UCS2 UNION CONCERN SCI

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">see main for older, age of trump</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">SEE 3 NEGIN</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/10/29/despite-cutbacks-exxonmobil-continues-to-fund-climate-science-denial/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/10/29/despite-cutbacks-exxonmobil-continues-to-fund-climate-science-denial/</a></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="post_content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; max-width: 680px;"><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-on-climate-change-legislation/ln48kv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">secret video recording</a> made public in late June, a top ExxonMobil lobbyist—Keith McCoy, who was fired soon afterward—not only conceded that the oil giant’s support for a carbon tax is a sham, but he also admitted that the company quietly financed climate science denier groups to stave off government action and maximize its profits—a fact that my <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/d-public-about-global-warming-/ln48kx/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">organization</a>, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/vironment-2005-05-some-it-hot-/ln48kz/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">others</a> revealed more than a decade ago.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes,” McCoy, then ExxonMobil’s senior director of federal relations, <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-on-climate-change-legislation/ln48kv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">said</a> during the interview. “Did we join some of these ‘shadow groups’ to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that’s true. But there’s nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For all his candor, McCoy got at least one thing wrong. ExxonMobil did “join”—in other words, pay—denier groups to spread disinformation to blunt initial government attempts to curb carbon emissions. But McCoy inaccurately used the past tense. In fact, the company continues to fund them.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That videotaped interview caused some major heartburn for McCoy’s boss, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, especially since the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/isinformation-house-probe-html/ln48l2/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">invited</a> Woods—as well as top executives from the American Petroleum Institute, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—to testify at a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ith-top-fossil-fuel-executives/ln48l4/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">hearing</a> on October 28 on the “long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil has been at the heart of that campaign. Since 1998, the company has paid a network of seemingly independent think tanks and advocacy groups more than <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ing-ExxonMobil-grants-2020-pdf/ln48l6/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$39 million</a> to manufacture doubt about climate science and stymie government action. Only Charles Koch and his late brother David, owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries, are known to have <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/imate-deniers-koch-industries-/ln48l8/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">spent more.</a></font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2020, according to ExxonMobil’s most recent corporate <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/20-Worldwide-Giving-Report-pdf/ln48lb/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">grantmaking report</a>, the company spent $490,000 on three grantees—the American Enterprise Institute ($100,000), the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University ($140,000), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($250,000). That amount is down from the $790,000 the company reported it spent on nine climate science denier groups in 2019 and a fraction of what it spent in the past, but there’s a catch.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">True, the company <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/2020-earnings-oil-price-2021-2/ln48ld/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">lost</a> more than $22 billion in 2020 and cut back its grants across the board. But another factor for this decline is that ExxonMobil changed how it reports grants. As first <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/poisoning-now-theres-blowback-/ln48lg/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">reported</a> by Salon, the company only listed grants of $100,000 or more in its 2020 annual giving report. In previous years, it included grants of $5,000 or more. The change reduces transparency and ultimately means there is no way to tell how much the company spent in smaller donations to support climate disinformation in 2020 or compare the grants it made in 2020 with previous years.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Only three denier groups—the same three named in the 2020 grantmaking report—received $100,000 or more from ExxonMobil in 2019. That year, their grants collectively <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/19-Worldwide-Giving-Report-pdf/ln48lj/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">amounted</a> to $625,000. The other six denier groups the company funded in 2019—the Center for American and International Law ($5,000), the Federalist Society ($10,000), the Hoover Institution ($15,000), the Manhattan Institute ($90,000), Mountain States Legal Foundation ($5,000) and the Washington Legal Foundation ($40,000)—collectively received $165,000. None of those grants, even if ExxonMobil continued them, would wind up in the 2020 report, given the company’s new threshold.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Still, it’s worth taking a closer look at where the bulk of ExxonMobil’s self-reported climate disinformation budget did go in 2020.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. Chamber of Commerce</font></b></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since 2014, ExxonMobil has given more than <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ing-ExxonMobil-grants-2020-pdf/ln48l6/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$5 million</a> on top of its annual dues to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/7bea47f6/ln48ll/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">major player</a> in blocking action on climate change for decades. A few years after becoming an ExxonMobil grantee, the Chamber gained some unwanted notoriety by financing a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/rump-climate-accord-fact-check/ln48ln/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">widely</a> debunked <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/y68ty5g7/ln48lq/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">report</a> that then-President Trump cited as a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/trumps-statement-withdrawing--/ln48ls/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">primary rationale</a> for pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2019, however, the Chamber appeared to flip 180 degrees, <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/addressing-climate-change/ln48lv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">declaring</a> on its website, “Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option.” The assertion that human activity is merely <i style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;">contributing</i> to climate change is <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ate-assessment-report-release-/ln48lx/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">inaccurate</a>, given that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause, but the statement did represent a quantum leap from when the association spuriously <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/mber-commerces-climate-denial-/ln48lz/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">maintained</a> in comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 that “a warming of even 3 [degrees Celsius] in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That said, the Chamber <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/line-bipartisan-infrastructure/ln48m2/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">vowed</a> in an August 24 press release to “do everything [it] can to prevent” the proposed $3.5 trillion <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/bill-ever-heres-whats-at-stake/ln48m4/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">reconciliation bill</a>—which would slash carbon emissions from the electric power and transportation sectors—“from becoming law.” And in a section on its website addressing climate change, the Chamber <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/climate-change-and-environment/ln48m6/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">calls for</a> “the increased use of natural gas” to make “further progress.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Increase the use of natural gas?! That runs counter to what climate science says about the need to <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/n-electricity-payment-program-/ln48m8/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">swiftly decarbonize the energy sector</a>, essentially trading one major carbon pollution source—coal—for another—methane, which is <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/2018-09-how-potent-is-methane-/ln48mb/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">86 times more potent</a> than carbon dioxide in warming the planet. Moreover, according to a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ticle-10-1088-1748-9326-ab57b3/ln48md/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">December 2019 study</a> in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the boom in natural gas use over the last decade alone have now surpassed the emissions avoided by closing coal-fired power plants.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Enterprise Institute</font></b></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Economist <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/profile-benjamin-zycher-/ln48mg/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Benjamin Zycher</a> might be considered the climate science denier in residence at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which has received <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ing-ExxonMobil-grants-2020-pdf/ln48l6/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$4.86 million</a> from ExxonMobil since 1998. Zycher <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/political-its-ineffective-too-/ln48mj/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">insists</a> that a carbon tax would be “ineffective,” has called the Paris climate agreement an “<a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/s-the-paris-climate-agreement-/ln48ml/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">absurdity</a>,” and rejects the <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/scientific-consensus-/ln48mn/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">scientific consensus</a> about the causes and seriousness of global warming.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Zycher published his most recent broadside against climate science in the Summer 2021 issue of National Affairs, a formerly independent conservative policy quarterly that AEI brought in-house in 2019. In his <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ase-for-climate-change-realism/ln48mq/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">essay</a>, “The Case for Climate-Change Realism,” he falsely argued that the “available science” does not support the notion that human activity is “the single most significant cause of climate change” and the “available data” undercut the assessment that extreme weather events are “evidence of an ongoing climate crisis.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As he has in previous <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/limate-change-views-need-apply/ln48ms/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">articles</a>, Zycher <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ase-for-climate-change-realism/ln48mq/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">cited</a> roundly debunked hypotheses for the primary causes of climate change, including a shift in northern Pacific Ocean circulation patterns called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which scientists <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/acific-Decadal-Oscillation-htm/ln48mv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">have determined</a> is incapable of causing a long-term warming trend, and “changes in solar activity,” when, in fact, the sun’s energy has <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ty-sunspots-global-warming-htm/ln48mx/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">declined</a> since the 1980s while average global temperatures have continued to climb.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This summer was not a fortuitous time to be peddling discredited theories. On August 9, less than two months after Zycher <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/se-for-climate-change-realism-/ln48mz/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">posted</a> his essay, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a landmark, nearly 4,000-page “<a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ress-en-2021-sgsm20847-doc-htm/ln48n2/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">code red for humanity</a>” <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/021-08-09-ar6-wg1-20210809-pr-/ln48n4/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">report</a> warning that the climate crisis is close to spiraling out of control and human activity is “unequivocally” to blame.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Zycher’s main objective? To make a case, no matter how specious, for <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ase-for-climate-change-realism/ln48mq/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">continued</a> reliance on fossil fuels, which he falsely claimed are less expensive than renewables. Proposals to cut carbon emissions, including the Paris agreement, would have little real impact, he argued, and could “be accomplished only by substituting expensive energy for cheaper energy.” In fact, according to a recent <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/han-running-fossil-fuel-plants/ln48n6/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">analysis</a> by Bloomberg, it is “now cheaper to build and operate new large-scale wind or solar plants in nearly half the world than it would be to run an existing coal or [natural] gas-fired power plant.” To be sure, no one would confuse Zycher for a scientist or National Affairs for a peer-reviewed journal. But he serves ExxonMobil’s interests as a seemingly independent expert who continues to express doubt about climate science and the viability of renewable energy, thereby providing cover for climate science deniers in Congress.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center</font></b></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The relatively unknown Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington (GW) University received <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/20-Worldwide-Giving-Report-pdf/ln48lb/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$140,000</a> from ExxonMobil in 2020 and <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ing-ExxonMobil-grants-2020-pdf/ln48l6/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$1.2 million</a> from the company since 2013. Director Susan Dudley founded the center in 2009 after serving as President George W. Bush’s “regulatory czar” at the Office of Management and Budget and, before that, <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ntent-uploads-dudleyreport-pdf/ln48n8/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">running the Regulatory Studies Program</a> at Koch-financed <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/index-php-Mercatus-Center/ln48nb/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Mercatus Center</a> at George Mason University. She currently serves in various capacities for other longtime climate science disinformation groups, including the Koch-founded Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Regulatory Studies Center portrays itself as an “<a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ons-come-with-unintended-costs/ln48nd/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">objective, unbiased</a>” policy shop, but—like the Mercatus Center—its primary raison d’être is to weaken and quash government regulations, according to a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/harles-Kochs-Master-Plan-4-pdf/ln48ng/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">2019 analysis</a>by the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. The GW center’s main tools are reports and public comments it submits to Congress, and although it does not get much mainstream news media attention, it has found a receptive audience on Capitol Hill—and in the previous administration. Much of the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda, Public Citizen found, echoed the center’s recommendations, including “dramatically reducing the cost that the government attributes to carbon emissions.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But should the Regulatory Studies Center be lumped in with climate science disinformation groups? In response to the Public Citizen report, as well as criticism from <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/2sz4akew/ln48nj/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">UnKoch My Campus</a> and <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ngton-university-must-end-now-/ln48nl/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">GW student groups</a>, the center issued a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ulty20Statement-2021-02-11-pdf/ln48nn/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">statement</a> in February disputing the charge that it rejects climate science. “Contrary to unsubstantiated claims, no one in the Regulatory Studies Center questions climate science,” it said. “In fact, most of the Center’s scholars do not focus on environmental or energy issues at all. Those who have written on climate issues address economic and legal questions, not the science.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whether or not the center directly disputes climate science is beside the point. In the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence, most ExxonMobil-funded disinformation groups have revised their position on the reality of climate change. Instead of challenging the science, their efforts now tend to focus on denigrating renewable energy, <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-10-1080-09644016-2021-1947636/ln48nq/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">overstating the costs</a> of transitioning to a clean energy economy while ignoring the benefits, and preventing government action. That is exactly what the Regulatory Studies Center does. In recent years, for example, it has <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/harles-Kochs-Master-Plan-4-pdf/ln48ng/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">published papers and filed public comments</a> opposing stronger efficiency standards for home appliances and vehicles that would dramatically reduce carbon emissions.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The center also has enlisted the help of unabashed climate science deniers. In the fall of 2018, for example, it tapped <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/julian-morris-/ln48ns/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Julian Morris</a> to file a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/Comment20-20Julian20Morris-pdf/ln48nv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">public comment</a> supporting the Trump administration’s proposed rollback of Obama-era standards for cars and light trucks designed to increase fuel economy and, for the first time, substantially reduce tailpipe carbon emissions. Morris, president and founder of the International Policy Network and vice president of research at the Reason Foundation—two libertarian, climate science denier organizations—falsely declared in a <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/usnfnnyt/ln48nx/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">paper</a> published in March 2018 that the “effects of climate change are unknown—but the benefits may well be greater than the costs for the foreseeable future.