webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

cato

this is the tag; content post 5/14

 envr books 7/16

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Lukewarming

Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Climate Coup

Edited by Patrick J. Michaels

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

The False Promise of Green Energy

By Andrew P. Morriss, William T. Bogart, Roger E. Meiners, Andrew D. Dorchak

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Climate of Extremes

By Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr.

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Water For Sale: How Business and the Market Can Resolve the World's Water Crisis

By Fredrik Segerfeldt

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Meltdown

By Patrick J. Michaels

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Eco-nomics

By Richard L. Stroup

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Bountiful Harvest

By Thomas R. DeGregori

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Out of Bounds, Out of Control

By James V. DeLong

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Clearing the Air

By Indur M. Goklany

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Climate of Fear

By Thomas Gale Moore

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Energy

By Paul Ballonoff

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Haunted Housing

By Cassandra Chrones Moore

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Failure and Progress

By Dwight R. Lee and Richard B. McKenzie

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson

Roger Meiners, Pierre Desrochers, and Andrew Morriss

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming

By Patrick J. Michaels

Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of Buckingham University since 2001, may just be the most reactionary man in Britain. The novelist Evelyn Waugh complained that the Conservative party had never put the clock back by a single second. But Kealey doesn't deal in seconds, or even years, but millennia. Everything started to go wrong after the Stone Age, he says. The advent of agricultural societies deprived most humans of liberty and turned them into slaves and serfs. In the Stone Age, people lived as they now do in Balliol. Then came the Bronze Age and command economies (think of the pyramids), and it was downhill all the way.

Decline accelerated in the 16th century thanks to Francis Bacon, who is widely credited with inventing scientific method, and who argued that research was a precondition for progress and should be supported by kings and princes (ie the state). Bacon, Kealey says, was "a crook, a cheat and a fraudster", and science isn't as he described it at all.

That was bad enough, but three centuries later came free, compulsory education. This was quite unnecessary, in Kealey's view, because the churches were already educating the majority of under-11s, and Victorian England had near-universal literacy before the 1870 Education Act. Fees were modest and waived for the poorest. Free education was a state power grab, designed to undercut the voluntary schools, and it has been a disaster.

Kealey, who is 58, calls himself a passionate libertarian and that's what you'd expect from Buckingham, which was founded in the 1970s as Britain's only "independent" university. Other universities are technically independent, but Buckingham alone refuses to accept money from Hefce (Higher Education Funding Council for England). Its home students pay annual fees of £8,640 (for degree courses that take two years), though they are eligible for state loans and maintenance grants just as their lecturers are eligible for research council grants. No minister can tell Buckingham what to teach or how to spend its money. Kealey thinks all universities should be like this.

The prevailing winds are in his favour. The idea of setting public bodies free from state control is increasingly popular with all political parties. Kealey thinks it is time for more private universities, and is exploring the idea with philanthropists. Meanwhile, established universities face severe funding cuts, restrictions on admissions and even closure.

"There's a crisis, but it's moral, not financial," Kealey says. "Vice-chancellors shouldn't be cutting staff. They should be marching round parliament with placards demanding their economic freedom. Because they take government money, they lose the right to set their own fees and admit as many students as they want. Imagine Sainsbury's if a ministry of food dictated its product lines, its prices and the number of customers it admitted. I am shocked at the universities' response."

"Shocked" is Kealey's favourite word, and the theatrical way he uses it reminds me of Captain Renault in Casablanca who was "shocked, shocked!" to find gambling in Rick's Bar. This impression is reinforced when I learn that he is half French on his mother's side. Indeed, he attributes his "love of freedom" partly to a reaction against his French upbringing (he never knew his English father). "My mother had a very authoritarian way of looking at the world. Her father was a colonial civil servant in Lebanon and his job was to shut any Lebanese company that threatened jobs in France – he single-handedly closed the Lebanese silk industry – but she couldn't see anything wrong with that."

As a child, Kealey lived in "a bubble of Frenchness" in Kensington, west London, and didn't speak English until he started school. He was put down for Colet Court, the prep school for St Paul's, but "I thought it was a horrible ugly place, so I failed the entrance exam deliberately". He eventually went to Charterhouse, where he soon discovered he was a libertarian. "In my first year, I turned a corner and there were some 600 boys in uniform all lined up and being inspected by some general. It was the cadet force, and I thought: I just don't want to be another uniformed soldier in a mass of hundreds. So I joined the Boy Scouts, which was the alternative. I really am an individualist, you see."

He understood this with still greater force while studying at St Bartholomew's medical school in London. "I had a socialist phase, which lasted about six weeks. I told a friend I thought we should all be equal and I might join the Labour party. And he said if I did that I couldn't send my children to private school. I realised then that socialism wasn't about liberty."

