Kiwis paid by Exxon-funded groups to attend climate sceptic conference
What were New Zealand climate sceptics like Vincent Gray and Owen McShane doing in New York this week? They were flown there to speak at a climate sceptic conference on global warming funded by US think tanks who take money from ExxonMobil to challenge climate science.This is a new aspect to New Zealand’s Climate Science Coalition, who appear to have been taken up by the Exxon-funded climate denial industry with vigour.
I’ll get to the details, but a bit of history might be useful.
In the early 1990’s, as negotiations began for international action on climate, I was working for Greenpeace International’s climate campaign, based out of London. There, I witnessed the birth of a new industry, as big business (especially the oil, coal and gas industries), started to lobby against any action on climate. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was formed – and it was extremely effective, not least in the USA.
One of the GCC’s main arguments was that the science wasn’t settled, that global warming wasn’t happening. They started to employ, as their “experts”, a few “scientists” who helped them run this argument.The scientists weren’t engaged in climate research – they were largely lobbyists. The GCC spent, literally, millions in ad campaigns across the US, convincing the public that global warming wasn’t happening and that the scientific evidence wasn’t clear. And they were very convincing.
Why challenge the climate science?
If you convince people that global warming isn’t happening then nobody will call for action and Governments – like the US – can sit on their hands. Action on climate would affect these companies’ bottom line because their core business (oil, coal and gas), when burned, is the main source of the global warming gas, carbon dioxide.
Fast foward to 2001. The IPCC had released its third assessment report and had declared that global warming was not only happening, but that we, as humans, were causing it.
I was again working with Greenpeace, at the StopEsso campaign in London. After George W Bush walked away from Kyoto, we started a campaign focussing on the then largest company on the planet – ExxonMobil (or Esso – known in New Zealand as just Mobil).
ExxonMobil’s history of climate denial
Exxon, at that point, was one of the few remaining oil companies which continued to question the scientific evidence. Both Exxon and Mobil, before their 1997 merger, had been at the forefront of the anti-global warming science campaign in the USA. And they had a powerful influence over the Bush Administration.
My colleague in the US had also been tracking Exxon’s involvement in climate science denial – through its charitable donations. Included in the annual list of donees were the very same organisations and “experts” who had been working with big oil, coal and gas way back in the early ’90’s.
We launched a website called ExxonSecrets to show how the web of Exxon-funded groups were working together.
The kiwi sceptic connection
In 2004 I returned to New Zealand to work for Greenpeace NZ, and found a high level of scepticism here. Then the Climate Science Science Coalition was launched – our very own think tank set up to question global warming science.
What’s this got to do with Exxon, you ask?
One of the biggest proponents of climate scepticism, and recipient of nearly US$800,000 in Exxon Funding since 1998, is the Heartland Institute. Heartland has been leading the charge in the US against Al Gore, the climate science, the IPCC – using the usual, tired arguments we’ve seen for years. They are the same arguments NZ’s Climate Science Coalition uses.
So imagine my shock when I see that the biggest gathering of sceptics for years, organised by Heartland this week in New York, had New Zealanders on its speaking list.
The Climate Science Coalition’s lobbyist Owen McShane and retired scientist Vincent Gray were on the speakers list. So presumably Heartland paid them the rather handsome US$1000 fee, plus travel and accommodation at the plush Marriott hotel. Heartland assures everyone that no oil money paid for this conference, but it’s a pretty specious argument given that Exxon’s donations would free up other money to pay for the conference.
Real Climate did a great blog about the gathering, which is worth a read – they called it a “PR event aimed at generating media reports” rather than the “scientific” conference it purported to be.
My colleague Kert was there in the corridors (he didn’t waste Greenpeace money to register). He has done a map of all the groups and speakers there – and a blog on our website.
Much of the media and many bloggers were pretty sceptical, like Andrew Revkin at the New York times, who pointed out that when an organiser asked all the scientists in the large hall to come to the front for a photo opportunity, only 19 men stood up.
Key speakers were the same old names I saw back in the early 1990’s: names like Fred Singer – who may be familiar to New Zealanders, having been brought here by the then Business Roundtable. Business NZ continues this practice, having hosted another sceptic, Lord Nigel Lawson, only last year.
Now why would Business NZ want to bring Lawson, et al to New Zealand? Same reason as Exxon questioned the science. If people don’t think the science is clear, they won’t pressure the Government to act.
Don’t get me wrong – there ARE many areas of scientific uncertainty on climate change – from how much the sea levels will rise, to the impact of rising temperature on hurricanes. These must and should be discussed and clarified. But when the denial industry’s discussion is centred on arguing global warming isn’t happening when an overwhelming body of evidence shows that it’s happening and we’re causing it, that’s simply irresponsible.
But even worse is the fact that New Zealanders like McShane and Gray have bought into this argument and have accepted oil-tainted money from Heartland. Neither of them have published any peer reviewed science on climate lately, if ever.
They also went to the Bali Climate conference in December, along with the CSC’s Bryan Leyland. Who paid for them to go there, I wonder? Was it New Zealand Business or was it Exxon-funded Washington think tanks? Bryan led the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’s delegation. CFACT, too, has received more than half a million from Exxon.
