ALEC’s Right-wing, Extremist Anti-Green Agenda

As we get ready for another year of hearing ALEC legislators defend their membership in this extremist right-wing organization I think it is important to make two points:

ONE

When ALEC legislators defend their membership and attendance in ALEC, they most commonly say something like – It gives me the opportunity to meet with other legislators from across the US and talk and get new ideas.

The correct statement is:  It gives me the opportunity to meet with other extremist right-wing legislators from across the US and reinforce my stance in right-wing extremist beliefs.

TWO

When ALEC legislators defend their membership and attendance in ALEC, they most commonly say something like – It gives me the opportunity to hear informational presentations from speakers from around the world and talk and get new ideas.

When ALEC legislators defend their membership and attendance in ALEC, they most commonly say something like – It gives me the opportunity to hear biased extremist right-wing presentations from speakers from around the world and reinforce my stance in right-wing extremist beliefs.

****<<>>****

Today’s post will be an example of item two – extremist speakers and what your ALEC legislators learns at ALEC meetings.  It is important to remember when your ALEC legislator goes to an ALEC meeting – they are NOT hearing unbiased presentations – they are NOT hearing both sides of the story on the issues – they ARE hearing a biased right-wing explanation of the world that they then use as support for the right-wing extremist ALEC “model legislation” that they introduce in your legislature.

The biased, extremist, ring-wing agenda disseminated at ALEC meetings, then becomes the way that your legislator thinks – and this biased, extremist, ring-wing agenda gets more ingrained in your ALEC legislators thinking with every ALEC meeting and every ALEC presentation that they attend.

This past month your legislator may have taken the time to sit in a presentation and absorb the ideas presented at the ALEC November 2012 States and Nation Summit that had the following presenters:

Three Scholars to Appear at ALEC Conference
by Nicole Ciandella

WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 26, 2012 – Three experts from the Competitive Enterprise Institute will participate Wednesday in the States & Nation Policy Summit.

Greg Conko, executive director of CEI, will present on biotech food labeling. He will make the case biotech foods are at least as safe – and often safer than – conventionally developed foods and that mandatory labeling laws give consumers the false impression this is not the case.

Policy analyst William Yeatman will speak on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Regional Haze program.  Yeatman says the program is an aesthetic measure with no bearing on public health and that Congress intended states to oversee regional haze, not the federal government.

Angela Logomasini,  will explain how the laws, designed to make life safer by ensuring all products are designed to be “green,” actually cost consumers without delivering benefits because they undermine consumer freedom, raise costs and imperil health and safety.

Well let’s take a public look at one of those presenters:  Angela Logomasini.  Let’s see what Angela Logomasini publicly presents to the world as her thoughts and her beliefs as demonstrated in a few snips from an article that she wrote, the day after she presented at the ALEC States and Nation Summit (her ALEC presentation must have received a really good reception – because she published the article the next week).

(IMPORTANT NOTE:  This is the second article I have found (here’s my write-up on the first one) that was issued by a participant of the Nov 2012 ALEC States and Nation Summit that bashes the politics in Washington state – leading me to believe Washington state is in the bulls-eye of the American Legislative Exchange Council.  If I were living in Washington state, I would be identifying ALEC legislators and preparing for a barrage of ALEC “model legislation”.  Because evidently, at the Nov ALEC meeting – ALEC thinks that Washington State is doing it all wrong and only ALEC “model legislation” will be able to fix Washington state.  BEWARE!!!!)

Ms. Logomasini, in her publicly released article, expounds on her extreme right-wing beliefs about a green economy.  You can read the whole thing here – not to learn anything – but to see what type of extremist right-wing propaganda she taught at the ALEC meeting to YOUR ALEC legislators.

Just a few snips from What Is Green Chemistry?  by Angela Logomasini on December 4, 2012 ·

Washington’s state bureaucrats are soliciting proposals from “public and private sector firms to help create a technically competent and vibrant Green Chemistry Center to help transition towards a greener and more sustainable economy in Washington State.” But what exactly is green chemistry, and is it worth spending $550 million to advance it?

‘Here’s a multiple choice question I formulated to address this issue in a presentation last week at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s States and Nation Policy Summit held in Washington, D.C.:

    Green Chemistry is…
            A. New & cutting-edge
B.  Scientific
C.  Pro-technology and pro-growth
D.  A way to improve public health
E.  A-D
F.  Not new or cutting-edge, unscientific, anti-technology, anti-growth, and dangerous.

‘Greens want you to think the answer is E. After all the phrase “green chemistry” on its own sounds cutting edge, scientific, progressive, and good for public health and the environment. The general idea is to remove “bad” or “dangerous” chemicals from the market and replace them with safer ones.

‘This concept isn’t exactly new or cutting edge. Activists and leftist policy makers have tried to market this idea under various names ranging from the very boring “toxics use reduction” to the soft sounding “precautionary principle.” So we can cross off answer A.’

