Over 670 fishing and hunting organizations, representing millions of Americans have banded together to call on the US government to enact strong global warming legislation.
H/T to Think Progress .
| Comment: 
| Tools: 
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!
Thanks for the post. Several of my local conservation groups are listed as signatories. Given the conservative membership of some of them, I'm surprised.
This is very interesting. I wonder what proportion of the members of these rod and gun clubs support the call for legislation? I don't belong to any R&G clubs, but I've interacted with several of them, and from that limited experience I think I can say that the leadership often comprises a higher proportion of biologists and wildlife technicians than the main body. It makes sense. A lot of people working for fish and wildlife agencies got interested via fishing and hunting, and their training, positions, and contacts make them appropriate leaders for the R&G clubs. I used to think this was bad in that the biologists responsible for conservation of species would focus on conservation for use (sensu Gifford Pinchot) rather than ecocentric conservation (sensu John Muir or Aldo Leopold). Now I suspect that the scientists who I think likely head these R&G clubs are more likely to throw their weight behind a call for action on AGW. It's a big positive that I didn't appreciate before.