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Millions More for Disinformation</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The money ExxonMobil donated in 2020 to AEI, the GW Regulatory Studies Center and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents only a small percentage of the company’s recent outlays to sway public opinion and blunt government climate action. It is difficult to document all of the company’s related expenditures, but they include:</font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1rem 0px; padding: 0.5em 0px 0.5em 2em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; border-color: rgb(231, 231, 231); border-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 0.1em;"><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">+ More than $5 million on Facebook ads in 2020, which is more than half of the $9.6 million that the U.S. oil and gas industry spent on the ads, according to an <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/8116160668aa2d865da2f5abe91b-2/ln48nz/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">analysis</a> by the think tank InfluenceMap that reviewed more than 25,000 ads on Facebook’s U.S. platform. Many of the ads described natural gas as a “green” fuel source and argued that cutting carbon emissions would drive up energy costs.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">+ An <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/climate-crisis-lobby-group-api/ln48p2/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">estimated $10 million</a> in annual dues to the <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/y-anti-environmental-policies-/ln48p4/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">American Petroleum Institute</a> (API) (based on how much Shell Oil recently revealed it paid). The U.S. oil and gas industry’s oldest and largest trade association, API is working overtime to <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ntum-for-methane-action-grows-/ln48p6/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">block</a> stricter methane emissions standards. McCoy indirectly referenced API during the secretly taped <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-on-climate-change-legislation/ln48kv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">interview</a> when he said ExxonMobil relied on third parties to publicly represent its interests in Congress. “We don’t want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing,” he <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-on-climate-change-legislation/ln48kv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">said</a>. “It’s getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be, for the lack of a better term, the whipping boy for some of these members of Congress.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">+ At least <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/cal-contributions-and-lobbying/ln48p8/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$100,000 in annual dues</a> to trade associations (based on what it reported it spent in 2019) that have a long track record of peddling climate disinformation, including the <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/sociation-of-Manufacturing-NAM/ln48pb/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">National Association of Manufacturers</a> and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">+ Nearly <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/mobil-recipients-id-d000000129/ln48pd/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$834,000</a> during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles to 118 of the 139 <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/limate-deniers-117th-congress-/ln48pg/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">climate science deniers</a> currently in Congress. Over that same time period, the company reportedly spent nearly <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/n-mobil-lobbying-id-d000000129/ln48pj/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">$41 million</a> to lobby in Washington, but neither McCoy nor ExxonMobil’s other in-house lobbyists have broached the topic of a carbon tax—the company’s avowed top priority—with legislators <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-d000000129-lobbillscycle-2018/ln48pl/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">since 2018</a>, according to its <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-d000000129-lobbillscycle-2020/ln48pn/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">quarterly lobbying reports</a>.</font></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So while ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods and his colleagues proclaim that they fully understand the threat posed by climate change and are “<a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/ate-change-probe-idUSKCN1IV2DN/ln48pq/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">committed to being part of the solution</a>,” the evidence shows they continue to spend tens of millions of dollars every year to promote gridlock in Congress on the issue. The future of the planet as we know it hangs in the balance, but as McCoy acknowledged in his <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/-on-climate-change-legislation/ln48kv/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">interview</a>, ExxonMobil was—and still is—looking out for its investments and its shareholders’ short-term interests, regardless of the long-term consequences.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This article was produced by <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/earth-food-life-/ln48ps/932910469?h=sQIhUBUGldUD0NtTaG4TSVTXvLY5gXZsPoC3_K6P-A4" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;">Earth | Food | Life</span></a>, a project of the Independent Media Institute.</font></span></p></div><div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><p class="author_description" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 1em; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em; max-width: 680px;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word; line-height: 1.5em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the <a href="https://go.ind.media/e/546932/2021-10-13/lk8jrv/925229225?h=ZZqCXOouDk149c-Kfvg2NIvTBjeJZIS7o1DQ-wg7gzQ" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; word-break: break-word; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</font></span></p></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As I reported in a </span><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/despite-cutbacks-exxonmobil-continues-to-fund-climate-science-denial/" style="border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">recent column</a><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, just last year ExxonMobil donated $100,000 to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which it has funded to the tune of </span><a href="https://ucs-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/global-warming/ExxonMobil-grants-2020.pdf" style="border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">$4.86 million</a><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> since 1998. The views expressed by AEI economist Benjamin Zycher are 180 degrees from ExxonMobil’s alleged policy positions. He </span><a href="https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-case-for-climate-change-realism" style="border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">rejects</a><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> the </span><a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/" style="border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">scientific consensus</a><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> about the causes of global warming, </span><a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-carbon-tax-is-not-just-political-its-ineffective-too/" style="border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">insists</a><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> that a carbon tax would be “ineffective,” and has called the Paris climate agreement an “</span><a href="https://www.aei.org/articles/the-absurdity-that-is-the-paris-climate-agreement/" style="border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">absurdity</a><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.” And Zycher is hardly alone. AEI is just one of dozens of ExxonMobil grantees that have contradicted the company’s public stances on climate over the past two decades, giving climate science deniers in Congress—whose political campaigns are </span><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/to-find-out-if-exxonmobil-really-supports-a-carbon-tax-just-follow-the-money/" style="border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">generously funded</a><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> by ExxonMobil and other oil companies—intellectual cover to ignore the climate crisis.</span></font></div><div>
</div><div>---</div><div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/oil-execs-spout-disinformation-at-house-climate-disinformation-hearing/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/oil-execs-spout-disinformation-at-house-climate-disinformation-hearing/</a></font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">no lnx many</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>Oil Execs Spout Disinformation at House Climate Disinformation Hearing</div><div><b>December 7, 2021</b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Elliott Negin</div><div>Senior Writer</div><div>Earlier this fall, the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a hearing about the oil industry’s decades-long climate disinformation campaign, inviting the heads of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell—along with their counterparts at the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute (API), the US oil industry’s largest trade association—to testify under oath.</div><div>
</div><div>What came out of their mouths? A gusher of disinformation.</div><div>
</div><div>It is well documented by journalists, legislators, academics and public interest groups such as my organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), that the oil industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years on political campaigns, super PACs, lobbying, advertising, bogus scientific studies, and a network of libertarian think tanks and advocacy groups to manufacture doubt about climate science and prevent government action.</div><div>
</div><div>Nevertheless, the executives strenuously denied spreading climate science denial at the October 28 hearing. At the same time, they all flatly refused to: stop funding groups that are promoting climate disinformation, commit to an independent audit to verify that they are not funding climate science denial, or stop spending money to oppose efforts to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>Given the unprecedented nature of the hearing, it attracted its share of news media attention, but there was no way for reporters on a tight deadline to capture all of the hot air released that day. So I sat down, caffeinated up, and forced myself to watch every minute of it again to drill below the surface.</div><div>
</div><div>What did I find? Throughout the six-hour marathon, the executives bobbed and weaved, refusing to directly answer simple yes or no questions, and recited shopworn talking points replete with half-truths, falsehoods and fabrications. <b>Below are five of their biggest whoppers.</b></div><div>
</div><div><b>ExxonMobil does finance climate science denial</b></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ExxonMobil’s Darren Woods was the first CEO to testify. His company has spent at least $39 million since 1998 on think tanks and advocacy groups to disparage climate science, more than any other funder besides Charles and the late David Koch, owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Woods’s answers to committee members’ questions were classic examples of plausible deniability, exploiting the fact that his company’s disinformation campaign was launched long before he became CEO.<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That allowed him to not only claim that he did not personally approve such a campaign, but also that the company does not tell its grantees to oppose its professed climate policy positions.  </span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Early in the hearing, committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) asked all of the oil company executives how long they have been running their companies and if any of them had authorized a climate disinformation campaign. Like the rest of the execs, Woods—who replaced Rex Tillerson as CEO in 2017—said he did not sign off on such a campaign.</b></div><div>
</div><div>Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) followed up with Woods about that funding. “Mr. Woods, is it your testimony that Exxon has not at any point funded any think tank, advocacy organization or other ‘shadow groups’ against climate change efforts,” she asked. “Yes or no?”</div><div>
</div><div><b>“The position we take is transparent,” he responded, “and we publish the groups we support on our website.”</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Yes, ExxonMobil has been publishing a list of its annual grants for years, and before that, it filed federal tax forms for its foundation that required it to list its grantees. Under Woods’ watch, from 2017 through 2020, the company donated $3.79 million to 13 organizations that either deny climate science, lobby against climate solutions, or both, according to company records.</span></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Pressley continued: “Mr. Woods, do you commit right here to stop funding organizations that reject the science of climate change, yes or no?”</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods: We do not support denial.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“We do not support climate denial,” he replied. “We do not ask people to lobby for anything different than our publicly supported positions.”</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>On the contrary, ExxonMobil does support climate science denial. The company may not have formally asked its grantees to take diametrically opposite positions, but they have and still do, and ExxonMobil has continued to finance a number of them.</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 102);">As I reported in a recent column, just last year <b>ExxonMobil donated $100,000 to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)</b>, which it has funded to the tune of $4.86 million since 1998. The views expressed by AEI economist Benjamin Zycher are 180 degrees from ExxonMobil’s alleged policy positions. He rejects the scientific consensus about the causes of global warming, insists that a carbon tax would be “ineffective,” and has called the Paris climate agreement an “absurdity.” And Zycher is hardly alone. AEI is just one of dozens of ExxonMobil grantees that have contradicted the company’s public stances on climate over the past two decades, giving climate science deniers in Congress—whose political campaigns are generously funded by ExxonMobil and other oil companies—intellectual cover to ignore the climate crisis.</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Oil companies don’t support a carbon tax</b></div><div>During his opening statement, Woods repeated his company’s mantra about supporting a carbon tax. “We have advocated for an economywide revenue neutral price on carbon for more than a decade…,” he said.</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">As I have pointed out previously, ExxonMobil’s ongoing funding of climate science denier legislators and groups demonstrates that its support for a carbon tax has always been a sham. This became more apparent than ever when then-ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy conceded in a secretly recorded video in May that the company voiced support for such a tax only because it assumed it would never happen.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) pressed Woods about his company’s professed preference for a carbon tax, which the company first announced in 2009 to derail a cap-and-trade bill then moving through Congress. Referencing the fact that ExxonMobil’s website states that the company’s lobbying efforts are aligned with its publicly available positions “without exception,” Davis schooled Woods about just how seldom the company’s lobbyists broached the topic of carbon pricing on Capitol Hill since 2011. Only 12 of 344 ExxonMobil lobbyist reports involving tax legislation or policy, he said, cited carbon fee-related bills. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">Rep. Danny Davis: Oil execs fake support for a carbon tax.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">“Mr. Woods, your company’s lack of action on an issue it says it supports sends a rather interesting signal,” Davis concluded. “And this goes for all the organizations represented here today. Over the last decade, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, API and their outside lobbyists filed nearly 6,000 lobbying reports. The [Oversight] committee identified only 34 times that these companies and API reported lobbying on any of the bills that address carbon pricing. Meanwhile, they lobbied 77 times just on President Trump’s tax cuts.</span>”</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">My own, more cursory investigation of ExxonMobil’s lobbying reports found that its inhouse lobbyists have not mentioned the topic of carbon pricing at all on Capitol Hill since 2018.</span></div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>Human activity caused the climate crisis</b></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Did the oil execs hire the same crisis management consultant? It certainly seemed that way, given they all used virtually the same wording to downplay the central role human activity—mainly burning fossil fuels—has played in triggering climate change, implying there are other, more significant causes.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“At Chevron, we’ve been very clear about where we stand,” Chevron CEO Michael Wirth told the committee. “We accept the scientific consensus. Climate change is real. And the use of fossil fuels contributes to it.”</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>API CEO Mike Sommers also acknowledged that “climate change is real,” but would not attribute it directly to fossil fuels. “Industrial activity,” he said, “contributes to it.”</b></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">A few minutes later, Suzanne Clark, the US Chamber of Commerce’s president and CEO, chimed in. “The Chamber’s position is clear,” she said. “The climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes.”</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ExxonMobil CEO Woods’ statement was even more contorted. “… We know the combustion of oil and gas releases greenhouse gases,” he said, “and that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that increased greenhouse gases can contribute to the effects of climate change.”</span></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Chevron CEO Mike Wirth: Oil “contributes” to climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>Perhaps Wirth, Sommers, Clark and Woods were all on vacation in August. That’s when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its<b> Sixth Assessment Report, in which, for the first time, the IPCC concluded that human activities are unequivocally responsible for the climate crisis.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Of those activities, burning fossil fuels is the primary culprit, not some sort of minor contributor.</span></div><div>
