“[The Republican Party] is now more similar to autocratic ruling parties such as the Turkish AKP, and Fidesz in Hungary than to typical center-right governing parties in democracies such as the Conservatives in the UK or CDU in Germany.”
From a detailed February analysis released in by the released by the
Varieties of Democracy Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.
The Republican “culture war” has painted a target against efforts to contain and reverse climate change, placing corporations pledging support to stem change climate change at the bullseye. At the heart of this illiberal philosophy is a rejection of the notion of global warming itself. They reject any measures that cost money, reduce corporate profits or even be a national priority. Many in the GOP believe that global warming – the average temperature across the country in January was 32 degrees Fahrenheit, an all-time high – is simply part of natural cycle that will self-correct, a position rejected by over 95% of the relevant scientific community. “Wokeness” is the “evil” they are fighting. But what is that?
In an OpEd piece for the February 22nd Los Angeles Times, entitled Right-wing culture warriors say wokeness is dead. They can’t even define it, Michael Hiltzik believes that anti-wokeness is now the central GOP platform: “The outcome is school bookshelves devoid of books, because those that used to be there have been found wanting, or merely because no one has time to page through them in quest of textual nonconformities with white privilege… Keep your eye on this trend. It won’t be long before culture warriors like Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) start taking credit for killing ‘wokeness.’…
“One problem with assessing the rise and fall of wokeness is that the term is vacuous to the point of being meaningless. To some, it signifies acknowledging and accommodating the diversity of American society and culture; to others, it bespeaks a punitive and sanctimonious campaign against white privilege.
“Conservative economist Tyler Cowen grappled with the difficulty of definition in a column proclaiming that ‘wokeism has peaked’ last year. ‘On the positive side,’ he wrote, wokeism ‘is highly aware of racism and social injustice, and is galvanized toward raising awareness. On the negative side, it can be preachy, alienating, overly concerned with symbols and self-righteous.’.. Others have been trawling the same waters for signs of wokeness’ passing. This weekend, Noah Smith, a center-left economist and blogger, declared, ‘I feel like I’m almost starting to write about wokeness in retrospect.’ Among his data points was that ‘corporate interest in DEI [that is, diversity, equity and inclusion] seems to be waning.’”
Along with the notion that valuing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is fading and will be gone soon is the parallel notion that fighting climate change is a worthless pursuit that truly does not matter anymore. Business interests (read: major campaign contributors) are pushing back on government regulations that hold corporations responsible for their environmental costs. As Kristoffer Tigue, writing for the February 14th Inside Climate News, explains: “Financial regulators have come under increasing pressure in recent years to address the private sector’s role in exacerbating climate change. Some 10,000 publicly listed companies are responsible for 40 percent of all climate warming emissions, more than twice what was previously believed, recent research found.
“In response to that pressure, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a new rule last year that, among other things, would require certain large, publicly traded companies to report the climate emissions generated by their supply chains and customers—known as Scope 3 emissions—which experts say often make up the majority of the private sector’s carbon footprint.
“That means businesses would not only take responsibility for the direct emissions produced by their factories or office buildings, but also for their indirect emissions, including those caused by the distribution of their goods and the transportation needs of their employees. For oil and gas companies, it would also mean they would tally the greenhouse gas emissions created by customers who burn their gasoline while driving—by far the largest segment of the transportation sector’s massive carbon footprint.
“But amid intense backlash from corporate America and legal threats from Republican lawmakers promising to wage war on what they call ‘woke capitalism,’ Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler is now considering removing the Scope 3 requirements from the proposed rule, according to several news reports citing people familiar with the commission’s plans.
“Conservative lawmakers and business trade groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have opposed the draft rule, saying it would impose overly burdensome costs on companies and force them to violate their fiduciary duties to investors. Proponents, however, say the rule is not only necessary for tackling climate change, but that it would actually help companies stay solvent in the long run as the climate crisis worsens.
“The facts are clear: Reducing emissions by half by 2030 is necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, and the private sector has an important role to play,” Michael Sheldrick, cofounder of social justice advocacy nonprofit Global Citizen, wrote in an op-ed for Forbes on Sunday. “Ignoring growing climate threats may in the long run have disastrous effects on a business’ workforce, supply chain and business models.”
“In fact, a growing number of economists now argue that the consequences of climate change are already imposing increased costs on businesses and governments around the world, and as countries transition to cleaner energy, companies that are slow to adapt risk losing out financially.
“Climate-related natural disasters in the U.S. alone caused a whopping $165 billion in damages in 2021, recent government data revealed. And some of the world’s largest financial analysis firms have estimated that without stronger intervention, the impacts of global warming could slash the world’s gross domestic product anywhere from 4% to 18% by 2050, which translates to trillions of dollars in potential lost revenue.” Oh, and those resulting natural disasters not only cost taxpayers an absurd and escalating fortune every year, but they kill… destroy food production and decimate millions of acres of otherwise productive land annually.
I’m Peter Dekom, stopping countermeasures against climate change to line the pockets of the mega rich should indeed be a crime against humanity… with an annual human death toll that vastly exceeds the fatalities in that murderous Russian war against Ukraine.
No comments:
Post a Comment