See below
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"

> ----------
> From:         Chris Perley[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Thursday, March 01, 2001 7:01 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Global Warming motives
>
> Tony wrote:
>
> On the other side, environmentalists have no short-term profit worries, so
> they see the longer run in terms of effects of warming on human and other
> populations, and seek reductions in co2 to reduce the rate of warming. To
> some extent they are willing to pay for it, in the form of higher prices,
> but they are usually not the ones who have to shell out the money to make
> the changes needed. They are mostly altruistic, as there is little to be
> gained here, even by being "right." So to strengthen their position,
> environmentalists seize on the effects of warming, trying to show how much
> of a threat it is, and how little we know, so that it is necessary to be
> cautious (precautionary principle) when it comes to adding heat to the
> atmosphere.
>
>
> Chris P here:  I think this is simplistic Tony.  The idea that no
> environmentalists (or more properly environmental organisations) are
> motivated by personal self interest is very very weak.  There are
> altruists
> out there (I believe), but there are also many are motivated by being part
> of a group (the SA were great recruits for the communist equivalents in
> 1930s Germany - i.e. some people just want a flag to run with).  And SOME
> environmental organisations are run more like international corporates
> than
> neighbourhood watch groups.  To the "international environmental
> corporates", the "product" they are selling is whatever issue gets the
> most
> membership.  Truth need not be a prerequisite.
>
        Did I say "no" or none are motivated by self interest? What I meant
was they are generally not opposed to preparing for global warming based on
financial interest. Sure, part of a group, that sounds weak, but I guess it
motivates some. Are you saying that "executives" in environmental groups
earn at the rate of corporate executives? If so, that's news to me. I've
never heard of getting rich on a paycheck; it takes capital gains,
investment returns, bonuses, etc., to get rich, eh? As Ira Shor says, the
working class includes everyone who must work for a living. If you can live
on rents or a trust fund, then you are not working class. But most of us
are. I can't imagine that group membership translates into riches for the
top members of such a group. On the other hand, a lot of activists are
already wealthy, "they already have their mountain cabin," as the joke goes.
So they can then do what they like - as Ted Turner's son, or Robt. Kennedy,
jr. I think both of them are honestly for the environment

        But generally, it's easy for environmentalists to say spend on
preparing for warming because, as I said, they don't usually have to shell
out the bucks to do so.
> I am not defending the other corporates who openly desire lower costs and
> more returns by suggesting that SOME environmental campaigns have a
> similar
> modus operandi (with a different product to "market").  But I think it
> naive
> to say that the surface appeal of warm fuzzies covers a heart of pure gold
> (in a non-monetary sense).  I think - given the evidence over the last
> decade or so - that it is very difficult for anyone to deny that
> environmental motivations are not always motivated by short term monetary
> considerations.
        Operating money considerations? I suppose that's true; but what
about the big picture? I think the big enviro groups are much like
corporations, sure, that's how the market is designed. But overall, I think
it's safe to say that most environmentalists, as people, have their hearts
in the right place. If that's unrealistic or idealistic of me, then I guess
I am. Remember: question reality.
> Just a note of scepticism - not cynicism.
        No, I know. It's that other guy with the nugatory, arch, and
personally insulting tone.
> Chris P
>