Henry Paulson, Conservative Greenie?

Is the new Treasury Secretary nominee a conservative in greenie clothing, or a greenie in conservative clothing? Either way he's an interesting choice for an administation that has ignored or even denied the threat that global warming poses to our environment and our economy, even while its first damaging effects are evident around the globe, from retreating glaciers, to drowning polar bears, to and historically unprecedented series of hurricane seasons.

The controversy over Paulson's environmental view may be moot, since he's up for Treasury Secretary, not head of the E.P.A. And the controversy comes mainly from the far right, for whom even the Chairman of Goldman Sachs isn't conservative enough, if "conservative" is defined as "multinational corporations rule, everyone else shut up" rather than the traditional definitions of fiscal conservativism. Right-wing fund managers Tom Borelli, Peter Flaherty and Steve Milloy threw an infantile hissy-fit at a March Goldman Sachs board meeting over Paulson's donation of land in Chile to the Wildlife Conservation Society. Heavens to Betsy, that a grown man should actually make a donation to a worthy cause! That he should actually try to preserve a few trees instead of chopping them down and selling them. What is this world coming to?

Paulson has also upset the neocons through his involvement with The Nature Conservancy, and through his active promotion of the Kyoto Treaty. Fox News even dragged out a stock market expert to pooh-pooh the whole issue of global warming, discounting over 900 peer-reviewed scientific reports with one arch look. And the National Center for Public Policy Research states that Paulson's views are "diametrically opposed to the positions of [the Bush] Administration." Not to the views of atmospheric scientists who might know a just a teensy bit more about how the global climate works, mind you.

The Nature Conservancy supports the Kyoto accord, with statements such as these:

The Kyoto Protocol is a key first step to help slow the onslaught of global warming and benefit conservation efforts…

Science shows that global warming is not merely a real threat for the future, but that it is already having a destructive impact on the natural habitats and resources on which we all depend. Global warming is a result of human activities that left unchecked will have serious consequences for this and future generations.

Until the United States passes its own limits on global warming emissions, innovative companies based here will lose out on opportunities to sell reduced emission credits to companies complying with the Kyoto Protocol overseas. Additionally, without enacting our own emission limits, U.S. companies will lose ground to their competitors in Europe, Canada, Japan, and other countries participating in the Protocol who are developing clean technologies. (emphasis added)

(See http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/features/art14759.html for the full statement)

But all is not well in the rest of the political spectrum, either. A Nature Conservancy booster Paulson may be, but ethics groups are accusing him of leveraging his positions both with the Conservancy and with Goldman Sachs to obtain choice land for his billionaire friends so they could erect vacation mansions on what had been Conservancy land. The land deal has embarrassed the Conservancy and presented a clear case of conflict of interest.

Furthermore, through Paulson, Goldman Sachs engaged in some questionable deals with Fannie Mae, pushing the boundaries of legality as Goldman Sachs pushed $107 million of Fannie Mae's earnings into the future.

And that is what makes the controversy over Paulson so interesting. As Treasury Secretary, he'd have little to say about environmental issues, yet the far right is ranting about his environmental stance. His little financial peccadilloes to relate directly to his position, yet no one seems to be talking about that. But considering the track record of this administration -- does that really come as a surprise?