Why the Climate-industrial Complex Needs to Be Publicly Attacked and DeligitimizedAlan Carlin | March 2, 2017
The first indications of climate policy equivocation by the Trump Administration have appeared in the past week. It has also become clear that two members of the Trump family support the Climate-industrial Complex (CIC), as defined in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad. I had hoped for better, but this is not exactly unexpected. The CIC is an exceedingly well funded special interest trying to persuade the US Government to waste huge sums on a useless and damaging effort to “control climate change” primarily at the expense of lower income members of the population and the environment. Eradicating the CIC and its ideology is not an easy task, and the more equivocation the Administration shows the harder it will be.
Recent history shows this. My discussions with some of the political appointees at EPA convinced me that the George W. Bush Administration internally strongly opposed the CIC. But everyone from Bush on down played a very careful game of publicly trying to camouflage their views. This avoided a public fight with the CIC but fooled no one, of course, and contributed to the climate disaster during the Obama Administration by failing to deligitimize the CIC ideology; as a result, the Obama Administration was able to rapidly breathe new life into the CIC and did not miss any opportunity to support it both rhetorically and financially.
The Importance of the Long Term Demise of the CIC and Its Ideology
Although the Democratic Party’s capture by the CIC may result in long term problems for the Party, the Trump Administration has at most 8 years in office, and possibly only 4. And the last 2 of these 4 years they may or may not have a friendly Congress. If the CIC is not to regain its influence after its defeat in the 2016 election, someone who can be heard through the mainstream media (MSM) filter has to speak out forcefully during the short period that the CIC opposition may have to avoid the catastrophe that a CIC climate victory would constitute for both the US economy and the environment. A brave band of climate skeptics have done great service, but they have been handicapped by strong MSM opposition in getting their views heard through the MSM and the Democratic Party. What is needed is forceful statements by the Trump Administration as to what is wrong with the CIC ideology and actions to at least implement all of Trump’s campaign promises concerning climate, such as withdrawing the US from the so-called Paris Treaty.
The alleged internal sabotage of Trump’s stated intention to end US participation in the so-called Paris treaty by Mr. and Mrs. Kushner may prove to be a major loss to the skeptic cause, but attempts to hide the anti-CIC viewpoint of the Trump Administration will do even more damage, just as it did during the G.W. Bush Administration.
The first indications of the Trump Administration on this issue are not what I had hoped. EPA Administrator Pruitt, for example, was very careful to hedge his real views on the CIC even at a recent friendly conservative meeting. This may reduce the current conflict slightly but will not win the war. Even the major defeat of the CIC in the 2016 election will by no means finish off the CIC. Public statements by Administration spokespersons who can get press coverage opposing the CIC’s ideology would help a great deal since many aspects of the skeptic case are unknown to readers of/listeners to the very biased MSM on this issue.