Yep – that was probably in her ALEC presentation!!!

Divisive language  – “greens”, “activists” “leftist policy makers”

The second reference “activists” is even more telling of the audience she is addressing – because ALEC has penned legislation that deems activism – overt and covert – as a felony – against corporations.

‘The ostensive goals of “green chemistry” can be achieved without government, driven purely by market demand.   …   They succeed by producing useful and safe products at affordable prices.’

Really???  The corporatist meme of ALEC being forwarded – corporations are good – activists and leftist policy are not so good.

‘But the activists really want government-driven green chemistry, which is something completely different than market-driven green chemistry.’

The corporatist meme of ALEC being forwarded – corporations are good – activists and leftist policy are not good.

At this point she goes on for a couple of paragraphs to demean the EPA definition of “green chemistry” and the definition forwarded by green organizations,

This is what your ALEC legislator heard in her presentation – corporations are good, government regulation is bad.  In fact, the government’s environmental experts don’t even know how to properly define the concept of “green chemistry” – the government environmental experts are wrong and she and ALEC corporations are correct.

And then she states:

‘Based on these definitions along with what I’m seeing in terms of green chemistry laws and advocacy at the state and federal levels, here’s my definition:

‘Green Chemistry is government-guided product design aimed at serving political preferences rather than market demands and economic, scientific, or engineering specifications.’

This is what your ALEC legislator heard in her presentation.

“product design aimed at serving political preferences rather than market demands”

Now, stop and think – if she was REALLY addressing a bipartisan audience – would she have said that?  Hell no.  Because she was addressing a right-ring, extremist, corporatist audience like ALEC members, she was okay to say that.  There is NOTHING BIPARTISAN about ALEC.

Consider the laws now on the books and under development in several state regulatory agencies. Washington, Minnesota, Maine, and California all have passed “green chemistry” laws that require bureaucrats to develop “chemicals of concern lists.” These are based on the “hazard profiles” of chemicals rather than real risks. And the criteria they use tends to select the most widely used and most widely tested chemicals.

This is what your ALEC legislator from Washington, Minnesota, Maine and California heard in her presentation.

The assumption in this statement being that “bureaucrats” – some with amazing backgrounds in chemistry – are unable to set appropriate policy.

The assumption in this statement being that ALEC corporate profit sector members will be able to set appropriate policy – through ALEC “model legislation”, written by corporations – and police themselves.

ASSUME – Makes an A$$ of U and ME

‘Laws in California and Maine go even further, commencing regulations that will force companies to reformulate products that use politically unpopular chemicals.’

This is what your ALEC legislator from Maine and California heard in her presentation.

“politically unpopular chemicals”  Are those the ones that harm, maim and kill people?  Probably!

So we can see that green chemistry is:

F. Not new or cutting-edge, unscientific, anti-technology, anti-growth, and dangerous.

Yep – that was her ALEC presentation!!!

Unscientific

Anti-technology

Anti-growth

DANGEROUS

THAT is what YOUR ALEC legislator learned at the ALEC November 2012 States and Nation Summit.

The second question remains: Is it worth spending $550 million of Washington state residents’ hard-earned tax dollars to advance this crazy concept? Absolutely not!

Yep – that was her ALEC presentation!!!

Yep – that is what YOUR ALEC legislator learned at the ALEC November 2012 States and Nation Summit.

But the saving grace of this is that one person read her article – an article based on her presentation at the ALEC November 2012 States and Nation Summit and took the time to respond (with a few typos – but you will get the gist of message)

Dr Tox December 5, 2012 at 9:32 am

    “F. Not new or cutting-edge, unscientific, anti-technology, anti-growth, and dangerous. ”

    Clearly your bias has clouded your analysis of this emerging sector. Without addressing the externalization of the environmental and human health repercussions of the use of harmful chemicals in the market place, there is no incentive to move towards a safe chemicals. Until businesses have to pay for damages causes by the toxic substances that are used in their products, regulatory mechanisms are our only method. Currently, TSCA, our feeble and severely dated legislation addressing toxic chemicals provides little protection against the use of toxic chemicals. They only way chemicals are removed from the market place is through public pressure, which is reliant on an informed populous. This is a weak, ineffective, and dangerous approach to protecting ourselves and our children from dangerous chemicals.

“Clearly your bias has clouded your analysis of this emerging sector.”

“This is a weak, ineffective, and dangerous approach to protecting ourselves and our children from dangerous chemicals.”

Yep – that was her ALEC presentation!!!

It is important for all of us to understand the connection between these climate deniers and the American Legislative Exchange Council which promulgates climate denial education and climate denial “model legislation” for their ALEC legislators at the state and federal levels – based solely on right-wing corporatist protectionism thinking and NOT ON REAL SCIENCE.

 

Posted by 2old2care at Because I Can