[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 48 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2323-H2327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPECIAL ORDERS
______
INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS TO BATTLE CLIMATE TREATY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday the American
public was presented with a front-page article in the New York Times
outlining a plan by an industrial group to battle the climate change
treaty. This is a treaty that was arrived at in Kyoto, Japan earlier
this year, which brought together the international community in a plan
to fight against an increase in greenhouse gases that threaten this
world with climate change.
It was a plan that was negotiated between all of the nations in
attendance. Many nations signed on and many other nations have yet to
sign on. It is a plan that is necessary if in fact we are going to
prevent the worst impacts of global climate change.
What the New York Times article tells us is that a group of
corporations, mainly large international oil companies, have put
together a plan to spend millions of dollars to try to convince the
American public that the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding
global climate change is somehow shaky and not to be trusted, and that
therefore we should not go forward with actions in this and other
countries, and with efforts to bring developing countries on board the
Kyoto treaty, that we should walk away from that treaty; and that
certainly we should not attend the meetings in Buenos Aires later this
year where we will attempt to bring on large developing countries such
as China, Mexico, Brazil and other such nations that are contributing
huge amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere of our world.
But rather than work on that progressive agenda, rather than work in
an effort to try to see how we can stem greenhouse gases, these oil
companies would rather try to convince people that in fact the science
is not very good. Now that is contrary to the science itself and is
contrary to the vast number of scientists around the world who have
joined this effort to look at the science, to look at the data and try
to help us predict what in fact is taking place with respect to
greenhouse gases and global climate change.
But rather than participate in the serious scientific discourse, this
group of oil companies has decided that they would take millions of
dollars and try to convince the average citizen, under the portion of
their plan that says victory will be achieved when the average citizen
recognizes the uncertainties in climate science. Recognition of the
uncertainties becomes part of conventional wisdom. So when you think
about global climate change, about the threat of climate change, about
warming, the oil companies want you to think, ``well, the science is
not very good so probably nothing much is going to happen.''
Then they would like to move on and have the media recognize the
uncertainties of climate science, so when the media presents stories
about global change, about what is happening in our world, they would
then say, ``Well, we really do not know if this science is very good.''
Then they take more of their money and they would try to make the media
balance out, try to get stories into the media about how the science is
not very good, and they would hope that the media would then accept, if
they spend enough money to convince the media, that they would accept
that it is conventional wisdom that the science is not very good.
Now mind you, this all comes at a time, it is not a question whether
the science is very good or not--the science is getting better and
better. But unfortunately, what the science tells us is that the
problem of global warming is becoming more and more a realistic problem
for the future of the world and that steps must be taken.
But that is not what these oil companies do. They want to change the
mind set of the media, of the American public, of industry and
certainly of the government. And what they really want to do is arrive
at a point where the Kyoto treaty is dead, there will be no further
action on that treaty, as they spell out in their strategies and their
tactics, and to make sure that we do not go forward, we do not go
forward in Buenos Aires to bring other nations on to that treaty.
How would they measure this? They are going to track the percentage
of media articles that raise questions about climate science. They are
going to register the number of Members that they have been able to
contact and send materials to change their mind about the climate
science, the number of communications on climate science received by
Members of Congress. So they are going to spend a few hundred thousand
dollars tracking their efforts to see whether or not it is working.
You know, we have seen this all before, my colleagues. We saw it when
the tobacco companies got together to try to convince the American
public that there was no link between tobacco and cancer, that there
was no link between the usage of tobacco and the incredible rate of
lung cancer in this country and of other cancers.
They spent millions of dollars to undermine the scientists who were
saying there is a link, to undermine the evidence. They told us more
and more every year, and when the science came against their wishes,
they paid scientists to keep it down, to not tell the American public.
Now for the first time what we see are thousands, millions of pages of
documents with the tobacco companies engaged in an effort to keep from
the American public science that would tell them that tobacco and
cancer are linked.
Now we see an effort where some industries do not like the
scientists, independent scientists. They do not like what they have
come up with on global warming. So what they want to do is, they want
to establish what they would consider an independent global climate
science data center, and from this center would flow information to
Members of Congress, to the public, to State legislatures, to the
mayors, city council people. But this independent center reportedly
would be initially staffed, this is according to the memo from the
public relations firm advising the oil companies, it will be staffed
initially with professionals on loan from the various oil companies and
associations of the major interests in climate change.
