Cheney's Fund Manager Attacks ... Cheney

Mutual Fund Morning
By Brett Arends
Mutual Funds Columnist
2/5/2007 7:57 AM EST

The oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking. Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president. Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades. What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined. "Successive U.S. administrations have taken little interest in either oil substitution or climate change," he writes, "and the current one has even seemed to have a vested interest in the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain." Yet "there is now nearly universal scientific agreement that fossil fuel use is causing a rise in global temperatures," he writes. "The U.S. is the only country in which environmental data is steadily attacked in a well-funded campaign of disinformation (funded mainly by one large oil company)." That's Exxon Mobil (XOM) . As for Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, who appears everywhere to question global warming, Grantham mocks him as "the solitary plausible academic [the skeptics] can dig up, out of hundreds working in the field." And for those nonscientists who are still undecided about the issue, Grantham reminds them of an old logical principle known as Pascal's Paradox. It may be better known as the "what if we're wrong?" argument. If we act to stop global warming and we're wrong, well, we could waste some money. If we don't act, and we're wrong ... you get the picture. As for the alleged economic costs of going "green," Grantham says that industrialized countries with better fuel efficiency have, on average, enjoyed faster economic growth over the past 50 years than the U.S. Grantham says that other industrialized countries have far better energy productivity than the U.S. The GDP produced per unit of energy in Italy is 50% higher. Fifty percent. Japan: 60%. And China "already has auto fuel efficiency standards well ahead of the U.S.!" he adds. You've probably heard about China's slow economic growth. Grantham adds that past U.S. steps in this area, like sulfur dioxide caps adopted by the late President Gerald Ford, have done far more and cost far less than predicted. "Ingenuity sprung out of the woodwork when it was correctly motivated," he writes. There is also a political and economic cost to our oil dependency, Grantham notes. Yet America could have eliminated its oil dependency on the Middle East years ago with just a "reasonable set of increased efficiencies." All it would take is 10% fewer vehicles, each driving 10% fewer miles and getting 50% more miles per gallon. Under that "sensible but still only moderately aggressive policy," he writes, "not one single barrel would have been needed from the Middle East." Not one. I repeat: This is not some rainbow coalition. This is not even Al Gore. Grantham is the chairman of Boston-based fund management company Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo. He is British-born but has lived here since the early 1960s. Grantham is, like most fund managers, prudent, conservative and inclined to favor the free market and smaller government. He has even said he supported Bush-Cheney in 2000. That doesn't make him particularly political. He also manages a portion of the Heinz-Kerry fortune, as well as those of many other wealthy types. But he's certainly a man Cheney respects highly. According to the vice president's last personal financial disclosure form, filed with the Federal Election Commission, Cheney has somewhere between $1.6 million and $6 million of his family's money invested in four of Grantham's funds. These aren't even index funds. These are discretionary funds, where you trust the manager to look at the landscape, analyze all the data, and make the best investments. Cheney must have a lot of faith in Grantham's judgement and analytical skills. When I met Grantham last autumn he, quite rightly, refused to confirm that the vice president was a client. But you can see the evidence in Cheney's own personal financial disclosure. There is an investment angle to Grantham's argument. He says he is "certain" that "oil substitution, energy conservation, and related environment issues will be the biggest investment issue of at last the next several decades." He adds: "It is clear there is no single solution so investment opportunities will be spread very broadly, especially in energy conservation." He believes we will need more nuclear power. But he calls corn-based ethanol "more or less a hoax" when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "U.S. corn-based ethanol, as opposed to efficient, Brazilian sugar-based ethanol, is merely another U.S. farmer-protection program, made very expensive both directly and indirectly by inflating real agricultural prices." Tell that to the presidential candidates currently stumping the Iowa caucus. (Incidentally, three MIT scientists told me the same thing about corn ethanol more than a year ago when I interviewed them on the subject. After my article appeared in the Boston Herald, I received a snotty letter denying there was any such thing as "an Iowa corn growers' racket." It was from the "chairman of the Iowa Corn Growers' Association.") Grantham's full letter can be seen on his company Web site [www.gmo.com] , though you will need to register. It appears as the second half of the investment missive "Goldilocks Rules." Grantham blames three decades of political cowardice for America's backward energy policy. As he dryly notes, "U.S. drivers -- the world's richest and some of the best behaved -- would, it was said, never accept increased taxes, where Italian drivers would! Even tax-neutral policies, such as taxing high mileage cars at purchase and subsidizing efficient cars, were never seriously considered." The result: the fuel efficiency of U.S. cars has actually gone backward since 1982. The irony is that this isn't, or shouldn't be, a partisan issue. Grantham singles out the Ford administration for his strongest praise on environmental matters. Everyone since, of both parties, has been a failure, he concludes. "The past 26 years have been such a wasted opportunity," Grantham writes. "This country had previously shown leadership in this field. President Ford got us off to a running start in energy efficiency... With a succession of President Fords, we would have ended up as an environmental leader and a great model." I would love to know what President Ford's former chief of staff thinks of that. His name? Richard B. Cheney.