</div><div>The dramatic increase in average global temperature is “predominantly determined by CO2,” the IPPC report stated, and “[f]ossil fuel combustion for energy, industry and land transportation are the largest contributing sectors [to carbon dioxide emissions] on a 100-year time scale.” Between 2010 and 2019 alone, the report found that “average annual anthropogenic [human-caused] CO2 emissions reached the highest levels in human history,” and the combustion of fossil fuels produced 72 to 100 percent of them. </div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The four oil companies represented at the hearing have played an outsized role. A 2019 analysis by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute identified 20 state- and investor-owned fossil fuel companies that accounted for 35 percent of worldwide energy-related carbon dioxide and methane emissions between 1965 and 2017. Of the eight investor-owned corporations on the list,<b> Chevron was the biggest emitter, followed closely by ExxonMobil, BP and Shell. Together they were responsible for more than 10 percent of the world’s carbon emissions since 1965.</b></span></div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">ExxonMobil has routinely contradicted climate science</span></div><div>In his written testimony and repeatedly throughout the hearing, ExxonMobil CEO Woods insisted that his company’s public statements about climate change have <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">always been “consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community.”</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">According to two analyses of the company’s climate change communications by Harvard University professor Naomi Oreskes and research fellow Geoffrey Supran, however, Exxon, Mobil and the merged corporation, ExxonMobil, issued at least 45 newspaper advertisements and other public statements between 1996 and 2017 that openly contradicted mainstream climate science.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Regardless, Woods stuck to his talking point. For example, Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Woods about a public statement then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond made in 1996 in which he said, “Currently the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.” She wanted to know if that statement was consistent with the views of Exxon’s own scientists, who had warned top company officials as early as 1977 about the threat burning fossil fuels posed to the climate.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Our understanding of the science,” Woods responded, “has been aligned with the consensus of the scientific community as far back as 20 years ago when you referenced our chairman at that time’s comments….”</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In fact, the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, published in 1995—a year before Raymond made that statement—concluded that global temperatures were rising and carbon emissions from human activity were most certainly the main cause.</span></div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>Oil companies spend chump change on climate solutions</b></div><div>Oil companies like to crow about how much money they are spending to solve the climate crisis.</div><div>
</div><div>In ExxonMobil CEO Woods’ written testimony, he asserted that “ExxonMobil already has invested significantly in the next generation of lower-emission fuels and fuel technologies…,” and the company’s website boasts that it has spent more than $10 billion on researching, developing and deploying lower-emissions energy solutions since 2000.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">That seems like a lot of money, but Kathy Mulvey, director of the UCS climate accountability campaign, put that $10 billion in context in a recent column. “That figure may sound impressive,” she explained, “until you compare it with the more than $500 billion the company spent on oil and gas exploration and infrastructure over the same period—<b>50 times as much.”</b></span></div><div>
</div><div>In perhaps the most entertaining interrogation of the day, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) nailed Shell President Gretchen Watkins on the same contradiction. Holding up a glass jar of M&Ms, each representing about $50 million in spending, Porter pointed out that Shell’s 2020 annual report stated that the company planned to spend between $16 billion and $17 billion in 2021 on oil, gas and chemical operations and another $3 billion on marketing. She then asked Watkins how much the company planned to spend on renewable energy.</div><div>
</div><div>“This year we will be spending between two and three billion,” Watkins replied.</div><div>
</div><div>“Two to three billion on renewables and energy solutions,” said Porter. “In your testimony, you said, quote, ‘Meeting the demand for reliable energy while simultaneously addressing climate change is a huge undertaking and one of the defining challenges of our time.’ <b>Shell has made these promises before. Shell pledged to spend six billion between 2017 and 2020 on renewable energy. How much of that did Shell actually spend? The answer is about half.</b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Rep. Katie Porter: Shell spends bubkes on renewable energy.</div><div>
</div><div>“Ms. Watkins, does this look like a huge undertaking to you?” Porter asked as she held up the glass jar with a few M&Ms at the bottom.</div><div>
</div><div>“Ms. Watkins, to me this does not look like an adequate response to one of the defining challenges of our time,” Porter continued. “This is greenwashing. Shell is trying to fool people into thinking that it is addressing the climate crisis when what it is actually doing is to continue to put money into fossil fuels.”</div><div>
</div><div><b>Roll out the subpoenas</b></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Oversight Committee Chair Maloney was clearly not satisfied with the responses the committee got over the course of the day.</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Today’s witnesses refused to take responsibility for Big Oil’s decades-long disinformation campaign and even after agreeing that we are, in fact, in quote code red unquote crisis, they refused to stop funding groups like the American Petroleum Institute that are still blocking reforms like expanding the use of electric vehicles,” she said during her closing remarks. “So I see no choice but to continue our committee’s investigation until we see the truth.”</span></div><div>
</div><div>The committee had asked the oil companies and trade groups to provide documents detailing their payments to think tanks, public relations firms and others, as well as documents pertaining to internal deliberations over corporate climate policy strategies. Instead, Maloney said, the committee received photocopies of website pages, press clippings, annual reports and other publicly available materials.</div><div>
</div><div>Maloney announced that the committee would subpoena the oil companies and trade groups for key documents. “I have tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily,” she explained. “But the oil companies employed the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy—delay and obstruction. Well that ends today…. We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry’s disinformation campaign, and with these subpoenas we will.” On November 2, she issued the subpoenas, giving the companies and trade associations until <b>November 16 to respond.</b></div><div>
</div><div>According to <b>Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), chair of the Oversight Committee’s environment subcommittee, the climate disinformation investigation could take another six months and the committee may ask the CEOs to testify again</b>. “This hearing is just the start of our investigation,” he said. “These companies must be held accountable.”</div><div>
</div><div>Posted in: Climate Change, Energy</div><div>
</div><div>Tags: Chevron, climate disinformation, climate-change, ExxonMobil, oil and gas industry</div><div>
</div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">negin imi</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/exxonmobil-climate-science-denial/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/exxonmobil-climate-science-denial/</font></a></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large">
</div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The truth about ExxonMobil's campaign to fund climate science denial</font></b></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Elliott Negin and Independent Media Institute October 26, 2021</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a secret video recording made public in late June, a top ExxonMobil lobbyist—Keith McCoy, who was fired soon afterward—not only conceded that the oil giant's support for a carbon tax is a sham, but he also admitted that the company quietly financed climate science denier groups to stave off government action and maximize its profits—a fact that my organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others revealed more than a decade ago.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes," McCoy, then ExxonMobil's senior director of federal relations, said during the interview. "Did we join some of these 'shadow groups' to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true. But there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For all his candor, McCoy got at least one thing wrong. ExxonMobil did "join"—in other words, pay—denier groups to spread disinformation to blunt initial government attempts to curb carbon emissions. But McCoy inaccurately used the past tense. In fact, the company continues to fund them.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That videotaped interview caused some major heartburn for McCoy's boss, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, especially since the<b> House Committee on Oversight and Reform has invited Woods—as well as top executives from the American Petroleum Institute, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—to testify</b> at a hearing on October 28 on the "long-running, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil has been at the heart of that campaign. <b>Since 1998, the company has paid a network of seemingly independent think tanks and advocacy groups more than $39 million to manufacture doubt about climate science and stymie government action. Only Charles Koch and his late brother David, owners of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries, are known to have spent more.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2020, according to ExxonMobil's most recent corporate grantmaking report, the company spent $490,000 on three grantees—the American Enterprise Institute ($100,000), the <b>Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University ($140,000)</b>, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($250,000). That amount is down from the $790,000 the company reported it spent on nine climate science denier groups in 2019 and a fraction of what it spent in the past, but there's a catch.</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">True, the company lost more than $22 billion in 2020 and cut back its grants across the board. But another factor for this decline is that <b>ExxonMobil changed how it reports grants.</b> As first reported by Salon, the company only listed grants of $100,000 or more in its 2020 annual giving report. In previous years, it included grants of $5,000 or more. The change reduces transparency and ultimately means there is no way to tell how much the company spent in smaller donations to support climate disinformation in 2020 or compare the grants it made in 2020 with previous years.</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Only three denier groups—the same three named in the 2020 grantmaking report—received $100,000 or more from ExxonMobil in 2019. That year, their grants collectively amounted to $625,000. <b>The other six denier groups the company funded in 2019—the Center for American and International Law ($5,000), the Federalist Society ($10,000), the Hoover Institution ($15,000), the Manhattan Institute ($90,000), Mountain States Legal Foundation ($5,000) and the Washington Legal Foundation</b> ($40,000)—collectively received $165,000. None of those grants, even if ExxonMobil continued them, would wind up in the 2020 report, given the company's new threshold.</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Still, it's worth taking a closer look at where the bulk of ExxonMobil's self-reported climate disinformation budget did go in 2020.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The U.S. Chamber of Commerce</font></b></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Since 2014, ExxonMobil has given more than $5 million on top of its annual dues to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a major player in blocking action on climate change for decades. A few years after becoming an ExxonMobil grantee, the <b>Chamber gained some unwanted notoriety by financing a widely debunked report that then-President Trump cited as a primary rationale for pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.</b></font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In 2019, however, the Chamber appeared to flip 180 degrees,</b> declaring on its website, "Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option." The assertion that human activity is merely contributing to climate change is inaccurate, given that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause, but the statement did represent a quantum leap from when the association spuriously maintained in comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 that "a warming of even 3 [degrees Celsius] in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to humans."</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That said, the Chamber vowed in an August 24 press release to "do everything [it] can to prevent" the proposed $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill—which would slash carbon emissions from the electric power and transportation sectors—"from becoming law." And in a section on its website addressing climate change, the Chamber calls for "the increased use of natural gas" to make "further progress."</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Increase the use of natural gas?! That runs counter to what climate science says about the need to swiftly decarbonize the energy sector, essentially trading one major carbon pollution source—coal—for another—methane, which is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the planet. Moreover, according to a December <b>2019 study in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the boom in natural gas use over the last decade alone have now surpassed the emissions avoided by closing coal-fired power plants.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American Enterprise Institute</font></b></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Economist Benjamin Zycher might be considered the climate science denier in residence at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which has received $4.86 million from ExxonMobil since 1998. Zycher insists that a carbon tax would be "ineffective," has called the Paris climate agreement an "absurdity," and rejects the scientific consensus about the causes and seriousness of global warming.</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Zycher published his most recent broadside against climate science in the Summer 2021 issue of<b> National Affairs, a formerly independent conservative policy quarterly that AEI brought in-house in 2019</b>. In his essay, "The Case for Climate-Change Realism," he falsely argued that the "available science" does not support the notion that human activity is "the single most significant cause of climate change" and the "available data" undercut the assessment that extreme weather events are "evidence of an ongoing climate crisis."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As he has in previous articles, Zycher cited roundly debunked hypotheses for the primary causes of climate change, including a shift in northern Pacific Ocean circulation patterns called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which scientists have determined is incapable of causing a long-term warming trend, and "changes in<b> solar activity,"</b> when, in fact, the sun's energy has declined since the 1980s while average global temperatures have continued to climb.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This summer was not a fortuitous time to be peddling discredited theories. On August 9, less than two months after Zycher posted his essay, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a landmark, nearly 4,000-page "code red for humanity" report warning that the climate crisis is close to spiraling out of control and human activity is "unequivocally" to blame.</font></b></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Zycher's main objective? To make a case, no matter how specious, for continued reliance on fossil fuels, which he falsely claimed are less expensive than renewables. Proposals to cut carbon emissions, including the Paris agreement, would have little real impact, he argued, and could "be accomplished only by substituting expensive energy for cheaper energy." In fact, according to a recent analysis by Bloomberg, it is "now cheaper to build and operate new large-scale wind or solar plants in nearly half the world than it would be to run an existing coal or [natural] gas-fired power plant." To be sure, no one would confuse Zycher for a scientist or National Affairs for a peer-reviewed journal. But he serves ExxonMobil's interests as a seemingly independent expert who continues to express doubt about climate science and the viability of renewable energy, thereby providing cover for climate science deniers in Congress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center</font></b></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The relatively unknown Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington (GW) University received $140,000 from ExxonMobil in 2020 and $1.2 million from the company since 2013.<b> Director Susan Dudley founded the center in 2009 after serving as President George W. Bush's "regulatory czar" at the Office of Management and Budget and, before that, running the Regulatory Studies Program at Koch-financed Mercatus Center at George Mason University.</b> She currently serves in various capacities for other longtime climate science disinformation groups, including the Koch-founded Cato Institute, the Federalist Society, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Regulatory Studies Center portrays itself as an "objective, unbiased" policy shop, but—like the Mercatus Center—its primary raison d'être is to weaken and quash government regulations, according to a 2019 analysis by the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. The GW center's main tools are reports and public comments it submits to Congress, and although it does not get much mainstream news media attention,<b> it has found a receptive audience on Capitol Hill—and in the previous administration. Much of the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda, Public Citizen found, echoed the center's recommendations, including "dramatically reducing the cost that the government attributes to carbon emissions."</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But should the Regulatory Studies Center be lumped in with climate science disinformation groups? In response to the Public Citizen report, as well as criticism from UnKoch My Campus and GW student groups, the center issued a statement in February disputing the charge that it rejects climate science. "Contrary to unsubstantiated claims, no one in the Regulatory Studies Center questions climate science," it said. "In fact, most of the Center's scholars do not focus on environmental or energy issues at all. Those who have written on climate issues address economic and legal questions, not the science."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whether or not the center directly disputes climate science is beside the point. In the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence, most ExxonMobil-funded disinformation groups have revised their position on the reality of climate change. <b>Instead of challenging the science, their efforts now tend to focus on denigrating renewable energy, overstating the costs of transitioning to a clean energy economy while ignoring the benefits, and preventing government action. That is exactly what the Regulatory Studies Center does. </b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 51);">In recent years, for example, it has published papers and filed public comments opposing stronger efficiency standards for home appliances and vehicles that would dramatically reduce carbon emissions.</span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The center also has enlisted the help of unabashed climate science deniers. In the fall of 2018, for example, it tapped Julian Morris to file a public comment supporting the Trump administration's proposed rollback of Obama-era standards for cars and light trucks designed to increase fuel economy and, for the first time, substantially reduce tailpipe carbon emissions. </b>Morris, president and founder of the International Policy Network and vice president of research at the Reason Foundation—two libertarian, climate science denier organizations—falsely declared in a paper published in March 2018 that the "effects of climate change are unknown—but the benefits may well be greater than the costs for the foreseeable future."