{time} 1415
So here we are going to have a bunch of people who work for oil
companies as scientists who are now going to tell us what the
independent science is on global warming, as opposed to the independent
scientists who have been out there now for a number of years working
for universities and foundations and others to try to find out what is
happening. They want to create the impression that they have scientists
who radically disagree with the prevailing science about the harms of
greenhouse gases and the consequential global warming.
Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that there is something going on
in business in America. Many of us in Congress have had complaints from
our constituents about the impacts of HMOs and managed care. People
come into our offices because they cannot get care for their spouse who
is very ill, and they cannot get care for their children because
somebody who is supposed to give a second opinion, some 800 number,
they have to call where they talk to somebody, and they say, oh, no, we
do not allow that care under your insurance plan.
[[Page H2324]]
So the Congress got together on a bipartisan basis and decided that
what they would do is they would try to have a patients' bill of rights
so that patients knew what kind of coverage they had, they would know
what kind of care they had, so they had access to specialists, so they
had a right to sue managed care plans if some bureaucrat in another
city was making a decision against a doctor's recommendation and
somebody was harmed.
On a bipartisan basis, in the Senate and the House, many State
legislatures are doing this, and what do we see? We see corporations in
America coming together, raising millions of dollars to try to tell the
Congress, ``This is not a problem. These complaints from your
constituents are not real. We have it all under control.'' They had a
corporate fly-in where they had people fly in from all over the country
to tell them we do not need to change anything with managed health
care, it is just fine.
So we see the tobacco companies, they set up their spin
organizations; the health care corporations, they set up their spin
organizations; and now the oil companies are going to set up their spin
organizations to tell us that all of this we have heard about climate
change, greenhouse gases, global warming is nothing for us to be
concerned about. Well, the fact is it is something for us to be very
concerned about.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that not all oil companies apparently
have joined this organization. In the article it suggested Shell Oil
USA has not joined this organization. They do not see the merit to it.
In fact, Shell Oil USA is one of those oil companies that believes that
a good part of its future is going to be about clean energy, about
renewable energy, wind energy, solar energy. It has joined companies
like British Petroleum that have made major investments in solar
energy. Billions of dollars of markets in solar energy are now
recognizable, and we see those companies taking a different tack.
But yet there are a few companies that have decided that the best
they can do is to try to confuse the American public on global warming,
try to lobby their Representatives in the Congress not to accept, not
to accept what the scientists are telling us now is the future of this
planet if global warming continues.
Mr. Speaker, I was in Kyoto this year with the Chairman of the
Science Committee, and I witnessed the U.S. delegation's diligence in
forging a treaty that both protects the U.S. interests and at the same
time sets important goals for slowing global warming.
The world is looking to the U.S. for leadership on this issue, and
while clearly the solution must include participation from developing
nations, there is much the United States can do to reduce global
greenhouse gases, emissions that cause immediate health effects on our
children and the elderly, contaminate our air, water and land, and cost
taxpayers dearly to clean up.
The truth is the steps necessary to curb global warming present an
enormous economic opportunity for the people of the United States. The
scientific evidence about global warming compels strong action, not a
head-in-the-sand approach that characterizes the organized opposition
to the Kyoto Protocol and U.S. energy efficiency measures.
To hear some critics describe the Administration's actions to try to
push forward with renewable energy and energy efficiency and clean
sources of energy, one would think that protecting the environment is a
crime against humanity, and that President Clinton should be tried at
the Hague. They are accusing the President of trying to use Federal tax
dollars to spur public and private investment in energy in energy
efficiency and renewable energy.
We are seeing more and more countries, more and more companies
looking at renewable energy sources as a path to the future. America
ought to participate in that. We have the technology, we have the know-
how, we have the products. We ought to recognize the economic
opportunity that that provides.
In fact, the global market for energy efficiency products and
services is $80 billion per year and is expected to reach $125 billion
a year by the year 2015. Several studies estimated that job growth from
energy efficiency and technology innovation will exceed 800,000 new
jobs over the next 15 years.