He says he never intended to practise medicine and went to Bart's – which, he was "shocked" to find, was intellectually inferior to Charterhouse – to please his mother. He wanted to be either a historian or scientist, and eventually opted for biochemistry, doing postgraduate research at Oxford on skin glands and cystic fibrosis. He adored Oxford, "a perfect community, dedicated to the search for truth, driven not by love of money but by love of ideas". But lab space was limited and he had to leave for Newcastle, which he seems to have regarded as an English equivalent of Siberia. Nearly 30 years on, he still seems oddly upset about the whole thing and admits it formed his unforgiving views of scientists and scientific institutions. "How was it that you could commit yourself to a career in science and forego most conventional perquisites of salary and status and yet be treated like that?" he protests.

He returned to Oxford in 1986 as the university refused Margaret Thatcher an honorary degree, arguing that she had damaged higher education and particularly scientific research. "At the time, I had two loves: Margaret Thatcher and Oxford, and they clashed. Oxford said British science was in decline; she said it was more generously funded than almost anywhere else. I decided to find out who was right. And I discovered British science had grown 70% in a decade. Mrs Thatcher had cut state-funded science but the growth of privately funded science had more than compensated. The scientists were guilty of a completely dishonest presentation." Captain Renault – sorry, Kealey – pauses for dramatic effect. "I was shocked, shocked!" he cries.

He now had a set of provocative, counter-intuitive, broadly rightwing opinions that earned him a place in the Telegraph-Times-Spectator stable of writers. First, he decided, scientists are not dispassionate truthseekers, forming hypotheses and testing them against evidence, as the orthodox account has it. On the contrary, he has written, they "are liars … They choose facts that suit their theories, they ignore inconvenient findings, then they try to bludgeon their colleagues into agreeing with them."

Second, governments shouldn't fund research. State-funded science, he argues, crowds out privately funded science and, because it doesn't respond to market needs, contributes nothing to economic growth. If anything, nations go into decline when the state takes over science. "People believe science is a public good. It's not." Moreover, dependence on the state is bad for universities; German academics, heavily state-funded, raised scarcely a peep against Hitler. "Universities should be centres of critical scholarship, hassling governments."

Unsurprisingly, these views made Kealey unpopular among his fellow academics. "People wouldn't talk to me. I was seen as a traitor. One academic said to my face that academics were free to discuss anything except funding. State dependence had corrupted Oxford. It was very shocking to me." He moved to Cambridge in 1988, which was no more enamoured of his views. "But everybody knew me in Oxford and nobody did in Cambridge." Even at Cambridge, it became clear he would never get promotion, so when Buckingham offered the vice-chancellorship, he jumped at it.

Buckingham was then in the doldrums. Before the mid-1990s, it attracted middle-class students who preferred something called a university to anything called a polytechnic. But when polys were upgraded to universities, Buckingham's numbers crashed and it more or less dropped out of public consciousness.

Kealey put it on the map, recruiting a gallery of academic mavericks and eccentrics. They included Chris Woodhead, the head of Ofsted who earned the abiding hatred of teachers; Bruce Charlton, a psychiatrist who said working-class students have significantly lower IQs than their middle-class peers and so you can't expect top universities to admit them; and Anthony Glees, a security specialist, who proposes that universities ban faith societies and governments consider internment for Islamic extremists. Most recruits have less dramatic views, but a remarkably high proportion get quoted and published in newspapers, and don't mind upsetting conventional opinion.

Kealey has also diversified Buckingham from its core areas of business, law and accountancy into, for example, medicine and education. "He's an inspirational character, who has brought in lots of ideas," says Alan Smithers, who moved from Liverpool to head Buckingham's education and employment research. "He's not so good at implementing them, but he creates a very stimulating working environment."

The only cloud is a bad report from the Quality Assurance Agency – which has the power to recommend Buckingham lose its royal charter – but Kealey says the agency never went into classrooms, and just looked at paperwork and committee minutes. "It's really a process assurance agency." He points out that Buckingham consistently tops student satisfaction surveys. That is probably because its student-staff ratio is the best in the country and, since they're paying full fees, students have to convince themselves the courses are worth it. Kealey says there's something in both explanations though he adds, sweetly, "the main thing is that our students just seem to be incredibly nice".