Brett Arends

Bush-Linked Group Offers Cash To Debunk UN Climate Report

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian


The arctic habitat of polar bears is under threat as climate change causes ice to melt. Photograph: Joseph Napaaqtuq Sage/AP

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

---

---

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

US urges scientists to block out sun

The Bush admin motto has been, "keep 'em in the dark."
---
US urges scientists to block out sun

David Adam and Liz Minchin

January 29, 2007

THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel's draft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees.

Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."

With Guardian News & Media

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

By One Pissed Off Liberal

rshields_30064@netzero.net Sat Dec 02, 2006 This diary is not about how far we have diverged from our national principles, or how badly America sucks, or what a bunch of hypocrites we are - at least not explicitly. It is about some very peculiar realities that bear examination, and (IMHO) need to be rigorously and even ruthlessly questioned. Why pick at these scabs? Do I get some sort of perverse pleasure finding fault with our country? Why do I hate America? First, I love this country with all my heart and soul. Second, you have to see that which is broken clearly if you ever hope to fix it. Third, there is (believe it or not) a `vast rightwing conspiracy' to keep us all in the dark. Fourth, is not self-examination appropriate for the reality-based community? Peculiar Reality # 1 Our government is spying on peaceniks, Quakers, and ordinary citizens. Keeping Tabs on the Peaceniks Punished for Pacifism Court-Ordered Documents Detail Pentagon Spying on U.S. Anti-War Groups New Rules Compel Firms to Track E-Mails Constant Surveillance: Who's a Target? "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid." - Cracking U.S. Government Policies of Fear GOVERNMENT SPYING ON CITIZENS Peculiar Reality # 2 Our government is actively ignoring the greatest issue of all time, global warming. Union of Concerned Scientists - Global Warming Bush's "bamboozling ballet of dissimulation and denial" on global warming Climate 'warmest for millennium' Doomed by Politics, and by Ourselves Peculiar Reality # 3 Our government is aggressively stripping us of our civil rights. Much of American Public Naïve, or Worse, About Bush and Civil Liberties 'They treat a whistle-blower like a virus' One step closer to theocracy. Bill passed in House would severely curb our ability to sue for Freedom of Religion Police state roundup! FBI Drops Another Patriot Act Demand But Keeps Gag on Internet Service Provider Peculiar Reality # 4 In response to 9/11 our government: Invades Iraq CNN Host Slams Iraq as a War For Oil; Wonders if President was Actually Elected How Jesus Endorsed Bush's Invasion of Iraq War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal Iraq invasion a disaster, Blair admits Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths Does nothing to actually increase our security The Dubai Ports Deal Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal Coast Guard Sounded Alarms Over Dubai Ports Deal Truth About UAE Port Security Scandal Quietly Leaks Out Homeland Insecurity Doles out billions to well-connected do-nothing contractors Corruption: the 'second insurgency' costing $4bn a year Contractors Rarely Held Responsible for Misdeeds in Iraq Halliburton paid $4 million to politicians for 600% gain on contracts since 2000 Custer Battles and the swindling of a nation Where is the outrage over war profiteering? War for profit: American tax dollars at work Republicans kill amendment to investigate Halliburton contract abuse; pledge hearings in December Legalizes torture President Authorized Abu Ghraib Torture, FBI Email Says Ex-general at Abu Ghraib says Rumsfeld OK'd abuse The Truth about the Military Commissions Act Peculiar Reality # 5 Our government has corrupted and taken over the news media (and it's not just FOX). CNN Distributes Bush's Fake News Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal Embedded with Bush: fake news reports and phony journalism CIA Claims the Right to Decide What is News Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.. ~ William Colby, former CIA director as quoted by Dave McGowan in his book Derailing Democracy Don't miss that quote! The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media. Brothers and sisters, that says it all. Is our government going to fix any of this? No they are not. Not unless we make them. Their resistance to our will has gone from stubbornness to obstinacy, and now borders on insubordination. Remember, they are our servants. They either need to do our will - or clear out their desks and hit the unemployment line. The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. ~ Mark Twain Are these realities acceptable to you? Are you okay with a CIA-owned