Posted on 08/04/2014 6:51:50 PM PDT by mgist
Arena Profile: Peter Goldmark
Peter Goldmark currently directs the Climate and Air program for Environmental Defense Fund. Prior to joining Environmental Defense, he was Chairman and CEO of the International Herald Tribune. Peter has had exceptional careers in both the public and private sectors. His public service was highlighted by his tenure as Budget Director for the State of New York during the 1970s city- and state-wide fiscal crisis where he was an architect of its rescue; and as Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey through to 1983. He served as president of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1988 to 1997, encouraging its involvement in environmental issues, particularly as they related to energy.
Mr. Goldmark was also a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (1982-1988), member of Board Overseers and Chair of Harvard University’s Finance Committee (1984-1990), director of Knight Ridder Inc. (1991-1998), director of the Dreyfus Third Century Mutual Fund (1992-1998), member of the National Commission on Civic Renewal (1997-1998), trustee of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (2000-2007) and trustee of the Financial Accounting Foundation. In addition, he serves as a board member of Lend Lease Corporation (1999-present), and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. In November 2006 he was selected to co-chair the transition team for incoming New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer.
Mr. Goldmark is a recipient of the Wilson Wyatt National Award for Urban Revitalization and a member of the Legion of Honor, France. He has taught courses at the JFK School of Government, Harvard; Yale College; The New School; Brandeis University and currently Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University as Visiting Professor of Public and International Affairs, Spring 2007. He holds a B.A. from Harvard University.
*All Arena biographies and photos are provided by contributors
Peter Goldmark's Recent Discussions
Is it time to drop cap-and-trade, once and for all? No.
Don't drop cap-and-trade.
It's the most powerful idea for reducing carbon emissions out there. It's the idea that cleaned up a lot of acid rain in the 1990s and helped save a lot of children's brains by getting the lead out of gasoline before that. In retrospect, would these two institutions advocate that cap-and-trade should have been taken off the table in those cases too?
Cap-and-trade harnesses the market. It drives economic actors to find the lowest-cost solutions and the most innovative technology. That's called competitiveness, folks. That's called jobs here at home.
Just because the label on a good idea has been demagogued and distorted doesn't mean we should give it up. Suppose the name Berlin Airlift had been demogogued and attacked by loonies on the eve of the Russians cutting off access to that city in 1949 – should we have taken it off the table? Are we nuts? Give up good ideas just because ideologically motivated politicians try to give them a bad name? Americans are more pragmatic than that.
See more Will White House solar panels help President Obama? I predict the public will have no problem with solar panels on the White House. And the president is right to put them up. Symbols count.
Now: how about a big symbol? An energy audit of the White House, and a program to invest in the indicated energy-saving devices that come out of that audit.
A lot of our greenhouse gas emissions in this country are tied up in old, inefficient buildings, particularly large ones.
See more Battleground: California in climate debate Proposition 23 in California this November is really Gettysburg – it is the defining battle in this decade's carbon wars.
Who's lined up to kill carbon limits in California? The press tells us it's oil companies and Koch Industries. You couldn't wish for more villainous villains if you called up central casting.
When California set out on the path that has successfully held electricity use per capita steady for 30 years while the economy grew at one of the fastest rates, in healthy ways, of any jurisdiction on this planet – no one said let's put it all on hold until we see what happens to this or that indicator. Because they understood that the objective was carbon limits PLUS growth and jobs – not one vs. the other. And they used those policies to drive growth, not to wait on the sidelines and see if growth "would happen."
That lessons is as true today as it was then.
See more Higher energy taxes to boost economy? Turning to energy taxes to help pay for infrastructure investment should be a no-brainer. That's how we've done it in the past. We need more investment and less consumption. Our energy taxes are among the lowest in the developed world. And we've been living off the vapors of spending-without-raising-revenue for so long it's gotten dangerous. When you invest – which we need to do more of – you need to pay it off. That's part of the deal.
And by the way. Part of what we're talking about is closing energy tax loopholes. Do these oil companies think we're dumb?
I can get mad on this one.
See more Drilling ban less harmful than expected? It's awful early to say. The last time POLITICO polled on this, I urged caution, and opined that the moratorium seemed reasonable. The recent disclosures suggest that this is the case – especially in view of the emerging picture that this was not an isolated incident, but a symptom of potentially widespread systemic "rot" in the regulatory system.
Is this an effective, long-term approach to environmental protection? Of course not. Does it appear so far – notice the caution – that it was a good way to put the machinery on hold and take stock? Yes.
Later
Great links, thanks.
HSBC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc
“The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was founded by Scotsman Sir Thomas Sutherland in the then British colony of Hong Kong on 3 March 1865, and in Shanghai one month later, benefiting from the start of trading into China, including opium trading. In 1980, HSBC acquired a 51% shareholding in US-based Marine Midland Bank, which it extended to full ownership in 1987.”
The Second Opium War ended the Qing dynasty and the banksters then had their way with the place.
HSBC was an opium bank from day one.
Didn’t ‘Boner’ have a link to this bank?
Didn’t ‘Boner’ have a link to this bank?
Wow! how long did it take you to assemble all those links? What an amazing feat.
bfl
Really not long. I just read and collect anything that has a pattern. Banks, Soros, Drugs Legalization, Wall Street, and media silence have been patterns with Obama. Sort infor by dates, and i get a better picture.
Rockefeller happened to pop up and it seems the rumors are true.
His Foundations online archives going back to the 1920’s have great info. Rockefeller was the man behind Abortions and contraception. In Latin America they had mass sterilization efforts and they blamed the “gringos” for sterilizing poor indians like dogs. It was Rockefeller.
Peter Goldmark wrote and signed a disturbing report for the 1992 Rockefeller Annual Report. Clearly the elite that pretends to play God, has an bizarre obsession with controlling the masses.
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/1123ceb2-744c-4ce3-9e73-df03359865d7-1992.pdf
The Foundation archives have clear documentation with Margaret Sanger and prove that they were the organization funding Sanger in her pursuit to eliminate the inferior races.
The Foundation spent $103,493,287 in Global Manipulation in 1992 Alone. They are Godless, and have a God-like egos.
Rockefeller’s connection to Margaret Sanger, and the Planned Parenthood abortion industry Letter from Lawrence B. Dunham to Raymond B. Fosdick, 1931 February 06 http://rockefeller100.org/items/show/2562
Rockefeller helped form Social Security http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/social_sciences/social-science-research-counci
What I have realized is that global warming and the war on carbon are mostly just catch all issues that the left uses to bring in a lot of otherwise disinterested support for more local issues.
The battle against the coal terminal and coal trains is a perfect example. The real objections to the coal terminal and trains were local and very serious but the approval system was designed to shut out all local opposition and ram the proposals through without any real consideration of the negative impacts on WA residents. Global warming was a last resort for the environmentalists and it has worked to slow the process down.
In the beginning of the battle no one wanted to mention global warming, not even the left. The only people talking about global warming were the college students, who had no vested interest in the area of impact.
I just think that hpies are motivated by gaining some form of authority with a badge than care for nature. It is a power over mankind they seek. Man has cut trees and burned fuels, but has also permanently stored much more carbon via the devices it has manufactured.
EROEI counts, but symbols is all we get instead. The kids are taught in school to badger their parents about leaving the charger plugged in. Old ones use less than 1/2 W standby, newest ones less than 10 mW. Leave it plugged in overnight and that is 0.00012 kWh wasted.
In the morning you tell your kid to shorten their shower by a little under a tenth of a second to save that amount of energy assuming a 5kW water heater and worst case efficiency. These symbols are about power and not the solar electric power which is minimal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.