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Millions More for Disinformation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><b><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The money ExxonMobil donated in 2020 to AEI, the GW Regulatory Studies Center and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents only a small percentage of the company's recent outlays to sway public opinion and blunt government climate action. It is difficult to document all of the company's related expenditures, but they include:</font></b></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More than $5 million on Facebook ads in 2020, which is more than half of the $9.6 million that the U.S. oil and gas industry spent on the ads, according to an analysis by the think tank InfluenceMap that reviewed more than 25,000 ads on Facebook's U.S. platform. Many of the ads described natural gas as a "green" fuel source and argued that cutting carbon emissions would drive up energy costs.</font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">An estimated $10 million in annual dues to the American Petroleum Institute (API</span>) (based on how much Shell Oil recently revealed it paid). The U.S. oil and gas industry's oldest and largest trade association, API is working overtime to b<b>lock stricter methane emissions standards.</b> McCoy indirectly referenced API during the secretly taped interview when he said ExxonMobil relied on third parties to publicly represent its interests in Congress. "We don't want it to be us, to have these conversations, especially in a hearing," he said. "It's getting our associations to step in and have those conversations and answer those tough questions and be, for the lack of a better term, the <b>whipping boy for some of these members of Congress."</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At least $100,000 in annual dues to trade associations (based on what it reported it spent in 2019) that have a long track record of peddling climate disinformation, including the <b>National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[ipaa]</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Nearly $834,000 during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles to 118 of the 139 climate science deniers currently in Congress.</b> Over that same time period, the company reportedly spent nearly<b> $41 million to lobby in Washington,</b> but neither McCoy nor ExxonMobil's other in-house lobbyists have broached the topic of a carbon tax—the company's avowed top priority—with legislators since 2018, according to its quarterly lobbying reports.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">So while ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods and his colleagues proclaim that they fully understand the threat posed by climate change and are "committed to being part of the solution," the evidence shows they continue to spend tens of millions of dollars every year to promote gridlock in Congress on the issue</span>.<b> The future of the planet as we know it hangs in the balance, but as McCoy acknowledged in his interview, ExxonMobil was—and still is—looking out for its investments and its shareholders' short-term interests, regardless of the long-term consequences.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">'It looked like an atomic bomb': Welcome to our very own not-so-slow ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How Trump Ally Myron Ebell Spread Misinformation for Big Tobacco ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The truth behind ExxonMobil's claims to support a carbon tax ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil Claims Shift on Climate But Continues to Fund Climate ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Big oil's 'wokewashing' is the new climate science denialism ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific ... ›</font></div></div><div style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><div class="QvNnGjy8J7gi" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div style="box-sizing: inherit;"><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Wheeler, who headed the EPA during the Trump administration, says he’s going to focus on issues such as the global recycling waste stream and the unintended consequences of environmental regulations in his new role as a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In one of the first interviews he has given since leaving the Environmental Protection Agency, Wheeler told Bloomberg Law he’s also going to work on helping companies embed sustainability into their missions to avoid “just checking a box.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other parts of his post-agency life will focus on nudging companies and governments to look at environmental issues holistically, rather than narrowly scrutinizing one medium, such as air, water, or land.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wheeler said he won’t lobby again and has no immediate plans to rejoin a law firm. A former principal at Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, Wheeler drew fire from environmentalists and congressional Democrats because he formerly represented the coal industry.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He also praised current EPA Administrator Michael Regan for focusing on environmental justice and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a family of toxic chemicals known as PFAS.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I’m not going to criticize at this point,” Wheeler said of Regan. “He’s only been on the job for a couple months, and it takes a little time to get a handle on the job and to pay attention to everything that’s going on at the agency. I like what’s he saying.”</font></p><h2 style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 8px;" helvetica="helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" line-height="line-height"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Recovery From Chaos</font></h2><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While serving as administrator, Wheeler said he worked consciously to get the EPA on track after the chaos brought on by his predecessor, Scott Pruitt, who left the agency in July 2018 amid multiple allegations of mismanagement and misuse of taxpayer dollars.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As part of that mission, Wheeler said he made sure to involve career staff in his briefings. He said he benefited from the fact that he worked at the EPA for four years as a special assistant in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and was familiar with the agency’s inner workings.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anne Idsal Austin, who served as the head of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation under Wheeler, said he did stabilize the agency’s operations after Pruitt’s exit.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Once there was that turnover, things calmed down considerably,” said Austin, now a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. “He was able to take it from a whiplash state of, ‘Go do this and go do that’ to a calmer environment for careers and politicals.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Regan has said several times that he inherited an agency with low morale. During his first all-hands meeting with EPA staff—which was shared with Bloomberg Law by an agency employee who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly—Regan said he’s aware that many feel the EPA’s guiding purpose “seems to have veered of course over the last few years.”</font></p><h2 style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 8px;" helvetica="helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" line-height="line-height"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘Lasting Improvements’</font></h2><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wheeler further said he had a “full agenda” planned if Donald Trump had won re-election, including developing a cost-benefit rule and a science transparency rule for each of the EPA’s statutes.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He also said he remains hopeful that a future administration will pick up on that unfinished business, “because I just think the transparency side is very important.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Environmentalists argued that such changes could have made it harder to justify some pollution cuts under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other statutes by focusing cost-benefit reviews on rules’ costs, sidelining their benefits.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“For the life of me I can’t figure out why people would oppose those,” Wheeler said. “Because all it is is about making things more transparent.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In his view, much of the pushback was political. Some EPA career staffers also resisted the effort “because they didn’t want to have to explain” their regulatory actions, Wheeler said. Had the idea come out under a Democratic president, environmentalists likely would have applauded it, he argued.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, denied that resistance to the cost-benefit rule was politically motivated.</font></span></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Cost-benefit analysis should never be used to decide whether or not to regulate. It only should be used to consider different options,” Rosenberg said. “No sensible organization supported that reform.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Asked about the achievements he’s proudest of, Wheeler said the EPA “definitively proved, for the first time, that you can streamline regulations and still improve the environment at the same time.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He also said he’s proud to have made “lasting improvements” to the EPA’s structure, including creating a new management system to improve the office’s workflow and reorganizing the agency’s 10 regions to make them work more efficiently with headquarters.</font></p></div></div><div class="TheArticleBodyStandalone_contact_3vcIA" style="box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: 0.1px; line-height: 20px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 24px; margin: 14px 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To contact the reporter on this story: <bsp.person state="{" person="person" ref="ref" bfc7-d685-afe6-bfe706de0000="bfc7-d685-afe6-bfe706de0000" type="type" f41-dae1-adf0-6ff5195a0000="f41-dae1-adf0-6ff5195a0000" id="id" e26-dc70-a1f9-7eff16a40000="e26-dc70-a1f9-7eff16a40000" f41-dae1-adf0-6ff519590003="f41-dae1-adf0-6ff519590003" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Stephen Lee</bsp.person> in Washington at <a href="mailto:stephenlee@bloombergindustry.com" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">stephenlee@bloombergindustry.com</a></font></p></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/fossil-fuel-new-evidence-sb-1161">https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/fossil-fuel-new-evidence-sb-1161</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div id="block-ucstheme-page-title" class="block block-core block-page-title-block hero-default" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: var(--border-color); border-image: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 3rem 1rem 0px; box-sizing: inherit; position: relative; width: 640px; max-width: 32rem; text-align: center; z-index: 1;"><h1 class="page-title" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 1.16667; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.002em;"><span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">New Evidence of Fossil Fuel Industry Climate Science Deception Underscores Need for </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">SB 1161 (Allen), “California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act”</span></font></span></h1><p class="page-subtitle" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: -1rem 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Statement by Adrienne Alvord, California and Western States Director, Union of Concerned Scientists</font></p><p class="dates" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><span class="date-published" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Published Apr 13, 2016</font></span></p></div><article role="article" class="node node--type-press-release node--view-mode-full" style="border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="nodecontent" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="column-general" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="main-region" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px 1rem; box-sizing: inherit; position: relative; width: 640px; max-width: 32rem;"><div class="block block-layout-builder block-field-blocknodepress-releasebody" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: var(--border-color); border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden fielditem" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; clear: both;"><p style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="font-weight: inherit;">OAKLAND, Calif. (April 13, 2016)— A </span><a href="https://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/" style="font-weight: inherit; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 174, 235); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">trove of documents</a><span style="font-weight: inherit;"> released today by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) reveals that the oil industry was well aware of the potential climate risks of fossil fuels decades earlier than was widely believed. The uncovered industry communications, scientific papers and oral histories demonstrate that th</span><b>e petroleum industry was conducting climate research as early as 1957 and knew about the potential for catastrophic climate risks by 1968 at the latest.</b></font></p><p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The documents include a 1957 study, “Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels,” published by scientists working for Humble Oil, a precursor of ExxonMobil. The study looked at how carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion accumulates in the atmosphere and oceans and indicates that scientists affiliated with the fossil fuel industry were not just aware of what happens to the climate when we burn fossil fuels, but were at the leading edge of our understanding of it.</font></p><p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Below is a statement by Adrienne Alvord, California and Western States Director, Union of Concerned Scientists:</font></p><p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It is shocking and disheartening to see that the fossil fuel industry apparently had knowledge of climate risks from the burning of fossil fuels even earlier than previously believed. Their subsequent public deception campaign in the interest of profit has led to confusion and uncertainty about the consequences of burning oil, gas and coal. </font></p><p style="font-weight: inherit; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.6rem; padding: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: -0.001em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, concentrations of greenhouse gases have doubled over the past three decades, exacerbating the costly, damaging effects of climate change that California already is experiencing. The California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act would help ensure that California can hold fossil fuel companies fully accountable for their decades of deception and the damages they have caused to public health, property and the environment in California. We need to ensure that fossil fuel companies won’t be let off the hook for their decades-long campaign of intentional deception about the harmful effects of their products.”</font></p></div></div></div></div></div></article></div><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/26/competitive-enterprise-institute-climate-denial-target-nbc-cities-liability-suits" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/26/competitive-enterprise-institute-climate-denial-target-nbc-cities-liability-suits</font></a></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref</font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/12/12/ucla-law-professor-ann-carlson-cara-horowitz-cei/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/12/12/ucla-law-professor-ann-carlson-cara-horowitz-cei/</font></a></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Marco Poggio</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>A conservative think tank with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry has sued UCLA to obtain email correspondence between two UCLA climate law professors and pro-environment individuals involved in climate change litigation.</b></font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">The </span><a href="http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20181108_docket-18-ST-CP-02832_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf?utm_source=Climate+Case+Chart&utm_campaign=4bda54ff18-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_30_02_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a721b41b2d-4bda54ff18-244003157&mc_cid=4bda54ff18&mc_eid=6a923e02cb" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">lawsuit</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"> was filed last month in California Superior Court by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian group that lobbies against limits on greenhouse gas emissions and claims that CO2 is good for the environment. CEI argued the university hasn’t complied with two public record requests made in February and May under the </span><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">California Public Records Act.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">According to the lawsuit,</span> <a href="https://columbia.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9906c7202590aac6a8bdbb7b9&id=c42f401f8e&e=6a923e02cb" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Regents of the University of California</span><i style="box-sizing: inherit;">, </i></a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">the emails show <b>environmental law professors Cara Horowitz and Ann E. Carlson discussed future meetings with others, including staffers from several attorney general offices, to discuss new legal actions against major carbon producers.</b></span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">The lawsuit mimics the ones filed to obtain email correspondence by several climate scientists, including prominent climatologist Michael Mann of Penn State, which was ended by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012. Another continues to embroil University of Arizona scientists Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes, who were </span><a href="https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Court-Forces-University-Arizona-Release-Climate-Scientists-Traditionally-Confidential-Emails" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">recently ordered to release</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"> 13 years of emails demanded by another fossil fuel ally.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This appears to be yet another effort by hired guns funded by polluting interests to badger, intimidate, and silence scientists whose findings prove inconvenient to those who continue to profit from our dependence on fossil fuels,” <b>Mann</b> said of the suit against UCLA.  </font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Among the emails Horowitz and Carlson have been asked to release are those exchanged with litigators in direct contact with offices of pro-environment attorneys general around the country. That includes former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who in 2015 began investigating Exxon for possible climate change-related fraud.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Carlson told Climate Liability News that UCLA is working on complying with CEI’s record request, sorting through hundreds of emails.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I don’t feel intimidated. I don’t have anything to hide,” Carlson said, “I don’t have a problem, so far, with what I’ve been required to turn over.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I do worry that these tactics, more broadly, are designed to discourage public discourse about important topics, like climate change and who should pay for climate damages.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Specifically, CEI has asked for correspondence between the two UCLA scholars and<b> Shaun Goho, a Harvard lecturer</b> and environmental lawyer with a record of environmental litigation in state and federal court.