How corporations have hijacked the climate change debate

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/how-corporations-have-hijacked-the-clim...



How corporations have hijacked the climate change debate



September 27, 2006

Important public issues should be subject to transparent discussion, writes George Monbiot.

THE campaign of dissuasion about the Science of climate change funded by ExxonMobil and the tobacco company Philip Morris has been devastatingly effective.

By insisting that man-made global warming is either a "myth" or not worth tackling, it has given the media and politicians the excuses for inaction they wanted.

Partly as a result, in the US at least, these companies have helped to delay attempts to tackle the world's most important problem by a decade or more. Should we not confront this?

It is unclear how much covert corporate lobbying has been taking place, but evidence in the US and Britain suggests some overlap between Exxon and the groups it has funded and the operations of the tobacco industry.

The story begins with a body called the International Policy Network (IPN). As with many other organisations that have received money from Exxon, it describes itself as a think tank or an independent educational charity, but a more accurate description, it seems to me, would be lobby group.

The BBC in Britain has frequently allowed IPN's executive director, Julian Morris, to present IPN's case without declaring its backers. IPN has so far received $US295,000 ($A390,000) from Exxon's corporate headquarters in the US. Morris told me that he runs his US office "solely for funding purposes".

IPN argues that attempts to prevent (or mitigate) man-made climate change are a waste of money. It would be better to let it happen and adapt to its effects. The Network published a book this year arguing that "humanity has until at least 2035 to determine whether or not mitigation will also be a necessary part of our strategy to address climate change … attempting to control it through global regulation of emissions would be counterproductive".

Morris has described Britain's chief scientist, Sir David King — who has campaigned for action on global warming — as "an embarrassment to himself and an embarrassment to his country".

And like many of the groups that have been funded by ExxonMobil, IPN has also received money from the cigarette industry. Morris admits it has been given £10,000 ($A23,000) by a US tobacco company.

In the archives that the cigarette companies were forced to open as part of the settlement of a class action in the US, there is a document entitled Environmental Risk. It is an application to another tobacco company, RJ Reynolds, to pay for a book about "the myth of scientific risk assessment".

"The principal objective of this book is to highlight the uncertainties inherent in 'scientific' estimates of risk to humans and the environment."

Among the myths it would be contesting were the adverse health effects of passive smoking. Morris, who was listed as a planned editor of the book, insists that his name was added to the proposal without his consent. He says he had "nothing" to do with the book.

It was published in 1997 under the title What Risk? and claims that passive smoking is no more dangerous than "eating 50 grams of mushrooms a week", and attacks "politically correct" beliefs such as "passive smoking causes lung cancer" and "mankind's emissions of carbon dioxide will result in runaway global warming". Morris is the first person thanked in the acknowledgments, for his "editorial suggestions".

The book's editor, Roger Bate, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute — which has received $US1.6 million from ExxonMobil — and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received $US2 million.

Until 2003, he was Morris' predecessor as head of IPN. When the book was written, he ran the European Science and Environment Forum (Esef), which published What Risk?. The registered owner of Esef's website is Morris. He claims he had nothing to do with Esef, and registered the name "as a favour to a friend".

The investigative group PRWatch alleges that Esef was originally called Scientists for Sound Public Policy (SSPP), and was founded by a public relations agency working for the tobacco company Philip Morris.

Other public relations firms were vying for Philip Morris' account. Burson Marsteller's proposal argued that "industrial resistance" to regulation is "perceived as protection of commercial self-interests". A different "countervailing voice" was required, consisting of "international opinion formers supported financially by the industry". Their role would be "educating opinion leaders, politicians and the media".

The group would also seek funding from other industries. Some of those Esef recruited as "academic members" were people working for US lobby groups later funded by Exxon, who have made false claims about climate change.

There is no law against taking money from corporations, or against advancing arguments in the media that are in tune with theirs. Nor should there be.

The problem is what appears to be a failure to declare an interest. When someone speaks on an issue of public importance, we should be allowed to see who has been paying them. This should apply to all advocates, pressure groups and think tanks, from Greenpeace to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

George Monbiot is a columnist for The Guardian.
Tweet