Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
5. Who are these guys? Yet more polluter-funded front groups hit the climate scene
Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:21 PM
Jul 2012
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/who_are_these_guys_yet_more_po.html

Who are these guys? Yet more polluter-funded front groups hit the climate scene

Posted April 30, 2009

There's a new front-group running around DC, backed by some old gunslingers who've been packing heat for polluters for years.

<snip>

So who is the American Energy Alliance? Another offshoot of the ExxonMobil and Koch Industries families of polluter-funded advocacy, it turns out. Described by NPR as "a new advocacy organization with strong ties to the oil industry," AEA was formed in 2008 and is led by long-time polluter-pal Thomas Pyle, who serves as President.

<snip>

Pyle is also President of the AEA's counterpart the Institute for Energy Research (IER). What's that? Well, the tobacco industry had the Tobacco Institute to peddle its smoke screens, deceptions and other propaganda. The energy industry has the Institute for Energy Research, which Sourcewatch describes this way: " ... founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization, [IER] advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities."

Just how far out there does the IER get in touting the energy industry line on climate change denial? In recent weeks, the energy-financed IER has helped tell the, well, dirty lie that "clean energy is a 'dirty lie."

IER also did its part to spread around the lies contained in a widely debunked Spanish "study" that falsely suggests green jobs are somehow a bad thing.

Speaking of being out there on denial issues, one of IER's directors is Steven Hayward with the American Enterprise Institute. Hayward was exposed two years ago for offering to pay scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $10,000 for written critiques of the IPCC's newest findings.

These industry groups are the same ones that got us into this mess and are trying to keep us tied to old, dirty 19th century technology instead of leading us forward with new safe, clean energy that will create jobs and make America a global leader for 21st century.

And so it goes...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The Paradox of Energy Efficiency [View all] GliderGuider Jul 2012 OP
Fossil fuel generated electricity won't be replaced by renewables. hunter Jul 2012 #1
Yes, I agree with you on all counts. Unfortunately... GliderGuider Jul 2012 #2
The fossil fuel industry won't die? Nederland Jul 2012 #6
Nope. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #7
Well history certainly supports you... kristopher Jul 2012 #9
Oh look - a trite, mindless cliche. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #10
GG is immune to historical evidence Nederland Jul 2012 #33
You know how we all laugh at people who say "This time it's different"? GliderGuider Jul 2012 #35
I take that to mean it will die when it runs out not so much that... joshcryer Jul 2012 #12
No Nederland Jul 2012 #32
You do me a disservice. I'm MUCH more pessimistic than that. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #34
For example, wind or solar cannot compete with inexpensive natural gas. hunter Jul 2012 #29
And that is precisely what the cited paper says. joshcryer Jul 2012 #13
Rush Limbaugh: Institute for Energy Research is "the energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation" bananas Jul 2012 #3
Know your wingnuts: Institute for Energy Research bananas Jul 2012 #4
Who are these guys? Yet more polluter-funded front groups hit the climate scene bananas Jul 2012 #5
It's telling that none of your posts addressed the substance of the article. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #14
LOL - "lack of political purity" - it's a politically-pure right-wing front group. nt bananas Jul 2012 #18
That sounds oddly familiar. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #19
This from someone who says anything more than a couple of sentences is too long to read kristopher Jul 2012 #20
My objection is not to reading, as you know. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #21
More Bullpuckey? kristopher Jul 2012 #22
Wow. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #23
More like ... kristopher Jul 2012 #24
I find it helps to look on such interactions GliderGuider Jul 2012 #25
. XemaSab Jul 2012 #26
Actual science on display here: GliderGuider Jul 2012 #31
The efficiency is good, but of little value with increased consumerism and greed. Starboard Tack Jul 2012 #8
The paper cited is correct, but they're arguing it from a poison pill POV. joshcryer Jul 2012 #11
What do you think would work to mitigate rebound? GliderGuider Jul 2012 #15
Socialism or high regulation. Rebound is a definite characteristic of capitalism. joshcryer Jul 2012 #16
Socialism and high regulation need to have this outcome as one of the goals. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #17
when all else fails invoke the USSR Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #28
Or you increase the fuel tax along with the efficiency requirements. Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #27
Yes, the one mechanism that might work is a no-frills carbon tax. GliderGuider Jul 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The Paradox of Energy Eff...»Reply #5