I've been a big fan of Whole Foods's CEO John Mackey for years.
I've talked with him twice on behalf of my elephant journal, and he's agreed to an interview (which would sit nicely along our "Walk the Talk Show" videos with Deepak Chopra, Michael Pollan, Dr. Andrew Weil, Alice Walker, Arianna Huffington, Amy Goodman). I've defended WFM and Mackey through WildOatsGate, wherein Mackey denigrated the value of his rival on an online forum (while cloaked beneath a pseudonym, and throwing in a flattering comment about his own new haircut "he looks cute!")
I urged the FTC to stop blocking WFM's purchase of Wild Oats--though the consolidation was sad, Whole Foods had plenty of rivals left in the mainstream grocery chains who were, even then, selling more and more organics. I posted articles re: how Whole Foods no longer deserved its moniker Whole Paycheck. I gave Mr. Mackey kudos for honesty when he railed against Whole Foods' own offerings, calling much of their offerings "junk." And then, in an article that sat upon the home page of HuffPost for the better part of a week (traffic Mecca of the wwworld) and was picked up by the NY Times and Atlantic, I was a lonely "green" voice defending Whole Foods against progressive cries for a boycott after Mr. Mackey took on "Obamacare," arguing in an infamous Wall Street Journal editorial that health care was not a right.
But I'm finally losing it, and he's finally losing me.
The below excerpt is from a riveting profile in the January 4th New Yorker. It represents Mackey's latest foot-in-mouth jaunt through self-delighted devil's-advocate frankness:
...One of the books on the list was "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming--the Missing Science," a skeptical take on climate change. Mackey told me that he agrees with the book's assertion that, as he put it, "no scientific consensus exists" regarding the causes of climate change; he added, with a candor you could call bold or reckless, that it would be a pity to allow "hysteria about global warming" to cause us "to raise taxes and increase regulation, and in turn lower our standard of living and lead to an increase in poverty." One would imagine that, on this score, many of his customers, to say nothing of most climate scientists, might disagree. He also said, "Historically, prosperity tends to correlate to warmer temperatures."
Still, as Al Gore said a year or so ago, the time for argument is past. There's a clear consensus among scientists--90% agree that Climate Change is significantly caused by human activities. 94% agree that it's a real and present danger, not a far-off hypothetical fear for science fiction writers to have fun with.
If Climate Change were an "Evil" empire or terrorist group--and let's not kid ourselves, it represents the possibility of a far more pervasive, lasting threat than either to all of us, and our precious economies around the earth--we'd gird ourselves for war. We wouldn't tolerate cynics. Support the troops!, we'd cry. It's time for that same sense of pulling-together, of focus.
It's time to go to War against Climate Change.
And if Mr. Mackey can't get on board by this point, he should experience a little more censure. And I say that as a fan, and without pleasure.
Fan elephantjournal on Facebook.
Follow Waylon Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/elephantjournal
The Yes Men: The Yes Men Fix the World's a Riot. No, Really.
Our new film's story is simple: two guys, armed with nothing but thrift-store suits, infiltrate the world of big business, where we make a lot of bad, powerful people really uncomfortable.
Stop Giving Taxpayers' Money to Corporations Who Fight Against Our Right to Medical Care
Congressional Republicans have not felt any need to negotiate with Democrats on jobs, environment or health care because their corporate donors' subsidies have not been threatened. Now is the time, as health care negotiations between the House and Senate wind down, to play our trump card: tell Democratic members of both chambers of Congress to pledge to take away all $70,000,000,000 ($70 Billion) of annual subsidies to coal, petroleum, and corn ethanol producers, and to take it away in one fell swoop unless Congressional Republicans get out of the way of promoting the general welfare by voting for, not against, universal medical coverage, meaning 100% payment for every procedure, treatment and medicine prescribed by a licensed doctor, without exception. If Congressional Republicans will do that, then we can discuss a more gradual phase-out of subsidies to the largest polluters, to last no more than five years.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/4/stop-giving-taxpayers-money-to-corporations-who-fight-against-our-right-to-medical-care
THE RESEARCH
LINK:
tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
THE QUICK SUMMARY
The research was published last January in Eos, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, which basically resolves the question, "Is there a scientific consensus on the cause of climate change?" The answer, finally documented in a peer-reviewed journal, is "hell yes".