I do not know where these critics live, but they do not live in the
district that I represent.
Earlier this year, in fact, 71 percent of my constituents recently
answered a questionnaire that they thought the U.S. should take strong
steps against global warming, even if it cost taxpayers more in the
beginning to do so. The same is true across the country. In January,
Ohio State University conducted a national survey on the American
opinion on global warming, finding that 77 percent of Americans believe
that global warming has been happening, and 67 percent believe that
steps should be taken to combat global warming, and that reducing air
pollution is an effective way to do so. Eighty-eight percent thought
the U.S. Government should limit air pollution for businesses, and 77
percent thought they were willing to pay more for electricity, gas and
oil to reduce the amount of air pollution.
It is that poll that is driving the oil companies crazy. It is that
poll that is causing the oil companies to consider spending $5 million
to change Americans' opinion about the urgency of global warming. It is
that consortium that is coming together that recognizes that the
American people understand what is going on, and now they want to
change their mind.
It is too bad, because most of the last couple of decades, this
country has been built on greater and greater efficiencies. We see it
in the computer industry, in telecommunications, in marketing, in
transportation. We see it throughout the entire global economy. But
somehow, when we get to energy, the coal companies and the oil
companies, they do not want us to be efficient. They want us to burn
more oil and more coal; it is just that simple, folks. If we can do it
more efficiently and we can save the environment and we can save
dollars in the cost of that electricity, and if we can provide jobs and
new economic opportunities in the export of American products, they do
not want us to hear about it, they do not want us to believe it. They
want us just to go on burning the coal and burning the oil in the same
old fashion we have been doing for the last 50 years.
The problem is if we all do that, and if the developing countries--
China, Mexico, India, Indonesia, Brazil--who are increasing their use
of oil and coal as their economies grow, if they just do it the same
way we did it over the last 50 years, we will choke this planet to
death. We will destroy the environment for our children and our
grandchildren, and we will threaten the economic well-being of a good
portion of the world.
That is what the American people understand. That is what is
reflected in the polling data. They trust the independent scientists.
They are not going to trust a bunch of scientists on the oil company
payrolls to tell them that they are wrong about the science, that it is
really shaky.
But we have to be diligent in this matter. We have to be aware of
what is happening, because as we start to see attacks on the scientists
who have studied global warming, attacks on this administration that is
trying to bring developing countries on board a treaty to reduce those
greenhouse gases--and hopefully at the end of this year in Buenos Aires
some developing countries will sign on--as they are trying to do that,
they are going to come under attack. They are going to come under
attack by a consortium put together by oil companies and coal companies
to say that we are all wrong, that global warming is not a problem.
Well, I think by now we have seen enough evidence to suggest that
global warning is a problem.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that people would be alert to what is
taking place and to what is proposed by these oil and coal companies to
try and put their spin on the hard evidence that has been derived by
independent scientists from many, many countries, from many, many
disciplines, over many years, being very conservative about the changes
that they have seen. But as scientists drill the ice cores, as they
look at what has happened in the past, Nature magazine just reported
that the Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for 3 of the past
8 years were warmer than any year since
[[Page H2325]]
AD 1400. We have to understand the kind of changes that means for the
American economy and for the environment of the world.
So I would hope that Members of Congress would not give credibility
to this effort by the oil companies to put their spin on what is very
good, even if incomplete evidence about the problems raised by the
continuing burning of fossil fuels and creation of greenhouse gases.
I commend to my colleagues the article and memo, which I have
enclosed here.
[From the New York Times, Apr. 26, 1998]
Industrial Group Plans To Battle Climate Treaty
draft proposal seeks to depict global warming theory as a case of bad
science
(By John H. Cushman Jr.)
Washington, April 25--Industry opponents of a treaty to
fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to
spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the
environmental accord is based on shaky science.
Among their ideas is a campaign to recruit a cadre of
scientists who share the industry's views of climate science
and to train them in public relations so they can help
convince journalists, politicians and the public that the
risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls
on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's
heat near Earth.
An informal group of people working for big oil companies,
trade associations and conservative policy research
organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting
recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum
Institute to put the plan together.