news media that spews government lies and propaganda? Are you fine with the government spying on peaceniks and ordinary citizens? Do you not mind that in direct contradiction to the expressed will of the democratic majority they are threatening to ratchet up the war in Iraq? Do you not miss your civil liberties? Don't you envy congress's extraordinary healthcare? Are you satisfied with the government's response to 9/11 and Katrina? Do you not want to be reimbursed for the trillions that have been stolen by Halliburton, KBR, the Carlyle Group, the major `defense' contractors and others? Are you content with a government that operates in secret, serves and protects corporate criminals, works against the best interests of the American people, and spits in our faces when we demand withdrawal from Iraq? Brothers and sisters, I ask you in all earnestness, what's wrong with this picture? Taking Action MHO as to what we need to do: * Demand the same level of healthcare that congress has for every American * Clobber them if they try to send more troops to Iraq * Use the power of the netroots to demand reform * Demand openness, honesty, and accountability * Demand free and fair elections * Demand repeal of the Patriot Act * Demand an end to domestic spying * Demand an end to the Drug War * Demand an end to government manipulation of the press * Demand urgent action on global warming * Stop taking no for an answer You may be asking, `why do you have to be so negative and critical mister Pissed Off?' The answer is because all of these things are wrong, and not by just a little bit. They are woefully, egregiously, and tragically wrong. We can either accept it as `just the way it is', oppose it `moderately', or we can reject it and oppose it with hell-fire and passion, which is what I believe we should do. In the discussion that followed my last diary advocating the end of the tragic Drug War, one commenter said we'd never change it because it was a trillion dollar industry, implying that it is impossible to ever change anything from which so much money is being made. If that were true it would also apply to the military-industrial complex and their beloved international arms trade, as well as our crooked to the bone patronage-based political system. There's way too much money involved to ever change any of these horrors, right? Wrong! Granted, the challenges are formidable. We are up against vicious criminals who are bottomless pits of greed and avarice with big fat checkbooks. They are mean, lack any vestige of human compassion or conscience, and they will stop at nothing to perpetuate the status quo. They murder, rape, rob, pillage and torture like we brush our teeth - routinely and without a second thought. We on the other hand represent that which is best in humanity. We are good, decent people with an abundance of compassion, we are driven by conscience, and perhaps most importantly, there are way more of us than there are of them. We may not have fat checkbooks, but we have people power - and that is a far better thing. Virtually every tyrannical regime, every dictatorship, every police state that ever existed was ended by it. People power is what will be our salvation. The way it has worked historically is that once the percentage of the population who have had all they're willing to take reaches a certain critical mass, the people rise up as one and smite their oppressors as they did in France with Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, as our forefathers did here in America with the British in 1776. And these days we have something far better and much more powerful than pitchforks, guillotines, or muskets - we have the Internets and their magic tubes. And though they've been severely hobbled; we have the tools of democracy. This time we can do it without violence. This time we can slay the dragon with democracy and pure people power. So my purpose in writing diaries like this is to reveal the truth, and yes, to make you angry so that we can increase our numbers until we reach that critical mass of those who are thoroughly fed up and have had all they are going to take. I hope to live long enough to see us rise up as one and smite our oppressors. I long to see an American government back in the possession of its rightful owners, the American people. We are headed in the right direction brothers and sisters and you are all a part of that. Kudos to you all! We just have to keep on keeping on - and never let up. May our oppressors be smitten sooner rather than later! Mahalo! Act NOW on Global Warming Global Warming FAQ Friends of the Earth Worldwatch Institute Human Rights Watch American Civil Liberties Union Common Cause Amnesty International School of the Americas Watch Citizens Against Prohibition NORML

Tags: Global Warming, oppression, Democracy, the Internets and their magic tubes, smiting oppresors, slaying dragons, saving the planet, ACTION/ACTIVISM, (All Tags)

What’s Wrong With This Picture? | 1 comments | Post A Comment