Researchers Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman from the University of Illinois, Chicago, conducted a survey of over 3,000 earth and climate scientists - the survey was sent to 10,257, but 30% is a very respectable response rate for a survey. This included all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, US federal research facilities, US Department of Energy national laboratories, and state geologic surveys associated with local universities - exactly the people who should know the most about the topic.
The most important question asked:
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
The answer:
90% of participants said that the climate has gotten warmer
82% said that man is significant contributor
The level of consensus increases with the scientists’ active engagement in research and their knowledge about climate:
89% of climatologists that man is significant contributor.
90% of actively publishing scientists who have published on climate change agree
97.4% of scientists who have published over 50% of their recent papers on climate change agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming.
do we control the climate with our CO2 or don't we?
97.4% of climatologists who publish the majority of their research on climate agree that the actions of human beings are a major cause of climate change.
They are saying that we have had a major impact on our climate through our CO2. Control implies that we can change it as we like and this is not so.
It is a scientific fact that CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases like methane) absorb infra-red energy and then radiate it back out as heat. It has also been proven through the examination of ice cores that for the last 800,000 years the level of CO2 has fluctuated between 100 and 300 parts per million. At 100 we have had ice ages. At 300 we have had extreme heat. By burning fossil fuels for 200 years, humans have artificially raised the level of CO2 to 387 parts per million, and counting. It is clear that human actions have raised the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to a level that far exceeds anything the earth has seen for at least the last 800,000 years. This extreme, human-caused level of CO2 has made the planet significantly warmer and will continue to do so at an accelerating pace.
This is 97.4% of climate scientists who publish climate research extensively agree is happening.
You're not a scientist, are you?
The only meaningful polls on this issue will be polls completed after the Climategate Scandal broke. There haven't been any new polls completed by independent polling organizations, since the scandal broke. That doesn't mean that the revelations in the e-mails and computer code haven't eroded support for AGW.
The Associated Press did a thorough analysis of ALL the memos released. They studied all the e-mails for context — about 1 million words in total. Summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy. Here is what the AP concluded:
"The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
LINK
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails
By the way, the evidence now points to China being the party that hacked and then released the memos in order to derail the Copenhagen summit. You and the communist government of China seem to share common goals.
I'm so tired of the al gore worshippers. He was friggin' warhawk guys! He DOES NOT walk on water. So quit quoting him on science.
Yes. Global warming is happening. But NO no you cannot PROVE it is a man-made occurrence. It is a THEORY that has taken hold of our imagination. To be skeptical is not to be a "denialist in the pocket of big oil" Get a grip.
YES, pollution is bad and we should clean up our act; but pollution is not the same thing as controlling the weather.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
The only legitimate debate now is what to do about human caused global warming. Hop on board or get off the tracks.
Seriously, that guy Mackey responds only to financial pain, so that's what must be brought to bear.
Why do libertarians treat the subject of climate change with disdain? Well, as Mackey says, why let a little thing like global catastrophe raise his taxes, or let the feds destroy him with more regulations? If God wanted you to have affordable healthcare, He would have given you rich parents.
The article’s author Nick Paumgarten devoted some ink to Mackey’s virulent anti-unionism; Mr. Lewis does not appear to be bothered by it. (He does not reference it in his laundry list of apologia.) Mackey said in the early eighties, “The union is like having herpes.” Nice. What is Mr. Lewis’s defense for that one?
I get that this thread is about Mackey’s stance on climate change. But Mr. Lewis’s criticism rings hollow; it seems inconsistent to hold his subject accountable on one criteria while rationalizing controversial behavior on equally valid issues. My demographics fall squarely within the Whole Foods target market; a college educated, health conscious, suburbanite with discretionary income. (I subscribe to The New Yorker!) I will never shop at Whole Foods for the same reason that I choose not to patronize Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Fed Ex or any other corporation that flaunts its anti union stance.
I found one scientist on my staff that did not outright tell me I am an idiot, so I have proven that no consensus exists regarding the color of the sky.
And therefore, I refuse to look up at any time so that I am not dissuaded from my god-given right to my belief. You know how those Blue-Skyers are, you can't trust them.
Thanks.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/306/5702/1686/
I have not for more than a year.
I do not need to pay $10/lb for "organic" mushrooms, knowing that he pockets the majority of that to be used to promote his dangerous beliefs.
This topped everything
Your honesty and willingness to be yourself is hartwarming and importnat
you said it like it is and that is your strength
Love you and continue to be a light on the HuffPost
Your friend,
Ed
You clearly have an opinion about climate change. Are you a climate scientist?
This guy is a seriously uninformed nutj0b.