Joe Walker, a public relations representative of the
petroleum institute who is leading the project, said in an
interview that the plan had been under consideration for
about two months and was ``very, very tentative.'' Mr. Walker
said no industry executives had yet been approached to pay
for it.
But an eight-page memorandum that he wrote shows in detail
how some industry lobbyists are going about opposing the
climate treaty.
It is a daunting pubic relations task. Whenever the
treaty's advocates, including the Clinton Administration,
discuss global warming, they present the science as
essentially settled and unchallengeable, and they compare
dissenting scientists to discredited apologists for the
tobacco companies. That view has become widely accepted among
reporters and the public.
Although mainstream scientists do identify considerable
uncertainties in their climate predictions, which are based
on computer models, they are increasingly confident that
global warming is a serious problem and often say that the
uncertainties do not justify inaction.
Based on the latest science, most of the world's nations
agreed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that industrial nations
should cut emissions of greenhouse gases, and the treaty
was modified last year to require further reductions in
emissions to levels well below those of 1990, over the
next 10 to 15 years. But the United States Senate has not
yet agreed to that treaty provision, which could require
deep reductions in American consumption of fossil fuels.
Documents describing the proposal to undermine the
mainstream view were given to The New York Times by the
National Environmental Trust, whose work in support of the
global-warming treaty is financed by philanthropic
organizations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the
biggest of the nation's pro-environmental grant makers.
Phil Clapp, the president of the environmental trust, said
he obtained the papers from an industry official. Exposing
the plan at this stage, Mr. Clapp said, would probably ruin
the effort to raise money to carry out the plan.
Industry representatives confirmed that the documents were
authentic, but emphasized that the plans had not been
formally approved by participating organizations. The
document listed representatives of the Exxon Corporation, the
Chevron Corporation and the Southern Company as being
involved. Representatives of Chevron and Southern
acknowledged attending meetings on the project; the Exxon
representative could not be reached for comment.
The draft plan calls for recruiting scientists to argue
against the Administration, and suggests that they include
``individuals who do not have a long history of visibility
and/or participation in the climate change debate.''
But among the plan's advocates are groups already linked to
the best-known critics of global-warming science.
They include the Science and Environment Policy Project,
founded by Fred Singer, a physicist noted for opposing the
mainstream view of climate science. Frederick Seitz, another
prominent skeptic on global warming, is involved with two
other groups mentioned in the plan: the George C. Marshall
Institute, where Dr. Seitz is chairman, and the Advancement
of Sound Science Coalition, where he is on the science
advisory board.
On Monday, the National Academy of Sciences disassociated
itself from the most recent effort to drum up support among
skeptical scientists. That effort came in the form of a
statement and petition on global warming circulated by Dr.
Seitz, a physicist who was president of the academy in the
1960's.
The petition, attacking the scientific conclusions
underlying the treaty on climate change, was accompanied by
an article that was formatted to resemble one that might have
been published in the academy's prestigious peer-reviewed
journal. It was not.
The draft plan, recently discussed at the oil industry
offices, calls for giving such dissenters on climate science
``the logistical and moral support they have been lacking.''
It also calls for spending $5 million over two years to
``maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with
ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences.''
It would measure progress by counting, among other things,
the percentage of news articles that raise questions about
climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances
by scientists questioning the prevailing views.
The document says that industry's polling, conducted by
Charlton Research, has found that while Americans see climate
change as a serious threat, ``public opinion is open to
change on climate science.''
Supporters of the plan want to raise money quickly to spend
much of it between now and the November negotiating session
in Buenos Aires, where important details of the international
treaty are to be decided.
A proposed media-relations budget of $600,000, not counting
any money for advertising, would be directed at science
writers, editors, columnists and television network
correspondents, using as many as 20 ``respected climate
scientists'' recruited expressly ``to inject credible science
and scientific accountability into the global climate debate,
thereby raising questions about and undercutting the
`prevailing scientific wisdom.' ''
Among the tasks, the petroleum institute's memorandum said,
would be to ``identify, recruit and train a team of five
independent scientists to participate in media outreach.''
