climate of denial

1

Climate of DenialOF DENIAL

2

In recent years, manufactured skepticism about climate change has paralyzed our politics, bolstered corporate influence, and exacerbated the damage to our

planet. Beneath the popular perceptions of a greener economy and a more environmentally-conscious public, those in positions of wealth and power have been working behind the scenes to develop a complex and ruthlessly efficient

coalition of anti-environment lobbying groups over the past several decades that will do anything to keep skepticism alive. From the political arena to the private sector, factions across this nation are conspiring to uphold the status

quo—a reckless pursuit of profit at the expense of the world as we know it.

1

The American Enterprise Institute

ExxonMobil

The Koch Brothers

Donors Trust

The Heartland Institute

Walmart

The American Legislative Exchange Council

Fox News Channel

The Republican Party

The American Petroleum Institute

The American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has a long track record of distorting the science and solutions of climate change. Its arguments tend to de-emphasize the environmental and economic risks of climate change, exaggerate the costs of addressing the problem and question the value of putting a policy in place at all. AEI promotes neo-conservative ideals and

has close ties to the Bush Administration. In fact, on February 26, 2003, President Bush was the key-note speaker at the American Enterprise Institute. He enthused that, at AEI, “Some of the finest minds of our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed twenty such minds. I want to thank them for their service.” This kind of deep political integration within the American Enterprise Institute is at the heart of its clout. But AEI has

“It has never been true

that we ignore

mainstream science.”1

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Kenneth P. Green, Former AEI Scholar

2

ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil is the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company and the most profitable company in the United States. In 2009 it produced the equivalent of 3.93 million barrels of oil every day. The firm has 37 oil refineries in 23 countries and a turnover of $328 billion, making a profit of $36 billion annually. The company was created in 1999 with the merger of Exxon and Mobil, both descendants of the John D Rockefeller founded Standard Oil. These were separated by an Act of Parliament in 1911 after it was declared a monopoly.

Greenpeace has calculated that ExxonMobil has given more than $22 million to climate skeptic groups and think tanks since 1998. Before merging, Exxon and Mobil were both members of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry-funded group which campaigned against climate change legislation between 1989 and 2002. In 1997 the Coalition sponsored the Global

Climate Information Project. This project ran an advertising campaign in the United States against the Kyoto Protocol, reported by the Los Angeles Times to have cost $13 million. Furthermore, a $5.9 million plan drawn up by Exxon and others to promote climate skepticism was leaked in 1998.

ExxonMobil is the sixth biggest polluter in the United States in terms of airborne pollutants, according to the University of Massachusetts. Research commissioned by Friends of the Earth in 2003 showed that ExxonMobil was responsible for 20.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from 1882 to 2002 - between 4.7 and 5.3 percent of the total from human activity. In January 2007, the company appeared to change its position on climate change, when vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said “we know enough

other advantageous ties beyond politics, particularly in the oil industry. Just to name a few, AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station, and ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. Beyond that, The American Enterprise Institute’s Kenneth Green—quoted on the previous page—infamously offered $10,000 (along with travel and lodging expenses) to any scientist willing to undermine a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In recent years AEI has clearly mastered the art of aligning its forces up and down the chain of command, ensuring that their opinions are heard from positions of power in order to impose their will and shift the climate change debate in their favor1.

$3,615,000 donated to The American Enterprise Institute since 1998

5

now—or, society knows enough now—that the risk is serious and action should be taken.” Cohen stated that, as of 2006, ExxonMobil had ceased funding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and “’five or six’ similar groups”. While the company did not publicly state which the other similar groups were, a May 2007 report by Greenpeace does list the five groups it stopped funding as well as a list of 41 other climate skeptic groups which are still receiving ExxonMobil funds. However, on July 1, 2009, The Guardian newspaper

revealed that ExxonMobil has continued to fund organizations including the National Center for Policy Analysis as well as the Heritage Foundation, despite a public pledge to cut support for lobby groups who deny climate change2.

3

“VICTORY WILL BE ACHIEVED

when average citizens and the media understand uncertainties in climate science.

Industry senior leadership understand, making them stronger ambassadors to those who

shape climate policy. Those promoting The Kyoto Treaty on the basis of extant science

appear out of touch with reality.”

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

This international agreement set binding obligations on industrialized nations

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Effective beginning in 2005, it was

ratified by 55 nations that combined are responsible for more than half

of all CO² emissions.

GREENPEACE Greenpeace is the leading independent organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to

promote solutions essential to a sustainable future.

