Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Whole Foods CEO at it again – on climate change

By

If you were thinking about giving John Mackey of Whole Foods a pass on disparaging health care reform as “socialism,” or allowing him that one mistake because you like his beautiful fruits and veggies… you might want to think again.

I miss Bread & Circus.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It makes more sense here…

    <

    p>Repeat after me: Global temperature sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is about 3 degrees C.  

    <

    p>Nothing in the SwiftHack emails changes this.  

    <

    p>A cold spell does not change this (BTW, globally, December was actually warmer than the 1979-1998 baseline).  

    <

    p>The global temperature dropped in the early 1980’s.  It dropped around 1993 (volcano).  2008 was pretty cool.  But the presence of fluctuations in no way precludes the basic physics and historical record of the impact of increased greenhouse gas (GHG) levels.  

    <

    p>Imagine a squiggly line, one that on average goes horizontally.  These are your natural variations in temperature.  Now tilt this line.  The tilt is the underlying trend (driven primarily by GHGs).  In places, this line will still move down.  In other places, it will move up quite sharply.  Maybe something like this:

    <

    p>

    <

    p>The presence of short-term up and down squiggles does not preclude the presence of the underlying trend.

  2. Edgar, you seem like a reasonable person, but are frankly misinformed on this subject, so I’d like to lay it out for you.  First with some social analysis, then some science:

    <

    p>1. Social analysis: The attack on climate science

    <

    p>Climate science is under attack in much the same way that the tobacco industry attacked smoking-is-bad-for-you research. “Doubt is our product”.  

    <

    p>Except what’s different this time is that the web allows such attacks to become much more distributed.  Marc Morano (of Swiftboat fame) digs up some BS, serves it up at Climate Depot, and the blogs are off to the races.

    <

    p>I am not claiming that skeptics and denialists (I draw a distinction; the former either have or feign an interest in the science) are all paid shills; far from it.  You only need a few paid shills in this case.  Ans that’s because the very possibility of human-induced global climate change just doesn’t fit with certain ideologies, so it’s easy to get such folks worked up.

    <

    p>Their thinking might go something like this (simplified, I admit):
    1. Unfettered free markets are the ideal socioeconomic system
    2. Man-made climate change is a problem
    3. Unfettered free markets will not solve #2 (because of externalities among other things)
    4. The solution to #3 is: #1 cannot be wrong, and #3 is Econ 101 (external costs lead to market failure), therefore #2 must be wrong.
    5. Let’s make #2 go away!

    <

    p>So lots of people are, based on their political views, predisposed to want AGW (anthropogenic global warming) to go away (similarly, lots of people are predisposed to want to view the AGW as ominously as possible).  And it’s fairly easy to give these people enough misinformation to get them very fired up about it.  Climategate/Swifthack shows the dynamic very clearly.

    <

    p>2. The science

    <

    p>Richard Alley delivered a pretty good talk at the AGU conference a couple weeks ago (AGU is the American Geophysical Union; most people who study climate-related issues are in fields that fall under the AGU umbrella.  It is a scientific organization).  

    <

    p>It’s almost an hour, but it lays out the basic science from one angle (paleoclimatology, i.e. the history of the earth) in a way that is both accessible and scientifically rigorous.  Alley is pretty clear about what we know and what we don’t.  

    <

    p>The video is here; the title of the talk is:

    <

    p>The biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History

    <

    p>If you haven’t time for the video, here’s a summary.
     

    • I think that he left out one control knob: the influence of cloud cover on the warming/cooling of the planet.  I was surprised that he didn’t mention this specifically because I have read some tracts that claim cloud creation is the biggest control knob.  
      As far as the social analysis is concerned, I think that if the proponents of this science did not try to use it as a means to denigrate western economics and prosperity (and as a ploy to curry favor with third world backwaters)the public would see it more favorably. Unlike many of the alarmists, I have seen people starve to death, contract diseases for which there are cures but not in their countries; the lack of technological and industrial infrastructure (paved roads, electricity, etc.) keeps those peoples in primitive situations.  For many on the left, the global warming mantra has replaced communism as their main bludgeon to be used against the evil, capitalistic west.