What the industry group wanted to provide, the memorandum
said, was ``a one-stop resource on climate science for
members of Congress, the media, industry and all others
concerned.''
The industry group said it wanted to develop ``a sound
scientific alternative'' to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, a large group of scientists advising the
United Nations that has published the most authoritative
scientific assessments of global warming. That panel has
predicted that the next century will bring widespread
climatic disruptions if actions are not taken to reverse the
accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The draft plan suggests that despite industry efforts to
convince the public that the climate treaty would be costly
to carry out and unfair to the United States, the treaty
remains popular partly because environmentalists are winning
the debate on the science.
``Indeed, the public has been highly receptive to the
Clinton Administration's plans,'' the memorandum said.
``There has been little, if any, public resistance or
pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by
those `inside the Beltway' with vested interests.''
____
To: Global Climate Science Team
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan
As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science
Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop
last Friday. Thanks especially to those of you who
participated in the workshop, and in particular to John Adams
for his very helpful thoughts following up our meeting, and
Alan Caudill for turning around the notes from our workshop
so quickly.
Please review the plan and get back to me with your
comments as soon as possible.
As those of you who were at the workshop know, we have
scheduled a follow-up team meeting to review the plan in
person on Friday, April 17, from 1 to 3 p.m. at the API
headquarters. After that, we hope to have a ``plan champion''
help us move it forward to potential funding sources, perhaps
starting with the global climate ``Coordinating Council.''
That will be an item for discussion on April 17.
Again, thanks for your hard work on this project. Please e-
mail, call or fax me with your comments. Thanks.
Regards,
Joe Walker.
____
April 3, 1998.
Global Climate Science Communications
action plan
Situation analysis
In December 1997, the Clinton Administration agreed in
Kyoto, Japan, to a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
to prevent what it purports to be changes in the global
climate caused by the continuing release of such emissions.
The so-called greenhouse gases have many sources. For
example, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But the Clinton
Administration's action, if eventually approved by the U.S.
Senate, will mainly affect emissions from fossil fuel
(gasoline, coal, natural gas, etc.) combustion.
As the climate change debate has evolved, those who oppose
action have argued mainly that signing such a treaty will
place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with most other
nations, and will be extremely expensive to implement. Much
of the cost will be
[[Page H2326]]
borne by American consumers who will pay higher prices for
most energy and transportation.
The climate change theory being advanced by the treaty
supporters is based primarily on forecasting models with a
very high degree of uncertainty. In fact, it not known for
sure whether (a) climate change actually is occurring or (b)
if it is, whether humans really have any influence on it.
Despite these weaknesses in scientific understanding, those
who oppose the treaty have done little to build a case
against precipitous action on climate change based on the
scientific uncertainty. As a result, the Clinton
Administration and environmental groups essentially have had
the field to themselves. They have conducted an effective
public relations program to convince the American public that
the climate is changing, we humans are at fault, and we must
do something about it before calamity strikes.
The environmental groups know they have been successful.
Commenting after the Kyoto negotiations about recent media
coverage of climate change, Tom Wathen, executive vice
president of the National Environmental Trust, wrote:
``. . . As important as the extent of the coverage was the
tone and tenor of it. In a change from just six months ago,
most media stories no longer presented global warming as just
a theory over which reasonable scientists could differ. Most
stories described predictions of global warming as the
position of the overwhelming number of mainstream scientists.
That the environmental community had, to a great extent,
settled the scientific issue with the U.S. media is the other
great success that began perhaps several months earlier but
became apparent during Kyoto.''
Because the science underpinning the global climate change
theory has not been challenged effectively in the media or
through other vehicles reaching the American public, there is
widespread ignorance, which works in favor of the Kyoto
treaty and against the best interests of the United States.
Indeed, the public has been highly receptive to the Clinton
Administration's plans. There has been little, if any, public
resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the
treaty, except by those ``inside the Beltway'' with vested
interests.
Moreover, from the political viewpoint, it is difficult for
the United States to oppose the treaty solely on economic
grounds, valid as the economic issues are. It makes it too
easy for others to portray the United States as putting
preservation of its own lifestyle above the greater concerns
of mankind. This argument, in turn, forces our negotiators to
make concessions that have not been well thought through, and
in the end may do far more harm than good. This is the
process that unfolded at Kyoto, and is very likely to be
repeated in Buenos Aires in November 1998.