It's hard to tell how seriously Kealey takes himself. He has an instinct for controversy, writing columns on, for example, why the "war on drugs" is bad, why patents should be abolished and (my personal favourite) how the hypocrisy, violence and torture of the Iraq war can be traced back to the American revolution. He's also good at the sex angle, with published articles about topless female statues in English churches, how sado-masochism evolved and, most notoriously, a piece in Times Higher Education (which he said was satirical) arguing that academics should enjoy a female student who "flashes her admiration" as "a perk". He has written a book called Why Chimps Have Large Testes and Other Bollocks, and his latest, elaborating his views on the state and scientific research, is called Sex, Science and Profits, though there isn't actually much sex in it.

He often contradicts himself – writing in one newspaper that "students are getting better grades because they are working harder" and, in another that "degree inflation has become a scandal" – and he seems as guilty as the scientists he criticises of selecting evidence to support whatever point he's making. For example, in a pamphlet on the 19th-century "nationalisation" of schools, he quotes figures to show that economic decline followed state takeover. In his book, he uses different figures to "prove" Britain continued to prosper despite the Victorian state's failure to fund science. But that's show business.

I suspect he'll do almost anything for publicity, and he's quite touchingly anxious about making a good impression on Guardian readers, asking whether or not he should wear a tie for the photograph. He says he only believes in markets "up to a point" and he really cares about the poor; it's just that he thinks liberty can do more for them than the state. He also says he has more in common with lefties like me than with Tories. "They are instinctive defenders of an elite that is privileged by our society. Whereas you, like me, are an instinctive analyst." On which flattering (to both of us) note, we go to a convivial lunch. Perhaps this, as Rick said to Inspector Renault, could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship

--

rev of 2008 bk:

...

So far, so fascinating. Kealey is, I think, absolutely right. He stands behind Adam Smith, who believed that wealth was created, not by the authorities, but by entrepreneurs. He stands alongside Margaret Thatcher, who cut government funding to university science departments, arguably clearing the way for private investment. So: animals evolve. Products evolve. History is a series of crises. But where would we be without crises? Not sitting in our comfortable homes, watching flat-screen TVs, that's for sure. If we'd had an endless supply of tortoises to eat, we'd still be sitting in our loincloths eating tortoises.

But I think there is a flaw in this argument. And it is that, when something evolves, whether it is a gene or a meme, it always evolves in a way that benefits itself. When products evolve, they are certainly getting better. But they're not getting better for us - they're getting better for them. The food that replicates on our shelves is food that makes us hungry and unsatisfied. The drugs that turn up on the street are the ones that are the most addictive. We used to have four good television channels. But then there was a period of innovation. Now we have 200 lousy TV channels.

In lots of ways, Kealey is right. Left to its own devices, human technology evolves. For a while, it gets better without outside help. And then it starts getting worse, in ways we can't control. Still, this is a fascinating book, whether you agree with it or not.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Cato_Institute

part ofhttp://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Climate_Portal

from http://www.spinwatch.org/  UK

Cato Institute is a ‘public policy research organization - think tank’ which was founded 1977 byEdward H. Crane and Charles H. Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries which is the US’ second-largest privately owned company and the largest privately owned oil company, with annual revenues of more than $30 billion.[1][2][3]

It is named after the 'Cato Letters', a series of libertarian pamphlets, and the think-tank is more libertarian than many of the other right-wing organisations it works with. To this end Cato says that the “Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called ‘libertarianism’ or ‘market liberalism’". [4]

Although it has a smaller budget than some of the large think-tanks it was seen, in the late 1990s at least, as the fourth most influential think tank in Washington.[5]

Contents [hide]

Funding

The Cato Institute does not receive any government funding. Data shows that the largest proportion of funding for the 2010 fiscal year came from individual contributions (77%), the next largest contribution came from foundations (14%)

Pie Chart

Cato maintains that “In order to maintain an independent posture, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding or endowments. Contributions are received from foundations, corporations, and individuals”.[6]

According to Right Wing Watch, Cato has been funded by: [7]

Philip Morris | R.J. Reynolds | Bell Atlantic Network Services | BellSouth Corporation | Digital Equipment Corporation | GTE Corporation |Microsoft Corporation | Netscape Communications Corporation | NYNEX Corporation | Sun Microsystems | Viacom International | American Express | Chase Manhattan Bank | Chemical Bank | Citicorp/Citibank | Commonwealth Fund | Prudential Securities | Salomon Brothers

Energy donors

Chevron Companies | Exxon Company | Shell Oil Company | Tenneco Gas | American Petroleum Institute | Amoco Foundation | Atlantic Richfield Foundation Since 1998, it has received some $50,000 from Exxon Mobil.[8]