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

This global network of environmental groups organizes campaigns that

stretch beyond the traditional conservation movement and seek

to address the economic and developmental aspects

of sustainability.

FIGHTING BACK

Internal Strategy Memo, 2007

6

David Koch, Vice President

Charles Koch, Chairman & CEO

Koch Industries FUNDING THE DENIAL MACHINE

PART I

Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was “the biggest company you’ve never heard of.” Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $67 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network. Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government.

Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they’ve made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America.

A growing awareness of these oil billionaires’ destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States. However, despite overwhelming consensus among climate researchers and scientific institutions worldwide, recognition of climate change among Americans remains startlingly low. Fueled by Koch money, the Climate Denial Machine has executed an unceasing, anti-scientific and anti-regulatory public relations campaign that mirrors the tactics used by tobacco companies to deny the health consequences of smoking. By dragging credible science into the agenda-driven realm of politics, dirty money and fossil fuel apologists have prevailed in polluting public opinion and blocking national policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions3.

4

5

$4 MIL$2 MIL

FUNDING THE DENIAL MACHINE

PART IKoch Industries has donated to

countless climate change denial groups over the past decade.

These are the top recipients of funding from 2005-2010.

Data Compiled by Greenpeace

$ 1 MIL $3 MIL

Am

eric

ans

For

Pro

sper

ity

Her

itage

Fou

ndat

ion

Cat

o In

stitu

te

Man

hatt

an In

stitu

te

Foun

datio

n fo

r R

esea

rch

on E

cono

mic

s an

d th

e E

nvir

onm

ent

Pac

ific

Res

earc

h In

stitu

te fo

r P

ublic

Pol

icy

6 8

Donors Trust

Over the past several years, researchers have discovered that Donors Trust, a shadowy funding operation for anti-government extremists, is laundering millions of dollars in climate denial funding for donors who do not want to be associated with their pet causes. Donors Trust collects funds from wealthy ideological individuals and redistributes the funding to satellite groups.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$5 MIL

$10 MIL

$15 MIL

$20 MIL

$25 MIL

$30 MIL

$35 MIL

$40 MIL

$0

Koch Foundations

ExxonMobil

FUNDING THE DENIAL MACHINE

PART II

If you thought Exxon and the Koch brothers were bad, just take a look at how they compare with their contemporary counterpart.


6

9

The organization’s website states: “Donors Trust can administer and protect your charitable intent only if your philanthropic goals are consistent with the Trust’s mission and purpose to advance liberty through limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.”

Donors Trust is the public facing organization, while its sister organization Donors Capital Fund exists to processdonations over $1 million. Both of these organizations are led by Whitney Ball and share the same office in a Washington DC suburb. Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund offer total anonymity to funders. In addition, all money given to Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund is tax deductible because they are considered public charities, even though the money is anonymous and untraceable.

Donors Trust’s Board of Directors is loaded with the leaders of other skeptic groups, including Arthur Brooks, president of American Enterprise Institute; John Von Kannon, vice president of the Heritage Foundation; William Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian legal firm; and Kris Alan Mauren, director of the Acton Institute, a Michigan-based conservative think tank4.

The graph on the facing page shows that as Koch Brothers and Big Oil funding for denial groups has declined, anonymous funding through Donors Trust has increased substantially. In 2002, the group took in $1.4 million and gave out $1.2 million. By 2010, $44 million was flowing in and $63 million heading out.

“The Trust is working to

help alleviate, through

education, research, and

private initiative, society’s most pervasive and

radical needs.”7

8

The Heartland InstituteThe Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago, whose stated goal is to promote free-market policies. Founded in 1984, the group conducts research and advocacy work on issues ranging from government spending and taxation to climate change and “free-market environmentalism.” This group has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid

rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaign using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget, although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6

Controversial ad campaign sponsored by the Heartland Institute

“Sound science, not scare tactics, ought to set the agenda for environmental protection.”

(Unless the scare tactics are coming from us.)

11

million in 2008, and $979 thousand in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland’s overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan. The Institute states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.

Regardless of how Heartland would like to present itself to the public, the fact is that funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donors Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes5.

Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinue its annual climate conference. Working in concert with its partner skeptic groups, the Heartland Institute is an important cog in the denial machine. Absorbing negative attention in the press, this group succeeds in distracting from the larger ongoing project to fund as many anti-environment policy research groups as possible.

Walmart

The world’s largest retailer has received positive press in recent years for its promises to go green, but according to a recent report, Walmart’s green pledges remain more hype than reality. The report, from the advocacy group Institute for Local Self-Reliance, found that Walmart’s greenhouse gas emissions have continued to grow since 2005, while the percentage of power it draws from renewable sources lags far behind other major corporations.

