As I Went Out One Morning

“Honest With Me”

It is impossible to possess a proper understanding of contemporary politics without understanding and examining lobbying, which is, purely and simply, any activity that seeks to influence government and public policy. As such, it can encompass commissioning reports from think tanks, scientists or academics, which support a particular position. It may also involve using the media to influence public opinion to put pressure on politicians to act. Lobbying is a tactic that is often used by PR firms to co-opt politicians into their way of thinking. It is a massive business, evidenced by the fact that, “in 1998, the oil and gas industries alone spent $58 million lobbying the U.S. Congress.” (Rampton & Stauber, 2001: 271) Contrarily, environmental groups spent combined total of $4.7 million. They spent less than a tenth on all issues than industry spent on one area.

“For years the car companies had been lobbying against the introduction of unleaded fuel, catalytic converters or any increase in fuel efficiency, which are all environmental benefits. [….] But when the change was forced upon them, they would be the first to crow about environmental and social benefits of the alterations.” (Rowell, 1996: 101) As well as taking credit for enforced regulatory changes, “industry [is also guilty of] lobbying under the umbrella of an eco-sounding business network [which] is greenwashing that aims to prevent international agreements that oversee corporate behaviour.” (Ibid.: 105-6)

“In 1991, a corporate coalition composed of the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical Institute, created a PR front group called the “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE) and launched a $500,000 advertising and public relations campaign to, in ICE’s own words, “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”” (Rampton & Stauber, 2001: 272) In an attempt to seem more credible, “ICE created a Scientific Advisory Panel that featured Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Services at the University of Virginia; Robert Balling of Arizona State University; and Sherwood Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory.” (Ibid.: 272) Balling and Michaels have both received financial backing from the oil and coal industry to carry out research.

Indeed, “the global warming consensus among scientists is so strong that the oil and auto industries have been forced far afield in their search for voices willing to join in their denial.” (Ibid.: 270) According to Ross Gelbspan, author of The Heat is On, this “tiny group of dissenting scientists have been given prominent public visibility and congressional influence out of all proportion to their standing in the scientific community on the issue of global warming.”” (Ibid.: 274)

A salient example being that of Arthur B. Robinson and The Oregon Petition which, “was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. […] Robinson’s paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the air is actually a good thing. “As atmospheric CO2 increases,” it stated, “plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally.”” (Ibid.: 279) These were not the only claims advanced in the paper. Increased CO2 emissions would “help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. […] Our children will enjoy an earth with far more plant and animal life than with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.” (Ibid.)

Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, as it was titled, “was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). A cover note from Frederick Seitz, who had served as president of the NAS in the 1960s, added to the impression that Robinson’s paper was an official publication of the academy’s peer-reviewed journal. […] In reality, neither Robinson’s paper nor OISM’s petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences. […] The paper’s author, Arthur Robinson, was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field.” (Ibid.) This is not the only example of contested scientific claims made by Robinson. He has also “declared that ozone depletion is a ‘hoax’ [… and that] it was safe to drink water irradiated by the Chernobyl nuclear plant.” (Ibid.: 280)

Robinson’s paper was by no means, however, the only example of claims that increased CO2 levels “would benefit agriculture. [According to the Heartland Institute,] more carbon dioxide in the air would lead to more luxuriant plant growth and greater crop yields.” (McCright & Dunlap, 2001: 16) A warmer climate would be beneficial for more than just farming. The Hoover Institution claimed, “less cold weather would mean less snow shovelling, fewer days of driving on icy roads, lower heating bills, and reduced outlays for clothing.” (Ibid.)

The climate sceptics will do all manner of things to discredit the scientific consensus that global warming exists, no doubt echoing the mantra, “I’m here to create the new imperial empire, I’m going to do whatever circumstances require…”