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Goho said the lawsuit is just an harassment tactic meant to divert the energy and resources of people fighting climate change away from their work.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>“I don’t see how academics speaking with government officials about matters of public concern is a conspiracy. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me,” Goho said.</b></font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This lawsuit doesn’t stand alone. It’s really part of a broader campaign by fossil fuels companies and their allies to harass people who are taking action trying to try to address climate change in various ways, whether it’s climate scientists, lawyers or others who are researching legal issues related to climate change and the relationship between climate change and the fossil fuel industry.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">CEI has </span><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16112016/myron-ebell-climate-denier-epa-donald-trump" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">deep ties</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"> to the fossil fuel industry. Exxon was its biggest funder until 2006, when public criticism pushed the company to distance itself from CEI’s climate denial campaigns.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: inherit;">CEI has also sought emails containing the names of other pro-environment lawyers and climate scientists, including </span><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> Union of Concer</span></b></span><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">ned Scientists,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> </span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">and Sharon Eubanks, one of the attorneys involved in the federal tobacco litigation against Philip Morris.</span></span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Additionally, CEI demanded emails regarding two separate events—one held at Harvard and one at UCLA—attended by Carlson and Horowitz and employees of various state attorney general offices, private lawyers,<b> academics and environmental activists</b>, </span>who were set to discuss causes of action against major carbon producers.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Public records show that Professors Horowitz and Carlson are using their positions at your public university to coordinate with certain activists groups in organizing and<b>pursuing law enforcement and civil investigations and litigation against private opponents of a particular political agenda. </b>We seek correspondence and other records illuminating this use of a public university faculty position and resources,” the request’s text reads.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Frumhoff declined to comment for this story.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Central to the lawsuit are the UCLA and Harvard meetings, in which Carlson, Horowitz and other parties discussed legal actions against polluters.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The “secret meetings” as they were described in some of the emails, were attended by<b> Frumhoff and Matthew Pawa,</b> a lawyer with Hagens Berman, which is involved in several climate liability suits filed by communities against the fossil fuel industry. Those meetings also included staffers from attorney general offices around the country, including those of New York and California.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A CEI representative declined to comment, citing pending litigation, but referred to the organization’s website for a statement concerning the lawsuit.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">“</span><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">This ‘secret meeting’ agenda shows UCLA faculty briefed the attorneys general and prospective donors on potential legal actions they could pursue. Attorneys general are now pursuing the types of investigations urged by UCLA faculty,” Chris Horner, a senior fellow at CEI who signed the petition, wrote in the statement.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This<b> donor-funded scheme of using law enforcement to pursue a failed political agenda, raises significant constitutional and other legal issues, </b>as well as ethics concerns. With the revelation that this involves the <b>use of public institutions in this mercenary campaign</b>, the public has a <b>right to know </b>what their employees are doing<b>in their name,</b> and <b>on their dime,</b>” Horner’s statement said the statement continues.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In its lawsuit, CEI claimed the subject matter contained in the emails is of  <b>“great public interest” </b>and that the university has violated the California Constitution because delays in handing over the records practically meant a refusal to comply with the request.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lawsuit presents new challenges to law practitioners in the field of environmental litigation, paving the way for an aggressive use of public record access law that some fear would stymie the process of accountability of carbon producers.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I don’t know exactly where this is all leading. I do think it’s part of a broader campaign to try to divert attention away from oil industry’s own activities and own efforts to try to dissuade the public about the legitimacy and validity of climate science, and I worry about that,” Carlson said.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">The use of public record access laws as a tool to hit back critics in the academic world is a fairly recent practice </span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/us/politics/freedom-of-information-requests.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Felizabeth-williamson&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection" style="text-decoration-line: none; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">embraced by trade groups</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"> of several industries, not just oil and gas, to target opponents.</span></b></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><b>“Requests can be burdensome on government agencies,</b>” said David Snyder, an expert </span><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">in California public record access law who directs </span><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">the </span><a href="https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/about/our-staff/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">First Amendment Coalition</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">, a nonprofit nonpartisan advocacy group that promotes free speech and public access to government information.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The law effectively puts academics in the same position as public officials that might have strong interests in not having their communications disclosed to the public.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It seems like an odd fit, I acknowledge, for a college professor to sit in the same category as officials at city hall or at the governor’s office,” Snyder said. “Nonetheless, UCLA is a public agency, and employees of that public agency are subject to the public records act.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;">A </span><a href="https://www.csldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CSLDF-Research-Protections-in-State-Open-Records-Laws.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">study</a><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"> compiled by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit providing legal assistance to researchers, ranked each of the 50 states based on the level of protection from open records laws they grant to scientists working at publicly-funded institutions.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Only three states, Delaware, Maine, and Pennsylvania, exclude some forms of scientific and academic research from their open records laws. Laws in four other states, including Arkansas, Montana, New Mexico and North Carolina, contain no protection for researchers whatsoever. The remaining states guarantee different types of statutory exemption, deliberative process exemption and balancing tests that offer different degrees of protection.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The breadth and strength of state open records laws and the federal equivalent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have made them powerful tools, but have also made them vulnerable to misuse and abuse by groups who try to harass researchers and stifle scientific research they dislike,” the study reads.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The right to exemption from having to turn over documents is often hard to balance with the right to access public records, which is critical to ensure transparency in institutions, Snyder said.</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“It’s tricky,” Snyder said. “Under the public records act, by design, government agencies are not allowed to single out the requesters based on the reasons for which they want the records.”</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 22px; overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“They can’t say, ‘we’re not gonna give you the records because we know that you espouse these views, because you want to use the records for this purpose,’ that’s expressly forbidden,” Snyder said. “You don’t want the government picking sides.”</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UCS 619</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><strong style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> ExxonMobil’s and Chevron’s annual shareholder meetings to confront their CEOs about the companies’ anti-climate lobbying.</strong><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Now we need your voice to amplify the message. </span></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/julie-mcnamara/ace-dangerous-clean-power-plan-replacement">https://blog.ucsusa.org/julie-mcnamara/ace-dangerous-clean-power-plan-replacement</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-science-panel-air-pollution-2611852549.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-science-panel-air-pollution-2611852549.html</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>EPA Cuts Science Panel That Reviewed Deadly Air Pollutants</b></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div><b>
</b></div><div>It seems that every day scientists discover more about the dangers of air pollution. It is well known that it causes heart and lung disease, but studies this year have linked it to dementia and found soot particles in placenta. Most recently, a study published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine found a connection between particulate matter and mouth cancer risk.</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn't seem to be paying attention. The agency, under the direction of former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, is moving to disband a panel of scientists that advise the agency on setting safe levels of particulate matter pollution, The New York Times reported Wednesday.</b></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>An EPA official confirmed to The New York Times that the 20-person Particulate Matter Review Panel, which advises the agency on setting safe levels of the microscopic pollutants, was not listed as continuing to meet next year.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">"To me this is part of a pattern," Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Research Director Gretchen Goldman told The New York Times. "We're seeing EPA trying to cut science out of the process."</span></div><div>
</div><div><b>Goldman cited recent agency decisions such as nixing the senior science advisor position and issuing a proposal that would limit the types of scientific studies the EPA can use to make decisions. In the case of particulate matter, this could have deadly consequences</b>, as Goldman explained in a Twitter thread about the decision.</div><div>
</div><div>"The end result here could be a weaker particulate standard, not based on science and not protective of public health. PM is responsible for thousands of premature deaths annually in the US. A weaker standard does not help," she wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In a separate blog post, Goldman explained more of the nuances of the EPA's most recent polluter-friendly move.</div><div>
</div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The U.S. has succeeded in reducing deadly particulate matter pollution because of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are reviewed every five years with the help of scientific experts. The teams working on those reviews include the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the separate pollution review panels.</span></div><div>
</div><div>Goldman explained why both are essential:</div><div>
</div><div>These review panels are comprised of experts on the pollutant under review specifically, allowing the agency to benefit from subject matter expertise. For example, CASAC will include folks with air pollution modeling or monitoring expertise and epidemiologists, but the PM review panel might include experts on the toxicology of particulates or an expert on particulate measurement error. This is especially important because CASAC is small (seven people). No matter how expert, it would not be possible for this group to have working expertise of all elements of the relationship between a pollutant and health AND have that knowledge for all six criteria pollutants under CASAC's purview. As a result, EPA decisions on pollution standards can benefit from scientific expertise on all facets of the science on particulates and health.</div><div>But in a Wednesday news release, Wheeler announced that he would add five people to CASAC and task that group with revising particulate matter and ozone standards, with no mention of the separate advisory panels.</div><div><b>
</b></div><div><b>Goldman speculated that the Trump administration was attempting to fast-track the air quality standards review process in order to set new standards before the end of its time in office. That would be a boon to polluting industries at the expense of America's lungs.</b></div></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Background</font></h2><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170111210354/https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/media-advisory-fred-palmer-joins-the-heartland-institute-as-senior-fellow" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Fredrick D. Palmer </a>was the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170111210221/http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2016/01/coal-news-fred-palmer-joins-an-expanding-total-spectrum.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">senior vice president of government relations</a> for <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peabody_Energy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Peabody Energy Corporation</a> from 2001 to June 2015, also serving on the Executive Leadership Team until 2014.  Most recently he worked as Peabody's Special Advisor to the Office of Peabody's Executive Chairman before <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170111210221/http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2016/01/coal-news-fred-palmer-joins-an-expanding-total-spectrum.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">joining the public relations firm Total Spectrum/Steve Gordon and Associates</a> in January, 2016. In welcoming him to the team, Spectrum congratulated Palmer for a career where he “has excelled in coal, public policy and advocacy.” Fred Palmer was also a lobbyist for Peabody between 2005 and 2015 <a href="http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">according to public lobbying disclosures</a>. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[1]</a>, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s2" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[2]</a>, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s3" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[3]</a>,<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s4" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> [4]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In early 2017, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170111210354/https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/media-advisory-fred-palmer-joins-the-heartland-institute-as-senior-fellow" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the Heartland Institute announced that Palmer would also be joining them as a senior fellow on energy and climate</a>. In his role at the Heartland Institute, Fred Palmer promises to espouse “the positive effects of enhanced atmospheric <span class="caps" style="">CO2</span> content on the biosphere” as well as emphasize “importance of fossil fuel energy to our quality of life.” <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Heartland Institute </a>has a long history of climate change denial and support for the fossil fuel industry and is known for its regular International Conference on Climate Change (<span class="caps" style="">ICCC</span>) where prominent climate change deniers gather to promote the idea that a debate still exists on the science behind man-made climate change. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s3" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[3]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before beginning his career at Peabody Energy, Palmer spent 15 years as the <span class="caps" style="">CEO</span> and General Counsel of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/western-fuels-association" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Western Fuels Association (<span class="caps" style="">WFA</span>)</a>, a coalition of coal-burning utilities that has long-worked to prevent attempts to regulate the coal industry to reduce fossil fuel emissions. He represented <span class="caps" style="">WFA</span> on the board of directors of the National Mining Association where he served as chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, a position where he fought against limits in fossil fuel use in the <span class="caps" style="">U.S.</span> In the early 1990s, Palmer also headed a <a href="http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/11FBD95382157280?p=NewsBank" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="caps" style="">WFA</span> effort to send targeted messages to farmers and legislators</a>, suggesting doubt existed on the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s5" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[5]</a></font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Greening Earth Society (<span class="caps" style="">GES</span>)</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Palmer was a past director of the now-defunct <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greening_Earth_Society" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Greening Earth Society (<span class="caps" style="">GES</span>)</a>, a front group that was controlled by the Western Fuels Association. <span class="caps" style="">GES</span> had the stated mission of “advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of <span class="caps" style="">CO2</span>, and fossil fuel use.” The group's “scientific advisors” featured a range of well-known industry-funded deniers such as <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Sallie Baliunas</a> and <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Willie Soon</a>. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s6" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[6]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to a November, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/ges-all-2-needs-re-scanning.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">1998 report by the Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research (<span class="caps" style="">CLEAR</span>)</a> examining the Greening Earth Society and its related entities, Fred Palmer claimed he created the <span class="caps" style="">GES</span> because the coal industry was “<a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1510958/thegreeningea01547.