Pharmaceutical donors

Eli Lilly & Company | Merck & Company | Pfizer

Conservative foundations

Between 1985 and 2001, the Institute received $15,718,040 in 112 grants from only ten conservative foundations:[9] Castle Rock Foundation |Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation | Earhart Foundation | JM Foundation | John M. Olin Foundation | Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation | Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation | Sarah Scaife Foundation | Carthage Foundation | David H Koch Foundation

Links to Koch Industries

Charles Koch of Koch Industries founded the Cato Institute in 1977.[10] Greenpeace argue that 'every journalist, scientist and politician needs to know - that denial of climate change is not something based on healthy scientific scepticism and debate: it is manufactured and bears the "Koch" brand', adding:

To put their financial commitment into context, from 2005-2008 the Koch brothers pumped in double the amount that even Exxon Mobilspent on undermining climate action over the same period.[11]

Greenpeace argue that the Cato Institute has received $1,028,400 from Koch foundations between 2005-2008, the total amount of Koch foundation grants to the Cato Institute between 1997-2008 is $5,278,400.[12]

According to a research program by the Political Economy Research Institute, Koch Industries came 10th in a list of the 100 worst toxic air polluters.[13] Koch Industries was sued by the government in 1995 and 1997 over a reported 300 oil spills at pipelines which were owned and operated by the company. The lawsuits included stringent penalties - from $71 million to $214 million- placed on the company for dumping an estimated three million gallons of oil into lakes and streams in six states [14].

Links to the Bush Administration

According to Cato in 2001 President George W. Bush appointed a former Cato vice president and a Cato fellow, and two Cato staffers to the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. According to People for the American Way these include: Former Rep. Tim Penny (D-MN); Sam Beard, Carolyn Weaver, Randy Clerihue, and Andrew Biggs. Mark Groombridge, Special Assistant, Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, State Department also used to work at Cato. [15]

Media Industry Links

Rupert Murdoch, President and CEO of News Corporation joined the Cato Institute board of directors in 1997, he was welcomed as ‘one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the world, a strong advocate of the free market and a committed civil libertarian’.[16]

Rupert Murdoch worked closely with fellow board member John C Malone (then president and CEO of Tele-Communications Inc, the largest U.S. Cable operator) to ‘actively promote the deregulation of the television and telephone industries’.[17] The Cato institute advocates the privatization of the Internet and communications systems.[18] Despite Murdoch and Malone’s place on the board of a libertarian think tank both profit from government subsidies. Murdoch’s News Corporation profits from licences issued by the state which are worth millions of dollars.[19]Similarly, cable TV corporations such as TCI (Fronted by Malone) are able to expand their services, and in turn their profits, under the protection of federal regulations which limits the power of license fees to be set at a local level.[20]

Tobacco Industry Links

The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of 'national allies,' including a 1999 'Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook,' and in a less-specific list of 'National Allies' dated 2000. [21][22]

R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in a September 2000 document also names Cato Institute as an organization the company could rely upon to help the tobacco industry 'shift the debate and framework under which cigarette-related issues are evaluated in the future.' In the document, titled 'Reframing the Debate Communications Plan,' RJR states, "'Work with CATO Institute ... to empanel a group to debate legality and future management of cigarette industry. Open forum to media (pitch C- SPAN coverage); issue press release and transcript of remarks to media not in attendance.' A subsequent part of the plan says RJR could help sustain public interest in their points of view by encouraging Cato Institute to send pro-tobacco columns to the national media.[23]

Cato scholars have also raised a number of objections to cigarette taxes. Such taxes are frequently justified by the claim that smokers impose unfairly high costs on society, but in a January 10, 1998 commentary published in the Chicago Tribune titled "Smokers Actually Pay their Way," Peter Van Doren, Assistant Director of Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, pointed out that smokers' premature deaths actually save taxpayers money, calling into question the fairness of imposing ever-higher tobacco taxes on them. Van Doren also pointed out that high tobacco taxes are highly regressive, noting that smokers tend to be disproportionately poor and minority.[24]

Robert A. Levy, an independently wealthy businessman who became a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in his 50s,[25] has published numerous editorials criticizing higher tobacco taxes, lawsuits against the Tobacco Institute, and other anti-smoking policies. In one 1999 piece written with Cato fellow Rosalind B. Marimont and published in the Cato magazine Regulation, Levy acknowledged that smoking was a serious health problem but argued that the common estimates of 400,000 smoking-related deaths each year exaggerated the magnitude of the problem.[26] In another 1999 piece published in the Wall Street Journal, Levy decried the Clinton administration's The U.S. Government's racketeering case against Big Tobacco|Department of Justice lawsuit against tobacco companies to recoup the federal government's cost for treating sick smokers.[27]

Cato has also criticized the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that 46 U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry.[28] For example, Levy argued that the 1998 MSA, which he argues effectively created a government-run tobacco cartel for the benefit of large tobacco companies, created a situation in which tobacco companies no longer need worry about new competitors pushing down tobacco prices.[29] He pointed out that the four largest tobacco companies have managed to maintain a 96 percent market share despite the costs of the settlement, and called the agreement a "sweetheart deal" between state attorneys general and the tobacco industry.