The advocates of global warming have been successful on the
basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the
extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its
partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues.
Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto
treaty--which most true climate scientists believe to be the
case--this puts the United States in a stronger moral
position and frees its negotiators from the need to make
concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic
concerns.
Upon this tableau, the Global Climate Science
Communciations Team (GCSCT) developed an action plan to
inform the American public that science does not support the
precipitous actions Kyoto would dictate, thereby providing a
climate for the right policy decisions to be made. The team
considered results from a new public opinion survey in
developing the plan.
Charlton Research's survey of 1,100 ``informed Americans''
suggests that while Americans currently perceive climate
change to be a great threat, public opinion is open to change
on climate science. When informed that ``some scientists
believe there is not enough evidence to suggest that [what is
called global climate change] is a long-term change due to
human behavior and activities,'' 58 percent of those surveyed
said they were more likely to oppose the Kyoto treaty.
Moreover, half the respondents harbored doubts about climate
science.
GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the
plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace
Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David
Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey
Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, Environmental
Issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of
Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy
Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company;
Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp.; Steve Milloy, The Advdancement
of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American
Petroleum Institute.
The action plan is detailed on the following pages.
Global Climate Science Communications
action plan
Project goal
A majority of the American public including industry
leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist
in climate science, and therefore raises questions among
those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on
global climate change.
Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of
the public's perspective on climate science will be taken
before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be
taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the
plan is implemented.
Victory will be achieved when
Average citizens ``understand'' (recognize) uncertainties
in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part
of the ``conventional wisdom''; media ``understands''
(recognizes) uncertainties in climate science; media coverage
reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the
validity of viewpoints that challenge the current
``conventional wisdom''; industry senior leadership
understands uncertainties in climate science, making them
stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy; and
those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant
science appear to be out of touch with reality.
Current reality
Unless ``climate change'' becomes a non-issue, meaning that
the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further
initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may
be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It
will be necessary to establish measurements for the science
effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and
strategic success.
Strategies and tactics
I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement
a national media relations program to inform the media about
uncertainties in climate science; to generate national,
regional and local media coverage on the scientific
uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public,
stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.
Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and
the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in
November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as
appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan
is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources
(e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In
all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated
with other elements of this action plan, most especially
Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent
scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be
individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/
or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this
team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to
those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
Develop a global climate science information kit for media
including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the
``conventional wisdom'' on climate science. This kit also
will include understandable communications, including simple
fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language
that the media and public can understand.
Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science
writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information
kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers
nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at
each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases
scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on
radio talk shows across the country.
Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science
information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers
around the country.
Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to
newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and
letters to the editor authored by scientists.
Convince one of the major news national TV journalists
(e.g., John Stossel) to produce a report examining the
scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots
organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates
on climate science in 10 most important states during the
period mid-August through October, 1998.
Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select
markets to support national, regional and local (e.g.,
workshops/debates), as appropriate.
National Media Program Budget--$600,000 plus paid advertising
II. Global Climate Science Information Source: Develop and
implement a program to inject credible science and scientific
accountability into the global climate debate, thereby
raising questions about and undercutting the ``prevailing
scientific wisdom.'' The strategy will have the added benefit
of providing a platform for credible, constructive criticism
of the opposition's position on the science.
Tactics: As with the National Media Relations Program,
these activities will be undertaken between now and the next
climate meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November 1998,
and will continue thereafter. Initiatives will be launched as
soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the
necessary resources arranged and deployed.
Establish a Global Climate Science Data Center. The GCSDC
will be established in Washington as a non-profit educational
foundation with an advisory board of respected climate
scientists. It will be staffed initially with professionals
on loan from various companies and associations with a major
interest in the climate issue. These executives will bring
with them knowledge and experience in the following areas:
Overall history
[[Page H2327]]
of climate research and the IPCC process; congressional
relations and knowledge of where individual Senators stand on
the climate issue; knowledge of key climate scientists and
where they stand; ability to identify and recruit as many as
20 respected climate scientists to serve on the science
advisory board; knowledge and expertise in media relations
and with established relationships with science and energy
writers, columnists and editorial writers; expertise in
grassroots organization; and campaign organization and
administration.