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">waging an uphill battle</a> against a well-funded environmental lobby that has coalesced around the scientifically unproven notion the earth may warm to cataclysmic proportions in the next century.” <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s7" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[7]</a>,<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s8" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> [8]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <span class="caps" style="">CLEAR</span> report notes that Greening Earth Society and Western Fuels “are essentially the same organization.” Both are located at the same office suite in Arlington, <span class="caps" style="">VA</span>. They share Fred Palmer as leadership, several <span class="caps" style="">WFA</span> board members serve as the board for <span class="caps" style="">GES</span>, and they have the same “manager of communications and governmental affairs,” Both Ned Leonard and Fred Palmer served as registered lobbyists for Western Fuels Association at the time. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s9" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[9]</a>, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s8" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[8]</a></font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Informational Council for the Environment (<span class="caps" style="">ICE</span>)</font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Palmer's work with the Western Fuels Association goes all the way back to 1991, when he served as Vice President to the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/06/campaigns-tried-break-climate-science-consensus" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Informational Council for the Environment (<span class="caps" style="">ICE</span>)</a>, a small coalition of <span class="caps" style="">US</span> coal companies that <a href="http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=2950" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">devised a detailed <span class="caps" style="">PR</span> campaign</a>to show that “evidence that the earth is warming is weak” and that proof that carbon dioxide was the primary cause was “non existent.”<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s10" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> [10]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.wecenergygroup.com/about/management_team/bios/klappa_bio.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="caps" style="">ICE</span>'s President </a>was <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/gale-klappa" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Gale Klappa</a> of the<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Southern_Company" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> Southern Company</a> and its “Science Advisory Panel” included prominent climate change skeptics <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/robert-c-balling-jr" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Robert C. Balling, Jr.</a>, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sherwood-b-idso" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Sherwood B. Idso</a>, and <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Patrick J. Michaels</a>. As part of the group's plan to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact),” <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> proposed a number of advertising headlines such as: <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s10" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> [10]</a></font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 30px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The most serious problem with catastrophic global warming is– it may not be true.”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Who told you the earth was warming… Chicken Little?”</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat.”</font></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4461&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=The%20Coal%20Industry%27s%20%22ICE%22%20Campaign%20(1999)" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> program was discontinued</a> after getting press coverage in a trade paper, <em>The Energy Daily</em>, as well as by <em>The National Journal</em>, <em>The Arizona Republic</em> and <em>The New York Times</em>.<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s11" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> [11]</a> Palmer has claimed that he disbanded <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> after becoming dissatisified with its <span class="caps" style="">PR</span> approach.</font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nevertheless, Palmer of Western Fuels said in a 1999 letter: “It's unfortunate that <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> did not go forward” since the campaign did provoke a “dramatic turnaround in how people viewed the issue of global warming” before its demise. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s11" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[11]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">View <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3119453-1991-Informed-Citizens-for-the-Environment.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">additional <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> documents and print ads here</a>. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s12" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[12]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to documents obtained by environmental group Ozone Action and journalist Ross Gelbspan, <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> messaging strategies included targeting “older, less educated males from larger households who are not typically active information seekers” and “younger, lower income women.” <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s13" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[13]</a>,  <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s8" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[8]</a></font></p><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gale Klappa <span class="amp" style="Style" warnock="Warnock" pro="Pro" goudy="Goudy" old="Old" palatino="Palatino" book="Book" antiqua="Antiqua" serif="serif" font-size="font-size" em="em" font-style="font-style" italic="italic">&</span> <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span></font></h3><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">A 2015 report </a>by the Union of Concerned Scientists (<span class="caps" style="">UCS</span>), <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WN7rpBPys1" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Climate Deception Dossiers</a>, outlined some 85 internal company and trade association documents with details on how <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> had worked to guide the public's views on climate change. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s35" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[35]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another report at the Energy <span class="amp">&</span> Policy Institute <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/wisconsin-energy-ceo-gale-klappa-president-of-global-warming-misinformation-campaign/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">detailed the role of Gale Klappa</a>, whose role was not highlighted in the <span class="caps" style="">UCS</span>report. <a href="https://www.wecenergygroup.com/about/management_team/bios/klappa_bio.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Gale E. Klappa</a> was then vice president at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Southern_Company" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Southern Company, </a>and current non-executive Chairman of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wisconsin_Energy_Corporation" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Wisconsin Energy Corporation</a> and now <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2017/03/24/chairman-gale-klappa-stays-atop-we-energies-parent.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">retired <span class="caps" style="">CEO</span></a> of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wisconsin_Energy" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">We Energies</a>. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s36" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[36]</a>, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s37" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[37]</a>,<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s38" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> [38]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Back in 1991, Klappa was interviewed in a the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/business/pro-coal-ad-campaign-disputes-warming-idea.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><em>New York Times</em> </a>article regarding the leaked <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> documents, saying:  <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s36" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[36]</a>,<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s39" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> [39]</a></font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 30px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="dquo" style="margin-left: 0px;">“</span>Those who are predicting catastrophe have been very effective at getting their message across in national media, and in so-called ‘public service’ announcements. But there is another viewpoint, a substantial viewpoint from a body of reputable scientists, and that viewpoint has really not been made available to a large majority,” Klappa told <em>The New York Times</em> in a telephone interview. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s36" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[36]</a></font></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amy Jahns, Media Relations Specialist at We Energies, responded to Energy <span class="amp">&</span> Policy Institute writer Matt Kasper on how Klappa became involved in <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span>. “Gale Klappa served as president of the <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> board more than 25 years ago,” she said, going on to present Wisconsin Energy's emission control investments and reductions. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s36" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[36]</a></font></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fred Palmer reported that he had been initially approached by Gale Klappa, then of Southern Company, and Fred Lukens, of Minnkota Power regarding what would become <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span>. Palmer recalled in an <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/01/29/25-years-ago-fred-palmer-kick-started-first-fossil-fuel-funded-campaigns-attack-climate-science" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">interview with </a><em><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/01/29/25-years-ago-fred-palmer-kick-started-first-fossil-fuel-funded-campaigns-attack-climate-science" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">DeSmog</a>: </em><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s40" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 30px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> “I went to my board not long after the Hansen presentation, probably in 1990, and I said, you know, these coal plants have the most <span class="caps" style="">CO2</span> coming out of them than anywhere else. It was the top of the food chain, I called it. The board agreed. The board said I could go on the <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> board, so I did.” <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s40" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></font></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Palmer said he quickly became “dissatisfied” with the approach of <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span>. “I didn’t think it was a <span class="caps" style="">PR</span> issue. I thought it was a scientific educational issue,” he said.</font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 30px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><p style="margin: 1em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="dquo" style="margin-left: 0px;">“</span>I have always been about education, but I was chair (of <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span>) and […] I looked at it and I said ‘I don’t like this’ and so we got out of <span class="caps" style="">ICE</span> and it was abandoned and Western Fuels started the Greening Earth Society.” <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s40" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[40]</a></font></p></blockquote><h2 style="line-height: 2em; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stance on Climate Change</font></h2><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">March, 2015</font></strong></p><p style="margin: 1em 0px; font-family: " open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fred Palmer is one of the authors of a <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Comments-of-Peabody-Energy-Corp%20%28downloaded%20July%203%2C%202015%29.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Peabody Energy submission to the White House (<span class="caps" style="">PDF</span>)</a> arguing that <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/07/14/peabody-energy-white-house-climate-change-greenhouse-gas" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">greenhouse gasses are a “non-existent harm” </a>and a “benign gas that is essential to all life:” <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/fred-palmer#s14" style="text-decoration-line: none;">[14]</a></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BAK </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ucs918</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UCS and greenpeace key in exposing FF $  to skeptics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">have they come to defense re suppression?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UCS2 918 capt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nice to get a big win. A circuit court just ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop delaying and implement the Chemical Disaster Rule, which will help prevent chemical disasters around the country.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.ecowatch.com/sugar-industry-2004899240.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Next year will mark 50 years since the sugar industry initiated and funded a literature review absolving sugar of its association with chronic heart disease, without disclosing the industry's role in the study.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What we now know as the Sugar Association began as the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) in 1943. Researchers Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt and Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) combed through hundreds of SRF documents and found evidence that the sugar industry had manipulated the science to exonerate sugar as a dominant cause of heart disease—an action that shifted the direction of scientific research for decades.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">img</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One particularly jarring quote they found was from the president Henry Hass's 1954 speech to the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists in which he said, "if the carbohydrate industries were to recapture this 20 percent of the calories in the US diet (the difference between the 40 percent which fat has and the 20 percent which it ought to have) and if sugar maintained its present share of the carbohydrate market, this change would mean an increase in the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third with a tremendous improvement in general health."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The sugar industry was interested in increasing sugar consumption by funding science that would urge Americans to decrease calories from saturated fats and hopefully replace them with sugar.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The UCSF analysis reveals that SRF employed the following tactics the Union of Concerned Scientists previously identified in Added Sugar, Subtracted Science in order to undermine public health policy on sugar. Our work shows that SRF's successor the Sugar Association and its counterpart in the corn syrup industry, the Corn Refiners Association, took pointers from SRF:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Attacking the Science</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just as the Corn Refiners Association planned to "bury the data" when it was inconvenient, when the sugar industry got word that researchers like John Yudkin at Queen Elizabeth College were challenging the maxim that sugar calories were more desirable than fat calories, the SRF's vice president and director of research called on the organization in 1964 to "embark on a major program" to counter the science coming from Yudkin and others representing "negative attitudes toward sugar."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This program would include issuing a public opinion poll to find out what messages would resonate with consumers and decision makers, opening up a venue to publicly call out scientists for their undesirable results regarding sugar, and finally, pushing out studies funded by the sugar industry that look at the causes of chronic heart disease.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Spreading Misinformation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Similar to the sugar industry's recent misinforming in order to fight labeling policies, as a part of its campaign to increase sugar consumption in the 1960s, it began to fund its own literature review on sugars, fats, and chronic heart disease in an obvious attempt to dispel the rumors that calories from sugar were at least part of the problem. The SRF paid Dr. Mark Hegsted and Dr. Robert McGandy, under the supervision of Harvard University's Fredrick Stare, a total of nearly $50,000 (in 2015 dollars) for their work. And the SRF was heavily involved throughout the review process, urging the scientists to focus on the perils of fat consumption.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The SRF vice president and director of research, John Hickson, emphasized in 1965, "Our particular interest had to do with that part of nutrition in which there are claims that carbohydrates in the form of sucrose make an inordinate contribution to the metabolic condition, hitherto ascribed to aberrations called fat metabolism. I will be disappointed if this aspect is drowned out in a cascade of review and general interpretation."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The study authors discounted research showing sugar's impact on chronic heart disease in a number of ways, focusing especially on possible bias within individual studies instead of looking at the consensus across studies. The conclusion of the literature review was that there was "no doubt" that the one way to prevent chronic heart disease was through a reduction of dietary cholesterol and replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats. And the SRF was content with these findings, telling the lead authors, "this is quite what we had in mind."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Deploying Industry Scientists/Influencing Academia</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just as the Sugar Association and Corn Refiners Association today work with academic scientiststo advance their talking points, when the literature review was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, the authors did not disclose the funding or close involvement of the SRF in the review. Dr. Fredrick Stare, the founder and chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, had an extended history of funding from the sugar and food industry: over 30 papers authored by members of his department were funded by the SRF just between 1952 and 1956. Stare's department at Harvard is a key example of how industry funding can influence academic science, with dangerous consequences for public discourse and public policy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Undermining Policy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The manipulation of science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Often, it serves to change the conversation and impact policy, as well. Similar to today's efforts by the sugar industry to undermine public health policies, in 1986, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Sugars Task Force assessed the scientific evidence around sugar, leaning heavily upon the industry's 1976 review, titled "Sugar in the Diet of Man." The FDA report said that "no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current." The agency's study was influenced by industry sponsorship, as the chair of the study later went on to work at the Corn Refiners Association, a trade group that represents the interests of high-fructose corn syrup manufacturers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This agency study, which had clear influence form the sugar and food industry, has been responsible for the determination of GRAS status for several added sugars, and has largely set the precedent for the resulting years of denial about the health impacts of sugar-laden diets.