Big money buys delay at Bali
Guardian commenter, George Monbiot, is in a grumpy mood in the aftermath of the Bali talks on climate change. To his way of seeing things the US has sabotaged the potential of both the Kyoto talks ten years ago and now the Bali talks by demanding terms that were unacceptable to developing nations, threatening to sink the talks if it did not get its way, and obfuscating in the language of technicalities.
So, who’s to blame? Well for a start Monbiot says you can’t lie this all at George W. Bush’s feet. After all his team just copied the negotiating strategy adopted by Al Gore in 1997. But more importantly, and in a pleasing segue for New Zealand readers, Monbiot says the real solution is campaign finance reform:
“Let us consider instead the other great source of corruption: campaign finance. The Senate rejects effective action on climate change because its members are bought and bound by the companies which stand to lose. When you study the tables showing who gives what to whom, you are struck by two things… Since 1990, the energy and natural resources sector (mostly coal, oil, gas and electricity) has given $418m to federal politicians in the US. Transport companies have given $355m.”
Which is healthy reminder that limiting and revealing campaign donations to politicians is as much about preventing big business from being able to buy policy outcomes as it is about ensuring a level playing field during elections. Even if all parties were to receive the same amount of large hidden corporate donations the system would still be corrupt.
“Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.”
December 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
oh..!..so that’s why we need the electoral finance bill..
(labour/the greens dead/rotting albatross..?..)
all because there are bent american politicians..
um..!..frog..!
with so much spin going on..
you’ll need new tyres soon..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 18th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
and there i was thinking it was all down to the new zealand herald..?..(c.f…norman..)
you’se had better have a bit ofa yack..eh..?
and gets the duck all lined up ina row..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
This book offers a front-lines view of the tactics employed by vested interests to prevent action on climate change in the 1990s. Quite an eye-opener, and still relevant.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Since we’re on that, there was an academic paper published last year called “The Rearguard of Modernity” by Peter Jacques which is probably an easier read than whole book.
I spose US voters should vote Ron Paul then
December 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
There is a lot of rubbish spoken about US corporate donations particularly in the energy sector. Some of the biggest US donors are in fact unions and IT companies adn banks - this is the top ten from opensecrets.org
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $39,106,885
AT&T Inc $38,436,035
National Assn of Realtors $31,241,156
American Assn for Justice $28,005,639
National Education Assn $27,335,150
Goldman Sachs $27,162,732
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $27,027,936
Laborers Union $26,068,139
Service Employees International Union $25,225,643
Carpenters & Joiners Union
The top oil/gas company is Chevron and it comes in at 69 and Exxon at 71. Even General Electic is only at 45 or so.
So if money buys votes, exactly how are these guys managing to write US policy when they give relatively small amounts? Couldn;t be the situation is just a bit more complex than that is it?
December 19th, 2007 at 2:43 am
StephenR: Obama has some pretty interesting ideas on campaign reform too, and he’s probably much more likely to get nominated.
December 19th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Insider
I know what the US electoral system looks like from the inside out, and if you think for one instant that the list you have is indicative of the money spent overall or the influence being bought you are really way less informed than you think you are.
I don’t doubt that in this election cycle alone the US will go through the larger part of a billion dollars. I also know that the signal to noise ratio in the US is such that the truth is almost impossible to get. Even when you search for it.
I don’t want that here. I don’t want the NZ public to be disadvantaged the same way as the US public is disadvantaged. The rubbish being strewn here is your own. Truth conquers by itself, opinion by foreign aids… and that is basically what all that advertising money is… it is a foreign “aid” to getting an opinion accepted. You can see it in this debate as easily as anywhere.
Money should be irrelevant to the outcome of the election. IRRELEVANT!
I can fncking well guarantee you that this is not the case in the USA. The “swift boat” issue was a $22 million dollar purchase at the margin…. and it wasn’t a corporation that made most of those donations… those came from individuals. Ideologically driven perhaps… I don’t read minds.
Neither side should be spending up to 300 million dollars , but that IS where the election process in the US goes… and that isn’t exactly a good model to be emulating.
You seem to think that because a process is opaque that it isn’t real or it must be honest. Please peddle your rubbish somewhere else. You could probably get maybe 1% of Americans to agree with you. Those would be the 1% that own everything including the government… and they’d be lying because they know as well as the other 99%, just how much they “own” the government.
Yes, it IS complex. Consider that 12% of the American electorate is effectively illiterate, and that the margin of victory is usually less than 1%….
Why are the public schools there so bad? Money… Again… the maldistribution of resource THERE is a long standing problem which is encouraged and sustained by the wealthy class.
Ron Paul won’t get in. The folks who own things will NOT let him in, as he has some principles that would destroy the influence and control that the banks currently wield. Obama might get in… but I don’t reckon I’d want to offer him life insurance. He’s slipped through a very narrow opening to become a leading contender of a major party. He’s managed to match or better Clinton’s bankroll. Just who is paying is an interesting question. What is certain is that he’ll still have to fight with the influence peddlers.
Y’all have a nice day.
BJ
December 19th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Frog:
You are suggesting the US behaviour at Bali was largely a result of US politicians being influenced by donations from energy and transport companies. I have no doubt this goes on. However, I think there is a simpler reason for the US behaving the way it does.
Perhaps the US has decided that it has sufficient technology and resources that it can adapt to climate change, rather than have to try and avert it? Perhaps, the US politicians simply believe the cost of adaptation to climate change will be less than prevention?
Now this is not as silly a proposition as it might seem. The US has something like 4% of the world population, but uses something like 25% of the world’s energy, much of which is from fossil fuels. To effectively limit climate change, the US is going to have to shoulder a large part of the burden, and this is going to have a major impact on the lifestyles of US citizens.
Some might point out that the Stern report showed the economic cost of preventing climate change was not particularly large. Personally, I am skeptical of this finding for several reasons. Firstly, simply replacing the existing energy infrastructure will be extremely costly. Secondly, this presupposes the technology required to make the change to a “low carbon” economy is already available.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe we already have the technology to replace most fossil fuel use. However, it won’t be as simple as substituting one source of energy with another, and continuing our lives as though nothing much has changed. There will have to be fundamental changes to the way our modern societies are organised. We simply won’t be able to go on using energy in the manner and style of current US citizens (unless a major breakthrough in a technology such as nuclear fusion is made). It is also my personal belief that the change to renewable energy will also come at a high economic cost. The economic cost of changing to renewable energy isn’t really a bad thing … far more money is probably currently being wasted in pointless wars, but nevertheless, the cost is real, and will be significant.
Perhaps US politicians are thinking similarly to what I have outlined: the economic (and no doubt political) cost of the US taking preventative action on climate change is greater than adapting?
Of course the risk with the adaptation argument is that climate change might be so catastrophic that human civilisation collapses altogether, and economic arguments for adaptation become irrelevant. I’m not saying I believe the collapse of civilisation is likely … but it certainly is a risk, and it won’t be the first time that it has happened (I imagine a lot of people in the Roman empire did not foresee that empire’s collapse either).
Cheers,
Miuela
December 19th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Even if all parties were to receive the same amount of large hidden corporate donations the system would still be corrupt.
Unless that amount is $240,000 dollars - which is a perfectly legitimate, clean, non-influential hidden corporate donation. Right?
Strangely enough whilst it is written here that politicians are easily corrupted by corporate donations, it is seemingly impossible for the same politicians to be corrupt in awarding copious amounts of state funding to themselves. Personally I can’t see the difference.