Our daily newspaper carries Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's column, and I am wondering why the events on Wall Street and Washington would supplant with more serious issues in the local op-ed page.For a change, the current piece (part of the issued below), "Who made the planet?" is globally relevant than the other pieces in that column so far.(Turns out the online version of this paper no longer carries the same column, only the print edition does)".... It was not science, scientists, or the economy to fighting climate change slain. What was it? The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice. If you want the opposition to the climate of understanding, follow the money. The economy as a whole would not be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but some sectors - especially coal and oil industries - would. And those companies have mounted a massive disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines. Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change, look at the organizations pushing fake scandals, look at the think tanks argue that any attempt to reduce emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you can find them on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate change denial, or Koch Industries, which is sponsoring anti- environmental organizations for two decades. Or look at the politicians who are most loudly opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer. By itself, however, would not have conquered greed. It had the support of cowardice - especially the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat is global warming, supported action in the past, but abandoned their post at the crucial moment. There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out a particularly Senator John McCain. There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003, he polished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions created. He confirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and now things can look very different if he had continued climate action to return his opponent was in the White House. But he did not know - and it is difficult to see change as something other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and the future of humanity, because of a few years added to his political career.
