level rise,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “There will be agriculture and economic effects — it’s inescapable.” He added, “I’d be shocked if people supported anything other than a carbon tax — that’s how economists think about it.”
Dangle a few dollars out there and suddenly that science-stuff starts sounding a little more intriguing.