Oil company gives £31m to global warming disinformation groups

[RedRalph]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics

A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.

The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.

Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.

In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.

"The company's network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks," said Greenpeace.

"Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, 'green jobs', renewable energy and climate policy progress," it says.

The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in "spinning" the "climategate" story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.

Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.

The majority of the group's assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company's founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.

Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.

Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.

"The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US," Greenpeace said.

A spokeswoman for Koch Industries today defended the group's track record on environmental issues. "Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products," said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, director of communication. She added: "Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy."

Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008

Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.

Americans for prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.

Institute for humane studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.

Heritage foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.

Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.

Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.

Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.

Federalist society for law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming

National center for policy analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.

American council on science and health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.

What do you think of this?

 

[bhsup]

I think because it is coming from Greenpeace it should be immediately dismissed. PROVE those groups are spreading misinformation. Would global warming really be bad for winters and poles? Probably depends on POV. So yeah, screw Greenpeace. They are borderline eco-terrorists anyway.

 

[Patroklos]

When you post the numbers Green Peace spends to spread disinformation about AGW, we can have a real thread

 

[fugazi]

So every Greenpeace member is an eco-terrorist? Good to know, thanks VRWCAgent for this incredible insight. You can't simply wave this away hoping that it will make your position on climate change and such stronger.

Greenpeace has done some scandalous things, but they got heart for the environment and not all of them are 'eco-terrorists'. Some try to fight this war the right way.

 

[bhsup]

Those "some" should distance themselves from Greenpeace and found a different entity then. They're scarred by association.

 

[warpus]

Would anybody be surprised if oil companies were indeed doing this?

They want to ensure that their business model doesn't get derailed in any way, right?

 

[illram]

Absolutely. They're trying to prevent meaningful regulation, which is what they're really scared of.

 

[fugazi]

Those "some" should distance themselves from Greenpeace and found a different entity then. They're scarred by association.

That's a childish way to excuse for your own laziness. So what about Palestinians? Muslims? Chechnyans? The list goes on. You want to believe that Greenpeace is 100% untrustworthy as it suits your own goals and ideas. Sadly that doesn't make everything that comes out of your mouth about them true, let alone what they do useless or lies by default.

It's only logical that these ruthless CEO's are trying to do this - for them profit is the most sacred thing there is. I really don't see them to be above these tactics.

 

[warpus]

I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace either, but it's not like they're saying that the moon is made of cheese.

 

[Godwynn]

I thought we knew this all along..?

 

[Yeekim]

PROVE those groups are spreading misinformation.

Do you really believe there is a possibility that a research institute that has received 9 mio $ of funding from oil companies is impartial in its research?

 

[stuge]

"A lie can run around the world before truth has got its boots on."

Everything is for sale. Facts, integrity, everything must go.

"Cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health."

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Would anybody be surprised if oil companies were indeed doing this?

No, this has been proven before and it almost goes without saying that they try something like that. I believe most people smart enough to realize this - no matter if skeptical or not of the human triggered climate change.
However, this has only little bearing on weather it is justified to be a skeptic or not. It just substantiates a truth never challenged - that lobbies take care of their interests, not truth.

 

[Morning Star]

By which criteria are we classifying disinformation?

 

[warpus]

No, this has been proven before and it almost goes without saying that they try something like that. I believe most people smart enough to realize this - no matter if skeptical or not of the human triggered climate change.
However, this has only little bearing on weather it is justified to be a skeptic or not. It just substantiates a truth never challenged - that lobbies take care of their interests, not truth.

Oh, it's always good to be a skeptic, no matter what we're talking about, but in this particular case the claim isn't really that far fetched.

 

[Patroklos]

So whats the conspiracy here, that people who believe one thing support people who are of a similar mind?

Obama believes in AGW, does that mean every institute that recieves federal funding is biased?

On a different note, despite all the hand wringing and lofty thoughts of the worlds' dread locked starry eyed eco activists, the current push oil companies are making to exploint clean burning natural gas for energy is going to do 1000 times more good enviomentally than any of their current pie in the sky schemes. As usual economics wins, starry eyed wackos lose.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh, it's always good to be a skeptic, no matter what we're talking about, but in this particular case the claim isn't really that far fetched.

Well that belongs to another thread I would say

So whats the conspiracy here, that people who believe one thing support people who are of a similar mind?

If by one thing you mean "money outweighs moral responsibility" - yep that is exactly the conspiracy here.

 

[warpus]

So whats the conspiracy here, that people who believe one thing support people who are of a similar mind?

Obama believes in AGW, does that mean every institute that recieves federal funding is biased?

On a different note, despite all the hand wringing and lofty thoughts of the worlds' dread locked starry eyed eco activists, the current push oil companies are making to exploint clean burning natural gas for energy is going to do 1000 times more good enviomentally than any of their current pie in the sky schemes. As usual economics wins, starry eyed wackos lose.

This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles.

It's one thing to be biased.. It's quite another to dish out horribly ******ed (sorry sarah) & incorrect information branded as fact.

 

[Patroklos]

As a matter of undisputed fact that no matter what the changes in climate will be, it will benefit some areas. The more dispicable misinformation is all the AGW zealots proclaiming golobal warming will break the seventh seal oto issue in armagedon, AKA Green Peace.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As a matter of undisputed fact that no matter what the changes in climate will be, it will benefit some areas.

Of course you are right.
But see the question is will the benefits outweigh the costs and I doubt that very much. The most simple way to explain why is the following:
Human society has adopted to the climate given and has specialized in order to flourish as efficient as possible in this climate.
If the climate changes, human society is no longer adopted and will have to readjust. And as with any huge transition within human societies this transition will cause sufferung, loss and chaos. Big change is always painful for us. On the long run it can also be beneficial, but when considering desertification and shortage of water this seems doubtfull regarding global warming.

I by the way don't believe that humans really triggered global warming and I also believe many doomsday scenarios to be very much exaggerated.