“Walmart has a highly unsustainable business model, built on shipping goods long distances, selling mountains of very short-lived products, and big sprawling stores that entail lots of driving,” said Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and the report’s author. “Walmart is unwilling to address any of these core parts of their business model, so you have a corporate sustainability campaign that is doing nothing about its overall impact.”

Walmart unveiled its sustainability initiative to much fanfare in 2005, but the retailer’s annual greenhouse gas emissions have climbed since then -– from 18.9 million metric tons in 2005, to 21.5 million metric tons in 2011. The harsh reality that this all points to is that unless Walmart takes more substantial action, the company will continue to grow unimpeded by public discontent and in the mean time every day it will become harder to stand up in opposition to affect meaningful change6.

A Decade of DisappointmentWalmart’s record when it comes to climate change commitments is far from perfect. This timeline points out some of the retailer’s biggest promises, from greenhouse gas emission targets to product packaging reduction. Read on & you’ll see how they’re falling short of expectations.


2010

2013

Walmart announced its goal to eliminate 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from its global supply chain by the end of 2015.

2005 Walmart pledged to double fuel efficiency within ten years & reduce greenhouse gases produced by existing stores by 20% within seven years.

Walmart claimed it would be running on 100% renewable energy by the end of 2020.

2003 80% of Walmart’s state-level campaign donations went to Republican candidates who opposed stricter environmental regulation, and every year since then has told a similar story.

2007 Walmart set an “aspirational goal” of becoming packaging neutral by 2025. Now, after reducing packaging by 5%, the company has declared the goal “not met,” retiring it in 2013.

9

12

ALLERGAN ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES AMERICAN ELECTRIC ANHEUSER-BUSCH AOL APOTEX ASTELLAS PHARMA ASTRAZENECA AT&T BANK OF AMERICA BAYER HEALTHCARE BNSF BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY BROWN-FORMAN CORPORATION CELGENE CENTURYLINK CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS CHEVRON CINTRACLOUD PEAK ENERGY COMCAST CON-WAY CRACKER BARREL DAIICHI SANKYO DOMINION RESOURCES SERVICES EBAY ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS EXXONMOBIL FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP FEDEX GEORGIA-PACIFIC HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL PAPER LOANMAX LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS MACQUARIE CAPITAL MICROSOFT NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION NORFOLK SOUTHERN NOVARTIS OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PFIZER PHILLIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL PURDUE PHARMA REYNOLDS AMERICAN RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION SANOFI AVENTIS SHELL OIL COMPANY STATE FARM INSURANCE T-MOBILE USA TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA TEXAS ROADHOUSE THE DIRECTV GROUP TIME WARNER CABLE TRANSURBAN UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITEDHEALTH GROUP VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS VISA USA WELLPOINT WINE


The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through the council, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line in private meetings. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC, with sitting members on all nine of the group’s task forces who all have the ability to vote alongside legislators to approve “model” bills.

More than 98% of ALEC’s revenues come from sources other than legislative dues, such as corporations, corporate trade groups, and corporate foundations. Each corporate member pays an annual fee of between $7,000 and $25,000 a year, and if a corporation participates in any of the nine task forces, additional fees apply, from $2,500 to $10,000 each year. ALEC also receives direct grants from corporations, such as $1.4 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2009. It has also received grants from some of the biggest foundations funded by corporate CEOs in the country, such as: the Koch family Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Koch-managed Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Scaife family Allegheny Foundation, the Coors family Castle Rock Foundation, to name a few.

of funding comes from corporate interests

98%of all sitting state legislators are members

27%

10

13

ALLERGAN ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES AMERICAN ELECTRIC ANHEUSER-BUSCH AOL APOTEX ASTELLAS PHARMA ASTRAZENECA AT&T BANK OF AMERICA BAYER HEALTHCARE BNSF BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY BROWN-FORMAN CORPORATION CELGENE CENTURYLINK CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS CHEVRON CINTRACLOUD PEAK ENERGY COMCAST CON-WAY CRACKER BARREL DAIICHI SANKYO DOMINION RESOURCES SERVICES EBAY ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS EXXONMOBIL FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP FEDEX GEORGIA-PACIFIC HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL PAPER LOANMAX LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS MACQUARIE CAPITAL MICROSOFT NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION NORFOLK SOUTHERN NOVARTIS OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PFIZER PHILLIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL PURDUE PHARMA REYNOLDS AMERICAN RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION SANOFI AVENTIS SHELL OIL COMPANY STATE FARM INSURANCE T-MOBILE USA TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA TEXAS ROADHOUSE THE DIRECTV GROUP TIME WARNER CABLE TRANSURBAN UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITEDHEALTH GROUP VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS VISA USA WELLPOINT WINE