      • …that environmental stewardship and economic prosperity are necessarily mutually exclusive.  There’s no reason in the world that has to be true and its one of the things we should take the lead on regardless of whether the rest of the world comes along.

        • ahead of most the the world as far as environmental stewardship is concerned. What I said is that the “believers” should stop putting us down as the bad guys in the world of climate change.  

          • …that we do more damage to the environment relative to our percentage of the global population, even when compared to other developed nations.  Easy first step would be to jack MPG requirements way up as we know how to do that.

              • and seen the damage that is done to the environment on a daily basis?  I rather doubt it.  Did you know that the poorest countries on earth (Niger, Chad, Mali) have contributed most to the expansion of the Sahara Desert because of their inhabitants’ use of brush and trees as firewood?  The Sahara keeps expanding every year because of this use of “energy.”  Now, I am not comparing this to the pollution produced by american automobiles, but to single out MPG requirements as the major issue is a bit blind. As a matter of fact, I do agree with you about the MPG issue; that’s an area that should be taxed to support mass transportation and universal health care;  but let’s not keep blaming Edgar for his “beliefs.”

                • The Chinese are far more aggressive at reducing per-capita carbon emissions than the US.

                  <

                  p>The important issue for climate change is aggregate carbon emissions per year. The total carbon contribution from Niger, Chad, and Mali are essentially unmeasurable in comparison to the US.

                  <

                  p>I see no reason why the “evil, capitalistic west” can’t create as much wealth by inventing and selling climate-friendly technology as any other economic approach. I therefore don’t buy the capitalist-bashing wing of the climate change proponents.

                  <

                  p>On the other hand, the science really is indisputable. It is increasingly clear that we have already set in motion an extraordinarily serious chain of potentially catastrophic climate changes, and simply dealing with the impact of those is already an enormous challenge. This challenge, and its impacts, is greatly increased unless we also find a way to level off and reduce carbon emissions.

                  <

                  p>During the eight years of Bush-era climate change denial, the United States was among the worst participants in addressing the threat of global climate change. President Obama is at least attempting to change our direction.

                  <

                  p>The evidence that anthropogenic carbon emission is far and away the strongest driver in climate change is overwhelmingly persuasive. The cloud-cover hypothesis (you may be thinking of the material offered in “The Great Global Warming Swindle”) has been rather thoroughly demolished by subsequent research, such as Adams and Pierce 2009 and Sloan et al 2008.

                  <

                  p>From the first (emphasis mine):

                  In research published in Geophysical Research Letters, and highlighted in the May 1 edition of Science, Adams and Pierce report the first atmospheric simulations of changes in atmospheric ions and particle formation resulting from variations in the sun and cosmic rays. They find that changes in the concentration of particles that affect clouds are 100 times too small to affect the climate.

                  <

                  p>From the second (emphasis mine):

                  A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

                  <

                  p>In spite of the loud protestations to the contrary of the climate change skeptics and deniers, the science of climate change is compelling.

                  <

                  p>The question is what humanity is or is not going to do about it.

                • You put some effort into this post and I appreciate it. I will have to honestly rethink my position, even if it means agreeing with Huh.

                • I said you were reasonable.

                  <

                  p>I also think I’m more of a ‘skeptic’ than BrooklineTom!  

                  <

                  p>the science really is indisputable
                  The evidence that anthropogenic carbon emission is far and away the strongest driver in climate change is overwhelmingly persuasive
                  the science of climate change is compelling

                  <

                  p>My opinion about the strength of the science isn’t quite as strong as these statements, but it’s pretty close.  Certainly strong enough to support taking action.  Especially as we can reduce emissions by a lot without having to do anything really crazy or expensive- a ‘no/least regrets’ approach that will take us pretty far.

                • This is actually the 4th or 5th time people have indulged Edgar on this topic.

