[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.

                          ____________________