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Sugar Industry's Role in Today's Chronic Disease Epidemic</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is no wonder that even today, our food policies are only just beginning to adequately address the association between added sugars and chronic disease. The sugar industry has magnificently managed to delay the inevitable knowledge about the dangers of excessive sugar consumption for a half century. And they are still employing this same behavior. Just last month, the American Heart Association released added sugar consumption guidelines for children, recommending that children under two consume no added sugars and that all other children consume less than 10 percent of calories from sugars, because "there is minimal room for nutrient-free calories in the habitual diets of very young children." The Sugar Association responded by accusing the American Heart Association of a lack of scientific integrity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Luckily the tide is beginning to turn in spite of the industry's best efforts. FDA's label will soon include added sugars information on food packages. More and more local resolutions are popping up to place taxes on sugary beverages. School meal policies are adding variety and improving the nutritional quality of kids' diets. And exposés like this one are revealing the truth about how the food industry has manipulated science to influence our diets for the worse.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Still, the aforementioned research points to some interesting scientific integrity issues that remain today, including the rigor of conflict-of-interest policies at scientific journals and the ethical questions involved with the ability of decision makers to use industry-funded research to shape policies. My colleague, Gretchen Goldman, explains more about how we should be dealing with conflicts of interest in science funding here. We need greater transparency around the sugar industry's role in scientific studies, including funding but also identification of the nature of the relationship between the industry and the science. Independent science should inform policies that protect public health from the adverse impacts of added sugar.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Genna Reed is a science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.alternet.org/environment/climate-deception-investigations-gain-momentum-exxonmobil-plays-victim</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With several state attorneys general now investigating whether ExxonMobil misled its shareholders and the public about climate change risks, it was more than a little ironic when the company recently cried foul.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Collaboration, collusion, conspiracy,” charged ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers, “pick a word.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pick a word? How about nonsense? If anyone could be accused of collusion and conspiracy, it’s ExxonMobil. But more on that later. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What prompted Jeffers’ ludicrous allegation was a meeting that took place on March 29. My colleague Peter Frumhoff, lead climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and environmental attorney Matt Pawa briefed a handful of state attorneys general, including New York’s Eric Schneiderman, who launched an investigation of ExxonMobil last November. Later that day, Schneiderman and 16 other attorneys general joined former Vice President Al Gore at a press conference to declare their support for more aggressive government action on climate change. During the event, AGs from the U.S. Virgin Islands and Massachusetts announced that they, too, would initiate investigations of ExxonMobil. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On April 15, Reuters broke the story that Frumhoff and Pawa had met behind closed doors with the state prosecutors before the press conference. The news organization had obtained emails disclosing the meeting through an open records request filed by a group called theEnergy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal). </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The previously unknown level of coordination with outside advisers offered a glimpse behind the scenes in an increasingly pitched battle between Exxon and environmental groups,” Reuters reported. “Exxon has said it has been unfairly singled out and that climate activists are conspiring to rally public opinion against it.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Unfortunately, not only did the Reuters story fail to adequately identify E&E Legal, it also mischaracterized what amounted to a routine meeting in an ongoing legal investigation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Confidentiality is standard operating procedure</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reuters described E&E Legal, a small, three-person nonprofit, as a “free-market think tank with ties to the Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI], whose website says it opposes U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.” What it didn’t mention is that E&E Legal — which could hardly be called a think tank — is at least partly funded by the coal industry and has repeatedly harassed prominent climate scientists, including Katharine Hayhoe and Michael Mann, by filing intrusive open records requests that have tied them up for weeks and wasted hundreds of thousands of public university dollars.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What’s more, the story didn’t explain that the group’s connection with CEI is through CEI staff attorney Chris Horner, who handles E&E Legal’s open records filings. CEI has been peddling lies about climate science on behalf of fossil fuel interests for decades, and Horner is associated with other climate science denier groups as well as the coal industry, a relationship that was recently revealed by coal company bankruptcy filings. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More important, Reuters failed to clarify that the attorneys general were merely doing their jobs. By their very nature, legal investigations can entail gathering information privately from a wide variety of sources. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is a key point. State attorneys general have the authority to meet with anyone they choose — be it a scientist, an environmental lawyer or a corporate official — in the course of an investigation on a confidential basis. In other words, there was no hint of collusion or conspiracy. Meeting privately with experts is part of the legal discovery process. Moreover, in New York — under the state’s Martin Act — the attorney general can initiate a completely confidential investigation of potentially fraudulent practices.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But that didn’t stop FoxNews.com, the Daily Caller, the Washington Examiner and the Washington Times — the climate science denial echo chamber — from providing ExxonMobil and E&E Legal a platform to make bogus charges about “collusion” and “conspiracy” in subsequent stories.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil’s disinformation network</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Schneiderman’s investigation, and one launched in January by California’s attorney general, followed the release of documents by the Union of Concerned Scientists and reporters at InsideClimate News and Columbia Journalism School revealing that Exxon scientists conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and warned top management of the potentially catastrophic risks posed by global warming. Schneiderman’s staff is now reviewing the company’s statements to investors regarding those risks to see if they contradicted what it was hearing from its own scientists. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The New York AGs office also is taking a close look at ExxonMobil’s support for a network of think tanks and advocacy groups that has been spreading disinformation about climate science for nearly 20 years. Here is where questions about “collusion” and “conspiracy” come into play.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That network was exposed back in 2007 when UCS documented that ExxonMobil had spent at least $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on more than 40 climate science denier groups. The group that got the most money? CEI, which received more than $2 million. Despite the fact that it had no scientists on its staff, CEI established itself as the go-to group to provide “the other side” of a manufactured scientific debate. It is perhaps best remembered for reassuring Americans that global warming is nothing to worry about in a TV commercial extolling the virtues of carbon dioxide. The spot’s unforgettable tagline: “They call it pollution. We call it life.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ExxonMobil publicly ended its direct support for CEI in 2005, but the company continues to spend millions of dollars annually on denier groups and congressional climate science denier political campaigns. CEI, meanwhile, may have lost ExxonMobil as a benefactor, but according to the most recent available tax records, it is still receiving money from billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, co-owner of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In any case, it is difficult to determine just where CEI gets its funding these days. Much of it comes from a secretive, pass-through foundation called Donors Trust and its affiliate Donors Capital Fund. Since 2002, the intertwined funds have laundered more than $457 million from anonymous corporations, foundations and individuals and distributed that money to hundreds of anti-regulation groups, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, and of course, CEI. </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The First Amendment doesn’t protect fraud</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As one of ExxonMobil’s top climate science denier grantees, CEI now finds itself in the hot seat. U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker not only launched an investigation of ExxonMobil for defrauding investors and the general public, he also subpoenaed communications between ExxonMobil and many of its denier network groups. He specifically asked CEI for all its climate change and energy policy materials, as well as its donor lists, over a 10-year period beginning in 1997.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CEI has filed to quash the subpoena and pushed back in an April 23 op-ed in the Washington Post. CEI president Kent Lassman and his general counsel, Sam Kazman, insisted that their organization and ExxonMobil are being unfairly harassed for exercising their First Amendment rights. A week later, the Wall Street Journal editorial board chimed in, calling Walker’s subpoena of CEI documents “a form of harassment” and “a dangerous turn for free speech.” </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the real issue is not CEI’s or ExxonMobil’s First Amendment rights. CEI, which has been exercising its right to mislead the public about climate change for quite some time, is being investigated to determine the extent to which it functioned as ExxonMobil’s paid surrogate. ExxonMobil, meanwhile, is being investigated to ascertain if it is guilty of fraud. As Attorney General Schneiderman has noted, “The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, doesn’t give you the right to commit fraud.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">jrnlism 7/14</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/cable-news-coverage-climate-change-science.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fox wrong 72%, worst cable</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">rfk2: </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UCS rep 2/2004 60 sci, 20 nobels, say scope and scale ... of manip, suppression, and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">misrep of sci by bush admin unprecedented 95</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) "is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices." [1]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"The Union of Concerned Scientists is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. Founded in 1969, it was born out of a teach-in organized by a group of scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to protest the militarization of scientific research and promote science in the public interest." [2]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contents   [hide] </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1 Support for a Moratorium on New Coal Plants</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2 Agriculture & antibiotics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3 Personnel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4 Board</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.1 Board of directors</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.2 Board members</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5 Contact</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6 Articles & sources</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6.1 SourceWatch articles</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6.2 References</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6.3 UCS Reports</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6.4 External resources</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Support for a Moratorium on New Coal Plants</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a study released in October, 2008, the UCS called for a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that do not capture their carbon dioxide emissions. The authors of the study wrote that the United States should:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Stop building new coal-fired power plants without CCS. Each new coal plant built without CCS represents a major long-term source of CO2. It is not safe to assume that new coal plants built today without CCS could cost-effectively add it later, because the cost of CCS (considerable even when included in the plant’s original design) would be much higher if added as a retrofit. The federal government should therefore adopt a strong performance standard limiting CO2 emissions from new coal plants, which will prevent the construction of any plant not employing CCS from the outset. Until such a policy is put in place, state regulators should evaluate proposed plants using a projected range of prices those plants would likely have to pay for their CO2 emissions under a capand-trade program." [3]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Agriculture & antibiotics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2001, the UCS announced that antibiotics in factory farms account for the overwhelming majority of all antibiotic use in the country. Dr. Margaret Mellon, is author of the UCS's report on anti-biotic use in livestock and the director of their food and environment program. [4] According to Dr. Mellon, her group "did not oppose using antibiotics to treat sick animals, but that it did oppose their use for promoting growth or preventing infections in healthy animals." According her report, U.S. livestock producers use about 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics annually for "nontherapeutic" purposes (growth promotion and disease prevention) as opposed to treatment of disease. The nontherapeutic total includes about 10.3 million pounds in hogs, 10.5 million pounds in poultry and 3.7 million pounds in cattle. By contrast, humans use approximately 3 millions pounds of antibiotics annually in the U.S. Figures from the report showed much higher figures for animals and much smaller figures for humans, than industry generated reports. [5] The UCS reports that antibiotics administered to livestock are approximately eight times the amount administered to people for illnesses. [6] See also Meat & Dairy industry, sections 4 & 5.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Personnel</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kevin Knobloch - President</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Board</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Board of directors</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James J. McCarthy (Chair)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peter A. Bradford (Vice-Chair)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thomas Eisner</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James A. Fay (Board Member Emeritus)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Richard L. Garwin</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Gottfried</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Gunther</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Geoffrey Heal</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James S. Hoyte (Treasurer)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anne R. Kapuscinski</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jessica T. Mathews</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Edward L. Miles</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mario J. Molina</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stuart L. Pimm</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Adele Simmons</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nancy Stephens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Louis Salkind</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thomas H. Stone (Secretary)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ellyn R. Weiss</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[7]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Board members</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kurt Gottfried (Chair)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peter A. Bradford (Vice-Chair)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thomas Eisner</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James A. Fay (board member emeritus)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Richard L. Garwin</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Gunther (representative of the National Advisory Board)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Geoffrey M. Heal</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James S. Hoyte (Treasurer)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anne R. Kapuscinski</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James J. McCarthy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mario J. Molina</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stuart L. Pimm</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Adele Simmons</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nancy Stephens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thomas H. Stone</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ellyn R. Weiss</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[8]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contact</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2 Brattle Square</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cambridge, MA 02238</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Phone: 617-547-5552</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fax: 617-864-9405</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Web: http://www.ucsusa.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Articles & sources</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SourceWatch articles</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizen groups working on coal issues</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Coal moratorium</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exxon Mobil</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Francesca Grifo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Political interference in scientific research (U.S.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meat & Dairy industry</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Henry W. Kendall</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Howard Ris - executive director</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">References</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? What We Do, UCS, accessed August 3, 2007.