Cato staffer Radley Balko testified before the Washington D.C. City Council in opposition to clean indoor air laws, arguing that smoking restrictions infringe on the liberty of business owners to decide what policies they wish to adopt for their restaurants, and the freedom of smokers. In his testimony, Balko claimed that "the health risks associated with secondhand smoke are debatable." Balko argued that employees worried about the impact of smoking on their health should work elsewhere: "A waiter or bartender who chooses to work for an establishment that allows smoking knows what kind of environment he'll be working in," he stated. As for non-smokers rights, Balko argued that "you don't have the right to walk onto someone else's property, demand to be served food or drink someone else has bought, and demand that they serve you on your terms. Free societies don't work that way," he stated. [30] In his testimony, Balko did not disclose that the Cato Institute received funding from both R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris.[31]

Campaigns

Downsizing the government

The Cato Institute runs a website dedicated to campaigning against big government. The website criticizes the government for excessive spending on agriculture[32] and it urges greater privatization in the energy sector because ‘Federal research subsidies impose a burden on taxpayers, and they can be counter productive if they steer markets away from the most efficient energy solutions.’[33]. They also argue that public transport should be privatized to avoid ‘costly one-size-fits-all regulations imposed on the states’[34] and state housing benefits should be cut because they ‘encourage dependency on the government, discourage self-improvement, and stifle renewal in city neighbourhoods’.[35]The site also encourages less government involvement in education provision.[36] In a video interview Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute argues that the government cannot afford to be involved in the nation’s education.[37]

Climate Change Scepticism

In the Cato Institute’s ‘Handbook for Policy Makers’, section 45 outlines: Global Warming and Climate Change. This section of the handbook argues that global warming is less of a problem than suspected and outlines suggestions for congress, including not passing laws restricting the emission of carbon dioxide and how to report to the public about how such legislative measures would not be beneficial.[38]

The Cato Institute holds regular briefings on global warming, with known climate sceptics. In December 2003, panellists included Patrick Michaels, known-sceptic Robert Balling, Arizona State University and Michael Schlesinger, University of Illinois, who believes that the current scientific knowledge of climate change is not settled and that uncertainties “must be reduced”, amongst others.[39]. Cato held similar briefings on Climate in Washington in July 2003 and 2002.

Patrick Michaels is the Cato Institute's resident climatologist, he is a key player in criticising climate change science.[40] He has received personal funding from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a leaked memo shows that they paid Michaels $100,000 in February 2006.

Michaels is one of the most often quoted climate sceptics in the US. He is author of "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming” along with Robert Balling, another leading climate sceptic.[41] Over the past few years, Michaels has moderated his position from one where global warming is not happening to one where it is, but it is not as bad as everyone makes out. [42]

Said Michaels in October 2003: “Contrary to almost every news report and every staged hearing… scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree”.[43]

Michaels and Cato have spoken out against Kyoto in numerous press articles. For example: “The Kyoto Protocol is wildly popular in Britain largely because the country seems to lack scientists courageous enough to point out that the government's alarmist view of climate change is without merit”.[44]. He also opposes domestic US initiatives to tackle climate such as McCain-Lieberman bill, which he calls an “intrusion into business, the economy, and, eventually, into your home”, which “is totally unnecessary”. [45]

He has numerous links to anti-environmental and right-wing groups. He is an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (now defunct), the American Policy Center and Consumer Alert[46]. He has debunked climate change at a press conference for Consumer Alert along with other known climate sceptics. Along with Robert Balling (who often appears at Cato events) Michaels has represented the fossil-fuel corporate front groups the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), the later funded by the National Coal Association. Leaked memos details how the Association planned test marketing of the idea to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”. [47].