The GCSDC will be led by a dynamic senior executive with a
major personal commitment to the goals of the campaign and
easy access to business leaders at the CEO level. The Center
will be run on a day-to-day basis by an executive director
with responsibility for ensuring targets are met. The Center
will be funded at a level that will permit it to succeed,
including funding for research contracts that may be deemed
appropriate to fill gaps in climate science (e.g., a complete
scientific critique of the IPCC research and its
conclusions).
The GCSDC will become a one-stop resource on climate
science for members of Congress, the media, industry and all
others concerned. It will be in constant contact with the
best climate scientists and ensure that their findings and
views receive appropriate attention. It will provide them
with the logistical and moral support they have been lacking.
In short, it will be a sound scientific alternative to the
IPCC. Its functions will include:
Providing as an easily accessible database (including a
website) of all mainstream climate science information.
Identifying and establishing cooperative relationships with
all major scientists whose research in this field supports
our position.
Establishing cooperative relationships with other
mainstream scientific organizations (e.g., meteorologists,
geophysicists) to bring their perspectives to bear on the
debate, as appropriate.
Developing opportunities to maximize the impact of
scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the
media and other key audiences.
Monitoring and serving as an early warning system for
scientific developments with the potential to impact on the
climate science debate, pro and con.
Responding to claims from the scientific alarmists and
media.
Providing grants for advocacy on climate science, as deemed
appropriate.
Global Climate Science Data Center Budget--$5,000,000 (spread
over two years minimum)
III. National Direct Outreach and Education: Develop and
implement a direct outreach program to inform and educate
members of Congress, state officials, industry leadership,
and school teachers/students about uncertainties in climate
science. This strategy will enable Congress, state officials
and industry leaders to be able to raise such serious
questions about the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings
that American policy-makers not only will refuse to endorse
it, they will seek to prevent progress toward implementation
at the Buenos Aires meeting in November or through other
ways. Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in
climate science will begin to erect a barrier against further
efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future.
Tactics: Informing and educating members of Congress, state
officials and industry leaders will be undertaken as soon as
the plan is approved, funding is obtained, and the necessary
resources are arrayed and will continue through Buenos Aires
and for the foreseeable future. The teachers/students
outreach program will be developed and launched in early
1999. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully
integrated with other elements of this action plan.
Develop and conduct through the Global Climate Science Data
Center science briefings for Congress, governors, state
legislators, and industry leaders by August 1998.
* * * * *
Organize under the GCSDC a ``Science Education Task Group''
that will serve as the point of outreach to the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and other influential
science education organizations. Work with NSTA to develop
school materials that present a credible, balanced picture of
climate science for use in classrooms nationwide.
Distribute educational materials directly to schools and
through grassroots organizations of climate science partners
(companies, organizations that participate in this effort).
National Direct Outreach Program Budget--$300,000
IV. Funding/Fund Allocation: Develop and implement program
to obtain funding, and to allocate funds to ensure that the
program it is carried out effectively.
Tactics: This strategy will be implemented as soon as we
have the go-ahead to proceed.
Potential funding source were identified as American
Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round
Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America
(IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association
(NMA) and its members.
Potential fund allocators were identified as the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.
Total Funds Required to Implement Program through November
1998-- $2,000,000 (A significant portion of funding for
the GCSDC will be deferred until 1999 and beyond)
Measurements
Various metrics will be used to track progress. These
measurements will have to be determined in fleshing out the
action plan and may include:
Baseline public/government official opinion surveys and
periodic follow-up surveys on the percentage of Americans and
government officials who recognize significant uncertainties
in climate science.
Tracking the percent of media articles that raise questions
about climate science.
Number of Members of Congress exposed to our materials on
climate science.
Number of communications on climate science received by
Members of Congress from their constituents.
* * * * *
Number of school teachers/students reached with our
information on climate science.
Number of science writers briefed and who report upon
climate science uncertainties.
Total audience exposed to newspaper, radio, television
coverage of science uncertainties.
____________________