                  <

                  p>Here’s one:

                  <

                  p>

                  Charley, humor me please. (3.00 / 2)
                  How many days have we had over 90 degrees this year?  Can you show me just one water mark at high tide in Boston Harbor and environs which is above what it was 100 years ago? Where, specifically are the sea levels rising?  Charley me boy, I am not terrified by the potential for “global warming” as much as I am terrified by charlatans like Markey and Chu.
                  by: Edgarthearmenian @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 23:26:14 PM EDT

                  <

                  p>and another:

                  <

                  p>

                  Climate change (0.00 / 0)
                  Climate change is as old as the earth herself. Just see the evidence that the Sahara was once lush tropical land 9-12,000 years ago.  There are many probable causes of climate change besides mankind:  the fact that the earth wobbles on its axis, sunspots, cloud cover, volcanic dust, etc.  This particular change may or may not be good toward mankind, if indeed it is what you say it is. (ice floes are actually increasing in Antartica).  Don’t be so quick to swallow up everything that the green movement says. As a matter of fact there are usually many more than two sides to any controversy.  As for tobacco, you are correct.  Certain doctors and athletes sold out for money on that issue.    
                  by: Edgarthearmenian @ Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 15:49:24 PM EST

                  <

                  p>and another:

                  <

                  p>

                  Don’t play dumb. (3.00 / 2)
                  Assuming that my remarks toward Al Gore are Ad-hominem is an attempt to paint me in a certain way.  I think that those remarks, given his lust for publicity and public adulation, are justifiied. (by the way, check out the size of Gore’s carbon footprint on Google).  You continue to obfuscate because you refuse to address the points made by the profesor from Princeton.  Is this too much for an expert like you to handle?  By the way, it must be nice to have such faith in one’s beliefs.  No wonder that some cynics are calling the global warming fad the new religion.
                  by: Edgarthearmenian @ Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 15:47:42 PM EDT

                  <

                  p>In all of them, people presented charts and graphs and careful, measured responses. And yet, EdgarTheArmenian keeps coming back with variants on the same arguments. And he always gets personal.

                  <

                  p>Here’s betting in another two months we’ll see another variation on this:

                  <

                  p>

                  Petr, take comfort in your little climate-change (3.00 / 2)
                  religion.  Everyone needs something foolish to believe in.
                  by: Edgarthearmenian @ Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:21:18 AM EDT

                • I didn’t know that you were keeping a scorecard. Little better to do, I guess.  

                • India accounts for 5.3% of carbon emissions.  What’s notable is they’re far behind the US in per capita emissions:

                  <

                  p>

                  Despite being the fourth largest economy, India’s per capita emission levels are 70 per cent below world average and 93 per cent lower than those in the United States, says a latest report on climate change.

                  Jointly prepared by business chamber Assocham and consultancy firm Ernst & Young, the report highlighted that carbon emissions in India increased by 65 per cent between 1990 and now and are projected to grow by close to 70 per cent in the next decade or so.

                  <

                  p>Here’s the top eleven:

                  <

                  p>1 China 21.5 %
                  2 United States 20.2 %
                  – European Union 13.8 %
                  3 Russia 5.5 %
                  4 India 5.3 %
                  5 Japan 4.6 %
                  6 Germany 2.8 %
                  7 United Kingdom 2.0 %
                  8 Canada 1.9 %
                  9 South Korea 1.7 %
                  10 Italy 1.7 %

                • I’m willing to bet I’ve spent more time in third world countries than you have.  It doesn’t change the science behind climate change.  

                  <

                  p>Really, you need to stop making up arguments for people.  

      • Actually, he does refer to cosmic rays, which are possibly a driver of cloud formation.  Yes, clouds are a big deal.  But, like CO2 has been until quite recently, they generally act as feedbacks rather than drivers of climate.  What’s unique about this time in history is that we’re releasing carbon that accumulated over millions of years into the air over a few decades; the spike in CO2 is now driving the bus (on top of all the other factors).

        <

        p>I don’t disagree that lots of people perceive climate science through various ideological lenses.  It’s actually very hard not to.  But my main point is that the science that indicates that GHG emissions are and will be drivers of significant climate change is sufficiently strong to warrant action, and that a lot of the noise you hear about climate science being bad/wrong/a scam is noise- “doubt is our product.”  

    • This is the second or third time folks have tried to explain the issue to Edgar.  At this point, he appears to be willfully misinformed.  His response bears that out:

      <

      p>

       For many on the left, the global warming mantra has replaced communism as their main bludgeon to be used against the evil, capitalistic west.