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? History, Union of Concerned Scientists, accessed September 1, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? "Coal Power in A Warming World," (Executive Summary) Union of Concerned Scientists, October 2008</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? Union of Concerned Scientists Hogging It!: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock, Food & Agriculture, January 2001</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? Denise Grady Scientists See Higher Use Of Antibiotics on Farms, New York Times, January 8, 2001</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? Brian Colleran Think Before You Eat The Widespread Effects of Factory-Farmed Meat, e-magazine.com, accessed January 2009</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? Directors, Union of Concerned Scientists, accessed September 1, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jump up? About UCS, UCS, accessed August 3, 2007.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UCS Reports</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science," January 2007.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Federal Science and the Public Good", February 2008. (This is the portal page to the report).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">External resources</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Coal vs. wind comparison, Union of Concerned Scientists website, accessed February 2008.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Categories: </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Coal Issues Energy Activism Science Citizen groups working on coal issues Health Agriculture</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">icn</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Leading environmental organizations are pressing the White House not to bow to industry pressure to abandon the government's main method for measuring the future costs of global warming pollution and the benefits of new pollution controls.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At issue is an economic calculation known as the "social cost of carbon," or SCC, which estimates the cost in dollars that society will ultimately pay for the harm caused by each ton of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That price tag helps policymakers decide how much economic sense it makes to impose costly emissions controls.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oil, gas and other industry groups recently petitioned the White House Office of Management and Budget to prohibit the use of the cost-benefit tool, arguing that it was imprecise and needed additional peer review.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a filing on Wednesday, the method's defenders countered that while the estimates could be improved over time, they are "an important, if conservative estimate of the costs of climate change and the benefits of reducing carbon pollution."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The SCC estimate has been used in more than 40 regulatory actions, ranging from efficiency standards for appliances to proposed emissions standards for coal-fired power plants.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Similar approaches are used by other governments and international institutions. The cost calculations are based on widely used peer-reviewed climate and economic models.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Without an SCC estimate, regulators would by default be using a value of zero for the benefits of reducing carbon pollution, implying that carbon pollution has no costs," a joint submission by experts from four organizations said. "That, sadly, is not the case, as evidenced by the large body of research outlining the sobering health, environmental, and economic impacts of rising temperatures, extreme weather, intensifying smog, and other climate impacts."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The document was sent to OMB by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A central estimate used by the Obama administration is that a ton of carbon dioxide carries a price tag to society of about $37. That means it would be worthwhile to spend $37 a ton today to control carbon pollution in order to prevent the damages the emissions would cause in the future....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/corporate-climate-company-profiles.html  2012</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Profiles are PDFs, each approximately 500 KB. (You can also download all 28 profiles as a single document.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AES Corporation (AES)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alcoa, Inc. (AA)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ameren Corporation (AEE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Boeing Company (BA)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Caterpillar Inc. (CAT)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chesapeake Energy Corporation(CHK)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ConocoPhillips (COP)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Denbury Resources Inc. (DNR)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DTE Energy Company (DTE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FirstEnergy Corporation (FE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FMC Corporation (FMC)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">General Electric Company (GE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Marathon Oil Company (MRO)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Murphy Oil Corporation (MUR)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NIKE, Inc. (NKE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peabody Energy Corporation(BTU)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Progress Energy, Inc. (PGN)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sempra Energy (SRE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">TECO Energy, Inc. (TE)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tesoro Corporation (TSO)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Valero Energy Corporation(VLO)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Waste Management, Inc. (WM)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Xcel Energy, Inc. (XEL)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">miller hit grifo gmo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> If you needed to hire a person to head the financial integrity division of the Securities and Exchange Commission, how about someone who had held that position in Bernie Madoff’s investment firm? In effect, that’s what EPA has done by choosing Francesca Grifo as its “scientific integrity official.” Grifo previously oversaw the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists – an oxymoron if there ever was one. UCS is well known for exploiting every opportunity to distort science to further its radical, antitechnology agendas. In particular, the organization’s “experts” have been consistent, irresponsible and mendacious critics of genetic engineering and nuclear power, among other technologies; and they have been advocates for the kinds of shifts to “renewable energy” that would send energy costs to consumers and companies into the stratosphere. UCS’ view of genetic engineering applied to agriculture is especially indefensible and hypocritical: “Genetic engineering in agriculture has failed to deliver on many of its promised benefits, and has produced some serious unintended consequences.” The facts argue otherwise. Because of its advantages – higher yields, less spraying of chemical pesticides, and greater food security and an improved bottom line for farmers — genetic engineering has been hugely successful and the most rapidly adopted agricultural technology in history. The major factor preventing the realization of even more of the “promised benefits” is the overregulation and Henry I. Miller Contributor I debunk junk science and flawed public policy.. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epasnewoverseerofscientificintegritytheblindleadingtheblind/print/ 2/5 </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nuisance lawsuits promoted by UCS and similar groups! UCS’s carping about lackluster progress is reminiscent of the story about the man who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan. Serious unintended consequences of genetic engineering? Please. Even after the cultivation of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 17 million farmers in 28 countries) worldwide and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food that contains genetically engineered ingredients by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed tummy ache or zit. Grifo’s appointment is especially inopportune at an agency in desperate need of an overhaul of its integrity, scientific and otherwise. Its waste, fraud, and abuse in scientific and regulatory programs are legendary. With a research budget in excess of $800 million, EPA has long appeared to be more concerned with public relations than public or environmental health. A scheme was exposed several years that would have diverted EPA “research” funds to pay outside public relations consultants up to $5 million over five years to improve the website of the Office of Research and Development, conduct focus groups on how to polish the office’s image, and produce ghostwritten articles praising the agency “for publication in scholarly journals and magazines.” This payola scheme is similar to the agency’s longstanding practice of buying influence by doling out hundreds of millions of dollars each year to certain favored nonprofit organizations — money that, according to the inspector general and Government Accountability Office, is dispersed with no public notice, competition, or accountability. The GAO investigators documented systematic malfeasance by regulators, including: (1) making grants to grantees who were unable to fulfill the terms of the grants; (2) favoring an exclusive clique of grantees without opening the grants to competition; (3) funding “environmental” grants for activities that lack any apparent environmental benefit; and (4) failing to ensure that grantees performed the objectives identified in the grants. I saw evidence of this while I was an official at the FDA. For some reason I was favored with periodic reports of the research funded by the EPA. The overwhelming majority of it was shoddy, irrelevant, and unpublishable. It is understandable that EPA needs to resort to such chicanery to whitewash its shortcomings. Science is routinely regarded there as a tool to further its antitechnology and antiindustry agendas, even if it means torturing the intent of statutes and affronting common sense. 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind Forbes</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epasnewoverseerofscientificintegritytheblindleadingtheblind/print/ 3/5 </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA is the prototype of agencies that spend more and more to address smaller and smaller risks. In one analysis by the Office of Management and Budget, of the 30 least costeffective regulations throughout the government, the EPA had imposed no fewer than 17. For example, the agency’s restrictions on the disposal of land that contains certain wastes prevent 0.59 cancer cases per year – about three cases every five years – and avoid $20 million in property damage, at an annual cost of $194 to $219 million. In his excellent book Breaking the Vicious Circle, written shortly before he became a U.S. Supreme Court justice, Stephen Breyer cited another, similar example of expensive, noncosteffective regulation by the EPA: a ban on asbestos pipe, shingles, coating, and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years – at a cost of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars. Breyer observed that such a vast expenditure would cause more deaths than it would prevent from the asbestos exposure, simply by reducing the resources available for other public amenities. And perversely, the very act of removing asbestos from existing structures poses greater risk from asbestos than simply leaving it where it is: During removal, longdormant asbestos fibers are spread into the ambient air, where they expose workers and bystanders to heightened risk. When the EPA banned asbestos in 1989, it was already an old product whose risks and benefits were well understood. Nevertheless, political pressures from environmental activists pushed the EPA into making a decision that turned out to increase the risk to individuals and society. Another example of flawed decisionmaking at the EPA is the imposition of overly stringent ambient air standards under the Clean Air Act. Clean air is desirable, of course, but an EPA rule finalized in February 2012 that created new emissions standards for coal and oilfired electric utilities was illconceived. According to an analysis by Diane Katz and James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation, “The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually. The regulations will produce a significant loss of electricity generating capacity, which [will] undermine energy reliability and raise energy costs across the entire economy.” Stung repeatedly by such benefitcost calculations, EPA has begun more frequently to manipulate the benefit side by invoking socalled “nonuse benefits” of regulations, such as “the value one places on knowing that an aquatic ecosystem is healthy” or secondary and tertiary ecosystem impacts.” The problem with such supposed benefits is that estimating them is highly prone to wishful thinking. (Read: plucking numbers from the air.) For example, regulators might “calculate” that a significant 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind Forbes</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epasnewoverseerofscientificintegritytheblindleadingtheblind/print/ 4/5 </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">improvement in water quality in the Mississippi could be a source of benefit to people throughout the nation, not just those who use the river or who live near it, because the river is nationally symbolic. Perhaps not coincidentally related to Grifo’s appointment, the regulation of products made with modern genetic engineering techniques has been a bête noir of both the Union of Concerned Scientists and EPA. The EPA has long regulated field tests and the commercial use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In 2001, the EPA issued final rules for the regulation of genetically engineered plants and concocted a new concept — “plantincorporated protectants,” or PIPs, defined as “pesticidal substances produced and used by living plants.” But the EPA regulatory net captures pestresistant plants only if the “protectant” has been introduced or enhanced by the most precise and predictable techniques of genetic engineering. The registration process is excessively complex and burdensome. The submission required for regulatory review includes copious data on the parental plant, the genetic construction, the behavior of the test plant and so on — requirements that could not be met for any plant modified with older, cruder techniques, which are exempt from the FIFRA rules. EPA then conducts a series of redundant casebycase reviews — before the initial trial; when trials are scaled up or tested on additional sites; and again if even minor changes have been made in the genetic construct. Those reviews are then repeated when the sponsor is ready to cultivate the plants at commercial scale. This approach, which has been condemned repeatedly by the scientific community over many years, has discouraged innovation and provided incentives for the developers of new plant varieties to use inferior but unregulated techniques. Grifo said recently that government scientists are currently working on “safe food” and a “safe environment” using the “best available science,” and that “the most important thing as we move forward is to increase the transparency of the federal government.” She is wrong on both counts. EPA’s science is shoddy, and its scientists and administrators routinely manipulate it to fit their radical policy agendas. Moreover, transparency is less important in government regulation than the content of decisions. Putting it another way, transparency is desirable, but arriving at the right decisions about public health and environmental protection is what is paramount. The EPA has long been intellectually, scientifically and ethically bankrupt. Francesca Grifo will fit right in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/08/3-claims-pro-nuclear-film-pandoras-promise/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Denise Robbins</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CNN aired the pro-nuclear power film Pandora’s Promise last night, which propagated three common myths about nuclear power: it suggested the environmental movement’s “scare tactics” are what has inhibited nuclear power, claimed nuclear power is cheaper than renewables and downplayed complications from nuclear waste. This led to a generally one-sided story, which has led to criticism from many reviewers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here’s how the film Pandora’s Promise propagated nuclear power myths:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1. Claimed Nuclear Energy Is Cheaper Than Renewable Energy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The enormous cost of building nuclear power plants is a key inhibiting factor for the energy source. Despite receiving immensely greater subsidies than renewable energy from the beginning of its development, nuclear energy is still not competitive with fossil fuels in the U.S., and new wind energy is estimated to be less expensive than new nuclear generation. Yet the Breakthrough Institute’s Michael Shellenberger asserted that nuclear power is “a much more economical alternative to very expensive solar panels or very expensive wind turbines that require backup power.” He also dismissed renewable energy and energy efficiency, one of the cheapest ways to address climate change, as a “religion.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Renewable energy prices have actually been dropping while the costs of nuclear are on the rise—as nuclear power has scaled up in France and the U.S., so have the costs of power plant construction. Meanwhile, solar prices have dropped 99 percent in the last quarter century, and solar and wind energies are predicted to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels—without the use of subsidies—by 2025.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2. Blamed Environmentalists For Preventing Nuclear Deployment</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pandora’s Promise focused on opposition to nuclear power from some in the environmental movement. In the film, author Mark Lynas even compared anti-nuclear activists to global warming deniers. However, this narrative paints a misleading picture: the lack of nuclear expansion in the U.S. comes down to a simple case of economics. Currently, nuclear power cannot compete with gas-fired power. As the libertarian Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor explained that there’s “zero evidence” that environmental opposition is preventing new nuclear power plants, a myth that he said has been purported by nuclear advocates who “like to dodge the cost estimates.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3. Whitewashed The Issue Of Nuclear Waste</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although nuclear power has potential to become a major power source, it comes with baggage. The U.S. has accumulated more than 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, and continues to accumulate  2,200 tons per year, yet CNN’s documentary made light of this waste—Lynas claimed that nuclear waste is “not an environmental issue.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Associated Press reported that the nation “has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.” Most of this waste currently “sits in water-filled cooling pools like those at the Fukushima Dai-ichi” at the power plants themselves, some of which “contain four times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The film also failed to mention leaks that currently challenge the upstate New York power plant, Indian Point. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the plant experiences consistent leaks during refueling, though the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not act on this. The scientists called the status quo of nuclear waste cleanup “untenable,” yet CNN’s documentary barely glossed over this ongoing issue.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Visit EcoWatch’s NUCLEAR page for more related news on this topic.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div>