- Cindy Baxter
Related posts
Email This Post
This little vid is worth watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
Just watched Cindy on the Prime TV special re global warming. I’m not qualified to talk about the science for and against global warming and the relevance of greenhouse gases. I don’t care about who is right or wrong as to me there are zealots on both sides. But what I’m concerned about is the (direct) costs.
If the Kyoto protocol or carbon trading affects my pocket then I’m right on the side of the anti-global warming campaigners. If it doesn’t, and I can continue to live my life with no extra costs, then I’m on the side of the likes of Greenpeace and Cindy. It’s as simple as that. The rest is smoke and mirrors by parties who have vested interests.
Therein lies the challenge for those who want to make changes in the world by reducing greenhouse gases – you have to do it for no extra cost than if the status quo were to remain. When it gets right down to it, the man/woman in the street doesn’t give a toss about the science, the intellectual buffoons (on both sides of the debate) or the outcome, if the pocket is hit.
An interesting debate, but a total waste of time discussing it in an hour on TV with a bunch of academics, lobbyists and rubbish talk-show hosts. It would’ve been better to have representation from the general population and talk the hard economic facts (for both sides). As it was, it seemed like a school playground fight between the revenge of the nerds!
Scott,
It’s late, so I’ll just give a short answer in regards to climate change and costs: Not doing anything will cost us a lot of money, particularly in the long term as we get hit harder by extreme weather and have to deal with the plethora of other problems connected with climate change and our refusal to do anything about.
Doing something, eg investing in renawables, working on energy efficiency, moving from industrial agriculture to more local, organic means of production and otherwise reigning in our greenhouse gas emissions, will also cost money. However, if it is done intelligently, the costs – and I mean both monetary and socially – will be far lower, particularly in the long term.
This vid makes some good points as to why taking action on climate change is prudent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZ4q1gpMmo
It’s more or less pascal’s wager – or basic risk management if you like – and no matter how simple or complex you want to make it, with an unknown future it’s always better to go with the precautionary principle, which is in this case is significant global action against climate change.
Now that you’ve seen the “documentary” and debate, you might want to have a read through: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION.pdf and http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics to put some of its claims into perspective.
Also, how exactly do environmentalists have a vested interest in pushing for action against climate change? This statement always bugs me when I see it. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027
Also, if you’re worried about your hip pocket, why not start making changes in your own life now?
Small changes like switching your light bulbs, installing solar hot water, getting on the pushbike or public transport more often, eating less meat and more local veggies (or growing your own), ensuring your house is insulated properly and just generally being aware of your energy use can save you a lot of money while significantly reducing your environmental impact and improving your health.
This doesn’t mean you have to destroy your lifestyle either, just change some of the not so good habits.
Thanks Greg – you make some common sense points, of which making small cost effective changes are practical and easy to do (all of which I have already implemented many years ago).
As for you statement about environmentalists having a vested interest? Of course they do! Not all environmentalists are pure environmentalists – there are a broad spectrum, involving anti-globalisation proponents, disenfranchised youth and those who have a vested interest in environmental friendly businesses looking for government help to make their business more profitable (to just name a few). Everyone (including me) involved in this debate has their own point of view and vested interest. I just wish all those involved would be more upfront about it.
I also believe the swindle documentary is a load of rubbish, just as much as an Inconvenient Truth is. Where is the truth? Like most things, probably somewhere in the middle. And I wish both sides would just call it what it is – pollution. It’s not global warming, climate change or any other fancy PC-speak – it is crap in the ground, sea and air. My problem is not whether there are going to be issues from too much pollution – that’s a given. My problem is who pays.
So we go down the risk management argument. I’d like to agree with that and the analogy of insurance sounds like a good one. Unfortunately the risk-management argument has a major flaw – we don’t all pay our fair share of the “insurance”. Like insurance for your car, responsible users keep paying through the nose for no benefit, while those who aren’t responsible get all the financial benefits. This is the same when it comes to pollution risk management. As a big responsible group we’ll all have to pay (either though government taxes or increased costs of goods and services), to plan/reduce the likelihood of a catastrophe, while those who are really responsible don’t have to pay their fair share. Carbon trading is a classic example of this.
As I said before, I’m happy to be on the environmental side of the issue, if it doesn’t hurt my back pocket. Otherwise I’m just as happy to go with the other side of the argument. I repeat, therein lies the challenge for those wanting to make significant change – the argument has not focussed on the true direct costs.
Convince me that I and small business won’t be paying through the nose in the foreseeable future, while big corporations get away with little or no cost. Convince me that environmental groups like Greenpeace are transparent and honest in their environmental argument and are just not conveniently pushing an anti-globalisation stance at the same time. Convince me that making changes via the Kyoto protocol for New Zealand will have any effect on the major pollution producing countries in the world. Convince me of these and I might be more inclined to make a sound investment in our future
Scott you say “… I’m happy to be on the environmental side of the issue, if it doesn’t hurt my back pocket. Otherwise I’m just as happy to go with the other side of the argument. ”
This is a ridiculous statement.
