Yes, you're right, it did wreak havoc on the economy of the South...BUT (and this is significant) for certain people in particular. Who can forget that image of Scarlet O'Hara, digging in the dirt for one measly potato, swearing "As God is my witness, I'll never go hungry again!" Yeah, the people who had been living large off of stolen labor for 200 years lost out big time when that free ride came to an end.

Which only makes all the more apt the parallels between rhetoric on abolition and rhetoric on Kyoto. The truth is, addressing climate change *is* going to affect the economy, and it's going to hurt some people and probably help a bunch of others.

To quote another movie, it's kind of like that line in the English Patient where the "English patient" is confronted by someone with the consequences of his espionage. "People DIED because of what you did!" the confronter cries. He replies, "If I hadn't done it, people would have died anyway...just different people."

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Referring to items like the Calhoun quote are fairly powerful.

And there are some similarities.

But comparing climate change skepticism and denialism to slavery is a terrible way to frame the issue. It's like calling someone a Nazi- your target generally benefits from the comparison, and can turn the issue back on you- "You call people Nazis! I'm waaaay better than a Nazi!"

Same with slavery and man-made climate change. The impacts of climate change are way too abstract to compare with slavery, and the worst impacts have yet to happen. So in terms of framing the issue, it's tough sledding.

But indirect references to the parallels in the economic argument can be quite effective if used carefully.

Very few reasonable people deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The differences mostly center on how soon the fecal matter hits the fan and how much of it there will be. Projections from climate models now indicate that a failure to cut back emissions in high-energy-use countries like the U.S. by 80-90% in the next fifteen years will very likely cause the planet to reach certain tipping points (positive feedback loops) which will lead to genocidal drought in Africa and South America and flooding of entire countries like Bangladesh in Asia.

It is no wonder we in the U.S. refuse to give up our energy-intensive conveniences: the first victims of global warming have brown skin. The same culture that defined black people as fractions of humans (for political representation purposes only, insert your own dark joke here) understandably has difficulty feeling a need to protect Africans, Asians and South Americans from the ravages of the climate change that we are causing.

Of course, when the reality of permanent drought in the southern half of the U.S. and intense cycles of flooding and drought in the Midwest hit home, will we change our tune? Perhaps, but by then it will probably be too late to make much difference. The same American racism that caused us to allow slavery may ultimately be the undoing of our civilization

Global warming is causing drought, wildfires, and catastrophic weather right now. It will cause even more misery in the future. The people affected by these conditions are more likely to be poor and live in less affluent countries, but that doesn't make them abstractions.

Take a look at the two pro-slavery quotes in this article, and you'll see that both of them consider the slaves to be abstractions. We know that this does not mean that real people weren't being harmed by slavery.

AL- I'm hoping there's a piece on this news in the pipe?

-Kw

The parallel lies in the rhetoric of the reactionary, the over-hyped, intellectually dubious arguments in defense of the indefensible. The ignorance/dishonesty, the appeal to fear where the facts don't line up, this is what slavery defenders and global-climate-change-deniers share (and yes, to anyone who is scientifically literate, the facts do indeed line up in favor of climate change).

But it is also the case that it is possible to draw comparisons between something that is widely agreed upon as "evil", such as slavery or Hitler, and a position that the writer disagrees with, in order to score rhetorical points. That is, I think, what some will see here, rightly or not, and object to. Interesting stuff.

It just shows a patterns of how Conservatives have been wrong on every major issue for the last 100 years.

Conservatives voted and protested AGAINST the right to form unions on the grounds that it would "destroy" America. Progressives ignored their hysteria and defeated them to the betterment of America.

Conservative voted and protested AGAINST Child Labor Laws on the grounds that it would "destroy" America -- and once again the Progressives overcame their hysterical resistence to a common sense law to the betterment of all America.

Conservatives voted and protested AGAINST Fair Wages on the grounds that it would "destroy" America -- and one more time the Progresives fought against their hysteria to the betterment of America.

And on and on. 100 years nonstop of Conservatives fighting against common sense laws (like the abolition of slavery) on the grounds that these improvements would "destroy" America.

So here we are debating climate change and and how it impacts our laws and regulations for manufacturing and industry. The Conservative broken record is playing again swearing (on a stack of Bibles) that any increase to our environmental laws would "destroy" America.

Make no mistake: this entire debate isn't about a scientific theory, but rather about the political ramifications of that debate.

Conservatives don't care about the science regarding climate change anymore then they care about the science regarding the classification of Pluto as a planet or an asteriod. The Conservatives are terrified that the science may embolden Progressive politicans and the public to pass stricter pollution regulations that would require aging industrial sites to upgrade their emission equipment.

This entire debate begins and ends with environmental regulations for industrial sites. That's it. The COnservatives are terrified to the point of irrational hysteria that some poorly run and inefficent factories in Detroit may be required by law (gasp!) to either shut down or improve.

The Conservatives have spouted nonsensical hysteria in opposition to common sense regulations for the past 100 years -- and they are doing it now.

This aint about a scientific theory -- this is about pollution standards.

The Cons were wrong when they irrationally fought against Child Labor laws.

The Cons were wrong when they irrationally fought against Fair Wage & Labor Laws.

And they are dead wrong in their bizarre fight against common sense regulation to reduce the amount of industrial pollution in our air and water.

This fight isn't about science, it's about government regulations regarding pollution standards and the Conservatives are violently opposed to ANY government regulations of business.