Cross-post: How Global Warming became a "left wing plot"

[n2doc]

Jon Carroll

One of the stranger things to happen in recent political discourse -- and this is a crowded field -- is the morphing of global warming into a left-wing plot, a conspiracy by godless scientists to ... well, it's not clear what benefit the scientists get from spreading lies about global warming. Maybe they just want research money to study this nonexistent warming thing.
I have a pretty good idea where that meme started. If you believe that global warming is man-made, then you believe that greenhouse gases are a bad thing. If you believe they're a bad thing, you believe they should be reduced. And reducing greenhouse gases would mean using less petroleum, in all its myriad forms. And since the current administration is dedicated to the protection of petroleum companies, it is only natural that it would try to convince its base that somehow global warming is being promoted by the same people who approve of gay marriage, abortion and secular schools.
The idea that global warming is a liberal plot is a lunatic notion, but it's surprising how closely it maps with public opinion. It's an extremely successful con job, and it's bought the oil companies at least a decade of profits and indolence. It's not clear why evangelical Christians -- or that portion of them that are die-hard supporters of George Bush -- should be so interested in the financial well-being of oil companies. It's not as if they're getting anything out of it.
So the president, who is nothing if not consistent, is trying to stick it to environmentalists again. Last year, he nominated three people for top-level jobs at posts that affect the environment. All three nominations were blocked, and thank you, Barbara Boxer. But now the president is thinking of making recess appointments of the same three people. He thinks it's a game of chicken. He thinks he has to win.
Is politics the art of compromise? Not anymore. Politics is the art of slandering your enemies and rewarding your campaign contributors.


more:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/DDGEBOSC301.DTL

[Old and In the Way]

1. Environmental activism has always been identified as part of the 'leftist' agenda.

So, early ob, the political opposition to this found its home in Republican/RW politics...which is funny when you consider the idea of "conservation" has always been an essential part of conservativism. Labeling environmental activists "lefties" was part of the Republican strategy - their politics of division. Republicans are married to position. It's mighty hard now for them to admit that their position on environmental issues is bankrupt, particularly when they are financed by the corporations that account for much of the pollution.

[YankeyMCC]

2. I think it's related to the fact that there are historically two wings

of environmentalism. Or at least there were in the beginning.

People like Pres Roosevelt who signed into existence the first national parks and forests thought of protecting the environment as part of prudent investment for continued economic development...it was foremost about protecting and managing resources although for some of the people of this type that also included protecting resources for outdoor 'sport' like hunting.

Then there's the people who want to protect nature for nature's sake and I think that is the group that has the biggest overlap with the early believers that human caused global warming was an issue of concern. I mean besides the scientists uncovering the facts of the reality of course, I'm talking about the groups within the general public.

So those people are lefties, hippies, not interested in putting economic development and the almighty market as number one priority instead thinking of social responsibility and general well being of people and more difficult to quantify values like having beautiful places to bring our children or spend a silent few days hiking, getting AWAY from development.