of members in leadership positions are Republicans

more than

corporate membersincluding

VERIZONBANK OF AMERICA

SHELL OIL COMCAST

YAHOO EXXONMOBIL

PFIZERBRITISH PETROLEUM

AT&TMICROSOFT

CHEVRON

ALEC’s campaign against regulation of greenhouse gases began long ago, when the U.S. was in the midst of debating the Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to rein in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to control the climate crisis. In the spring of 1998, ALEC ratified a model resolution for states to pass calling on the U.S. to reject the Kyoto Protocol and banning states from regulating greenhouse gases in any way. With ALEC friend George W. Bush entering the White House in 2001, the energy interests that sit on ALEC’s Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force -- easily got their way on keeping the U.S. out of Kyoto.

of all sitting state legislators are members

99%

11


14

The Republican Party

Senator Ted Cruz

Representative Darrell Issa

Representative Dana Rohrabacher

Senator Jim Inhofe

Climate change is happening, but most Republicans still refuse to believe it. Over fifty- six percent of the current Republican caucus in the House of Representatives deny the basic tenets of climate science, as do sixty-five percent of Republicans in the Senate. What this means is that they have made public statements indicating that they question or reject that climate change is real, is happening, and is caused by human consumption of fossil fuels.

In total, these 161 members of the House and Senate have taken over $54 million in dirty energy contributions. On average, deniers each took around $340 thousand from dirty energy, but the picture isn’t much better for the rest of Congress. Even those who accept and agree with mainstream climate change science received a combined total of over $92 thousand in career contributions from the fossil fuel industry. A large portion of this funding has been distributed anonymously, through the shadowy funding operation Donors Trust.

This wave of denial is not merely a symptom of the rank-and-file member in the House and Senate, but also of the Members of GOP leadership and the committees that make critical decisions on national energy policy and air pollution have even higher concentrations. For instance, 17 out of 22 Republican members of the House

Meet the Denial CaucusWithin the Republican ranks in Congress, a growing faction of climate change skeptics has had increased influence over the party as a whole in recent years. Here are some of the most vocal critics of climate change mitigation efforts.

12

15

Senator Rand Paul

Senator Mitch McConnell

Representative Joe Barton

Representative Eric Cantor

Committee on Science, Space and Technology have made claims against climate change, and to make matters worse, every single Republican serving on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has said that climate change is either not happening at all or that humans are not the cause.

These members of Congress turn a blind eye to the pressing issue of climate change while their constituents pay the price, with Americans across the nation suffering 401 climate-related national disaster declarations since 2011. There were twenty-five extreme weather events that each caused at least $1 billion in damage, including Superstorm Sandy and the overwhelming drought that has covered almost the entire western half of the United States. Combined, these extreme weather events were responsible for 1,107 fatalities and up to $188 billion in economic damages. Despite this overwhelming costs to taxpayers and the growing evidence that extreme weather has links to climate change, skepticism in Congress persists.

13

Several states are also suffering the effects of climate change in the form of climate-fueled natural disasters even as their elected representatives take in millions from fossil fuel contributions and reject the reality of climate science. Texas is a prime example, where 58 climate-fueled disasters have been declared since 2011. Here, 18 members of the congressional delegation deny the reality of climate change, and over their these members have raked in almost $11.3 million from oil, gas, and coal interests. In Oklahoma, more than half of the delegation denies climate change, and these members have received over $2.6 million in fossil fuel money. All this in spite of the fact that since 2011, Oklahomans have borne dozens of disasters worsened by climate change7.

14

Fox News Channel

Fox News has been known for their extensive climate change denial (see here, here, here and here), despite living in an age where 97 percent of scientific papers support the human-driven phenomenon. Yet the right-leaning news channel’s views may be contagious: A new study has found that the more time viewers spend consuming conservative media, the more skeptical they become of climate science.

The paper, published in the journal “Public Understanding of Science,” found that the key link between climate change denial and conservative outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh was an inherent distrust of scientists. “Conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening,” the study says.

