[Read it from here, lots of link,s]
What would be the result if someone walked into a psychiatrist’s office and disclosed their belief that the weather is out to get them? Should the doctor be compelled by the state to initiate a competency hearing, or would a prescription for a fist-full of Prozac do?
What if the patient were a cop? Should they lose their badge?
What if the patient were a teacher? Should they lose their classroom?
What if the patient were an entire political movement? Should they lose their credibility and status as an authority on any and all subjects, at least those related to the weather?
At first glance, this 2007 report pulled from the internet archives of the Tides Foundation would appear to be making the claim described above; however, the cause is not so much driven by delusion as it is pathologically fraudulent.
The basic thrust of the publication (a conversation between the Tides Foundation’s Catherine Lerza and Redefining Progress’ Michel Gelobter) is that the effects of “global warming” are disproportionately felt by disadvantaged minorities.
[Catherine]Lerza: The impacts of global warming highlight social and racial inequalities around the world. It certainly affects poor communities differently. We saw that clearly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Could you talk about these different impacts of climate change depending on geography, race, and class?
[Michel]Gelobter: Communities of color and low income communities in this country clearly feel the impact of climate change and have been feeling that impact for over 20 years.
My organization, Redefining Progress, has conducted a number of studies on Latinos and climate change and African-Americans and climate change. Different communities bear quite a different vulnerability to the risks of global warming. Six years ago, we already had figured out that the greatest victims of climate change were the lower-income communities and communities of color. You can see it in the disparity in heat deaths in St. Louis. You can see there’s an impact on agricultural communities and on border communities and indigenous communities, particularly in the Arctic.
We have to address issues of justice: people have a right to health and to a secure place to live. They have this right whether they’re black, or white, or whatever.
This excerpt clears up at least one major misconception: that the devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina was the result of nature mixed with systemic governmental failure at all levels.
The truth, according to this report, is that the devastation was the result of socioeconomic inequality.
The reader would be forgiven for concluding that rich white neighborhoods were spared from the evil clutches of Katrinika Globus Warmus, a storm fueled in part by racist urban flight.
Lerza: What you are describing is a profound overhaul of American economics and culture. In this sense, addressing the problem of climate change gives us an opportunity to build a lifestyle that’s more in accordance with our values, right?
Gelobter: Absolutely. I think that is true for all Americans.
What is the number one thing we can do for the environment? It’s to allow people to live together in diverse communities because the single biggest cause of environmental degradation in the Bay Area and other cities is literally people’s desire to flee to the suburb where everybody looks like them. It’s what keeps us from having jobs near mass transit hubs. And it’s what keeps us from having a mass transit system that is really effective.
These guys are advocating serious social engineering to address the evils of racist American “Global Warming.”
Gelobter: Thirty-five percent of all global warming that has happened is due to emissions from the U.S. alone. As global consciousness of this issue rises, it would be very smart for domestic consciousness to rise as well because there could be a lot of outrage globally when people come to understand the U.S.’s role in this issue.
The U.S. owes it to the world and to itself to leapfrog over Kyoto. Kyoto is not enough. Let’s go to the next level. I think that’s the only legitimate position. Kyoto is supposed to be done by 2012. It’s too late, and Kyoto doesn’t deal with the justice issues properly yet.
Going beyond Kyoto means, from a social justice and an economic perspective, we might need to lock up U.S. coal and even some of the oil. That means permanently tilting the playing field against fossil fuels use through economic signals, through regulatory signals, through the stopping of subsidies. We need to do this for two reasons: It’s a way to build a movement, and it sends the unambiguous economic signal needed to grow alternative ways of generating energy.
Any chance some of that “global warming” outrage will be organized by ACORN international? After all, ACORN is in the outrage-for-hire business.
The most nefarious element of this Progressive victocracy is its real motivation: money, money, and more money.
Gelobter: We can have a pollution charge on greenhouse gas pollution, or we can auction the right to emit greenhouse gas pollution the way we auction cell phone bandwidth. Redefining Progress research has shown that net revenues, nationally, from that kind of a charge or auction system could be as high as $300 billion dollars a year.
You need that money to help everybody transition. You can’t build new mass transit systems without large capital investments. So if we pay Exxon to stop polluting, they take that money and invest it in whatever they want. If Exxon pays us because they’re polluting, we take that money and we get ourselves off fossil fuels.
When you read this in the context of our previous post about ACORN’s potential tax payer funded windfall in New York State, (Hundreds of millions of dollars for environmental organizing and training related services) a clear pattern begins to emerge.
The environmental movement is about redistributing tax dollars for special interest projects, while fundamentally transforming our nation under the banner of environmental “justice.”
The original apparent delusion that evil global warming is out to get economically disadvantaged minorities only serves to fuel the charge of raaaaaacsim against anyone who would dare to oppose the economic redistribution.
Thank god Dr. Gelobter has never been in a position to influence the government!
Dr. Gelobter was the founding chair of the [EPA] National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Subcommittee on Air and Water and served there for six years.
Dr. Gelobter is also a tremendous fan President Obama. He was among a group of “Environmentalists for Obama” who threw their support behind then Senator Obama in his quest for the Democratic nomination. Obama was so proud he posted the letter on his campaign website.
In the video below, you can see Dr. Gelobter refer to the folks working with President Obama as the “dream team.”
Also in the video below (:35), Dr. Gelobter says, “I am hopeful that perhaps because of the economic crisis, and the new New Deal that’s coming to solve it, that the US will follow the necessary path of designing our way out of the criminal level of global warming pollution that we emit today.”
You can read more about that new New Deal here.
For even more context on Dr. Gelobter, watch the following video to hear him talk about his hope that the era of the individual is over!
Change you will have no choice but to believe in.