Do you not see that being “on the environment’s side” is in your interest?
Believe it or not you are dependent on and part of the environment and therefore it is in your interests to have it healthy.
Interesting to see that Exxon are now looking at cutting their funding of climate sceptics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels
Ah yes, George
read my blog on http://www.ExxonSecrets.org on that one. They’ve dropped nine groups… but still funding 28
I’m on the environmental side of things George, only if I don’t have to pay more to do so. If there’s a shift in government spending for the environment I’d be over the moon. What I’m not happy about is an increase in direct or indirect taxes and/or price increases in the short-term to pay for pollution issues.
As far as I can see, pollution problems go back many decades, a long time before I was born. I smell another rort happening perpetrated by the baby-boomer generation, who let’s be honest have had everything for free and have now suddenly got a conscience over the past decade or two about all the crap they’ve been putting into the environment.
I have yet to read anywhere about a fair way for paying for this mess. I only see short-term expensive political solutions that will have to be paid up front with no tangible benefits and in fact may make the situation worse (carbon credits anyone???!!!). You may be able to make intangible benefit arguments and use the hoary old chestnut about “If we do nothing…”, but that, to me, gets back to the debate about risk management and insurance.
Show me a common sense way of paying for this so that generation x, y and .com don’t have pay through the nose, while still paying the increasing baby-boomer health costs that are also only going to get worse.
Scott, in my opinion, the only “fair” way of tackling the costs of climate change is to make those most responsible for pollution, such as but not limited to big business and industrial agriculture, pay their fair share.
Some of these costs will of course be ultimately passed on to the average citizen in the form of more expensive products and services, however, this is at least a little bit more transparent than giving away free carbon credits, for which the tab will eventually be passed to citizens anyway via higher taxes and lower investment in public services.
One way or another, costs are going to rise for everyone, but by cleaning up industry and investing heavily in renewables, energy efficiency and real sustainability initiatives we can more effectively manage rising costs and environmental problems than we can by going down the business-as-usual road.
Scott you’ve got to be kidding! You say : “I’m on the environmental side of things George, only if I don’t have to pay more to do so.”
But that’s like saying you’ll only wear a seatbelt if it doesn’t cost you anything.
Why should it cost more George? If you think I’m making ridiculous statements – you tell me how we pay fairly for pollution and I’ll make snide remarks about your comments. Easy to chip away at the side, but it’s more difficult to put forward a constructive argument.
Greg – you make more sense, but again it is the small business/consumer that picks up the tab. I would just even like it if we’re all on a level playing field to start with. Where’s the pressure on China and India to stop subsiding business to make more pollution? Those countries, amongst many others, subsidise petrol, tear down natural resources with no management plans and provide local tax incentives to help send waste to poorer countries. Hmmmm… note to self… must get free-trade deal and move company to red asian country that allows cheap labour, endless pollution and the ability to export back to dumb country in south pacific… oh tick, done that already!
So, it’s up to little old New Zealand, to lead the way and to make our politicians look good on the international stage. No worries about the cost and the fact that the four main polluting countries have already, and will continue to, give us the finger at every opportunity. My point from the start has been the average New Zealander will pay more than our fair share for pollution we didn’t create in the first place!
And George, I don’t mind paying for the seat belt if it’s the same cost as it always has been… but what’s the point if I have no car left to put the damn thing in???!!!
Whether we try to take the lead on emissions reductions or not costs are most certainly going to rise in my opinion. We have been living in a world of cheap energy for a long time, and that is rapidly changing. Couple that with the cost of taking action on climate change, and everyone is going to be out of pocket in one way or another. The only way of making it remotely fair is by supporting the ETS in its non-diluted form.
The argument that we didn’t create the problem and only contribute a minor amount to it is a moral one and not really valid. Kiwis are the 12th worst polluters on the planet per capita and our emissions are rising faster than that of the US. Saying “why should we stop” is akin to saying “we didn’t create slavery, and don’t practice it too much, so it’s OK”. Besides, taking action is about cleaning up our own environment as well, not just trying to reduce world emissions.
India and China are under pressure to reign in their emissions, and despite trying to pull such huge populations out of poverty they are quite willing to do it provided they aren’t the only ones. The problem is getting the US on board, and to do that as many other countries as possible will have to move first to up the pressure. New Zealand has been a world leading many times in the past, such as with the Nuclear issue. If we can’t be a leader now how can we expect anyone else, especially countries with developing economies to do what we will not?
We shouldn’t see New Zealand as a tiny martyr, killing itself to set an example. We should be seeing it as a mighty example to the rest of the world that punches well above its weight when the going gets tough.
Where will all this cost actually fall? On the children that you are saving the planet for. The sucessfull will have to pay a bit more. Bugger! those who struggle to meet their bills will start to cut back on essetials to pay the electric bill. This is why I disagree with ETS etc. Costs will be passed on till they get to the bottom of the pile, where they cannot be afforded.
Anyone notice here that Arctic sea ice was 2nd lowest last summer but recovered to a record extent. Temps flat since 2001? Models didnt predict that. Move on from the carbon crusade please. All of this will only distract and ignore real problems.