Michaels testified in 1995 that he had received $16,000 in funding in the previous five years from the German Coal Association and Western Fuels Company[48]

Michaels' newsletter, the World Climate Report, is funded by the Western Fuels Association, and can be found on the website, www.co2andclimate.org/editors.html, which is run by the Greening Earth Society / Western Fuels. The Contributing Editor is Robert Balling.Sallie Baliunas (see below) has also been a past contributing editor. Other contributors include Dr. Thomas Gale Moore from the Hoover Institution. [49] In his book “The Heated Debate”, Balling calls global warming “the mother of all scares”.[50] In 1996, Balling and Michaels were listed as a member of ESEF (see below). Balling is also on the Science Roundtable of Tech Central Station. (see below)

But he is not the only Cato analyst to dismiss climate change. Jerry Taylor from Cato dismissed the World Watch Report in May 2003 that linked climate change and severe weather events. “It's false”, said Taylor. “There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created. [51]

Bandow Controversy

Cato Institute scholar Doug Bandow resigned in 2005 following revelations that he took payments from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for 'writing columns favorable to his clients'.[52] Bandow had written a column for the Copley News Service and acknowledged to executives at the Cato Institute that he had taken money from Abramoff after he was confronted about the payments by a reporter from BusinessWeek Online.

People

The Cato Institute is led by a board of directors, including some key players such as: Founder and President of Cato Institute Edward H.Crane;Robert A. Levy (Chairman of the board, Cato Institute); John C. Malone, Chairman Liberty Media Corporation; and David H. Koch (Executive Vice President of Koch Industries). 

Principals

Board

Experts / Scholars / Adjunct Scholars

Issues

Cato works on all the major policy issues, including a myriad of environmental ones, including Air Pollution Population, Urban Sprawl, and Sustainable Development, Forests and Forestry, 5th Amendment (property rights), Global Warming, Public Lands, Energy, Risk Assessment/Science and Public Policy, Environmental Law, and Regulation, Superfund, Natural Resources, and Water Policy.

Some of its most important and high profile are global warming, “sound science,” attacking the environmental movement - see below - and climate.

Water

The Cato Institute have intermittently contributed to debates over water policy in recent times. Unsurprisngly this has taken a tone which chimes with Market Environmentalism. Given Terry Anderson, co-author of Free Market Environmentalismis one of the main contributors it’s even less surprising. Publications from the Cato Institute advocating private property rights of water include Water For Sale: How Business and the Market Can Resolve the World's Water Crisis by Fredrik Segerfeldt, Water Policy: Ending the Drought by Terry Anderson and their Policy Analysis Paper Going With the Flow: Expanding the Water Markets by Terry Anderson and Donald R. Leal.

Steve Milloy - the junkman

Steven Milloy is the “junkman” an industry hack who is an apologist for the tobacco and oil industries. He also routinely denigrates environmentalists as “eco-terrorists” [63] , or psychologically challenged” or “bogus”, “environmental extremists”, “blowhards”, “turkeys”, “nut cases”, or members of the “food police”,[64] through his website junkscience.com.

PR Watch has tracked Milloy’s activities as a spin doctor for big tobacco and other polluting industries. Going back a decade, to the early nineties Milloy worked as a lobbyist for Multinational Business Services (MBS), a group hired by Philip Morris as its primary contact on second-hand smoke issues. Milloy worked under James Tozzi, who was under contract with PM for $40,000 a month in 19935 and up to $610,000 in 1994[65] Milloy first came to prominence as the Executive Director The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), “an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between second-hand smoke and cancer” ...

In the late nineties, Milloy was registered as a lobbyist for the EOP Group. In 1997, Congressional lobbying records show that Milloy and the EOP group client’s included American Petroleum Institute, FMC Corp, Fort Howard, International Food Additives Council, and Monsanto.[66][1] In 1998, through the EOP Group, Milloy was a registered lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute[67][2].

TASSC was quietly retired in 1998 only to be replaced by other Milloy websites such as No More Scares.com which was set up with Bonner Cohen, the editor of EPA Watch, published by the American Policy Center (APC), which is headed “by long-time PR pro Thomas DeWeese”[68][3]. In 2000, the nomorescares website was used to launch a report called “The Fear Profiteers” whose authors included Milloy, Bonner Cohen, John Carlisle, Michael Fumento, Michael Gough, Henry Miller, Kenneth Smith and Elizabeth Whelan. “All have a track record of accepting funding from and defending industries that make dangerous products and pollute the environment”[69]. Nomorescare is now also defunct.

Another website runs by Milloy was consumerdistorts.com, which is also defunct, so Milloy’s main weapon of propaganda is junkscience.com and a column for Fox news. In 2001, Milloy published the book Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams[70][4], and used the attacks on the World Trade Center to argue the case for more asbestos[71][5].

A year later Milloy set up yet another front web-site called StopLabelingLies.com that claims to be dedicated to exposing “examples of false and misleading food and other product labels and their associated marketing campaigns,” but its “real mission is to attack organic foods on behalf of the biotech industry”. The site tries to hide links to Milloy, but was originally registered to Citizens for the Integrity of Science, a paper organization that, according to PR Watch “ Milloy sometimes lists as the sponsor of his other web site, JunkScience.com.”[72] Indeed it is as the Citizens for the Integrity of Science that Malloy has joined the CEI and other groups attacking climate change.[73]

Exxon documents show that it has given $30,000 to the Advancement of Sound Science Council rather than Coalition. This organisation does to seem to exist elsewhere, so even though TASSC is widely seen to be defunct, Exxon may still be funding it in a slightly different guise.