        • …since I have not personally witnessed people explaining the issue to them.

          <

          p>By my count you’re now playing dumb for the third time.  Even Sarah Palin would start to question your motives.

  3. so long as his priority is espousing his fringe-right political beliefs over the profits of his company, he’s not long for the biz, not when so many of costumers are granola-chomping OHs and “the liberal elite.”  

    • show that the “believers” have less than 50% numbers on this issue.  I know that you live up on the North Shore, but if you get to Brockton, Dorchester or Westwood try Lambert’s.  Their deli is to die for.  

        • (I won’t insult you as you did me last month by questioning my ability to read).  I was responding to Rye’s statement that the CEO represented “fringe right political beliefs.”  Not so; he represents more than 50% of the populace which hardly makes him a fringe right winger.

          • …does not make “fringe”.  If 90% of the population believed the Earth was flat or that the Sun revolved around the Earth, I’d still likely call that fringe for being so blatantly out of touch with reality.  Besides, all opinions are not created equal.  The overwhelming consensus among those who know what they’re talking about supports the existence and human culpability of global warming, so the masses who happen to have a contrary opinion without the expertise are indeed fringe, IMO.

            • There are many respectable scientists who have not fallen for climategate.  
              As for fringe, how about the unanimous, lock-step beliefs of the left in regard to global warming?  Sort of reminds me of the days when it had been “scientifically” proved that collecive farming was superior to individual farms. Or, more recently, such tripe that windmills can produce the electricity needed for a modern society.

                • I’m sure the majority of “scientists” on “Fox & Friends” are global warming skeptics.

                  <

                  p>It’s amusing how ill informed Edgar is on this subject given how violent his opinions are.  He’s always preferred what he calls “tweaking” to discussion, so maybe this just is another example of him trying to rile up the “sheep.”  Follow the link — it’s a good reminder of why I distrust Edgar’s motivations so completely:

                  <

                  p>

                  If we get by the current de-population (1.50 / 6)
                  of the United States scheduled for October via mandatory bio-weaponized swine flu shots then I’ll talk.
                  by: Lasthorseman @ Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 22:53:26 PM EDT
                  [ Reply |   ]

                  Thanks for providing a relief from this condescending babble. (3.75 / 4)
                  You will never see anyone, I repeat anyone on this blog-including the most honest KBusch, admit that the left is the main culprit because they started all of this after the Bush election in 2000. And to make the statement that BrooklineTom does further on in this blog that people like Olbermann deal in facts is totally absurd. Or try this quote from above, “Don’t let the fact that Olbermann and Maddow use sarcasm and ridicule mask the fact that they don’t lie to their audience like O’Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh do.  That’s a distinction between sides that’s more important than the similarity in styles.”

                  I will ask again what I said over a year ago: why do people on this blog act like clones? why do they think that they are having a real conversation when do nothing but agree with and reinforce each others beliefs?

                  Let your attacks on me begin. I am a registered Democrat who is not impressed with bullshit, from the left or from the right.

                  by: Edgarthearmenian @ Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:34:12 AM EDT

                • If you can defend Olbermann and Maddow-“Don’t let the fact that Olbermann and Maddow use sarcasm and ridicule mask the fact that they don’t lie to their audience like O’Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh do.  That’s a distinction between sides that’s more important than the similarity in styles.”-in such a naive way, then you have problems, Huh.  I would not defend Beck and company as blindly as you do those whom you seem to worship on the left. Olbermann is certainly one of the most despicable people on TV, along with Beck.
                  And, by the way, call my bluff:  in what third-world countries have you lived, not just passed through as a tourist?

  4. It’s ironic that while Mackey is disparaging global warming, his store is aggressively promoting carbon footprint consciousness along with a range of products to help one live a “green lifestyle.”

    <

    p>In related news, Mr. Mackey has stepped down as chairman.  

    <

    p>I agree about missing Bread and Circus.  I was just in Whole Foods for the first time in months just before New Years.  I  stopped going regularly around the time they replaced the bulk section with overpriced candles and yoga mats. The produce is still gorgeous, but Shaw’s and Trader Joe’s satisfy my shopping needs, just fine.

Archives