2009's alternative global thinkers similar to our hegemonic ones

The online magazine Pulse takes a shot at FP's Global Thinkers list:

We were naturally skeptical since the selection included Dick Cheney, General Petraeus, Larry Summers, Thomas Friedman, Bernard-Henri Lévy, David Kilcullen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salam Fayyad, The Kagan Family (yes, all of them) and Ahmed Rashid among others.  We don’t consider any of these people thinkers, let alone having global significance, and we couldn’t help but notice that the main thrust of all their work aligns with the global military and economic agenda of the US government. 

So Pulse polled their writers and came up with own list, including left-of-center writers like Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, Eduardo Galleano, and Tariq Ali. Their Top 20 also happened to include two thinkers -- Amartya Sen and Tariq Ramadan -- who were also on our list as well as another guy who writes for us from time to time.

Pulse's honorable mentions featured even more doubles with our list, including Bill McKibben, James Hansen, Joseph Stiglitz, and Karen Armstrong. Despite our hegemonic capitalist agenda, we've even featured

Could it be that FP's thinkers actually espouse a fairly wide diversity of opinions and not just "the global military and economic agenda of the US government"?

In the end, the whole point of the list -- and all the many, many lists we run -- is to start discussion. And to that end, Pulse's list is very welcome addition to the conversation. 


I'm with stupid...

I'm not sure an appearance by Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe was really needed to ensure that the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen ends in failure. The delegates seem to be perfectly capable of taking care of that inevitability on their own.

Inhofe is an idiot and his consistent misrepesentation of climate science is disreputable, but I have to say that he made some good points here in his Copenhagen press conference:

In the U.S. Senate, a senator or group of senators can block legislation through what's called a filibuster...Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes. As is obvious, McCain-Lieberman supporters, even with a bill full of holes and exemptions-in other words, a pale shadow of its former self-didn't even come close to crossing that threshold." They needed 60, they got only 44.

Here we are six years later, and nothing has changed: cap-and-trade failed in 2003, it failed in 2005, and it failed in 2008. As we look ahead, an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill stands no chance of passing. I want to be sure the 191 countries understand this: again, an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill stands no chance of passing.

Mind you, Inhofe is crowing about this situation, not bemoaning it. And then he follows with a bunch of misleading claims about "ClimateGate," almost of all of which were demolished by this "exhaustive" AP investigation.

I think he's also wrong in claiming that there is "no chance" the Senate will pass some sort of cap-and-trade bill. I think there will be a bill at some point next year.

That said, it just might get so watered down in the process of getting to 60 votes that it becomes a meaningless exercise. A lot of folks who follow the climate-change issue closely say: that's fine, let's just get SOMETHING passed and we can always ratchet the caps down later. But if the narrative becomes that the last bill didn't "work," so why bother passing legislation that might hurt the U.S. economy without saving the planet, then that strategy will backfire.