Contact

Notes

  1. ↑ Moore, C (2002) Rethinking the Think Tanks How industry-funded "experts" twist the environmental debateSierra Club magazine, Accessed 25 January 2011
  2. ↑ Edward H. Crane, Cato Institute: Edward H. Crane Biography", Cato Institute, Accessed 12.10.10
  3. ↑ About Us, Cato: About us", accessed 12.10.10
  4. ↑ About Cato Cato Institute website, Accessed 25 January 2011
  5. ↑ Cato Institute Tobacco.org Website, Accessed 31 January 2010
  6. ↑ Cato Annual Reports Cato Website Annual accounts, *(search PDF for "foundation sponsors"), Accessed 31 January 2011
  7. ↑ Cato Institute Rightwingwatch.org, Accessed 31 January 2011
  8. ↑ Cato Institute, Sourcewatch.org, Accessed 31 January 2011
  9. ↑ Cato Institute, Sourcewatch.org, Accessed 31 January 2011
  10. ↑ Moore, C (2002) Rethinking the Think Tanks How industry-funded "experts" twist the environmental debateSierra Club magazine, Accessed 25 January 2011
  11. ↑ Feature Story, Exposing the dirty money behind fake climate science, Greenpeace, 30-March-2010
  12. ↑ Feature Story, Exposing the dirty money behind fake climate science, Greenpeace, 30-March-2010
  13. ↑ "Political Economy Research Institute: 100 Toxic Air Polluters”, access 14.10.10
  14. ↑ "Center for Public Integrity: Politics of Oil", access 15.10.10
  15. ↑ Moore, C (2002)Rethinking the Think Tanks, Accessed 31 January 2011
  16. ↑ Cato Institute, Cato Institute: News Note- Rupert Murdoch joins Board of Directors”, accessed 1.11.10
  17. ↑ Fair, Fair: Media Moguls on Board, accessed 1.11.10
  18. ↑ Fair, Fair: Media Moguls on Board, accessed 1.11.10
  19. ↑ The Cato Institute, Institute for Public Accuracy: The Cato Institute, Libertarian in a “Corporate Way”, Institute for Public Accuracy, accessed 1.11.10
  20. ↑ Fair: Media Moguls on Board, FAIR, accessed 1.11.10
  21. ↑ Philip Morris Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook Index List. October 19, 1999. Philip Morris Bates No. 2080355491/5613
  22. ↑ Philip Morris National Allies List. February, 2000. 2 pp. Bates No. 2077285645/5646
  23. ↑ R.J. Reynolds Reframing the Debate Communications Plan Report/email. September 26, 2000. Bates No. 528985216/5223
  24. ↑ Peter Van Doren, "Smokers Actually Pay Their Way", Unknown newspaper, January 10, 1998. Bates 2074058288.
  25. ↑ Paul Duggan, "Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns", Washington Post, March 18, 2007; Page A01.
  26. ↑ Robert A. Levy and Rosalind Marimont, "Lies, Damn Lies & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths", Regulation, Volume 21, Number 4, 1998. Bates 106039821/9827.
  27. ↑ R.A. Levy, Clinton's Illegal Assault on the Tobacco Industry", Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1999. Bates 106039481.
  28. ↑ Thomas C. O'Brien, "Constitutional and Antitrust Violations of the Multistate Tobacco Settlement", Cato Policy Analysis, No. 371, May 18, 2000.(O'Brien is assistant general counsel to Corning Incorporated.)
  29. ↑ Robert A. Levy, "Tobacco Cartel: Alive and Well", Cato Institute, May 11, 2001.
  30. ↑ Radley Balko, "Testimony of Radley Balko, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, before the District of Columbia City Council", District of Columbia City Council, June 14, 2005.
  31. ↑ Radley Balko, "Testimony of Radley Balko, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, before the District of Columbia City Council", District of Columbia City Council, June 14, 2005.
  32. ↑ Downsizinggovernment, “Downsizing federal government - Agriculture”, Downsizinggovernment.org, accessed 30 October 2010
  33. ↑ Downsizinggovernment.org, ”Downsizing Federal government - energy”, Downsizinggovernment.org, accessed 30 October 2010
  34. ↑ ”Downsizing Federal government - Transportation”, accessed, 30 October 2010
  35. ↑ “Downsizing the Federal Government - Housing and Urban development” cited 30 October 2010
  36. ↑ Downsizinggovernment, “Downsizing Federal Government”,Downsizinggovernment.org, accessed 01 November 2010