According to a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, ninety-three percent of Fox News Channel’s representations of climate science were misleading from February 2012 to July 2012 (thirty-seven out of forty references).The report further recognized that the most common way of criticizing climate science research was to broadly dismiss the scientific consensus that the issue is even is occurring or that it is caused by humans. Misleading representations also included 10 instances in which a panel member expressed acceptance of climate

science findings, but was drowned out by hosts or other panel members responding with multiple misleading claims.

A perfect example of this deceptive tactic occurred recently on Hannity, when Fox contributor Liz Cheney dismissed the science behind climate change by saying that Obama is “using phony science to kill jobs.” Just before cutting to a comemercial, she added that “the science is simply bogus.”

The damage done by this deliberate spread of misinformation goes well beyond the consumers of Murdoch properties, spreading and corrupting the rest of our media as well. Reporters and editors at respected, “objective” news outlets feel pressure to treat false information as legitimate either through a commitment to giving equal weight to two opposing sides are regardless of the facts or simply because they themselves have been fooled.

17

“THE TEMPERATURE

BASICALLY HASN’T

CHANGED SINCE THE

ICE AGE.”

“GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER.”

15

1816

Based out of Washington DC, the American Petroleum Institute (API) is the primary trade association of the oil and natural gas industry. It is made up of nearly 400 members involved in all aspects of petroleum, including Exxon-Mobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical Company, Halliburton, and Shell Oil. These companies provide funding for API, which in turn champions the industry’s interests int the government and through public outreach. Top member companies such as Exxon Mobil have been estimated to contribute as much as $20 million annually to the American Petroleum Institute. The institute also sets equipment standards for the American oil industry.


19


Recent actions by the American Petroleum Institute have been deemed ‘“astroturfing at its finest” by the press. The instance that has gotten the most attention involved a period of protest rallies against climate change legislation.

The event on was organized by a group called Energy Citizens, which is backed financially and ideologically by the American Petroleum Institute. Many of the people attending the demonstration, far from average concerned citizens, were employees of oil companies who worked in Houston and were bussed to the site from their workplaces. The House bill that the group was protesting, which narrowly passed several months prior, was designed reduce greenhouse gases in the United States by 83 percent by 2050 through a mechanism known as cap and trade, which would create carbon permits that could be bought and sold.

API’s web of influence in the global warming denial network reveals numerous anti-climate legislation organizations that have been funded by ExxonMobil, including the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. This sort of Political involvement on the part of private corporations by way of the American Petroleum Institute and its partner groups remains a major roadblock to making meaningful progress with regard to climate change mitigation. It is up to the American public to raise awareness about these groups and hold their elected officials accountable for their ties to perpetrators of skepticism10.

17

20

Conclusion & Bibliography

There is a vast network of anti-environment interest groups currently bankrolling the national perpetuation of doubt about climate change research.

The current stagnation of progressive legislation in our government is a testament to the power of industry and private corporations over public

discourse when their economic and social interests are at stake. But although momentum for climate change legislation has wained in recent years, the effort

is far from abandoned. Raising awareness about these shadowy groups and their self-centered actions is a great way of furthering the longterm goal of an environmentally sustainable society. Change can be achieved but only through

the efforts of an educatedand engaged public.

18

21

Articles

CREDITS

Images

1. “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American Enterprise Institute.” Greenpeace.com. Greenpeace, 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. 2. “Profile: ExxonMobil.” Carbonbrief.com. Carbon Brief, 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

3. Gibson, Connor. “Koch Brothers Exposed: Fueling Climate Denial and Privatizing Democracy..” Greenpeaceblogs.org. Greenpeace, 2O June 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

4. “Donors Trust: Laundering Climate Denial Funding.” Greenpeace.com. Preenpeace, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. 5. “Heartland Institute and Its NIPCC Report Fail the Credibility Test.” Climatesciencewatch.org. Climate Science Watch, 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. 6. Sheppard, Kate. “Walmart’s Sustainability Results Don’t Match Promises, Report Finds.” Thehuffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2013. 7. Tiffany Germain. “The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus: 113th Congress Edition.” ThinkProgress. org. Think Progress, 26 June 2013. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

8. Alterman, Eric. “Think Again: The Media and Climate Science: ADHD or Deliberate Deception?” Americanprogress.com. Center for American Progress, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.

9. “What Is ALEC?” ALECexposed.com. ALEC Exposed, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.

10. “American Petroleum Institute.” Polluterwatch.com. Greenpeace, n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

The Washington Post The Associated Press

The Video Catalyst Project

The Huffington Post

Page Source

1

4, 10–11

8

1319

SAM PECKHAM2013 GRAPHIC DESIGN II

climate of denial

Documents