Noise machine threatens green economy

If you believe science trumps politics, and that clean technology will win the day because it makes long-term sense — both environmentally and economically — think again. As the amped-up right-wing noise machine in the US is making it perfectly clear, good does not always triumph in the non-fact-based world of deniers, delayers and nay-sayers.

For example, what do you think the proper reward would be for a hurricane expert who rightly pinned the blame for the devastation of New Orleans in 2005 on shoddy engineering and tight-fisted officials, rather than on Mother Nature? While it was a monster storm in the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Katrina came onshore significantly weakened and scored a direct hit not on Louisiana but on Mississippi. The deadly flooding of the Big Easy, Louisiana State University (LSU) Hurricane Centre deputy director Ivor van Heerden argued, was the fault of poor levee-building and poor planning.

Slam-dunk, yes? A truth-to-power moment of courage that should be recognised with many thanks, right? Not so much. Instead, van Heerden was — after several years of “nonsense” from LSU higher-ups — recently fired for his efforts. So too was the Hurricane Centre’s chief.

And then we have another Van — this time, Van Jones, who was until days ago, President Barack Obama’s green jobs “czar.” The founder of the Ella Baker Centre for Human Rights, author of The Green Collar Economy and one of Time magazine’s 2008 “Environmental Heroes,” Jones this past weekend resigned his post at the White House after becoming the target of much vitriol from right-wing pundits and astroturf groups. Among his sins: signing a statement suggesting George W. Bush might have known of the 9/11 attacks in advance, calling Republicans “a**holes” and … apparently, believing in climate change. (Fox TV’s Glenn Beck, among those who’d most loudly called for Jones’ head, has said, “(A)lmost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist.”)

Buoyed by the results, the noise machine has now set its sights on other targets, including the US cap-and-trade proposal and push for green jobs.

The point of all this? We can’t assume that well focused innovation — even if it can cut carbon emissions, or reduce fossil fuel consumption or help build a more sustainable future — is assured of success. Making the transition to a cleaner, greener tomorrow will also require a better and stronger response to the noise machine’s all-too-effective mud-slingers.

What’s your solution? Add your comments below and tell us what you think.