  37. ↑ Downsizinggovernment,” Chris Edwards on new Cato website DownsizingGovernment.org”, Youtube, viewed on the 04 November 2010
  38. ↑ Cato Handbook for Policy Makers, Cato Institute, accessed 12.10.10
  39. ↑ P. J. Michaels (2003) “Posturing And Reality On Warming”, The Washington Times, 16 October
  40. ↑ Patrick J. Michaels, Patrick J. Michaels - Logical Science, Logical Science, accessed 15.11.10
  41. ↑ The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming (Paperback)Cato Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  42. ↑ T. Stein (2003) “Unstable Climate Linked To Pollution Boulder Experts Cite Causes Of Warming”, The Denver Post, 5 December 2003.
  43. ↑ P. J. Michaels (2003) “Posturing and Reality On Warming”, The Washington Times, 16 October
  44. ↑ P. J. Michaels (2003) Kyoto: The Hidden Cost Of Victory In Iraq, The Cato Institute; quoted in United Press International (2003) “Think tanks wrap-up V”, 17 April 2003
  45. ↑ [J. L. Brady (2003) “With Clock Ticking, McCain's Push for Climate Change Bill Irritates Colleagues”, Roll Call, 30 October (2003) “Think tanks wrap-up V”, 17 April]
  46. ↑ Rampton,S ;Stauber, JHow Big Tobacco Helped Create "the Junkman"PR Watch Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  47. ↑ Cato InstituteMedia Transparency.org Web Archive (2005), Accessed 31 January 2011
  48. ↑ Source Greenpeace - data from company reports for 98, 00, 01, 02 – data not available for 99 and pre-98.
  49. ↑ Cato InstituteRight Wing Watch Website, accessed 31 January 2011
  50. ↑ Cato Institute Sourcewatch website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  51. ↑ Charman, K (1999)Force Feeding Genetically Engineered Foods, Pr Watch Website Accessed 31 January 2011
  52. ↑ ANNE E. KORNBLUT and PHILIP SHENON, Columnist Resigns His Post, Admitting Lobbyist Paid Him, New York Times, 17-November-2005
  53. ↑ New Staff in Defence, Education, and Information Cato Institute Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  54. ↑ Charman, K (1999)Force Feeding Genetically Engineered Foods, Pr Watch Website Accessed 31 January 2011
  55. ↑ Board of DirectorsCei.org web archive (2007), Accessed 31 January 2011
  56. ↑ Randal O'Toole Cato Institute Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  57. ↑ Richard L. StroupCato Institute Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  58. ↑ David SchoenbrodCato Institute Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  59. ↑ Jerry TaylorCato Institute Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  60. ↑ ExpertsCato Institute Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  61. ↑ Peter Van DorenCato Institute Website, Accessed 31 January 2011
  62. ↑ Benjamin ZycherCato Institute Website (web Archive 2007), Accessed 31 January 2011
  63. ↑ CLEAR CLEAR PROFILE: CATO INSTITUTE Clearproject web Archive (2004), Accessed 31 January 2011
  64. ↑ C. Coon, & Erin. Hymel (2003) Sound Policy for the Energy Bill, Heritage Foundation Reports, 23 September
  65. ↑ The Backlash Industry in Kyoto(1997), EWG.org web archive
  66. ↑ A. Rowell (1996) Green Backlash – Global Subversion of the Environment Movement, Routledge, 140-143; S. Rampton & J. Stauber (2001) Trust Us, We’re Experts, How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Yours Future, Tarcher / Putnam, p272-274
  67. ↑ S. Rampton & J. Stauber (2001) Trust Us, We’re Experts – How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Yours Future, Tarcher / Puttnam, p273
  68. ↑ WORLD CLIMATE REPORTEditors Co2 and climate web archive (2005) accessed 31 January 2011
  69. ↑ R. C. Balling Jr. (1992) The Heated Debate, Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, pxv
  70. ↑ [missing 38]
  71. ↑ L. Miller (2003) “Enviro Trends: Poor to Bear Brunt Of Climate Change --; Worldwatch”, Greenwire, 23 May
  72. ↑ Rampton, S (2001)Terrorism as PretextPR Watch Fourth Quarter 2001, Volume 8, No. 4, Accessed 31 January 2011
  73. ↑ Charman, K(1999)Saving the Planet With Pestilent StatisticsPR Watch, Fourth Quarter 1999, Volume 6, No. 4, Accessed 31 January 2011

Categories: